Goal of unit testing and TDD: find/minimize bugs or improve design?

Question

I'm fairly green to unit testing and TDD, so please bear with me as I ask what some may consider newbie questions, or if this has been debated before. If this turns out to be considered a "bad question" (too subjective and open for debate), I will happily close it. However, I've searched for a couple days, and am not getting a definitive answer, and I need a better understand of this, so I know no better way to get more info than to post here.

I've started reading an older book on unit testing (because a colleague had it on hand), and its opening chapter talks about why to unit test. One of the points it makes is that in the long run, your code is much more reliable and cleaner, and less prone to bugs. It also points out that effective unit testing will make tracking and fixing bugs much easier. So it seems to focus quite a bit on the overall prevention/reduction of bugs in your code.

On the other hand, I also found an article about writing great unit tests, and it states that the goal of unit testing is to make your design more robust, and conversely, finding bugs is the goal of manual testing, not unit testing.

So being the newbie to TDD that I am, I'm a little confused as to the state of mind with which I should go into TDD and building my unit tests. I'll admit that part of the reason I'm taking this on now with my recently started project is because I'm tired of my changes breaking previously existing code. And admittedly, the linked article above does at least point this out as an advantage to TDD. But my hope is that by going back in and adding unit tests to my existing code (and then continuing TDD from this point forward) is to help prevent these bugs in the first place.

Are this book and this article really saying the same thing in different tones, or is there some subjectivity on this subject, and what I'm seeing is just two people having somewhat different views on how to approach TDD?

Thanks in advance.

Answer 1

I'll take my stab at this using a remix of a previous answer I wrote. In short, I don't see this as a dichotomy between driving good design and minimizing bugs. I see it more as one (good design) leading to the other (minimizing bugs).

I tend towards saying TDD is a design process that happens to involve unit testing. It's a design process because within each Red-Green-Refactor iteration, you write the test first for code that doesn't exist. You're designing as you're going.

The first beauty of TDD is that the design of your code is guaranteed to be testable. Testable code tends to have loose coupling and high cohesion. Loose coupling and high cohesion are important because they make the code easy to change when requirements change. The second beauty of TDD is that after you're done implementing your system, you happen to have a huge regression suite to catch any bugs and changes in assumptions. Thus, TDD makes your code easy to change because of the design it creates and it makes your code safe to change because of the test harness it creates.

Answer 2

It's a false choice. "Find/minimize bugs" OR improve design.

TDD, in particular (and as opposed to "just" unit testing) is all about giving you better design.

And when your design is better, what are the consequences?

• Your code is easier to read
• Your code is easier to understand
• Your code is easier to test
• Your code is easier to reuse
• Your code is easier to debug
• Your code has fewer bugs in the first place

With well-designed code, you spend less time finding and fixing bugs, and more time adding features and polish. So TDD gives you a savings on bugs and bug-hunting, by giving you better design. These things are not separate; they are dependent and interrelated.

Answer 3

Unit tests and automated tests generally are for both better design and verified code.

Unit test should test some execution path in some very small unit. This unit is usually public method or internal method exposed on your object. The method itself can still use many other protected or private methods from the same object instance. You can have single method and several unit test for this method to test different execution paths. (By execution path I meant something controlled by if, switch, etc.) Writing unit tests this way will validate that your code really does what you expect. This can be especially important in some corner cases where you expect to throw exception in some rare scenarios etc. You can also test how method behaves if you pass different parameters - for example null instead of object instance, negative value for integer used for indexing, etc. That is especially useful for public API.

Now suppose that your tested method also uses instances of other classes. How to deal with it? Should you still test your single method and believe that class works? What if the class is not implemented yet? What if the class has some complex logic inside? Should you test these execution paths as well on your current method? There are two approaches to deal with this:

• For some cases you will simply let the real class instance to be tested together with your method. This is for example very common in case of logging (it is not bad to have logs available for test as well).
• For other scenarios you would like to take this dependencies from your method but how to do it? The solution is dependency injection and implementing against abstraction instead of implementation. What does it mean? It means that your method / class will not create instances of these dependencies but instead it will get them either through method parameters, class constructor or class properties. It also means that you will not expect concrete implementation but either abstract base class or interface. This will allow you to pass fake, dummy or mock implementation to your tested object. These special type of implementations simply don't do any processing they get some data and return expected result. This will allow you to test your method without dependencies and lead to much better and more extensible design.

