65

Unit testing? Do as I say, don't do as I do

 5 years ago
source link: https://www.tuicool.com/articles/hit/aQ7vq2f
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.

I’m a firm believer in unit testing. I’ve done more tech talks on the subject than I’d care to count, and always tell audiences the same thing: prefer unit tests, here’s a picture of the testing pyramid , keep unit tests pure (no side-effects), avoid end-to-end tests (they’re flaky, people will stop paying attention to red builds since all builds will be red). I tell them about adapters , ports and hexagonal architecture . But when it comes to using libclang to parse and translate C and C++ headers , I end up punting and writing a lot of integration tests instead. Hmm.

I know why people write tests with side-effects, and why they end up writing integration and end-to-end ones instead of the nice pure unit test happy place I advocate. It’s easier. There’s less thinking involved. A lot less. However, taking the easy path has always come back to bite me. Those kinds of tests take longer. They higher up the test pyramid you go, the flakier they get. TCP ports stay open longer than a tester would like, for instance. The network goes down. All sorts of things.

I understand why I wrote integration tests instead of unit tests when interfacing with libclang too. Like it is for everyone else, it was just easier. I failed to come up with a plan to unit test what I was doing. It didn’t help that I’d never used libclang and had no idea what the API looked like or what it allowed me to do. It also doesn’t help that libclang doesn’t have an option to take a string to the code to parse and instead takes a file name, but I can work around that.

Because of this, the dpp codebase currently suffers from that lack of separation of concerns. Code that translates C/C++ to D is now intimately tied to libclang and its quirks. If I ever try to use something other than libclang, I won’t be able to. All of the bad things I caution everybody else about? I guaranteed they happened in one of my newest projects.

Before the code collapses under its own complexity, I’ve decided to do what I should’ve done all along and am rewriting dpp so it uses layers to get away from the libclang mess. I’m still figuring it all out, but the main idea is to have a transformation layer between libclang and my code that takes its data types and converts them to a new set of AST types that are my own. From then on it should be trivial to unit test the translation of those AST types that represent C or C++ code into D. Funnily enough, the fact that I wrote so many integration tests will keep me honest since all of those old tests will still have to pass. I’m not sure how I feel about that.

I might do another blog post covering how I ended up porting a codebase with pretty much only integration tests to the unit variety. It might be of interest to anyone maintaining a legacy codebase (i.e. all of us).


About Joyk


Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK