Random data in Unit Tests?

Question

There's a compromise. Your coworker is actually onto something, but I think he's doing it wrong. I'm not sure that totally random testing is very useful, but it's certainly not invalid.

A program (or unit) specification is a hypothesis that there exists some program that meets it. The program itself is then evidence of that hypothesis. What unit testing ought to be is an attempt to provide counter-evidence to refute that the program works according to the spec.

Now, you can write the unit tests by hand, but it really is a mechanical task. It can be automated. All you have to do is write the spec, and a machine can generate lots and lots of unit tests that try to break your code.

I don't know what language you're using, but see here:

Java http://functionaljava.org/

Scala (or Java) http://github.com/rickynils/scalacheck

Haskell http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~rjmh/QuickCheck/

.NET: http://blogs.msdn.com/dsyme/archive/2008/08/09/fscheck-0-2.aspx

These tools will take your well-formed spec as input and automatically generate as many unit tests as you want, with automatically generated data. They use "shrinking" strategies (which you can tweak) to find the simplest possible test case to break your code and to make sure it covers the edge cases well.

Happy testing!

This kind of testing is called a Monkey test. When done right, it can smoke out bugs from the really dark corners.

To address your concerns about reproducibility: the right way to approach this, is to record the failed test entries, generate a unit test, which probes for the entire family of the specific bug; and include in the unit test the one specific input (from the random data) which caused the initial failure.

There is a half-way house here which has some use, which is to seed your PRNG with a constant. That allows you to generate 'random' data which is repeatable.

Personally I do think there are places where (constant) random data is useful in testing - after you think you've done all your carefully-thought-out corners, using stimuli from a PRNG can sometimes find other things.

I am in favor of random tests, and I write them. However, whether they are appropriate in a particular build environment and which test suites they should be included in is a more nuanced question.

Run locally (e.g., overnight on your dev box) randomized tests have found bugs both obvious and obscure. The obscure ones are arcane enough that I think random testing was really the only realistic one to flush them out. As a test, I took one tough-to-find bug discovered via randomized testing and had a half dozen crack developers review the function (about a dozen lines of code) where it occurred. None were able to detect it.

Many of your arguments against randomized data are flavors of "the test isn't reproducible". However, a well written randomized test will capture the seed used to start the randomized seed and output it on failure. In addition to allowing you to repeat the test by hand, this allows you to trivially create new test which test the specific issue by hardcoding the seed for that test. Of course, it's probably nicer to hand-code an explicit test covering that case, but laziness has its virtues, and this even allows you to essentially auto-generate new test cases from a failing seed.

The one point you make that I can't debate, however, is that it breaks the build systems. Most build and continuous integration tests expect the tests to do the same thing, every time. So a test that randomly fails will create chaos, randomly failing and pointing the fingers at changes that were harmless.

A solution then, is to still run your randomized tests as part of the build and CI tests, but run it with a fixed seed, for a fixed number of iterations. Hence the test always does the same thing, but still explores a bunch of the input space (if you run it for multiple iterations).

Locally, e.g., when changing the concerned class, you are free to run it for more iterations or with other seeds. If randomized testing ever becomes more popular, you could even imagine a specific suite of tests which are known to be random, which could be run with different seeds (hence with increasing coverage over time), and where failures wouldn't mean the same thing as deterministic CI systems (i.e., runs aren't associated 1:1 with code changes and so you don't point a finger at a particular change when things fail).

There is a lot to be said for randomized tests, especially well written ones, so don't be too quick to dismiss them!