Related
I am going to pick up a task that no one has ever attempted to try at my workplace. It is a CF app first written using CF 2.0 (Yes, 2.0!) 10 yrs ago with > 10 cfscheduler tasks.. We explored the idea of rewriting the app, but 10 yrs of work simply can't be rewrote in 2-3 months.
What steps shall one take to modernize the app into a maintainable, extendable state? The one that I keep hearing is "write tests", but how can I write tests when it wasn't even in MVC?
Any advice would be appreciated, thanks!
p.s. I should thank Allaire, Macromedia and Adobe for keeping CF so freaking backward compatible all the way back to 2.0!
btw, what's the most modern, maintainable state for a CF app without MVC framework? or should my end goal be ultimately refactoring it into a MVC app?? I can't image how many links I will break if I do... seems impossible... thought?
update: found 2 related Q's...
https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/6395/how-do-you-dive-into-large-code-bases
https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/29788/how-do-you-dive-into-a-big-ball-of-mud
I am not sure if you need to move the whole site to a MVC application. Recently I did helped with an site that was not MVC, that still had a library with the Models, Services and Assemblers in a clean and organized manor. It worked great, and we didn't need to do anything more than what was necessary.
That being said, my first step would be to organize the spaghetti code into their different purposes. It may be hard to properly create the models, but at the very least you could break out the services like functions from the pages. With that done, it should be a lot cleaner already.
Then, I would try to take the repeated code and put them into custom tags. It will make the code more reusable, and easier to read.
Good Luck!
Consider, whether a full fledged framework is really necessary. In its most basic form a framework is merely highly organized code. So if procedural, that is well organized, works leave it.
Keep in mind something like FW/1 as migration path can be better than say Coldbox if you don't need all the other stuff.
Lastly, consider this I was able to migrate a 4.5 almost 70% of the way to Coldbox (very simple and really more about directory and file organization versus IOC, plugins, modules, etc...) just using a few extra lines per file plus onMissingMethod functions.
Good Luck.
I had to deal with a similar situation for about two years at my last job, however, it wasn't quite as old as yours. I think I was dealing with code from 4.0 on. There's no silver bullet here, and you'll need to be careful that you don't get too caught up in re-factoring the code and costing your company tons of money in the process. If the app works as it is rewriting it would be a pretty big wast of money.
What I did was update small chunks at a time, I wouldn't even refactor whole templates at a time, just small portions of one at a time. If I saw a particular ugly loop, or nested if statements I'd try to clean it up the best I could. If the app can be broken down into smaller modules or areas of functionality and you have the extra time you can try to clean up the code a module at a time.
A good practice I heard from the Hearding Code podcast is create a testing harness template that would use a particular cfm page that has a known output that you can re-run to make sure that it still has the same output once you've done refactoring. Its not nearly as granular as a unit test, but its something and something is almost always better than nothing, right?
I suspect that the reason this app hasn't been touched for years is because for the most part it works. So the old adage "if it ain't broken don't fix it" probably applies; However, code can always be improved :)
The first thing I'd do is switch to Application.cfc and add some good error logging. That way you may find out about things that need to be fixed, and also if you do make changes you're know if they break anything else.
The next thing I'd do is before you change any code is use selenium to create some tests - it can be used as a FireFox plugin and will record what you do. It's really good for testing legacy apps without much work on your part.
Chances are that you won't have much if any protection from SQL injection attacks so you will want to add cfqueryparam to everything!!
After that I'd be looking for duplicated code - eliminating duplicate code is going to make maintenance easier.
Good luck!
Funnily enough, I'm currently involved in converting an old CF app into an MVC3 application.
Now this isn't CF2, it was updated as recently as a year ago so all of this may not apply at all to your scenario, apologies if this is the case.
The main thing I had to do consolidate the mixed up CFQuerys and their calls into logical units of code that I could then start porting in functionality either to C# or JavaScript.
Thankfully this was a very simple application, the majority of the logic was called on a database using the DWR Ajax library; that which wasn't was mostly consolidated in a functions.cfm file.
Obviously a lot of that behavior doesn't need to be replicated as packaging up the separate components of logic (such as they were) in the CF app did map quite neatly to the various Partial Views and Editor Templates that I envisaged in the MVC application.
After that, it was simply a case of, page by page, finding out which logic was called when, what it relied upon that then finally creating a series of UML class and sequence diagrams.
Honestly though, I think I gained the most ground when I simply hit File-New Project and started trying to replicate the behavior of the app from the top of index.cfm.
I would break logical parts of the app into CFC's
Pick a single view, look at the logic within. Move that out to a CFC and invoke it.
Keep doing that you will have something much easier to work with that can be plugged into an MVC later. Its almost no work to do this, just copy and paste sections of code and call them.
