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
单元测试可以帮助您以更少的错误发布软件,同时降低总体开发成本。您可以点击链接阅读更多关于单元测试的好处
其他回答
单元测试的好处之一是可预测性。
在单元测试之前,我可以非常准确地预测编写代码所需的时间,但无法预测调试所需的时间。
现在,因为我可以计划将要编写什么测试,所以我知道编码需要多长时间,并且在编码结束时,系统已经调试好了!这为开发过程带来了可预见性,消除了许多压力,但仍然保留了所有的乐趣!!
我是一名维护工程师,负责一个文档记录不佳、糟糕而庞大的代码库。我希望编写代码的人已经为它编写了单元测试。 每次我进行更改和更新产品代码时,我都担心自己可能会因为没有考虑某些条件而引入错误。 如果他们编写测试,那么对代码库的更改就会更容易、更快。(与此同时,代码库将处于更好的状态)..
我认为,在编写api或框架时,单元测试非常有用,因为这些api或框架必须持续多年,并由原始编码器以外的人使用/修改/发展。
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。
单元测试绝对是值得付出努力的。不幸的是,您选择了一个困难的(但不幸的是常见的)场景来实现它。
从单元测试中获得的最大好处是从头开始使用它——在一些精选的小项目中,我有幸在实现类之前编写单元测试(此时接口已经完成)。通过适当的单元测试,您可以在类还处于婴儿期时就发现并修复它们,而不是在将来毫无疑问会集成到复杂系统中的任何地方。
如果您的软件是完全面向对象的,那么您应该能够在类级别上添加单元测试,而不需要太多的努力。如果您没有那么幸运,您仍然应该尽可能地尝试合并单元测试。确保当你添加新功能时,新部分都有清晰的接口,你会发现单元测试让你的工作变得更容易。
偶尔,我自己或我的同事会花几个小时来研究一个不太明显的错误,一旦发现了错误的原因,90%的情况下代码都没有经过单元测试。单元测试并不存在,因为开发人员为了节省时间而偷工减料,但随后却失去了这一点和更多的调试。
花少量的时间来编写单元测试可以节省未来调试的时间。
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