Folks it is always said in TDD that
we should write junits even before we write the actual code.
Somehow I am not able to understand this in right spirit. I hope what it means is that you just write empty methods wih right signatures and your test case is expected to fail initially
Say in TDD approach i need to get the list of customers.
As per my understanding i will write the empty method like below
public List<CustomerData> getCustomers(int custId){
return null;
}
Now i will write junit test case where i will check the size as 10(that i am eactually expecting). Is this Right?
Basically my question is in TDD, How we can write junit test case before writing actual code?
I hope what it means is that you just write empty methods wih right signatures
Yes. And with most modern IDEs, if you write a method name which does not exist in your test, they will create a stub for you.
Say in TDD approach i need to get the list of customers. whats the right way to proceed?
Your example is not quite there. You want to test for a 0-length array, but you already return it: you should first return null, the test will obviously fail.
Then modify the method so that the test succeeds.
Then create a test method for customer add. Test fails. Fix it. Rinse. Repeat.
So, basically: with TDD, you start and write test that you KNOW will fail, and then fix your code so that they work.
Recommended read.
Often you'll write the test alongside the skeleton of the code. Initially you can write a non-functional implementation (e.g. throw an UnsupportedOperationException) and that will trigger a test failure. Then you'd flesh out the implementation until finally your test passes.
You need to be pragmatic about this. Obviously you can't compile your test until at least your unit under test compiles, and so you have to do a minimal amount of implementation work alongside your test.
Check out this recent Dr Dobbs editoral, which discusses exactly this point and the role of pragmatism around this, especially by the mavens of this practise (Kent Beck et al)
A key principle of TDD is that you write no code without first writing
a failing unit test. But in fact, if you talk to the principal
advocates of TDD (such as Kent Beck, who popularized the technique,
and Bob Martin, who has taught it to thousands of developers), you
find that both of them write some code without writing tests first.
They do not — I should emphasize this — view these moments as lapses
of faith, but rather as the necessary pragmatism of the intelligent
developer.
That's partly right.
Using an IDE (Eclipse, IntelliJ) you can create a test. In that test invoke a method (that does not exist) and using a refactoring tool create a method with the proper signature.
That's a trick that makes working with TDD easier and more fun.
According to Now i will write junit test case where i will check the size as 0. Is this Right? you should write a test that fails, and the provide proper implementation.
I think go write the test first, Think about the signature of the function while writing the test.
It's the same as writing the signature and then writing the test, But when inventing the signature of the function while writing the test will be helpful since you will have all information about the responsibility of the function and you will be able to come up with the proper signature.
Related
I have read a lot about test-driven design. My project is using tests, but currently they are written after the code has been written, and I am not clear how to do it in the other direction.
Simple example: I have a class Rectangle. It has private fields width and height with corresponding getters and setters. Common Java. Now, I want to add a function getArea() which returns the product of both, but I want to write the test first.
Of course, I can write a unit test. But it isn’t the case that it fails, but it does not even compile, because there is no getArea() function yet. Does that mean that writing the test always already involves changing the productive code to introduce dummys without functionality? Or do I have to write the test in a way that it uses introspection? I don’t like the latter approach, because it makes the code less readable and later refactoring with tools will not discover it and break the test, and I know that we refactor a lot. Also, adding ‘dummys’ may include lots of changes, i.e. if I need additional fields, the database must be changed for Hibernate to continue to work, … that seems way to much productive code changes for me when yet “writing tests only”. What I would like to have is a situation where I can actually only write code inside src/test/, not touching src/main at all, but without introspection.
Is there a way to do that?
Well, TDD does not mean, that you cannot have anything in the production code before writing the test.
For example:
You put your method, e.g. getArea(param1, param2) in your production code with an empty body.
Then you write the test with valid input and your expected result.
You run the test and it will fail.
Then you change the production code and run the test again.
If it still fails: back to the previous step.
If it passes, you write the next test.
A quick introduction can be found for example here: codeutopia -> 5-step-method-to-make-test-driven-development-and-unit-testing-easy
What I would like to have is a situation where I can actually only write code inside src/test/, not touching src/main at all, but without introspection.
There isn't, that I have ever seen, a way to write a test with a dependency on a new part of the API, and have that test immediately compile without first extending the API of the test subject.
It's introspection or nothing.
But it isn’t the case that it fails, but it does not even compile, because there is no getArea() function yet
Historically, writing code that couldn't compile was part of the rhythm of TDD. Write a little bit of test code, write a little bit of production code, write a little bit of test code, write a little bit of production code, and so on.