You can consider using object factory to layer your application. We have similar situation at work and we started refactoring by putting Lightwire DI framework.
First we migrated all the sql statement into gateways, then we started using services and take a lot of code out of the templates to the services.
The work is not finished yet but the application is looking better already.
For large, really complex applications I'd prefer ColdBox for a re-factor project. However, I just saw a presentation at the D2W Conference on F/W 1 (Framework One), a VERY simple ColdFusion MVC framework. Check out code from the presentation here.
It's 1 (one) CFC file and a set of conventions for organizing your code. I highly recommend evaluating it for your project.
After learning about TDD and unit testing, I'm really looking to write tests when I code, preferably before I code because I see the benefits coding in Python. I'm developing a website, and I'm trying to write tests according to the requirements, but its proving more difficult than expected.
I can see the benefits of writing tests when you're producing a library of code with a public interface for others to use. Developing a website, where there is really not much logic, and mostly Reading and Writing against a database seems a little harder to unit test. Mostly, I have to create/edit/delete rows in the database.
I'm using a framework (Kohana 3 for php), so 99% of all the libraries and helpers that I'm going to be using have already been tested (hopefully), so what else is their to write tests for?
I'm mostly talking about scripting languages, not about CSS or HTML, I already know about cross-browser testing.
How much can you really test when developing a web site, and how should you go about it?
Edit: Is the lack of activity on this question a sign? I understand that certain things MUST be tested, like security and the like, but how much can be written using unit tests and TDD is the question.
Thanks.
Developing a website, where there is really not much logic, and mostly Reading and Writing against a database seems a little harder to unit test. Mostly, I have to create/edit/delete rows in the database.
Not completely true.
You have data model processing. Does the validation work? Do the calculations on the reported rows from the database work?
You have control, sequence and navigation among pages -- do the links work? The test setup will provide a logged-in-user. The test will (1) do a GET or a POST to fetch a page, then (2) confirm the page actually loaded and has the right stuff.
You have authorization -- who can do what? Each distinct test setup will provide a different logged-in-user. The tests will (1) attempt a GET or POST to process a page. Some tests will (2) confirm they got directed to error-response pages. Some tests will (2) confitrm that the GET or POST worked.
You have content on the page -- what data was fetched? The test setup will provide a logged-in-user. The test will (1) do a GET or a POST to fetch a page, then (2) confirm the page actually loaded and has the right stuff.
Have you tried Selenium? It allows you to automatically do almost anything in a web browser. For example, you could have it go through and click all of the links and make sure that they go to the correct url.
It works with multiple languages, including python and allows for testing in chrome, firefox, ie, and other browsers.
If your site contains many forms, how do you write them? Do you write each view using plain HTML? Or do you write your own form helpers that generate forms just the way you want them? If you do that, you may find that unit-testing your form generators makes it easier to write them.
In general, if your program is mostly CRUD, look out for ways to automate CRUD management; write your own custom CRUD generator. Which does not mean write the CRUD framework that will end all frameworks; that would be too much work. Just write a generator for the small things you need for your current application. TDD will help you there.
As part of a new job, I have to devise and implement a complete test strategy for the company's new product. So far, all I really know about it is that it is written in C++, uses an SQL database and has a web API which is used by a browser client written using GWT.
As far as I know, there isn't much of an existing strategy, except for using Python scripts to test the web API.
I need to develop and implement a suitable strategy for unit, system, regression and release testing, preferably a fully automated one.
I'm looking for good references for:
Devising the complete test strategy.
Testing the web API.
Testing the GWT based application.
Unit testing C++ code.
In addition, any suitable tools would be appreciated.
Testing Computer Software is a great soup-to-nuts book on the entire testing process. In addition to the items you mentioned, you'll need to think about other types of testing (performance, security, localization, stress testing, to name a few) and how to manage the test process; test plans, issue tracking, test data, test cases, in addition to the tools.
There's a lot there, and you can't do everything at once. I think a phased approach would be best, where you identify the gaps, weaknesses, and risks in the current process, prioritize them, then set up a high level plan to address them one by one.
Software QA Testing and Test Tool Resources is a good starting place for finding some tools to fit your process. StickyMinds is a nice web site dedicated to software testing, and the folks here at StackOverflow certainly know their stuff, so don't be afraid to ask.
Good luck :)
You can find a ton of excellent information on testing and developing a test strategy in general over on James Bach's blog. Specifically by searching through it for tips on testing strategies.
James is an excellent resource for information about how to do great software testing.
Best of luck.
There's a good conversation here on The Purpose of a Test Strategy.
As testing tools you could use Selenium for web testing and CppUnit for c++ unit testing.
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 10 years ago.
The company I'm currently working for is using Selenium for Uniting-Testing our User Interface. What do you use to Unit-Test your Web UI and how effective do you find it?
