Skip to main content

Acceptance Testing need not use the Full Stack

  • Joined a team with thousands of unit tests (~10k)
  • But bugs still got through our QA process
  • How could this be?
  • Team had a small number of full end to end live service tests
  • So my answer was to just increase the number of these
  • Surely this would solve our problem?
  • Not quite
  • The maintenance of these tests were a great burden
  • Each day many tests would fail, but nothing would be "broken".
  • Data would have changed in the DB
  • The UI could have changed
  • The browser could have been slightly slower
  • And so on

Solution

  • Delete the majority of live service tests - limit the tests to the core user journey through the application
  • As long as the pages load up, without an error we shouldn't care
  • Stopped testing logic or behaviour - made the tests loose, e.g. as long as value is not null or empty we are OK, we don't actually care what the value is.
  • Made use of contract testing to substitute boundaries with in memory fakes, e.g. persistent storage. This allowed fast, stable acceptance tests to be run against the system without the brittle nature described above.
Benefits
  • Small handful of live service tests (using real DB, UI) caught the majority of the serious flaws that snuck through
  • Future bugs were missing unit tests thanks to contract testing
  • Faster to write
  • Easier to debug
  • Faster to execute!

The key point was the use of contract testing. Without contract testing, writing automated acceptance tests is a pretty awful process.

Data requires setup and tear down. Any data changes can break your tests and the UI is often in flux.

By substituting the UI layer, or the DB access with fakes such as a console view, or in memory hash table, your tests can still cover the whole stack, but in a more stable, bite size manner. You simply test your real view or data access separately to prove they work, and can in fact be swapped out thanks to the Liskov Substitution Principle (LSP) by running the same suite of tests against your fakes!

I'll be expanding on how and what contract testing is in a future post.

Comments

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…