A New Look at Test Driven Development

29 Sep 2014

Thanks to the wayback machine, I found my original post that resulted in rSpec posted on July 5, 2005.

The state of Test Driven Development

Test Driven Development (TDD) has made it to prime time. Big companies are paying big money to have their programmers trained in how to do TDD. It’s a popular topic at conferences… agile and otherwise. My book on TDD won a Jolt award. So everything’s rosy, huh? Everyone who’s doing TDD is fully understanding it and getting the full benefit, right?

Fat Chance!

Maybe 10% of the people I talk to really understand what it’s really about. Maybe only 5%. That sucks. What’s wrong? Well… one thing is that people think it’s about testing. That’s just not the case.

Sure, there are similarities, and you end up with a nice low level regression suite… but those are coincidental or happy side effects. So why have things come to this unhappy state of affairs? Why do so many not get it? Well, first a bit of a history lesson. If you look at an old issue of my old Coad Letter issues, there’s some background on TDD:

“XP originally had the rule to test everything that could possibly break. Now, however, the practice of testing in XP has evolved into Test-Driven Development.”

So way back when, they were talking about writing tests. And that’s probably why it has the testing centric vocabulary, and that is why people think it’s about testing! What else would they think when they have to talk about TestCases & TestSuites, & Tests.. and have to name methods starting with “test”. Granted, this is jUnit specific and nUnit doesn’t have these requirements.

The thing is that when the evolution to TDD happened what we ended up with was a different kind of animal… not just a slight tweak on the original. The original XP folks were writing tests for everything that could break, then they started writing the tests first. Eventually we ended up at TDD. But TDD is not the endpoint everyone seems to think it is… it’s just a stepping-stone.

Also, the idea of “unit” is a major problem. First of all it’s a vague term, and second it implies a structural division of the code (i.e. people think that they have to test methods or classes). We shouldn’t be thinking about units… we should be thinking about facets of behaviour.

Thinking about unit testing leads us to divide tests in a way that reflects the structural arrangement of the code. For example, having a text classes and production classes in a 1-1 relationship

That’s not what we want… we want behavioural divisions.. we want to work at a level of granularity much smaller than that of the typical unit test. As I’ve said before when talking about TDD, we should be working with very small, focused pieces of behaviour… one small aspect of a single method. Things like “after the add() method is called with an object when the list is empty, there should be one thing in the list”. The method is being called in a very specific context, often with very specific argument, and with a very specific outcome.

So, there you have it. A fabulous idea… wrapped in packaging that causes people to think from a testing point of view.

Why is this a problem? Let’s think for a minute about how people often think about testing.

Programmers often think “I’m not going to write all those tests.”, “It’s really simple code, it doesn’t need to be tested”, “testing is a waste of time”, or “I’ve done this (loop/data retrieval/functionalty, etc) millions of times.”.

Project managers often think “we test after the code is done”, “that’s what we have a testing person for”, or “we can’t spend that time now”.

So with people thinking about testing, it’s easy to come up with all sorts of negative reactions and reasons not to do it… especially when time gets short and the pressure’s on.

So if it’s not about testing, what’s it about?

It’s about figuring out what you are trying to do before you run off half-cocked to try to do it. You write a specification that nails down a small aspect of behaviour in a concise, unambiguous, and executable form. It’s that simple. Does that mean you write tests? No. It means you write specifications of what your code will have to do. It means you specify the behaviour of your code ahead of time. But not far ahead of time. In fact, just before you write the code is best because that’s when you have as much information at hand as you will up to that point. Like well done TDD, you work in tiny increments… specifying one small aspect of behaviour at a time, then implementing it.

When you realize that it’s all about specifying behaviour and not writing tests, your point of view shifts. Suddenly the idea of having a Test class for each of your production classes is rediculously limiting. And the thought of testing each of your methods with its own test method (in a 1-1 relationship) will have you rolling on the floor laughing.

So what to do?

First stop thinking in terms of tests. Using something like JUnit makes this hard, so we need to start with a new framework for specifying behaviour. Dan North of ThoughtWorks has started the jBehave project to do just this.

Using a behaviour-centric framework that uses behaviour-centric vocabulary and concepts will let you think in terms of specifying the behaviour you want from you code.

A Behaviour Specification Framework

So what does a behaviour specification look like? Well, a first pass will look and work a lot like jUnit since:

  1. it works quite well enough
  2. everyone is familiar with it

A major difference is vocabulary. Instead of subclassing TestCase, you subclass Context. Instead of writing methods that start with test you start them should, or preferrably you won;t have to worry about a naming pattern so you can choose the most appropriate name. Instead of doing verification with assertions (e.g. assertEquals(expected, actual)) you specify post conditions with something like shouldBeEqual(actual, expected).

In Smalltalk, and likely Ruby, this can be even more natural if we embed the framework into the class library (a common approach in Smalltalk btw). You could write something like: actual shouldEqual: expected or result shouldBeNull or [2 / 0] shouldThrow: DivideByZeroException.

What Now?

As mentioned above, Dan North has started the jBehave project to create a jUnit replacement for behaviour specification that you can download and experiment with now. I’ll be involved in some way with that project, and I’m planning to explore some ideas in the Smalltalk and Ruby space. We’ll see what happens and where it goes. I’ve also been working on a behaviour oriented version of jUnit.

Summary

Does this mean that everything you know about TDD is now useless? Hardly! All the techniques are just as applicable to BDD. Your approaches to specifying behaviours are going to be much the same. You’ll still want to mock things. And so on. What’s changed is the vocabulary and the point of view.

The point of view is really the important thing. How does changing that change the value of the process? Well, for one thing, if you have a lot of shoulds, the should method names make a very clear specification. Like:

To sum up:

  1. The problem I have with TDD is that its mindset takes us in a different direction… a wrong direction.
  2. We need to start thinking in terms of behavior specifications, not verification tests.
  3. The value of doing this will be thinking more clearly about each behaviour, relying less on testing by class or by method, and having better executable documentation.
  4. Since TDD is what it is, and everyone isn’t about to change their meaning of that name (nor should we expect them to), we need a new name for this new way of working… BDD: Behaviour Driven Development.