Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
My company is fairly new to unit testing our code. I've been reading about TDD and unit testing for some time and am convinced of their value. I've attempted to convince our team that TDD is worth the effort of learning and changing our mindsets on how we program but it is a struggle. Which brings me to my question(s).
There are many in the TDD community who are very religious about writing the test and then the code (and I'm with them), but for a team that is struggling with TDD does a compromise still bring added benefits?
I can probably succeed in getting the team to write unit tests once the code is written (perhaps as a requirement for checking in code) and my assumption is that there is still value in writing those unit tests.
What's the best way to bring a struggling team into TDD? And failing that is it still worth writing unit tests even if it is after the code is written?
EDIT
What I've taken away from this is that it is important for us to start unit testing, somewhere in the coding process. For those in the team who pickup the concept, start to move more towards TDD and testing first. Thanks for everyone's input.
FOLLOW UP
We recently started a new small project and a small portion of the team used TDD, the rest wrote unit tests after the code. After we wrapped up the coding portion of the project, those writing unit tests after the code were surprised to see the TDD coders already done and with more solid code. It was a good way to win over the skeptics. We still have a lot of growing pains ahead, but the battle of wills appears to be over. Thanks for everyone who offered advice!
If the team is floundering at implementing TDD, but they weren't creating any Unit Tests before...then start them off by creating Unit Tests after their code is written. Even Unit tests written after the code are better than no Unit Tests at all!
Once they're proficient at Unit Testing (and everything that comes with it), then you can work on getting them to create the tests first...and code second.
It is absolutely still worth writing the unit tests after code is written. It's just that sometimes it's often harder because your code wasn't designed to be testable, and you may have overcomplicated it.
I think a good pragmatic way to bring a team into TDD is to provide the alternative method of "test-during development" in the transition period, or possibly in the long-term. They should be encouraged to TDD sections of code that seem natural to them. However, in sections of code that seem difficult to approach test-first or when using objects that are predetermined by a non-agile A&D process, developers can be given the option of writing a small section of the code, then writing tests to cover that code, and repeating this process. Writing unit tests for some code immediately after writing that code is better than not writing any unit tests at all.
It's in my humble opinion better to have 50% test coverage with "code first, test after" and a 100% completed library, than 100% test coverage and a 50% completed library with TDD. After a while, your fellow developers will hopefully find it entertaining and educational to write tests for all of the public code they write, so TDD will sneak its way into their development routine.
TDD is about design! So if you use it, you will be sure to have a testable design of your code, making it easier to write your tests. If you write tests after the code is written they are still valuable but IMHO you will be wasting time since you will probably not have a testable design.
One suggestion I can give to you to try to convince your team to adopt TDD is using some of the techniques described in Fearless Change: Patterns for Introducing New Ideas, by Mary Lynn Manns and Linda Rising.
I just read this on a calendar: "Every rule, executed to its utmost, becomes ridiculous or even dangerous." So my suggestion is not to be religious about it. Every member of your team must find a balance between what they feel "right" when it comes to testing. This way, every member of your team will be most productive (instead of, say, thinking "why do I have to write this sti**** test??").
So some tests are better than none, tests after the code are better than few tests and testing before the code is better than after. But each step has its own merits and you shouldn't frown upon even small steps.
If they're new to testing than IMO start off testing code that's already been written and slowly graduate to writing tests first. As someone trying to learn TDD and new to unit testing, I've found it kind of hard to do a complete 180 and change my mindset to write tests before code, so the approach I'm taking is sort of a 50-50 mix; when I know exactly what the code will look like, I'll write the code and then write a test to verify it. For situations where I'm not entirely sure then I'll start with a test and work my way backwards.
Also remember that there is nothing wrong with writing tests to verify code, instead of writing code to satisfy tests. If your team doesn't want to go the TDD route then don't force it on them.
I can probably succeed in getting the team to write unit tests once the code is written (perhaps as a requirement for checking in code) and my assumption is that there is still value in writing those unit tests.
There is absolutely no doubt about the fact that there is value in unit tested code (regardless of when tests were written) and I include "the code is unit tested" in the "Definition of Done". People may use TDD or not, as long as they test.
Regarding version control, I like to use "development branches" with a unit tested policy (i.e. the code compiles and builds, all unit tests pass). When features are done, they are published from development branches to the trunk. In other words, the trunk branch is the "Done branch" (No junk on the trunk!) and has a shippable policy (can release at any time) which is more strict and includes more things than "unit tested".
This is something that your team will have to have its own successes with before they begin to believe it in. I'll rant about my nUnit epiphany for anyone who cares:
About 5 years ago I discovered nUnit when working on a project. We had almost completed V1.0 and I created a few tests just to try out this new tool. We had a lot of bugs (obviously!) because we were a new team, on a tight deadline, high expectations (sound familiar?) etc. Anyway we got 1.0 in and started on 1.1. We re-orged the team a little bit and I got 2 devs assigned to me. I did a 1-hour demo for them and told them that everything we wrote had to have a test case with it. We constantly ran "behind" the rest of the team during the 1.1 dev cycle because we were writing more code, the unit tests. We ended up working more but here's the payoff -- when we finally got into testing we had exactly 0 bugs in our code. We helped everyone else debug and repair their bugs. In the postmortem, when the bug counts showed up, it got EVERYONE's attention.
I'm not dumb enough to think you can test your way to success but I am a true believer when it comes to unit tests. The project adopted nUnit and it soon spread to the company for all .Net projects as a result of 1 success. Total time period for our V1.1 release was 9 dev weeks so it was definitely NOT an overnight success. But long term, it proved successful for our project and the company we built solutions for.
There is no doubt that testing (First, While or even After) will save your bacon, and improve your productivity and confidence. I recommend adopting it!
I was in a similar situation, because I was a "noob" developer, I was often frustrated when working on team project by the fact that a contribution had broken the build. I did not know if I was to blame or even in some cases, who to blame. But I was more concerned that I was doing to same thing to my fellow developers. This realisation then motivated to adopt some TDD strategies. Our team started have silly games, and rules, like you cannot go home till all your tests pass, or if you submit something without a test, then you have to buy everyone "beer/lunch/etc" and it made TDD more fun.
