Integrated Tests are Not Feeling Well--Long Live Design!
|Take me down to the big Rails city / where the tests are green and they take 10 minutes|
Wed Apr 23 14:38:08 CEST 2014
and apparently it's 2014, but there's still a widely held belief (in some circles) that integrated (or end-to-end) tests should be favored over unit tests. A belief that Test-Driven Development does not have a beneficial influence on the quality of your tests and code.
So today I'm repeating a few things I have been writing about in the last years.
|Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to INSERT a row is insignificant next to the power of Domain Models.|
A few properties of unit testsUnit tests target one or a few objects at a time, without accessing different resources than the CPU and memory of the current process. With respect to integrated tests, they are:
- Easier to write: their setup phase takes a few lines where Test Doubles are injected in a constructor.
- Faster: a 1000-test suite takes seconds to run.
- Isolated: they cannot interfere with each other or with the global state of the process.
- Repeatable: they always give the same result no matter the initial conditions.
- Precise: they tell you which wire does not work instead that the car does not start.
Listen to your tests
|How many asserts must a man write down / before you call him a man|
That's not to say integrated tests are not useful: I have a talk coming up at phpDay in which I will explain how our Behat test suite work and the optimizations we made to keep it under 5 minutes. Some concerns where integration tests shine are making sure systems built by different teams work together, refactoring legacy code, and acceptance-level tests written in the customer's language.
However, the ratio of unit tests to integrated tests should be in the range of 10 to 1, or even 50 to 1. If there is a force at work in a project that pushes for more integrated tests than unit tests, you are falling into a vicious cycle where instead of writing:
assertEquals("1.00", new Money(100).toString()); you're writing, more often than not: createSubscription(); assertEquals( "<span class="money">1.00</span>", findPriceTag(get("/subscription/" + id)) );and promoting coupling between the Money, Subscription and PageTemplate objects.
The Listen to the tests principle tell us to take difficult-to-write integrated tests as a smell: a warning that we need to break the dependencies between objects to be able to reuse them, for example in isolated tests (lowering coupling); and move responsibilities around until objects respond to an interface with a small surface area (increasing cohesion).
The benefit of TDD is continuously applying these two forces in your codebase. Renouncing to it while favoring integrated tests is thinking you're able to do the same in your mind, for the rest of the life of your codebase. We test because we don't want to break features, such as being able to perform a payment; but we unit test because we don't want to impact non-functional concerns such as reuse and the ability to change.
|Take me to the magic of the moment / on a glory night / where the objects of tomorrow dream away / in the wind of change|
ResourcesI'll stop short. Here's where you can know more about integrated and unit tests, explained by some of the best people in the field.
- The Test Pyramid, codified by Martin Fowler.
- Integrated tests are a scam and J.B. Rainsberger's blog. Since following his TDD course last fall I have a better mental model of the test-driven process and its output.
- Some examples of listening to the tests to pursue a simpler design.
(Note: Opinions expressed in this article and its replies are the opinions of their respective authors and not those of DZone, Inc.)