Robert Martin describes this as the nano-cycle of TDD
... the goal is always to promote the line by line granularity that I experienced while working with Kent so long ago.
I've abandoned the nano-cycle constraint in my own work. Perhaps I fail to appreciate it because I've never paired with Kent.
But I'm perfectly happy to write tests that don't compile, and then back fill the production code I need when the test is in a satisfactory state. That works well for me because I normally work in a development environment that can generate production implementations at just a few key strokes.
Another possibility is to consider a discipline like TDD as if you meant it, which does a lot more of the real work in the test source hierarchy before moving code into the production hierarchy.
I've been working on Android dev quite sometimes, but never fully adopt TDD in Android. However I tried recently to develop my new app with complete TDD. So here is my opinion..
Does that mean that writing the test always already involves changing the productive code to introduce dummys without functionality?
I think is the yes. As I understand every tests are equivalent to every specs/use cases I have on the software. So writing a fail test first is about the attempt to filling in the requirement specs with test codes. Then when I tried to fill the productive code to pass the just-written TC, I really tried to make it work. After a doing this a while, I was pretty surprised how with my productive code size is very small, but it's able to fill how much of the requirement.
For me personally all the fail TC I wrote before productive code, were actually come from list of questions, which I brainstormed them about the requirement, and I sometimes used it to explore edge cases of requirement.
So the basic workflow is Red - Green - Refactor, which I got from the presentation from Bryan Breecham - https://www.infoq.com/presentations/tdd-lego/
About,
What I would like to have is a situation where I can actually only write code inside src/test/, not touching src/main at all, but without introspection.
For me I think it's possible, when you write all your productive logic first, then UT plays the roles of fulfilling the requirement. It's just the another way around. So in overall I think TDD is the approach but people may use Unit Test in different purposes, e.g reduce testing time, etc.
On my unit test I want to check if one or another method was called. I can easily verify how many times some methods are called thanks to Mockito, but verify has no verification mode like "OR". Any workarounds?
In my case I want to check if on SharedPreferences.Editor was called .apply() or .commit() because two of this possibilities satisfies me and saves data. Unfortunately if I call verify(mEditor).apply() but someone will change implementation to .commit() in example due to requirement of instant save, the test will fail, but shouldn't because I want to only test from this point of view if data are saved or not. It's the unit test and should be independent from changes like that and checks only scope of what are tested inside.
The work around you ask for would be to catch the underlying MockitoAssertionError (or just AssertionError):
try {
verify(mEditor).apply();
} catch (MockitoAssertionError mae) {
// apply was not called. Let's verify commit instead.
verify(mEditor).commit();
}
Alternatively, if both apply and commit call some (internal) save method you could also try verifying that (assuming it is exposed -- mock-based testing can be at odds with information hiding). Or, if you have control over the code you're testing you could refactor it along these lines.
The better advice, though, would be to avoid the need for this altogether, as argued in the answer by #GhostCat.
I am not aware of a good way of doing that, and honestly, I think the real answer is: do not do that. Yes, the other answer shows a way to achieve what you ask for, but then:
You know what your production code should be doing. Meaning: instead of writing a single piece of verification code that allows "this or that", rather write two independent tests, one for "this", and one for "that".
In other words: you control what goes into your tests. So write one test that should result in apply(), and one that should result in commit(). And then verify() that one case that each test is expected to see!
Unit tests should be straight forward. When something fails, you quickly look at the unit test and you already know where to look in the production code to spot the root cause. Anything that adds complexity to your tests might make that harder. It is better to have two tests that follow a clear "when then verify" path, instead of having one (or multiple) tests that go "when then verify this OR verify that".
I am learner in writing Junit Test Cases. I have seen writing Junit cases Pattern that We usually make test class for each class indivisually by their name and write test cases for each method of that class in its respective class so that maximum code coverage can occur.
What I was thinking If I make test cases for my feature that would be better choice because In future any number of methods Signature changes I don't have to change or create again unnecessary test cases for those modified methods or newly created. Because that moment I would have certain test cases for my developed feature. So my test cases are running fine for particular feature then I can be sure in minimum number of test cases code that everything is fine.
By keeping this I don't have to write test cases for each and every methods of each class. Is it a good way?
Well, test cases are written for a reason. Each and every methods have to be working properly as expected. If you only do test cases for the feature level, how do you find exactly where the error occurred and how confidently you can ship your code to next level?
