Related
I've been reading about TDD lately, and it is advocated because it supposedly results in code that is more testable and less coupled (and a bunch of other reasons).
I haven't been able to find much in the way of practical examples, except for a Roman numeral conversion and a number-to-English converter.
Observing these two examples, I observed the typical red-green-refactor cycles typical of TDD, as well as the application of the rules of TDD. However, this seemed like a big waste of time when normally I would observe a pattern and implement it in code, and then write tests for it after. Or possibly write a stub for the code, write the unit tests, and then write the implementation - which might arguably be TDD - but not this continuous case-by-case refactoring.
TDD appears to incite developers to jump right into the code and build their implementation inductively rather than designing a proper architecture. My opinion so far is that the benefits of TDD can be achieved by a proper architectural design, although admittedly not everyone can do this reasonably well.
So here I have two questions:
Am I right in understanding that using TDD pretty much doesn't allow you to design first (see the rules of TDD)?
Is there anything that TDD gives you that you can't get from doing proper design before you start coding?
well, I was in your shoes some time ago and had the same questions. Since then I have done quite some reading about TDD and decided to mess with it a little.
I can summarize my experience about TDD in these points:
TDD is unit testing done right, ATDD/BDD is TDD done right.
Whether you design beforehand or not is totally up to you. Just make sure you don't do BDUF. Believe me you will end up changing most of it midways because you can never fully understand the requirements until your hands get dirty.
OTOH, you can do enough design to get you started. Class diagrams, sequence diagrams, domain models, actors and collaborators are perfectly fine as long as you don't get hung up in the design phase trying to figure everything out.
Some people don't do any design at all. They just let the code talk and concentrate on refactoring.
IMHO, balance your approach. Do some design till you get the hang of it then start testing. When you reach a dead end then go back to the white board.
One more thing, some things can't be solved by TDD like figuring out an algorithm. This is a very interesting post that shows that some things just need to be designed first.
Unit testing is hard when you have the code already. TDD forces you to think from your API users perspective. This way you can early on decide if the public interface from your API is usable or not. If you decide to do unit testing after implementing everything you will find it tedious and most probably it will be only for some cases and I know some people who will right only passing test cases just to get the feature done. I mean who wants to break his own code after all that work?
TDD breaks this mentality. Tests are first class citizens. You aren't allowed to skip tests. You aren't allowed to postpone some tests till the next release because we don't have enough time.
Finally to answer your question if there anything that TDD gives you that you can't get from doing proper design before you start coding, I would say commitment.
As long as your doing TDD you are committed to apply good OO principles, so that your code is testable.
To answer your questions:
"Test Driven Development" (TDD) is often referred to as "Test Driven Design", in that this practice will result in a good design of the code. When you have written a failing unit test, you are forced into a test driven design approach, so that you can implement just what is needed to make the test pass i.e. you have to consider the design of the code you are writing to make the test pass.
When using a TDD approach a developer will implement the minimum amount of code required to pass the test. Doing proper design beforehand usually results in waste if the requirements change once the project has started.
You say "TDD appears to incite developers to jump right into the code and build their implementation inductively rather than designing a proper architecture" - If you are following an Agile approach to your software development, then you do still need to do some up front architectural investigation (e.g. if you were using the Scrum methodology you would create a development "Spike" at the start of a project) to ascertain what the minimum amount of architecture needed to start the project. At this stage you make decisions based on what you know now e.g. if you had to work with a small dataset you'd choose to use a regular DB, if you have a huge DB you might to choose to use a NoSQL big data DB etc.
However, once you have a general idea of the architecture, you should let the design evolve as the project progresses leaving further architectural decisions as late in the process as possible; Invariably as a project progresses the architecture and requirements will change.
Further more this rather popular post on SO will give you even more reasons why TDD is definetly worth the effort.
In the old days programming used to involve less guesswork. I would write some lines of code and be 100% certain about what the code does and what it does not at a glance. Errors were mostly typos, but not about the functionality.
The last years I believe there is a trend for this "trial-and-error" programming : write the code (as if in draft), and then debug iteratively until the program's behavior appears to comply with the requirements. Test, and test again, and then again.
Funny thing is, in my Visual Studio the "Run" button has been replaced by a button labelled "Debug" (= I know you have some bugs!). I have to admit that in several apps that I write I cannot guarantee a bug-free code.
What do you think ? Or maybe our systems are now overly complicated (browser/OS/Service Pack compatibilities, etc etc) and this justifies testing on all types of environments.
I've experienced the opposite, actually. Whereas it used to be a case of running until it worked, I now unit test until the tests pass... and this seems to be at least a reasonably common transition, as far as I can see.
