Test Driven Traps, part 2

The Story of a Unit in Unit Tests

In the previous part of this article, you could see some bad, though popular, test samples. But I’m not a professional critic (also known as a troll, or a hater), to grumble about without having anything constructive to say. Years of TDD have taught me more than just how bad the things can go. There are many simple but effective tricks, that can make you test-life much easier.

Imagine this: you have a booking system for a small conference room in a small company. By some strange reason, it has to deal with off-line booking. People post their booking requests to some frontend, and once a week you get a text file with working hours of the company, and all the bookings (for what day, for how long, by whom, submitted at what point it time) in random order. Your system should produce a calendar for the room, according to some business rules (first come, first served, only in office business hours, that sort of things).

As part of the analysis, we have a clearly defined input data, and expected outcomes, with examples. Beautiful case for TDD, really. Something that sadly never happens in the real life.

Our sample test data looks like this:

class TestData {
    static final String INPUT_FIRST_LINE = "0900 1730\n";
    static final String FIRST_BOOKING    = "2011-03-17 10:17:06 EMP001\n" +
                                           "2011-03-21 09:00 2\n";
    static final String SECOND_BOOKING   = "2011-03-16 12:34:56 EMP002\n" +
                                           "2011-03-21 09:00 2\n";
    static final String THIRD_BOOKING    = "2011-03-16 09:28:23 EMP003\n" +
                                           "2011-03-22 14:00 2\n";
    static final String FOURTH_BOOKING   = "2011-03-17 10:17:06 EMP004\n" +
                                           "2011-03-22 16:00 1\n";
    static final String FIFTH_BOOKING    = "2011-03-15 17:29:12 EMP005\n" +
                                           "2011-03-21 16:00 3";

    static final String INPUT_BOOKING_LINES =
                                            FIRST_BOOKING +
                                            SECOND_BOOKING +
                                            THIRD_BOOKING +
                                            FOURTH_BOOKING +
                                            FIFTH_BOOKING;

    static final String CORRECT_INPUT = INPUT_FIRST_LINE + INPUT_BOOKING_LINES;

    static final String CORRECT_OUTPUT = "2011-03-21\n" +
                                         "09:00 11:00 EMP002\n" +
                                         "2011-03-22\n" +
                                         "14:00 16:00 EMP003\n" +
                                         "16:00 17:00 EMP004\n" +
                                         "";
}

So now we start with a positive test:

BookingCalendarGenerator bookingCalendarGenerator =  new BookingCalendarGenerator();

@Test
public void shouldPrepareBookingCalendar() {
    //when
    String calendar = bookingCalendarGenerator.generate(TestData.CORRECT_INPUT);

    //then
    assertEquals(TestData.CORRECT_OUTPUT, calendar);
}

It looks like we have designed a BookingCalendarGenerator with a “generate” method. Fair enough. Lets add some more tests. Tests for the business rules. We get something like this:

    @Test
    public void noPartOfMeetingMayFallOutsideOfficeHours() {
        //given
        String tooEarlyBooking = "2011-03-16 12:34:56 EMP002\n" +
                                 "2011-03-21 06:00 2\n";

        String tooLateBooking = "2011-03-16 12:34:56 EMP002\n" +
                                "2011-03-21 20:00 2\n";

        //when
        String calendar = bookingCalendarGenerator.generate(TestData.INPUT_FIRST_LINE + tooEarlyBooking + tooLateBooking);

        //then
        assertTrue(calendar.isEmpty());
    }

    @Test
    public void meetingsMayNotOverlap() {
        //given
        String firstMeeting = "2011-03-10 12:34:56 EMP002\n" +
                              "2011-03-21 16:00 1\n";

        String secondMeeting = "2011-03-16 12:34:56 EMP002\n" +
                               "2011-03-21 15:00 2\n";

        //when
        String calendar = bookingCalendarGenerator.generate(TestData.INPUT_FIRST_LINE + firstMeeting + secondMeeting);

        //then
        assertEquals("2011-03-21\n" +
                     "16:00 17:00 EMP002\n", calendar);
    }

    @Test
    public void bookingsMustBeProcessedInSubmitOrder() {
        //given
        String firstMeeting = "2011-03-17 12:34:56 EMP002\n" +
                              "2011-03-21 16:00 1\n";

        String secondMeeting = "2011-03-16 12:34:56 EMP002\n" +
                               "2011-03-21 15:00 2\n";

        //when
        String calendar = bookingCalendarGenerator.generate(TestData.INPUT_FIRST_LINE + firstMeeting + secondMeeting);

        //then
        assertEquals("2011-03-21\n15:00 17:00 EMP002\n", calendar);
    }

    @Test
    public void orderingOfBookingSubmissionShouldNotAffectOutcome() {
        //given
        List shuffledBookings = newArrayList(TestData.FIRST_BOOKING, TestData.SECOND_BOOKING,
                TestData.THIRD_BOOKING, TestData.FOURTH_BOOKING, TestData.FIFTH_BOOKING);
        shuffle(shuffledBookings);
        String inputBookingLines = Joiner.on("\n").join(shuffledBookings);

