"if it feels wrong, it probably is" - numerous Codeweavers' developers
The framework we use at Codeweavers is the excellent Moq, therefore when something is difficult to mock we are forced by the framework to write an adapter. We use an interface for testing, then create a concrete type which simply invokes the hard to test code such as static code, third party libraries and resources that are expensive to set up. There are some ways ways in C# to get around this, but they involve black magic and should be avoided at all costs unless you are deeply entangled in legacy code. A refactoring would be preferable over hard to test code.
The process of writing an adapter around hard to test code is a standard practice, we do it all the time as we are forced to by the unit testing framework. Some frameworks we use at Codeweavers such as ASP.NET MVC are designed with testability in mind, so unlike scenarios where you cannot test code easily, the MVC framework makes it possible. In a recent feature myself and a fellow colleague wrote some code within a controller which relied on some of the controllers' (the MVC framework) internals.
Rather than abstracting this into a class which we inject to make testing easier we went the route of setting up a complex, messy and tedious routing test fixture. Why you ask? Maybe it was the fact it was possible to test. Had it been straight up impossible or much harder, then introducing an abstraction would have been the obvious solution. The code in question was a small method that depending on the somewhat complex and unique routing values performed on a certain response. Fast forward a week later and the feature is to be expanded.
We were back were we started, the new feature needed more setup that relied on the framework, and in turn once this production code was changed, the old test fixture would need updating. The very thought of this made me feel tired, fed up and generally annoyed that the test code was harder to write than the actual production code! While the code did not feel right, the actual process was a by the book approach, so it must have been right. Taking a step back myself and my new pairing partner decided for a different approach. Lets abstract the controller internals we need and inject this into the controller. In turn our code would read better and the tests would be easy to construct.
Having made this refactoring the tests were still green. The refactoring was a great success. Now the test fixture set up consisted of a few simple lines. All the complex framework specific nonsense had disappeared. Getting to this stage took a bit of thought with regards the implementation, but we got there non the less. Having made this change, we wrote the next tests with such ease and joy it actually felt fun, enjoyable and completely stress free. Just how programming should be.
For the production code, as the framework is test friendly we had some unit tests around the concrete object used in production. For scenarios where this is not possible, a high level acceptance test to ensure things are wired up correctly would suffice. Either way we should always be confident when using code we do not own that it is correct, providing we use it correctly. After all, this will be heavily tested by the third party or so we hope. Manual testing will catch any integration issues with third party code with any luck.
The whole process was staggering, I was blown away by my ignorance. I knew the best
practices, yet I chose to depend on concrete
implementations rather than abstractions. After this session the whole theory behind
mocking roles and not types [pdf]
became so much clearer. This is yet one more revelation to add to the list. Every time I
Mock<name>, stop and think. Do I own the type? If not then maybe
there is an abstraction waiting to escape, after all it will save a lot of pain.