I have to say that code which worked first time with only typos has never been the norm in my experience. The difference is that now I can find the problems much more quickly, and also spot if old problems come back. I can sometimes manage pretty short and simple bits of code with no errors (and posting on Stack Overflow has improved that ability) but large, complex systems? Heck no.
To answer the title of your post - the "test, test, test" principle is a good one, in my view... but I don't associate that with running the whole program repeatedly. I associate it with running unit tests frequently. I rarely need to use the debugger for unit tests - usually a failure makes the cause suitably obvious by inspection, because only a small amount of code is being tested.
The one word answer is "Complexity". The real answer is "Unnecessary Complexity"!
The accounting principles has not changed for the past 30 years. Why then is writing an accounting system is so much more difficult today? It is good to have a Graphic User Interface but do we have to go overboard?
Software development has been caught in a vicious circle for many years. The complexity is feeding itself and instead of reducing it we simply hide it under layers and layers of wrappers. Eventually something is going to give.
When we favor form over function, we have to pay the price.
Could it be that in later years developers have come to the realization that the "100% certainty" might not actually be correct? Developing software is very complex, and even though the tools have evolved over the years, so has our realization that writing good code is hard. True, debugging and automated unit tests have made us more productive, but we still produce bugs, just as we did back then, only now we have different tools to catch them with.
You may write code that you think you know 100% what it does and does not do, but there is always that edge case that you haven't thought of or the odd exception thrown that you don't expect. Some times trial-and-error programming can be a helpful tool to narrow down a problem, with the debuggers help.
Its important to know what tools are available to you to help produce code with minimal bugs.
I have found that the Test-Test approach helps me design the code. Sometimes the work that has to be done is too complex to do it all in one. Testing forces me to split it into smaller parts and as I solve these I am able to put them together into a larger whole.
I think the advantage comes in an indirect way: When you embrace tests and unit tests, you have to write your application in such a way that you can actually write tests:
Classes need to be written in such a way that you can instantiate a single object without the whole application and OS around it, but just a few helper objects. This means you need to minimize the dependencies, and make all communication to the surrounding system explicit.
Implementing the test cases means that you have to find a minimum sequence of commands and calls that makes your class do something meaningful. This often points to awkward design decisions, or shows you that classes are very difficult to use for certain purposes.
All in all, when you embrace tests, you end up with a system that has a minimum of interdependencies between its components, and the test cases serve as documentation of how to use your components.
Testing (executing your system) tells you something about "the presence of bugs but NOT about the absence of them" (afaik this term is coinced by dijkstra). It points to the direction that the strength of your test-suite is the key of testing: "You have so many test cases, that you can say, that many bugs do not exist. This implies that big parts of your software work as expected".
Some examples for having a strong/mighty test-suite:
A lot of code is executed by your unit tests (the traditional coverage term)
You have no false-negative tests (test which show green but in fact should be red). False negative tests are evil, because they give you a wrong sense of test-case quality. For details of good test-asserts and false-negatives see also blog-entry#1 and blog-entry#2.
The requirements are well understood (I have seen a lot of cases where an automated test was testing the wrong thing and the developer misunderstood the requirement from business). For the developer is was green, but for business the system was not working as expected (another kind of false-negative example but on a higher level).
In a sense the correctness of a program is only proven, when it is done with mathematical proofs (which only pays off for life-critical and money-intense systems). Still you can achieve a lot with automated testings (apart from unit-testing, automated integration testing always helped a lot).
Regarding debugging: I use debugging to as often as I used to be, but sometimes when adding new functionality to code (my new test-case shows green) I break other test-cases. By the assert I instantly see that something went wrong, but still didn't locate the bug. For locating the bug debugging is still helpful (with the red test-case I execute the problematic code-paths, with the debugger I locate the bug).
If you're interested in test-automation have a look at masterpiece xUnit Test patterns.
I've read one book ("TDD by example" by Kent Beck) which indeed seems to take that "trial and error" approach to an extreme: but it's more like "make the unit tests work". Still, I couldn't get myself to finish this book - a rare occurence, especially since I really hoped to get a better understanding. Still, committing obviously imbecile code to be improved later makes me shiver.
Science: Automated tests have their advantages. However, they are not the silver bullet they are claimed to be. No single test method is sufficient to findenough defects, and other methods have a better detection rate.
Gut feel: Our problems are facets of ever-increasing complexity. Complexity highly correlates with the amount of code we have to manage. In this light, TDD attempts to solve the problems of to much code by writing even more code.
Advantages: We now have an established formalism to make testing repeatable, accountable and immediately documented. It is definitely a way out of the "works on my machine" and "strange, it worked yesterday, I'll give you the latest DLL" trap.
