With test/unit, and minitest, is it possible to fail any test that doesn't contain an assertion, or would monkey-patching be required (for example, checking if the assertion count increased after each test was executed)?
Background: I shouldn't write unit tests without assertions - at a minimum, I should use assert_nothing_raised if I'm smoke testing to indicate that I'm smoke testing.
Usually I write tests that fail first, but I'm writing some regression tests. Alternatively, I could supply an incorrect expected value to see if the test is comparing the expected and actual value.
To ensure unit tests actually verify anything a technique called Mutation testing is used.
For Ruby, you can take a look at Mutant.
As PK's link points out too, the presence of assertions in itself doesn't mean the unit test is meaningful and correct. I believe there is no automatic replacement for careful thinking and awareness.
Ensuring the tests fail first is a good practice, which should be made into a habit.
Apart from the things you mention, I often set wrong values in asserts in new tests, to check that the test really runs and fails. (Then I fix it of course :-) This is less obtrusive than editing the production code.
I don't really think that forcing the test to fail without an assert is really helpful. Having an assert in a test is not a goal in itself - the goal is to write useful tests.
The missing assert is just an indication that the test may not be useful. The interesting question is: Will the test fail if something breaks?. If it doesn't, it's obviously useless.
If all you're testing for is that the code doesn't crash, then assert_nothing_raised around it is just a kind of comment. But testing for "no explosions" probably indicates a weak test in itself. In most cases, it doesn't give you any useful information about your code (because "no crash != correct"), so why did you write the test in the first place? Plus I rather prefer a method that explodes properly to one that just returns a wrong result.
I found the best regression test come from the field: Bang your app (or have your tester do it), and for each problem you find write a test that fails. Fix it, and have the test pass.
Otherwise I'd test the behavior, not the absence of crashes. In the case that I have "empty" tests (meaning that I didn't write the test code yet), I usually put a #flunk inside to remind me.
Related
good morning, guys.
Is there a way to test the access modifier? e.g. ensure that create_block is public(fun)? afaik that's not possible to do in a unit test (as the 'expected failure' test itself would not compile). is this something we could use the prover for?
The access modifier is statically set in the compiler, so as you pointed out, you could have a unit test, to ensure that it is public, but there's not necessarily a way to test that it's not public.
I think this is particularly similar to other languages, just a compiler time check.
https://move-book.com/syntax-basics/function.html#function-visibility
So I'm kind of new to Protractor. I've written a number of parameterised functions (eg loginAs, navigateTo, enterTextIntoSearchField, clickButton etc), which I can then use repeatedly as I create my specs and suites. So for example I might have a "perform search" suite, with specs for "perform search as regular user", "perform search as admin" etc.
All this is fine. I'm using the Jasmine2HTMLReporter which produces output similar to sample Jasmine2HTMLReporter output
Some of my reusable functions have expect statements, some don't (although I may yet go back and try to add them for clarity!)
The problem I have is when an individual spec consists of quite a few function calls, the list of passed / failed expectations in the report can be rather long. In the case of failed expectations it gives details of the failure ("expected Fred to equal Bob" etc). However, I would like to see something similar for the passes aswell ("expected Fred to equal Fred") - as this would allow whoever was reading the report to understand which function call any one "passed" related to - and understand the flow of the test, rather than just seeing an otherwise meaningless list of "Passed" statements.
Is this at all possible? I could have nested specs so that each function call was it's own spec within a "parent" spec, but this strikes me as over the top and messy, and would make the report way bigger than it needed to be? Would a different reporter give me what I want? I've not found one yet that looks like it would...
I'm just learning the Jasmine library, and I've noticed that Jasmine has a very limited number of built-in assertions. I've also noticed that, despite having such a limited number, two of its assertions appear to be redundant: toBeDefined/toBeUndefined.
