Re: Statics and caches and mocks oh my!

I used this approach at a company-that-shall-not-be-named, years ago.

I started with 2 unit tests for my group's part of the system. A week later I was up to 10, and my co-workers started seeing that I was able to work more quickly than they, so they added their own. Six months later, it was clear to the rest of the organization that we were working much faster and breaking the overall build much less frequently than everybody else. After a year, most of the organization was doing unit testing.

Good luck and let us know how you're doing!

- Russ

On Jun 27, 2013, at 7:06 PM, David Burstin <[email protected]> wrote:

> Thanks Russ. That is exactly the way I am going to start.
> 
> Amazingly I even met some resistance to that approach - "it will be
> inconsistent with the rest of the application", "someone new coming along
> won't understand what is going on" ...
> 
> I have managed to convince them by showing the difficulties of unit testing
> as the code stands, although they were happy just doing slow running
> end-to-end tests and assuming that since the few test cases passed then the
> whole system was fine. The standard policy is that for every 10 hours of
> coding we need to allocate 3 hours of future defect fixing! I am hoping to
> change that. Slowly, slowly...
> 
> 
> On 27 June 2013 23:51, Russell Gold <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> **
>> 
>> 
>> How much code control does the organization exert? Do you have regular
>> code reviews?
>> 
>> My experience is that the best way is to start small. Make one class
>> testable at a time without touching the caches. Use facade interfaces as
>> wrappers to deal with your statics. For example, in Java I might do
>> something like this:
>> 
>> Existing static:
>> 
>> public static ThingIWant getThingIWant() { accesses the db and caches the
>> result }
>> 
>> Existing class:
>> 
>> class MyClass {
>> 
>> :
>> 
>> void doSomething() {
>> ThingIWant aThing = ThatStaticClass.getThingIWant();
>> process(aThing);
>> }
>> }
>> 
>> Modified class
>> 
>> class MyClass {
>> interface SomeInterface {
>> ThingIWant getThingIWant();
>> }
>> 
>> static class LiveProxy implements SomeInterface {
>> public ThingIWant getThingIWant() {
>> return ThatStaticClass.getThingIWant();
>> }
>> }
>> 
>> // test constructor
>> MyClass(SomeInterface interface) {
>> this.interface = interface;
>> }
>> 
>> // production constructor
>> public MyClass() {
>> this(new LiveProxy())
>> }
>> 
>> /// modified method
>> void doSomething() {
>> ThingIWant aThing = this.interface.getThingIWant();
>> process(aThing);
>> }
>> 
>> Your code is now testable - you supply a test version of the interface
>> when you instantiate it, and can control the object returned. The
>> production code uses the same interface, but supplies a production version
>> which accesses the statics. You don't need to persuade anybody of anything,
>> other than your code reviewers. The rest of the system remains unchanged.
>> 
>> At some point in the future, once you have an acceptable level of code
>> coverage, you can tackle changing the statics, but I'd put that off as long
>> as possible.
>> 
>> The important thing is to start by testing as much as you can while making
>> as few changes as possible.
>> 
>> - Russ
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 27, 2013, at 2:59 AM, David Burstin <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> As far as code smells go, some people just seem to have blocked noses!
>>> 
>>> Anyway, thanks everyone for your answers. I'm glad to see that I am on
>> the
>>> right track - now I just have to convince everyone else. I think the best
>>> way forward is baby steps. I will start by encapsulating the statics
>> inside
>>> a concrete implementation with a well-defined interface. Even that might
>>> take some convincing! But at least it will give the opportunity to do
>> some
>>> good testing.
>>> 
>>> I am looking at the possibility of using a DI framework to replace the
>>> singleton caches, but that will be a HUGE leap for these guys. What do
>> you
>>> guys feel is the best strategy for caching without having to pass around
>> an
>>> entire collection of cache instances?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Cheers
>>> David
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 27 June 2013 04:24, Steven Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Michal Svoboda <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> **
>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Everyone else on the team thinks that they are a great solution.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I hear you. It's not easy to convince others of their design problems
>>>>> unless there is hard factual evidence. Look around the user code of
>> that
>>>>> object and you'll find the smells.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Or there might not be any convincing enough smells, yet!
>>>> 
>>>> If not, bide your time, watch for smells as the code scales, and when
>>>> convincing smells appear, then make the case for refactoring it away
>>>> (trying not to say "I told you so").
>>>> 
>>>> One benefit is that there may be more information later to indicate what
>>>> the most appropriate alternative would be.
>>>> 
>>>> SteveG
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Michal Svoboda
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> -----------------
>> Come read my webnovel, Take a Lemon <http://www.takealemon.com>,
>> and listen to the Misfile radio play <
>> http://www.gold-family.us/audio/misfile.html>!
>> 
>> 
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 

-----------------
Come read my webnovel, Take a Lemon <http://www.takealemon.com>, 
and listen to the Misfile radio play <http://www.gold-family.us/audio/misfile.html>!






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/testdrivendevelopment/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/testdrivendevelopment/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    [email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/