One of the most useful aspect of unit testing is ensuring the continuing correctness of already working code. When you can refactor at will, let an IDE remind you of compile time errors, and then click a button to let your tests spot any potential runtime errors--sometimes arriving in previously trivial blocks of code, then I think you will find your team starting to appreciate TDD. So starting with testing existing code is definitely useful.
Also, to be blunt, I have learned more about how to write testable code by trying to test written code than from starting with TDD. It can be too abstract at first if you are trying to think of contracts that will both accomplish the end goal and allow testing. But when you look at code and can say "This singleton here completely spoils dependency injection and makes testing this impossible," you start to develop an appreciation for what patterns make your testing life easier.
Well, if you do not write tests firsts it's not "Test Driven", it's just testing. It has benefits in itself and if you allready have a code base adding tests for it is certainly usefull even if it's not TDD but merely testing.
Writing tests first is about focusing on what the code should do before writing it. Yes you also get a test doing that and it's good, but some may argue it's not even the most important point.
What I would do is train the team on toy projects like these (see Coding Dojo, Katas) using TDD (if you can get experienced TDD programmers to participate in such workshop it would be even better). When they'll see the benefits they will use TDD for the real project. But meanwhile do not force them, it they do not see the benefit they won't do it right.
If you have design sessions before writing code or have to produce a design doc, then you could add Unit Tests as the tangible outcome of a session.
This could then serve as a specification as to how your code should work. Encourage pairing on the design session, to get people talking about how something should work and what it should do in given scenarios. What are the edge cases, with explicit test cases for them so everyone knows what it's going to do if given a null argument for example.
An aside but BDD also may be of interest
You may find some traction by showing an example or two where TDD results in less code being written - because you only write code required to make the test pass, the temptation to gold-plate or engage in YAGNI is easier to resist. Code you don't write doesn't need to be maintained, refactored, etc, so it's a "real savings" that can help sell the concept of TDD.
If you can clearly demonstrate the value in terms of time, cost, code and bugs saved, you may find it's an easier sell.
Starting to build JUnit test classes is the way to start, for existing code it's the only way to start. In my experience it is very usefull to create test classes for existing code. If management thinks this will invest too much time, you can propose to only write test classes when the corresponding class is found to contain a bug, or is in need of cleanup.
For the maintenance process the approach to get the team over the line would be to write JUnit tests to reproduce bugs before you fix them, i.e.
bug is reported
create JUnit test class if needed
add a test that reproduces the bug
fix your code
run the test to show the current code does not reproduce the bug
You can explain that by "documenting" bugs in this way will prevent those bugs from creeping back in later. That is a benefit the team can experience immediately.
I have done this in many organizations and I have found the single best way to get TDD started and followed is to set up pair programming. If you have someone else you can count on that knows TDD then the two of you can split up and pair with other developers to actually do some paired programming using TDD. If not I would train someone who will help you to do this before presenting it to the rest of the team.
One of the major hurdles with unit testing and especially TDD is that developers don't know how to do it, so they can not see how it can be worth their time. Also when you first start out, it is much slower and doesn't seem to provide benefits. It is only really providing you benefits when you are good at it. By setting up paired programming sessions you can quickly get developers to be able to learn it quickly and get good at it quicker. Additionally they will be able to see immediate benefits from it as you work though it together.
This approach has worked many times for me in the past.
One powerful way to discover the benefits of TDD is to do a significant rewrite of some existing functionality, perhaps for performance reasons. By creating a suite of tests that do a good job covering all the functionality of the existing code, this then gives you the confidence to refactor to your heart's content with full confidence that your changes are safe.
Note that in this case I'm talking about testing the design or contract - unit tests that test implementation details will not be suitable here. But then again, TDD can't test implementation by definition, as they are supposed to be written before the implementation.
TDD is a tool that developers can use to produce better code. I happen to feel that the exercise of writing testable code is as least as valuable as the tests themselves. Isolating the IUT (Implementation Under Test) for testing purposes has the side affect of decoupling your code.
TDD isn't for everyone, and there's no magic that will get a team to choose to do it. The risk is that unit test writers that don't know what's worth testing will write a lot of low value tests, which will be cannon fodder for the TDD skeptics in your organization.
I usually make automated Acceptance Tests non-negotiable, but allow developers to adopt TDD as it suits them. I have my experienced TDDers train/mentor the rest and "prove" the usefulness by example over a period of many months.
This is as much a social/cultural change as it is a technical one.
Ok let me be honest, I haven't written more than 10 unit tests in my life probably.
I am embarking on a new project, and being the sole programmer means I should be scared ... very scared.
The idea that I can pseudo guarantee that my software works brings about a sense of joy.
Sure I will miss a ton of cases where I should have tested, but that's where I will learn as time goes on.
Unit testing will help me sleep better at night, which is better for my health.
My code will fail, but at least I will have a better idea when it will.
How has unit testing made your life better (or has it?), despite the rest of your team not jumping on the bandwagon?
The far biggest value that unit test have on my project is confidence. With that confidence it's much easier to add new features that weren't planned at the beginning and to tear code apart to change something or turn this around.
With test I know I (or anyone else!) haven't broke something that already worked.
Without test you are brave (or stupid) when you make big changes and deploy them in production in the next minute.
By unit testing, I've reduced the number of "stupid-bugs" that get reported during the testing stage. It's also given me a higher level of confidence in my code.
As Elie said, unit-testing is a great way to flush out "stupid" or simple bugs very early.
For me, it changes the way I think about code; making my code testable makes it less brittle and more flexible (e.g. depenceny injection/inversion of control came quite naturally to me because it's something I did for testing purposes anyway).
The greatest benefit I personally get from a thorough test-suite is the confidence to change complicated code even months after I wrote it without fear of accidentally breaking something.
I'm not yet there, but with some discipline while writing them, unit-tests are a great way to document your code, also.
Okay, as nobody else has stepped up to the plate to play devil's advocate, I'll do it.
Automated unit testing can have good benefits for some projects, but can also have many of the following issues:
It sucks down a ton of engineering resources.
It can take many man-hours to remove environment and setup issues from the equation.
It has a low ROI for some project types, especially GUIs.
It won't catch many errors, because it's impossible to evaluate all execution paths for all but the most trivial programs.
