Skip to main content

Convention Based Tests

Most projects have some form of convention. Examples would include:

  • Attributes/Properties for REST API's
  • Inheritance for third party base types
  • Assemblies/Packages for third party code that is loaded dynamically
  • Folder or namespace conventions
  • And many other forms of conventions

In a few of these examples static analysis can detect issues, but the majority of these problems would resolve only at runtime.

A technique I've used in the past to great success is the concept of convention based tests (CBT). These are tests that ensure a particular convention is followed. As a general practice CBT tend to be written after the discovery of a problem as it is preferable to rely upon higher level tests initially. The good news is that CBT ensure that such problems never return and if a convention is broken you'll be notified during your test run.

In terms of quantity there will be a very small number of these tests, and unlike typical tests that focus on behaviour rather than implementation, these tests are focused on implementation.

Reflection

Tests generally should favour readability and clarity over the removal of duplication. Additionally the use of programming constructs such as loops or conditionals within tests are usually a bad idea. Using reflection is not recommended in most cases though the opposite is true for CBT.

Reflection allows the previous examples to have tests written in a fairly flexible and dynamic manner. Future changes would automatically be tested.

  • Tests to ensure particular types within a namespace have the correct attribute/property applied.
  • Tests to ensure particular types within a namespace have the correct base class.
  • Tests that assemblies/packages required at runtime are present within the bin directory.
  • Tests that folders/namespaces match a team/project naming standard.
  • And so on.

Simpler Tests

In some cases reflection is not a suitable tool for convention based tools. In this scenarios a simpler style of test is required. These are essentially convention based tests that ensure additional tests are written. These simple tests act more as a prompt to the developer reminding them to add a test for a particular convention.

This test would first detect how many types exist within the namespace and then detect how many tests have been written for those types. While this style of test does nothing other than really count the number of expected conventions versus the number of tests, the failure of this test provides a hint to the developer that they have forgotten something.

The key with these simple detection tests is to provide a good failure message that includes details on why the test failed, and more importantly why and how a new test should be added.

These simple CBT work when the use of reflection is difficult. While they may seem primitive, they do provide value as simple reminders to add future tests. Despite this it's worth remembering they provide no guarantee of the quality of the additional tests that are written. Here peer review is required.

Lessons

  • Add convention based tests if a convention cannot be detected by static analysis or you cannot detect issues with higher level tests.
  • Reflection is a valid tool to write a single CBT that covers many areas.
  • If a CBT is hard to write, use a test to prompt you to add further tests in the future.

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 …