The better approach will be to do unit test cases for each class and do an integration test to make sure everything works good.
We found success in utilizing both. By default we use one per class. But when particular use-cases come up, e.g. use-cases that involve multiple classes or use cases where the existing boiler plate testing code prevents the use case from being properly tested, then we would create a test class for that scenario.
by keeping this I don't have to write test cases for each and every
methods of each class. Is it a good way?
In this case you write only integration tests and no unit tests.
Writing tests for use cases is really nice but it is not enough because it is hard to cover all cases of all methods invoked in an integration test because there may have a very important number of branches while it is much easier in an unit test.
Besides, a use case test may be successful for bad reasons : thanks to side effects between multiple methods invoked.
By writing an unit test you protect yourself against this kind of issue.
Definitively, unit and integration tests are are not opposed but complementary. So you have to write both to get a robust application.
I'm coming from a Perl background where I used Test::More to handle unit testing. Using that framework, I knew the order in which the tests took place and could rely on that, which I understand is not encouraged with the JUnit framework. I've seen several ways to get around this, but I want to understand the proper/intended way of doing things.
In my Perl unit testing I would build up tests, knowing that if test #3 passed, I could make some assumptions in further tests. I don't quite see how to structure that in the JUnit world so that I can make every test completely independent.
For example, suppose I have a class that parses a date from a string. Methods include:
parse a simple date (YYYY-MM-DD)
parse a simple date with alternate separator (YYYY_MM_DD or YYYY/MM/DD)
parse a date with a string for a month name (YYYY-MON-DD)
parse a date with a string month name in a different language
and so on
I usually write my code to focus as many of the externally-accessible methods into as few core methods as possible, re-using as much code as possible (which is what most of us would do, I'm sure). So, let's say I have 18 different tests for the first method, 9 that are expected to pass and 9 that throw an exception. For the second method, I only have 3 tests, one each with the separators that work ('_' & '/') and one with a separator that doesn't work ('*') which is expected to fail. I can limit myself to the new code being introduced because I already know that the code properly handles the standard boundary conditions and common errors, because the first 18 tests already passed.
In the Perl world, if test #20 fails, I know that it's probably something to do with the specific separator, and is not a general date parsing error because all of those tests have already passed. In the JUnit world, where tests run in a random order, if test #20 fails, I don't know if it's because of a general date parsing issue or because of the separator. I'd have to go and see which other ones failed and then make some assumptions there. That's not too hard to do, of course, but maybe in a bigger, more complex class, it would be more difficult to do.
How do other people deal with building up a set of tests? Should I put each and every test in a separate class and use a test suite? That seems tedious. (And before someone suggests that I put the first18 in one class and the second 3 in another, and use a test suite for just those groupings, let's pretend that all 18 of the early tests build on each other, too).
And, again, I know there are ways around this (FixedMethodOrder in JUnit 4.11+ or JUnit-HierarchicalContextRunner) but I want to understand the paradigm as its intended to be used.
In the JUnit world, where tests run in a random order, if test #20 fails, I don't know if it's because of a general date parsing issue or because of the separator. I'd have to go and see which other ones failed and then make some assumptions there.
Yes that is correct. If something in your code is broken then multiple tests may fail. That is a good thing. Use intent revealing test method names and possibly use the optional String message parameter in the JUnit assertions to explain what exactly failed the test.
How do other people deal with building up a set of tests? Should I put each and every test in a separate class and use a test suite?
The general convention is one test class per source class. Depending on what build tool you are using, you may or may not need to use test suites. If you are using Ant, you probably need to collect the tests into test suites, but if you are using Maven, the test plugins for maven will find all your test classes for you so you don't need suites.
I also want to point out that you should be coding to Java interfaces as much as possible. If you are testing class C that depends on an implementation of interface I, then you should mock your I implementation in your C test class so that C is tested in isolation. Your mock I should follow what the interface is supposed to do. This also keeps the number of failing tests down. If there is a bug in your real I implementation, then only your I tests should fail, the C tests should still all pass (since you are testing it against a fake but working I implementation)
Don't worry about suites yet. You'll know when you need them. I've only had to use them a handful of times, and I'm not entirely sold on their usefulness...but I leave that decision up to you.
To the meat of your question - the conventional way with JUnit tests is to neither know nor depend on the order of execution of your tests; this ensures that your tests are not run-order dependent, and if they are, something is wrong with your tests* and validation.