It doesn't catch integration errors.
It doesn't catch broader system-level errors such as functions performed across multiple units, or non-functional areas such as performance.
Test coverage and coverage gates can become an increasingly useless mantra
It requires a sustainable process for ensuring that test case failures are reviewed and addressed immediately. Otherwise the app will evolve out of sync with the unit test suite.
It has a significant opportunity cost - there are other activities such as code reviews that have an equally good or even better ROI.
It can involve a significant culture change.
So developers shouldn't adopt a dogmatic (yes or no) approach towards unit testing, but instead do an ROI calculation for every project.
Using unit testing in conjunction with TDD provides me with motivation and drive to complete the task at hand. Without the small progress of writing test, fixing test, writing test, fixing test I can become unmotivated.
Unit tests are really helpful when you start debugging as well. If your tests fail, then you know where the bug is almost immediately. If they all run, then you know where the bugs aren't (most of the time).
Another area where unit tests help: migrating software. I'm finding that it's a lot easier to prepare Python code that has unit tests to be migrated to Python 3 than code that doesn't have unit tests.
Sure I will miss a ton of cases where I should have tested, but that's where I will learn as time goes on.
This is where Test Driven Development really shines. You don't have to worry quite as much about having the proper tests because that question will be answered for you beforehand.
Of course, just to make sure we're on the same page, "test driven development" means the process of coding where you write the test, verify that the test fails, and then write the code.
For me, it wasn't just unit tests that changed my life, but Test Driven Development (TDD). I liken it to a religious experience in my blog post (shameless, I know) My Year with TDD.
Getting into testing has been a career changing experience for me. I write less bugs, I write more readable code, I write more cohesive code, I know when something is broken (usually), etc, etc. I owe it all to Test Driven Development.
Try it, you like it :)
I've been a TDD(eveloper) since my 2nd* project at uni (back in 1988). I don't know if the term was even in use then.
The best thing is the ability to change things and very quickly check you haven't broken anything else. Easy regression testing.
They are good documentation of object/method usage as well.
*and that was directly because of how the first project went....
the biggest thing unit tests give you is confidence in your code. You know stuff works at a certain level of quality, and you know you can go in and change or rewrite something and not have things fail all over the place where you dont expect to. Verification is only a testrun away.
Now that I foster to test-drive my code, I know when I'm done with a function, a component, or a feature. Therefore I can report progress accurately.
I know it's not bug free code, but it is functional enough to be integrated, built and delivered to QA. I'm confident they'll be able to start testing without being blocked by a segmentation error, or any other silly problem.
I also have an environment ready so that I can quickly write a new test to reproduce any problem that will be reported, and I have a safety net to detect side effects and regressions when I modify or fix the code.
Can't speak for everyone, but I started writing tests because of a fellow developer that wrote tests that were a big help to me when I was learning the system.
I've also found that tests are a good way to verify assumptions when working with a new code base.
Unit testing is not a silver bullet. But it does have benefits, and it is very satisfying.
I find it means my code gets executed a lot earlier, since before I wrote unit tests, it took a lot of coding before there was enough functionality to try out in the application.
I'm also very grateful for my suite of unit tests when I come to refactor. I rewrote a whole date handling module a while ago, and there's no way I would have had the confidence to do that without regression tests.
I must say that I think the improvements in VS 2010, such as Ctrl+Enter (I think that was what it was) that can allow you to quickly stub the interface of a class while writing test (first) is going to make this ALOT easier for me.
Unit test advantages are multiple. To be more specific of how it makes my life better, well, I think that it's increase the confidence in change and give me the possibility to change a lot faster a code later. It increase my life in the long run.
Of course, I can tell that in short time that it's a little bit of more pain because it requires more time, but it's rapidly forgotten when you auto-validate yourself when you do these test.
I'm a big fan of unit testing, though my tests don't provide complete coverage nowadays... mostly because I'm working on a web site and much of my code just grabs data from the database, manipulates it, and spits it out. The manipulation code is generally well tested, but its a real pain to test the database code.
That being said, I can point out a case where unit tests saved me weeks of work...
I was working on a smallish project (4-6 devs) a while back and, after months of work we had reached a state of near completion. At this point, the folks in charge of the product decided that, instead of storing dates (and generating reports using them) in GMT, they wanted everything in EST. Given the product was built to handle large amounts of data/logs and generate information about that data based on timeframes, this was a fairly major change.
Over the course of the next few days, the development team went in and changed everything to deal with EST timestamps. What would have taken us weeks to do had we not had such extensive automated tests, took us just 3 days, allowing us to meet an aggressive schedule. We were able to jump into the code and start changing whatever we needed to; the unit tests giving us courage by knowing the system would complain quickly if we broken something. To this day, I use that experience as an example of how you can never truly understand the benefits of automated testing until it saves you... and it certainly did that for my team.
I'm currently in the process of trying to jump on the bandwagon. Work mates are already doing it before they've written a line of functional code. I'm still writing a full program before I've even run it through the main, let alone unit test it :/
I'll get there in the end I'm sure. But at the moment, I am of ill health through spending 90% of my life debugging :(
I've done quite a bit of work in java, and a year in Ruby.
In Ruby we used extensive testing (TDD). This was ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED. You can write nearly complete garbage into a Ruby file, and if you don't hit that specific line of code, you'll never know, so your tests need near 100% coverage.
In Java, I've never needed much more than a single, simple success path test--and that can usually be thrown away after the code runs. It's really the static type checking, strong typing and using coding patterns like strong encapsulation and parameter checking that makes this possible. You can actually get very close to proving that a small class can't be broken (is bug free) without tests, and when correctly designed, all classes should be small.
Another point of interest: On the Ruby project, we had a refactor that took us 2 days of real code work (split a prime model class into two classes) and 2 weeks of test repairs.
At some point all those tests have a price, they are still code you have to maintain.
That said, I find TDD fun and a good way to get things started, even in Java, and I also would reiterate that I ALWAYS have some success path testing at the very least (even if it's just a quick main method) in virtually every class I write.
Good unit tests that provide sufficient coverage can make you sleep better at night.
If you use assertions, you can find out potential bugs which are missed by the unit tests (sometimes it's not good enough perhaps), and you can sleep even better at night.
