我看到很多问题都在问“如何”用一种特定的语言进行单元测试,但没有人问“什么”、“为什么”和“什么时候”。

是什么? 它对我有什么用? 我为什么要用它? 什么时候用(什么时候不用)? 有哪些常见的陷阱和误解


当前回答

我不反对丹的观点(尽管不回答可能是更好的选择)……但是……

单元测试是编写代码来测试系统的行为和功能的过程。

显然,测试可以提高代码的质量,但这只是单元测试的表面好处。真正的好处是:

Make it easier to change the technical implementation while making sure you don't change the behavior (refactoring). Properly unit tested code can be aggressively refactored/cleaned up with little chance of breaking anything without noticing it. Give developers confidence when adding behavior or making fixes. Document your code Indicate areas of your code that are tightly coupled. It's hard to unit test code that's tightly coupled Provide a means to use your API and look for difficulties early on Indicates methods and classes that aren't very cohesive

你应该进行单元测试,因为向客户交付可维护的高质量产品符合你的利益。

我建议您将它用于任何系统,或系统的一部分,以模拟真实世界的行为。换句话说,它特别适合于企业开发。我不会将它用于一次性/实用程序。我不会用它来测试系统中有问题的部分(UI是一个常见的例子,但并不总是这样)

最大的陷阱是开发人员测试太大的单元,或者他们认为一个方法是一个单元。如果您不理解控制反转,这一点尤其正确——在这种情况下,您的单元测试总是会变成端到端集成测试。单元测试应该测试单个行为——大多数方法都有许多行为。

最大的误解是程序员不应该测试。只有糟糕或懒惰的程序员才会相信这一点。给你盖屋顶的人不应该测试吗?更换心脏瓣膜的医生不应该检查新瓣膜吗?只有程序员才能测试他的代码是否按照他的意图去做(QA可以测试边缘情况——当代码被告知要做程序员不打算做的事情时,它的行为如何,而客户可以进行验收测试——代码是否按照客户的要求去做)

其他回答

I think the point that you don't understand is that unit testing frameworks like NUnit (and the like) will help you in automating small to medium-sized tests. Usually you can run the tests in a GUI (that's the case with NUnit, for instance) by simply clicking a button and then - hopefully - see the progress bar stay green. If it turns red, the framework shows you which test failed and what exactly went wrong. In a normal unit test, you often use assertions, e.g. Assert.AreEqual(expectedValue, actualValue, "some description") - so if the two values are unequal you will see an error saying "some description: expected <expectedValue> but was <actualValue>".

总之,单元测试将使测试更快,对开发人员来说更舒服。您可以在提交新代码之前运行所有的单元测试,这样就不会中断同一项目中其他开发人员的构建过程。

单元测试和TDD通常能让你对所编写的软件有更短的反馈周期。与在实现的最后有一个大型测试阶段不同,您可以增量地测试您所编写的所有内容。这大大提高了代码质量,正如您立即看到的那样,您可能会有错误。

在单元测试和TDD的哲学优势方面,这里有一些关键的“灯泡”观察,这些观察在我试探性地走上TDD启蒙之路的第一步时打动了我(没有原创或一定是新闻)……

TDD does NOT mean writing twice the amount of code. Test code is typically fairly quick and painless to write and is a key part of your design process and critically. TDD helps you to realize when to stop coding! Your tests give you confidence that you've done enough for now and can stop tweaking and move on to the next thing. The tests and the code work together to achieve better code. Your code could be bad / buggy. Your TEST could be bad / buggy. In TDD you are banking on the chances of BOTH being bad / buggy being fairly low. Often its the test that needs fixing but that's still a good outcome. TDD helps with coding constipation. You know that feeling that you have so much to do you barely know where to start? It's Friday afternoon, if you just procrastinate for a couple more hours... TDD allows you to flesh out very quickly what you think you need to do, and gets your coding moving quickly. Also, like lab rats, I think we all respond to that big green light and work harder to see it again! In a similar vein, these designer types can SEE what they're working on. They can wander off for a juice / cigarette / iphone break and return to a monitor that immediately gives them a visual cue as to where they got to. TDD gives us something similar. It's easier to see where we got to when life intervenes... I think it was Fowler who said: "Imperfect tests, run frequently, are much better than perfect tests that are never written at all". I interprete this as giving me permission to write tests where I think they'll be most useful even if the rest of my code coverage is woefully incomplete. TDD helps in all kinds of surprising ways down the line. Good unit tests can help document what something is supposed to do, they can help you migrate code from one project to another and give you an unwarranted feeling of superiority over your non-testing colleagues :)

这篇演讲很好地介绍了测试所需要的所有内容。

我使用单元测试来节省时间。

在构建业务逻辑(或数据访问)时,测试功能通常涉及在许多屏幕上输入内容,这些内容可能尚未完成,也可能尚未完成。自动化这些测试可以节省时间。

对我来说,单元测试是一种模块化的测试工具。每个公共函数通常至少有一个测试。我编写额外的测试来覆盖各种行为。

您在开发代码时想到的所有特殊情况都可以记录在单元测试的代码中。单元测试还成为如何使用代码的示例的来源。

对我来说,在单元测试中发现我的新代码破坏了某些东西比检入代码并让前端开发人员发现问题要快得多。

对于数据访问测试,我尝试编写没有更改或自行清理的测试。

单元测试不能解决所有的测试需求。他们将能够节省开发时间并测试应用程序的核心部分。

我不反对丹的观点(尽管不回答可能是更好的选择)……但是……

单元测试是编写代码来测试系统的行为和功能的过程。

显然,测试可以提高代码的质量,但这只是单元测试的表面好处。真正的好处是:

Make it easier to change the technical implementation while making sure you don't change the behavior (refactoring). Properly unit tested code can be aggressively refactored/cleaned up with little chance of breaking anything without noticing it. Give developers confidence when adding behavior or making fixes. Document your code Indicate areas of your code that are tightly coupled. It's hard to unit test code that's tightly coupled Provide a means to use your API and look for difficulties early on Indicates methods and classes that aren't very cohesive

你应该进行单元测试,因为向客户交付可维护的高质量产品符合你的利益。

我建议您将它用于任何系统,或系统的一部分,以模拟真实世界的行为。换句话说,它特别适合于企业开发。我不会将它用于一次性/实用程序。我不会用它来测试系统中有问题的部分(UI是一个常见的例子,但并不总是这样)

最大的陷阱是开发人员测试太大的单元,或者他们认为一个方法是一个单元。如果您不理解控制反转,这一点尤其正确——在这种情况下,您的单元测试总是会变成端到端集成测试。单元测试应该测试单个行为——大多数方法都有许多行为。

最大的误解是程序员不应该测试。只有糟糕或懒惰的程序员才会相信这一点。给你盖屋顶的人不应该测试吗?更换心脏瓣膜的医生不应该检查新瓣膜吗?只有程序员才能测试他的代码是否按照他的意图去做(QA可以测试边缘情况——当代码被告知要做程序员不打算做的事情时,它的行为如何,而客户可以进行验收测试——代码是否按照客户的要求去做)