Its (almost) my first time trying to create code by TDD principles. But i'm having troubles how to start.
In example: I want to mutate some information about a person.
To make it easy, a person has only these values:
- FirstName
- LastName
- Email
What i need at the end:
- A person DTO
- A person entity (Nhibernate)
- Functionality to store the dto values in the Database. At the end i need to return a succes or an error (possibly a boolean).
With the given information, how to start at all? It's a global question, but that's because i have no clue how to start. I've red many articles but somehow i get stuck already.
Edit:
- I'm using MVC: MVC will give a DTO (filled from form fields) back.
So the MVC start call could be something like this:
public JsonResult MutatePerson(PersonDto person){
//Call functions by TDD here
return Json(true);
}
You've described the objects involved, but not the operations.
Presumably you need a read() operation, a write() operation. Perhaps a list() operation ?
All of the above should have tests associated with them e.g.
testCanReadViaId();
testCanThrowExceptionOnReadingInvalidId();
testCanWrite();
etc.
For a lot of work you should mock your datasources etc. and position (say) hardcoded data under your persistenc elayer such that you don't rely on a database. However for something like the above I would definitely test the basic database interaction.
As such you may need to (initially) point a test suite against a database with canned data. If you want to be more flexible, then your test setup code could write the entities into the database first, prior to running the tests.
Your tests should test different permutations of data and operations e.g. in the above I've suggested a test to read an object via a valid id (say, 1) and a similar operation against an invalid id (say, -1). You may also want to check different data combinations (e.g. does everything work if the email address isn't populated - this may be valid if the database column is nullable)
Using TDD, you should use interfaces as arguments. Interfaces can be mocked, and with a mock you test the MutatePerson method, and ONLY that. In a unit test, you only want to test how a method reacts to input, not how the object reacts to the method. If you test how the DTO object behaves as well, you are writing an integration test.
So, use the interface of PersonDto (create one if it doesn't exist). And use that as method argument instead of the concrete class.
It might be just me, but I have the feeling that you're starting off with little idea of what your global system should look like in terms of layers, modules and the dependencies and interactions between them.
TDD's emergent design sure works at the level of a small object graph, but you won't get away without doing some amount of overall architectural design first (not big upfront design, but enough to get you started).
With that in mind, I think you'll have a far better idea of what to test.
Once you've figured that out, I think you should :
Learn about object-oriented unit testing techniques, and by unit testing I mean testing things in isolation. Roy Osherove's Art Of Unit Testing is an excellent place to start for a .NET developer.
Learn about architecture-level TDD strategies. With the articles you read you certainly got an idea of how to do TDD in the small, but you need a more global approach : what should you TDD first, in what order, etc. A book like GOOS might help you in that department.
Related
I have some entity in my application called Offer. It has some fields like price, description and 3-4 more. As I'm learning TDD at the moment I don't want to introduce those fields without tests requiring them. The problem is field like title does not have any business meaning I can require so the test would be:
user creates offer with title "xyz"
assert that offer has title xyz
Is there any other way to introduce this kind of field. Should I even bother writing test for such case?
In TDD you write tests for functionality. In your case the field itself is not important. You want that an instance keeps an specific value. A test for this could be:
sut.setProperty(value)
assertThat(sut.getProperty(), is(value)
But i would not write tests for this since there is no real functionality in it. You should have other tests which uses those properties and cover getter/setter for it. Exception is when getter/setter contains some kind of logic for example that a value has a upper limit.
The core aspect here: good OOP focuses on behavior not, on state. In other words: at least when talking about object oriented languages, you prefer to not expose fields to the outside of your class.
Instead you think in terms of behavior - aka methods. In that sense, the other answer is correct; you would rather create getter/setters and verify those.
One disclaimer here: if possible, avoid setters. Rather make sure that your fields are assigned exactly once (by the constructor). In other words: strive to write immutable classes.
Coming back to my initial point: how a "field" is implemented is an internal implementation detail. That is something that you do not want the outside world to know about - so that you are free to change the implementation if required!
