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.
Related
When writing specs for a simple Rails app, is the following a correct approach for full test coverage?
Write feature specs for all user stories
Write controller specs to ensure that individual action responses are correct and all required variables are set
Write model specs to ensure all methods, validations,e tc. are working as intended
Write mailer specs
Write routing specs
Is this enough, too much (e.g. can I skip some lower-level specs if I've written feature specs), or not enough? Why?
You don't need to write specs for every object in every layer either to get 100% test coverage or to test-drive (require you to implement) all of the important behavior in your application. Instead, as behavior-driven development (BDD) advises, write specs outside in, and write lower-level specs only as necessary.
The most important measure of test completeness is requirement coverage: it's helpful for each user story, and each detail of each story that requires new code, to be represented in at least one test. If you're following typical agile practices (mentioning user stories suggests that you are) your tests are probably the only place where you record your requirements, so you probably can't put a number on this kind of coverage. It's also helpful to have
line coverage (what most people mean when they say test coverage), meaning that every line of code is exercised by at least one test, and
integration coverage, meaning that every method call from one class to another is exercised by at least one test.
For each story,
Write only the feature specs that will test-drive all of the story's distinct happy paths.
Write additional feature specs to ensure integration coverage of architecturally interesting minor variations of happy paths and of sad paths. For example, I often write three feature specs for a story that involves a form: one where the user fills in every possible field and succeeds, another where the user fills in as little information as possible and still succeeds (ensuring that unspecified values and defaults work as intended), and one where the user makes a mistake, fails, corrects the mistake and succeeds.
At this point you've already test-driven every layer (controllers, models, views, helpers, mailers, etc.) into existence, with only feature specs.
Write model and helper specs to drive out detailed requirements which live entirely in those classes. For example, once you've written a single sad-path feature spec that establishes that entering one particular invalid attribute sends the user back to edit their form submission and displays a message, you can handle other invalid attributes entirely by writing more examples in that model's spec that test that model attributes are validated, and let the architecture that you've already test-driven propagate the errors back to the user.
Note that although your feature specs already test the happy paths through model and helper methods, as soon as you start writing examples for a method for minor or error cases, you'll probably want to write the happy-path example or examples for that method too, so you can see the entire description of the method in one place, and so you can test the method fully just by running all its examples and not also have to run any feature specs.
You might not need some kinds of specs at all:
Well-factored controller actions are short and have few or no conditionals, so you often won't need any controller specs at all. Write them only when needed, and stub out model, mailer, etc. behavior to keep them simple and fast.
Similarly, views and mailers should have few or no conditionals (complex code should be refactored into helper and model methods), so you often won't need view or mailer specs at all.
Your feature specs will have test-driven all the routes you need, so you probably won't need routing specs. I've only ever gotten use out of routing specs when I had to do a major refactor of routes, as when upgrading from one major version of Rails to the next.
As long as you always write a test before you write new code, you'll always have 100% line coverage.
That testing strategy sounds really comprehensive. If you had all of these tests in place you would have great test coverage. However it would take you longer to deliver your project. You would also not be agile as someone who is doing more limited testing. Testing has to suit the project. Don't over test. Over testing can cost time and money. Don't under test. Under testing can cost time and money.
There are right ways to do unit testing. There are right ways to do integration testing. The glove has to fit. If your application is largely front end facing then perhaps it's best to start with integration tests. If your writing a back end application or perhaps an API then unit tests maybe a better place to start. I think approaching with one style of testing and then expanding to different styles is a better start than to try and test every layer of your application.
Why not start with simple unit tests? They are easy to write. Write these tests and then track how many bugs you ship. Are you letting in too many bugs? Are you having a lot of regression issues? Are there bugs that are getting through to production that your suite is not picking up? If the answer is yes then maybe it's time to write some higher level tests. Remember the higher level a test is the more development cost you will have to pay.
If your not shipping bugs then you have no reason to write any more tests. Remember the end goal here. We want to ship bug free code. If we can write one test and one test alone that will ensure we are doing this then there is no reason to test any further.
