Skip to main content

TDD is a Tool

I remember being introduced to Test Driven Development (TDD) very well. This is because it had such an overwhelming change on how I write code day to day. It was incredibly alien, difficult, yet rewarding. On this journey for the last five years I've changed my style, learned how not to do it and finally found my "sweet spot" when it comes to pragmatic TDD.

Deliver Value

Writing code is fun. Developing an application or system is fun. Using new technology is fun. Despite this the end goal should always be to deliver value. Delivering business value over religiously following a practice was a turning point in my journey. After all the user doesn't care about what is behind the scenes, as long as they can use your software, they're happy.

When to Write Tests?

One of the guidelines when starting TDD is

"Never write a line of code without a failing test" - Kent Beck

This rule is wrong on many levels. Firstly it cripples most developers when starting TDD. Secondly the guideline is broken all the time by seasoned evangelists. Writing some framework code? Writing data access code? Writing markup? Any of these scenarios would be wasted by writing a failing tests first. This rule should be reworded.

"Writing logic? Never write a line of code without a failing test" - me

It's OK to not use TDD

After adoption TDD practitioners tend to face two challenges. Other developers looking down on non TDD practices and feeling as if they are "cheating" when not using TDD. The later was an issue I struggled with. Newbies tend to find the same problem, and this goes back to the mantra above. One of the key lessons I've discovered over the past few years is that using TDD where appropriate is fine. Not all code needs TDD. Even Kent Beck discusses this when he refers to "Obvious Implementation".

Spike Solutions

Another game changer in my journey was the concept of "Spike and Stabilize". Using this technique you can deliver business value quickly. Gather feedback as soon as possible and either fail fast or wrap the code in tests and clean it up.

CRUD

Most of the code I (and others) write is very similar. I'd bet this is the same for different fields of software development. That being said, for each CRUD app we create there is a tiny aspect of this that is unique. Using TDD to write yet another CRUD app is tedious. I'd imagine this is why many ditch the practice of TDD after some time. However the benefit comes from using TDD for that 20% of domain logic. Here a combination of obvious implementation and spike and stabilize can assist in the creation of the other 80%.

It's about Design too

TDD by Example gives the impression that the practice is primarily a testing discipline. This is not true. TDD does limit the bugs I introduce and enforces basic correctness, however bugs will still slip through. After all the quality of the code is only as good as the quality of the tests. Growing Object Oriented Software: Guided by Tests and others introduce the concept that TDD is also a design process. Listening to the tests is a core concept. In other words, if something is hard to test, chances are the code in question can be improved.

Follow the Risks

The final lesson I've come to realise is that even if you happen to work with those who don't practice TDD, you can reap the benefits. Simply test where the risk lives. Ignore the framework, standard library and simply test what has risk. This might be a small, core part of your application. Aiming for 100% code coverage is not a goal, nor one worth aiming for.

It's a Tool

At the end of the day, TDD is a tool, not a goal. In this day and age many believe that TDD should be mandatory. While I agree, the use should be restricted to where and when it makes sense. As for when and where, this is up for the developer to decide. Using some of the findings above allow me to be pragmatic, yet still have confidence in the quality of my code.

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 …