What is the disadvantage? Once you start using fakes / mocks you are testing single method / class but you don't have a test which will grab all real implementations and put them together to test if the whole system really works = You can have thousands of unit tests and validate that each your method works but it doesn't mean they will work together. This is scenario for more complex tests - integration or end-to-end tests.

Unit tests should be usually very easy to write - if they are not it means that your design is probably complicated and you should think about refactoring. They should be also very fast to execute so you can run them very often. Other kinds of test can be more complex and very slow and they should run mostly on build server.

How it fits with SW development process? The worst part of development process is stabilization and bug fixing because this part can be very hardly estimated. To be able to estimate how much time bug fixing takes you must know what causes the bug. But this investigation cannot be estimated. You can have bug which will take one hour to fix but you will spend two weeks by debugging your application and searching for this bug. When using good code coverage you will most probably find such bug early during development.

Automated testing don't say that SW doesn't contain bugs. It only say that you did your best to find and solve them during development and because of that your stabilization could be much less painful and much shorter. It also doesn't say that your SW does what it should - that is more about application logic itself which must be tested by some separate tests going through each use case / user story - acceptance tests (they can be also automated).

How this fit with TDD? TDD takes it to extreme because in TDD you will write your test first to drive your quality, code coverage and design.

Answer 4

Don't mix Unit Testing with TDD. Unit Testing is just the fact of "testing" your code to ensure quality and maintainability.

TDD is a full blown development methodology in which you first write your tests (based on requirements), and only then you write the needed code (and just the needed code) to make that test pass. This means that you only write code to repair a broken test.

Once done that, you write another test, and the code needed to make it pass. In the way, you may be forced to do "refactoring" of the code to allow a new test run without braking another. This way, the "design" arises from the tests.

The purpose of this methodology is of course reduce bugs and improve design, but the main goal of it is to improve productivity because you write exactly the code you need. And you don't write documentation: the tests are the documentation. If a requirement changes, then you change the tests and the code afterwards. If new requirements appear, just add new tests.

Answer 5

Trying to retrospectively add Unit tests can be quite painful and expensive. If the code doesn't support Unit test you may be better looking at integration tests to test your code.

Answer 6

I think that answer to your question is: both.

You will improve design because there is one particular thing about TDD that is great: while you write tests you put yourself in the position of the client code that will be using the system under test - and this alone makes you think about certain design choices.

For example: UI. When you start writing the tests, you will see that those God-Forms are impossible to test, so you separate the logic behind the screens to a presenter/controller, and you get MVP/MVC/whatever.

Having the concept of unit testing a class and mocking dependencies brings you to Single Responsibility Principle. There is a point about every of SOLID principles.

As for bugs, well, if you unit test every method of every class you write (except properties, very simple methods and such) you will catch most bugs in the start. Write the integration tests, you cover almost all of them.

Answer 7

There can many different reasons why you might want to test your code. Personally, I test for a number of reasons:

I usually design API using a combination of the normal design patterns (top-down) and test-driven development (TDD; bottom-up) to ensure that I have a sound API both from a best practices point-of-view as well as from an actual usage point-of-view. The focus of the tests is both on the major use-cases for the API, but also on the completeness of the API and the behavior - so they are primary "black box" tests. The development sequence is often:

• main API based on design patterns and "gut feeling"
• TDD tests for the major use-cases according to the high-level specification for the API - primary in order to make sure the API is "natural" and easy to use
• fleshed out API and behavior
• all the needed test cases to ensure the completeness and correct behavior

Whenever I fix an error in my code, I try to write a test to make sure it stay fixed. Somehow, the error got into my original design and passed my original testing of the code, so it is probably not all that trivial. I have noticed that many of the tests tests are "write box" tests.

In order to be able to make any sort of major re-factoring of the code, you need an extensive set of API tests to make sure the behavior of the code stays the same after the re-factoring. For any non-trivial API, I want the test suite to be in place and working for a long time before the re-factoring to be sure that all the major use-cases are covered in a good way. As often as not, you are forced to throw away most of your "white box" tests as they - by the very definition - makes too many assumptions about the internals. I usually try to "translate" as many as possible of these tests as the same non-trivial problems tend to survive re-factoring of the code.

In order to transfer any code between developers, I usually also want a good test suite with focus on the API and the major use-cases. So basically the tests from the initial TDD...