Suppose I have a user class that has a method is_old_enough?
The method just checks that the age is over 18. Seems pretty simple.
Does TDD mean I have to write a test for this, even though it is trivial?
class User
def is_old_enough?
self.age >= 18
end
end
And if so, why? What is the benefit of writing a test for this? You'd just be testing that x >= y works the way you expect the >= operator to work.
Because the most likely scenario I see happening is the following:
It turns out the age should actually be 21. That's a bug that the test didn't catch, because they had the wrong assumptions when we wrote the code. So then they go in and change the method to >= 21. But now the test fails! So they have to go and change the test too. So the test didn't help, and actually gave a false positive alarm when they were refactoring.
Looks like tests for simple methods like this are not actually testing anything useful, and are actually hurting you.
I think you're confusing test coverage and Test-Driven Development. TDD is just a practice of developing an automated test that is going to verify the use cases of some new feature. Usually it starts off failing because you've stubbed the functionality out or simply haven't implemented it. Next, you develop the feature until the test passes.
The idea is that you are in the mindset of developing tests that verify your important use cases/features. This doesn't necessarily mean you need to test simple functions if you think they are covered by your regular feature tests.
In terms of coverage, that's really up to you as the developer (or team) to decide. Obviously having around 1-to-1 coverage of tests to API is desired, but you have a choice as to whether you think it's always going to be easy enough to implement is_old_enough?. It may seem like an easy implementation now, but perhaps that will change in the future. You just need to be mindful of those kinds of decisions when you choose whether to write a test or not. More than likely, though, your use case won't change and the test is easy to write. It doesn't hurt to feel confident in all areas of your code.
I think the question has more to do with unit testing than TDD in particular.
Short answer: focus on behaviors
Long answer: Well, there is a nice phrase out there: BDD is TDD done right, and I completely agree. While BDD and TDD are is large part the "same" thing (not equal, mind you!), BDD for me gives the context for doing TDD. You can read a lot on the Internet around this, so I will not write essays here, but let me say this:
In your example, yes, the test is necessary because the rule that
user is old enough is a behavior of User entity. Test serves as a
safety net for many other things yet to come which would rely on this
piece of information, and test for me would document this behavior
very well (I actually tend to read tests to find out what the developer had in mind when writing a class - you learn what to expect, how the class behaves, what are the edge cases etc.)
I don't really see how the test would not catch the refactoring, since I would write the test with numbers 18, 19, 25 and 55 in mind (just a bunch of asserts typed very fast very easily)
Very important piece of the puzzle is that unit tests are just one technique that you need. If your design is lacking, you will find yourself writing too many meaningless tests, or you will have hell testing classes doing multiple things etc. You need to have very good SOLID skills to be able to shape out classes in a way that testing only their public interfaces (this includes protected methods as well) actually tests the entire class. As said before, focusing on behaviors is the key here.
It seems, that there are two totally different approaches to testing, and I would like to cite both of them.
The thing is, that those opinions were stated 5 years ago (2007), and I am interested, what has changed since then and which way should I go.
Brandon Keepers:
The theory is that tests are supposed to be agnostic of the
implementation. This leads to less brittle tests and actually tests
the outcome (or behavior).
With RSpec, I feel like the common approach of completely mocking your
models to test your controllers ends up forcing you to look too much
into the implementation of your controller.
This by itself is not too bad, but the problem is that it peers too
much into the controller to dictate how the model is used. Why does it
matter if my controller calls Thing.new? What if my controller decides
to take the Thing.create! and rescue route? What if my model has a
special initializer method, like Thing.build_with_foo? My spec for
behavior should not fail if I change the implementation.
This problem gets even worse when you have nested resources and are
creating multiple models per controller. Some of my setup methods end
up being 15 or more lines long and VERY fragile.
RSpec’s intention is to completely isolate your controller logic from
your models, which sounds good in theory, but almost runs against the
grain for an integrated stack like Rails. Especially if you practice
the skinny controller/fat model discipline, the amount of logic in the
controller becomes very small, and the setup becomes huge.