I currently practice Test Driven Development (TDD), or at least write many unit tests to verify that most/all of my code behaves the way I expect it to behave. Taking this approach forces me to look at my program from the perspective of the consumer. Also, as I write tests, I often think of boundary limits, additional scenarios that I didn't originally envision, etc.
I've now come to the point where I'm afraid to make changes to older programs, as I'm afraid that I'll break something. Regression testing is onerous, compared with running a suite of unit tests.
Can TDD be successful as a defect-reduction strategy without incorporating guidance on test case construction and evaluation?
IMO, my answer would be no. For TDD to be effective, there has to be guidelines around what is a test and what it means to have something be reasonably tested. Without a guideline, there may be some developers that end up with tons of defects because their initial tests cover a very small set of inputs,e.g. only the valid ones, which can cause the idea of using TDD to become worthless.
Test driven development can reduce defects in a QA cycle simply because testing allows developers to find defects prior to releasing their code to the QA team.
But without guidance on how to test you really won't be able to create any kind of long-term benefit since haphazard testing will only prevent defects by blind luck. Good tests based on good guidance can go a long way towards reducing defects.
if you don't have tests to reproduce defects, how do you know that "defect reduction" has taken place?
of course you do have tests - they're just manual, and thus tedious and time-consuming to reproduce...
Here's a study (warning: link to PDF file) done by microsoft on some of their internal teams.
A quote from it:
The results of the case studies indicate that the pre-release defect density of the four products decreased between 40% and 90% relative to similar projects that did not use the TDD practice. Subjectively, the teams experienced a 15–35% increase in initial development time after adopting TDD
That's the only actual empirical study done on TDD/Unit testing that I'm aware of, but there are plenty of people (including myself) that will anecdotally tell you that TDD (and unit testing in general) will definitely provide an increase in the quality of your code.
From my own experience, there is definitely a reduction in the number of defects, but the numbers feel like they would be far less than even the 40% from the Microsoft study; This is (again, based solely on what I've seen) primarily because most corporate developers have little to no experience with Unit Testing (let alone TDD), and will invariably do a bad job of it while they are learning. Actually learning how to do TDD well requires at least a solid year of experience, and I've never worked in (or even seen) a team which actually had a full complement of developers with that experience.
You may want to pickup a copy of Gerard Meszaros' xUnit Test Patterns. Specifically, Chapter 5 might apply most directly to your question where it covers the Principles of Test Automation. Some of those principles that I think apply to your scenario where there needs to be some sort of guidance, common interest, or some sort of implied do this or fear the wrath of :
Principle: Communicate Intent
Tests need to be easy to maintain, readily apparent what the test is doing.
Principle: Keep Tests Independent
Small tests that cover one small piece. Tests should not interfere with each other.
Principle: Minimize Test Overlap
Need to design tests that cover a specific piece, and do not create tests that exercise the same paths repeatedly.
Principle: Verify One Condition Per Test
This one seemed simple enough for me, but is one of the most challenging in my experiences for people to grasp. I may write tests that have some multiple asserts, but I try to keep all those together around the specific area. When it comes to hunting down failures and other test issues, it is MUCH easier to fiddle with a single test that is testing a specific path instead of several different paths all clumped into a single test method.
Further relating to my experiences, if we want to talk about the corporate developer, I have seen some folks that are interested and take the initiative to learn something new, but more often than not, you have folks that like to go with the flow, and like to have things laid out for them. Without some sort of direction, be it a mandate from a senior engineer-type, or some sort of joint-team discussions (see Practices of an Agile Developer for some ideas such as lunch time meetings once a week), I think your chance of success would be limited.
In a team situation, where your code is likely to be used by someone else, the tests have a fringe benefit that can reduce defects without necessarily even improving anyone's code.
Where documentation is poor (which during development is "often"), the tests act a crib for how you expect your code to be called. So, even in cases where the code is really very fragile, TDD can still reduce the number of defects raised against the end-product -- by ensuring your colleagues can see well-written tests before they can use your code, you've ensured they know how you intend your code to be used before they call it. They are thus less-likely to call your code in an unexpected sequence / without having configured something you expected (but forgot to write a check for) as a prerequisite. Thus they are less likely to trigger the failure condition, and you are less likely to see them or the (human) test team raising a defect because something crashed.
Of course, whether you see that "there's a hidden bug in there, it's just not being called yet" as a problem itself is another good question.
I have a project that I have been working on for a while, just one of those little pet projects that I would like to one day release to open source.
Now I started the project about 12 months ago but I was only working on it lightly, I have just started to concentrate a lot more of my time on it(almost every night).
