Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
 

What should NOT be unit tested?

Tags:

unit-testing

I got the impression that some problems are just to hard to unit test. And even if you do it, often such tests provide little value.

What code should not be unit tested, apart from getters and setters?

(might be similar to this question)

like image 900
arturh Avatar asked Jul 05 '09 16:07

arturh


People also ask

What should you not do in unit testing?

Never Follow Standard Naming Conventions Unit test code is different from algorithm implementation or business logic, and for this reason, standard naming conventions are not applicable to test classes, methods, and variables.

Should you unit test everything?

The answer to the more general question is yes, you should unit test everything you can. Doing so creates a legacy for later so changes down the road can be done with peace of mind. It ensures that your code works as expected. It also documents the intended usage of the interfaces.

What should be tested in unit testing?

The purpose of a unit test in software engineering is to verify the behavior of a relatively small piece of software, independently from other parts. Unit tests are narrow in scope, and allow us to cover all cases, ensuring that every single part works correctly.


1 Answers

My general approach is "if this code is not worth testing, why is it worth having in the first place"? If I'm using a language which forces me to have a lot of uselessly repetitive boilerplate, then maybe I don't need to test those parts if the language's compiler can just check them; but I normally use languages where code I write is actually meaningful;-).

Can you given an example of problem that's too hard to unit-test? I've heard this used as an excuse to avoid testing error-recovery and diagnostic code that's only triggered by rare and very unlikely circumstances, but every time this has come up I've argued that, on the contrary, that code is the one most needing unit tests, because it's not going to get exercised in the integration tests and normal use (e.g. at QA stage).

Dependency Injection lets you use a fake or mock object to stand for (whatever "should never cause this error but we're covering for it anyway" -- network, database, power control interface, etc), and your fake or mock easily can and definitely should cause fake errors of all kinds so you can thoroughly check that error-recovery and diagnostic code.

Maybe it depends on what kind of apps you write -- for the last few years I've been mostly in cluster-management software, where everything that can go wrong will, lots of things that can't possibly go wrong will anyway, and uptime and fast recovery are crucial. In that field nobody would ever dare argue against a belt-and-suspenders approach (if they did the reliability engineers would be after them with cudgels;-).

But I've recently switched to Business Intelligence and I've noticed the approach translates well, too: if the numbers my code is producing (maybe to show as a nice graph to business decision makers, etc) are worth producing at all, they'd better be accurate, which means (among other things) that the code producing them needs to be tested just as thoroughly and carefully as that which monitors a network or a power supply system!-)

like image 171
Alex Martelli Avatar answered Oct 03 '22 16:10

Alex Martelli