I'm about to start looking into developing with the aid of code coverage, and I'm wondering how it typically fits in with test driven development.
Is code coverage an afterthought? Does your process go something like
Write a test for the functionality to be implemented
Run test, make sure they fail
Implement functionality
Run test, make sure they pass
Write more tests for the functionality until 100% (or near) code coverage is obtained
Or do you run code coverage at the very end after numerous functional pieces have been implemented and then go back and work towards 100% coverage?
The third option I can think of is strive towards 100% coverage before even implementing the functionality.
Which of these is most common, and what are the benefits?
You don't write tests until 100% code coverage is achieved. If you've been following TDD, then there is no code that was ever written without being required by a test, so you should always be near 100% coverage.
Instead, you write tests until all tests pass, and until all the tests required have been written. This will imply that all the required code has been written, since you will only have written code if it was required by a test.
With TDD you should almost always be near 100% coverage when developing new code since you don't develop any code that you don't need to pass tests. Only when you think the code is so simple that you don't need a test (say, like an automatic property in C#), should you have code that isn't specifically covered. You can, through refactoring, sometimes introduce blocks that aren't necessary or change the code in unexpected ways so you may want to use coverage at that point to ensure that you haven't accidentally introduced untested code. Other than that, I'd say that I use it more as a sanity check and do coverage analysis periodically for the same reasons. It can also be very useful when your discipline breaks down and you've neglected to work in a TDD manner.
Remember that you can have a test that actually uses code that gets covered by coincidence. You need to be careful about this, especially when starting TDD. Oh I'm in this function and I know I will need to add this little tiny thin dinner mint while I'm at it why not another mint. Before you know it you have a bunch of untested code.
Write Test: Fail
Write Code: Pass
Refactor: Pass
Goto top
Related
I am still getting to grips with MVC3, and now I am looking into TDD, and the thing that keeps coming up that makes no sense is.
The first step is to quickly add a test, basically just enough code to fail.
why create a test for your code to just pass.To me it makes much more sense to write my code then test it and see if it fails, and fix any and all bugs with that may occur then.
If you write the code and then write the tests, then you are not doing Test-Driven Development...
That's what TDD stands for; you write your code to enable pre-written tests to pass. If you don't do it that way, you aren't doing TDD.
The idea is that your tests represent your application's requirements. You write those first, just like you would otherwise write your requirements down on paper before you started coding.
This way, you know when all your tests pass, you are done.
Writing the test first makes you start thinking about how the method will pass and fail - you start thinking about the method more deeply.
Otherwise, it's easy to get straight into the method without much thought, leading to methods that aren't so easy to test. It's all too easy to come back to the unit-test later - it often doesn't happen!
Moreover, if you write the method first at what point do you write the test? When you know it passes, when you're "happy" with it... It's a slippery slope to writing code without thinking about testing.
When you approach a class you want to write, how do you plan its unit tests?
Are there formal templates which you follow or do you use pen and paper/notepad?
I am looking for some way to let other programmers/QAs know what tests should be implemented (and if something was overlooked it can be easier to spot it).
With TDD, tests drive the feature you are writing. If you're needing to write formal templates for it, then chances are you're not entering into the spirit of things!
TDD should be used to generate the test cases as you write the code. Simply put, before you write the next line of code, encode in a test what the code should do.
Check out Bob Martin's bowling game example which should give you more of a feel for TDD.
I do not think that having a template goes well with using TDD. I assume that you have read Kent Beck's Book on Test Driven Development by Example. If no please do so.
But the general idea is simple. When we start a class, we will have a general idea on the responsibility of the class. This is the steps that we use:
Have a general idea on class
responsibility and use that
information to name the class.
Create a test case for this class.
If you start with a concrete information on what the units inside the class are, just write those stubs inside the class and write test cases for those stubs. Initially all of it will fail and the signatures for most of those methods will change. That's the whole idea.
In most cases, the developer may not have that degree of information. In that case, it's OK to start writing code in the First Test. Once the test passes, then migrate the logic to the class.
So what I am driving at is, the whole point of TDD is to make the development process more organic. The class grows, with the knowledge on what it should do. Having a formal template, or writing things down, will probably not help.
