I'm new to testing in rails and I don't understand why or when I should use fixtures (or factory) rather than just seeding my test db and querying it to run the tests?
In many cases, it should be faster and easier to have the same data in dev and test env.
For example, if I want to test an index page, should I create 100 records via a factory or should I seed the db with 100 records?
I someone could clarify this, it would be great.
Thanks!
This is actually a deeper question of how to test efficiently, and you will find a lot of different opinions.
The reason to avoid a database in your unit tests is merely speed. Database operations are slow. It might not seem slow with one test, but if you have continuous integration going (as you should) or when you made a quick change and just want to see what happens, those delays add up. So prefer mocks to truly unit test code.
Then your own integration tests should hit an in-memory database rather than your real database--for the same reason, speed. These will be slower than your mocked tests, but still faster than hitting the real database. When you're developing, the build-test-deploy cycle needs to be as fast as possible. Note that some people call these unit tests as well. I wouldn't, but I guess it is just semantics.
These first two kinds of tests are by developers for developers.
Then the testers will hit the real database, which will be populated with test data defined by the testers and subject-matter experts. There are lots of clever ways to speed this up as well, but this will be the place where they test the integration of your code with the production-like database. If all your in-memory database tests passed and something goes wrong here, then you know it has to do with something like database configuration, vendor-specific SQL, etc. rather than something fundamentally bad. You will also get your first taste of what the performance is like.
Note that everything I've said here is a matter of debate. But hopefully it clarifies what you should consider about when to do certain things and why.
Related
I recently learned, Rspec + Capybara (I'm new to testing things). And I've been testing some new models I've created. Now, I was thinking of adding the title column to my Post model. It's not a hard task, and I've done it many times before. But I realized that it's going to take me some work updating the spec files (e.g. post, post pages, user, user pages, factories, sample_data, etc.).
Is testing in this case, a waste of time? Or it is a good practice to test absolutely everything?
I also wonder if testing gems is a waste of time as well? Since they've been probably already tested by their creators (the same for testing something taken from a reliable tutorial).
While the ruby community is known by its focus on testing, every case should be analyzed in context to figure out what the most cost-effective decisions are.
It is useful to think of tests as a technique to manage risk. If you don't think that displaying titles/adding them to the database is a task that is error-prone, complex to perform, or that the cost of adding those tests is higher than the risk of eventually breaking something, them it might be wise to not do it.
That said, since you said that you are new to testing, I would recommend (if you are not time-constrained, of course) to try to take the idea to the extreme of testing absolutely everything, so that you can have an idea of how much of it adds value, and how much is waste of time.
You might want to take a look at this blog post from DHH, the creator of Rails, where he talks about that: Testing like the TSA
About testing gems, it is generally well-accepted that they shouldn't be tested by your application tests, but by their creators. Most of the time you can simply assume that they work the ways they promise.
one of the main concepts of testing is: "It's impossible to test everything"
I really like using Factory Girl to setup my tests. I can build chains of associations in a single line. For example:
Factory.create(:manuscript)
Automatically creates a journal, a journal owner, a manuscript author, etc. It allows me to to keep my setup blocks really simple, and that's fantastic.
However, there's a cost of course. Creating several objects in the background means my unit tests are sometimes as long as 0.8 seconds. That's fine when your app is small, but now I've got a few hundred tests and my specs take over a minute to run (not including the time it takes for the app to spin up). It's starting to feel painful.
I'm not especially interested in anything too drastic, like mocking everything. At least while my app is relatively small, I'd like to maintain my factory girl abstractions. I just want to figure out a way to make them work a bit faster.
Any suggestions?
If you're testing object behavior and don't need to actually save them to a database, you can use Factory.build(:model). It basically instantiates the object and it's associations, but does not write it to the DB. This will be much faster than creating and storing all those objects. If you still want to write some or most objects to the DB, you can setup an SQlite memory test database. Here's an example
Not sure there's a good solution to this problem. As Beerlington suggested, you can save some time using Factory.build rather than Factory.create. But even that's not nearly as fast as testing a plain old ruby objects. The fact, it seems, is that factory girl is not a good choice if you're very concerned with speed.
That said, I was able to make some fairly significant speed improvements by reading through my entire suite and making liberal use of the rspec-set gem. This allows you to run your setup once -- and only once -- for the entire group of tests. It's similar to using before(:all) except that it takes advantage of transactions to reset the state of objects between each spec.