I'm a huge fan of Selenium. Saying 'unit-testing your web ui' isn't exactly accurate as some of the comments have mentioned. However, I do find Selenium to be incredibly useful for performing those sort of acceptance and sanity tests on the UI.
A good way to get started is using Selenium IDE as part of your development. Ie, just have the IDE open as you're developing and write your test as you go to cut down on your dev time. (Instead of having to manually go through the UI to get to the point where you can test whatever you're working on, just hit a button and Selenium IDE will take care of that for you. It's a terrific time-saver!)
Most of my major use case scenarios have Selenium RC tests to back them up. You can't really think of them as unit-tests along the lines of an xUnit framework, but they are tests targetted to very specific functionality. They're quick to write (especially if you implement common methods for things like logging in or setting up your test cases), quick to run, and provide a very tight feedback loop. In those senses Selenium RC tests are very similar to unit-tests.
I think, like anything else, if you put the effort into properly learning a test tool (eg, Selenium), your effort will pay off in spades. You mention that your company already uses Selenium to do UI testing. This is great. Work with it. If you find Selenium hard to use, or confusing, stick with it. The learning curve really isn't all that steep once you learn the API a little bit.
If I'm working on a web app, its rare for me to write a significant amount of code without Selenium RC tests to back it up. That's how effective I find Selenium. :) (Hopefully that'll answer your question..)
We use Watin at my place of employment, we are a .net shop so this solution made a lot of sense. We actually started with Watir (the original ruby implementation) and switched after. It's been a pretty good solution for us so far
Well, if you've designed your application properly, you won't have scads of logic inside the UI anyway. It makes much more sense to separate the actual work getting done into units separate from the UI, and then test those.
If you do that, then the only code in the UI will be code that invokes the backend, so simply testing the backend is sufficient.
I have used NUnit ASP in the past (at my job), and if you insist on unit testing your UI, I would strongly advise you to use ANYTHING but NUnit ASP. It's a pain to work with, and tests tend to be invalidated (needing to be revised) after even the most minor UI changes (even if the subjects of the tests don't actually change).
We are using QuickTestPro. So far it is effective, but the browser selection is limited. The nicest part is the ability to record your browser's activity, and convert it into a scriptable set of steps. There is also a nice .Net addin so if you have any validation code you need to do for the different stages of your test, you can write methods in an assembly and call them from your script.
We use Visual Studio 2008 Tester Edition.
Pros:
Very good at capturing user interaction
Captures Ajax calls
It is very easy to map user input to a database, XML or CSV file
The captured test can be converted to C# for more control
The same tests can be used for load testing and code coverage
Cons:
VS2008 Tester Edition is a seperate SKU from the normal Developer Edition, which means extra cost
You may be alergic to Microsoft ;-)
We have used it very effectively on projects, however there a lot of effort involved in keeping tests up to date, every time you change a screen the test may need to be re-recorded
We tend to keep the tests short and sharp, do one thing and get out instead of recording 10 minutes worth of clicking around in a single test.
We have a few standard UI test types:
Menu Test: Log in as a specific user (or user type/role) and make sure all the required menu items are available
Validation Test: Open a page and click save without entering any data, ensure that all the validation warnings appear. Complete required fields one at a time and check that the warning messages disappear when they are supposed to.
Search Test: Search using data from your database or a data file and ensure the correct data is returned by the search
Data Entry Test: Create new recrords from a data file, cleanup the database to allow tests to run multiple times
UI Testing is quite time consuming but the comfort feeling you get when a few hundred tests pass before you release a new version is priceless.
We have been using JSunit for a while to do unit tests... it may not be the same kinds of tests you are talking about, but it is great for ensuring your JavaScript works as you expect.
You run it in the browser, and it can be set in an Ant build to be automatically run against a bunch of browsers on a bunch of platforms remotely (so you can ensure your code is cross-browser as well as ensure the logic is correct).
I don't think it replaces Selenium, but it complements it well.
We use Selenium Core, but are switching gradually to Selenium RC which is much nicer and easier to manage. We have written lots of custom code to make the tests run on our Continuous Integration servers, some of them in parallel suites to run faster.
One thing you'll find is that Selenium seems to restart the browser for each test (you can set it not to do this, but we got memory problems when we did that). This can be slow in Firefox, but is not too bad in IE (one time I'm thankful for Bill Gates's OS integraion).
I've used WATIR, which is pretty good. I liked it because it's Ruby and allows for testing interactivity, available elements and source code parsing. I haven't used it for a while but I assume it's gotten better.
It's supposedly being ported to Firefox and Safari, but that's been happening for a while now.
Check out Canoo Web Test. It is open source and built on the ANT framework.
I spent some time working with it for a graduate course on Software QA and it seems to be a pretty powerful testing tool.