The only thing I could think that you could do, is to sit with your developers before each iteration and come up with a pretty detailed idea on each of the component classes and its responsibilities (we only use this discussion to finalize public APIs).
If you want to know the quality of test cases written by your developer, then you can conduct an ad hoc code review to see if the classes are correctly broken down to units and all the units are tested.
TDD is not the methodology you are looking for ;-)
way to let other programmers/QAs know what tests should be implemented
This statement implies you are after tests, but TDD itself is driven by requirements and produces features - the fact that it also produces a suite of tests is an incidental (but hugely powerful) appendage which happens to result in a regression suite.
Although TDD harnesses 'tests' to drive development of code, you do not need to specify tests up-front. Even if you did (and sometimes is helpful to 'thinking' to do so) your programmer may not need to write all the tests in order to produce the desired behaviour in the code. Indeed, in TDD, you are encouraged to stop work when all the tests pass - you need not keep on writing tests only to find they already pass; that is something akin to makework.
Also, the other side-effect of TDD is in having (and continuously running) a regression suite. If at a later date a bug is found, it makes it easier, just by having a test suite, to write another test which demonstrates the bug with a failing test. Once the bug is fixed, the test should pass - along with all the other tests in the suite.
You cannot commit to TDD and let others do the unit testing. This requirement of yours strongly suggest that You haven't understood the TDD paradigm.
In my (admittedly fairly new) experience
You write test that, if passed, will confirm your initial understanding of the target funcitonality. Not a single line of production code is written at this point.
You then Implement the production code so the unit tests are passed.
If your understanding evolves, you then change your unit tests or/and add new ones
You then implement the changes in the production code so the tests will pass
By then, it is not forbidden to write additional unit tests, if you discover that parts of your production code are not covered.
Remove tests that no longer make sense.
You arrive at beautiful crisp and clean code :o)
TDD is NOT a QA method; It is a way of DEVELOPING. The whole idea is that the unit test guide the development process. So you really can't let others do the unit tests for you.
I start by designing the class first, usually with a simple UML class diagram. I try not to make the diagram just detailed enough so that I can run tests against it (e.g. params and return types specified for each method, and I know how the method's behavior affects object state).
Then, I write unit tests. Generally when it comes to automated testing you should have 1 test method for every method defined in your class. As far as convention goes, if I have a method in my class called myMethod, then my unit test method will be called testMyMethod.
I write unit tests using what I know about the method's intended behavior, and then write the method and check to make sure that it passes the unit test.
I've been learning what TDD is, and one question that comes to mind is what exactly is the "test". For example, do you call the webservice and then build the code to make it work? or is it more unit testing oriented?
In general the test may be...
unit test which tests an individual subcomponent of your software without any external dependencies to other classes
integration test which are tests that test the connection between two separate systems, ie. their integration capability
acceptance test for validating the functionality of the system
...and some others I've most likely temporarily forgotten for now.
In TDD, however, you're mostly focusing on the unit tests when creating your software.
It's entirely Unit Test driven.
The basic idea is to write the unit tests first, and then do the absolute minimum amount of work necessary to pass the tests.
Then write more tests to cover more of the requirements, and implement a bit more to make it pass.
It's an iterative process, with cycles of test writing, and then code writing.
Here are a couple of good articles by Unclebob
Three rules of TDD
TDD with Acceptance and Unit tests
I suggest you not to emphasize on Test because TDD is actually is a software development methodology, not a testing methodology.
I would say it is about unit testing and code coverage. It is about shipping bugless code and being able to make changes easily in the future.
See Uncle Bob's words of wisdom.
How I use it, it's unit testing oriented. Suppose I want a method that square ints I write this method :
int square(int x) { return null; }
and then write some tests like :
[Test]
TestSquare()
{
Assert.AreEqual(square(0),0);
Assert.AreEqual(square(1),1);
Assert.AreEqual(square(10),100);
Assert.AreEqual(square(-1),1);
Assert.AreEqual(square(-10),100);
....
}
Ok, maybe square is a bad example :-)
In each case I test expected behaviour and all borderline vals like maxint and zero and null-value (remember you can test on errors too) and see to it the test fails (which isn't hard :-)) then I keep working on the function until it works.
So : first a unit test that fails an covers what you want it to cover, then the method.