It saves me time, because when I run code TDD, it usually just works when it comes to integration time, so no need to spend agonizing hours debugging.
It also gives me confidence having a conversation with other developers claiming that API I created has bugs.
When you get to some critical mass of tests, a nice side-effect is often that if you are about to introduce a bug, it is likely to make some test fail, even if the tests aren't directly against the new, buggy code you are writing.
So you will be alerted to the bug you are about to commit before doing so, and you can then write tests against it and fix it right away.
(This is of course only true if you have tests that are not "just" very narrow test-one-thing-only tests, but I think that is more often the case than not.)
I'm soon to do a 10min Grok talk on Unit Testing at my company. I've been trying it myself, and feel that it can certainly bring benefits to the company. We already do WebInject testing in our dedicated QA team, But I want to try and sell unit testing to the devs.
So with only 10mins what would you cover and why?
we're a Microsoft Shop C# Web Apps, I've used NUnit in my experience.
Unit testing is all about confidence.
It allows you to be confident that your code is solid, and that other people can rely on it when they're writing their own parts of a system. If you can get across that unit testing will help to eliminate the trepidation that comes with the first release of a new system, I would hope that your audience will soon become very interested.
I'd start with a problem a lot of programmers might be familiar with: that is the fear of making a change to existing code because of the fear they might break something. How that prevents work from happening, or prevents it being done properly (because they're afraid to refactor) and so leads to having to rewrite everything every x years.
Unit Testing -> Refactoring -> Living Code.
Edit:
btw, I would Not lead with the 'all code without unit tests is legacy code' quote from Michael Feathers. It certainly made me feel defensive the first time I heard it. By the time people stop feeling affronted the 10 minutes will be over :-) (personally I think that quote is more true than it is helpful).
Here's a good format for a short talk on a technique X:
why you decided to try it X the first place
what you personally have gained from using X
what limitations you've noticed, things that X doesn't address
Don't "sell" or spend lots of time on the theory. Do prepare beforehand and point people to books, URLs of articles or tutorials that you think are most helpful. Those who are interested after your talk can look up the details on the Web.
Try to briefly talk about the aspect of Test Driven Development: write tests first and the interfaces as you go, then implement everything.
Maybe also about continuous integration, this means that as soon as you check something into your source control system, the project gets compiled and all the tests run so the developer knows immediately if he has done something wrong.
If there are any project managers in the audience, also be so fair to tell them that unit testing will make your project take 15-30 % more time, but it will be worth it in the long run.
You could mention that it will be a difficult learning curve, and it will feel like productivity is being impacted, but the benefits are worth it:
e.g. effectively the creation of an automated regression test suite, which in turn allows you to make bigger additions or modifications to existing without worrying that you are breaking some existing functionality.
Creation of production code will be slower, but this should be offset by the higher quality of the code, i.e. fewer bugs, which in the long run means overall higher productivity.
I think 10 minutes is enough to present a simple example of how unit testing can save you time.
Implement a class (you can TDD if you feel like it) and show how a unit test can catch a modification that breaks the class.
Also, you can highlight how you can be faster developing components if you test the isolatedly (i.e. you don't need to bring up your web application, log in, go to your functionality, test); you can just run your tests.
You might be able to perform this on a piece of code from your company- and maybe show how a unit test might have caught a bug you have had recently.
If you give a demonstration, do it on a working piece of code from a project that everyone is familiar with. Avoid contrived examples. Books on TDD are already full of them, and they don't really sell how TDD can work for a real project.
For the love of god, emphasize that unit tests are for testing "units" of logic. I hate looking at a QA suite of NUnit tests that nobody expected to have to maintain, where each "unit test" tests valid outputs for 150 (binary) input files and then shits itself if one fails, without telling you which one.
I would demonstrate:
The confidence it gives in code you produce
The confidence it gives when you change code because it passes the unit tests
The benefits of code coverage, no more "Oh that else statement was never tested!"
The benefits of running unit tests per each build on a CI platform like Hudson
FWIW we run the crappy visual studio testing via MSTEST on our Hudson box and I've got an xslt that Hudson uses to convert the results to the nunit format so Hudson can decipher them. Just putting that out there in case they want you to stick with a Microsoft testing platform.
Accountability, as highlighted by Kent Beck, is another trait that unit testing facilitates. Listen to his podcast at IT Conversations. (His point on accountability starts at 30:34.)
From a business perspective, you may want to highlight the fact that unit tests can "de-risk" any changes you make to your code. Once you have a suite of unit tests, you can make changes to the code base and know what breaks and what doesn't.
I might not be a bad idea to go over user testing. If you have a good set of tests, you can bring failing tests to the users after you make changes to have them validate that the new results are correct. Additionally, you can streamline requirements gathering if you have the users write new unit test definitions for you. They don't need to be able to code, but they do need to be able to give you the appropriate inputs and expected outputs (otherwise how would they know if the changes they asked for were working?).
Visual Studio has a pretty nice set of tools for unit testing, so an example or two may go a long way toward giving your group an idea of what unit testing is like in practice.
Wear this t-shirt ;-)
Well prepared live demo:
Find a "bug" in your "application"
Write a unit test that covers this bug.
Fix this bug
Show, your code is green.
So you can prove, that there's no way, that this bug will occur once more!
Another way to do this:
Propose an issue that can be solved by creating an algorithm. Something relatively simple, of course. Next, code this algorithm in a DLL project. Try to sneak in some weaknesses (i <= array.Length is always a good one). Next, ask them how they would test this DLL.
Most devs run their apps to test them. But you can't run a DLL. You might get some suggesting you create a console app to create methods that exercise the algorithm. Show them how you can craft unit tests to do this.
Have a good set of resources for follow up/self directed learning:
the pragmatic unit test for java/c# are good books on the subject
the kent beck paper on unit testing
links to any larger samples using the testing framework of choice
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
I am working to integrate unit testing into the development process on the team I work on and there are some sceptics. What are some good ways to convince the sceptical developers on the team of the value of Unit Testing? In my specific case we would be adding Unit Tests as we add functionality or fixed bugs. Unfortunately our code base does not lend itself to easy testing.