        //when
        String calendar = bookingCalendarGenerator.generate(TestData.INPUT_FIRST_LINE + inputBookingLines);

        //then
        assertEquals(TestData.CORRECT_OUTPUT, calendar);
    }

That’s pretty much all. But what if we get some rubbish as the input. Or if we get an empty string? Let’s design for that:

    @Test(expected = IllegalArgumentException.class)
    public void rubbishInputDataShouldEndWithException() {
        //when
        String calendar = bookingCalendarGenerator.generate("rubbish");

        //then exception is thrown
    }

    @Test(expected = IllegalArgumentException.class)
    public void emptyInputDataShouldEndWithException() {
        //when
        String calendar = bookingCalendarGenerator.generate("");

        //then exception is thrown
    }

IllegalArgumentException is fair enough. We don’t need to handle it in any more fancy way. We are done for now. Let’s finally write the class under the test: BookingCalendarGenerator.

And so we do. And it comes out, that the whole thing is a little big for a single method. So we use the power of Extract Method pattern. We group code fragments into different methods. We group methods and data those operate on, into classes. We use the power of Object Oriented programming, we use Single Responsibility Principle, we use composition (or decomposition, to be precise) and we end up with a package like this:

We have one public class, and several package-scope classes. Those package scope classes clearly belong to the public one. Here’s a class diagram for clarity:

Those aren’t stupid data-objects. Those are full fledged classes. With behavior, responsibility, encapsulation. And here’s a thing that may come to our Test Driven minds: we have no tests for those classes. We have only for the public class. That’s bad, right? Having no tests must be bad. Very bad. Right?

Wrong.

We do have tests. We fire up our code coverage tool and we see: 100% methods and classes. 95% lines. Not bad (I’ll get to that 5% of uncertainty in the next post).

But we have only a single unit test class. Is that good?

Well, let me put some emphasis, to point the answer out:

It’s a UNIT test. It’s called a UNIT test for a reason!

The unit does not have to be a single class. The unit does not have to be a single package. The unit is up to you to decide. It’s a general name, because your sanity, your common sense, should tell you where to stop.

So we have six classes as a unit, what’s the big deal? How about if somebody wants to use one of those classes, apart from the rest. He would have no tests for it, right?

Wrong. Those classes are package-scope, apart from the one that’s actually called in the test. This package-scope thing tells you: “Back off. Don’t touch me, I belong to this package. Don’t try to use me separately, I was design to be here!”.

So yeah, if a programmer takes one of those out, or makes it public, he would probably know, that all the guarantees are voided. Write your own tests, man.

How about if somebody wants to add some behavior to one of those classes, I’ve been asked. How would he know he’s not breaking something?

Well, he would start with a test, right? It’s TDD, right? If you have a change of requirements, you code this change as a test, and then, and only then, you start messing with the code. So you are safe and secure.

I see people writing test-per-class blindly, without giving any thought to it, and it makes me cry. I do a lot of pair-programming lately, and you know what I’ve found? Java programmers in general do not use package-scope. Java programmers in general do not know, that protected means: for me, all my descendants, and EVERYONE in the same package. That’s right, protected is more than package-scope, not less a single bit. So if Java programmers do not know what a package-scope really is, and that’s, contrary to Groovy, is the default, how could they understand what a Unit is?

How high can I get?

Now here’s an interesting thought: if we can have a single test for a package, we could have a single test for a package tree. You know, something like this:

We all know that packages in Java are not really tree-like, that the only thing those have with the directory structure is by a very old convention, and we know that the directory structure is there only to solve the collision-of-names problem, but nevertheless, we tend to use packages, like if the name.after.the.dot had some meaning. Like if we could hide one package inside another. Or build layers of lasagne with them.

So is it O.K. to have a single test class for a tree of packages?

Yes it is.

But if so, where is the end to that? Can we go all the way up in the package tree, to the entry point of our application? Those… those would be integration tests, or functional tests, perhaps. Could we do that? Would that be good?

The answer is: it would. In a perfect world, it would be just fine. In our shitty, hanging-on-the-edge-of-a-knife, world, it would be insane. Why? Because functional, end-to-end test are slow. So slow. So horribly slow, that it makes you wanna throw them away and go some place where you would not have to be always waiting for something. A place of total creativity, constant feedback, and lightning fast safety.

And you’re back to unit testing.

There are even some more reasons. One being, that it’s hard to test all flows of the application, testing it end-to-end. You should probably do that for all the major flows, but what about errors, bad connections, all those tricky logic parts that may throw up at one point or another. No, sometimes it would be just too hard, to set up the environment for integration test like that, so you end up testing it with unit tests anyway.

The second reason is, that though functional tests do not pour concrete over your code, do not inhibit your creativity by repeating you algorithm in the test case, they also give no safety for refactoring. When you had a package with a single public class, it was quite obvious what someone can safely do, and what he cannot. When you have something enclosed in a library, or a plugin, it’s still obvious. But if you have thousands of public classes, and you are implementing a new feature, you are probably going to use some of them, and you would like to know that they are fine.

