Unit tests are a great way to help reduce those costs. Software requirements change over time. We've all been in the position of needing to implement changes to existing features. We've also been tasked with providing an estimate on how much effort is required to implement a change.
In the absence of unit tests, we guess. Such guesses are based on intuition and experience, which isn't to say that they have no value if unit-tests aren't present.
In such cases, only your most experienced developers could be relied upon. What if, on the other hand, you had good unit test coverage?
You could spike up the change and run the tests. If there were massive test failures as a result of the change, you have some decisions to make. The first is whether or not you implemented the change correctly. Second, assuming you implemented the change in the only way you could, you now have to confront the cost benefits of the requested feature modification.
Part of that effort might require a refactoring effort to make your code more amenable to the requested change. Without unit-tests, the SWAG taken to determine the effort likely wouldn't account for this additional effort. The key take-away is that unit-tests provide an opportunity to get an objective measure of at least part of the cost of a new feature. Let's assume that you have a feature that handles credit card authorizations.
The feature calls out to an external service and in response, the requested charge is approved or denied. A third option is no response at all i. The application must react differently based on the response or lack of response. Let's further assume that the code is closed, in that it takes no parameters.
Somewhere in the system, there's the credit card information as well as the purchase amount to make the approval request. Such code is incapable of being unit tested because the code does multiple things. In other words, it doesn't conform to the Single Responsibility Principle. By injecting dependencies, you can mock contexts and behaviors so that you may simulate reality and thereby test to see how the software reacts.
If you can't write a unit test because there's no way to inject dependencies, you're signing up for a very expensive proposition. Your software will end up costing more to develop and support. And when the time comes for new features, good luck with that implementation. The additional costs you'll incur plus the opportunity costs associated with not being able to implement new features is what's called technical debt.
How do you know a line of code will ever be executed? If you have valid unit tests, you can quickly determine whether or not code is actually run. In my practice, I use JetBrains tools like R and dotCover to run my unit tests and provide metrics on code coverage. At a glance, in the development context, I can quickly determine whether code is ever hit. If it's not, I have questions to ask. One question is whether I have sufficient test coverage. If I've accounted for all the scenarios, the code can be eliminated.
If not, I have at least one more test to write. If the additional tests require a lot work to set up, that's an indication of high cyclomatic complexity. By now, it should be apparent that all of these factors relate to one another. Taken together, you can safely assume that unit testing leads to better software. That, however, is a K-foot statement. Without sufficient details to back that claim up, it's merely conjecture and allows the unit testing naysayers to prevail.
Unit test fixtures can be used by performance tools to measure the success of an operation. For example, there may be a need to operate on a hashed list. In the real world, the source of such data exists in some external data store. For purposes of this discussion, let's presume that the code is the best place to handle a certain operation.
Over time, it's been determined that the list can grow. If a test fails, then only the latest changes made in the code need to be debugged. Writing the test first forces you to think through your design and what it must accomplish before you write the code. This not only keeps you focused; it makes you create better designs. Testing a piece of code forces you to define what that code is responsible for.
Since the bugs are found early, unit testing helps reduce the cost of bug fixes. Just imagine the cost of a bug found during the later stages of development, like during system testing or during acceptance testing.
Published at DZone with permission of Ekaterina Novoseltseva. See the original article here. Thanks for visiting DZone today,. Edit Profile. Sign Out View Profile.
Over 2 million developers have joined DZone. You simply can't overlook the benefits of tearing your application apart, testing each, and putting it all back together. Like Join the DZone community and get the full member experience. Join For Free. Originally published Jan. Also, assuming that the list grows with time. This has been determined as a fact, and the growth rate is readily unavailable but needs to be evaluated. The next best option would be to go back to the unit testing results.
With these results, the extent to which possible scenarios can be created is inexhaustible, ranging from areas one is oblivious to the size of outright ridiculous probabilities.
Unit tests help gauge performances and create a long list of hash items to see what happens. It sure sounds like a great feeling to be able to call and solve a non-existent problem that may never be, with ample evidence at your disposal.
Gives the Possibility for Continuous Integration. Unlike errors encountered during compilation, runtime errors can only be realized and dealt with when the software runs either during deployment or the user-acceptance. If this is the case for your software development team, it will most likely not end well.
Agreeably, CI servers are fine and instrumental in test compilations and management, but without Unit Tests, the CI environment barely has any use. To wrap it up, Unit testing has to have a part in your software development, or you might be headed downhill. When putting factors like lower cost, better quality to the side, the answer could be damaging. But otherwise, Unit testing gets a nod from any rational technology company looking to go about their development process the right way.
This is an essential factor that distinguishes a pass-time testing hobby from a real professional business. Looking at the nine reasons given above, you may want to reconsider the question; If you can have a successful development Project without unit testing? Which you may have answered positive on any other day. That said, unit testing is only a part of the entire testing life cycle.
You still need a complete evaluation of other aspects of the software. Our next recommended blog post on the levels of testing that covers the next 3 testing levels which companies need to undergo. Those are just a few of the available unit testing tools. There are lots more, especially for C languages and Java, but you are sure to find a unit testing tool for your programming needs regardless of the language you use. Unit testing in TDD involves an extensive use of testing frameworks.
A unit test framework is used in order to create automated unit tests. Unit testing frameworks are not unique to TDD, but they are essential to it. Below we look at some of what TDD brings to the world of unit testing:. Myth: It requires time, and I am always overscheduled My code is rock solid! I do not need unit tests. Myths by their very nature are false assumptions.
These assumptions lead to a vicious cycle as follows —. Programmers think that Integration Testing will catch all errors and do not execute the unit test. Once units are integrated, very simple errors which could have very easily found and fixed in unit tested take a very long time to be traced and fixed.
0コメント