Every day in our office there is an exchange which goes something like this:
"Man, I just love unit tests, I've just been able to make a bunch of changes to the way something works, and then was able to confirm I hadn't broken anything by running the test over it again..."
The details change daily, but the sentiment doesn't. Unit tests and test-driven development (TDD) have so many hidden and personal benefits as well as the obvious ones that you just can't really explain to somebody until they're doing it themselves.
But, ignoring that, here's my attempt!
Unit Tests allows you to make big changes to code quickly. You know it works now because you've run the tests, when you make the changes you need to make, you need to get the tests working again. This saves hours.
TDD helps you to realise when to stop coding. Your tests give you confidence that you've done enough for now and can stop tweaking and move on to the next thing.
The tests and the code work together to achieve better code. Your code could be bad / buggy. Your TEST could be bad / buggy. In TDD you are banking on the chances of both being bad / buggy being low. Often it's the test that needs fixing but that's still a good outcome.
TDD helps with coding constipation. When faced with a large and daunting piece of work ahead writing the tests will get you moving quickly.
Unit Tests help you really understand the design of the code you are working on. Instead of writing code to do something, you are starting by outlining all the conditions you are subjecting the code to and what outputs you'd expect from that.
Unit Tests give you instant visual feedback, we all like the feeling of all those green lights when we've done. It's very satisfying. It's also much easier to pick up where you left off after an interruption because you can see where you got to - that next red light that needs fixing.
Contrary to popular belief unit testing does not mean writing twice as much code, or coding slower. It's faster and more robust than coding without tests once you've got the hang of it. Test code itself is usually relatively trivial and doesn't add a big overhead to what you're doing. This is one you'll only believe when you're doing it :)
I think it was Fowler who said: "Imperfect tests, run frequently, are much better than perfect tests that are never written at all". I interpret this as giving me permission to write tests where I think they'll be most useful even if the rest of my code coverage is woefully incomplete.
Good unit tests can help document and define what something is supposed to do
Unit tests help with code re-use. Migrate both your code and your tests to your new project. Tweak the code till the tests run again.
A lot of work I'm involved with doesn't Unit Test well (web application user interactions etc.), but even so we're all test infected in this shop, and happiest when we've got our tests tied down. I can't recommend the approach highly enough.
Unit testing is a lot like going to the gym. You know it is good for you, all the arguments make sense, so you start working out. There's an initial rush, which is great, but after a few days you start to wonder if it is worth the trouble. You're taking an hour out of your day to change your clothes and run on a hamster wheel and you're not sure you're really gaining anything other than sore legs and arms.
Then, after maybe one or two weeks, just as the soreness is going away, a Big Deadline begins approaching. You need to spend every waking hour trying to get "useful" work done, so you cut out extraneous stuff, like going to the gym. You fall out of the habit, and by the time Big Deadline is over, you're back to square one. If you manage to make it back to the gym at all, you feel just as sore as you were the first time you went.
You do some reading, to see if you're doing something wrong. You begin feel a little bit of irrational spite toward all the fit, happy people extolling the virtues of exercise. You realize that you don't have a lot in common. They don't have to drive 15 minutes out of the way to go to the gym; there is one in their building. They don't have to argue with anybody about the benefits of exercise; it is just something everybody does and accepts as important. When a Big Deadline approaches, they aren't told that exercise is unnecessary any more than your boss would ask you to stop eating.
So, to answer your question, Unit Testing is usually worth the effort, but the amount of effort required isn't going to be the same for everybody. Unit Testing may require an enormous amount of effort if you are dealing with spaghetti code base in a company that doesn't actually value code quality. (A lot of managers will sing Unit Testing's praises, but that doesn't mean they will stick up for it when it matters.)
If you are trying to introduce Unit Testing into your work and are not seeing all the sunshine and rainbows that you have been led to expect, don't blame yourself. You might need to find a new job to really make Unit Testing work for you.
Best way to convince... find a bug, write a unit test for it, fix the bug.
That particular bug is unlikely to ever appear again, and you can prove it with your test.
If you do this enough, others will catch on quickly.
thetalkingwalnut asks:
What are some good ways to convince the skeptical developers on the team of the value of Unit Testing?
Everyone here is going to pile on lots of reasons out of the blue why unit testing is good. However, I find that often the best way to convince someone of something is to listen to their argument and address it point by point. If you listen and help them verbalize their concerns, you can address each one and perhaps convert them to your point of view (or at the very least, leave them without a leg to stand on). Who knows? Perhaps they will convince you why unit tests aren't appropriate for your situation. Not likely, but possible. Perhaps if you post their arguments against unit tests, we can help identify the counterarguments.
It's important to listen to and understand both sides of the argument. If you try to adopt unit tests too zealously without regard to people's concerns, you'll end up with a religious war (and probably really worthless unit tests). If you adopt it slowly and start by applying it where you will see the most benefit for the least cost, you might be able to demonstrate the value of unit tests and have a better chance of convincing people. I realize this isn't as easy as it sounds - it usually requires some time and careful metrics to craft a convincing argument.
Unit tests are a tool, like any other, and should be applied in such a way that the benefits (catching bugs) outweigh the costs (the effort writing them). Don't use them if/where they don't make sense and remember that they are only part of your arsenal of tools (e.g. inspections, assertions, code analyzers, formal methods, etc). What I tell my developers is this:
They can skip writing a test for a method if they have a good argument why it isn't necessary (e.g. too simple to be worth it or too difficult to be worth it) and how the method will be otherwise verified (e.g. inspection, assertions, formal methods, interactive/integration tests). They need to consider that some verifications like inspections and formal proofs are done at a point in time and then need to be repeated every time the production code changes, whereas unit tests and assertions can be used as regression tests (written once and executed repeatedly thereafter). Sometimes I agree with them, but more often I will debate about whether a method is really too simple or too difficult to unit test.
If a developer argues that a method seems too simple to fail, isn't it worth taking the 60 seconds necessary to write up a simple 5-line unit test for it? These 5 lines of code will run every night (you do nightly builds, right?) for the next year or more and will be worth the effort if even just once it happens to catch a problem that may have taken 15 minutes or longer to identify and debug. Besides, writing the easy unit tests drives up the count of unit tests, which makes the developer look good.