In other words, both of these would seem to check for the same exact thing:
expect(1).toBeDefined();
expect(undefined).not.toBeUndefined();
Is there some reason for this, like a case where toBeDefined isn't the same as toBeUndefined? Or is this just the one assertion in Jasmine that has two perfectly equal ways of being invoked?
One might assume the same for toBeTruthy and toBeFalsy, or toBeLessThan and toBeGreaterThan (although I guess the missing assert from the last two is toEqual). In the end it comes down to readability and user preference.
To give you a more complete answer, it might be useful to take a look at the code that is invoked for these functions. The code that is executed goes through separate paths (so toBeUndefined is not simply !toBeDefined). The only real answer that makes sense is readability (or giving in to annoying feature requests). https://github.com/jasmine/jasmine/tree/main/src/core/matchers
I'm using VS 2012, but that's not really important.
What is important is that I'm trying to do some TDD by writing all my tests first and then creating the code.
However, the app will not compile because none of my objects or methods exist.
Now, to my mind, I should be able to create ALL my tests but still run my app so I can debug etc. The tests shouldn't prevent compilation because objects and methods are missing.
I thought the whole point of it was that as you develop your tests you can begin to see duplications etc so that you can refactor before writing a single line of code.
So the question is, is there a way to do this or am I doing this wrong?
EDIT
I am using VS2012 and C#
I see a small problem with
writing all my tests first and then creating the code.
You don't need to write ALL your tests first, you just need one, make it fail, make it pass and repeat. That means ideally at any point you should have ideally one failing test.
A compile failure counts as a failed test in that sense. So the next step is to make it pass - i.e. add stubs or return default values to make it compile. The test would then be red.. then work at getting it to green.
Test Driven Development is about very small iterations. You don't define all your tests up front. You create one test based on one fraction of one requirement. Then you implement the code to pass that test. Once it's passing, you work on another fraction of a requirement.
The idea is that trying to do all the design up front (whether it be creating detailed class diagrams or creating a bunch of tests) means that you will find it too expensive to change a weakness in your design, so you won't improve your code.
Here's an example. Let's say you decide to use inheritance to relate two objects, but when you started implementing the objects, you found that made testing them tough. You discover it would be much easier to test each object individually, and relate them via containment instead. What is happening is the tests are driving your design in a more loosely coupled direction. This is a very good outcome of TDD - you are using tests to improve the design.
If you had written all your tests in advance assuming your design decision of inheritance was a good choice, you would either throw away a lot of work, or you would say "it's too tough to make a change like that now, so I'll just live with this sub-optimal design instead."
You can certainly create business-rule-related acceptance tests in advance. Those are called behavior tests (part of Behavior Driven Development, or BDD) and they are good to test features of the software from the user's point of view. But those are NOT unit tests. Unit tests are for testing code from the developer's point of view. Creating the unit tests in advance defeats the purpose of TDD, because it will make testing harder, it will prevent you from improving your code, and will often lead to rebellion and failure of the practice. That's why it's important to do it right.
What is important is that I'm trying to do some TDD by writing all my tests first and then creating the code.
The problem is that "writing all my tests first" is most emphatically not "do[ing] some TDD". Test driven development consists of lots of small repetitions of the "red-green-refactor" cycle:
Add a unit test to the test suite, run it and watch it fail (red)
Add just enough code to the system under test to make all the tests
pass (green)
Improve the design of the system under test (typically
by removing duplication) while keeping all the tests passing
(refactor)
If you code an entire huge test suite up front, you'll spend forever trying to get to the "green" (all tests passing) state.
However, the app will not compile because none of my objects or methods exist.
That's typical of any compiled language; it's not a TDD issue per se. All it means is that, in order to watch the new test fail, you may have to write a minimal stub for whatever feature you're currently working on to make the compiler happy.
