Google Testing Blog: July 2008

Circular Dependency in constructors and Dependency Injection

Thursday, July 31, 2008

Miško HeveryGUICErefactoringclass A {
final B b;
A(B b){
this.b = b;
}
}

class B {
final A a;
B(){
this.a = new A(this);
}
}

+---------+ +---------+
| A |<-----| B | | | | | | |----->| |
+---------+ +---------+class A {
final B b;
A(B b){
this.b = b;
}
}

class B {
final A a;
B(A a){
this.a = a;
}
}GUICElist all of the methods in your class A and class B and. The shorter of the two lists is your hidden Class C.+---------+ +---------+
| A |<-----| B | | | | | +-+ | | | | +->|C| |
| |------+---->| | |
| | | +-+ |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+
+---------+ | B |
| A |<-------------| | | | | | | | +---+ | | | |--->| C |<----| | | | +---+ +---------+ +---------+ class C { C(){ } } class A { final C c; A(C c){ this.c = c; } } class B { final A a; final C c; B(A a, C c){ this.a = a; this.c = c; } }OO

9 comments

TotT: Testing Against Interfaces

Friday, July 25, 2008

public interface PlanetaryDeathRay {
  public void aim(double xPosition, double yPosition);
  public boolean fire(); /* call this if she says the rebel
                            base is on Dantooine */
}

public class BlueLaserPlanetaryDeathRay
    implements PlanetaryDeathRay { /* implementation here */ }
public class GreenLaserPlanetaryDeathRay
    implements PlanetaryDeathRay { /* implementation here */ }
PlanetaryDeathRayjunit.framework.TestCasepublic abstract class PlanetaryDeathRayTestCase
    extends TestCase {
  protected PlanetaryDeathRay deathRay;
  @Override protected void setUp() {
    deathRay = createDeathRay();
  }
  @Override protected void tearDown() {
    deathRay = null;
  }
  protected abstract PlanetaryDeathRay createDeathRay();
      /* create the PlanetaryDeathRay to test */

  public void testAim() {
    /* write implementation-independent tests here against
       deathRay.aim() */
  }
  public void testFire() {
    /* write implementation-independent tests here against
       deathRay.fire() */
  }
}
PlanetaryDeathRaycreateDeathRaytestAimtestFirepublic class BlueLaserPlanetaryDeathRayTest
    extends PlanetaryDeathRayTestCase {
  protected PlanetaryDeathRay createDeathRay() {
    return new BlueLaserPlanetaryDeathRay();
  }
}
BlueLaserPlanetaryDeathRay

7 comments

How to Write 3v1L, Untestable Code

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Miško HeveryJonathan Wolter

Make Your Own Dependencies - Instantiate objects using new in the middle of methods, don't pass the object in. This is evil because whenever you new up an object inside a block of code and then use it, anyone that wants to test that code is also forced to use that concrete object you new'ed up. They can't "inject" a dummy, fake, or other mock in to simplify the behavior or make assertions about what you do to it.

Heavy Duty Constructors - Make constructors that do lots of work in them. The more work you do in the constructor, the hard it is to create your object in a test fixture. And if your constructor can construct other things that are hard themselves to construct, that's even better! You want the transitive dependencies of every constructor to be enormous. Enormous is hard to get under test.

Depend on Concrete Classes - Tie things down to concrete classes - avoid interfaces wherever possible. (They let people substitute the concrete classes you're using for their own classes which would implement the same contract in the interface or abstract class. Testing do-gooders might want to do this to get your code under a test harness - don't let them!)

Conditional Slalom - Always, always, feel good when writing lengthy if branches and switch statements. These increase the number of possible execution paths that tests will need to cover when exercising the code under test. The higher the Cyclomatic complexity, the harder it is to test! When someone suggests to use polymorphism instead of conditionals, laugh at their thoughtfulness towards testing. Make the branching both deep and wide: if you're not consistently at least 5 conditionals deep, you're spoon feeding testable code to the TDD zealots.

Depend on Large Context Objects - Pass around ginormous context objects (or small ones with hard to construct contents). These will reduce the clarity of methods [myMethod(Context ctx) is less clear than myMethod(User user, Label label)]. For testing, the context objects will need to be created, populated, and passed around.

Use Statics - Statics, statics everywhere! They put a great big crunch in testability. They can't be mocked, and are a smell that you've got a method without a home. OO zealots will say that a static method is a sign that one of the parameters should own the method. But you're being 3v1L!

