我知道所谓的单元测试和集成测试的教科书定义。我好奇的是什么时候该写单元测试了……我将写它们来覆盖尽可能多的类集。
例如,如果我有一个Word类,我将为Word类编写一些单元测试。然后,我开始编写我的Sentence类,当它需要与Word类交互时,我经常会编写单元测试,这样它们就可以同时测试Sentence和Word……至少在他们相互作用的地方。
这些测试本质上变成集成测试了吗?因为它们现在测试这两个类的集成,还是仅仅是一个跨越两个类的单元测试?
一般来说,由于这条不确定的界线,我很少实际编写集成测试……或者我是否使用成品来查看所有部件是否正常工作,即实际的集成测试,即使它们是手动的,并且很少在每个单独的功能范围之外重复?
我是否误解了集成测试,或者集成测试和单元测试之间真的只有很小的区别?
你测试的性质
模块X的单元测试是仅在模块X中预期(并检查)问题的测试。
许多模块的集成测试是一种预期由模块之间的合作产生的问题的测试,这样单独使用单元测试就很难发现这些问题。
从以下方面考虑测试的性质:
Risk reduction: That's what tests are for. Only a combination of unit tests and integration tests can give you full risk reduction, because on the one hand unit tests can inherently not test the proper interaction between modules and on the other hand integration tests can exercise the functionality of a non-trivial module only to a small degree.
Test writing effort: Integration tests can save effort because you may then not need to write stubs/fakes/mocks. But unit tests can save effort, too, when implementing (and maintaining!) those stubs/fakes/mocks happens to be easier than configuring the test setup without them.
Test execution delay: Integration tests involving heavyweight operations (such as access to external systems like DBs or remote servers) tend to be slow(er). This means unit tests can be executed far more frequently, which reduces debugging effort if anything fails, because you have a better idea what you have changed in the meantime. This becomes particularly important if you use test-driven development (TDD).
Debugging effort: If an integration test fails, but none of the unit tests does, this can be very inconvenient, because there is so much code involved that may contain the problem. This is not a big problem if you have previously changed only a few lines -- but as integration tests run slowly, you perhaps did not run them in such short intervals...
记住,集成测试仍然可能存根/伪造/模拟它的一些依赖项。
这在单元测试和系统测试(最全面的集成测试,测试所有系统)之间提供了大量的中间地带。
务实的方法使用两者
因此,一种务实的方法是:尽可能灵活地依赖集成测试,在风险太大或不方便的地方使用单元测试。
这种思维方式可能比单元测试和集成测试的一些教条主义区分更有用。
你测试的性质
模块X的单元测试是仅在模块X中预期(并检查)问题的测试。
许多模块的集成测试是一种预期由模块之间的合作产生的问题的测试,这样单独使用单元测试就很难发现这些问题。
从以下方面考虑测试的性质:
Risk reduction: That's what tests are for. Only a combination of unit tests and integration tests can give you full risk reduction, because on the one hand unit tests can inherently not test the proper interaction between modules and on the other hand integration tests can exercise the functionality of a non-trivial module only to a small degree.
Test writing effort: Integration tests can save effort because you may then not need to write stubs/fakes/mocks. But unit tests can save effort, too, when implementing (and maintaining!) those stubs/fakes/mocks happens to be easier than configuring the test setup without them.
Test execution delay: Integration tests involving heavyweight operations (such as access to external systems like DBs or remote servers) tend to be slow(er). This means unit tests can be executed far more frequently, which reduces debugging effort if anything fails, because you have a better idea what you have changed in the meantime. This becomes particularly important if you use test-driven development (TDD).
Debugging effort: If an integration test fails, but none of the unit tests does, this can be very inconvenient, because there is so much code involved that may contain the problem. This is not a big problem if you have previously changed only a few lines -- but as integration tests run slowly, you perhaps did not run them in such short intervals...
记住,集成测试仍然可能存根/伪造/模拟它的一些依赖项。
这在单元测试和系统测试(最全面的集成测试,测试所有系统)之间提供了大量的中间地带。
务实的方法使用两者
因此,一种务实的方法是:尽可能灵活地依赖集成测试,在风险太大或不方便的地方使用单元测试。
这种思维方式可能比单元测试和集成测试的一些教条主义区分更有用。