For example, I might write this test (using NUnit):
[Test]
public void DefaultGreetingIsHelloWorld()
{
WorldGreeter target = new WorldGreeter();
string expected = "Hello, world!";
string actual = target.Greet();
Assert.AreEqual(expected, actual);
}
And I'd have to then write this much code to get the app to compile and the test to fail:
public class WorldGreeter
{
public string Greet()
{
return String.Empty;
}
}
Once I've gotten the solution to build and I've seen the one failing test, I can add the code to make the first test pass:
public string Greet()
{
return "Hello, world!";
}
Once all tests pass, I can look through the system under test and see what could be done to improve the design. However, it's essential to the TDD discipline to go through both the "red" and "green" steps before playing around with refactoring.
I thought the whole point of it was that as you develop your tests you can begin to see duplications etc so that you can refactor before writing a single line of code.
Martin Fowler defines refactoring as "a disciplined technique for restructuring an existing body of code, altering its internal structure without changing its external behavior" (emphasis added). If you haven't written a single line of code, there's nothing to refactor.
So the question is, is there a way to do this or am I doing this wrong?
If you're looking to do TDD, then, yes, I fear you are doing this wrong. You may well be able to deliver great code doing what you're doing, but it isn't TDD; whether or not that's a problem is for you to decide for yourself.
You should be able to create your empty class with stub functions, no?
class Whatever {
char *foo( const char *name ) {}
int can_wibble( Bongo *myBongo ) {}
}
Then you can compile.
No. It's about coding just enough to verify the implementation of the required use cases
You can define your tests cases early, but to code the test cases them you iteratively write a test, have it fail. Then write some code that ensures that the code passes.
Then rinse and repeat until all your test cases are covered,
Edit to address comment.
As you build out the code, that's where your programming designs and faults are identified. Extreme programming lends it self to you being able to change code with out care as the test base protects your requirements. Your intentions are good but the reality is that you'll refactor/redesign test test cases as you discover design issues and flaws through building out the code and test base.
However IMHO, in a very general case, a test that doesn't compile is effectively a meta test that's failing that needs to be corrected before moving on. It's telling you to write some code!
Use mock, from Wikipiedia: mock objects are simulated objects that mimic the behavior of real objects in controlled ways. A programmer typically creates a mock object to test the behavior of some other object, in much the same way that a car designer uses a crash test dummy to simulate the dynamic behavior of a human in vehicle impacts.
Please refer this.
I found this using dynamic for objects that don't exists yet:
https://coderwall.com/p/0uzmdw
I've run into this dilemma several times. Should my unit-tests duplicate the functionality of the method they are testing to verify its integrity? OR Should unit tests strive to test the method with numerous manually created instances of inputs and expected outputs?
I'm mainly asking the question for situations where the method you are testing is reasonably simple and its proper operation can be verified by glancing at the code for a minute.
Simplified example (in ruby):
def concat_strings(str1, str2)
return str1 + " AND " + str2
end
Simplified functionality-replicating test for the above method:
def test_concat_strings
10.times do
str1 = random_string_generator
str2 = random_string_generator
assert_equal (str1 + " AND " + str2), concat_strings(str1, str2)
end
end
I understand that most times the method you are testing won't be simple enough to justify doing it this way. But my question remains; is this a valid methodology in some circumstances (why or why not)?
Testing the functionality by using the same implementation, doesn't test anything. If one has a bug in it, the other will as well.
But testing by comparing with an alternative implementation is a valid approach. For example, you might test a iterative (fast) method of calculating fibonacci numbers by comparing it with a trivial recursive, yet slow implementation of the same method.
A variation of this is using an implementation, that only works for special cases. Of course in that case you can use it only for such special cases.
When choosing input values, using random values most of the time isn't very effective. I'd prefer carefully chosen values anytime. In the example you gave, null values and extremely long values which won't fit into a String when concatenated come to mind.
If you use random values, make sure, you have a way to recreate the exact run, with the same random values, for example by logging the seed value, and having a way to set that value at start time.
It's a controversial stance, but I believe that unit testing using Derived Values is far superior to using arbitrary hard-coded input and output.
