Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@androidfred
Created June 22, 2021 05:10
Show Gist options
  • Star 5 You must be signed in to star a gist
  • Fork 0 You must be signed in to fork a gist
  • Save androidfred/501d276c7dc26a5db09e893bb7c9f3ee to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Save androidfred/501d276c7dc26a5db09e893bb7c9f3ee to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Test your tests

Test your tests

Summary: test interfaces, not implementations

Tests that pass when something is actually broken, and fail when things actually do work, are worse than useless- they are positively harmful.

The requirement

Let's say we've been tasked with returning 400 when GET /users/<userId> is called with a negative userId.

The test

The requirement can be turned into a test that hits the endpoint with a negative userId and checks that a 400 is returned:

    @Test
    public void getUser_InvalidUserId_400() {
        expect().statusCode(400).when().get("/users/-1");
    }

Implementation

A ubiquitous style of implementation may look something like this: (ignore whether you like the style of implementation or not, it's just an example)

public class UserResource {

    @Inject
    private UserService userService;
    
    @GET
    @Path("/users/{userId}")
    public Response getUser(@PathParam("userId") final Long userId) {
        try {
            return Response.ok(userService.findById(userId)).build();
        } catch (final UserException e) {
            return Response.status(e.getErrorCode()).build();
        }
    }
}
public UserService {

    @Inject
    private UserDao userDao;

    public User findById(final Long userId) throws UserException {
        if ((userId == null) || (userId <= 0)) {
            throw new UserException("Invalid arguments", 400);
        }
        return userDao.findById(userId);
    }
}

Another test

Everyone knows a test hitting the endpoint is not enough- more tests are required. A ubiquitous style of additional test may look something like this:

public class UserResourceTest {

    @InjectMocks
    private UserResource userResource = new UserResource();

    @Mock
    private UserService userService;

    @Test
    public void getUser_InvalidParams_400() throws UserException {
        doThrow(new UserException(INVALID_ARGUMENTS, 400)).when(userService).findById(-1L);
        assertThat(userResource.getUser(-1L).getStatus(), is(equalTo(400)));
    }
}

Test the tests

Break something

Let's say the negative userId check is removed from the UserService. (by mistake or whatever)

The test that hits the endpoint will fail, because it will no longer get a 400 when GET /users/<userId> is called with a negative userId. This is exactly what we want out of a test!

The additional test however will pretend the negative userId check is still in the service and pass. This is literally the exact opposite of what we want out of a test!

Refactor something

Or, instead, let's say the UserResource is refactored to use a NewBetterUserService. (the NewBetterUserService still throws an exception on negative userId)

The test that hits the endpoint will pass, because it will still get a 400 when GET /users/<userId> is called with a negative userId. This is exactly what we want out of a test!

The additional test however will fail because it expects the UserResource to call the (old) UserService. This is literally the exact opposite of what we want out of a test!

But... The UserServiceTest would fail

Maybe there's a UserServiceTest that would fail if the negative userId check is removed from the UserService:

public class UserServiceTest {

    @Test
    public void findById_InvalidParams_400() throws UserException {
        expectedException.expect(UserException.class);
        expectedException.expectMessage("Invalid arguments");
        assertThat(expectedException.errorCode(), is(equalTo(400)));
        
        userService.findById(-1L);
    }
}

It's irrelevant. The UserResourceTest test is still a bad test, because it fails on refactoring. And even if there is a UserServiceTest that fails if the negative userId check is removed from the UserService, the UserResourceTest doesn't fail if there is no such UserServiceTest, or if there is but it's incorrectly implemented etc. It just pretends the negative userId check is in the UserService and passes.

If you were absolutely adamant about testing the implementation (which you shouldn't be, because implementation tests fail on refactoring, making them bad tests), the "correct" way of testing that would be:

public class UserResourceTest {

    private UserResource userResource = new UserResource(new UserService()); //not a mock

    @Test
    public void getUser_InvalidParams_400() throws UserException {
        assertThat(userResource.getUser(-1L).getStatus(), is(equalTo(400)));
    }
}

Because now, if the negative userId check is removed from the UserService the test will fail. But since it also fails on refactoring, it's still a bad test.

But... Mocks are useful

Yes, mocks are useful, and they do have a place. Eg, instead of connecting to a real db, the DAO methods could be mocked, and REST calls to other services etc could be mocked too. They're external dependencies not part of the core of the system under test. The case made here isn't that mocks are never useful or always bad, it's that mock testing is often used excessively for internals of the system under test, which doesn't make sense.

Also, I'd still argue that, by default, there should still be a strong preference for, rather than mocking DAO calls to db and REST calls to other services, actually spinning up a real in memory db (eg https://github.com/vorburger/MariaDB4j lets you do this), and actually WireMocking calls to other services. Then, more of the system under test is being tested, with less effort.

Ie unlike with regular mock testing, it's verified that the app doesn't just call a DAO method but also that DAO method actually connects to the db, runs the expected query and returns the expected result based on the primed content in the db, and that the app actually hits the configured external service url with the expected request and handles the primed response based on the Wiremock stub etc etc.

While such tests take a bit longer to run, you write far fewer, higher quality, less brittle tests, because you're not having to write and maintain n*n mock tests between every layer of your app internals to check every single call on the way through the stack. You can freely refactor literally all the internals all you want without having to change the tests at all - they will keep passing as long as everything works and they will fail if something doesn't. (which, again, is exactly what you want)

Terminology

The test that hits the endpoint is commonly referred to as a "integration test", and the other test is commonly referred to as a "unit test".

Kent Beck (the originator of test-driven development) defines a unit test as "a test that runs in isolation from other tests". This is very different from the definition of a unit test as "a test that tests a class/method in isolation from other classes/methods". The test that hits the endpoint satisfies the original definition.

But it doesn't really matter if you want to call a given test an "integration" test or a "unit" test. The point is the test fails when something breaks and passes when something is improved. If it does the opposite, it's not a good test.

More on the topic

Misc

There are other problems with the example, such as eg

  • Primitive Obsession: using a Long to represent userId and using procedural inline checks in the service to check for negative userId. Instead, create a class UserId that encapsulates and enforces its own checks.
  • Hidden Dependencies: UserResource has a hidden dependency on UserService and UserService has a hidden dependency on UserDao. Dependency Injection frameworks like Spring encourage such hidden dependencies, and the excessive use of mocks in unit tests.
  • The service shouldn't know about HTTP error codes.

These are simplifications in order to keep the example short - the scope of this article is testing.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment