In TDD how should you continue when you know what your final outcome should be, but not the processing steps you need to get there?
For example your class is being passed an object whose API is completely new to you, You know the class has the information you need but you don't know how to retrieve it yet: How would you go about testing this?
Do you just focus on the desired result ignoring the steps?
Edit 1
package com.wesley_acheson.codeReview.annotations;
import com.sun.mirror.apt.AnnotationProcessor;
import com.sun.mirror.apt.AnnotationProcessorEnvironment;
public class AnnotationPresenceWarner implements AnnotationProcessor {
private final AnnotationProcessorEnvironment environment;
public AnnotationPresenceWarner(AnnotationProcessorEnvironment env) {
environment = env;
}
public void process() {
//This is what I'm testing
}
}
I'm trying to test this incomplete class. I want to test I have the right interactions with AnnotationProcessorEnvironment within the process method. However I'm unsure from the API docs what the right interaction is.
This will produce a file that contains details on the occurrence of each annotation within a source tree.
The actual file writing will probably be delegated to another class however. So this class' responsiblity is to create a representation of the annotation occurrences and pass that to whatever classes need to move it.
In non TDD I'd probably invoke a few methods set a breakpoint and see what they return.
Anyway I'm not looking for a solution to this specific example more sometimes you don't know how to get from A to B and you'd like your code to be test driven.
I'm basing my answer on this video:
http://misko.hevery.com/2008/11/11/clean-code-talks-dependency-injection/
If you have a model/business logic class that's supposed to get some data from a service then I'd go about this way:
Have your model class take the data that it needs in the constructor, rather than the service itself. You could then mock the data and unit test your class.
Create a wrapper for the service, you can then unit test then wrapper.
Perform a fuller test where you actually pass the data from the wrapper to the model class.
General Answer
TDD can be used to solve a number of issues, the first and foremost is to ensure that code changes do not break existing code in regards to their expected behavior. Thus, if you've written a class with TDD, you write some code first, see that it fails, then write the behavior to make it green without causing other tests to become red.
The side-effect of writing the test cases is that now you have Documentation. This means that TDD actually provides answers to two distinct problems with code. When learning a new API, regardless of what it is, you can use TDD to explore it's behavior (granted, in some frameworks this can be very difficult). So, when you are exploring an API, it's ok to write some tests to provide documentation to it's use. You can consider this a prototyping step as well, just that prototyping assumes you throw it away when complete. With the TDD approach, you keep it, so you can always return back to it long after you've learned the API.
Specific Answer to the Example Given
There are a number of approaches which attempt to solve the problem with the AnnotationProcessor. There is an Assertion framework which addresses the issue by loading the java code during the test and asserting the line which the error/warning occurs. And here on Stack overflow
I would create a prototype without the testing to get knowledge of how the api is working. When I got that understanding, I would continue on the TDD cycle on my project
I agree with Bassetassen. First do a spike to understand what is this external API call does and what you need for your method. Once you are comfortable with the API you know how to proceed with TDD.
Never ever Unit Test against an unknown API. Follow the same principle is if you didn't own the code. Isolate all the code you are writing from the unknown or unowned.
Write your unit tests as if the environmental processor was going to be code that you were going to TDD later.
Now you can follow #Tom's advice, except drop step 1. Step 2's unit tests now are just a matter of mapping the outputs of the wrapper class to calls on the API of the unknown. Step two is more along the lines of an integration test.
I firmly believe changing your flow from TDD to Prototyping to TDD is a loss in velocity. Stay with the TDD until you are done, then prototype.
Related
I am constructing a prototype for robot using Test driven development ( C#, Console Application). First, I have created a test project and a class RobotTest. Here, I have written test methods to fail and to pass I construct the Robot class. Then, I have created a class RobertPrototype in which Robot class object is created to use methods in the Robot class. Along with that, I added some other methods (to parse input) in RobertPrototype.
I don't know if this is the way I have to follow while developing through TDD. Do I have to include all methods in Robot class itself ?
Please guide me. Thanks.
Do I have to include all methods in Robot class itself ?
I don't understand the question. you already said your tests are in a separate project and that you are writing a separate client class RobotPrototype that uses the Robot class.
At this point it seems like a reasonable design.
I think you're confusing yourself by writing bits of all of your classes for each bit of "working" test that you write for some Robot class method. This is not the way to think about TDD. It DOES NOT mean write a failing test to create a Robot object, then write a shell of a Robot constructor, write a shell of a class that uses a robot, write a shell of a client that uses a RobotPrototype. Then write a failing test, then write an empty Robot method, write RobotPrototype code that uses that method, write client code that uses what the RobotPrototype uses. no, no, no.
Each class in your robot design will have it's own corresponding Test class. Each method in each class will have it's own corresponding method in it's corresponding test class. The TDD cycle is performed on a method-by-method basis.
