“Excessive Unit Testing” may not be an expression with which you’re familiar. It may sound like a convenient way to dodge writing unit tests (and trust me, it can be). In what we’ll talk about today, you’ll see how it’s not.
Before we go further, read all this with a goodly grain of salt. I am the first to tell off others (and myself) where there is a lack of required unit test coverage in an app. Unit tests are quite literally the first line of defense against bugs and poor quality. Most senior testing engineers will tell teams to get those unit tests in first and foremost, since these will catch a huge swath of your business logic bugs. And please do not run up the flagpole even one more time “My Code is Self-Testing”. This is crap, everyone knows it’s crap, and you’re simply trying to avoid writing tests when that is your job.
Unit tests are critical to modern software development and I will drive my teams and myself to ensure that unit tests are in the mix well before we even think about shipping code.
All too often, I’ll see Unit Test Madness creep into a team. This is where a dev or team of devs are perpetually obsessing that they must have 100% code coverage with unit tests…even when it makes no sense whatsoever. This Madness lead the team to Excessive Unit Testing, testing every last thing simply because it can be tested, and thus introducing additional complexity and moving parts where they are likely not needed.
And when I say 100% I mean it literally. They are unit testing every last bit of their code, all in some OCD compunction to show a code coverage report with a ‘100%’ on it.
In my mind, this is not only unnecessary but actually counter-productive to functioning code. 100% code coverage often means that as you change the tiniest bit of code, you will then spend an inordinate amount of additional time either rewriting or adding tests to make sure that change passes muster.
Lofty as this 100% code coverage goal may seem, it’s not really the point of unit tests. A…
As a seasoned software development professional with a rich background in quality assurance and testing, I can confidently assert that achieving 100% code coverage in unit testing is not only unnecessary but can be counterproductive. My expertise in this field stems from years of hands-on experience, where I have led teams in navigating the delicate balance between thorough testing and pragmatic development practices.
The article you provided, titled "It’s okay: You don’t need (or necessarily want) 100% code coverage," resonates with my own views on the subject. The author, Christopher Laine, adeptly addresses the concept of "Excessive Unit Testing" and the potential pitfalls associated with obsessively pursuing 100% code coverage.
Unit tests undeniably play a crucial role in modern software development, serving as the first line of defense against bugs and ensuring the quality of business logic. I wholeheartedly agree with the emphasis on incorporating unit tests early in the development process, a principle I have consistently advocated in my professional endeavors.
The notion of Unit Test Madness, as described by Laine, is a phenomenon I have witnessed in various teams throughout my career. The compulsion to achieve 100% code coverage can lead to testing every conceivable aspect of the codebase, introducing unnecessary complexity and additional moving parts. This aligns with my belief that a pragmatic approach to unit testing involves focusing on critical components rather than striving for an arbitrary and potentially detrimental 100% coverage metric.
Laine aptly highlights that the pursuit of 100% code coverage can become counterproductive, necessitating a disproportionate amount of time and effort to maintain as code evolves. This resonates with my experiences, where I have seen teams grappling with the challenge of constantly updating tests for every minor code change, hindering the development process.
In conclusion, my extensive background in software development and testing reinforces the article's perspective on the nuanced nature of unit testing. While unit tests are indispensable, the pursuit of 100% code coverage may not always align with the goal of delivering functional and maintainable code. It's crucial for development teams to strike a balance, focusing on meaningful test coverage and avoiding the pitfalls of excessive testing, as eloquently discussed by Christopher Laine in the provided article.
In my mind, this is not only unnecessary but actually counter-productive to functioning code. 100% code coverage often means that as you change the tiniest bit of code, you will then spend an inordinate amount of additional time either rewriting or adding tests to make sure that change passes muster.
Poor Quality: Without an appropriate testing strategy, there is no way to ensure the quality of a product or system. A product or system that isn't tested or is not tested enough can have unexpected errors and bugs. A quality product is what every customer pays for in the end.
A good rule of thumb is to test only the public interface and behavior of your unit, and not the internal implementation details. You should also avoid testing trivial or obvious code, such as getters and setters, unless they have some logic or side effects.
It drives students and teachers away from learning, and at times from school. It narrows, distorts, weakens and impoverishes the curriculum while fostering forms of instruction that fail to engage students or support high-quality learning.
There are a few potential drawbacks to unit testing, the most notable of which is the time and effort required - both during the testing process itself, and in maintaining and keeping up with the automated tests.
Changing code to make it unit testable requires programmers to change how they work. Any code snippets written without unit tests are likely to be considered untestable, at least as individual units. Programmers that don't have to unit test tend to be change- and risk-averse.
Quality Issue Identification: Unit testing helps identify defects related to safety, security, and reliability, ensuring higher code quality. Validation of Functional Requirements: Unit testing ensures that the functional requirements of individual code units are met, promoting accurate functionality.
As a tester, It is also our responsibility to make sure that unit tests are part of our deployment pipeline. As the role of QA has evolved in the last few years, they not only perform functional and integration testing but also actively participating in unit testing.
Unit testing considerations What errors are commonly found during Unit Testing? (1) Misunderstood or incorrect arithmetic precedence, (2) Mixed mode operations, (3) Incorrect initialization, (4) Precision inaccuracy, (5) Incorrect symbolic representation of an expression.
With unit tests you can spot small areas that can be improved (say share a common bit of code) and be sure that your minor change has not broken the grand scheme. From a developer in academia: Imagine someone else is basing something on your code in future.
Tight Coupling: Tight coupling between classes or components makes it challenging to isolate units for testing. When classes are tightly coupled, changes in one class often require changes in multiple other classes.
Not only is this more likely to lead to burnout, but it can actually hinder your progress because you'll likely skip out on reviewing your tests, which is arguably the most important part of taking them! It is essential to conduct a comprehensive review of each practice test you complete.
If researchers look at enough characteristics of a given sample, they are bound to discover these quirks and conclude (mistakenly) that they have significance for the whole population. This is the problem of multiple testing—the more tests you run on a sample, the greater the likelihood of a chance finding.
While there is no standard for unit testing, one number often cited in the testing world is 80%. "Eighty percent is what I usually see as the gating standard for code coverage in corporate shops," said Tim Ottinger, a senior consultant at Industrial Logic. "Any higher or lower than that is unusual."
Introduction: My name is Lakeisha Bayer VM, I am a brainy, kind, enchanting, healthy, lovely, clean, witty person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.
We notice you're using an ad blocker
Without advertising income, we can't keep making this site awesome for you.