Because it is a framework like application I sometimes struggle with a sense of direction due to the fact I don't have anything driving my design decisions and I sometimes end up making features that are hard to use or even find. I have been reading about how to do TDD and thought maybe this will help me with some of the problems that I am having.
So the question is do you think it's a good idea to start using TDD on a project that doesn't already use it.
EDIT: I have just added a bit to clarify what I mean by struggle with a "sense of direction", it properly wasn't the best thing to say without clarification.
In my opinion, it's never too late to adopt a better practice - or to drop a worse one - so I'd say "Yes, you should start".
However ... (there's always a "but") ...
... one of the biggest gains of TDD is that it impacts on your design, encouraging you to keep reponsibilties separate, interactions clean and so on.
At this point in your project, you may find it difficult to get tests written for some aspects of your framework. Don't give up though, even if you can't test some areas, your quality will be the better for the areas you can test, and your skills will improve for the experience.
Yes.
Basically, you can't do any harm by adding TDD for any new code you write, and any changes you make to existing code. Obviously it would be tricky to go back and retro-fit accurate tests to existing code, but it certainly couldn't hurt to cover the primary use-cases.
Maybe consider having a look at Brownfield Application Development in .NET? It is full of pragmatic and practical advice for exactly this scenario (one of the definitions offered for "Brownfield" is "without proper unit tests").
Yes, absolutely a good idea to start doing TDD.
You will pay a start-up cost for at least two reasons:
Learning a new skill TDD/unit testing.
Retrofitting your code to be testable.
You'll need to do some of both, but as you work if you find yourself struggling think of which of those two is the source of the effort.
But the end result is worth it. From what you describe this is a project you intend to live with for quite a while. Remember that when you lose an hour here or there. In a year you'll be very happy that you made this investment both in your skill set and the code base.
At worse, you can just do TDD on new stuff, while you slowly create tests for your existing code base.
Yes, it's never too late to start using TDD. I have introduced TDD to a commercial project that was already running for five years when I joined, and it was definitely a good decision.
While you are new to the technique, you should probably concentrate on using it for the code that you are writing from a clean slate - new classes, new methods etc. Once you got a hang on it, start writing tests for code that you change.
For some of the code, the latter might prove to be difficult, because the code you have written until now is unlikely to be written with testability in mind. There are some techniques to deal with that, but it's probably too early to care about them.
If you are missing a sense of direction, though, I doubt that TDD will help you a lot. You might want to look into Acceptance Testing instead, which is at least as important as unit testing, and will help you focus on the functionality of the system instead of single units of code. The TDD book by Lasse Koskela is a good introduction to both techniques.
Another technique that might help you is the Extreme Programming planning game, where you put pieces of functionality on index cards and prioritize them. I typically notice that getting ideas out of my head and in prioritized order helps me a lot in understanding where I want to go next.
As others have said, TDD shouldn't hurt a project in progress, but think carefully if you're tempted to do large-scale refactoring just to allow testing. Make sure the benefits justify the cost.
I'm a little concerned that you "struggle with a sense of direction." I don't know that TDD will help you there. I find it's a great help for low-level design decisions, but not so great for architecture decisions. Adding TDD to a directionless project sounds a bit like having a baby to save a marriage - unwise. Hopefully I misread your intention.
Yes.
TDD makes it easier for other people to understand the code, as well as it gives the application a better design over time
In theory you were supposed to test first, but you didn't. In this scenario, contrary to others opinion, I wouldn't start with new features.
Take advantage of the 80:20 rule, run a profiler, and put the test cases to the most frequently called piece of code.
Put tests around the house jewel, gut, most-important code.
Put tests around the annoying, always-breaking, recurrent déjà vu buggy code.
Put tests around all bugs you come across before fixing the bug for failing test.
Warning: Putting test cases will require refactoring, which means you must fix something that's not breaking.
If you still love unit tests at this point, you'd be Red, Green, Refactoring on your own.
Absolutely.
Introduce TDD to new code and if time allows, introduce "Comment Driven Design" with your existing code if it's not already tested.
Comment out the block of existing code you need to test
Write your test
Uncomment your original code one statement at a time (if you have an if block, uncomment the entire block)
Determine if your original code ultimately passes your test and if not, re-write to pass your tests accordingly
Writing tests for existing, working code that you don't plan to change doesn't fit with the thrust of TDD, which is to write tests that teach you about the system you're building.
My approach to bringing in TDD mid-stream has been to:
write tests for all new features, and
when changing a piece of code, write a test that covers the existing functionality (to make sure I understand it), then change the test before changing the code.
It can also be beneficial to write tests for code related to code you're changing - e.g., if you're altering a parent class, you may want to build tests around child classes first to protect yourself from potential damage.