Try this:
Focus on one class and it's corresponding test class. Clearly you need a Robot before anything else. Start with the Robot class.
Using the TDD cycle, write functional methods.
When you have enough Robot functionality to do something, then you can start writing some Robot-using code (RobotPrototype class).
The RobotPrototype class has it's own corresponding Test class. Each of it's methods will have a corresponding Test method. You should have written enough Robot functionality to complete any given RobotPrototype method. If not, stop. Go back to Robot and write functioning methods there.
Given the above, the points to take away are:
You wrote complete "core" methods first. Each method has working tests when you're done.
As write new code using existing code, you know that existing code works because it's been tested. And, your new code has it's own tests.
Thus your application is built up upon layers of tested code.
As you write and re-write, you constantly re-run your tests. And periodically make sure you rerun ALL of them. If a previously working test fails, well you know you have a problem and you know where to look first.
As much as practicable every class has a test class and every method has (at least one) test method.
One implementation of TDD is Red-Green-Refactor.
As you write tests (Red), you will need to add methods to Robot in order to pass(Green). The next step is to organize the code, possibly into other classes (Refactor). The initial code used to pass the test may be in a different class than your final code.
In general you start by writing the skeleton of the class that you are willing to unit test and leaving all methods not implemented. Then you write the unit test about this class and all the methods that you are willing to test. Then you run the unit test which will fail because you haven't implemented the methods yet (you left them throw NotImplementedException) but at least your unit test can compile and execute. Then you go ahead and implement the methods and run the unit test which normally should pass. Then you refactor your code and when you run the unit test it should still pass. You move on to the next class and this process repeats.
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
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 have a class called FooJob() which runs on a WCF windows service. This class has only 2 public methods, the constructor, and a Run() method.
When clients call my service, a Dim a new instance of the Job class, pass in some parameters to the ctor, then call Run()...
Run() will take the parameters, do some logic, send a (real time) request to an outside data vendor, take the response, do some business logic, then put it in the database...
Is it wise to only write a single unit test then (if even possible) on the Run() function? Or will I wind up killing myself here? In this case then should I drill into the private functions and unit test those of the FooJob() class? But then won't this 'break' the 'only test behavior' / public interface paradigm that some argue for in TDD?
I realize this might be a vague question, but any advice / guidance or points in the right direction would be much appreciated.
Drew
do some logic, send a (real time) request to an outside data vendor, take the response, do some business logic, then put it in the database
The problem here is that you've listed your class as having multiple responsibilities... to be truly unit testable you need to follow the single responsibility principle. You need to pull those responsibilities out into separate interfaces. Then, you can test your implementations of these interfaces individually (as units). If you find that you can't easily test something your class is doing, another class should probably be doing that.
It seems like you'd need at least the following:
An interface for your business logic.
An interface defining the request to the outside vendor.
An interface for your data repository.
Then you can test that business logic, the process of communicating with the outside vendor, and the process of saving to your database separately. You can then mock out those interfaces for testing your Run() method, simply ensuring that the methods are called as you expect.
To do this properly, the class's dependencies (the interfaces defined above) should ideally be passed in to its constructor (i.e. dependency injection), but that's another story.
My advice would be to let your tests help with the design of your code. If you are struggling to execute statements or functions then your class is doing too much. Follow the single-responsibility-priciple, add some interfaces (allowing you to mock out the complicated stuff), maybe even read Fowler's 'Refactoring' or Feather's 'Working With Legacy Code', these taught me more about TDD than any other book to date.
It sounds like your run method is trying to do too much I would separate it up but if you're overall design won't allow it.
I would consider making the internal members protected then inheriting from the class in your test class to test them. Be careful though I have run into gotchas doing this because it doesn't reset the classes state so Setup and TearDown methods are essential.
Simple answer is - it depends. I've written a lot of unit tests that test the behaviour of private methods; I've done this so that I can be happy that I've covered various inputs and scenarios against the methods.
Now, many people think that testing private methods is a bad idea, since it's the public methods that matter. I get this idea, but in my case the public method for these private calls was also just a simple Run() method. The logic of the private methods included reading from config files and performing tasks on the file system, all "behind the scenes".
Had I just created a unit test that called Run() then I would have felt that my tests were incomplete. I used MSTest to create accessors for my class, so that I could call the private methods and create various scenarios (such as what happens when I run out of disk space, etc).
I guess it's each to their own with this private method testing do/or don't do argument. My advice is that, if you feel that your tests are incomplete, in other words, require more coverage, then I'd recommend testing the private methods.
Thanks everyone for the comments. I believe you are right - I need to seperate out into more seperate classes. This is one of the first projects im doing using true TDD, in that I did no class design at all and am just writing stub code... I gotta admit, I love writing code like this and the fact I can justify it to my mangagment with years of backed up successful results is purely friggin awesome =).