Use More Statics - Statics are a really powerful tool to bring TDD Infected engineers to their knees. Static methods can't be overridden in a subclass (sometimes subclassing a class and overriding methods is a technique for testing). When you use static methods, they can't be mocked using mocking libraries (nixing another trick up the pro-testing engineer's sleeve).

Use Global Flags - Why call a method explicitly? Just like L Ron Hubbard, use "mind over matter" to set a flag in one part of your code, in order to cause an effect in a totally different part of your application (it's even more fun when you do it concurrently in different threads!). The testers will go crazy trying to figure out why all of a sudden a conditional that was evaluating true one minute is all of a sudden evaluating to false.

Use Singletons Everywhere - Why pass in a dependency and make it obvious when you can use a singleton? It's hard to set up a test that requires singletons, and the TDDers will be in for a world of hurt when all their tests depend on each other's state.

Be Defensive - They're out to Get Your Code! - Defensively assert about the state of parameters passed in methods, constructors, and mid-method. If someone can pass in a null, you've left your guard down. You see, there are testing freaks out there that like to instantiate your object, or call a method under test and pass in nulls! Be aggressive in preventing this: rule your code with an iron fist! (And remember: it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.)

Use Primitives Wherever Possible - Instead of using a "cookie object," pass in primitives and do all the parsing you need, every time you need a value. Primitives make people work harder by having to parse and massage them to get the data out -- where objects are mockable (gasp) and nullable, and encapsulate state (who'd want to do that?)

Look for Everything You Need - By Looking for things you are asserting your objects dominance as the object which knows where everything is. This will make the life of tester hard, since he will have to mimic the environment so that your code can get a hold of what it needs. And don't be afraid of how many objects you need to reach out to to, the more the harder it will be for test to mock them all out in unisin. If you are an InvoiceTaxCalculator, feel free to do things like: invoiceTaxCalculator.getUser().getDbManager().getCaRateTables().getSalesTaxRate(). Cover your ears when some testing weenie tells you about Dependency Injection, Law of Demeter, or not looking for things.

Use static initializes - Do as much work as possible when your class is loaded. Testing nuts will be so frustrated when they find out just loading your class causes nasty stuff like network or file access.

Couple functional code directly to the external systems it depends on If your product uses external systems such as a databases, file systems or a network, make sure your business logic is coded to reference as many low level implementation details of these systems as possible. This will prevent others from using your code in ways you don't intend, (like small tests that run in 2 ms instead of 5 minutes).

Mix Object Lifecycles - Have long lived objects reference short lived objects. This confuses people as the long lived object references the short lived object still after it's no longer valid or alive. This is especially insidious, both bad design, and evil, hard to test.

Side Effects are the Way to Go Your best bet is to perform a large number of side effect producing operations in your methods. This is especially true for setters. The more non-obvious the side effects better. Peculiar and seemingly irrational side effects are particularly helpful for unit testing. To add another layer of sweet creamy goodness on top, you want to make it possible to initialize your objects in an invalid state, with uninitialized member fields. Once you have achieved this, be sure to make calls on the methods of the uninitialized fields as side effects from your setters in order to cause SEGV's or NPE's, depending on your language's vernacular. Why go to all this trouble? Clean, readable, and testable code that works, that's why! Side effect free functions are for intellectual weaklings that think a function name should give some kind of an indication of what the function does.

Create Utility Classes and Functions/Methods - For instance, you have a String which is a URL you're passing around (obeying "Use Primitives Wherever Possible"). Create another class with static methods such as isValidUrl(String url). Don't let the OO police tell you to make that a method on a URL object. And if your static utility methods can call to external services as well, that's even better!

Create Managers and Controllers - all over the place have these Managers and Controllers meddling in the responsibilities of other objects. Don't bother trying to pull that responsibility into other individual objects. Look at a SomeObjectManager class and you have no idea what it's going to do.

Do Complicated Creation Work in Objects - Whenever someone suggests you to use a Factory to instantiate things, know that you are smarter than them. You're more intelligent than they must be, because your objects can have multiple responsibilities and be thousands of lines long.