Yes, you should. I'm currently working on a project that until recently wasn't covered with unit tests, but we decided that we should start testing our code, so we started writing them now. Unfortunately, I'm the only developer that practices TDD, others just write tests after writing their code.
Still, I found that practicing TDD helps me write better code, and I write it faster than before. Now that I learned how to do TDD, I just don't want to go back to writing code the way I used to.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I was watching Rob Connerys webcasts on the MVCStoreFront App, and I noticed he was unit testing even the most mundane things, things like:
public Decimal DiscountPrice
{
get
{
return this.Price - this.Discount;
}
}
Would have a test like:
[TestMethod]
public void Test_DiscountPrice
{
Product p = new Product();
p.Price = 100;
p.Discount = 20;
Assert.IsEqual(p.DiscountPrice,80);
}
While, I am all for unit testing, I sometimes wonder if this form of test first development is really beneficial, for example, in a real process, you have 3-4 layers above your code (Business Request, Requirements Document, Architecture Document), where the actual defined business rule (Discount Price is Price - Discount) could be misdefined.
If that's the situation, your unit test means nothing to you.
Additionally, your unit test is another point of failure:
[TestMethod]
public void Test_DiscountPrice
{
Product p = new Product();
p.Price = 100;
p.Discount = 20;
Assert.IsEqual(p.DiscountPrice,90);
}
Now the test is flawed. Obviously in a simple test, it's no big deal, but say we were testing a complicated business rule. What do we gain here?
Fast forward two years into the application's life, when maintenance developers are maintaining it. Now the business changes its rule, and the test breaks again, some rookie developer then fixes the test incorrectly...we now have another point of failure.
All I see is more possible points of failure, with no real beneficial return, if the discount price is wrong, the test team will still find the issue, how did unit testing save any work?
What am I missing here? Please teach me to love TDD, as I'm having a hard time accepting it as useful so far. I want too, because I want to stay progressive, but it just doesn't make sense to me.
EDIT: A couple people keep mentioned that testing helps enforce the spec. It has been my experience that the spec has been wrong as well, more often than not, but maybe I'm doomed to work in an organization where the specs are written by people who shouldn't be writing specs.
First, testing is like security -- you can never be 100% sure you've got it, but each layer adds more confidence and a framework for more easily fixing the problems that remain.
Second, you can break tests into subroutines which themselves can then be tested. When you have 20 similar tests, making a (tested) subroutine means your main test is 20 simple invocations of the subroutine which is much more likely to be correct.
Third, some would argue that TDD addresses this concern. That is, if you just write 20 tests and they pass, you're not completely confident that they are actually testing anything. But if each test you wrote initially failed, and then you fixed it, then you're much more confident that it's really testing your code. IMHO this back-and-forth takes more time than it's worth, but it is a process that tries to address your concern.
A test being wrong is unlikely to break your production code. At least, not any worse than having no test at all. So it's not a "point of failure": the tests don't have to be correct in order for the product to actually work. They might have to be correct before it's signed off as working, but the process of fixing any broken tests does not endanger your implementation code.
You can think of tests, even trivial tests like these, as being a second opinion what the code is supposed to do. One opinion is the test, the other is the implementation. If they don't agree, then you know you have a problem and you look closer.
It's also useful if someone in future wants to implement the same interface from scratch. They shouldn't have to read the first implementation in order to know what Discount means, and the tests act as an unambiguous back-up to any written description of the interface you may have.
That said, you're trading off time. If there are other tests you could be writing using the time you save skipping these trivial tests, maybe they would be more valuable. It depends on your test setup and the nature of the application, really. If the Discount is important to the app, then you're going to catch any bugs in this method in functional testing anyway. All unit testing does is let you catch them at the point you're testing this unit, when the location of the error will be immediately obvious, instead of waiting until the app is integrated together and the location of the error might be less obvious.
By the way, personally I wouldn't use 100 as the price in the test case (or rather, if I did then I'd add another test with another price). The reason is that someone in future might think that Discount is supposed to be a percentage. One purpose of trivial tests like this is to ensure that mistakes in reading the specification are corrected.
[Concerning the edit: I think it's inevitable that an incorrect specification is a point of failure. If you don't know what the app is supposed to do, then chances are it won't do it. But writing tests to reflect the spec doesn't magnify this problem, it merely fails to solve it. So you aren't adding new points of failure, you're just representing the existing faults in code instead of waffle documentation.]
All I see is more possible points of failure, with no real beneficial return, if the discount price is wrong, the test team will still find the issue, how did unit testing save any work?
Unit testing isn't really supposed to save work, it's supposed to help you find and prevent bugs. It's more work, but it's the right kind of work. It's thinking about your code at the lowest levels of granularity and writing test cases that prove that it works under expected conditions, for a given set of inputs. It's isolating variables so you can save time by looking in the right place when a bug does present itself. It's saving that suite of tests so that you can use them again and again when you have to make a change down the road.