The only thing I'm iffy about is over-engineering and suffering from class-bloat, when I could have just written unit tests against my private methods... I guess common sense and programmers gut have to be used here... ?
C#, nUnit, and Rhino Mocks, if that turns out to be applicable.
My quest with TDD continues as I attempt to wrap tests around a complicated function. Let's say I'm coding a form that, when saved, has to also save dependent objects within the form...answers to form questions, attachments if available, and "log" entries (such as "blahblah updated the form." or "blahblah attached a file."). This save function also fires off emails to various people depending on how the state of the form changed during the save function.
This means in order to fully test out the form's save function with all of its dependencies, I have to inject five or six data providers to test out this one function and make sure everything fired off in the right way and order. This is cumbersome when writing the multiple chained constructors for the form object to insert the mocked providers. I think I'm missing something, either in the way of refactoring or simply a better way to set the mocked data providers.
Should I further study refactoring methods to see how this function can be simplified? How's the observer pattern sound, so that the dependent objects detect when the parent form is saved and handle themselves? I know that people say to split out the function so it can be tested...meaning I test out the individual save functions of each dependent object, but not the save function of the form itself, which dictates how each should save themselves in the first place?
First, if you are following TDD, then you don't wrap tests around a complicated function. You wrap the function around your tests. Actually, even that's not right. You interweave your tests and functions, writing both at almost exactly the same time, with the tests just a little ahead of the functions. See The Three Laws of TDD.
When you follow these three laws, and are diligent about refactoring, then you never wind up with "a complicated function". Rather you wind up with many, tested, simple functions.
Now, on to your point. If you already have "a complicated function" and you want to wrap tests around it then you should:
Add your mocks explicitly, instead of through DI. (e.g. something horrible like a 'test' flag and an 'if' statement that selects the mocks instead of the real objects).
Write a few tests in order to cover the basic operation of the component.
Refactor mercilessly, breaking up the complicated function into many little simple functions, while running your cobbled together tests as often as possible.
Push the 'test' flag as high as possible. As you refactor, pass your data sources down to the small simple functions. Don't let the 'test' flag infect any but the topmost function.
Rewrite tests. As you refactor, rewrite as many tests as possible to call the simple little functions instead of the big top-level function. You can pass your mocks into the simple functions from your tests.
Get rid of the 'test' flag and determine how much DI you really need. Since you have tests written at the lower levels that can insert mocks through areguments, you probably don't need to mock out many data sources at the top level anymore.
If, after all this, the DI is still cumbersome, then think about injecting a single object that holds references to all your data sources. It's always easier to inject one thing rather than many.
Use an AutoMocking container. There is one written for RhinoMocks.
Imagine you have a class with a lot of dependencies injected via constructor injection. Here's what it looks like to set it up with RhinoMocks, no AutoMocking container:
private MockRepository _mocks;
private BroadcastListViewPresenter _presenter;
private IBroadcastListView _view;
private IAddNewBroadcastEventBroker _addNewBroadcastEventBroker;
private IBroadcastService _broadcastService;
private IChannelService _channelService;
private IDeviceService _deviceService;
private IDialogFactory _dialogFactory;
private IMessageBoxService _messageBoxService;
private ITouchScreenService _touchScreenService;
private IDeviceBroadcastFactory _deviceBroadcastFactory;
private IFileBroadcastFactory _fileBroadcastFactory;
private IBroadcastServiceCallback _broadcastServiceCallback;
private IChannelServiceCallback _channelServiceCallback;
[SetUp]
public void SetUp()
{
_mocks = new MockRepository();
_view = _mocks.DynamicMock<IBroadcastListView>();
_addNewBroadcastEventBroker = _mocks.DynamicMock<IAddNewBroadcastEventBroker>();
_broadcastService = _mocks.DynamicMock<IBroadcastService>();
_channelService = _mocks.DynamicMock<IChannelService>();
_deviceService = _mocks.DynamicMock<IDeviceService>();
_dialogFactory = _mocks.DynamicMock<IDialogFactory>();
_messageBoxService = _mocks.DynamicMock<IMessageBoxService>();
_touchScreenService = _mocks.DynamicMock<ITouchScreenService>();
_deviceBroadcastFactory = _mocks.DynamicMock<IDeviceBroadcastFactory>();
_fileBroadcastFactory = _mocks.DynamicMock<IFileBroadcastFactory>();
_broadcastServiceCallback = _mocks.DynamicMock<IBroadcastServiceCallback>();
_channelServiceCallback = _mocks.DynamicMock<IChannelServiceCallback>();
_presenter = new BroadcastListViewPresenter(
_addNewBroadcastEventBroker,
_broadcastService,
_channelService,
_deviceService,
_dialogFactory,
_messageBoxService,
_touchScreenService,
_deviceBroadcastFactory,
_fileBroadcastFactory,
_broadcastServiceCallback,
_channelServiceCallback);
_presenter.View = _view;
}
Now, here's the same thing with an AutoMocking container:
private MockRepository _mocks;
private AutoMockingContainer _container;
private BroadcastListViewPresenter _presenter;
private IBroadcastListView _view;
[SetUp]
public void SetUp()
{
_mocks = new MockRepository();
_container = new AutoMockingContainer(_mocks);
_container.Initialize();
_view = _mocks.DynamicMock<IBroadcastListView>();
_presenter = _container.Create<BroadcastListViewPresenter>();
_presenter.View = _view;
}
Easier, yes?
