CSE 403
Lecture 14
Integration Testing
Reading:
The Art of Unit Testing, Ch. 1, 3, 4-5 (Osherove)
Code Complete, Ch. 29 (McConnell)
slides created by Marty Stepp
http://www.cs.washington.edu/403/
Integration
integration: Combining 2 or more software units
often a subset of the overall project (!= system testing)
Why do software engineers care about integration?
new problems will inevitably surface
many systems now together that have never been before
if done poorly, all problems present themselves at once
hard to diagnose, debug, fix
cascade of interdependencies
cannot find and solve problems one-at-a-time
2
Phased integration
phased ("big-bang") integration:
design, code, test, debug each class/unit/subsystem
separately
combine them all
pray
Incremental integration
incremental integration:
develop a functional "skeleton" system (i.e. ZFR)
design, code, test, debug a small new piece
integrate this piece with the skeleton
test/debug it before adding any other pieces
Benefits of incremental
Benefits:
Errors easier to isolate, find, fix
reduces developer bug-fixing load
System is always in a (relatively) working state
good for customer relations, developer morale
Drawbacks:
May need to create "stub" versions of some features that
have not yet been integrated
Top-down integration
top-down integration:
Start with outer UI layers and work inward
must write (lots of) stub lower layers for UI to interact
with
allows postponing tough design/debugging decisions
(bad?)
Bottom-up integration
bottom-up integration:
Start with low-level data/logic layers and work outward
must write test drivers to run these layers
won't discover high-level / UI design flaws until late
"Sandwich" integration
"sandwich" integration:
Connect top-level UI with crucial bottom-level classes
add middle layers later as needed
more practical than top-down or bottom-up?
Daily builds
daily build: Compile working executable on a daily basis
allows you to test the quality of your integration so far
helps morale; product "works every day"; visible progress
best done automated or through an easy script
quickly catches/exposes any bug that breaks the build
smoke test: A quick set of tests run on the daily build.
NOT exhaustive; just sees whether code "smokes" (breaks)
used (along with compilation) to make sure daily build runs
continuous integration:
Adding new units immediately as they are written.
9
Integration testing
integration testing: Verifying software quality by
testing two or more dependent software modules as a
group.
challenges:
Combined units can fail
in more places and in more
complicated ways.
How to test a partial system
where not all parts exist?
How to "rig" the behavior of
unit A so as to produce a
given behavior from unit B?
10
Stubs
stub: A controllable replacement for an existing
software unit to which your code under test has a
dependency.
useful for simulating difficult-to-control elements:
network / internet
database
time/date-sensitive code
files
threads
memory
also useful when dealing with brittle legacy code/systems
11
Create a stub, step 1
Identify the external dependency.
This is either a resource or a class/object.
If it isn't an object, wrap it up into one.
(Suppose that Class A depends on troublesome Class B.)
12
Create a stub, step 2
Extract the core functionality of the object into an
interface.
Create an InterfaceB based on B
Change all of A's code to work with type InterfaceB, not B
13
Create a stub, step 3
Write a second "stub" class that also implements the
interface,
but returns pre-determined fake data.
Now A's dependency on B is dodged and can be tested
easily.
Can focus on how well A integrates with B's external
behavior.
14
Injecting a stub
seams: Places to inject the stub so Class A will talk to it.
at construction(not ideal)
A aardvark = new A(new StubB());
through a getter/setter method
(better)
A apple = new A(...);
aardvark.setResource(new StubB());
just before usage, as a parameter (also better)
aardvark.methodThatUsesB(new StubB());
You should not have to change A's code everywhere (beyond using
your interface) in order to use your Stub B. (a "testable design")
15
"Mock" objects
mock object: A fake object that decides whether a
unit test has passed or failed by watching interactions
between objects.
useful for interaction testing (as opposed to state
testing)
16
Stubs vs. mocks
A stub gives out data that goes to
the object/class under test.
The unit test directly asserts against
class under test, to make sure it gives
the right result when fed this data.
A mock waits to be called by
the class under test (A).
Maybe it has several methods
it expects that A should call.
It makes sure that it was contacted
in exactly the right way.
If A interacts with B the way it should, the test passes.
17
Mock object frameworks
Stubs are often best created by hand/IDE.
Mocks are tedious to create manually.
Mock object frameworks help with the process.
android-mock, EasyMock, jMock (Java)
FlexMock / Mocha (Ruby)
SimpleTest / PHPUnit (PHP)
...
Frameworks provide the following:
auto-generation of mock objects that implement a given interface
logging of what calls are performed on the mock objects
methods/primitives for declaring and asserting your expectations
18
A jMock mock object
import org.jmock.integration.junit4.*;
import org.jmock.*;
// Assumes that we are testing
// class A's calls on B.
@RunWith(JMock.class)
public class ClassATest {
private Mockery mockery = new JUnit4Mockery();
// initialize jMock
@Test public void testACallsBProperly1() {
// create mock object to mock InterfaceB
final InterfaceB mockB = mockery.mock(InterfaceB.class);
// construct object from class under test;
A aardvark = new A(...);
aardvark.setResource(mockB);
attach to mock
// declare expectations for how mock should be used
mockery.checking(new Expectations() {{
oneOf(mockB).method1("an expected parameter");
will(returnValue(0.0));
oneOf(mockB).method2();
}});
// execute code A under test; should lead to calls on mockB
aardvark.methodThatUsesB();
// assert that A behaved as expected
mockery.assertIsSatisfied();
19
jMock API
jMock has a strange API based on "Hamcrest" testing
syntax.
Specifying objects and calls:
oneOf(mock), exactly(count).of(mock),
atLeast(count).of(mock), atMost(count).of(mock),
between(min, max).of(mock)
allowing(mock), never(mock)
The above accept a mock object and return a descriptor that you
can call methods on, as a way of saying that you demand that
those methods be called by the class under test.
atLeast(3).of(mockB).method1();
"I expect that method1 will be called on mockB 3 times here."
20
Expected actions
.will(action)
actions: returnValue(v), throwException(e)
values:
equal(value), same(value), any(type),
aNull(type), aNonNull(type), not(value),
anyOf(value1, ..,valueN)
oneOf(mockB).method1();
will(returnValue(anyOf(1, 4, -3)));
"I expect that method1 will be called on mockB once here, and
that it will return either 1, 4, or -3."
21
Using stubs/mocks
together
Suppose a log analyzer reads from a web service.
If the web fails to log an error, the analyzer must send
email.
How to test to ensure that this behavior is occurring?
Set up a stub for the web service that intentionally
fails.
Set up a mock for the email service that checks to see
whether the analyzer contacts it to send an email
message.
22
