Shyam has posted 8 posts at DZone. You can read more from them at their website. View Full User Profile

Testing Function vs Testing Implementation

09.18.2009
| 4024 views |
  • submit to reddit

Often I have got complaints from developers that I work with that their unit tests are prone to breakages, or they don’t like writing unit tests because their code changes frequently, which causes them to change their tests as well. Its just extra overhead at that point, and starts being a chore. Atleast thats what their claim is. Now of course, I don’t agree with this at all. Not. One. Bit.

You see, when I hear this, its always tells me that there is something wrong with the way tests are written. A unit test that requires changes every time someone changes the code implies that there is a extremely strong coupling between how the code is written to how its tested. Some useful indicators of such a thing could be having a getter methods or properties which are visible only for tests, but not to external code. Or Tests which check if a loop happened 6 times or a mock was called 17 times. Sure, these assert that the function is working as intended, but say you optimize and reduce the recursion or method calls, then you need to go and update your expectations.

Of course, some of this is unavoidable when you are working with classes that have mocks injected into them. But in such a case, unless it is plain delegation, there must be some logic that must be happening. That should be the target of your tests, not the mock delegations. Usually, when I work with mocks, I have a few tests to make sure the right methods are getting called, and only if there is logic, I test it further. Otherwise, 1 or 2 tests and then I go and test the implementation of the mocked class to make sure it works under all conditions.

So lets consider a run of the mill binary search method that would be tested with mocks (A little bit contrived, but bear with me on this) :


public int binarySearch(List<Integer> items, int itemToFind, int low, int high) {
// Do the needful, in a recursive fashion
}

// A Brittle test
public void testUsingMocks() {
List<Integer> list = mockery.mock(List.class);
mockery.checking(new Expectations() {{
oneOf(list).size(); will(returnValue(3));
oneOf(list).get(1); will(returnValue(6));
}});
assertEquals(1, binarySearch(list, 6, 0, 2));
}

Now, while a bit contrived, this is a familiar sight when mocks are used to test. Or it might happen that to check the correctness of the algorithm, the indices at which the split happens is stored in a list, and verified in the test. These are the kind of whitebox tests that make unit tests brittle. And the more of them there are, the harder it is to maintain or refactor code. Rather than testing it with for some use cases and boundary conditions, this is testing whether the algorithm itself is correct. Useful for some particular cases, but normally not required unless you are developing algorithm.

I would argue that its rare to write these kinds of tests if you write your tests before you write the methods. With a TDD, you just write your expectations, what you expect to give the method and what you expect out. You then write your code to get it to pass, and you might use internal variables or logic which the test really doesn’t care about. These tests are durable and hold up to refactorings, and even give you a nice safety net. There are times when these end up becoming integration tests rather than unit tests, but I still believe that they deliver more bang for the buck.

Of course, when you start testing edge cases, you do end up getting mostly a code dependent white box test, and those still are fine since they are supposed to be edge cases, which shouldn’t change that often. Though the fact that there are conditionals usually signifies that there is a polymorphic object hiding in there. But thats a blog post for another day.

From http://theshyam.com/

Published at DZone with permission of its author, Shyam Seshadri.

(Note: Opinions expressed in this article and its replies are the opinions of their respective authors and not those of DZone, Inc.)

Tags: