Skip to main content

The Self Shunt - Test Doubles without a Framework

Generally you should favour hand crafted stubs without a framework by default. Before you reach for a framework there is another bridging step that you can take only pulling in a framework if complexity arises - the Self Shunt.

Assume a simple Hello World subject under test where we can provide different formatters that format the message to a console, XML or JSON for example. How do we test that the formatter is used, with the right arguments?

Enter the Self Shunt (pdf). Have the test fixture implement the interface aka assume the role of a message formatter. It provides itself as a parameter to the greeter in the form of self/this. The greeter uses this implementation during its execution, the test fixture can then assert or set state.

Benefits

  • Quick and simple to get up and running.
  • Most commands fall into the category of invoke something with some parameters, with little more complexity.
  • Forces you to respect the Interface Segregation Principle, otherwise this technique can become painful. A framework usually masks this complexity.
  • Code is inline to the test or fixtures.
  • Exposes and explains how frameworks work conceptually to new developers - removing some of the magic.

The Self Shunt is my default approach for testing commands which are usually local to test fixtures. Queries default to hand crafted stubs which are usually shared amongst tests. If further tests need the same configuration the shunt can be promoted to a full object that lives independently of the test fixture. Finally if this starts to become difficult to work with I would reach for a framework - commands usually reach this point first.

Comments

  1. Never came across this idea before. Very interesting approach, thanks for sharing!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

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…