Generally, unit tests in "TDD" shouldn't involve any IO at all.
In fact, you'll have a ton more effectiveness if you write objects that do not create side effects (I/O is almost always, if not always, a side effect!), and define your the behavior of your class either in terms of return values of methods, or calls made to interfaces that have been passed into the object.
I just want to give my view on the topic which may help to understand TDD a bit more in a different way.
TDD is a design method that relies in testing first. because you asked about how the test is, ill go like this:
If you want to build an application, you know the purpose of what you want to build and you know generally that when you are done, or along the way you need to test it e.g check the values of variables you create by code inspection, of quickly drop a button that you can click on and will execute a part of code and pop up a dialog to show the result of the operation etc.
on the other hand TDD changes your mindset and i'll point out one of such ways. commonly , you just rely on the development environment like visual studio to detect errors as you code and compile and somewhere in your head, you know the requirement and just coding and testing via button and pop ups or code inspection. I call this style SDDD (Syntax debugging driven development ).
but when you are doing TDD, is a "semantic debugging driven development " because you write down your thoughts/ goals of your application first by using tests (which and a more dynamic and repeatable version of a white board) which tests the logic (or "semantic") of your application and fails whenever you have a semantic error even if you application passes syntax error (upon compilation).
by the way even though i said "you know the purpose of what you want to build ..", in practice you may not know or have all the information required to build the application , since TDD kind of forces you to write tests first, you are compelled to ask more questions about the functioning of the application at a very early stage of development rather than building a lot only to find out that a lot of what you have written is not required (or at lets not at the moment). you can really avoid wasting your precious time with TDD (even though it may not feel like that initially)
In doing test driven development I have been in the habit of writing the first unit test for a new piece of functionality first, then writing the code for that functionality. If I have additional tests to write to cover all scenarios, I usually write them after the code is written. Is this considered bad form? Should I try and write every conceivable test for a piece of functionality first, before ever writing that code?
In order to do TDD properly, you always write the test first, and then the functionality second.
To add to that, I would take one scenario at a time, don't write 20 tests and then write the code for those 20 tests. Write one test, red/green flag it, then move on to your next test. This makes sure you're also doing one of the core tenets of TDD, which is to do the simplest implementation possible that meets all of your requirements/scenarios.
actually no, I often discover functionality "on-the-go". Let me explain the "no" a bit further:
I usually start out writing a test case for a high level feature, defining its Interface. After that, I usually set this test to ignore and continue writing tests for each of the Interfaces functionality. My cycle goes like:
Integration Test for Story A (high level API)
Write Unit Test for method xyz called in Integration Test
Implement method (red/green/refactor)
Repeat 2+3 till Integration Test passes.
While doing so, I often realize I have forgotten some small functionality in my main test. I then usually take time to look back at my customers requirements. If its a fit, I go back and add a test for it, set to ignored as I first want to finish what I started.
Sometimes I see the chance to do a refactoring. I usually finish an implementation till I reach a commit point and do refactoring then, however sometimes I stash my changes, go back and do the refactoring (including new tests if nescessary) first. This workflow is powererd by Mercurial MQ.
For most people, TDD and incremental/agile development go together. This looks something like:
Write a test for some feature
Write just enough code to make the test pass, refactoring as necessary
Repeat.
If you happen to have a detailed specification ahead of time, you could write all of the tests first, but you'd have to live with having sone tests not passing for a while.
The sooner you write the tests, the better. I usually find writing tests being harder tasks than actually implementing the functionality because you have to be aware of all the possible outcomes. So I tend to write more tests when I'm "in the zone". And when during coding I realize I might have missed a test case I just note that down on the to-do lists.
So in my opinion it's up to your leisure but I would implement tests in multiple batches.
The way I see it, test driven development isn't necessarily tests first development. Your tests drive your development and you are really writing your tests as you develop your application. You start by writing a simple test that fails because you haven't written the functionality yet. Then you write your code to implement that so that the tests pass.
Then you go back to your test, make modifications that will force you to add more functionality or refactor your code to follow better practices or reduce duplicate code, go fix your code to make the test pass...repeat, repeat, repeat.
