TestCleanup quirks! (Unittesting)

Today, I am having problems with one of my unittests. The problem is that my resources are not cleanedup when they need to. This has to do with the unexpected time the 'TestCleanup' runs!

According to msdn one should use 'TestCleanup' to cleanup resources. Why are my other unittests failing that need to reuse this resource? 

I found a clear description of the 'problem' (is it really a problem or by design?) here:

http://blogs.msdn.com/ploeh/archive/2007/01/06/ClassCleanupMayRunLaterThanYouThink.aspx

Anyway, to me it is a pain! 

If you have a suggestion, let me know!

PS: I don't violate the 'do not depend on unittest order' - rule... this is about cleaning!

Generating testrecords for your unittests

If you are using Visual Studio Database Edition you are able to have VS generate testdata for you. Just what we need to have repeatable testresults.

But how does one execute these so called 'Data Generation Plans' from (unittest)code and from your build server?

You can find the answer here:

http://drowningintechnicaldebt.com/blogs/thomaswaldron/archive/2008/01/08/kick-off-a-data-generation-plan-programmtically.aspx


Happy testing!

Stop Unittesting Its A waste Of Time!?

Ever noticed that some professionals (dedicated people most of the time) can have fatigues for certain attitudes or situations?

You know what I am talking about... Just think of Gordan Ramsy for example.

Today, I noticed that I am about to have some fatigues myself!

• Don't tell me that working with a version control system takes way too much time making it impossible to meet your deadlines! Just don't!
• Don't tell me that spreading (not adding) your code out over an interface, baseclass and factory takes way much more time! Don't!
• Don't tell me that managers won't give you extra time to write unittests for your project! Don't, Don't, Don't!

In a desperate attempt to lose these fatigues and, to be honest, in the unrealistic hope to not have these discussions over and over again I will try to explain why this just is not true!

"Managers won't give you extra time to write unittests...?"

If you don't get extra time to write unittests it is probably a very good thing! I mean, why do you ask your manager for this in the first place? Are you asking your manager for extra time to have sensible variable names in the code you write? Are you asking for extra time for something "exotic" as comments? Ofcourse you are not! Same goes for (unit)testing! When your manager asked you how long it would take to develop that piece of software he ment "How much time will it take to develop the software in a sensible way!". Asking for extra time for comments or testing  or anything else that is normal when it comes to software development is your own attempt to get everybody frustrated... If this would be your attitude I bet that if you would get this mysteriously needed extra time in the first place , your software would still not meet quality standards only to find another excuse... but that's a different story.

"Unittesting takes way too much time?"

The first thing that pops into my mind is what do you compare it to? Changes are that you are comparing a well (unit) tested software system with a hardly tested at all software system. Sure testing takes a fair amount of time but this has nothing to do with unittesting or any other testing methodology.

To make this point extra crystal clear I will give you an example:

Today is your lucky day! Your are asked to extend your Acme-company's intranet with a way too simple news-part. 

Your current "timesaving" scenario:

You create the table in your database, write some queries and code to get the data in and out the database, some helper functions probably and finally the User Interfaces. Not using any sensible (unit)testing strategy you probably test the application by inserting, updating and deleting minimal news articles (subject=a, body=a, startdate=select from calendar, department=select from list) as long as it takes for the simple scenario to work. Tired of "testing" you do another test with a large newsarticle. You call it a day and a finished application ready to take into production... only for the nightmare (maybe not your nightmare but definitely mine). When users start using your application bug reports are being made to the helpdesk by phone and by email to be answered, added and forwarded via the bugtrackingsystem only to be discussed with the manager what to do and when. You find the bug, change your code again you do some simple and random testing, do a release (with all the overhead that comes with), close the bug and tell the manager and helpdesk for them to inform the original user.

Why did all these bugs hit you in the face? Because you did not test at all... If this is what you call testing I suggest you buy a book about testing software... I call it a waist of time....

Your new "timesaving" scenario:

Instead of doing those random dataentry scenarios that usually involve endless logins and selecting the needed menu buttons and options... I will write three simple test that do a "way too simple" insert, update and delete. I know that doing those will save me a lot of time compared to your scenario. I will run the tests and modify my code until it works. The time I have left I spent on writing some extra simple tests for my code (test principle: find defects early). Now that everything works I tie things up to my user interface and do some simple but serious Blackbox testing because the user interface contains hardly any code (test principle: software that is easy to test is easy to maintain).

Now when a bug report comes in I check it against my unittests to see why that situation is not covered. If it is covered it's simply a user interface problem easily fixed.

Conclusion:

Unittesting does not take extra time if you don't do extra testing. It does save time because you can just repeat and repeat your tests with one press of a button untill things work.

Of course, even if you would compair proper repetitive manual testing in comparison to proper unitesting, unittesting will saveyou time right from the strart (even before you start refactoring). Not to mention that unittesting not only results in less defects but also leads to better designs....

Happy UnitTesting, Today !

P.S.: I know the example is not UnitTesting by the book its more integration testing but that's not what this article is about...

Visual Studio Unittest Inheritance

As your project thus your unittests grow and get more complex you might have to use every Object Oriented "trick" in the book to keep your UnitTests lean/mean/fast and flexible. Of course you don't want any redundant (unittest)code so applying inheritance to your unittests might seem a natural step (especially with provider/Inversion Of Control/Plugins beging used more and more).

Inheritance of UnitTests for Visual Studio however, still, is only partly supported by Visual Studio 2005 and Visual Studio 2008 (all editions). You can't define your baseclass/derivedclass in seperate assemblies.

To me this is a big limitation and the "obvious" solutions offered by Microsoft (copy/paste or add twice) for me are no option. I rather go for sharing in my version control system.

Just an other example of why UnitTesting as offered by Visual Studio so far "feels" a bit unmature. Speaking of which: the atrributename of "fixture" is so much more right then "testmethod"...

======== From MSDN =============

A test class is any class that is marked with the TestClass attribute. Test classes can now inherit members from other test classes. This means that you can create reusable tests in base test classes; derived test classes can inherit tests from base test classes. This feature eliminates duplicated test code and gives developers more flexibility while unit-testing production code.
A test class cannot inherit from a class that is in a different assembly. You can circumvent this limitation in the following way:

• Define your base test class in a source code file and add the file to Project A.
• Add the same source code file to a different project, Project B. To do this, right-click the project in Solution Explorer, click Add, click Existing Item, and then use the Add Existing Item dialog box to select the file.
  Although Project B builds into a different assembly, it includes the base test class. Other test classes in Project B can inherit from that base test class

===============================


For more information:

Visual Studio 2005: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/919649
Visual Studio 2008: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms182516.aspx

Happy Testing!