Selenium Grid can run your web tests across multiple machines in parallel, which can speed up the web testing process
I mostly use CubicTest, which is an eclipse plugin that lets you define tests graphically. It can export/run tests through several libraries, including watir and selenium. Most people just use the Selenium runner though.
Full disclosure: I'm one of the developers, so I'm kind of biased :)
Take a closer look here: cubictest.openqa.org
-Erlend
Selenium is for Integration testing, not Unit testing. It's a subtle, but important difference. The usage I usually see is for sanity checking a build. i.e., have a test that logs in, a test that (for example) submits a story, makes a comment, etc.
The idea is that you're testing to see if the whole system is working together before deployment, rather than have a user discover that your site is broken.
We currently use Silk4J - a Java centric approach to testing Web UI. It can test Flash, Flex, AIR, Silver Light, Win32, HTML, and a few other applications.
Since Silk4J can control Win32 apps it can control browser dialogs directly, which is a step above what Selenium can control and is especially useful for download prompts.
We use WatiN for system testing, and QUnit for JavaScript unit testing.
Molybdenum is built over Selenium and has some additional features.
Unit testing and ASP.NET web applications are an ambiguous point in my group. More often than not, good testing practices fall through the cracks and web applications end up going live for several years with no tests.
The cause of this pain point generally revolves around the hassle of writing UI automation mid-development.
How do you or your organization integrate best TDD practices with web application development?
Unit testing will be achievable if you separate your layers appropriately. As Rob Cooper implied, don't put any logic in your WebForm other than logic to manage your presentation. All other stuff logic and persistence layers should be kept in separate classes and then you can test those individually.
To test the GUI some people like selenium. Others complain that is a pain to set up.
I layer out the application and at least unit test from the presenter/controller (whichever is your preference, mvc/mvp) to the data layer. That way I have good test coverage over most of the code that is written.
I have looked at FitNesse, Watin and Selenium as options to automate the UI testing but I haven't got around to using these on any projects yet, so we stick with human testing. FitNesse was the one I was leaning toward but I couldn't introduce this as well as introducing TDD (does that make me bad? I hope not!).
This is a good question, one that I will be subscribing too :)
I am still relatively new to web dev, and I too am looking at a lot of code that is largely untested.
For me, I keep the UI as light as possible (normally only a few lines of code) and test the crap out of everything else. At least I can then have some confidence that everything that makes it to the UI is as correct as it can be.
Is it perfect? Perhaps not, but at least it as still quite highly automated and the core code (where most of the "magic" happens) still has pretty good coverage..
I would generally avoid testing that involves relying on UI elements. I favor integration testing, which tests everything from your database layer up to the view layer (but not the actual layout).
Try to start a test suite before writing a line of actual code in a new project, since it's harder to write tests later.
Choose carefully what you test - don't mindlessly write tests for everything. Sometimes it's a boring task, so don't make it harder. If you write too many tests, you risk abandoning that task under the weight of time-consuming maintenance.
Try to bundle as much functionality as possible into a single test. That way, if something goes wrong, the errors will propagate anyway. For example, if you have a digest-generating class - test the actual output, not every single helper function.
Don't trust yourself. Assume that you will always make mistakes, and so you write tests to make your life easier, not harder.
If you are not feeling good about writing tests, you are probably doing it wrong ;)
A common practice is to move all the code you can out of the codebehind and into an object you can test in isolation. Such code will usually follow the MVP or MVC design patterns. If you search on "Rhino Igloo" you will probably find the link to its Subversion repository. That code is worth a study, as it demonstrate one of the best MVP implementations on Web Forms that I have seen.
Your codebehind will, when following this pattern, do two things:
Transit all user actions to the presenter.
Render data provided by the presenter.
Unit testing the presenter should be trivial.
Update: Rhino Igloo can be found here: https://svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/rhino-tools/trunk/rhino-igloo/
There have been tries on getting Microsoft's free UI Automation (included in .NET Framework 3.0) to work with web applications (ASP.NET). A german company called Artiso happens to have written a blog entry that explains how to achieve that (link).
However, their blogpost also links an MSDN Webcasts that explains the UI Automation Framework with winforms and after I had a look at this, I noticed you need the AutomationId to get a reference to the respecting controls. However, in web applications, the controls do not have an AutomationId.
I asked Thomas Schissler (Artiso) about this and he explained that this was a major drawback on InternetExplorer. He referenced an older technology of Microsoft (MSAA) and was hoping himself that IE8 will do this better.
However, I was also giving Watin a try and it seems to work pretty well. I even liked Wax, which allows to implement simple testcases via Microsoft Excel worksheets.
Ivonna can unit test your views. I'd still recommend moving most of the code to other parts. However, some code just belongs there, like references to controls or control event handlers.