A couple of videos that demonstrates this is below, although you can probably find a lot more by googling "TDD Video"
http://agilesoftwaredevelopment.com/videos/test-driven-development-basic-tutorial
(oops, only one video, new users can't insert more than one link)
I try to write a test at some level before each bit of functionality. Sometimes, I have to write a little more code to get through the compiler, but I try to minimise that. Writing the test first means that I've thought about what the code is supposed to achieve before writing it.
One technique I find useful is to keep an index card or notepad handy, and make a note of all the cases that I think of along the way. That allows me to focus on the current task without losing track of all the other things I'm supposed to think about. Afterwards, I can work through the list and either complete the extra cases or drop them as not necessary.
You could do that, but you wouldn't be doing TDD. The problem (well, one of them, anyway) with writing all of your tests up front is that in any case where the requirements are non-trivial, your tests will be building in a lot of assumptions about the structure of the code you're test-driving. Big steps lead to missteps.
One of the keys of successful TDD involves taking small steps. Small steps mean fewer changes to back out when something goes wrong. Small steps mean you can more often get your head around the effects of the changes you're making. And because small steps are easier to take with confidence, they have the paradoxical effect of increasing your velocity.
The TDD cycle starts with requirements. Start by choosing a requirement you know how to define through tests immediately, in a few short steps. If you look at a requirement and you're not sure how to test it, or you think, "Yeah, but to do that, I'd need to [insert ill-defined steps] first", then you should either skip to another requirement that you know how to do, or you should break this requirement into smaller requirements that you know how to do.
Once you have that, you work in a short red-green-refactor cycle: Write a test that quantifies some part of the requirement ("red", because it fails, because it has no implementation to test yet), write any code that will pass the test ("green"), then rework the code to remove duplication, magic numbers, and other code smells ("refactor"). During the refactoring phase, you should continue working in small steps, frequently re-running the test to make sure you haven't broken anything. Continue this cycle until you can look your boss/client in the eye and call the requirement met.
Now that you have one simple piece of your system defined, you've opened up the list of requirements available to implement - requirements that are adjacent to or dependent on the one you just implemented can now be tested and implemented in smaller steps building on what you've already done.
So the upshot of all that is: Don't try to do all your tests at once. One (small) thing at a time.
The point of TDD is that you have to observe that test fails when feature is not yet implemented. So you have to write test before code.
When you get into the TDD rhythm you write one test at a time and make it work. Very short red-green-refactor cycles really feel the rhythm. That being said, there is nothing wrong with other approaches (and they may even make more sense for some types of problems) but typically the only thing you need to do about other tests you are thinking of is write them down (or have your pair if you are pair programming write them down) so you don't forget them. You have to do that anyway because you could forget about a test in the middle of writing a different test.
Do just enough tests to test 1 unit of code at a time.. then write the actual code until it passes the test.. rinse, wash, repeat until done.
If you find yourself needing to write many tests for one unit of code ( a method, a function etc) it might be a sign that you are trying to do too much in that unit... which in turn makes the unit dificult to test & to refactor at a later time.
When doing TDD, how to tell "that's enough tests for this class / feature"?
I.e. when could you tell that you completed testing all edge cases?
With Test Driven Development, you’ll write a test before you write the code it tests. Once you’re written the code and the test passes, then it’s time to write another test. If you follow TDD correctly, you’ve written enough tests once you’re code does all that is required.
As for edge cases, let's take an example such as validating a parameter in a method. Before you add the parameter to you code, you create tests which verify the code will handle each case correctly. Then you can add the parameter and associated logic, and ensure the tests pass. If you think up more edge cases, then more tests can be added.
By taking it one step at a time, you won't have to worry about edge cases when you've finished writing your code, because you'll have already written the tests for them all. Of course, there's always human error, and you may miss something... When that situation occurs, it's time to add another test and then fix the code.
Kent Beck's advice is to write tests until fear turns into boredom. That is, until you're no longer afraid that anything will break, assuming you start with an appropriate level of fear.
On some level, it's a gut feeling of
"Am I confident that the tests will catch all the problems I can think of
now?"
On another level, you've already got a set of user or system requirements that must be met, so you could stop there.
While I do use code coverage to tell me if I didn't follow my TDD process and to find code that can be removed, I would not count code coverage as a useful way to know when to stop. Your code coverage could be 100%, but if you forgot to include a requirement, well, then you're not really done, are you.