First, Please bear with me with all my questions. I have never used TDD before but more and more I come to realize that I should. I have read a lot of posts and how to guides on TDD but some things are still not clear. Most example used for demonstration are either math calculation or some other simple operations. I also started reading Roy Osherove's book about TDD. Here are some questions I have:
If you have an object in your solution, for instance an Account class, what is the benefit of testing setting a property on it, for example an account name, then you Assert that whatever you set is right. Would this ever fail?
Another example, an account balance, you create an object with balance 300 then you assert that the balance is actually 300. How would that ever fail? What would I be testing here? I can see testing a subtraction operation with different input parameters would be more of a good test.
What should I actually test my objects for? methods or properties? sometime you also have objects as service in an infrastructure layer. In the case of methods, if you have a three tier app and the business layer is calling the data layer for some data. What gets tested in that case? the parameters? the data object not being null? what about in the case of services?
Then on to my question regarding real life project, if you have a green project and you want to start it with TDD. What do you start with first? do you divide your project into features then tdd each one or do you actually pick arbitrarily and you go from there.
For example, I have a new project and it requires a login capability. Do I start with creating User tests or Account tests or Login tests. Which one I start with first? What do I test in that class first?
Let's say I decide to create a User class that has a username and password and some other properties. I'm supposed to create the test first, fix all build error, run the test for it to fail then fix again to get a green light then refactor. So what are the first tests I should create on that class? For example, is it:
Username_Length_Greater_Than_6
Username_Length_Less_Than_12
Password_Complexity
If you assert that length is greater than 6, how is that testing the code? do we test that we throw an error if it's less than 6?
I am sorry if I was repetitive with my questions. I'm just trying to get started with TDD and I have not been able to have a mindset change. Thank you and hopefully someone can help me determine what am I missing here. By the way, does anyone know of any discussion groups or chats regarding TDD that I can join?
Have a look at low-level BDD. This post by Dan North introduces it quite well.
Rather than testing properties, think about the behavior you're looking for. For instance:
Account Behavior:
should allow a user to choose the account name
should allow funds to be added to the account
User Registration Behavior:
should ensure that all usernames are between 6 and 12 characters
should ask the password checker if the password is complex enough <-- you'd use a mock here
These would then become tests for each class, with the "should" becoming the test name. Each test is an example of how the class can be used valuably. Instead of testing methods and properties, you're showing someone else (or your future self) why the class is valuable and how to change it safely.
We also do something in BDD called "outside-in". So start with the GUI (or normally the controller / presenter, since we don't often unit-test the GUI).
You already know how the GUI will use the controller. Now write an example of that. You'll probably have more than one aspect of behavior, so write more examples until the controller works. The controller will have a number of collaborating classes that you haven't written yet, so mock those out - just dependency inject them via an interface. You can write them later.
When you've finished with the controller, replace the next thing you've mocked out in the real system by real code, and test-drive that. Oh, and don't bother mocking out domain objects (like Account) - it'll be a pain in the neck - but do inject any complex behavior into them and mock that out instead.
This way, you're always writing the interface that you wish you had - something that's easy to use - for every class. You're describing the behavior of that class and providing some examples of how to use it. You're making it safe and easy to change, and the appropriate design will emerge (feel free to be guided by patterns, thoughtful common sense and experience).
BTW, with Login, I tend to work out what the user wants to log in for, then code that first. Add Login later - it's usually not very risky and doesn't change much once it's written, so you may not even need to unit-test it. Up to you.
Test until fear is replaced by boredom. Property accessors and constructors are high cost to benefit to write tests against. I usually test them indirectly as part of some other (higher) test.
For a new project, I'd recommend looking at ATDD. Find a user-story that you want to pick first (based on user value). Write an acceptance test that should pass when the user story is done. Now drill down into the types that you'd need to get the AT to pass -- using TDD. The acceptance test will tell you which objects and what behaviors are required. You then implement them one at a time using TDD. When all your tests (incl your acc. test) pass - you pick up the next user story and repeat.