I've been writing tests for a while now and I'm starting to get the hang of things. But I've got some questions concerning how much test coverage is really necessary. The consensus seems pretty clear: more coverage is always better. But, from a beginner's perspective at least, I wonder if this is really true.
Take this totally vanilla controller action for example:
def create
#event = Event.new(params[:event])
if #event.save
flash[:notice] = "Event successfully created."
redirect_to events_path
else
render :action => 'new'
end
end
Just the generated scaffolding. We're not doing anything unusual here. Why is it important to write controller tests for this action? After all, we didn't even write the code - the generator did the work for us. Unless there's a bug in rails, this code should be fine. It seems like testing this action is not all too different from testing, say, collection_select - and we wouldn't do that. Furthermore, assuming we're using cucumber, we should already have the basics covered (e.g. where it redirects).
The same could even be said for simple model methods. For example:
def full_name
"#{first_name} #{last_name}"
end
Do we really need to write tests for such simple methods? If there's a syntax error, you'll catch it on page refresh. Likewise, cucumber would catch this so long as your features hit any page that called the full_name method. Obviously, we shouldn't be relying on cucumber for anything too complex. But does full_name really need a unit test?
You might say that because the code is simple the test will also be simple. So you might as well write a test since it's only going to take a minute. But it seems that writing essentially worthless tests can do more harm than good. For example, they clutter up your specs making it more difficult to focus on the complex tests that actually matter. Also, they take time to run (although probably not much).
But, like I said, I'm hardly an expert tester. I'm not necessarily advocating less test coverage. Rather, I'm looking for some expert advice. Is there actually a good reason to be writing such simple tests?
My experience in this is that you shouldn't waste your time writing tests for code that is trivial, unless you have a lot of complex stuff riding on the correctness of that triviality. I, for one, think that testing stuff like getters and setters is a total waste of time, but I'm sure that there'll be more than one coverage junkie out there who'll be willing to oppose me on this.
For me tests facilitate three things:
They garantuee unbroken old functionality If I can check that
nothing new that I put in has broken
my old things by running tests, it's
a good thing.
They make me feel secure when I rewrite old stuff The code I
refactor is very rarely the trivial
one. If, however, I want to refactor
untrivial code, having tests to
ensure that my refactorings have not
broken any behavior is a must.
They are the documentation of my work Untrivial code needs to be
documented. If, however, you agree
with me that comments in code is the
work of the devil, having clear and
concise unit tests that make you
understand what the correct behavior
of something is, is (again) a must.
Anything I'm sure I won't break, or that I feel is unnessecary to document, I simply don't waste time testing. Your generated controllers and model methods, then, I would say are all fine even without unit tests.
The only absolute rule is that testing should be cost-efficient.
Any set of practical guidelines to achieve that will be controversial, but here are some advices to avoid tests that will be generally wasteful, or do more harm than good.
Unit
Don't test private methods directly, only assess their effects indirectly through the public methods that call them.
Don't test internal states
Only test non-trivial methods, where different contexts may get different results (calculations, concatenation, regexes, branches...)
Don't assess things you don't care about, e.g. full copy on some message or useless parts of complex data structures returned by an API...
Stub all the things in unit tests, they're called unit tests because you're only testing one class, not its collaborators. With stubs/spies, you test the messages you send them without testing their internal logic.
Consider private nested classes as private methods
Integration
Don't try to test all the combinations in integration tests. That's what unit tests are for. Just test happy-paths or most common cases.
Don't use Cucumber unless you really BDD
Integration tests don't always need to run in the browser. To test more cases with less of a performance hit you can have some integration tests interact directly with model classes.
Don't test what you don't own. Integration tests should expect third-party dependencies to do their job, but not substitute to their own test suite.
Controller
In controller tests, only test controller logic: Redirections, authentication, permissions, HTTP status. Stub the business logic. Consider filters, etc. like private methods in unit tests, tested through public controller actions only.
Others
Don't write route tests, except if you're writing an API, for the endpoints not already covered by integration tests.
Don't write view tests. You should be able to change copy or HTML classes without breaking your tests. Just assess critical view elements as part of your in-browser integration tests.
Do test your client JS, especially if it holds some application logic. All those rules also apply to JS tests.
Ignore any of those rules for business-critical stuff, or when something actually breaks (no-one wants to explain their boss/users why the same bug happened twice, that's why you should probably write at least regression tests when fixing a bug).
