Skip to main content

Given When Then Scenarios vs Test Fixtures

There are two common ways of writing automated tests which apply from unit to acceptance tests. These are typically known as test fixtures and Given-When-Then scenarios.

Test Fixture

  • Traditional method of writing tests.
  • The common JUnit/NUnit approach. Other languages have very similar concepts.
  • Single test fixture with multiple tests.
  • Test fixture is usually named after the subject under test.
  • Can grow large with many test cases.
  • Works well with data driven tests.
  • Suited to solitary tests such as integration tests where GWT syntax would be verbose or hard to include.

Example

Given-When-Then

  • Behaviour driven approach (BDD style).
  • Made popular by tools such as RSpec.
  • Single test fixture per behaviour.
  • Test fixtures named after the functionality being tested.
  • Often nested within other test fixtures.
  • Smaller test fixtures but more verbose due to fixture per functionality.
  • Easy to see why a test failed due to naming convention - assertion message is optional.
  • Suited to sociable tests where the focus is on behaviour.
  • Given forms the pre-condition of the test.
  • When performs the action.
  • Then includes one or more related assertions.
  • GWT can be difficult to name in some cases, often more thought and discussion can be required around good naming conventions.
  • Can act as useful documentation on how the code is meant to function.

Example

Lessons

  • No single way of writing automated tests is better.
  • Favour single test fixtures for integration tests.
  • The core of your tests can use GWT style.
  • Mix and match where appropriate however.
  • Your choice of tooling and language may influence your approach.

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…