Let's say you pick 'Create user' as your first story. Then you write examples of how that should work. Turn them into automated acceptance tests.
create valid user -> account should be created
create invalid user ( diff combinations that show what is invalid ) -> account shouldn't be created, helpful error shown to the user
AccountsVM.CreateUser(username, password)
AccountsVM.HasUser(username)
AccountsVM.ErrorMessage
The test would show that you need the above. You then go test-drive them them out.
Don't test what is too simple to break.
getters and setters are too simple to be broken, so said, the code is so simple that an error can not happen.
you test the public methods and assert the response is as expected. If the method return void you have to test "collateral consequences" (sometimes is not easy, eg to test a email was sent). When this happens you can use mocks to test not the response but how the method executes (you ask the mockk if the Class Under Test called him the desired way)
I start doing Katas to learn the basics: JUnit and TestNG; then Harmcrest; then read EasyMock or Mockito documentation.
Look for katas at github, or here
http://codekata.pragprog.com
http://codingdojo.org/
The first test should be the easiest one! Maybe one that just force you to create the CUT (class under test)
But again, try katas!
http://codingdojo.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?KataFizzBuzz
A few general questions to those who are well-versed in developing web-based applications.
Question 1:
How do you avoid the problem of "dependency carrying"? From what I understand, the first point of object retrieval should happen in your controller's action method. From there, you can use a variety of models, classes, services, and components that can require certain objects.
How do you avoid the need to pass an object to another just because an object it uses requires it? I'd like to avoid going to the database/cache to get the data again, but I also don't want to create functions that require a ton of parameters. Should the controller action be the place where you create every object that you'll eventually need for the request?
Question 2:
What data do you store in the session? My understanding is that you should generally only store things like user id, email address, name, and access permissions.
What if you have data that needs to be analyzed for every request when a user is logged in? Should you store the entire user object in the cache versus the session?
Question 3:
Do you place your data-retrieval methods in the model itself or in a separate object that gets the data and returns a model? What are the advantages to this approach?
Question 4:
If your site is driven by a user id, how do you unit test your code base? Is this why you should have all of your data-retrieval methods in a centralized place so you can override it in your unit tests?
Question 5:
Generally speaking, do you unit test your controllers? I have heard many say that it's a difficult and even a bad practice. What is your opinion of it? What exactly do you test within your controllers?
Any other tidbits of information that you'd like to share regarding best practices are welcome! I'm always willing to learn more.
How do you avoid the problem of "dependency carrying"?
Good object oriented design of a BaseController SuperClass can handle a lot of the heavy lifting of instantiating commonly used objects etc. Usage of Composite types to share data across calls is a not so uncommon practice. E.g. creating some Context Object unique to your application within the Controller to share information among processes isn't a terrible idea.
What data do you store in the session?
As few things as is humanly possible.
If there is some data intensive operation which requires a lot of overhead to process AND it's required quite often by the application, it is a suitable candidate for session storage. And yes, storage of information such as User Id and other personalization information is not a bad practice for session state. Generally though the usage of cookies is the preferred method for personalization. Always remember though to never, ever, trust the content of cookies e.g. properly validate what's read before trusting it.
Do you place your data-retrieval methods in the model itself or in a separate object that gets the data and returns a model?
I prefer to use the Repository pattern for my models. The model itself usually contains simple business rule validations etc while the Repository hits a Business Object for results and transformations/manipulations. There are a lot of Patterns and ORM tools out in the market and this is a heavily debated topic so it sometimes just comes down to familiarity with tools etc...
What are the advantages to this approach?
The advantage I see with the Repository Pattern is the dumber your models are, the easier they are to modify. If they are representatives of a Business Object (such as a web service or data table), changes to those underlying objects is sufficiently abstracted from the presentation logic that is my MVC application. If I implement all the logic to load the model within the model itself, I am kind of violating a separation of concerns pattern. Again though, this is all very subjective.
If your site is driven by a user id, how do you unit test your code base?
It is highly advised to use Dependency Injection whenever possible in code. Some IoC Containers take care of this rather efficiently and once understood greatly improve your overall architecture and design. That being said, the user context itself should be implemented via some form of known interface that can then be "mocked" in your application. You can then, in your test harness, mock any user you wish and all dependent objects won't know the difference because they will be simply looking at an interface.
Generally speaking, do you unit test your controllers?
Absolutely. Since controllers are expected to return known content-types, with the proper testing tools we can use practices to mock the HttpContext information, call the Action Method and view the results to see they match our expectations. Sometimes this results in looking only for HTTP status codes when the result is some massive HTML document, but in the cases of a JSON response we can readily see that the action method is returning all scenario's information as expected
What exactly do you test within your controllers?
Any and all publicly declared members of your controller should be tested thoroughly.
Long question, longer answer. Hope this helps anyone and please just take this all as my own opinion. A lot of these questions are religious debates and you're always safe just practicing proper Object Oriented Design, SOLID, Interface Programming, DRY etc...
Regarding dependency explosion, the book Dependency Injection in .NET (which is excellent) explains that too many dependencies reveals that your controller is taking on too much responsibility, i.e. is violating the single responsibility principle. Some of that responsibility should be abstracted behind aggregates that perform multiple operations.
Basically, your controller should be dumb. If it needs that many dependencies to do its job, it's doing too much! It should just take user input (e.g. URLs, query strings, or POST data) and pass along that data, in the appropriate format, to your service layer.
Example, drawn from the book
We start with an OrderService with dependencies on OrderRepository, IMessageService, IBillingSystem, IInventoryManagement, and ILocationService. It's not a controller, but the same principle applies.
We notice that ILocationService and IInventoryManagement are both really implementation details of an order fulfillment algorithm (use the location service to find the closest warehouse, then manage its inventory). So we abstract them into IOrderFulfillment, and a concrete implementation LocationOrderFulfillment that uses IInventoryManagement and ILocationService. This is cool, because we have hidden some details away from our OrderService and furthermore brought to light an important domain concept: order fulfillment. We could implement this domain concept in a non-location-based way now, without having to change OrderService, since it only depends on the interface.
Next we notice that IMessageService, IBillingSystem, and our new IOrderFulfillment abstractions are all really used in the same way: they are notified about the order. So we create an INotificationService, and make MessageNotification a concrete implementation of both INotificationService and IMessageService. Similarly for BillingNotification and OrderFulfillmentNotification.
Now here's the trick: we create a new CompositeNotificationService, which derives from INotificationService and delegates to various "child" INotificationService instances. The concrete instance we use to solve our original problem will delegate in particular to MessageNotification, BillingNotification, and OrderFulfillmentNotification. But if we wish to notify more systems, we don' have to go edit our controller: we just have to implement our particular CompositeNotificationService differently.
Our OrderService now depends only on OrderRepository and INotificationService, which is much more reasonable! It has two constructor parameters instead of 5, and most importantly, it takes on almost no responsibility for figuring out what to do.
I'm reading through the (still beta) rspec book by the prag progs as I'm interested in behavioral testing on objects. From what I've gleaned so far (caveat: after only reading for 30 min), the basic idea is that I want ensure my object behaves as expected 'externally' i.e. in its output and in relation to other objects.
Is it true then that I should just be black box testing my object to ensure the proper output/interaction with other objects?
This may be completely wrong, but given all of the focus on how my object behaves in the system, it seems this is ideology one would take. If that's so, how do we focus on the implementation of an object? How do I test that my private method is doing what I want it to do for all different types of input?
I suppose this question is maybe valid for all types of testing?? I'm still fairly new to TDD and BDD.
If you want to understand BDD better, try thinking about it without using the word "test".