Perhaps a misconception about TDD is that you have to know everything up front to test. This is misguided because the tests that result from the TDD process are like a breadcrumb trail. You know what has been tested in the past, and can guide you to an extent, but it won't tell you what to do next.
I think TDD could be thought of as an evolutionary process. That is, you start with your initial design and it's set of tests. As your code gets battered in production, you add more tests, and code that makes those tests pass. Each time you add a test here, and a test there, you're also doing TDD, and it doesn't cost all that much. You didn't know those cases existed when you wrote your first set of tests, but you gained the knowledge now, and can check for those problems at the touch of a button. This is the great power of TDD, and one reason why I advocate for it so much.
Well, when you can't think of any more failure cases that doesn't work as intended.
Part of TDD is to keep a list of things you want to implement, and problems with your current implementation... so when that list runs out, you are essentially done....
And remember, you can always go back and add tests when you discover bugs or new issues with the implementation.
that common sense, there no perfect answer. TDD goal is to remove fear, if you feel confident you tested it well enough go on...
Just don't forget that if you find a bug later on, write a test first to reproduce the bug, then correct it, so you will prevent future change to break it again!
Some people complain when they don't have X percent of coverage.... some test are useless, and 100% coverage does not mean you test everything that can make your code break, only the fact it wont break for the way you used it!
A test is a way of precisely describing something you want. Adding a test expands the scope of what you want, or adds details of what you want.
If you can't think of anything more that you want, or any refinements to what you want, then move on to something else. You can always come back later.
Tests in TDD are about covering the specification, in fact they can be a substitute for a specification. In TDD, tests are not about covering the code. They ensure the code covers the specification, because the code will fail a test if it doesn't cover the specification. Any extra code you have doesn't matter.
So you have enough tests when the tests look like they describe all the expectations that you or the stakeholders have.
maybe i missed something somewhere in the Agile/XP world, but my understanding of the process was that the developer and the customer specify the tests as part of the Feature. This allows the test cases to substitute for more formal requirements documentation, helps identify the use-cases for the feature, etc. So you're done testing and coding when all of these tests pass...plus any more edge cases that you think of along the way
Alberto Savoia says that "if all your tests pass, chances are that your test are not good enough". I think that it is a good way to think about tests: ask if you are doing edge cases, pass some unexpected parameter and so on. A good way to improve the quality of your tests is work with a pair - specially a tester - and get help about more test cases. Pair with testers is good because they have a different point of view.
Of course, you could use some tool to do mutation tests and get more confidence from your tests. I have used Jester and it improve both my tests and the way that I wrote them. Consider to use something like it.
Kind Regards
Theoretically you should cover all possible input combinations and test that the output is correct but sometimes it's just not worth it.
Many of the other comments have hit the nail on the head. Do you feel confident about the code you have written given your test coverage? As your code evolves do your tests still adequately cover it? Do your tests capture the intended behaviour and functionality for the component under test?
There must be a happy medium. As you add more and more test cases your tests may become brittle as what is considered an edge case continuously changes. Following many of the earlier suggestions it can be very helpful to get everything you can think of up front and then adding new tests as the software grows. This kind of organic grow can help your tests grow without all the effort up front.
I am not going to lie but I often get lazy when going back to write additional tests. I might miss that property that contains 0 code or the default constructor that I do not care about. Sometimes not being completely anal about the process can save you time n areas that are less then critical (the 100% code coverage myth).
You have to remember that the end goal is to get a top notch product out the door and not kill yourself testing. If you have that gut feeling like you are missing something then chances are you are have and that you need to add more tests.
Good luck and happy coding.
You could always use a test coverage tool like EMMA (http://emma.sourceforge.net/) or its Eclipse plugin EclEmma (http://www.eclemma.org/) or the like. Some developers believe that 100% test coverage is a worthy goal; others disagree.
Just try to come up with every way within reason that you could cause something to fail. Null values, values out of range, etc. Once you can't easily come up with anything, just continue on to something else.
If down the road you ever find a new bug or come up with a way, add the test.
It is not about code coverage. That is a dangerous metric, because code is "covered" long before it is "tested well".