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
这是非常以. net为中心的,但是有人尝试过Pex吗?
我非常怀疑,直到我尝试了——哇,多么精彩的表演。以前我想“我不会被这个概念说服,直到我明白它实际上对我有什么好处”。我只跑了一次就改变了主意,说:“我不在乎你怎么知道那里有致命异常的风险,但现在我知道我必须处理它”
也许这种行为唯一的缺点是它会标记所有事情,给你六个月的积压。但是,如果你有代码债,你总是有代码债,只是你不知道而已。告诉项目经理可能有20万个故障点,而你之前只知道有几十个,这是一个令人讨厌的前景,这意味着首先解释这个概念是至关重要的。
其他回答
当您手动测试软件时,通常会使用一小组测试/操作。最终,您将自动修改输入数据或操作,以便围绕已知问题进行导航。应该有单元测试来提醒您某些事情不能正常工作。
我建议在编写代码之前编写测试,添加新的测试/数据来改进主代码的功能!
你应该尽量少测试!
这意味着,您应该编写足够多的单元测试来揭示意图。这一点经常被掩盖。单元测试的成本很高。如果您进行了更改,并且必须更改测试,那么您将不那么敏捷。保持单元测试短小精悍。这样它们就有很大的价值。
我经常看到许多永远不会崩溃的测试,它们又大又笨拙,没有提供太多价值,它们最终只会拖慢你的速度。
单元测试的一个好处是,它们可以作为说明代码行为方式的文档。好的测试有点像参考实现,团队成员可以通过查看它们来了解如何将他们的代码与您的代码集成。
单元测试的全部意义在于使测试变得简单。这是自动的。“make test”就完成了。如果您面临的问题之一是难以测试代码,那么这就是使用单元测试的最佳理由。
thetalkingwalnut问道: 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?
Everyone here is going to pile on lots of reasons out of the blue why unit testing is good. However, I find that often the best way to convince someone of something is to listen to their argument and address it point by point. If you listen and help them verbalize their concerns, you can address each one and perhaps convert them to your point of view (or at the very least, leave them without a leg to stand on). Who knows? Perhaps they will convince you why unit tests aren't appropriate for your situation. Not likely, but possible. Perhaps if you post their arguments against unit tests, we can help identify the counterarguments.
It's important to listen to and understand both sides of the argument. If you try to adopt unit tests too zealously without regard to people's concerns, you'll end up with a religious war (and probably really worthless unit tests). If you adopt it slowly and start by applying it where you will see the most benefit for the least cost, you might be able to demonstrate the value of unit tests and have a better chance of convincing people. I realize this isn't as easy as it sounds - it usually requires some time and careful metrics to craft a convincing argument.
单元测试是一种工具,就像任何其他工具一样,应该以这样一种方式进行应用,即收益(捕捉错误)大于成本(编写它们的工作)。如果它们没有意义,就不要使用它们,记住它们只是你工具库的一部分(例如检查、断言、代码分析器、形式化方法等)。我告诉开发者的是:
They can skip writing a test for a method if they have a good argument why it isn't necessary (e.g. too simple to be worth it or too difficult to be worth it) and how the method will be otherwise verified (e.g. inspection, assertions, formal methods, interactive/integration tests). They need to consider that some verifications like inspections and formal proofs are done at a point in time and then need to be repeated every time the production code changes, whereas unit tests and assertions can be used as regression tests (written once and executed repeatedly thereafter). Sometimes I agree with them, but more often I will debate about whether a method is really too simple or too difficult to unit test. If a developer argues that a method seems too simple to fail, isn't it worth taking the 60 seconds necessary to write up a simple 5-line unit test for it? These 5 lines of code will run every night (you do nightly builds, right?) for the next year or more and will be worth the effort if even just once it happens to catch a problem that may have taken 15 minutes or longer to identify and debug. Besides, writing the easy unit tests drives up the count of unit tests, which makes the developer look good. On the other hand, if a developer argues that a method seems too difficult to unit test (not worth the significant effort required), perhaps that is a good indication that the method needs to be divided up or refactored to test the easy parts. Usually, these are methods that rely on unusual resources like singletons, the current time, or external resources like a database result set. These methods usually need to be refactored into a method that gets the resource (e.g. calls getTime()) and a method that takes the resource as a argument (e.g. takes the timestamp as a parameter). I let them skip testing the method that retrieves the resource and they instead write a unit test for the method that now takes the resource as a argument. Usually, this makes writing the unit test much simpler and therefore worthwhile to write. The developer needs to draw a "line in the sand" in how comprehensive their unit tests should be. Later in development, whenever we find a bug, they should determine if more comprehensive unit tests would have caught the problem. If so and if such bugs crop up repeatedly, they need to move the "line" toward writing more comprehensive unit tests in the future (starting with adding or expanding the unit test for the current bug). They need to find the right balance.
重要的是要认识到单元测试并不是万能的,而且存在太多单元测试这样的事情。在我的工作场所,每当我们做一个经验教训,我不可避免地听到“我们需要写更多的单元测试”。管理层点头表示同意,因为“单元测试”==“好”这句话已经被灌输到他们的头脑中了。
However, we need to understand the impact of "more unit tests". A developer can only write ~N lines of code a week and you need to figure out what percentage of that code should be unit test code vs production code. A lax workplace might have 10% of the code as unit tests and 90% of the code as production code, resulting in product with a lot of (albeit very buggy) features (think MS Word). On the other hand, a strict shop with 90% unit tests and 10% production code will have a rock solid product with very few features (think "vi"). You may never hear reports about the latter product crashing, but that likely has as much to do with the product not selling very well as much as it has to do with the quality of the code.
Worse yet, perhaps the only certainty in software development is that "change is inevitable". Assume the strict shop (90% unit tests/10% production code) creates a product that has exactly 2 features (assuming 5% of production code == 1 feature). If the customer comes along and changes 1 of the features, then that change trashes 50% of the code (45% of unit tests and 5% of the production code). The lax shop (10% unit tests/90% production code) has a product with 18 features, none of which work very well. Their customer completely revamps the requirements for 4 of their features. Even though the change is 4 times as large, only half as much of the code base gets trashed (~25% = ~4.4% unit tests + 20% of production code).
我的观点是你必须传达你理解单元测试太少和太多之间的平衡——本质上你已经考虑了问题的两面。如果你能说服你的同事和/或你的管理层,你就获得了信誉,也许就有更好的机会赢得他们的信任。
推荐文章
- 如何直接从测试驱动程序调用自定义的Django manage.py命令?
- 如何重置笑话模拟函数调用计数之前,每次测试
- 在Python Django中运行单元测试时,如何禁用日志记录?
- 在子目录中测试Golang
- 如何比较单元测试中的列表
- 在Xcode单元测试中使用@可测试时“没有这样的模块”
- 更改mocha的默认超时时间
- 如何单元测试Arduino代码?
- 单元测试无效方法?
- 在单元测试中模拟HttpClient
- 为什么visual studio 2012找不到我的测试?
- 无法找到testhost.dll。请发布测试项目并重试
- 我如何“休眠”Dart程序
- 使用Mockito的泛型“any()”方法
- 在Visual Studio 2017中未发现单元测试