On the other hand, if a developer argues that a method seems too difficult to unit test (not worth the significant effort required), perhaps that is a good indication that the method needs to be divided up or refactored to test the easy parts. Usually, these are methods that rely on unusual resources like singletons, the current time, or external resources like a database result set. These methods usually need to be refactored into a method that gets the resource (e.g. calls getTime()) and a method that takes the resource as a argument (e.g. takes the timestamp as a parameter). I let them skip testing the method that retrieves the resource and they instead write a unit test for the method that now takes the resource as a argument. Usually, this makes writing the unit test much simpler and therefore worthwhile to write.
The developer needs to draw a "line in the sand" in how comprehensive their unit tests should be. Later in development, whenever we find a bug, they should determine if more comprehensive unit tests would have caught the problem. If so and if such bugs crop up repeatedly, they need to move the "line" toward writing more comprehensive unit tests in the future (starting with adding or expanding the unit test for the current bug). They need to find the right balance.
Its important to realize the unit tests are not a silver bullet and there is such a thing as too much unit testing. At my workplace, whenever we do a lessons learned, I inevitably hear "we need to write more unit tests". Management nods in agreement because its been banged into their heads that "unit tests" == "good".
However, we need to understand the impact of "more unit tests". A developer can only write ~N lines of code a week and you need to figure out what percentage of that code should be unit test code vs production code. A lax workplace might have 10% of the code as unit tests and 90% of the code as production code, resulting in product with a lot of (albeit very buggy) features (think MS Word). On the other hand, a strict shop with 90% unit tests and 10% production code will have a rock solid product with very few features (think "vi"). You may never hear reports about the latter product crashing, but that likely has as much to do with the product not selling very well as much as it has to do with the quality of the code.
Worse yet, perhaps the only certainty in software development is that "change is inevitable". Assume the strict shop (90% unit tests/10% production code) creates a product that has exactly 2 features (assuming 5% of production code == 1 feature). If the customer comes along and changes 1 of the features, then that change trashes 50% of the code (45% of unit tests and 5% of the production code). The lax shop (10% unit tests/90% production code) has a product with 18 features, none of which work very well. Their customer completely revamps the requirements for 4 of their features. Even though the change is 4 times as large, only half as much of the code base gets trashed (~25% = ~4.4% unit tests + 20% of production code).
My point is that you have to communicate that you understand that balance between too little and too much unit testing - essentially that you've thought through both sides of the issue. If you can convince your peers and/or your management of that, you gain credibility and perhaps have a better chance of winning them over.
I have toyed with unit testing a number of times, and I am still to be convinced that it is worth the effort given my situation.
I develop websites, where much of the logic involves creating, retrieving or updating data in the database. When I have tried to "mock" the database for unit testing purposes, it has got very messy and seemed a bit pointless.
When I have written unit tests around business logic, it has never really helped me in the long run. Because I largely work on projects alone, I tend to know intuitively which areas of code may be affected by something I am working on, and I test these areas manually. I want to deliver a solution to my client as quickly as possible, and unit testing often seems a waste of time. I list manual tests and walk through them myself, ticking them off as I go.
I can see that it may be beneficial when a team of developers are working on a project and updating each other's code, but even then I think that if the developers are of a high quality, good communication and well-written code should often be enough.
One great thing about unit tests is that they serve as documentation for how your code is meant to behave. Good tests are kind of like a reference implementation, and teammates can look at them to see how to integrate their code with yours.
Unit-testing is well worth the initial investment. Since starting to use unit-testing a couple of years ago, I've found some real benefits:
regression testing removes the fear of
making changes to code (there's nothing
like the warm glow of seeing code
work or explode every time a change is
made)
executable code examples for
other team members (and yourself in
six months time..)
merciless refactoring - this is incredibly rewarding, try it!
Code snippets can be a great help in reducing the overhead of creating tests. It isn't difficult to create snippets that enable the creation of a class outline and an associated unit-test fixture in seconds.
You should test as little as possible!
meaning, you should write just enough unit tests to reveal intent. This often gets glossed over. Unit testing costs you. If you make changes and you have to change tests you will be less agile. Keep unit tests short and sweet. Then they have a lot of value.
Too often I see lots of tests that will never break, are big and clumsy and don't offer a lot of value, they just end up slowing you down.
I didn't see this in any of the other answers, but one thing I noticed is that I could debug so much faster. You don't need to drill down through your app with just the right sequence of steps to get to the code your fixing, only to find you've made a boolean error and need to do it all again. With a unit test, you can just step directly into the code you're debugging.
[I have a point to make that I cant see above]
"Everyone unit tests, they don't necessarily realise it - FACT"
Think about it, you write a function to maybe parse a string and remove new line characters. As a newbie developer you either run a few cases through it from the command line by implementing it in Main() or you whack together a visual front end with a button, tie up your function to a couple of text boxes and a button and see what happens.
That is unit testing - basic and badly put together but you test the piece of code for a few cases.
You write something more complex. It throws errors when you throw a few cases through (unit testing) and you debug into the code and trace though. You look at values as you go through and decide if they are right or wrong. This is unit testing to some degree.
Unit testing here is really taking that behaviour, formalising it into a structured pattern and saving it so that you can easily re-run those tests. If you write a "proper" unit test case rather than manually testing, it takes the same amount of time, or maybe less as you get experienced, and you have it available to repeat again and again
For years, I've tried to convince people that they needed to write unit test for their code. Whether they wrote the tests first (as in TDD) or after they coded the functionality, I always tried to explain them all the benefits of having unit tests for code. Hardly anyone disagreed with me. You cannot disagree with something that is obvious, and any smart person will see the benefits of unit test and TDD.
The problem with unit testing is that it requires a behavioral change, and it is very hard to change people's behavior. With words, you will get a lot of people to agree with you, but you won't see many changes in the way they do things.
You have to convince people by doing. Your personal success will atract more people than all the arguments you may have. If they see you are not just talking about unit test or TDD, but you are doing what you preach, and you are successful, people will try to imitate you.
You should also take on a lead role because no one writes unit test right the first time, so you may need to coach them on how to do it, show them the way, and the tools available to them. Help them while they write their first tests, review the tests they write on their own, and show them the tricks, idioms and patterns you've learned through your own experiences. After a while, they will start seeing the benefits on their own, and they will change their behavior to incorporate unit tests or TDD into their toolbox.