So what’s a BDD-wannabe to do? Taking a step back, the behavior that I
really want to test is not that my controller calls Thing.new, but
that given parameters X, it creates a new thing and redirects to it.
David Chelimsky:
It’s all about trade-offs.
The fact that AR chooses inheritance rather than delegation puts us in
a testing bind – we have to be coupled to the database OR we have to
be more intimate with the implementation. We accept this design choice
because we reap benefits in expressiveness and DRY-ness.
In grappling with the dilemma, I chose faster tests at the cost of
slightly more brittle. You’re choosing less brittle tests at the cost
of them running slightly slower. It’s a trade-off either way.
In practice, I run the tests hundreds, if not thousands, of times a
day (I use autotest and take very granular steps) and I change whether
I use “new” or “create” almost never. Also due to granular steps, new
models that appear are quite volatile at first. The valid_thing_attrs
approach minimizes the pain from this a bit, but it still means that
every new required field means that I have to change
valid_thing_attrs.
But if your approach is working for you in practice, then its good! In
fact, I’d strongly recommend that you publish a plugin with generators
that produce the examples the way you like them. I’m sure that a lot
of people would benefit from that.
Ryan Bates:
Out of curiosity, how often do you use mocks in your tests/specs?
Perhaps I'm doing something wrong, but I'm finding it severely
limiting. Since switching to rSpec over a month ago, I've been doing
what they recommend in the docs where the controller and view layers
do not hit the database at all and the models are completely mocked
out. This gives you a nice speed boost and makes some things easier,
but I'm finding the cons of doing this far outweigh the pros. Since
using mocks, my specs have turned into a maintenance nightmare. Specs
are meant to test the behavior, not the implementation. I don't care
if a method was called I just want to make sure the resulting output
is correct. Because mocking makes specs picky about the
implementation, it makes simple refactorings (that don't change the
behavior) impossible to do without having to constantly go back and
"fix" the specs. I'm very opinionated about what a spec/tests should
cover. A test should only break when the app breaks. This is one
reason why I hardly test the view layer because I find it too rigid.
It often leads to tests breaking without the app breaking when
changing little things in the view. I'm finding the same problem with
mocks. On top of all this, I just realized today that mocking/stubbing
a class method (sometimes) sticks around between specs. Specs should
be self contained and not influenced by other specs. This breaks that
rule and leads to tricky bugs. What have I learned from all this? Be
careful where you use mocking. Stubbing is not as bad, but still has
some of the same issues.
I took the past few hours and removed nearly all mocks from my specs.
I also merged the controller and view specs into one using
"integrate_views" in the controller spec. I am also loading all
fixtures for each controller spec so there's some test data to fill
the views. The end result? My specs are shorter, simpler, more
consistent, less rigid, and they test the entire stack together
(model, view, controller) so no bugs can slip through the cracks. I'm
not saying this is the "right" way for everyone. If your project
requires a very strict spec case then it may not be for you, but in my
case this is worlds better than what I had before using mocks. I still
think stubbing is a good solution in a few spots so I'm still doing
that.
I think all three opinions are still completely valid. Ryan and I were struggling with the maintainability of mocking, while David felt the maintenance tradeoff was worth it for the increase in speed.
But these tradeoffs are symptoms of a deeper problem, which David alluded to in 2007: ActiveRecord. The design of ActiveRecord encourages you to create god objects that do too much, know too much about the rest of the system, and have too much surface area. This leads to tests that have too much to test, know too much about the rest of the system, and are either too slow or brittle.
So what's the solution? Separate as much of your application from the framework as possible. Write lots of small classes that model your domain and don't inherit from anything. Each object should have limited surface area (no more than a few methods) and explicit dependencies passed in through the constructor.