Greenlight if-branches and switch statements - Go ahead, don't feel dirty about nesting if-branches. It's "more readable" that way. OO cowboys will want to have a whole polymorphic soup of collaborating objects. Say no to the OO-ist. When you nest and branch conditionals, all you need to do is read the code from top to bottom. Like a great novel, one simple linear prose of code. With the OO-overboard paradigm, it's like a terrible choose-your-own-adventure kid's book. You're constantly flipping between classes and juggling patterns and so many more complex concepts. Just if-things out and you'll be fine.

Utils, Utils, Utils! - Code smell? No way - code perfume! Litter about as many util and helper classes as you wish. These folks are helpful, and when you stick them off somewhere, someone else can use them too. That's code reuse, and good for everyone, right? Be forewarned, the OO-police will say that functionality belongs in some object, as that object's responsibility. Forget it, you're way to pragmatic to break things down like they want. You've got a product to ship after all!

Use "Refactoring" whenever you need to get away with something - This is a word that Test-Driven and OO-goons like. So if you want to do something far reaching, involving new functionality, without tests, just tell them you're "Refactoring." It'll trick them every time. No matter that they think you need to have tests around everything before you can refactor, and that it should never add new functionality. Ignore their hubbub, and do things your own way!

Java Specific

Final Methods - Use final classes and methods all the time. They can't be overridden for testing (-; But don't bother making fields final, or using value objects (without setters) - just let your objects' state be changed by anything and anyone. No sense in guaranteeing state, it'd make things too easy.

Handcuff your users to Specific Types - Use instanceof as much as possible. This will make Mocking a pain, and show people that you're in control of the objects allowed.

C++ Specific

Use non-virtual methods - Unless you need to override the method in a deep and scary inheritance hierarchy, just make the method non-virtual. If you make it virtual, a TDD zealot may mock your class! An even nicer trick is to keep your destructor non-virtual - then when the testing freaks try to subclass, whooooaoaaaaaa....

Never use pure abstract classes - Depending on pure abstract classes is a sure-fire way to let the TDD crazies inject stubs and mocks into your code, making it testable.

Macros are your friends - Always use #ifdef PROD and other compile-time switches to make sure the testies can't get at your really important blocks of code and test them. In fact, this code won't even run: until it gets to production!

31 comments

Breaking the Law of Demeter is Like Looking for a Needle in the Haystack

Monday, July 21, 2008

But here is the real killer! Writing tests for such code base sucks!

Every time I have to write a test I have to create a graph of objects (the haystack) which no one really needs or cares for, and into this haystack I have to carefully place the needles (the real object of interests) so that the code under test can go and look for them. I have to create the Context just so when I construct the Mechanic it can reach in the Context and get what it realy needs, the Engine. But context is never something which is easy to create. Since context is a kitchen sink which knows just about everything else, its constructor is usually scary. So most of the time I can't even instantiate Mechanic, not to mention run any tests on it. The testing game is over before it even started.
Ok, but today we have fancy tools such as JMock and EasyMock, surely i can mock out Context. Yes, you can! BUT: (1) typical setup of a mock is about 5 lines of code. So your test will contain a lot of junk which will mask the real purpose of the test. (2) These tests will be fragile. Every time you refactor something in context, or how context interacts, you are running the risk of breaking your tests. (False negatives) (3) What if you want to test the class Shop which needs a reference to Mechanic? Well then you have to mock out Context again. This mocking tax will be spread all over your tests. In the end the mocking setup will drown out your tests and make for one unreadable test base.

Please stop looking for the needle in the haystack and just ask for the things you directly need in your code. You will thank me later...

class Mechanic {
Engine engine;
Mechanic(Engine engine) {
  this.engine = engine;
}
}

PS: Now imagine how hard will it be to write a test for this class:

class Monitor {
SparkPlug sparkPlug;
Monitor(Context context) {
  this.sparkPlug = context.
        getCar().getEngine().
        getPiston().getSparkPlug();
}
}

GOOD LUCK!

Miško HeveryLaw of Demeterclass Mechanic { Engine engine; Mechanic(Context context) { this.engine = context.getEngine(); } }MechanicContextMechanicContextMechanicContextEngine

Most applications tend to have some sort of Context object which is the kitchen sink and which can get you just about any other object in the system aka the service locator.

If you want to reuse this code in a different project, the compiler will not only need Mechanic and Engine but also the Context. But Context is the kitchen sink of your application. It tends to reference to just about every other class in your system, hence the compiler will need those classes too. This kind of code is not very reusable.