See more details on that post.
More coverage is better for code quality- but it costs more. There's a sliding scale here, if you're coding an artificial heart, you need more tests. The less you pay upfront, the more likely it is you'll pay later, maybe painfully.
In the example, full_name, why have you placed a space between, and ordered by first_name then last_name- does that matter? If you are later asked to sort by last name, is it ok to swap the order and add a comma? What if the last name is two words- will that additional space affect things? Maybe you also have an xml feed someone else is parsing? If you're not sure what to test, for a simple undocumented function, maybe think about the functionality implied by the method name.
I would think your company's culture is important to consider too. If you're doing more than others, then you're really wasting time. Doesn't help to have a well tested footer, if the main content is buggy. Causing the main build or other developer's builds to break, would be worse though. Finding the balance is hard- unless one is the decider, spend some time reading the test code written by other team members.
Some people take the approach of testing the edge cases, and assume the main features will get worked out through usage. Considering getter/setters, I'd want a model class somewhere, that has a few tests on those methods, maybe test the database column type ranges. This at least tells me the network is ok, a database connection can be made, I have access to write to a table that exists, etc. Pages come and go, so don't consider a page load to be a substitute for an actual unit test. (A testing efficiency side note- if having automated testing based on the file update timestamp (autotest), that test wouldn't run, and you want to know asap)
I'd prefer to have better quality tests, rather than full coverage. But I'd also want an automated tool pointing out what isn't tested. If it's not tested, I assume it's broken. As you find failure, add tests, even if it's simple code.
If you are automating your testing, it doesn't matter how long it takes to run. You benefit every time that test code is run- at that point, you know a minimum of your code's functionality is working, and you get a sense of how reliable the tested functionality has been over time.
100% coverage shouldn't be your goal- good testing should be. It would be misleading to think a single test of a regular expression was accomplishing anything. I'd rather have no tests than one, because my automated coverage report reminds me the RE is unreliable.
The primary benefit you would get from writing a unit test or two for this method would be regression testing. If, sometime in the future, something was changed that impacted this method negatively, you would be able to catch it.
Whether or not that's worth the effort is ultimately up to you.
The secondary benefit I can see by looking at it would be testing edge cases, like, what it should do if last_name is "" or nil. That can reveal unexpected behavior.
(i.e. if last_name is nil, and first_name is "John", you get full_name => "John ")
Again, the cost-vs-benefit is ultimately up to you.
For generated code, no, there's no need to have test coverage there because, as you said, you didn't write it. If there's a problem, it's beyond the scope of the tests, which should be focused on your project. Likewise, you probably wouldn't need to explicitly test any libraries that you use.
For your particular method, it looks like that's the equivalent of a setter (it's been a bit since I've done Ruby on Rails) - testing that method would be testing the language features. If you were changing values or generating output, then you should have a test. But if you are just setting values or returning something with no computation or logic, I don't see the benefit to having tests cover those methods as if they are wrong, you should be able to detect the problem in a visual inspection or the problem is a language defect.
As far as the other methods, if you write them, you should probably have a test for them. In Test-Driven Development, this is essential as the tests for a particular method exist before the method does and you write methods to make the test pass. If you aren't writing your tests first, then you still get some benefit to have at least a simple test in place should this method ever change.
I got pretty experienced with testing controllers, my question here is though, aren't we supposed to test the data context as well, and how ? I mean, there are a lot of relationships and constraints coming from the DB that simply testing controllers does not cover.
On the other hand, testing against the DB is not considered a good practice - what then ? Simply testing without db.SubmitChanges() or what ?
IMHO you should not test the DataContext. Hopefully Microsoft have already done this, so testing that SubmitChanges will persist data into the DB is pointless for me. You should do integration or web testing where you would define a specific scenarios and verify the output from the application.
When it comes to testing your repositories, the typical approach is to create an in-memory database that can be torn down and rebuilt for each time you run your tests. By using this approach, you will always know what the data will look like so you can more easily make assertions against it. In addition, you won't be touching your real data, which is always a positive. Sqlite is the most popular one out there in the .NET space for this.
Yes, you should do integration testing of your data context to ensure that any "code" that you put in the database itself works -- uniqueness constraints, triggers, etc. This doesn't imply that you should do your unit testing against the database, however. Having said that, any code you put in your model classes should be unit tested. Usually, you can do this without having to test against the database directly. For example, any validation code should be able to run without requiring that you actually insert or update the DB.
