CODEWITHSUNDEEP
unit-testing
soulmerge
soulmerge

Reputation: 75774

Where do you put your unit test?

I have found several conventions to housekeeping unit tests in a project and I'm not sure which approach would be suitable for our next PHP project. I am trying to find the best convention to encourage easy development and accessibility of the tests when reviewing the source code. I would be very interested in your experience/opinion regarding each:

  1. One folder for productive code, another for unit tests: This separates unit tests from the logic files of the project. This separation of concerns is as much a nuisance as it is an advantage: Someone looking into the source code of the project will - so I suppose - either browse the implementation or the unit tests (or more commonly: the implementation only). The advantage of unit tests being another viewpoint to your classes is lost - those two viewpoints are just too far apart IMO.
  2. Annotated test methods: Any modern unit testing framework I know allows developers to create dedicated test methods, annotating them (@test) and embedding them in the project code. The big drawback I see here is that the project files get cluttered. Even if these methods are separated using a comment header (like UNIT TESTS below this line) it just bloats the class unnecessarily.
  3. Test files within the same folders as the implementation files: Our file naming convention dictates that PHP files containing classes (one class per file) should end with .class.php. I could imagine that putting unit tests regarding a class file into another one ending on .test.php would render the tests much more present to other developers without tainting the class. Although it bloats the project folders, instead of the implementation files, this is my favorite so far, but I have my doubts: I would think others have come up with this already, and discarded this option for some reason (i.e. I have not seen a java project with the files Foo.java and FooTest.java within the same folder.) Maybe it's because java developers make heavier use of IDEs that allow them easier access to the tests, whereas in PHP no big editors have emerged (like eclipse for java) - many devs I know use vim/emacs or similar editors with little support for PHP development per se.

What is your experience with any of these unit test placements? Do you have another convention I haven't listed here? Or am I just overrating unit test accessibility to reviewers?

Upvotes: 34

Views: 10392

Answers (3)

ndp
ndp

Reputation: 22006

The current best practice is to separate the unit tests into their own directory, #1. All of the "convention over configuration" systems do it like this, eg. Maven, Rails, etc.

I think your alternatives are interesting and valid, and the tool support is certainly there to support them. But it's just not that popular (as far as I know). Some people object to having tests interspersed with production code. But it makes sense to me that if you always write unit tests, that they be located right with your code. It just seems simpler.

Upvotes: 9

johnsyweb
johnsyweb

Reputation: 141988

I favour keeping unit-tests in separate source files in the same directory as production code (#3).

Unit tests are not second-class citizens, their code must maintained and refactored just like production code. If you keep your unit tests in a separate directory, the next developer to change your production code may miss that there are unit tests for it and fail to maintain the tests.

In C++, I tend to have three files per class:

MyClass.h
MyClass.cpp
t_MyClass.cpp

If you're using Vim, then my toggle_unit_tests plug-in for toggling between source and unit test files may prove useful.

Upvotes: 29

Evert
Evert

Reputation: 99831

I always go for #1. While it's nice that they are close together. My reasons are as followed:

  • I feel there's a difference between the core codebase and the unittests. I need a real separation.
  • End-users rarely need to look at unittests. They are just interested in the API. While it's nice that unittests provide a separate view on the code, in practice I feel it won't be used to understand it better. (more descriptive documentation + examples do).
  • Because end-users rarely need unittests, I don't want to confuse them with more files and/or methods.
  • My coding standards are not half as strict for unittests as they are for the core library. This is maybe just my opinion, but I don't care as much for coding standards in my tests.

Hope this helps.

Upvotes: 4

Related Questions