Even if you don't plan to reuse the code, the Context has high coupling with the rest of the system. Coupling is transitive, this means Mechanic inherits all of the badness through association.

Your JavaDoc is not very useful! Yes, by examining the API I can see that the Mechanic needs Context, but Context is the kitchen sink. What does the mechanic really need? (If you don't have source code nearby, it may be hard to figure out).

Every time I have to write a test I have to create a graph of objects (the haystack) which no one really needs or cares for, and into this haystack I have to carefully place the needles (the real object of interests) so that the code under test can go and look for them. I have to create the Context just so when I construct the Mechanic it can reach in the Context and get what it realy needs, the Engine. But context is never something which is easy to create. Since context is a kitchen sink which knows just about everything else, its constructor is usually scary. So most of the time I can't even instantiate Mechanic, not to mention run any tests on it. The testing game is over before it even started.

Ok, but today we have fancy tools such as JMock and EasyMock, surely i can mock out Context. Yes, you can! BUT: (1) typical setup of a mock is about 5 lines of code. So your test will contain a lot of junk which will mask the real purpose of the test. (2) These tests will be fragile. Every time you refactor something in context, or how context interacts, you are running the risk of breaking your tests. (False negatives) (3) What if you want to test the class Shop which needs a reference to Mechanic? Well then you have to mock out Context again. This mocking tax will be spread all over your tests. In the end the mocking setup will drown out your tests and make for one unreadable test base.

class Mechanic { Engine engine; Mechanic(Engine engine) { this.engine = engine; } }class Monitor { SparkPlug sparkPlug; Monitor(Context context) { this.sparkPlug = context. getCar().getEngine(). getPiston().getSparkPlug(); } }

10 comments

YUI and GWT... How do you test?

Monday, July 21, 2008

Posted by Patrick Copeland, Engineering Productivity Director

A smart person once said that, "all computer science problems can be solved by introducing another abstraction layer." From a testing perspective, every new abstraction layer also introduces every problem in computer science.

Frank Cohen, of PushToTest, wrote a blog post recently that focuses on the Google Web Tool Kit and puts the challange of dealing new abstration layers into a brief historical perspective.

http://tinyurl.com/6r34jf

5 comments

Call for Attendance: GTAC 2008

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Timeline

Deadline for applying as a participant: August 15
Notification of acceptance: August 29
Wait list callbacks: October 3
GTAC 2008 Conference: October 23 and 24

Scheduled Presentations

Atom Publishing Protocol, Testing a Server Implementation by David Calavera
JInjector: a Coverage and End-To-End Testing Framework for J2ME and RIM by Julian Harty, Olivier Gaillard, and Michael Sama
Advances in Automated Software Testing Technologies by Elfriede Dustin
Taming the Beast: How to test an AJAX Application by Markus Clermont and John Thomas
Automated Model-Based Testing of Web Applications by Oluwaseun Akinmade and Prof. Atif M Memon
Boosting Your Testing Productivity with Groovy by Andres Almiray
Practicing Testability in the Real World by Vishal Chowdhary
The New Genomics: Software Development at Petabyte Scale by Matt Wood
The Value of Small Tests by Christopher Semturs
Deployment and Test Automation: Extending the Notion of 'Done' to 'System Tested on a Production Deployment' by Marc-Elian Begin

No Registration Fees
The GTAC conference has no registration fees. Once invitations have been sent to participate, full registration instructions will be sent to each invitee. Breakfast and lunch will be provided each day of the conference, as well as a reception the evening of October 23.

Cancellation
If you register as a participant and will not be able to attend, please send email immediately to [email protected] to allow a wait list person the opportunity to participate in that slot.

Hotel Accommodations
W Seattle (Conference Venue)
1112 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 264-6000

Other Hotels in the Area
Hotel Vintage Park
1100 5th Ave
Seattle, WA
(206) 624-8000

Madison Renaissance Hotel
515 Madison St
Seattle, WA
(206) 583-0300

Hotel Monaco
1101 4th Avenue
Seattle, WA
(206) 621-1770

Posted by Lydia Ash, Test Engineering Manager Call for Attendance
Google Test Automation Conference 2008
Seattle, WA
October 23 - 24http://services.google.com/events/gtac2008

Timeline

Deadline for applying as a participant: August 15

Notification of acceptance: August 29

Wait list callbacks: October 3

GTAC 2008 Conference: October 23 and 24

Scheduled Presentations

Atom Publishing Protocol, Testing a Server Implementation by David Calavera

JInjector: a Coverage and End-To-End Testing Framework for J2ME and RIM by Julian Harty, Olivier Gaillard, and Michael Sama

