我正致力于将单元测试集成到我所在团队的开发过程中,有一些人对此持怀疑态度。有什么好方法可以让团队中持怀疑态度的开发人员相信单元测试的价值?在我的具体情况下,我们将在添加功能或修复错误时添加单元测试。不幸的是,我们的代码库并不容易进行测试。


当前回答

Unit testing helps a lot in projects that are larger than any one developer can hold in their head. They allow you to run the unit test suite before checkin and discover if you broke something. This cuts down a lot on instances of having to sit and twiddle your thumbs while waiting for someone else to fix a bug they checked in, or going to the hassle of reverting their change so you can get some work done. It's also immensely valuable in refactoring, so you can be sure that the refactored code passes all the tests that the original code did.

其他回答

最好的说服方式是……找到一个bug,为它写一个单元测试,修复这个bug。

这个特定的错误不太可能再次出现,您可以通过测试来证明它。

如果你做得足够多,其他人很快就会明白。

One of the best things about unit testing is that your code will become easier to test as you do it. Preexisting code created without tests is always a challenge because since they weren't meant to be unit-tested, it's not rare to have a high level of coupling between classes, hard-to-configure objects inside your class - like an e-mail sending service reference - and so on. But don't let this bring you down! You'll see that your overall code design will become better as you start to write unit-tests, and the more you test, the more confident you'll become on making even more changes to it without fear of breaking you application or introducing bugs.

There are several reasons to unit-test your code, but as time progresses, you'll find out that the time you save on testing is one of the best reasons to do it. In a system I've just delivered, I insisted on doing automated unit-testing in spite of the claims that I'd spend way more time doing the tests than I would by testing the system manually. With all my unit tests done, I run more than 400 test cases in less than 10 minutes, and every time I had to do a small change in the code, all it took me to be sure the code was still working without bugs was ten minutes. Can you imagine the time one would spend to run those 400+ test cases by hand?

当涉及到自动化测试——无论是单元测试还是验收测试——每个人都认为编写可以手动完成的代码是浪费精力,有时这是真的——如果你计划只运行一次测试的话。自动化测试最好的部分是,您可以毫不费力地运行它们几次,并且在第二次或第三次运行之后,您所浪费的时间和精力已经得到了补偿。

最后一个建议是,不仅要对代码进行单元测试,还要先进行测试(详见TDD和BDD)。

多年来,我一直试图说服人们,他们需要为自己的代码编写单元测试。无论他们是先编写测试(如TDD)还是在编写功能之后,我总是试图向他们解释对代码进行单元测试的所有好处。几乎没有人反对我。你不能否认一些显而易见的事情,任何聪明的人都会看到单元测试和TDD的好处。

单元测试的问题在于它需要行为上的改变,而要改变人们的行为是非常困难的。用语言,你会让很多人同意你的观点,但你不会看到他们做事的方式有太多变化。

你必须通过行动来说服人们。你的个人成功会比你的争论吸引更多的人。如果他们看到你不只是在谈论单元测试或TDD,而是在做你鼓吹的事情,而且你是成功的,人们就会试图模仿你。

You should also take on a lead role because no one writes unit test right the first time, so you may need to coach them on how to do it, show them the way, and the tools available to them. Help them while they write their first tests, review the tests they write on their own, and show them the tricks, idioms and patterns you've learned through your own experiences. After a while, they will start seeing the benefits on their own, and they will change their behavior to incorporate unit tests or TDD into their toolbox.

改变不会在一夜之间发生,但只要有一点耐心,你就可能实现你的目标。

使用单元测试套件,可以在保持其余功能不变的情况下对代码进行更改。这是一个很大的优势。当你完成新功能的编码时,你会使用单元测试套件和回归测试套件吗?

让你测试的第一个东西与单元测试无关。我主要使用Perl工作,所以这些都是特定于Perl的示例,但您也可以适应。

每个模块是否正确加载和编译?在Perl中,这是一个创建Foo的问题。t对每个Foo。PM的代码库,它做: use_ok('Foo'); 所有的POD(普通文档)格式是否正确?使用Test::Pod来验证所有文件中所有Pod格式的有效性。

你可能不认为这些是大事情,他们不是,但我可以保证你会抓到一些泔水。当这些测试每小时运行一次,并捕捉到某人的过早提交时,您会让人们说“嘿,这很酷”。