2011-02-07 07:48:44 +01:00
|
|
|
# Why Unit Test?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Note: This is part of the [SilverStripe Testing Guide](/topics/testing/).*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So at this point, you might be thinking, *"that's way too complicated, I don't have time to write unit tests on top of
|
|
|
|
all the things I'm already doing"*. Fair enough. But, maybe you're already doing things that are close to unit testing
|
|
|
|
without realizing it. Everyone tests all the time, in various ways. Even if you're just refreshing a URL in a browser to
|
|
|
|
review the context of your changes, you're testing!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First, ask yourself how much time you're already spending debugging your code. Are you inserting `echo`, `print_r`,
|
|
|
|
and `die` statements into different parts of your program and watching the details dumping out to screen? **Yes, you
|
|
|
|
know you are.** So how much time do you spend doing this? How much of your development cycle is dependent on dumping out
|
|
|
|
the contents of variables to confirm your assumptions about what they contain?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From this position, it may seem that unit testing may take longer and have uncertain outcomes simply because it involves
|
|
|
|
adding more code. You'd be right, in the sense that we should be striving to write as little code as possible on
|
|
|
|
projects. The more code there is, the more room there is for bugs, the harder it is to maintain. There's absolutely no
|
|
|
|
doubt about that. But if you're dumping the contents of variables out to the screen, you are already making assertions
|
|
|
|
about your code. All unit testing does is separate these assertions into separate runnable blocks of code, rather than
|
|
|
|
have them scattered inline with your actual program logic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The practical and immediate advantages of unit testing are twofold. Firstly, they mean you don't have to mix your
|
|
|
|
debugging and analysis code in with your actual program code (with the need to delete, or comment it out once you're
|
|
|
|
done). Secondly, they give you a way to capture the questions you ask about your code while you're writing it, and the
|
|
|
|
ability to run those questions over and over again, with no overhead or interference from other parts of the system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unit testing becomes particularly useful when exploring boundary conditions or edge case behavior of your code. You can
|
|
|
|
write assertions that verify examples of how your methods will be called, and verify that they always return the right
|
|
|
|
results each time. If you make changes that have the potential to break these expected results, running the unit tests
|
|
|
|
over and over again will give you immediate feedback of any regressions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unit tests also function as specifications. They are a sure way to describe an API and how it works by simply running
|
|
|
|
the code and demonstrating what parameters each method call expects and each method call returns. You could think of it
|
|
|
|
as live API documentation that provides real-time information about how the code works.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unit test assertions are best understood as **pass/fail** statements about the behavior of your code. Ideally, you want
|
|
|
|
every assertion to pass, and this is usually up by the visual metaphor of green/red signals. When things are all green,
|
|
|
|
it's all good. Red indicates failure, and provides a direct warning that you need to fix or change your code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Getting Started
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Everyone has a different set of ideas about what makes good code, and particular preferences towards a certain style of
|
|
|
|
logic. At the same time, frameworks and programming languages provide clear conventions and design idioms that guide
|
|
|
|
code towards a certain common style.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If all this ranting and raving about the importance of testing hasn't made got you thinking that you want to write tests
|
|
|
|
then we haven't done our job well enough! But the key question still remains - *"where do I start?"*.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To turn the key in the lock and answer this question, we need to look at how automated testing fits into the different
|
|
|
|
aspects of the SilverStripe platform. There are some significant differences in goals and focus between different layers
|
|
|
|
of the system and interactions between the core, and various supporting modules.
|
|
|
|
|
2012-03-24 22:16:59 +01:00
|
|
|
### SilverStripe Core
|
2011-02-07 07:48:44 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In open source core development, we are focussing on a large and (for the most part) stable system with existing well
|
|
|
|
defined behavior. Our overarching goal is that we do not want to break or change this existing behavior, but at the same
|
|
|
|
time we want to extend and improve it.
|
|
|
|
|
2012-03-24 22:16:59 +01:00
|
|
|
Testing the SilverStripe framework should focus on [characterization](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characterization_Test).
|
2011-02-07 07:48:44 +01:00
|
|
|
We should be writing tests that illustrate the way that the API works, feeding commonly used methods with a range of
|
|
|
|
inputs and states and verifying that these methods respond with clear and predictable results.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Especially important is documenting and straighten out edge case behavior, by pushing various objects into corners and
|
|
|
|
twisting them into situations that we know are likely to manifest with the framework in the large.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### SilverStripe Modules
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Modules usually encapsulate a smaller, and well defined subset of behavior or special features added on top of the core
|
|
|
|
platform. A well constructed module will contain a reference suite of unit tests that documents and verifies all the
|
|
|
|
basic aspects of the module design. See also: [modules](/topics/modules).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Project Modules
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Testing focus on client projects will not be quite so straightforward. Every project involves different personalities,
|
|
|
|
goals, and priorities, and most of the time, there is simply not enough time or resources to exhaustively predicate
|
|
|
|
every granular aspect of an application.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On application projects, the best option is to keep tests lean and agile. Most useful is a focus on experimentation and
|
|
|
|
prototyping, using the testing framework to explore solution spaces and bounce new code up into a state where we can be
|
|
|
|
happy that it works the way we want it to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Rules of Thumb
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Be aware of breaking existing behavior.** Run your full suite of tests every time you do a commit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Not everything is permanent.** If a test is no longer relevant, delete it from the repository.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## See Also
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* [Getting to Grips with SilverStripe
|
|
|
|
Testing](http://www.slideshare.net/maetl/getting-to-grips-with-silverstripe-testing)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|