I'm currently looking at a hefty Rails test suite. It's nothing I can get into specifics about, but the run time for the entire suite (unit/functional/some integration) can run upward of 5 minutes.
We're completely reliant on fixtures and are we're not mocking and stubbing as much as we should be.
Our next few sprints are going to be completely focused on the test suite, both improving coverage, writing better tests and most importantly writing more efficient tests.
So aside from more mocking and stubbing within our tests, we're considering replacing our fixtures with most likely Factory Girl. I see a lot of happy folks doing similar situations but haven't been able to find a good resource on any minuses of moving to a factory. I have seen some slower benchmarks when using benchmarks from various resources but cannot find a definitive this why factories are good and this is why you might not want to use them.
Can anyone educate me on why or why I shouldn't be using factories?
Thanks!
Oleg's answer is great, but let me offer the perspective of someone who is using both.
Fixtures have sort of been the whipping boy of the Rails community for a while. Everyone understands the drawbacks of fixtures, but no one is really championing their strengths. In my experience, factories by themselves can easily become just as difficult to maintain as fixtures (it really depends on the schema, but I digress). The real strength of factories is in selective replacement of fixture-based pain. Let's talk about a couple specifics.
The first issue is performance. If you can test most of your app without hitting the database then you will see a significant speed up, but for most applications I don't think it's wise to test without hitting the database entirely. At some point you want to test the whole stack. Every time you mock or stub you are making an assumption about an interface that may contain subtle bugs. So, assuming that you need to hit the database on some significant percentage of tests, transactional fixtures (you are using transactional fixtures right?) could well be much much faster than instantiating a whole environment for every test.
I'd say, with the size of your test suite that you really need to look towards Continuous Integration to scale your development to the next level. No matter how much you speed them up, it's still a long time for developers to wait. Maybe look at autotest as well to help at the individual level. But ultimately CI is going to allow you to maintain testing discipline without sacrificing developer agility.
The place where fixtures really shine is in functional/integration testing. The way I look at it is that the fixtures should set up a healthy base state for the app to be tested. Most unit tests don't really need this. You can get very good unit coverage using factories. However when it comes to functional testing, any given page may be hitting dozens of models. I don't want to set up all that stuff in each test. As I construct ever more complex scenarios, I'm getting closer and closer to recreating a global data state which is exactly what fixtures were designed to do in the first place.
One controversial belief I hold is that all else being equal, I prefer one functional test to 20 unit tests (using Rails parlance). Why? Because the functional test proves that the end result that is sent to the user is correct. The unit tests are great for getting at nuances of functionality, but at the end of the day, you could still have a bug along an interface that breaks your entire site. Functional tests are what give me the confidence hitting deploy without actually loading up the page in my browser. I know that I could stub everything out and test both interfaces and get the same coverage, but if I can test the whole stack in one simple test at the expense of a little CPU, I'd much rather do that.
So what are my best practices for fixtures?
Set up a handful for every model to cover the broadest categories of data
When adding a major new feature that cuts across many models and controllers, add some new fixtures to represent the major states
Avoid editing old fixtures except for adding/removing fields
Use factories for more smaller/more localized variations
Use factories for testing pagination or other mass creation that is only needed for a few tests
Also, let me recommend Jay Fields' blog for really good pragmatic testing advice. The thing I like most about Jay's blog is that he always acknowledges that testing is very project-specific, and what works for one project does not necessarily work for another. He's short on dogma and long on pragmatism.
There could be some issues with setting up all dependencies between entities for good test suite. Anyway, it's still much easier than maintaing a lot of fixtures.
Fixtures:
hard to maintain relationships (especially many-to-many);
test suite runtime is usually slower due more DB hits;
tests are very sensitive to changes in schema.
Factories:
you stub everything you don't test at current unit test;
you prepare entities that you are testing with factories. This is where factories show their real advantage — it's easy to set up new test cases, as you don't need to maintain a ton of YAML-files for that;
you concentrate on testing. If tests require changing scenario, you don't shift your mindset. As long as stubs are reasonable and factories are easily customized, you should be fine.
So, factories seem a good way to go. The only possible drawbacks I see, are:
time you spent migrating from fixtures;
keeping a sane set of scenarios can require some effort.