Slashdot Mirror
Retrofitting XP-style Testing onto a Large Project?
Mr Pleonastic submits this query for your consideration: "I work for a small startup (ok, me and another guy comprise the entire development team) that has somehow managed to survive the bust, attract a number of customers, and build up about 300K lines of functionality. Up to now we've made it by being smart and conscientious hackers, but I'm increasingly embarrassed by our shortcomings in testing. I like the XP approach to making enduring, automated test suites, but most of what I read about XP focuses on obvious stuff and changing your programmer culture at the outset. Does anyone have experience with, or advice for, retrofitting it onto a fairly mature project? What do your test suites look like, anyway? The bugs I fear most are of the 'If the user does X and then Y, the result blows away our assumptions' variety, not the 'Oops! My function returned the wrong value' variety (which happens of course). How do you write good test code for the former, without spending even longer debugging the test code? Is XP just for small, new projects?"
Win XP style testing? So, what's so hard? Release an alpha version and call it RC, and let users do the testing...
</wintroll>
My Stack Overflow user
Finding conditions that are outside your assumptions is not something you can do with a unit test. I have found that trying to simulate user creativity (stupidity?) with unit tests is an exersize in futility. Use your unit tests to make sure your methods do what they're supposed to do.
To find all those tricky combinations of use cases that blow away all your assumptions, just stick to the Fail-Fast principle. If you find anything that goes even slightly wrong, complain. Loudly! Throw an exception, pop up a dialog, whatever you need to make sure that everyone knows an error just occured. This will do two things:
1) You'll find a lot more errors in your code. You'll also be motivated to fix them quicker because the app will be unusable until you do.
2) You'll reduce the likelihood of generating bad data. The only thing worse than your program doing something wrong and crashing is doing something wrong and NOT crashing. Users will usually forgive you if your software crashes. If you start giving them bad data, they'll lose confidence in your app and never trust it again.
This is hard to answer in a short comment. I'll try, though you're welcome to contact me for more details through the information on my website.
Retrofitting tests onto an existing project is hard. Not only is it tedious, time-consuming work, but you're always haunted by specters that ask "How do you know the test isn't broken?" It's nice to have the tests, but you'll spend a lot of time and energy creating them that could be better spent adding new features and improving existing features. Besides that, it'll likely sap any motivation you might have had for testing.
It's much easier to draw a line in the sand and say "all new features and bugfixes will have tests, starting now". Before you fix a bug, write a test that explores the bug. It must fail. Fix the bug. The test must now pass. Before you add a new feature, write a customer test that can demonstrate the correct implementation of the feature. It must fail. Add the feature. The test must now pass. From the programmer level, you can write programmer tests through the standard test-driven development style.
It still can be tricky to get started, especially with customer tests, but they don't have to be beautiful, clever, or comprehensive. They just have to test the one feature you're working on sufficiently to give you confidence that you can detect whether or not it works. You'll likely have better ideas as you gain tests and experience and it's okay to revisit the test suite later on to make it easier to use and to understand.
The nice part about this system is that it adds tests where you need them where the code is changing, whether it's a part full of bugs or a part under continual development.
Keep in mind that to do testing this way, you need to be able to work in short, clearly-defined, and frequently-integrated steps (story and task cards, in XP terms). You also need the freedom to change necessary sections of the code (collective code ownership). It helps to have a good set of testing tools, so, depending on your language, there's probably an xUnit framework with your name on it. Also, it can be counterproductive to express your development and testing time estimates separately. At first, testing well will slow you down. It's tempting to throw it out altogether as a time sink. As you learn and your test suite grows, however, the investment will pay off immensely.
Your goal is difficult but doable. It's well worth your time.
how to invest, a novice's guide
I once did a little palm programming, and I remember the emulator had a mode where it would randomly click on various controls and enter text really quickly, as a way of stress-testing your app, testing it's ability to handle any combination of input and options without blowing up. I wonder if something like that would be useful if the world of typically much-more complex PC programs...
A Minesweeper clone that doesn't suck
I have a similar situation, I have a bunch of code that "mostly works" and I'd love to have unit and acceptance tests.
But it's really hard to add it later. I mean REALLY HARD. The tests are tedious and boring and after 2-3 I get tired and the tests have errors.
If you follow the XP test-first technique, you code comes out MUCH different. You have low coupling, you have "testable" code where the pieces are interchangeable (so you can easily use mock printer objects or non-RDBMS backends, etc), and generally it's really elegant code with little extra work.
And you don't get bored writing test-first because every time you write a test, you then write the code that passes the test and it's really a feeling of accomplishment! And you don't get "lost in the big picture" because you are focusing only on passing that one little test.
The same is true for acceptance tests. I use HttpUnit to automate web apps, and although I'm not quite as religious about testing the interface, it's great for "add record, query record, delete record" stuff, to make sure it doesn't blow up when the end-user does something basic. For instance I had some code once that worked wonderfully, except login was broken. Since I was testing while logged in and never thought to log out and log back in, I never caught it in my manual tests. Automated tests can catch the stuff you forget.
So I'd recommend requiring tests on all NEW code (you'll see a big difference between the old and new code I bet, in terms of simplicity and low coupling).
And whenever you refactor the old code, start by writing tests that the old code passes.
But it will really be tough to retrofit ALL your old code with tests. I'd even say it's not worth it because your tests will not be good.
And remember: EVERY LINE OF CODE MUST EXIST TO PASS A TEST. That should be your goal on new code.
This is something I've wrestled with too. Start where you'll get the most bang for your buck. Start with regression tests. I assume you're doing *some* testing (or at least your users are ;). When a problem shows up, make an automated regression test that surfaces that bug. Run it often and make sure the bug stays fixed.
With a 300KLOC codebase I have to ask is it boken down into components that can be tested in isolation. If it is, congradulations you've done some good software architecture. You can start by testing the interfaces to the components. Make a test that triggers each error condition from each interface function/object. The tests will seem braindead simple (like passing in a NULL when a valid pointer is expected), but these sort of tests are suprisingly useful. Infrequently exercised error checking is one of the easiest things to let slip through the cracks when modifing an implementation. That will be enough to get your test framwork set up, and shake out all the forgotten dependencies between your components. Then it will be straightforward to add more testing.
It won't be easy. You should expect you'll have to modify your code to make it testable. But if you expect to keep this code around for a while, it will pay off in the long run.
1) *Everytime* you discover a bug from now on, write a test case that exposes it. Then fix it.
:-)
2) Write new functionality test first. You are not allowed to implement new features unless you first implement a test that fails. Once in runs you are either done, or you got ahead of yourself and need to get back to writing a few more tests
> 300,000 lines of functionality
If you have this much code, I bet there's some duplicated code in there. Ferret it out with CPD and you'll have that much less code to write tests for.
It probably wouldn't hurt to search for unused code while you're at it - again, you'll reduce the amount of code you need to write tests for.
The Army reading list