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?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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…

Coding In the Real World

As a student when confronted with a problem, I would end up coding it and thinking - how do the professionals do this?For some reason I had the impression that once I entered the industry I would find enlightenment. Discovering the one true way to write high quality, professional code.It turns out that code in industry is not too far removed from the code I was writing back when I knew very little.Code in the real world can be:messy or cleanhard or easy to understandsimple or complexeasy or hard to changeor any combination of the aboveVery rarely will you be confronted with a problem that is difficult. Most challenges typically are formed around individuals and processes, rather than day to day coding. Years later I finally have the answer. Code in the real world is not that much different to code we were all writing when we first started out.If I could offer myself some advice back in those early days it would be to follow KISS, YAGNI and DRY religiously. The rest will fall into plac…

Feature Toggles

I'm a fan of regular releasing. My background and experience leads me to release as regularly as possible. There are numerous benefits to regular releases; limited risk, slicker release processes and the ability to change as requirements evolve.The problem with this concept is how can you release when features are not functionally complete?SolutionIf there is still work in progress, one solution to allow frequent releases is to use feature toggles. Feature toggles are simple conditional statements that are either enabled or disabled based on some condition.This simple example shows a feature toggle for an "Edit User" feature. If the boolean condition is false, then we only show the "New User" feature and the "Admin" feature. This boolean value will be provided by various means, usually a configuration file. This means at certain points we can change this value in order to demonstrate the "Edit User" functionality. Our demo environment could …

Reused Abstraction Principle

This is the second part of my series on abstractions.Part 1 - AbstractionsPart 3 - Dependency Elimination PrincipleThe Reused Abstraction Principle is a simple in concept in practice, but oddly rarely followed in typical enterprise development. I myself have been incredibly guilty of this in the past.Most code bases have a 1:1 mapping of interfaces to implementations. Usually this is the sign of TDD or automated testing being applied badly. The majority of these interfaces are wrong. 1:1 mappings between interfaces and implementations is a code smell.Such situations are usually the result of extracting an interface from an implementation, rather than having the client drive behaviour.These interfaces are also often bad abstractions, known as "leaky abstractions". As I've discussed previously, these abstractions tend to offer nothing more than simple indirection.ExampleApply the "rule of three". If there is only ever one implementation, then you don't need …