The issue is that as an algorithm becomes even slightly complex, the relationship between input and output becomes obscure if represented by hard-coded values. The unit test ends up being a postulate. It may work technically, but hurts test maintenability because it leads to Obscure Tests.
Using Derived Values to test against the result establishes a much clearer relationship between test input and expected output.
The argument that this doesn't test anything is simply not true, because any test case will exercise only a part of a path through the SUT, so no single test case will reproduce the entire algorithm being tested, but the combination of tests will do so.
An additional benefit is that you can use fewer unit tests to cover the desired functionality, and even make them more communicative at the same time. The end result is terser and more maintainable unit tests.
In unit testing you should definitely manually come up with test cases (so input, output and what side-effects you are expecting - these will be expectations on your mock objects). You come up with these test cases in a way so that they cover all functionality of your class (e.g. all methods are covered, all branches of all if statements, etc.). Think about it more along the lines of creating documentation of your class by showing all possible usages.
Reimplementing the class is not a good idea, because not only you get obvious code/functionality duplication, but also it is likely that you will introduce the same bugs in this new implementation.
to test the functionality of a method i'd use input and output pairs wherever possible. otherwise you might be copy&pasting the functionality as well as the errors in its implementation. what are you testing then? you would be testing if the functionality (including all of its errors) hasn't changed over time. but you wouldn't be testing the correctness of the implementation.
testing if the functionality hasn't changed over time might (temporarily) be useful during refactoring. but how often do you refactor such small methods?
also unit tests can be seen as documentation and as specification of a method's inputs and expected outputs. both should be as simple as possible so others can easily read and comprehend it. as soon as you introduce additional code/logic into a test it becomes harder to read.
your test actually looks like a fuzz test. fuzz tests can be very useful, but in unit tests randomness should be avoided due to reproducibility.
A Unit-Test should exercise your code, not something as part of the language you are using.
If the code's logic is to concatenate strings in a special way, you should be testing for that - otherwise you need to rely on your language/framework.
Finally, you should create your unit tests to fail first "with meaning". In other words, random values shouldn't be used (unless you're testing your random number generator isn't returning the same set of random values!)
Yes. It bothers me too.. although I'd say that it is more prevalent with non-trivial computations. In order to avoid updating the test when the code changes, some programmers write a IsX=X test, which always succeeds irrespective of the SUT
About duplicating functionality
You don't have to. Your test can state what the expected output is, not how you derived it.
Although in some non-trivial cases, it may make your test more readable as to how you derived the expected value - test as a spec. You shouldn't refactor away this duplication
def doubler(x); x * 2; end
def test_doubler()
input, expected = 10, doubler(10)
assert_equal expected, doubler(10)
end
Now if I change doubler(x) to be a tripler, the above test won't fail.
def doubler(x); x * 3; end
However this one would:
def test_doubler()
assert_equal(20, doubler(10))
end
randomness in unit tests - Don't.
Instead of random datasets, choose static representative data points for testing and use a xUnit RowTest/TestCase to run the test with diff data inputs. If n input-sets are identical for the unit, choose 1.
The test in the OP could be used as a exploratory test/ or to determine additional representative input-sets. Unit tests need to be repeatable (See q#61400) - Using random values defeats this objective.
Never use random data for input. If your test reports a failure, how are you ever going to be able to duplicate it? And don't use the same function to generate the expected result. If you have a bug in your method you're likely to put the same bug in your test. Compute the expected results by some other method.
Hard-coded values are perfectly fine, and make sure inputs are picked to represent all of the normal and edge cases. At the very least test the expected inputs as well as inputs in the wrong format or wrong size (eg: null values).
It's really quite simple -- a unit test must test whether the function works or not. That means you need to give a range of known inputs that have known outputs and test against that. There is no universal right way to do that. However, using the same algorithm for the method and the verification proves nothing but that you're adept at copy/paste.