The main core concept behind unit tests is that they test a unit of code - as simple as a single function. If you're attempting to test five different things at once, your test is far too large, and should be broken out. If the method you're testing is monolithic in nature, and difficult to test, it should be refactored and broken out into different slices of responsibility.
Tests that exercise a larger flow are better suited for integration-style tests, which tend to be written as unit tests, but aren't actually unit tests.
I've not run into a scenario in which, if I knew that if a certain test failed, I could expect different behavior in the other tests. I've never thought that such a thing was necessary to be noted, since the only thing I care about in my unit test is how that unit of code behaves given a certain input.
Keep your tests small and simple to understand; the test should only make one assertion about the result (or a general assertion of the state of your result).
*: That's not to say that it's completely broken, but those sorts of tests should be fixed sooner rather than later.
I write jUnit test cases for 3 purposes:
To ensure that my code satisfies all of the required functionality, under all (or most of) the input combinations/values.
To ensure that I can change the implementation, and rely on JUnit test cases to tell me that all my functionality is still satisfied.
As a documentation of all the use cases my code handles, and act as a spec for refactoring - should the code ever need to be rewritten. (Refactor the code, and if my jUnit tests fail - you probably missed some use case).
I do not understand why or when Mockito.verify() should be used. When I see verify() being called, it is telling me that my jUnit is becoming aware of the implementation. (Thus changing my implementation would break my jUnits, even though my functionality was unaffected).
I'm looking for:
What should be the guidelines for appropriate usage of Mockito.verify()?
Is it fundamentally correct for jUnits to be aware of, or tightly coupled to, the implementation of the class under test?
If the contract of class A includes the fact that it calls method B of an object of type C, then you should test this by making a mock of type C, and verifying that method B has been called.
This implies that the contract of class A has sufficient detail that it talks about type C (which might be an interface or a class). So yes, we're talking about a level of specification that goes beyond just "system requirements", and goes some way to describing implementation.
This is normal for unit tests. When you are unit testing, you want to ensure that each unit is doing the "right thing", and that will usually include its interactions with other units. "Units" here might mean classes, or larger subsets of your application.
Update:
I feel that this doesn't apply just to verification, but to stubbing as well. As soon as you stub a method of a collaborator class, your unit test has become, in some sense, dependent on implementation. It's kind of in the nature of unit tests to be so. Since Mockito is as much about stubbing as it is about verification, the fact that you're using Mockito at all implies that you're going to run across this kind of dependency.
In my experience, if I change the implementation of a class, I often have to change the implementation of its unit tests to match. Typically, though, I won't have to change the inventory of what unit tests there are for the class; unless of course, the reason for the change was the existence of a condition that I failed to test earlier.
So this is what unit tests are about. A test that doesn't suffer from this kind of dependency on the way collaborator classes are used is really a sub-system test or an integration test. Of course, these are frequently written with JUnit too, and frequently involve the use of mocking. In my opinion, "JUnit" is a terrible name, for a product that lets us produce all different types of test.
David's answer is of course correct but doesn't quite explain why you would want this.
Basically, when unit testing you are testing a unit of functionality in isolation. You test whether the input produces the expected output. Sometimes, you have to test side effects as well. In a nutshell, verify allows you to do that.
For example you have bit of business logic that is supposed to store things using a DAO. You could do this using an integration test that instantiates the DAO, hooks it up to the business logic and then pokes around in the database to see if the expected stuff got stored. That's not a unit test any more.
Or, you could mock the DAO and verify that it gets called in the way you expect. With mockito you can verify that something is called, how often it is called, and even use matchers on the parameters to ensure it gets called in a particular way.
The flip side of unit testing like this is indeed that you are tying the tests to the implementation which makes refactoring a bit harder. On the other hand, a good design smell is the amount of code it takes to exercise it properly. If your tests need to be very long, probably something is wrong with the design. So code with a lot of side effects/complex interactions that need to be tested is probably not a good thing to have.
This is great question!
I think the root cause of it is the following, we are using JUnit not only for unit testing. So the question should be splited up:
Should I use Mockito.verify() in my integration (or any other higher-than-unit testing) testing?
Should I use Mockito.verify() in my black-box unit-testing?
Should I use Mockito.verify() in my white-box unit-testing?
so if we will ignore higher-than-unit testing, the question can be rephrased "Using white-box unit-testing with Mockito.verify() creates great couple between unit test and my could implementation, can I make some "grey-box" unit-testing and what rules of thumb I should use for this".