Changes won't happen over night, but with a little of patience, you may achieve your goal.
A major part of test-driven development that is often glossed over is the writing of testable code. It seems like some kind of a compromise at first, but you'll discover that testable code is also ultimately modular, maintainable and readable.
If you still need help convincing people this is a nice simple presentation about the advantages of unit testing.
If your existing code base doesn't lend itself to unit testing, and it's already in production, you might create more problems than you solve by trying to refactor all of your code so that it is unit-testable.
You may be better off putting efforts towards improving your integration testing instead. There's lots of code out there that's just simpler to write without a unit test, and if a QA can validate the functionality against a requirements document, then you're done. Ship it.
The classic example of this in my mind is a SqlDataReader embedded in an ASPX page linked to a GridView. The code is all in the ASPX file. The SQL is in a stored procedure. What do you unit test? If the page does what it's supposed to do, should you really redesign it into several layers so you have something to automate?
One of the best things about unit testing is that your code will become easier to test as you do it. Preexisting code created without tests is always a challenge because since they weren't meant to be unit-tested, it's not rare to have a high level of coupling between classes, hard-to-configure objects inside your class - like an e-mail sending service reference - and so on. But don't let this bring you down! You'll see that your overall code design will become better as you start to write unit-tests, and the more you test, the more confident you'll become on making even more changes to it without fear of breaking you application or introducing bugs.
There are several reasons to unit-test your code, but as time progresses, you'll find out that the time you save on testing is one of the best reasons to do it. In a system I've just delivered, I insisted on doing automated unit-testing in spite of the claims that I'd spend way more time doing the tests than I would by testing the system manually. With all my unit tests done, I run more than 400 test cases in less than 10 minutes, and every time I had to do a small change in the code, all it took me to be sure the code was still working without bugs was ten minutes. Can you imagine the time one would spend to run those 400+ test cases by hand?
When it comes to automated testing - be it unit testing or acceptance testing - everyone thinks it's a wasted effort to code what you can do manually, and sometimes it's true - if you plan to run your tests only once. The best part of automated testing is that you can run them several times without effort, and after the second or third run, the time and effort you've wasted is already paid for.
One last piece of advice would be to not only unit test your code, but start doing test first (see TDD and BDD for more)
Unit tests are also especially useful when it comes to refactoring or re-writing a piece a code. If you have good unit tests coverage, you can refactor with confidence. Without unit tests, it is often hard to ensure the you didn't break anything.
In short - yes. They are worth every ounce of effort... to a point. Tests are, at the end of the day, still code, and much like typical code growth, your tests will eventually need to be refactored in order to be maintainable and sustainable. There's a tonne of GOTCHAS! when it comes to unit testing, but man oh man oh man, nothing, and I mean NOTHING empowers a developer to make changes more confidently than a rich set of unit tests.
I'm working on a project right now.... it's somewhat TDD, and we have the majority of our business rules encapuslated as tests... we have about 500 or so unit tests right now. This past iteration I had to revamp our datasource and how our desktop application interfaces with that datasource. Took me a couple days, the whole time I just kept running unit tests to see what I broke and fixed it. Make a change; Build and run your tests; fix what you broke. Wash, Rinse, Repeat as necessary. What would have traditionally taken days of QA and boat loads of stress was instead a short and enjoyable experience.
Prep up front, a little bit of extra effort, and it pays 10-fold later on when you have to start dicking around with core features/functionality.
I bought this book - it's a Bible of xUnit Testing knowledge - tis probably one of the most referenced books on my shelf, and I consult it daily: link text
Occasionally either myself or one of my co-workers will spend a couple of hours getting to the bottom of slightly obscure bug and once the cause of the bug is found 90% of the time that code isn't unit tested. The unit test doesn't exist because the dev is cutting corners to save time, but then looses this and more debugging.
Taking the small amount of time to write a unit test can save hours of future debugging.
I'm working as a maintenance-engineer of a poorly documented, awful and big code base. I wish the people who wrote the code had written the unit tests for it.
Each time I make a change and update the production code I'm scared that I might introduce a bug for not having considered some condition.
If they wrote the test making changes to the code base would be easier and faster.(at the same time the code base would be in a better state)..
I think unit tests prove a lot useful when writing api or frameworks that have to last for many years and to be used/modified/evolved by people other than the original coders.
Unit Testing is definitely worth the effort. Unfortunately you've chosen a difficult (but unfortunately common) scenario into which to implement it.
The best benefit from unit testing you'll get is when using it from the ground up - on a few, select, small projects I've been fortunate enough to write my unit tests before implementing my classes (the interface was already complete at this point). With proper unit tests, you will find and fix bugs in your classes while they're still in their infancy and not anywhere near the complex system that they'll undoubtedly become integrated in in the future.
If your software is solidly object oriented, you should be able to add unit testing at the class level without too much effort. If you aren't that fortunate, you should still try to incorporate unit testing wherever you can. Make sure when you add new functionality the new pieces are well defined with clear interfaces and you'll find unit testing makes your life much easier.
When you said, "our code base does not lend itself to easy testing" is the first sign of a code smell. Writing Unit Tests means you typically write code differently in order to make the code more testable. This is a good thing in my opinion as what I've seen over the years in writing code that I had to write tests for, it forced me to put forth a better design.
I do not know. A lot of places do not do unit test, but the quality of the code is good. Microsoft does unit test, but Bill Gates gave a blue screen at his presentation.
I wrote a very large blog post about the topic. I've found that unit testing alone isn't worth the work and usually gets cut when deadlines get closer.
Instead of talking about unit testing from the "test-after" verification point of view, we should look at the true value found when you set out to write a spec/test/idea before the implementation.
This simple idea has changed the way I write software and I wouldn't go back to the "old" way.
