Skip to main content

Test Your Live System using Live Service Tests

Traditionally there are three categories of functional tests.

  • Acceptance
  • Integration
  • Unit

This is often refereed to as the testing pyramid. Unit tests form the bulk of your suite, followed by a smaller subset of integration tests. Acceptance tests that cover features should be the tip of your testing strategy, few in number. These are great but there is a missing suite of tests - live service tests.

  • Live Service Tests
  • Acceptance
  • Integration
  • Unit

Live Service Tests.

The role of live service tests (LST) is to test the live system against the production environment and configuration. LST would be fewer in number than acceptance tests. Unlike acceptance tests, these should run constantly. Once a run has completed, kick of a new test run. This will require a dedicated machine or piece of infrastructure, but the value provided is well worth it.

LST should focus on journeys instead of functionality or features. In contrast to acceptance tests a user journey would be the core purpose of the system. For example, a LST suite to cover this blog would ensure the home page loads, an individual post can be loaded, and the archive is accessible. The rest of the site such as comments or social media interactions could be broken, but the core purpose of the system is working. Readers can read and browse the blog. If at any time the tests detect a failure in the core journey there is a big problem.

Why

LST offer the fastest feedback possible due to the fact they are constantly running. It is far more desirable to detect a problem before your users do. Naturally LST offer great protection after deploys. Deployment of new code is one of the times you are more likely to encounter issues, so a suite of tests triggered after a deployment is a natural fit. LST also protect against unplanned events. In my experience, exceeding disk space, DNS failure, third party issues and more have all be detected.

How To

Adding another suite of tests may sound like increased effort but the cost associated with LST is rather low. Sometimes acceptance tests can be run as LST, meaning no extra effort. Care must be taken here if the tests perform anything destructive or anything that interacts with third parties.

Alternatively writing LST is simpler than standard acceptance tests. The same tooling can be used such as Selenium, NUnit and so forth. As the tests themselves focus on journeys rather than functionality, the tests are often less complex to write.

The only difficulty LST introduce is the fact they are executing against the live system. Consider interactions with a third party. Using a real account on the real system may be problematic. One way to get around this issue is to embed test functionality within the system itself. For example you could set up a test account which the tests use. Instead of executing against the third party system, the dummy account is used. Likewise most third parties have test accounts which can be setup and used instead.

LST are a nice compliant to a diagnostic dashboard. If your dash is reporting no issues, and your tests are green, you can be confident the system is operating in a good enough state.

Lessons

  • Functional tests are not enough.
  • Use live service tests to test the real production system.
  • Run live service tests constantly for the earliest feedback possible.
  • Alter production code to introduce test functionality.
  • Make use of test accounts and anything else that third parties may offer.

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 …