Advances in Automated Software Testing Technologies by Elfriede Dustin

Taming the Beast: How to test an AJAX Application by Markus Clermont and John Thomas

Automated Model-Based Testing of Web Applications by Oluwaseun Akinmade and Prof. Atif M Memon

Boosting Your Testing Productivity with Groovy by Andres Almiray

Practicing Testability in the Real World by Vishal Chowdhary

The New Genomics: Software Development at Petabyte Scale by Matt Wood

The Value of Small Tests by Christopher Semturs

Deployment and Test Automation: Extending the Notion of 'Done' to 'System Tested on a Production Deployment' by Marc-Elian Begin

No Registration FeesCancellationgtac@google.comHotel AccommodationsW Seattle

4 comments

How to Think About the "new" Operator with Respect to Unit Testing

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Miško Hevery

Unit Testing as the name implies asks you to test a Class (Unit) in isolation.

If your code mixes Object Construction with Logic you will never be able to achieve isolation.

In order to unit-test you need to separate object graph construction from the application logic into two different classes

The end goal is to have either: classes with logic OR classes with "new" operators.

HouseJUnitHouseclass House { private boolean isLocked; private boolean isLocked() {    return isLocked; } private boolean lock() {

    isLocked = true;

}}class House { private final Kitchen kitchen = new Kitchen(); private boolean isLocked; private boolean isLocked() {    return isLocked; } private boolean lock() {

    kitchen.lock();

    isLocked = true;

}}House HouseKitchennewKitchenHouseKitchenconcern of application instantiationconcern of application logicrealHousefakeKitchenHouseclass House { private final Kitchen kitchen;
private boolean isLocked;   public House(Kitchen kitchen) {    this.kitchen = kitchen; } private boolean isLocked() {    return isLocked; } private boolean lock() {

    kitchen.lock();

    isLocked = true;

}}newnewHouseKitchenHousenewnewclass ApplicationBuilder { House build() {    return new House(             new Kitchen(new Sink(), new Dishwasher(), new Refrigerator())           ); }}ApplicationBuilderclass Main { public static void(String...args) {    House house = new ApplicationBuilder().build();    house.lock(); }}new

17 comments

TotT: EXPECT vs. ASSERT

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Because the Google C++ Testing Framework was opensourced last week, there will be episodes focusing on it published here in the future. Watch for them. I've reshuffled the schedule to get one out this week.

Google C++ Testing Framework supports two families of assertions with the same interface:
ASSERT: Fails fast, aborting the current function.
EXPECT: Continues after the failure.

As Moka the code monkey has shown Uni the testing robot, EXPECT is often more appropriate because it: reveals more failures in a single run, and allows more to be fixed in a single edit/compile/run-tests cycle. Example:

TEST(WordStemmerTest, StemsPluralSuffixes) {
  EXPECT_STREQ("jump", stemmer->Stem("jumps"));
  EXPECT_STREQ("pixi", stemmer->Stem("pixies"));
  EXPECT_STREQ("prioriti", stemmer->Stem("priorities"));
  // etc ...
}

Use ASSERT when it doesn't make sense to continue. Example:
TEST(FileGeneratorTest, CreatesFileContainingSequenceOfChars) {
  ASSERT_TRUE(fp = fopen(path, "r"))
        << "Failed to open " << path;
  ASSERT_EQ(10, fread(buffer, 1, 10, fp))
        << "File " << path << " is too small";
  buffer[10] = '\0';
  EXPECT_STREQ("123456789", buffer)
        << "File " << path << " is corrupted";
}

4 comments

Labels: C++ , TotT

Announcing: New Google C++ Testing Framework

Thursday, July 03, 2008

11 comments

Labels: C++ , Zhanyong Wan

Testing Blog

Circular Dependency in constructors and Dependency Injection

TotT: Testing Against Interfaces

How to Write 3v1L, Untestable Code

Breaking the Law of Demeter is Like Looking for a Needle in the Haystack

YUI and GWT... How do you test?

Call for Attendance: GTAC 2008

How to Think About the "new" Operator with Respect to Unit Testing

TotT: EXPECT vs. ASSERT

Announcing: New Google C++ Testing Framework

Labels

Archive

Feed