I personally think that most methodologies are not many steps removed from cargo cult software engineering, TDD included, but you don't have to adhere to strict TDD to reap the benefits of unit testing. Keep the good parts and throw out the parts that yield little benefit.
Finally, the answer to your titular question "How do you unit test a unit test?" is that you shouldn't have to. Each unit test should be brain-dead simple. Call a method with a specific input and compare it to its expected output. If the specification for a method changes then you can expect that some of the unit tests for that method will need to change as well. That's one of the reasons that you do unit testing at such a low level of granularity, so only some of the unit tests have to change. If you find that tests for many different methods are changing for one change in a requirement, then you may not be testing at a fine enough level of granularity.
Unit tests are there so that your units (methods) do what you expect. Writing the test first forces you to think about what you expect before you write the code. Thinking before doing is always a good idea.
Unit tests should reflect the business rules. Granted, there can be errors in the code, but writing the test first allows you to write it from the perspective of the business rule before any code has been written. Writing the test afterwards, I think, is more likely to lead to the error you describe because you know how the code implements it and are tempted just to make sure that the implementation is correct -- not that the intent is correct.
Also, unit tests are only one form -- and the lowest, at that -- of tests that you should be writing. Integration tests and acceptance tests should also be written, the latter by the customer, if possible, to make sure that the system operates the way it is expected. If you find errors during this testing, go back and write unit tests (that fail) to test the change in functionality to make it work correctly, then change your code to make the test pass. Now you have regression tests that capture your bug fixes.
[EDIT]
Another thing that I have found with doing TDD. It almost forces good design by default. This is because highly coupled designs are nearly impossible to unit test in isolation. It doesn't take very long using TDD to figure out that using interfaces, inversion of control, and dependency injection -- all patterns that will improve your design and reduce coupling -- are really important for testable code.
How does one test a test? Mutation testing is a valuable technique that I have personally used to surprisingly good effect. Read the linked article for more details, and links to even more academic references, but in general it "tests your tests" by modifying your source code (changing "x += 1" to "x -= 1" for example) and then rerunning your tests, ensuring that at least one test fails. Any mutations that don't cause test failures are flagged for later investigation.
You'd be surprised at how you can have 100% line and branch coverage with a set of tests that look comprehensive, and yet you can fundamentally change or even comment out a line in your source without any of the tests complaining. Often this comes down to not testing with the right inputs to cover all boundary cases, sometimes it's more subtle, but in all cases I was impressed with how much came out of it.
When applying Test-Driven Development (TDD), one begins with a failing test. This step, that might seem unecessary, actually is here to verify the unit test is testing something. Indeed, if the test never fails, it brings no value and worse, leads to wrong confidence as you'll rely on a positive result that is not proving anything.
When following this process strictly, all ''units'' are protected by the safety net the unit tests are making, even the most mundane.
Assert.IsEqual(p.DiscountPrice,90);
There is no reason the test evolves in that direction - or I'm missing something in your reasoning. When the price is 100 and the discount 20, the discount price is 80. This is like an invariant.
Now imagine your software needs to support another kind of discount based on percentage, perhaps depending on the volume bought, your Product::DiscountPrice() method may become more complicated. And it is possible that introducing those changes breaks the simple discount rule we had initially. Then you'll see the value of this test which will detect the regression immediately.
Red - Green - Refactor - this is to remember the essence of the TDD process.
Red refers to JUnit red bar when a tests fails.
Green is the color of JUnit progress bar when all tests pass.
Refactor under green condition: remove any dupliation, improve readability.
Now to address your point about the "3-4 layers above the code", this is true in a traditional (waterfall-like) process, not when the development process is agile. And agile is the world where TDD is coming from ; TDD is the cornerstone of eXtreme Programming.
Agile is about direct communication rather than thrown-over-the-wall requirement documents.
While, I am all for unit testing, I
sometimes wonder if this form of test
first development is really beneficial...
Small, trivial tests like this can be the "canary in the coalmine" for your codebase, alerting of danger before it's too late. The trivial tests are useful to keep around because they help you get the interactions right.
For example, think about a trivial test put in place to probe how to use an API you're unfamiliar with. If that test has any relevance to what you're doing in the code that uses the API "for real" it's useful to keep that test around. When the API releases a new version and you need to upgrade. You now have your assumptions about how you expect the API to behave recorded in an executable format that you can use to catch regressions.
...[I]n a real process, you have 3-4
layers above your code (Business
Request, Requirements Document,
Architecture Document), where the
actual defined business rule (Discount
Price is Price - Discount) could be
misdefined. If that's the situation,
your unit test means nothing to you.
If you've been coding for years without writing tests it may not be immediately obvious to you that there is any value. But if you are of the mindset that the best way to work is "release early, release often" or "agile" in that you want the ability to deploy rapidly/continuously, then your test definitely means something. The only way to do this is by legitimizing every change you make to the code with a test. No matter how small the test, once you have a green test suite you're theoretically OK to deploy. See also "continuous production" and "perpetual beta."
You don't have to be "test first" to be of this mindset, either, but that generally is the most efficient way to get there. When you do TDD, you lock yourself into small two to three minute Red Green Refactor cycle. At no point are you not able to stop and leave and have a complete mess on your hands that will take an hour to debug and put back together.
Additionally, your unit test is another
point of failure...
A successful test is one that demonstrates a failure in the system. A failing test will alert you to an error in the logic of the test or in the logic of your system. The goal of your tests is to break your code or prove one scenario works.
If you're writing tests after the code, you run the risk of writing a test that is "bad" because in order to see that your test truly works, you need to see it both broken and working. When you're writing tests after the code, this means you have to "spring the trap" and introduce a bug into the code to see the test fail. Most developers are not only uneasy about this, but would argue it is a waste of time.
What do we gain here?
There is definitely a benefit to doing things this way. Michael Feathers defines "legacy code" as "untested code." When you take this approach, you legitimize every change you make to your codebase. It's more rigorous than not using tests, but when it comes to maintaining a large codebase, it pays for itself.
Speaking of Feathers, there are two great resources you should check out in regard to this:
Working Effectively with Legacy Code
Brownfield Application Development in .NET
Both of these explain how to work these types of practices and disciplines into projects that aren't "Greenfield." They provide techniques for writing tests around tightly coupled components, hard wired dependencies, and things that you don't necessarily have control over. It's all about finding "seams" and testing around those.
[I]f the discount price is wrong, the
test team will still find the issue,
how did unit testing save any work?
Habits like these are like an investment. Returns aren't immediate; they build up over time. The alternative to not testing is essentially taking on debt of not being able to catch regressions, introduce code without fear of integration errors, or drive design decisions. The beauty is you legitimize every change introduced into your codebase.
What am I missing here? Please teach
me to love TDD, as I'm having a hard
time accepting it as useful so far. I
want too, because I want to stay
progressive, but it just doesn't make
sense to me.
I look at it as a professional responsibility. It's an ideal to strive toward. But it is very hard to follow and tedious. If you care about it, and feel you shouldn't produce code that is not tested, you'll be able to find the will power to learn good testing habits. One thing that I do a lot now (as do others) is timebox myself an hour to write code without any tests at all, then have the discipline to throw it away. This may seem wasteful, but it's not really. It's not like that exercise cost a company physical materials. It helped me to understand the problem and how to write code in such a way that it is both of higher quality and testable.
My advice would ultimately be that if you really don't have a desire to be good at it, then don't do it at all. Poor tests that aren't maintained, don't perform well, etc. can be worse than not having any tests. It's hard to learn on your own, and you probably won't love it, but it is going to be next to impossible to learn if you don't have a desire to do it, or can't see enough value in it to warrant the time investment.
A couple people keep mentioned that
testing helps enforce the spec. It has
been my experience that the spec has
been wrong as well, more often than
not...
A developer's keyboard is where the rubber meets the road. If the spec is wrong and you don't raise the flag on it, then it's highly probable you'll get blamed for it. Or at least your code will. The discipline and rigor involved in testing is difficult to adhere to. It's not at all easy. It takes practice, a lot of learning and a lot of mistakes. But eventually it does pay off. On a fast-paced, quickly changing project, it's the only way you can sleep at night, no matter if it slows you down.
Another thing to think about here is that techniques that are fundamentally the same as testing have been proven to work in the past: "clean room" and "design by contract" both tend to produce the same types of "meta"-code constructs that tests do, and enforce those at different points. None of these techniques are silver bullets, and rigor is going to cost you ultimately in the scope of features you can deliver in terms of time to market. But that's not what it's about. It's about being able to maintain what you do deliver. And that's very important for most projects.
Unit testing works very similar to double entry book keeping. You state the same thing (business rule) in two quite different ways (as programmed rules in your production code, and as simple, representative examples in your tests). It's very unlikely that you make the same mistake in both, so if they both agree with each other, it's rather unlikely that you got it wrong.
