dce/davideisinger.com
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Update good test note link

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
David Eisinger
2023-12-05 10:16:32 -05:00
parent 3744de6cc1
commit 89deb5e9e9
1 changed files with 15 additions and 13 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

28
content/notes/good-tests/index.md
View File

@@ -9,7 +9,9 @@ references:
file: macwright-com-o4dndf.txt file: macwright-com-o4dndf.txt
--- ---
_(Notes for a Viget article I'm putting together)_ _(Notes for a [Viget article][1])_
[1]: /elsewhere/maintenance-matters-good-tests
* Most importantly: **give you confidence to make changes** * Most importantly: **give you confidence to make changes**
* This gets more and more important over time * This gets more and more important over time
@@ -24,7 +26,7 @@ _(Notes for a Viget article I'm putting together)_
* But ideally you're testing the full integration of UI + API * But ideally you're testing the full integration of UI + API
* Unit tests * Unit tests
* Put complex logic into easily testable objects/functions * Put complex logic into easily testable objects/functions
* This is where [TDD][1] can come into play * This is where [TDD][2] can come into play
* Avoid over-stubbing/mocking -- what are you even testing * Avoid over-stubbing/mocking -- what are you even testing
* It is OK to go down the stack in your unit tests * It is OK to go down the stack in your unit tests
* Integration tests * Integration tests
@@ -42,21 +44,21 @@ _(Notes for a Viget article I'm putting together)_
* In other words, at less than 100% coverage, you don't know if your new feature is fully covered or not * In other words, at less than 100% coverage, you don't know if your new feature is fully covered or not
* Occasionally you have to ignore some code -- e.g. something that only runs in production * Occasionally you have to ignore some code -- e.g. something that only runs in production
* It's OK if you're not at 100% right now -- set the threshold to your current level, and increase it as you add tests and new well-tested features * It's OK if you're not at 100% right now -- set the threshold to your current level, and increase it as you add tests and new well-tested features
* [Already covered here][2] * [Already covered here][3]
* Third-party/network calls * Third-party/network calls
* Major libraries often have mock services (e.g. [stripe-mock][3]) * Major libraries often have mock services (e.g. [stripe-mock][4])
* VCR is … OK but can become a maintenance problem * VCR is … OK but can become a maintenance problem
* Blocking access to the web is good though -- [webmock][4] * Blocking access to the web is good though -- [webmock][5]
* A better approach * A better approach
* Move your integration code into a module * Move your integration code into a module
* Create a second stub module with the same API * Create a second stub module with the same API
* Use [JSON Schema][5] to ensure stub stays in sync (i.e. both the real client and the stub client validate against the schema) * Use [JSON Schema][6] to ensure stub stays in sync (i.e. both the real client and the stub client validate against the schema)
* This will lead to more reliable tests and also more robust code * This will lead to more reliable tests and also more robust code
* Flaky tests are bad * Flaky tests are bad
* They eat up a lot of development time (esp. as build times increase) * They eat up a lot of development time (esp. as build times increase)
* Try to stay on top of them and squash them as they arise * Try to stay on top of them and squash them as they arise
* Some frameworks have `retry` options/libraries that can help (bandage not cure) * Some frameworks have `retry` options/libraries that can help (bandage not cure)
* [rspec-retry][6] * [rspec-retry][7]
* In general, though, flaky tests suck and generally indicate lack of quality with either your code or your tools * In general, though, flaky tests suck and generally indicate lack of quality with either your code or your tools
* So write better code or pick better tools * So write better code or pick better tools
* Tests are code, but they're not application code * Tests are code, but they're not application code
@@ -66,11 +68,11 @@ _(Notes for a Viget article I'm putting together)_
* As opposed to jumping around between early setup, shared examples, complex factories w/ side-effects, etc. * As opposed to jumping around between early setup, shared examples, complex factories w/ side-effects, etc.
* Think of it as half programming, half writing * Think of it as half programming, half writing
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test-driven_development [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test-driven_development
[2]: https://www.viget.com/articles/maintenance-matters-code-coverage/ [3]: https://www.viget.com/articles/maintenance-matters-code-coverage/
[3]: https://github.com/stripe/stripe-mock [4]: https://github.com/stripe/stripe-mock
[4]: https://github.com/bblimke/webmock#real-requests-to-network-can-be-allowed-or-disabled [5]: https://github.com/bblimke/webmock#real-requests-to-network-can-be-allowed-or-disabled
[5]: https://json-schema.org/ [6]: https://json-schema.org/
[6]: https://github.com/NoRedInk/rspec-retry [7]: https://github.com/NoRedInk/rspec-retry
{{<thumbnail notes "400x" />}} {{<thumbnail notes "400x" />}}