Instead of writing a test, you're going to write an example of how you can use your class (and you can't use it except through public methods). You're going to show why your class is valuable to other classes. You're defining the scope of your class's responsibilities, while showing (through mocks) what responsibilities are delegated elsewhere.
At the same time, you can question whether the responsibilities are appropriate, and tune the methods on your class to be as intuitively usable as possible. You're looking for code which is easy to understand and use, rather than code which is easy to write.
If you can think in terms of examples and providing value through behaviour, you'll create code that's easy to use, with examples and descriptions that other people can follow. You'll make your code safe and easy to change. If you think about testing, you'll pin it down so that nobody can break it. You'll make it hard to change.
If it's complex enough that there are internal methods you really want to test separately, break them out into another class then show why that class is valuable and what it does for the class that uses it.
Hope this helps!
I think there are two issues here.
One is that from the BDD perspective, you are typically testing at a higher level than from the TDD perspective. So your BDD tests will assert a bigger piece of functionality than your TDD tests and should always be "black box" tests.
The second is that if you feel the need to test private methods, even at the unit test level, that could be a code smell that your code is violating the Single Responsibilty Principle
and should be refactored so that the methods you care about can be tested as public methods of a different class. Michael Feathers gave an interesting talk about this recently called "The Deep Synergy Between Testability and Good Design."
Yes, focus on the exposed functionality of the class. Private methods are just part of a public function you will test. This point is a bit controversial, but in my opinion it should be enough to test the public functionality of a class (everything else also violates the OOP principle).
I consider myself still pretty new to the TDD scene. But find that no matter which method I use (mock framework or stubbing my own objects) I find that I have to write a lot of code to create mock data. I like the idea of loading up objects to create an in-memory database. But what I don't like is cluttering up my tests with a ton of code for the sole purpose of creating mock data. This is especially the case when the data needs to account for all the different cases.
I'd love some suggestions for a better way of doing this.
It would seem to me that I should be able to load the data once into a known state from some data store and then I could use a snapshot of that state which is loaded in the test setup/initialize before each test method is executed. This would satisfy proper testing practices while providing convenience and let me focus on writing tests instead of writing code to create test data "by hand".
May be you could try the NBuilder library. It provides a very fluent interface and is easy to use. You can use it for generating single instances of a class with defualt values or generate lists with default or overriden values. You can have a look at this one.
If your are using .Net Try NDBUnit
You populate your store and then it reverts your DB to a known state at test time, for each test. The Autumn of Agile screen cast series shows this in pretty good detail.
Or you can do this manually...build a stored procedure or whatever to truncate your tables and copy in the data in your teardown method.
You can have Builder class(es) that helps you building the instances you need / in this case ones you would use related to the repository.
Have the Builder use appropiate defaults, and on your tests you can overwride what you need. This helps you avoid needing to put have every single case of "data" mixed up for all the different tests (which introduces problems, because usually there are cases that aren't compatible for different tests).
**Update 1:**Take a look at www.markhneedham.com/blog/2009/01/21/c-builder-pattern-still-useful-for-test-data
I know exactly what you mean. I think a good approach to solving this problem is to actually have a separate MockFramework project that houses all your mock data, outside the test project. This way you can generate mock data separately, store it in memory if you want to, or not, and then reference the mock framework from the test project. If you use a third party framework to do this, all the better, but you can still wrap that third party framework in your own mock framework so you can get all that "glue" that creates the mock data the way you need it out of your tests so the tests can really be only what they need to be.
Thanks for all the suggestions, I think the solution requires a little bit of everything. I don't want these tests to end up being regression tests, but w/o some kind of existing data store everything still boils down to creating the data by "manually" building the objects.
What would really be nice would be a framework that allowed me to use my existing DAL to either script the data to code for me or get the data in memory and access it like an in memory database.
Untils.org covers this way better than I ever could.
Their whole guide is actually very good.
But basically, if your units require "a lot of data" they may not be unit tests anymore. I'd recommend attempting testing the smaller pieces individually.