How is testing going to be worth the effort? In my experience in at least four ways, at least when doing test driven development:
it helps you come up with a well decoupled design. You can only unit test code that is well decoupled;
it helps you determine when you are done. Having to specify the needed behavior in tests helps to not build functionality that you don't actually need, and determine when the functionality is complete;
it gives you a safety net for refactorings, which makes the code much more amenable to changes; and
it saves you a lot of debugging time, which is horribly costly (I've heard estimates that traditionally, developers spend up to 80% of their time debugging).
Most unit tests, test assumptions. In this case, the discount price should be the price minus the discount. If your assumptions are wrong I bet your code is also wrong. And if you make a silly mistake, the test will fail and you will correct it.
If the rules change, the test will fail and that is a good thing. So you have to change the test too in this case.
As a general rule, if a test fails right away (and you don't use test first design), either the test or the code is wrong (or both if you are having a bad day). You use common sense (and possilby the specs) to correct the offending code and rerun the test.
Like Jason said, testing is security. And yes, sometimes they introduce extra work because of faulty tests. But most of the time they are huge time savers. (And you have the perfect opportunity to punish the guy who breaks the test (we are talking rubber chicken)).
Test everything you can. Even trivial mistakes, like forgetting to convert meters to feet can have very expensive side effects. Write a test, write the code for it to check, get it to pass, move on. Who knows at some point in the future, someone may change the discount code. A test can detect the problem.
I see unit tests and production code as having a symbiotic relationship. Simply put: one tests the other. And both test the developer.
Remember that the cost of fixing defects increases (exponentially) as the defects live through the development cycle. Yes, the testing team might catch the defect, but it will (usually) take more work to isolate and fix the defect from that point than if a unit test had failed, and it will be easier to introduce other defects while fixing it if you don't have unit tests to run.
That's usually easier to see with something more than a trivial example ... and with trivial examples, well, if you somehow mess up the unit test, the person reviewing it will catch the error in the test or the error in the code, or both. (They are being reviewed, right?) As tvanfosson points out, unit testing is just one part of an SQA plan.
In a sense, unit tests are insurance. They're no guarantee that you'll catch every defect, and it may seem at times like you're spending a lot of resources on them, but when they do catch defects that you can fix, you'll be spending a lot less than if you'd had no tests at all and had to fix all defects downstream.
I see your point, but it's clearly overstated.
Your argument is basically: Tests introduce failure. Therefore tests are bad/waste of time.
While that may be true in some cases, it's hardly the majority.
TDD assumes: More Tests = Less Failure.
Tests are more likely to catch points of failure than introduce them.
Even more automation can help here !
Yes, writing unit tests can be a lot of work, so use some tools to help you out.
Have a look at something like Pex, from Microsoft, if you're using .Net
It will automatically create suites of unit tests for you by examining your code. It will come up with tests which give good coverage, trying to cover all paths through your code.
Of course, just by looking at your code it can't know what you were actually trying to do, so it doesn't know if it's correct or not. But, it will generate interesting tests cases for you, and you can then examine them and see if it is behaving as you expect.
If you then go further and write parameterized unit tests (you can think of these as contracts, really) it will generate specific tests cases from these, and this time it can know if something's wrong, because your assertions in your tests will fail.
I've thought a bit about a good way to respond to this question, and would like to draw a parallel to the scientific method. IMO, you could rephrase this question, "How do you experiment an experiment?"
Experiments verify empirical assumptions (hypotheses) about the physical universe. Unit tests will test assumptions about the state or behavior of the code they call. We can talk about the validity of an experiment, but that's because we know, through numerous other experiments, that something doesn't fit. It doesn't have both convergent validity and empirical evidence. We don't design a new experiment to test or verify the validity of an experiment, but we may design a completely new experiment.
So like experiments, we don't describe the validity of a unit test based on whether or not it passes a unit test itself. Along with other unit tests, it describes the assumptions we make about the system it is testing. Also, like experiments, we try to remove as much complexity as we can from what we are testing. "As simple as possible, but no simpler."
Unlike experiments, we have a trick up our sleeve to verify our tests are valid other than just convergent validity. We can cleverly introduce a bug we know should be caught by the test, and see if the test does indeed fail. (If only we could do that in the real world, we'd depend much less on this convergent validity thing!) A more efficient way to do this is watch your test fail before implementing it (the red step in Red, Green, Refactor).
You need to use the correct paradigm when writing tests.
Start by first writing your tests.
Make sure they fail to start off with.
Get them to pass.
Code review before you checkin your code (make sure the tests are reviewed.)
You cant always be sure but they improve overall tests.
Even if you do not test your code, it will surely be tested in production by your users. Users are very creative in trying to crash your soft and finding even non-critical errors.
Fixing bugs in production is much more costly than resolving issues in development phase.
As a side-effect, you will lose income because of an exodus of customers. You can count on 11 lost or not gained customers for 1 angry customer.