With this approach, I've only been writing two types of tests: isolated unit tests, and full-stack system tests. In the isolation tests, I mock or stub everything that is not the object under test. These tests are insanely fast and often don't even require loading the whole Rails environment. The full stack tests exercise the whole system. They are painfully slow and give useless feedback when they fail. I write as few as necessary, but enough to give me confidence that all my well-tested objects integrate well.
Unfortunately, I can't point you to an example project that does this well (yet). I talk a little about it in my presentation on Why Our Code Smells, watch Corey Haines' presentation on Fast Rails Tests, and I highly recommend reading Growing Object Oriented Software Guided by Tests.
Thanks for compiling the quotes from 2007. It is fun to look back.
My current testing approach is covered in this RailsCasts episode which I have been quite happy with. In summary I have two levels of tests.
High level: I use request specs in RSpec, Capybara, and VCR. Tests can be flagged to execute JavaScript as necessary. Mocking is avoided here because the goal is to test the entire stack. Each controller action is tested at least once, maybe a few times.
Low level: This is where all complex logic is tested - primarily models and helpers. I avoid mocking here as well. The tests hit the database or surrounding objects when necessary.
Notice there are no controller or view specs. I feel these are adequately covered in request specs.
Since there is little mocking, how do I keep the tests fast? Here are some tips.
Avoid excessive branching logic in the high level tests. Any complex logic should be moved to the lower level.
When generating records (such as with Factory Girl), use build first and only switch to create when necessary.
Use Guard with Spork to skip the Rails startup time. The relevant tests are often done within a few seconds after saving the file. Use a :focus tag in RSpec to limit which tests run when working on a specific area. If it's a large test suite, set all_after_pass: false, all_on_start: false in the Guardfile to only run them all when needed.
I use multiple assertions per test. Executing the same setup code for each assertion will greatly increase the test time. RSpec will print out the line that failed so it is easy to locate it.
I find mocking adds brittleness to the tests which is why I avoid it. True, it can be great as an aid for OO design, but in the structure of a Rails app this doesn't feel as effective. Instead I rely heavily on refactoring and let the code itself tell me how the design should go.
This approach works best on small-medium size Rails applications without extensive, complex domain logic.
Great questions and great discussion. #ryanb and #bkeepers mention that they only write two types of tests. I take a similar approach, but have a third type of test:
Unit tests: isolated tests, typically, but not always, against plain ruby objects. My unit tests don't involve the DB, 3rd party API calls, or any other external stuff.
Integration tests: these are still focused on testing one class; the differences is that they integrate that class with the external stuff I avoid in my unit tests. My models will often have both unit tests and integration tests, where the unit tests focus in the pure logic that can be tested w/o involving the DB, and the integration tests will involve the DB. In addition, I tend to test 3rd party API wrappers with integration tests, using VCR to keep the tests fast and deterministic, but letting my CI builds make the HTTP requests for real (to catch any API changes).
Acceptance tests: end-to-end tests, for an entire feature. This isn't just about UI testing via capybara; I do the same in my gems, which may not have an HTML UI at all. In those cases, this exercises whatever the gem does end-to-end. I also tend to use VCR in these tests (if they make external HTTP requests), and like in my integration tests, my CI build is setup to make the HTTP requests for real.
As far as mocking goes, I don't have a "one size fits all" approach. I've definitely overmocked in the past, but I still find it to be a very useful technique, especially when using something like rspec-fire. In general, I mock collaborators playing roles freely (particularly if I own them, and they are service objects) and try to avoid it in most other cases.
Probably the biggest change to my testing over the last year or so has been inspired by DAS: whereas I used to have a spec_helper.rb that loads the entire environment, now I explicitly load just the class-under test (and any dependencies). Besides the improved test speed (which does make a huge difference!) it helps me identify when my class-under-test is pulling in too many dependencies.
I'm having a hard time learning how to implement appropriate testing with rspec and rails.
Speaking generally, how does one test the "hard cases" such as did a file get generated or was an image properly resized? Currently, to me it seems that unit testing is designed for testing the transformation of values rather than making sure data is processed and output appropriately.
