Software testing: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (Johan G moved page Unit Testing to Unit testing: Sentence case/non camel case title) |
(Minor copy editing; Slight change in disposition; +cat: Core development) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
{{Note|There’s already the test_suite in flightgear/test_suite using [[Cppunit effort|CppUnit]], thanks to some hard work by [[User:Bugman|Edward]]. We need more tests written for it, submissions welcome. (Pick an area of interest)<ref>https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/36972720/</ref>}} | {{Note|There’s already the test_suite in flightgear/test_suite using [[Cppunit effort|CppUnit]], thanks to some hard work by [[User:Bugman|Edward]]. We need more tests written for it, submissions welcome. (Pick an area of interest)<ref>https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/36972720/</ref>}} | ||
A well tested piece of software will have a much lower bug count/load. An extensive test suite with '''unit tests''', system/functional tests, GUI tests, installer tests, and other categories of tests can significantly help in this regard. | |||
The benefits of not just chasing clear "wins" are great: An awesome learning experience for new developers; the ability to catch latent, unreported bugs; making it easier to refactor current code by creating a safety net; making it easier for current developers to accept new contributions (when accompanied with passing tests); helping other test writers by contributing to the common test suite infrastructure; and being able to easily check for memory leaks or other issues via Valgrind.<ref>https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/36977686/</ref> | |||
If you are a new developers, just jump in and write any test! It does not need to catch a bug. Do whatever how ever you wish! Just dive in this shallow end and you'll see that the water is not cold. | |||
Writing a test as a safety net. You write the test to pass, make your changes, then make sure that the test still passes. Then you push both the test and core changes.<ref>https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/36977465/</ref> | |||
== Benefits of unit testing == | |||
There are lots of benefits to writing tests that pass. | There are lots of benefits to writing tests that pass. | ||
Benefits include : | Benefits include : | ||
* Learning! New developers can learn a ton from writing a number of passing tests in the area they are interested in. This is one of the quickest ways to learn about a pre-existing and mature | * Learning! New developers can learn a ton from writing a number of passing tests in the area they are interested in. This is one of the quickest ways to learn about a pre-existing and mature code base. You have zero worries about breaking things. This is diving in the shallow end. | ||
* Latent bug uncovering. For every ten tests you write expecting them to pass, one will probably fail. Or at least uncover unexpected behavior that can be improved. | * Latent bug uncovering. For every ten tests you write expecting them to pass, one will probably fail. Or at least uncover unexpected behavior that can be improved. | ||
* Refactoring. If we had 10,000 passing tests (assuming universal test coverage), large scale refactoring of the entire | * Refactoring. If we had 10,000 passing tests (assuming universal test coverage), large scale refactoring of the entire code base would be quick and reliable. It would enable refactoring on a scale currently unimaginable. I cannot emphasize enough how much of a benefit this would be. | ||
* Developer turnover. Again if we had 10,000 passing tests (assuming universal test coverage), it would encourage new developers. This is because the fear of breaking something is removed. It is a total safety net. It also would give existing developers peace of mind when a new developer is touching one of the dark parts of FlightGear that no current developer understands (there are plenty of those) . | * Developer turnover. Again if we had 10,000 passing tests (assuming universal test coverage), it would encourage new developers. This is because the fear of breaking something is removed. It is a total safety net. It also would give existing developers peace of mind when a new developer is touching one of the dark parts of FlightGear that no current developer understands (there are plenty of those) . | ||
| Line 24: | Line 26: | ||
* Test suite infrastructure. The more passing tests written, the better the test suite infrastructure will become. We can already do a lot. But the addition of more passing tests will help other test writers. | * Test suite infrastructure. The more passing tests written, the better the test suite infrastructure will become. We can already do a lot. But the addition of more passing tests will help other test writers. | ||
* Memory checking. Running a single test through Valgrind is amazing. Running | * Memory checking. Running a single test through Valgrind is amazing. Running FlightGear through Valgrind is close to impossible. Passing tests can be written to catch memory leaks! | ||
* Low code quality and standards. This is related to the learning point. As long as a test compiles on all OSes without warning, it passes, and Valgrind gives you an ok, it is good enough. You dont need to be a C++ expert to dive into this shallow end of the pool. | |||
== References == | == References == | ||
{{Appendix}} | {{Appendix}} | ||
[[Category:Core development]] | |||
Revision as of 09:33, 12 April 2020
| This article is a stub. You can help the wiki by expanding it. |
| Note There’s already the test_suite in flightgear/test_suite using CppUnit, thanks to some hard work by Edward. We need more tests written for it, submissions welcome. (Pick an area of interest)[1] |
A well tested piece of software will have a much lower bug count/load. An extensive test suite with unit tests, system/functional tests, GUI tests, installer tests, and other categories of tests can significantly help in this regard.
The benefits of not just chasing clear "wins" are great: An awesome learning experience for new developers; the ability to catch latent, unreported bugs; making it easier to refactor current code by creating a safety net; making it easier for current developers to accept new contributions (when accompanied with passing tests); helping other test writers by contributing to the common test suite infrastructure; and being able to easily check for memory leaks or other issues via Valgrind.[2]
If you are a new developers, just jump in and write any test! It does not need to catch a bug. Do whatever how ever you wish! Just dive in this shallow end and you'll see that the water is not cold.
Writing a test as a safety net. You write the test to pass, make your changes, then make sure that the test still passes. Then you push both the test and core changes.[3]
Benefits of unit testing
There are lots of benefits to writing tests that pass.
Benefits include :
- Learning! New developers can learn a ton from writing a number of passing tests in the area they are interested in. This is one of the quickest ways to learn about a pre-existing and mature code base. You have zero worries about breaking things. This is diving in the shallow end.
- Latent bug uncovering. For every ten tests you write expecting them to pass, one will probably fail. Or at least uncover unexpected behavior that can be improved.
- Refactoring. If we had 10,000 passing tests (assuming universal test coverage), large scale refactoring of the entire code base would be quick and reliable. It would enable refactoring on a scale currently unimaginable. I cannot emphasize enough how much of a benefit this would be.
- Developer turnover. Again if we had 10,000 passing tests (assuming universal test coverage), it would encourage new developers. This is because the fear of breaking something is removed. It is a total safety net. It also would give existing developers peace of mind when a new developer is touching one of the dark parts of FlightGear that no current developer understands (there are plenty of those) .
- Test suite infrastructure. The more passing tests written, the better the test suite infrastructure will become. We can already do a lot. But the addition of more passing tests will help other test writers.
- Memory checking. Running a single test through Valgrind is amazing. Running FlightGear through Valgrind is close to impossible. Passing tests can be written to catch memory leaks!
- Low code quality and standards. This is related to the learning point. As long as a test compiles on all OSes without warning, it passes, and Valgrind gives you an ok, it is good enough. You dont need to be a C++ expert to dive into this shallow end of the pool.
References
| References |