Now, let's go through all of this step-by-step.
*- Should I use Mockito.verify() in my integration (or any other higher-than-unit testing) testing?*
I think the answer is clearly no, moreover you shouldn't use mocks for this. Your test should be as close to real application as possible. You are testing complete use case, not isolated part of the application.
*black-box vs white-box unit-testing*
If you are using black-box approach what is you really doing, you supply (all equivalence classes) input, a state, and tests that you will receive expected output. In this approach using of mocks in general is justifies (you just mimic that they are doing the right thing; you don't want to test them), but calling Mockito.verify() is superfluous.
If you are using white-box approach what is you really doing, you're testing the behaviour of your unit. In this approach calling to Mockito.verify() is essential, you should verify that your unit behaves as you're expecting to.
rules of thumbs for grey-box-testing
The problem with white-box testing is it creates a high coupling. One possible solution is to do grey-box-testing, not white-box-testing. This is sort of combination of black&white box testing. You are really testing the behaviour of your unit like in white-box testing, but in general you make it implementation-agnostic when possible. When it is possible, you will just make a check like in black-box case, just asserts that output is what is your expected to be. So, the essence of your question is when it is possible.
This is really hard. I don't have a good example, but I can give you to examples. In the case that was mentioned above with equals() vs equalsIgnoreCase() you shouldn't call Mockito.verify(), just assert the output. If you couldn't do it, break down your code to the smaller unit, until you can do it. On the other hand, suppose you have some #Service and you are writting #Web-Service that is essentially wrapper upon your #Service - it delegates all calls to the #Service (and making some extra error handling). In this case calling to Mockito.verify() is essential, you shouldn't duplicate all of your checks that you did for the #Serive, verifying that you're calling to #Service with correct parammeter list is sufficient.
I must say, that you are absolutely right from a classical approach's point of view:
If you first create (or change) business logic of your application and then cover it with (adopt) tests (Test-Last approach), then it will be very painful and dangerous to let tests know anything about how your software works, other than checking inputs and outputs.
If you are practicing a Test-Driven approach, then your tests are the first to be written, to be changed and to reflect the use cases of your software's functionality. The implementation depends on tests. That sometimes mean, that you want your software to be implemented in some particular way, e.g. rely on some other component's method or even call it a particular amount of times. That is where Mockito.verify() comes in handy!
It is important to remember, that there are no universal tools. The type of software, it's size, company goals and market situation, team skills and many other things influence the decision on which approach to use at your particular case.
In most cases when people don't like using Mockito.verify, it is because it is used to verify everything that the tested unit is doing and that means you will need to adapt your test if anything changes in it.
But, I don't think that is a problem. If you want to be able to change what a method does without the need to change it's test, that basically means you want to write tests which don't test everything your method is doing, because you don't want it to test your changes. And that is the wrong way of thinking.
What really is a problem, is if you can modify what your method does and a unit test which is supposed to cover the functionality entirely doesn't fail. That would mean that whatever the intention of your change is, the result of your change isn't covered by the test.
Because of that, I prefer to mock as much as possible: also mock your data objects. When doing that you can not only use verify to check that the correct methods of other classes are called, but also that the data being passed is collected via the correct methods of those data objects. And to make it complete, you should test the order in which calls occur.
Example: if you modify a db entity object and then save it using a repository, it is not enough to verify that the setters of the object are called with the correct data and that the save method of the repository is called. If they are called in the wrong order, your method still doesn't do what it should do.
So, I don't use Mockito.verify but I create an inOrder object with all mocks and use inOrder.verify instead. And if you want to make it complete, you should also call Mockito.verifyNoMoreInteractions at the end and pass it all the mocks. Otherwise someone can add new functionality/behavior without testing it, which would mean after while your coverage statistics can be 100% and still you are piling up code which isn't asserted or verified.
As some people said
Sometimes you don't have a direct output on which you can assert
Sometimes you just need to confirm that your tested method is sending the correct indirect outputs to its collaborators (which you are mocking).
Regarding your concern about breaking your tests when refactoring, that is somewhat expected when using mocks/stubs/spies. I mean that by definition and not regarding a specific implementation such as Mockito.
But you could think in this way - if you need to do a refactoring that would create major changes on the way your method works, it is a good idea to do it on a TDD approach, meaning you can change your test first to define the new behavior (that will fail the test), and then do the changes and get the test passed again.