TL;DR You should explore for different tools and don't shy away from the "hard cases" that may not seem like traditional "unit tests". The hard cases often are testable.
Testing is definitely a rabbit hole. From the surface, it seems so nice and clean, but as you get in to it, the rabbit hole goes quite far down, and this is one example: how do you test these things? You want to be confident that your code is doing the right thing, but you also don't want to create too complicated and unmanageable tests, and you don't want to test too fine-grained either.
However, to your specific questions, I do have some ideas you may wish to look in to.
For testing that a file got generated, you can check to see that initially the file did not exist (ruby has File.exists?) and then you can, after some method, check to see if it does exist. Of course you have questions like, "Does it have the right content?", "Did it finish to completion?", and you can test that stuff too by opening the file and checking it.
For the images, you probably can find facilities that allow you to check the properties of an image (perhaps Paperclip? Never used it but it's a well known gem). So you can do something like this (in sort-of psuedo code, because I don't know of a tool to do this):
it "resizes the image" do
img = Image.open_image("pic.png")
img[:size].should eq [100, 100]
img.close
resize_image
image = Image.open_image("pic.png")
imge[:size].should eq [25, 25]
img.close
end
Testing often relies on finding more and more helpful gems/tools to massage situations. "Unit" tests will, yes, only check the unit level code and they may be very simple, but not always. But then you start looking in to library specs, request specs, routing specs, acceptance tests, controller specs, etc. There are lot of tools out there and research is key.
But again, the examples you listed may not be unit tests in the way you think of. If your resizing or file generation is being done off of a Model, then yes it is a unit test, but you're no longer writing that simple code (like accessors and mutators). A lot of the time people new to thorough testing won't think that everything is testable, and it may not be, but if you play around and explore, you can often find a way to do so.
We are running a pretty big website, we have some critical legacy code there we want to have well covered.
At the same time we would like to have a report of the features we are currently supporting and covered. And also we want to be sure we really cover every possible corner case. Some code paths are critical and will need many more tests even after achieving 100% coverage.
As we are already using rspec and rspec has "feature" and "scenario" keywords, we tried to make a list using rspec rather than going for cucumber but I think this question can be applied to any testing tool.
We want something like this:
feature "each advertisement will be shown a specified % of impressions"
scenario "As ..."
This feature is minimal from the point of view of managers but huge in the code. It involves a backend tool, a periodic task, logic in the models and views in backend and front end.
We tried to divide it like this:
feature "each creative will be shown a specified % of impressions"
context "configuration"
context "display"
scenario "..."
context "models"
it "should ..."
context "frontend"
context "display"
scenario "..."
context "models"
it "should ..."
Configuration takes place in another tool, display would contain integration tests and models would contain unit test.
I repeat myself but the idea is sto assure that the feature is really finished(including building the configuration tool) and 100% tested.
But looking at this file, it is not integration, nor unit test not even belong to any particular project.
Definitely there should be a better way of managing this.
Any experiences, resources, ideas you can share to guide us ?
The scenario you're describing is a huge reason why BDD is so popular. It forces you to write code in a way that's easy to test. Having said that, you're obviously not going to go back and rewrite the entire legacy application. There are a few things you should consider though:
As you go through each section of the application, you should ask yourself 'Will it be harder to refactor than to write tests for this?'. Sometimes refactoring before writing tests just cannot be avoided.
Testing isn't about 100% coverage, it's about 100% confidence. As you mentioned, you plan on writing more tests even when you have 100% coverage. This is because you're going for confidence. Once you're confident in a piece of code, move on. You can always come back to it at a later time.
From my experience, Cucumber is easier for tests that cover a large portion of the application. I think the reason for this is that writing out the tests in plain english makes you think of things you wouldn't have otherwise. It also allows you to focus on the behavior instead of the code and can make refactoring a less daunting task.
You don't really get much out of adding tests to existing code if you never touch that code again. Start with testing the code you want to make changes (i.e. refactor) to first.
I also recommend the book Rails Test Prescriptions, specifically one of the last chapters called "Testing a Legacy Application".