So, no, in our world, it doesn’t make sense to go with functional tests only. Sorry. But it also doesn’t make sense to create a test per class. It’s called the UNIT test, for a reason. Use that.

You May Also Like

Super Confitura Man

How Super Confitura Man came to be :)

Recently at TouK we had a one-day hackathon. There was no main theme for it, you just could post a project idea, gather people around it and hack on that idea for a whole day - drinks and pizza included.

My main idea was to create something that could be fun to build and be useful somehow to others. I’d figured out that since Confitura was just around a corner I could make a game, that would be playable at TouK’s booth at the conference venue. This idea seemed good enough to attract Rafał Nowak @RNowak3 and Marcin Jasion @marcinjasion - two TouK employees, that with me formed a team for the hackathon.

Confitura 01

The initial plan was to develop a simple mario-style game, with preceduraly generated levels, random collectible items and enemies. One of the ideas was to introduce Confitura Man as the main character, but due to time constraints, this fall through. We’ve decided to just choose a random available sprite for a character - hence the onion man :)

Confitura 02

How the game is played?

Since we wanted to have a scoreboard and have unique users, we’ve printed out QR codes. A person that would like to play the game could pick up a QR code, show it against a camera attached to the play booth. The start page scanned the QR code and launched the game with username read from paper code.

The rest of the game was playable with gamepad or keyboard.

Confitura game screen

Technicalities

Writing a game takes a lot of time and effort. We wanted to deliver, so we’ve decided to spend some time in the days before the hackathon just to bootstrap the technology stack of our enterprise.

We’ve decided that the game would be written in some Javascript based engine, with Google Chrome as a web platform. There are a lot of HTML5 game engines - list of html5 game engines and you could easily create a game with each and every of them. We’ve decided to use Phaser IO which handles a lot of difficult, game-related stuff on its own. So, we didn’t have to worry about physics, loading and storing assets, animations, object collisions, controls input/output. Go see for yourself, it is really nice and easy to use.

Scoreboard would be a rip-off from JIRA Survivor with stats being served from some web server app. To make things harder, the backend server was written in Clojure. With no experience in that language in the team, it was a bit risky, but the tasks of the server were trivial, so if all that clojure effort failed, it could be rewritten in something we know.

Statistics

During the whole Confitura day there were 69 unique players (69 QR codes were used), and 1237 games were played. The final score looked like this:

  1. Barister Lingerie 158 - 1450 points
  2. Boilerdang Custardbath 386 - 1060 points
  3. Benadryl Clarytin 306 - 870 points

And the obligatory scoreboard screenshot:

Confitura 03

Obstacles

The game, being created in just one day, had to have problems :) It wasn’t play tested enough, there were some rough edges. During the day we had to make a few fixes:

  • the server did not respect the highest score by specific user, it was just overwritting a user’s score with it’s latest one,
  • there was one feature not supported on keyboard, that was available on gamepad - turbo button
  • server was opening a database connection each time it got a request, so after around 5 minutes it would exhaust open file limit for MongoDB (backend database), this was easily fixed - thou the fix is a bit hackish :)

These were easily identified and fixed. Unfortunately there were issues that we were unable to fix while the event was on:

  • google chrome kept asking for the permission to use webcam - this was very annoying, and all the info found on the web did not work - StackOverflow thread
  • it was hard to start the game with QR code - either the codes were too small, or the lighting around that area was inappropriate - I think this issue could be fixed by printing larger codes,

Technology evaluation

All in all we were pretty happy with the chosen stack. Phaser was easy to use and left us with just the fun parts of the game creation process. Finding the right graphics with appropriate licensing was rather hard. We didn’t have enough time to polish all the visual aspects of the game before Confitura.

Writing a server in clojure was the most challenging part, with all the new syntax and new libraries. There were tasks, trivial in java/scala, but hard in Clojure - at least for a whimpy beginners :) Nevertheless Clojure seems like a really handy tool and I’d like to dive deeper into its ecosystem.

Source code

All of the sources for the game can be found here TouK/confitura-man.

The repository is split into two parts:

  • game - HTML5 game
  • server - clojure based backend server

To run the server you need to have a local MongoDB installation. Than in server’s directory run: $ lein ring server-headless This will start a server on http://localhost:3000

To run the game you need to install dependencies with bower and than run $ grunt from game’s directory.

To launch the QR reading part of the game, you enter http://localhost:9000/start.html. After scanning the code you’ll be redirected to http://localhost:9000/index.html - and the game starts.

Conclusion

Summing up, it was a great experience creating the game. It was fun to watch people playing the game. And even with all those glitches and stupid graphics, there were people vigorously playing it, which was awesome.

Thanks to Rafał and Michał for great coding experience, and thanks to all the players of our stupid little game. If you’d like to ask me about anything - feel free to contact me by mail or twitter @zygm0nt

Recently at TouK we had a one-day hackathon. There was no main theme for it, you just could post a project idea, gather people around it and hack on that idea for a whole day - drinks and pizza included.

My main idea was to create something that could be fun to build and be useful somehow to others. I’d figured out that since Confitura was just around a corner I could make a game, that would be playable at TouK’s booth at the conference venue. This idea seemed good enough to attract >Conclusion