The AutoMocking container automatically creates mocks for every dependency in the constructor, and you can access them for testing like so:
using (_mocks.Record())
{
_container.Get<IChannelService>().Expect(cs => cs.ChannelIsBroadcasting(channel)).Return(false);
_container.Get<IBroadcastService>().Expect(bs => bs.Start(8));
}
Hope that helps. I know my testing life has been made a whole lot easier with the advent of the AutoMocking container.
You're right that it can be cumbersome.
Proponent of mocking methodology would point out that the code is written improperly to being with. That is, you shouldn't be constructing dependent objects inside this method. Rather, the injection API's should have functions that create the appropriate objects.
As for mocking up 6 different objects, that's true. However, if you also were unit-testing those systems, those objects should already have mocking infrastructure you can use.
Finally, use a mocking framework that does some of the work for you.
I don't have your code, but my first reaction is that your test is trying to tell you that your object has too many collaborators. In cases like this, I always find that there's a missing construct in there that should be packaged up into a higher level structure. Using an automocking container is just muzzling the feedback you're getting from your tests. See http://www.mockobjects.com/2007/04/test-smell-bloated-constructor.html for a longer discussion.
In this context, I usually find statements along the lines of "this indicates that your object has too many dependencies" or "your object has too many collaborators" to be a fairly specious claim. Of course a MVC controller or a form is going to be calling lots of different services and objects to fulfill its duties; it is, after all, sitting at the top layer of the application. You can smoosh some of these dependencies together into higher-level objects (say, a ShippingMethodRepository and a TransitTimeCalculator get combined into a ShippingRateFinder), but this only goes so far, especially for these top-level, presentation-oriented objects. That's one less object to mock, but you've just obfuscated the actual dependencies via one layer of indirection, not actually removed them.
One blasphemous piece of advice is to say that if you are dependency injecting an object and creating an interface for it that is quite unlikely to ever change (Are you really going to drop in a new MessageBoxService while changing your code? Really?), then don't bother. That dependency is part of the expected behavior of the object and you should just test them together since the integration test is where the real business value lies.
The other blasphemous piece of advice is that I usually see little utility in unit testing MVC controllers or Windows Forms. Everytime I see someone mocking the HttpContext and testing to see if a cookie was set, I want to scream. Who cares if the AccountController set a cookie? I don't. The cookie has nothing to do with treating the controller as a black box; an integration test is what is needed to test its functionality (hmm, a call to PrivilegedArea() failed after Login() in the integration test). This way, you avoid invalidating a million useless unit tests if the format of the login cookie ever changes.
Save the unit tests for the object model, save the integration tests for the presentation layer, and avoid mock objects when possible. If mocking a particular dependency is hard, it's time to be pragmatic: just don't do the unit test and write an integration test instead and stop wasting your time.
The simple answer is that code that you are trying to test is doing too much. I think sticking to the Single Responsibility Principle might help.
The Save button method should only contain a top-level calls to delegate things to other objects. These objects can then be abstracted through interfaces. Then when you test the Save button method, you only test the interaction with mocked objects.
The next step is to write tests to these lower-level classes, but thing should get easier since you only test these in isolation. If you need a complex test setup code, this is a good indicator of a bad design (or a bad testing approach).
Recommended reading:
Clean Code: A Handbook of Agile Software Craftsmanship
Google's guide to writing testable code
Constructor DI isn't the only way to do DI. Since you're using C#, if your constructor does no significant work you could use Property DI. That simplifies things greatly in terms of your object's constructors at the expense of complexity in your function. Your function must check for the nullity of any dependent properties and throw InvalidOperation if they're null, before it begins work.
When it is hard to test something, it is usually symptom of the code quality, that the code is not testable (mentioned in this podcast, IIRC). The recommendation is to refactor the code so that the code will be easy to test. Some heuristics for deciding how to split the code into classes are the SRP and OCP. For more specific instructions, it would be necessary to see the code in question.