CODEWITHSUNDEEP
unit-testingnunit
Nick Bolton
Nick Bolton

Reputation: 39680

Is it a bad idea to create tests that rely on each other within a test fixture?

For example:

// NUnit-like pseudo code (within a TestFixture)

Ctor()
{
 m_globalVar = getFoo();
}

[Test]
Create()
{
 a(m_globalVar)
}

[Test]
Delete()
{
 // depends on Create being run
 b(m_globalVar)
}

… or…

// NUnit-like pseudo code (within a TestFixture)

[Test]
CreateAndDelete()
{
 Foo foo = getFoo(); 
 a(foo);

 // depends on Create being run
 b(foo);
}

… I’m going with the later, and assuming that the answer to my question is:

No, at least not with NUnit, because according to the NUnit manual:

The constructor should not have any side effects, since NUnit may construct the class multiple times in the course of a session.

... also, can I assume it's bad practice in general? Since tests can usually be run separately. So the result of Create may never be cleaned up by Delete.

Upvotes: 8

Views: 442

Answers (3)

Péter Török
Péter Török

Reputation: 116306

Yes, it is bad practice. In all unit test frameworks I know, the execution order of test methods is not guaranteed, thus writing tests which depend on the execution order is explicitly discouraged.

As you also noted, if test B depends on the (side) effects of test A, either test A contains some common initialization code (which then should be moved into a common setup method instead), or the two tests are part of the same story, so they could be united (IMHO - some people stick to having a single assert per test method, so they would disagree with me on this), or test B should otherwise be made totally independent of test A regarding fixture setup.

Upvotes: 6

Ben Cawley
Ben Cawley

Reputation: 1646

Definately a bad idea. Unit tests should be lightweight, stateless, and have no dependencies on things such as file system, registry, etc.. This allows them to run quickly and to be less brittle.

If your tests require executing in a certain order, then you can't ever be sure (at least without investigation) whether a test has failed because of execution order or a problem with the code!

This will ultimately lead to a lack of confidence developing regarding your test suite and eventual abandonment.

Upvotes: 1

Donal Fellows
Donal Fellows

Reputation: 137767

In general, it's good practice to make each of your tests test exactly one thing or one sequence of things. (They're different types of tests, but even so.) Except when you are testing the constructor or destructor themselves, they should be done as part of the test setup and teardown code, and not the tests themselves. It's OK to be inefficient about this; the important thing with a test is that it be clear exactly what is being tested, not that you minimize the number of auxiliary actions performed during the process.

Many testing harnesses also allow you to only run a subset of tests (minimally just one). This is great for when you're focussing in on a particular bug! But it does mean that the tests need to be written so as to have no dependencies or everything will be rather meaningless.

Personally, I'd put testing of constructors and destructors earlier in my test suite than testing of behavior of the constructed instances, but YMMV.

Upvotes: 0

Related Questions