Skip to main content

Achieving more Isolated Unit Testing

Good unit tests should be:

  • fast
  • independent
  • well focused
  • isolated

If your unit tests are slow, you're not gonna run them as often as you should. Therefore one of the main benefits of unit testing is lost - the lack of instant feedback.

Each of your unit tests should be independent. The order in which you run your tests should not matter. By keeping your tests focused you should be able to refactor, add new code and not have the majority of your tests fail. If you change class A, you would expect class A's tests to fail at worst. If other tests outside of this scope fail, your tests are not focused enough. This lack of focus leads on to isolation.

Tests should be isolated from other dependencies. Dependencies such as other classes should not affect each other, providing the contract between the code is maintained. Likewise the file system, the web and databases should not be involved anywhere with your unit tests. If any of these dependencies come into play, you're not unit testing.

At Codeweavers we have around ten thousand tests, with unit tests accounting for the majority of these tests. Naturally this means every now and then we take time to do a bit of house keeping regarding our tests.

One thing we noticed was that some of our tests were taking longer to run than other tests. They were taking anywhere from one to ten seconds. Ten seconds for a unit test is a huge time. During this period we could have run hundreds of other tests! As for why these tests took so long to run? Easy. They were not unit tests. Code had been added that broke that layer of isolation. Some tests were hitting real web services for example.

In order to be fully isolated I proposed a simply solution. Unplug the network cable. Any tests that failed would not be unit tests. This gave us one of two options:

  • Refactor the code - remove or stub the dependencies
  • Promote the tests to integration/regression tests (only run prior to check in)

You can take this idea one step further. Next time you run your tests try running them from a different location. Any tests that fail are relying on relative/hardcoded paths and will need attention.

After performing this task on our codebase we had some failures. The nice thing about solving these failures is that our tests now run a lot faster. Our slowest tests are now end to end regression tests which are only run prior to check in or by our CI server. We've also made sure that from a disaster recover point of view, we can continue developing locally even if our CI server is not present.

So take the experiment. Unplug your computer from the network. How many of your "unit tests" fail?


Popular posts from this blog

Constant Object Anti Pattern

Most constants are used to remove magic numbers or variables that lack context. A classic example would be code littered with the number 7. What does this refer to exactly? If this was replaced with DaysInWeek or similar, much clarity is provided. You can determine that code performing offsets would be adding days, rather than a mysterious number seven.Sadly a common pattern which uses constants is the use of a single constant file or object. The beauty of constants is clarity, and the obvious fact such variables are fixed. When a constant container is used, constants are simply lumped together. These can grow in size and often become a dumping ground for all values within the application.A disadvantage of this pattern is the actual value is hidden. While a friendly variable name is great, there will come a time where you will want to know the actual value. This forces you to navigate, if only to peek at the value within the constant object. A solution is to simple perform a refactor …

Three Steps to Code Quality via TDD

Common complaints and problems that I've both encountered and hear other developers raise when it comes to the practice of Test Driven Development are: Impossible to refactor without all the tests breakingMinor changes require hours of changes to test codeTest setup is huge, slow to write and difficult to understandThe use of test doubles (mocks, stubs and fakes is confusing)Over the next three posts I will demonstrate three easy steps that can resolve the problems above. In turn this will allow developers to gain one of the benefits that TDD promises - the ability to refactor your code mercifully in order to improve code quality.StepsStop Making Everything PublicLimit the Amount of Dependencies you Use A Unit is Not Always a Method or ClassCode quality is a tricky subject and highly subjective, however if you follow the three guidelines above you should have the ability to radically change implementation details and therefore improve code quality when needed.

DRY vs DAMP in Tests

In the previous post I mentioned that duplication in tests is not always bad. Sometimes duplication becomes a problem. Tests can become large or virtually identically excluding a few lines. Changes to these tests can take a while and increase the maintenance overhead. At this point, DRY violations need to be resolved.SolutionsTest HelpersA common solution is to extract common functionality into setup methods or other helper utilities. While this will remove and reduce duplication this can make tests a bit harder to read as the test is now split amongst unrelated components. There is a limit to how useful such extractions can help as each test may need to do something slightly differently.DAMP - Descriptive and Meaningful PhrasesDescriptive and Meaningful Phrases is the alter ego of DRY. DAMP tests often use the builder pattern to construct the System Under Test. This allows calls to be chained in a fluent API style, similar to the Page Object Pattern. Internally the implementation wil…