How test first development changed my life
Yes - Unit Testing is definitely worth the effort but you should know it's not a silver bullet. Unit Testing is work and you will have to work to keep the test updated and relevant as code changes but the value offered is worth the effort you have to put in. The ability to refactor with impunity is a huge benefit as you can always validate functionality by running your tests after any change code. The trick is to not get too hung up on exactly the unit-of-work you're testing or how you are scaffolding test requirements and when a unit-test is really a functional test, etc. People will argue about this stuff for hours on end and the reality is that any testing you do as your write code is better than not doing it. The other axiom is about quality and not quantity - I have seen code-bases with 1000's of test that are essentially meaningless as the rest don't really test anything useful or anything domain specific like business rules, etc of the particular domain. I've also seen codebases with 30% code coverage but the tests were relevant, meaningful and really awesome as they tested the core functionality of the code it was written for and expressed how the code should be used.
One of my favorite tricks when exploring new frameworks or codebases is to write unit-tests for 'it' to discover how things work. It's a great way to learn more about something new instead of reading a dry doc :)
I recently went through the exact same experience in my workplace and found most of them knew the theoretical benefits but had to be sold on the benefits to them specifically, so here were the points I used (successfully):
They save time when performing negative testing, where you handle unexpected inputs (null pointers, out of bounds values, etc), as you can do all these in a single process.
They provide immediate feedback at compile time regarding the standard of the changes.
They are useful for testing internal data representations that may not be exposed during normal runtime.
and the big one...
You might not need unit testing, but when someone else comes in and modifies the code without a full understanding it can catch a lot of the silly mistakes they might make.
I discovered TDD a couple of years ago, and have since written all my pet projects using it. I have estimated that it takes roughly the same time to TDD a project as it takes to cowboy it together, but I have such increased confidence in the end product that I can't help a feeling of accomplishment.
I also feel that it improves my design style (much more interface-oriented in case I need to mock things together) and, as the green post at the top writes, it helps with "coding constipation": when you don't know what to write next, or you have a daunting task in front of you, you can write small.
Finally, I find that by far the most useful application of TDD is in the debugging, if only because you've already developed an interrogatory framework with which you can prod the project into producing the bug in a repeatable fashion.
One thing no-one has mentioned yet is getting the commitment of all developers to actually run and update any existing automated test. Automated tests that you get back to and find broken because of new development looses a lot of the value and make automated testing really painful. Most of those tests will not be indicating bugs since the developer has tested the code manually, so the time spent updating them is just waste.
Convincing the skeptics to not destroy the work the others are doing on unit-tests is a lot more important for getting value from the testing and might be easier.
Spending hours updating tests that has broken because of new features each time you update from the repository is neither productive nor fun.
If you are using NUnit one simple but effective demo is to run NUnit's own test suite(s) in front of them. Seeing a real test suite giving a codebase a workout is worth a thousand words...
Unit testing helps a lot in projects that are larger than any one developer can hold in their head. They allow you to run the unit test suite before checkin and discover if you broke something. This cuts down a lot on instances of having to sit and twiddle your thumbs while waiting for someone else to fix a bug they checked in, or going to the hassle of reverting their change so you can get some work done. It's also immensely valuable in refactoring, so you can be sure that the refactored code passes all the tests that the original code did.
With unit test suite one can make changes to code while leaving rest of the features intact. Its a great advantage. Do you use Unit test sutie and regression test suite when ever you finish coding new feature.
I'm agree with the point of view opposite to the majority here:
It's OK Not to Write Unit Tests
Especially prototype-heavy programming (AI for example) is difficult to combine with unit testing.
Do you have any strategies for retrofitting unit tests onto a code base that currently has no unit tests ?
Read Working Effectively With Legacy Code by Feathers.
Jimmy Bogard has a good blog series on SOC.
The best way to retrofit an existing project without any unit tests is to do it when fixing bugs. Write a test that fails on the logic that has the bug in it with the steps to reproduce the bug. Then refactor the code until the tests pass. Now you can have confidence that the bug is fixed and it will not be introduced later on in the cycle and you started introducing unit tests into the project.
Here's another great article on testing. In particular, a somewhat relevant quote from it:
Here’s a terrible idea - decide you are going to spend a whole week building a test suite for your project. First of all, you’ll likely just get frustrated and burn out on testing. Secondly, you’ll probably write bad tests at first, so even if you get a bunch of tests written, you’re going to need to go back and rewrite them one you figure out how slow, brittle, or unreadable they are.
I think you are better off building tests 1 at a time as you are fixing bugs or adding new functionality... don't try to build missing test cases, you should have an end goal for each test, rather than just to improve coverage.
Dale gets voted up. Yes, there is no gain for adding unit tests to code that's working. Lets say there are two unknown bugs X & Y. At some point X is revealed by typical field use. You fix it, add a unit test, and move on. Now lets assume Y is never uncovered over the entire lifetime of the program. Since Y never revealed itself it's as if it never existed; no need to waste the resources. Multiply this by hundreds or thousands of dormant bugs and you save yourself a great deal of superfluous maintenance.
If ever you are trying to add unit tests to old perl code I strongly recommend
Perl Testing: A Developer's Notebook by Ian Langworth and chromatic.
It has some very nice trick on testing legacy and "untestable" code.
Why do you want to add unit tests? Do you feel the code has bugs? Do you just want something to do? Are you about to embark on a new feature?
If it is an older product that has been released for quite some time then I'd agree with the others and only add the tests when I find a bug or add a new feature.
If it is a product that is still being developed and not released or only recently released, then I'd start by reviewing the code. If I saw something not quite right then I'd add a test for it. I'd probably make some tests to create some sample data. Creating sample data seems to offer quite a bang for your buck, and it can be useful too.
I think there is benefit to writing the tests even when you don't have a bug to test - when you're adding new features or fixing bugs later, your tests confirm that you haven't introduced new bugs.
Is it possible that we are in a panic and are getting confused between unit tests and performance tests? Is it that your application works fine with few users, but starts throwing errors when under heavier load? If so, unit tests are not the answer. Unit tests != Load tests.
If unit tests are in fact the answer, retrofitting unit tests is a good idea as it will help clean up the code. Just be prepared to refactor a lot. Code written with TDD turns out looking a lot different than code written without TDD. In my case, I had a method HandleDisposition() which took care of a lot of cases. This kind of method would not have existed if we had written the code with TDD. When retrofitting unit tests, we refactored that function and now have methods like XDisposition(), YDisposition(), ZDisposition(), which are a lot easier to write unit tests against.