My software company never did BDD or even TDD before. Testing before meant to simply try out the new software some days before deployment.
Our recent project is about 70% done. We also use it as a playground for new technologies, tools and ways of developement. My boss wanted that I switch to it to "test testing".
I tried out Selenium 2 and RSpec. Both are promising, but how to catch up months of developement? Further problems are:
new language
never wrote a line of code by myself
huge parts are written by freelancer
lots of fancy hacking
no documentation at all besides some source comments and flow charts
All I was able to was to do was to cover a whole process with Selenium. This appeared to be quite painfully (but still possible), since the software was obivously never meant to be testet this way. We have lots of dynamically generated id ´s, fancy jQuery and much more. Dont even know how to get started with RSpec.
So, is it still possible to apply BDD to this project? Or should I run far away and never come back?
Before you start - have you asked your boss what he values from the testing? I'd clarify this with your boss first. The main benefits of system-level BDD are in the conversations with business stakeholders before the code is written. You won't be able to get this if all you're doing is wrapping existing code. At a unit level, the main benefits are in questioning the responsibilities of classes and their behavior, which, again, you won't be able to get. It might be useful for helping you understand the value of the application and each level of code, though.
If your boss just wants to try out BDD or TDD it may be simpler to start a new project, or even grab an existing project from someone else to wrap some tests around. If he genuinely wants to experiment with BDD over legacy code, then it may be worth persisting with what you have - #Esko's book suggestion rocks. Putting higher-level system tests around the existing functionality can help you to avoid breaking things when you refactor the lower-level code (and you will need to do so, if you want to put tests in place). I additionally recommend Martin Fowler's "Refactoring".
RSpec is best suited to applying BDD at a unit level, as a variant of TDD. If you're looking to wrap automated tests around your whole environment, take a look at Cucumber. It makes reusing steps a lot simpler. You can then call Selenium directly from your steps.
I put together a page of links on BDD here, which I hope will help newcomers to understand it better. Best of luck.
Reading the book Working Effectively with Legacy Code might be helpful. There is also a short version in PDF form.
Related
I am joining a company, they dont have any formal testing setup. They expect me to start a testing department. I have good understanding of manual and automated testing. Not sure about how to start or which tools to use for document sharing, bugs tracking.
please guide as much info you can provide.
thanks
This is a very broad question and almost impossible to answer without significantly more knowledge of your companies products, quality goals and existing tooling... But I've got some Opinions :tm: that might help, starting with some philosophy (sorry).
What You're For
The function of a testing department isn't to test; the goal is to help the company be confident in its delivery of products. Your customers want to know that your software is accurate and stable. Your Operations team wants to avoid Production going down. Your Developers want to feel confident that their changes work and don't have any negative side effects.
I personally feel that the best way for a testing team to provide that confidence is not by writing tests; It's by editing them. The testing team provides the tooling, guidelines and expertise to help the rest of the Engineering departments make testing an integral part of the process.
It's like cooking. You don't make a well seasoned meal by chopping and sautéing and stirring and then giving it to a head chef to taste. You taste continually while you go because you're the one who knows what the food should be like. The head chef trains you and provides feedback on the final dish so that you learn how to season correctly.
Choosing Tools
Irrelevant. Mostly.
Your tools need to give you what you're after and then get out of your way. At the moment, the company barely knows what it's after, so you could even use a Google Doc to track defects.
You don't want to get in anyone's way to begin with, or they'll start to resent you. Your team needs to provide value and start to earn the social capital to change the Engineering processes to help deliver your goals.
So, use whatever document sharing tools are already in use; Whether that's a Wiki, Google, Dropbox etc. If you're choosing a new one because there's no collaboration, I'm partial to Notion.
If your team already has a collaborative build tool (eg Jenkins, Travis) it's probably best to stick with that, adding in testing steps. Again, the less friction you introduce, the better your initial outcomes.
I wouldn't bother building and maintaining a test grid; Instead, lean on a vendor like Sauce Labs for infrastructure and expertise. That way you've got easy parallelisation, wide platform coverage, test asset collection, insights, as well as their experience in supporting Testing teams. Disclaimer: I'm the Manager of Developer Relations at Sauce Labs, so I'm probably biased ;)
As for testing tools; If you want your engineering teams to collaborate on test production, you need to stick with an ecosystem they can use. This likely means whatever they're already using.
How To Start Testing
Selecting What To Test
Your organisation wants testing so bad they're hiring you. That implies there's a traumatic event that they want to avoid happening again. So, start there. Find out what it is, and create a test for it.
If Black Friday overwhelmed their site, do Load testing. If their build is always breaking, concentrate on unit testing. If functionality doesn't work in Prod, add an integration test.
Test Coverage
There's a trap for new players, and you're likely to hear this from your devs:
We're so far behind on test coverage we'll never catch up
That is absolutely true.... if you never start! Add the tests that prevent the trauma that bought you on board and you're already adding value; You'll catch that problem next time.
Another trap is setting test coverage goals. Test coverage is a great way to monitor your process but a terrible way to improve it. Force your teams to increase test coverage (or not let it slip) and they'll start to resent the process... And write crap tests just to boost the percentage.
Instead, use coverage for feedback. If coverage goes down during a commit, discuss why and talk about how to improve it. if it drops way down you might want to do something, but a little dip while you're getting started is A-OK.
Assuming you've covered the trauma that got you hired, increasing test coverage is best done on an as-worked basis. If a developer is writing new code, it gets tests. If a developer is modifying old code, it gets tests to (at least) prove that the modifications work, and ideally to prove that they don't break the old functionality either.
You may come across old code that literally can't be tested. That's a good time to refactor that code. If people are scared of refactoring because it might break, point out that that's exactly what tests are for. Try to pull out to a level where you can test. If you can't test a unit, test the class. If you can't test the class, test the package. Then, go back in and start re-working. You have to do it some day.
Oh, no, we'll be replacing the Fizzwangle with a new Buzzshooper implementation soon; There's no need to take the risk of refactoring for testability.
This is a lie. Even if they mean it truthfully, it's a lie. Buzzshooper isn't coming any time soon. Refactor that shit.
Tests Are Code, Code Is Tests
Your tests need to be treated like high quality code. Use all the abstractions you use when writing code, like inheritance, polymorphism, modularisation, composability.
Look at techniques like the Page Object Model for front end testing. Your test code should restrict implementation detail knowledge (eg, element locators) to the least number of places, so that changes are easy to implement.
Oh, and also, your Code is Code. Learn about then help your teams write code for testability, and tests for code-ability. Structure your tests and app so you can test in parallel, reliably, as fast as possible:
Give HTML elements unique, simple IDs
Write tests that test a single thing
Bypass complicated test setup by doing things like pre-populating databases
Log in once, then use session management to avoid doing it again
Use data generators to create unique test data (including logins)
Other Resources
Check out past conference talks like SauceCon Online.
Testing Talks Online has some great discussions and is the closest thing I've found to a real-life meetup during Covid.
There's also a lot of great content over at Ministry of Testing.
I have been reading a lot about test-driven development and decided that I want to give it a go on a small project. For reference, I am currently reading 'Growing Object-Oriented Software, Guided by Tests'.
I understand how to unit test my application and how to unit test certain parts of the UI as well, but I am struggling to set up end-to-end tests. For example, testing that a certain path through my whole application produces the correct output (this is my basic understanding of an end-to-end test).
It's not necessary to simulate click events, but it is necessary to have some sort of connection to the UI.
Am I right in thinking that I need a combination of "Logic" tests (test without launching the app), "Application" tests (test with launching the app) and the asynchronous functionality of something like GHUnit to accomplish this?
EDIT:
After reading some of the answers below, it sounds like I'm looking for functional end-to-end testing, but I think I should give an example of a test as I imagine it.
Start the application.
Call the login function with a test users credentials. (Note: doesn't necessarily need UI automation).
Verify a label on the window says "Logging In...".
After successfully verifying the user, verify the label now says "Welcome, Adam!".
KIF sounds like it could work, as it has steps to check changes in UI elements and it looks like there is a Mac OSX branch also. I'm sure I could also write a small class which constantly polls the UI for changes I expect and times-out after a certain time, but I'm wondering if this the right way to go about it.
However, perhaps I am trying to take what I am reading in 'Growing Object-Oriented Software, Guided by Tests' and trying to apply it too literally to Cocoa.
Another UPDATE:
So I've been reading the advice so far, checked the various places linked to and started to implement something whilst still referencing the book. I think what I'm really trying to get at is the Test-Driven-Development part. What stood out most in said book, was that they described what they wanted to happen from a users perspective first with acceptance tests.
I realise that solid unit testing will be necessary as soon as I start writing methods, but I was keen to write some high-level acceptance tests first, using some of the UI. I have started to write my own application "driver" class, using some similar methods to the GHAsyncTestCase ideas to help me accomplish this. Does this sound correct/useful/necessary?
I really appreciate all the comments so far and they have definitely helped me work out in my own head what I'm trying to do and what various areas of testing there are. I will finish up this question soon, as it is getting rather large, so any final advice is welcome!
I think the key thing that I got from "Growing Object Orientated Software" was to decouple as much as possible from the UI. Without code to look at it's harder to give suggestions but with your revision I'd think that separating the "verify a label says.." bit from the UI. What is setting this message, and can you just test for that event?
The more you can decouple from the UI the more you can unit-test (quicker and easier) rather than integrating other frameworks or drivers of UI elements.
You might be interested in Square's KIF framework: http://corner.squareup.com/2011/07/ios-integration-testing.html
It looks really cool for integration/UI testing.
I believe you can use the Accessibility features to script the UI. I'd check the WWDC 2011 videos for one entitled "Design Patterns to Simplify Mac Accessibility". They did something similar in 2010.
Based on your response to #Norman, I guess you're looking for recommendations that span both functional end-to-end as well as UI-based end-to-end but perhaps a UI automation framework might change your mind? Something intrusive like FoneMonkey might be helpful:
http://www.gorillalogic.com/fonemonkey
If that doesn't work for you, I'd be interested in knowing why & what "gap" you perceive in such UI driven tests versus code-based functional testing?
First i have no experience on parasoft .test or jtest experience. I have read the datasheet that the product could automatically generate unit test.
but I am woundering how useful the auto generated unit test are. Does it really do not need any other effort by developer?
any experience sharing are welcome.
thanks a lot!
We used JTest for our product recently. We didn't use the standard product, we used the Eclipse Plugin. The standard product is built on the OSGI framework (read: it's like Eclipse), but you have to import and create your projects. We were already using Eclipse, so it made sense for us to simply use the plugin, which has all of the same capabilities.
While there are many things that JTest can do for you, there are also many irritating things about it. For example, Jtest's static analysis tool is what is really worthwhile, IMHO. It can look for lots of errors and has a pretty good reporting system. But, while unit test generation is okay, but I think I spent as much or more time fixing and enhancing the generated tests than I would have just making them myself. Administering Jtest is also somewhat complicated and involved.
The built-in mechanisms to make unit tests, stub objects, parameterized unit tests, etc. are not well documented. At least, my little brain couldn't make good use of them in the two years we used the product. However, a lot of their super awesome features (like GUI tracing, command-line interface, the Bug Detective, reporting system etc.) all require extra, very expensive licenses.
Really, Jtest just gives you an easy way to manage the execution of static and unit testing. But it's really expensive. I can't believe they charge thousands of dollars per license of that stuff. You'll also find that they will want to train you, which you almost need because the documentation is pretty bad. Which is odd, because the user's guide is like 900 pages long.
But here's a big hint: you can do it for free. If I had to do it over, I would have pushed hard for using these products (which, oddly enough, look and feel very similar to Jtest)
http://code.google.com/javadevtools/codepro/doc/index.html
I wouldn't get Jtest thinking that this will be a small something to add to your developer's routine. Jtest can become a huge time and process sink.
Jtest is very very useful.Yes it generates it own test cases which requires lot more efforts for fixing them.I use it in different form.I delete all the generated unnecessary test cases.I made one another file which create database connection and set various other parameters sets.Also after configuration the code will work without mocking if all of the code is ready and if it is not ready than you can stubs the required methods.
Static code analyzer is good(for checking null pointer exception)
Checking code conventions is very good.
Write your custom code guidlines as use cases and execute it on your code.
Code coverage.
Debug while testing.
The auto generated unit tests still needs a developer to decide what results are correct or not, so you have to sit down and do the job. A lot of the boiler plate code is of course auto generated, so a small time saver there. I haven't used it much, but did evaluate jtest for an earlier employer. Seemed like a great product, if I remember correctly. :)
Alas there will never be a silver bullet that addresses all unit testing requirements, but JTest & .Test (& C++Test for that matter) about as close as you will get. Uggwar is correct that the developer will still need to verify outcomes for the basic auto generated tests, however there is a whole lot more to it.
These tools can be used to create basic regression tests, these are there to tell you when something has changes, not whether what it is testing is right or wrong. You can also trace a running application and then generate JUnit/NUnit/CPPUnit tests that recreate what was going on in the application. These tend to be far more useful tests, which are used as regression tests for items of functionality.
Other functionality includes the ability to generate stubs, use spreadsheets as datasources and provide an object repository. There is a while lot more too ....
Give them a try.
http://www.parasoft.com
I've started a new role in my life. I was a front end web developer, but I've now been moved to testing web software, or more so, automating the testing of the software. I believe I am to pursue a BDD (Behavior Driven Development) methodology. I am fairly lost as to what to use, and how to piece it together.
The code that is being used/written is in Java to write a web interface for the application to test. I have documentation of the tests to run, but I've been curious how to go about automating it.
I've been directed to Cucumber as one of the "languages" to help with the automation. I have done some research and come across a web site for a synopsis of BDD Tools/Frame works,
8 Best Behavior Driven Development (BDD) Tools and Testing Frameworks. This helped a little but then I got a little confused of how to implement it. It seems that Selenium is a common denominator in a lot of the BDD frameworks for testing a GUI, but it still doesn't seem to help describe what to do.
I then came across the term Functional Testing tool, and I think that confused me even more. Do they all test a GUI?
I think the one that looked like it was all one package was SmartBear TestComplete, and then there is, what seems to be, another similar application by SmartBear called, SmartBear TestLeft, but I think I saw that they still used Cucumber for BDDing it. There a few others that looked like they might work as well, but I guess the other question is what's the cheapest route?
I guess the biggest problem I have is how to make these tests more dynamic, as the UI/browser dimensions can easily change from system to system, and how do I go about writing automation that can handle this, and tie into a BDD methodology?
Does anyone have any suggestions here? Does anybody out there do this?
Thanks in advance.
BDD Architecture
BDD automation typically consists of a few layers:
The natural language steps
The wiring that ties the steps to their definition
The step definitions, which usually access page objects
Page objects, which provide all the capabilities of a page or widget
Automation over the actual code being exercised, often through the GUI.
The wiring between natural language steps and the step definitions is normally done by the BDD tool (Cucumber).
The automation is normally done using the automation tool (Selenium). Sometimes people do skip the GUI, perhaps targeting an API or the MVC layer instead. It depends how complex the functionality in your web page is. If in doubt, give Selenium a try. I've written automation frameworks for desktop apps; the principle's the same regardless.
Keeping it maintainable
To make the steps easy to maintain and change, keep the steps at a fairly high level. This is frequently referred to as "declarative" as opposed to "imperative". For instance, this is too detailed:
When Fred provides his receipt
And his receipt is scanned
And the cashier clicks "Refund to original card"
And the card is inserted...
Think about what the user is trying to achieve:
When Fred gets a refund to his original card
Generally a scenario will have a few Givens or Thens, but typically only one When (unless you have something like users interacting or time passing, where both events are needed to illustrate the behaviour).
Your page objects in this scenario might well be a "RefundPageObject" or perhaps, if that's too large, a "RefundToCardPageObject". This pattern allows multiple scenario steps to access the same capabilities without duplication, which means that if the way the capabilities are exercised changes, you only need to change them in one place.
Different page objects could also be used for different systems.
Getting started
If you're attacking this for the first time, start by getting an empty scenario that just runs and passes without doing anything (make the steps empty). When you've done this, you'll have successfully wired up Cucumber.
Write the production code that would make the scenario run. (This is the other way round from the way you'd normally do it; normally you'd write the scenario code first. I've found this is a good way to get started though.)
When you can run your scenario manually, add the automation directly to the steps (you've only got one scenario at this point). Use your favourite assertion package (JUnit) to get the outcome you're after. You'll probably need to change your code so that you can automate over it easily, by e.g.: giving relevant test ids to elements in your webpage.
Once you've got one scenario running, try to write any subsequent scenarios first; this helps you think about your design and the testability of what you're about to do. When you start adding more scenarios, start extracting that automation out into page objects too.
Once you've got a few scenarios, have a think about how you might want to address different systems. Avoid using lots of "if" statements if you can; those are hard to maintain. Injecting different implementations of page objects is probably better (the frameworks may well support this by now; I haven't used them in a while).
Keep refactoring as you add more scenarios. If the steps are too big, split them up. If the page objects are too big, divide them into widgets. I like to organize my scenarios by user / stakeholder capabilities (normally related to the "when" but sometimes to the "then") then by different contexts.
So to summarize:
Write an empty scenario
Write the code to make that pass manually
Wire up the scenario using your automation tool; it should now run!
Write another scenario, this time writing the automation before the production code
Refactor the automation, moving it out of the steps into page objects
Keep refactoring as you add more scenarios.
Now you've got a fully wired BDD framework, and you're in a good place to keep going while making it maintainable.
A final hint
Think of this as living documentation, rather than tests. BDD scenarios hardly ever pick up bugs in good teams; anything they catch is usually a code design issue, so address it at that level. It helps people work out what the code does and doesn't do yet, and why it's valuable.
The most important part of BDD is having the conversations about how the code works. If you're automating tests for code that already exists, see if you can find someone to talk to about the complicated bits, at least, and verify your understanding with them. This will also help you to use the right language in the scenarios.
See my post on using BDD with legacy systems for more. There are lots of hints for beginners on that blog too.
Since you feel lost as to where to start, I will hint you about some blogs I have written that talks a bit about your problem.
Some categories that may help you:
http://www.thinkcode.se/blog/category/Cucumber
http://www.thinkcode.se/blog/category/Selenium
This, rather long and old post, might give you hints as well:
http://www.thinkcode.se/blog/2012/11/01/cucumberjvm-not-just-for-testing-guis
Notice that versions are dated, but hopefully it can give some ideas as what too look for.
I am not an expert on the test automation but I am currently working on this part. So let me share some idea and hope it will help you at the current stage.
We have used selenium+cucumber+intellij for testing web application. We have used testcomplete+cucumber+intellij for testing java desktop application.
As to the test of web application, we have provided a test mode in our web application, which allows us to get some useful details of the product and the environment; and also allows us to easily trigger events through clicking the button and inputting text into the test panel under test mode.
I hope these are helpful for you.
In my limited experience with them executable requirements (i.e. specifying all requirements as broken automated tests) have proven to be amazingly successful. I've worked on one project in which we placed a heavy emphasis on creating high-level automated tests which exercised all the functionality of a given use case/user story. It was really amazing to me how much easier development became after we began this practice. Implementing features became so much easier after writing a test and we were able to make major architectural changes to the system with all the confidence in the world that everything still worked the same as it did yesterday.
The biggest problem we ran into was that the tools for managing these types of tests aren't very good. We used Fitnesse quite a bit and as a result I now hate the Fit framework.
I'd like to know 1) if anyone else has experience developing using this type of test-driven requirement definition and 2) what tools you all used to facilitate this.
The primary tool I've also used was FitNesse. I've used it at several companies, with very good results. We did have test cases numbering in the many thousands, and we had to be very disciplined in how we organized and used them.
I've tried some other tools, including writing my own DSL (domain-specific language) and using things like RSpec. I really like RSpec, but it is certainly more of a developer tool than a business one.
I know Rick Mugridge has been working on a tool called ZiBreve (http://www.zibreve.com/visit.php?page=index) which is supposed to have stronger refactoring support. I haven't used it myself, but I know Rick and have talked to him several times. I know there was discussion at Agile 2008 on some different ways to deal with the Fitnesse tests in general.
Other than that, I haven't seen a lot of good tools out there. Even tools like WinRunner are fine for QA type tests, but for exploratory testing of requirements by the business, FitNesse or a custom DSL seem to be the ways to go right now.
You might want to take look at Robot Framework (http://robotframework.org). It's FIT-like but hopefully easier to integrate to different testing tools, version control and continuous integration. Different abstraction levels in the test data also make it easier to maintain the data, and when the separate test data editor gets more mature maintenance gets even easier. The quick start guide introduces the most important features of the framework and acts also as an executable demo.
I've had to use, test and set up both fitnesse and one of it's competitor, GreenPepper for my work, and what I can say is :
GreenPepper is a confluence plugin (confluence is an enterprise wiki from atlassian) and have many of the things you need in an "enterprise" level tool with little to no additional work required :
Better user friendly -rich text- wiki
syntax (makes it easier to work with
for non technical people)
It integrates very well with many
development tools : Eclipse, VB,
maven2 and Nant plugin, I tested most
and was very pleased.
User and access rights are managed by
confluence, which is to say it's good
and make uses of database of your
likin (which might be mandatory
depending on where you work)
Many other functionalities that might
or might not be required : ssl support, remote execution (install the wiki on unix, execute on windows if you are working on a C# project, or reverse)
Looks way better :D
Big downs for GreenPepper are : Configuration is quite hard and documentation is poor (although they seem to be working on it and they answer quite fast on their forum) and also it is not free, you have to pay for both confluence and GreenPepper, which might add up to quite a lot.
Fitnesse is very basic in my opinion, very easy to set up, it works but that's it, you can use some of the fitnesse plugins developed by the open source community, and even some Fit plugins, such as the Eclipse plugin (build the skeletton of the fixture from a fitnesse test file, provided it's in a .fit extension, very usefull). Integration is not ideal, authentification and access rights management is poor, but it's FREE and if you need something, you can do it because it's open source.
I've found that using contracts is a great approach. Metaprogramming contracts are generally lower-level than the types of integration tests you describe, but the two are certainly not mutually exclusive. I find contracts help keep documentation, implementation, and testing all in sync -- this is a major problem of TDD (not that it isn't a problem in non-TDD).
I've tried Fitnesse and its really awful (particularly integration with SVN).
And our company develop similar open-source tool with fit engine: FitPro
Another brilliant tool I've used is Concordion. It has the only disadvantage - requrements in html format
My experience is limited to personal projects and found much the same advantages you mentioned. I recommend http://metacpan.org/pod/Test::Simple::Tutorial which was my inspiration for trying out testing-based development. The perl testing modules seem pretty useful and flexible, though I have nothing to compare them to.
I also believe tests are vital for the maintenance period of a project. If you have good tests to begin with, it saves a lot of time and mistakes later on. I wish I had put more work into tests on my current project.