This works REALLY well. I've even occasionally done some of my own reviewing and editing of those docs and submitted them back to the project. Here's an example: https://github.com/pydantic/jiter/pull/143 - Claude transcript here: https://gist.github.com/simonw/264d487db1a18f8585c2ca0c68e50...
Somehow extracting your docs from unit tests: might be ok!
Pointing people at unit tests instead of writing docs: not even remotely ok.
Is that really what this guy is advocating??
[1]: https://docs.python.org/3/library/doctest.html
[2]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/rustdoc/write-documentation/docume...
- What is it?
- What does it do?
- Why does it do that?
- What is the API?
- What does it return?
- What are some examples of proper, real world usage (that don't involve foo/bar but instead, real world inputs/outputs I'd likely see)?
For example this recent feature was added through unit test as documentation.
https://github.com/Attumm/redis-dict/blob/main/extend_types_...
Couldn't agree more
I'm trying to integrate with a team at work that is doing this, and I'm finding it impossible to get a full picture of what their service can do.
I've brought it up with my boss, their boss, nothing happens
And then the person writing the service is angry that everyone is asking him questions about it all the time. "Just go read the tests! You'll see what it does if you read the tests!"
Incredibly frustrating to deal with when my questions are about the business rules for the service, not the functionality of the service
But then I realized that a lot of what makes a set of tests good documentation is comments, and those rot, maybe worse than dedicated documentation.
Keeping documentation up to date is a hard problem that I haven't yet seen solved in my career.
"This function exists to generate PDFs for reports and customer documents."
"This endpoint exists to provide a means for pre-flight authorization of requests to other endpoints."
Two - so any input value outside of those in unit tests is undocumented / unspecified behavior? A documentation can contain an explanation in words, like what relation should hold between the inputs and outputs in all cases. Unit tests by their nature can only enumerate a finite number of cases.
This seems like such an obviously not great idea...
I make this part of my filtering potential companies to work with now. I can't believe how often people avoid doing unit tests.
But they are also pricy
I am interested in how people prevent unit tests becoming a maintenance burden over time.
I have seen so many projects with legacy failing tests. Any proposal to invest time and money cleaning them up dies on the alter of investing limited resources in developing features that make money
My favorite example is Stripe. They've never skimped on docs and you can tell they've made it a core competency requirement for their team.
I wrote a book, and when I created my newsletter, I wanted to have a shift in terms of style because, on the Internet, people don't have time. You can't write a post the same way you write a book. So, I'm following some principles taken here and there. But happy to hear if you have some feedback about the style itself :)
In Rust, there are two types of comments. Regular ones (e.g. starting with //) and doc-comments (e.g. starting with ///). The latter will land in in the generated documentation when you run cargo doc.
And now the cool thing: If you have example code in these doc comments, e.g. to explain how a feature of your library can be used, that script will automatically become part of the tests per default. That means you are unlikey to forget to update these examples when your code changes and you can use them as tests at the same time by asserting something at the end (which also communicates the outcome to the reader).
You're right, it is a matter of culture and discipline. It's much harder to maintain a consistent and legible theory of a software component than it is to wing it with your 1-2 other teammates. Naming things is hard, especially when the names and their meanings eventually change.
a common way to think about this is called the "test pyramid" - unit tests at the base, supporting integration tests that are farther up the pyramid. [0]
roughly speaking, the X-axis of the pyramid is number of test cases, the Y-axis is number of dependencies / things that can cause a test to fail.
as you travel up the Y-axis, you get more "lifelike" in your testing...but you also generally increase the time & complexity it takes to find the root-cause of a test failure.
many times I've had to troubleshoot a failure in an integration test that is trying to test subsystem A, and it turns out the failure was caused by unrelated flakiness in subsystem B. it's good to find that flakiness...but it's also important to be able to push that testing "down the pyramid" and add a unit test of subsystem B to prevent the flakiness from reoccurring, and to point directly at the problem if it does.
> Unit tests have limited benefits overall, and add a bunch of support time, slowing down development
unit tests, _when done poorly_, have limited benefits, require additional maintenance, and slow down development.
integration tests can also have limited benefits, require additional maintenance, and slow down development time, _when done poorly_.
testing in general, _when done well_, increases development velocity and improves product quality in a way that completely justifies the maintenance burden of the additional code.
0: https://martinfowler.com/articles/practical-test-pyramid.htm...
In the documentation, you can include code examples that, if written a certain way, not only looks good when rendered but can also be tested for their form and documented outputs as well. While this doesn't help with the descriptive text of documentation, at least it can flag you when the documented examples are no longer valid... which can in turn capture your attention enough to check out the descriptive elements of that same area of documentation.
This isn't to say these documentation tests are intended to replace regular unit tests: these documentation tests are really just testing what is easily testable to validate the documentation, the code examples.
Something can be better than nothing and I think that's true here.
At its core, a good test will take an example and do something with it to demonstrate an outcome.
That's exactly what how to docs do - often with the exact same examples.
Logically, they should be the same thing.
You just need a (non turing complete) language that is dual use - it generates docs and runs tests.
For example:
https://github.com/crdoconnor/strictyaml/blob/master/hitch/s...
And:
https://hitchdev.com/strictyaml/using/alpha/scalar/email-and...
Would we prefer better docs than some comments sprinkled in strategic places in test files? Yes. Is having them with the tests maybe the best we can do for a certain level of effort? Maybe.
If the alternative is an entirely standalone repository of docs which will probably not be up to date, I'll take the comments near the tests. (Although I don't think this approach lends itself to unit tests.)
Good code can be documentation, both in the way it's written and structured and obviously in the form of comments.
Good tests simply verify what the author of the test believes the behavior of what is being tested should be. That's it. It's not documentation, it rarely "explains" anything, and any time someone eschews actually writing documentation in the form of good code hygiene and actual docs in favor of just writing tests causes the codebase to suffer.
Two: my intuition says that exhaustively specifying the intended input output pairs would only hold marginal utility compared to testing a few well selected input output pairs. It's more like attaching the corners of a sheet to the wall than gluing the whole sheet to the wall. And glue is potentially harder to remove. The sheet is n-dimensional though.
- I've never tried to understand a code base by looking at the tlunit tests first. They often require more in depth understanding (due to things like monkeypatching) than just reading the code. I haven't seen anyone else attempt this either.
- Good documentation is good as far as it aids understanding. This might be a side effect of tests, but I don't think it's their goal. A good test will catch breaks in behaviour, I'd never trade completeness for readability in tests, in docs it's the reverse.
So I think maybe, unit tests are just tests? They can be part of your documentation, but calling them documentation in and of themselves I think is maybe just a category error?
I'd suggest that the balance between Unit Test(s) and Integration Test(s) is a trade-off and depends on the architecture/shape of the System Under Test.
Example: I agree with your assertion that I can get "90%+ coverage" of Units at an integration test layer. However, the underlying system would suggest if I would guide my teams to follow this pattern. In my current stack, the number of faulty service boundaries means that, while an integration test will provide good coverage, the overhead of debugging the root cause of an integration failure creates a significant burden. So, I recommend more unit testing, as the failing behaviors can be identified directly.
And, if I were working at a company with better underlying architecture and service boundaries, I'd be pointing them toward a higher rate of integration testing.
So, re: Kent Dodds "we write tests for confidence and understanding." What layer we write tests at for confidence and understanding really depends on the underlying architectures.
Of course, for + it's relatively easy to intuit what it is supposed to mean. But if I develop a "joe's interpolation operator", you think you'll understand it well enough from 5-10 unit tests, and actually giving you the formula would add nothing? Again I find myself wondering if I'm missing some english knowledge...
Can you imagine understanding the Windows API from nothing but unit tests? I really cannot. No text to explain the concepts of process, memory protection, file system? There is absolutely no way I would get it.
Though some replies here seem to keep arguing for my interpretation, so it's not just me.
I deeply hate "regression tests" that turn red when the implementation changes, so you regenerate the tests to match the new implementation and maybe glance at the diff, but the diff is thousands of lines long so really it's not telling you anything other than "something changed".
> Unit tests explain [expected] code behavior
Unit tests rarely evaluate performance, so can't explain why something is O(n) vs O(n^2), or if it was supposed to be one or the other.
And of course the unit tests might not cover the full range of behaviors.
> Unit tests are always in sync with the code
Until you find out that someone introduced a branch in the code, eg, for performance purposes (classic refactor step), and forgot to do coverage tests to ensure the unit tests exercised both branches.
> Unit tests cover edge cases
Note the True Scotsman fallacy there? 'Good unit tests should also cover these cases' means that if it didn't cover those cases, it wasn't good.
I've seen many unit tests which didn't cover all of the edge cases. My favorite example is a Java program which turned something like "filename.txt" into "filename_1.txt", where the "_1" was a sequence number to make it unique, and ".txt" was required.
Turns out, it accepted a user-defined filename from a web form, which could include a NUL character. "\x00.txt" put it in an infinite loop due to it's incorrect error handling of "", which is how the Java string got interpreted as a filename.
> Descriptive test name
With some test systems, like Python's unittest, you have both the test name and the docstring. The latter can be more descriptive. The former might be less descriptive, but easier to type or select.
> Keep tests simple
That should be 'Keep tests understandable'. Also, 'too many' doesn't contribute information as by definition it's beyond the point of being reasonable.
What you appear to have in mind here is the documentation of a test. Any documentation that correctly explains why it matters that the test should pass will likely tell you something about what the purpose of the unit is, how it is supposed to work, or what preconditions must be satisfied in order for it to work correctly, but the first bullet point in the article seems to be making a much stronger claim than that.
The observation that both tests and documentation may fail to explain their subject sheds no light on the question of whether (or to what extent) tests in themselves can explain the things they test.
I do think that tests should not explain the why, that would be leaking too much detail, but at the same time the why is somewhat the result of the test. A test is a documentation of a regression, not of how code it tests is implemented/why.
The finite number of cases is interesting. You can definitely run single tests with a high number of inputs which of course is still finite but perhaps closer to a possible way of ensuring validity.
When you have a codebase sitting around rotting for years and you need to go back and refactor things to add a feature or change the behavior, how do you know you aren't breaking some dependent code down the line?
What happens when you upgrade a 3rd party dependency, how do you know it isn't breaking your code? The javascript ecosystem is rife with this. You can't upgrade anything years later or you have to start over again.
Tests are especially important when you've quit your company and someone else is stuck maintaining your code. The only way they can be sure to have all your ingrained knowledge is to have some sort of reliable way of knowing when things break.
Tests are for preventing the next developer from cursing you under their breath.
It's of course not documentation in the sense of a manual to the detail of code it exercises, but it definitely helps if tests are proper crafted.
if it had "///" it could have test in docs: https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/book/ch14-02-publishing-to-...
That's the natural habitat for code, not formally specified, but partially functioning in situ. Often the best you can do is contribute a few more test cases towards a decent spec for existing code because there just isn't time to re-architect the thing.
If you are working with code in an environment where spending time improving the specification can be made a prerequisite of whatever insane thing the stakeholders want today... Hang on to that job. For the rest of us, it's a game of which-hack-is-least-bad.
> Almost immediately I feel the need to rebut a common misunderstanding. Such a principle is not saying that code is the only documentation.
While documentation is someone's non-precise natural language expression of what (to the best of their imperfect human capacity) expected the code to implement at the time of writing.
This could all easily fit in the top-level comments of a main() function or the help text of a CLI app.
- What is the API?
This could be gleaned from the code, either by reading it or by generating automatic documentation from it.
- What does it return?
This is commonly documented in function code.
- What are some examples of proper, real world usage (that don't involve foo/bar but instead, real world inputs/outputs I'd likely see)?
This is typically in comments or help text if it's a CLI app.
> returns a sum of reciprocals of inputs
Unit Test:
assert_eq(foo(2, 5), 1/2 + 1/5)
assert_eq(foo(4, 7), 1/4 + 1/7)
assert_eq(foo(10, 100, 10000), 0.1101)Otherwise there is no way to know what is expected behavior or just a mistake built into it by accident
Most of the tests I write daily is about moving and transforming data in ways that are individually rather trivial, but when features pile up, keeping track of all requirements is hard, so you want regression tests. But you also don't want a bunch of regression tests that are hard to change when you change requirements, which will happen. So you want a decent amount of simple tests for individually simple requirements that make up a complex whole.
In more complex situations, good tests also show you the environmental set up - for example, all the various odd database records the code needs or expects.
It’s not everything you’d want out of a doc, but it’s a chunk of it.
Getting all your teammates to quit giving all their tests names like "testTheThing" is darn near impossible. It's socially painful to be the one constantly nagging people about names, but it really does take constant nagging to keep the quality high. As soon as the nagging stops, someone invariably starts cutting corners on the test names, and after that everyone who isn't a pedantic weenie about these things will start to follow suit.
Which is honestly the sensible, well-adjusted decision. I'm the pedantic weenie on my team, and even I have to agree that I'd rather my team have a frustrating test suite than frustrating social dynamics.
Personally - and this absolutely echoes the article's last point - I've been increasingly moving toward Donald Knuth's literate style of programming. It helps me organize my thoughts even better than TDD does, and it's earned me far more compliments about the readability of my code than a squeaky-clean test suite ever does. So much so that I'm beginning to hold hope that if you can build enough team mass around working that way it might even develop into a stable equilibrium point as people start to see how it really does make the job more enjoyable.
If anything, in this scenario, I wouldn't even bother printing the test names, and would just give them generated identifier names instead. Otherwise, isn't it a bit like expecting git hashes to be meaningful when there's a commit message right there?
What do test names have to do with quality? If you want to use it as some sort of name/key, just have a comment/annotation/parameter that succinctly defines that, along with any other metadata you want to add in readable English. Many testing frameworks support this. There's exactly zero benefit toTryToFitTheTestDescriptionIntoItsName.
Readability of the code makes a lot of it's quality. A working code that is not maintainable will be refactored. A non working cofe that is maintainable will be fixed.
Obviously unit tests cannot enumerate all inputs, but as a form of programmatic specification, neither do they have to.
For the case you mention where a broad relation should hold, this is a special kind of unit test strategy, which is property testing. Though admittedly other aspects of design-by-contract are also better suited here; nobody's claiming that tests are the best or only programmatic documentation strategy.
Finally, there's another kind of unit testing, which is more appropriately called characterisation testing, as per M. Feathers book on legacy code. The difference being, unit tests are for developing a feature and ensuring adherence to a spec, whereas characterisation tests are for exploring the actual behaviour of existing code (which may or may not be behaving according to the intended spec). These are definitely then tests as programmatic documentation.
Including screenshots, which a lot of tech writing teams raise as a maintenance burden: https://simonwillison.net/2022/Oct/14/automating-screenshots...
Then there are tools like Doc Detective to inline tests in the docs, making them dependent on each other; if documented steps stop working, the test derived from them fails: https://doc-detective.com/
Two - Ever heard of code coverage? Type systems/type checkers? Also, there's nothing precluding you from using assertions in the test that make any assumed relations explicit before you actually test anything.
Conversely, if you fail to write a unit test, there is no contract, and the code can freely diverge over time from what you think it ought to be doing.
When learning a new codebase, and I'm looking for an example of how to use feature X I would look in the tests first or shortly after a web search.
It seems to me like the second half of this article also undermines the main idea and goal of using unit tests in this way though.
> Descriptive test name, Atomic, Keep tests simple, Keep tests independent
A test with a bunch of mocks, helpers, overrides and assumptions does not help anyone understand things like how to use feature X or the correct way to solve a problem with the software.
There are merits to both kinds of tests in their time and place but good integration tests are really the best ones for documenting and learning.
In reality, except for the most trivial projects or vigilant test writers, tests are too complicated to act as a stand in for docs.
They are usually abstract in an effort to DRY things up such that you don't even get to see all the API in one place.
I'd rather keep tests optimized for testing rather than nerfing them to be readable to end users.
If you can't find examples of how to use the code in the code then why does the code even exist?
https://hackage.haskell.org/package/ghc-internal-9.1001.0/do...
Also, are you a fan of nesting test classes? Any opinions? Eg:
Class fibrulatatorTest {
Class highVoltages{
Void tooMuchWillNoOp() {}
Void maxVoltage() {}I've been wishing for a long time that the industry would move towards this, but it is tough to get developers to write more than performative documentation that checks an agile sprint box, much less get product owners to allocate time test the documentation (throw someone unfamiliar with the code to do something small with it armed with only its documentation, like code another few necessary tests and document them, and correct the bumps in the consumption of the documentation). Even tougher to move towards the kind of Knuth'ian TeX'ish-quality and -sophistication documentation, which I consider necessary (though perhaps not sufficient) for taming increasing software complexity.
I hoped the kind of deep technical writing at large scales supported by Adobe Framemaker would make its way into open source alternatives like Scribus, but instead we're stuck with Markdown and Mermaid, which have their place but are painful when maintaining content over a long time, sprawling audience roles, and broad scopes. Unfortunate, since LLM's could support a quite rich technical writing and editing delivery sitting on top of a Framemaker-feature'ish document processing system oriented towards supporting literal programming.
https://dlang.org/spec/unittest.html#documented-unittests
Nice when combined with CI since you’ll know if you accidentally break your examples.
* ScalaSql, where the reference docs (e.g. https://github.com/com-lihaoyi/scalasql/blob/main/docs/refer...) are generated by running unit tests (e.g. https://github.com/com-lihaoyi/scalasql/blob/53cbad77f7253f3...)
* uPickle, where the documentation site (https://com-lihaoyi.github.io/upickle/#GettingStarted) is generated by the document-generator which has syntax to scrape (https://github.com/com-lihaoyi/upickle/blob/004ed7e17271635d...) the unit tests without running them (https://github.com/com-lihaoyi/upickle/blob/main/upickle/tes...)
* OS-Lib, where the documentation examples (e.g. https://github.com/com-lihaoyi/os-lib?tab=readme-ov-file#osr...) are largely manually copy-pasted from the unit tests (e.g. https://github.com/com-lihaoyi/os-lib/blob/9e7efc36355103d71...) into the readme.md/adoc
It's a good idea overall to share unit tests and documentation, but there is a lot of subtlety around how it must be done. Unit tests and documentation have many conflicting requirements, e.g.
* Unit tests prefer thoroughness to catch unintuitive edge cases whereas documentation prefers highlighting of key examples and allowing the reader to intuitively interpolate
* Unit tests examples prefer DRY conciseness whereas documentation examples prefer self-contained-ness
* Unit tests are targeted at codebase internal developers (i.e. experts) whereas documentation is often targeted at external users (i.e. non-experts)
These conflicting requirements mean that "just read the unit tests" is a poor substitute for documentation. But there is a lot of overlap, so it is still worth sharing snippets between unit tests and examples. It just needs to be done carefully and with thought given handling the two sets of conflicting requirements
And the method names are equivalent to the test names. Of course, only if you don't wildly throw around exceptions or return null (without indicating it clearly in the type signature).
New rule: if you write a function, you also have to write down what it does, and why. Deal?
I'd rather have the prose. And if it's wrong, then fix it. I'm so tired of these excuses.
def get_examples(
source: Path,
minimum_size: float,
maximum_size: float,
total_size: float,
seed: float = 123,
) -> Iterator[Path]:
…
Well you could document that abstractly in the function (“your source must be a directory available via NFS to all devs as well as the build infra”) but you could also use the function in a test and describe it there, and let that be the “living documentation” of which the original author speaks.
Obviously if this is a top level function in some open source library with a readthedocs page then it’s good to actually document the function and have a test. If it’s just some internal thing though then doc-rot can be more harmful than no docs at all, so the best docs are therefore verified, living docs: the tests.
(…or make your source an enumeration type so you don’t even need the docs!)
People grab the first word they think of. And subconsciously they know if they obsess about the name it’ll have an opportunity cost - dropping one or more of the implementation details they’re juggling in their short term memory.
But if “slow” is the first word you think of that’s not very good. And if you look at the synonyms and antonyms you can solidify your understanding of the purpose of the function in your head. Maybe you meant thorough, or conservative. And maybe you meant to do one but actually did another. So now you can not just chose a name but revisit the intent.
Plus you’re not polluting the namespace by recycling a jargon word that means something else in another part of the code, complicating refactoring and self discovery later on.
Nine times out of ten this is the only test, which is mostly there to ensure the code gets exercised in a sensible way and returns a thing, and ideally to document and enforce the contract of the function.
What I absolutely agree with you on is that being able to describe this contract alongside the function itself is far more preferable. It’s not quite literate programming but tools like Python’s doctest offer a close approximation to interleaving discourse with machine readable implementation:
def double(n: int) -> int:
“””Increase by 100%
>>> double(7)
14
“””
return 2 * nIt claims that, in order for tests to serve as documentation, they must follow a set of best practices, one of which is descriptive test names. It says nothing about failing tests when the name of the test doesn't match the actual test case.
Note I'm not saying whether I consider this to be good advice; I'm merely clarifying what the article states.
I didn't knew a thing about how the business operated and the rationale behind the loans and the transactions. The parts of the application that had unit and behavior tests were easy to work on. Everyone dreaded touching the old pieces that didn't have tests.
The quality of the tests.
If we go by the article, specifically their readability and quality as documentation.
It says nothing about the quality of the resulting software (though, presumably, this will also be indirectly affected).
Do note TFA doesn't suggest replacing all other forms of documentation with just tests.
Hitchstory is a type-safe StrictYAML python integration testing framework exploring some interesting ideas around this.
https://hitchdev.com/hitchstory/
Example:
https://hitchdev.com/hitchstory/using/behavior/run-single-na...
Source:
https://github.com/hitchdev/hitchstory/blob/master/hitch/sto...
See also the explanation of self-rewriting tests:
Identifiers matter.
But if you want other people to benefit from it, a good place to put it is right next to a test that will start failing as soon as the code changes in a way that no longer conforms to the spec.
Otherwise those people who just want to get more tickets done will change the code without changing the spec. Or you'll end up working on something else and they'll never even know about your document, because they're accustomed to everybody else's bad habits.
If you're going to be abnormally diligent, you might as well so in a way that the less diligent can approach gradually: One test at a time.
I eventually added support for real unit tests to my test suite as well. I started testing parts of the runtime through them. Those turned out to be a lot messier than I'd hoped. Hopefully I'll be able to improve them over time by applying the principles outlined in the article.
When I originally wrote it, I knew that I would have to maintain it over time, so I wrote a ton of unit tests that mostly were just snapshots of the html output. I have two choices, running through my relatively complicated example app by hand and verifying things still work, or writing tests. I used this project to prove to myself that tests are indeed valuable.
Over the years, I've made many releases. The 3 projects have been independently upgraded over time. The only way that I would have kept any sanity and been motivated to even work on this project (I no longer even use it myself!), is the fact that it takes almost zero effort to upgrade the dependencies, run the tests and build a release.
If there are too many things to fix, I just wait for the community to eventually submit a PR. The best part is that if they break something, it is easy to spot in the snapshots (or test failures). I can almost accept PR's without having to even read them, just because the tests pass. That's pretty cool.
The one lesson I have learned over my career: Don't work in teams (or for managers) that rely on discipline to get things done. Every time I've encountered them, they've been using it as an excuse to avoid better processes.
Sure, some counterexamples exist. Chances are, those counterexamples aren't where a given reader of your comment is working.
Agreed. But I also agree with the commenter that for documentation purposes, integration tests are an order of magnitude more useful.
> a common way to think about this is called the "test pyramid" - unit tests at the base, supporting integration tests that are farther up the pyramid.
I used to be a believer in that pyramid, but my experience has shown me it depends on the project. Wherever it's feasible (i.e. doesn't involve long test times), I've found integration tests to be far more useful than unit tests. I've had experiences where I'd do a project and have really high unit test coverage, only to unveil fairly trivial bugs. The reverse hasn't happened - if I start a project with solid integration tests, I almost never encounter trivial bugs.
Generally, I now write integration tests and mock away time consuming/resource heavy parts (e.g. network calls, DB calls, etc). Better for documentation. Better for testing.
So it's common to see unit tests like
@Test
fun `this tests something very complicated`() {
...
}It looks, feels, and reads much better.
About your other point: I have experienced exactly the same. It just seems impossible to instill the belief into most developers that readable tests lead to faster solving of bugs. And by the way, it makes tests more maintainable as well, just like readable code makes the code more maintainable anywhere else.
Just like normal code, test methods should indicate what they are doing. This will help you colleague when he's trying to fix the failing test when you're not around. There are other ways of doing that of course which can be fine as well, such as describing the test case with some kind of meta data that the test framework supports.
But the problem that OP is talking about, is that many developers simply don't see the point of putting much effort into making tests readable. They won't give tests a readable name, they won't give it a readable description in metadata either.
describe('The foo service', () => {
describe('When called with an array of strings', () => {
describe('And the bar API is down', () => {
it('pushes the values to a DLQ' () => {
// test here
})
it('logs the error somewhere' () => {
// test here
})
it('Returns a proper error message`, () => {
// test here
})
})
})
})
The D language standard library uses both. When you generate the documentation from the comments attached to a declaration, the following unittests (they are identified using a special markup, (that is just triple slashes...) are also included.
Example once rendered [0], in the source you see the examples are actually unit tests [1].
[0]: https://dlang.org/phobos/std_algorithm_searching.html#.all
[1]: https://github.com/dlang/phobos/blob/master/std/algorithm/se...
Example: I wrote a little fast api endpoint and realized that having some decent openapi documentation would be nice. Support for that is built in. So, copy paste into chat gpt, "add openapi documentation to these endpoints" paste it back. And then "write me an integration test that exercises these endpoints and tests all the exceptional responses". Simple stuff. But the point is that the generated documentation is pretty good and helpful. It's exhaustive. It documents all the essentials. I could sit down and do it manually for an hour. Or I could just generate it.
I also generated a README for the same project with instructions on how to setup all the tools and do all the key things (run tests, run a dev server, build a docker container, etc. The Dockerfile was generated too. Dockerfiles are also great as documentation artifacts because it precisely defines how to build and run your software.
LLMs are really good at documenting and summarizing things.
I would be honored by anyone checking it out: https://github.com/linus/testy
I don't know who this helps but if you're a young developer, always beware what you read on substack about how you should constrain yourself. Take them with a grain of salt.
Not just documentation purposes. In almost all cases integration is better than unit tests: they cover the same code paths, they actually test observed behaviour of the app, etc.
Notable exceptions: complex calculations, library functions.
> I've found integration tests to be far more useful than unit tests. I've had experiences where I'd do a project and have really high unit test coverage, only to unveil fairly trivial bugs. The reverse hasn't happened - if I start a project with solid integration tests, I almost never encounter trivial bugs.
If I could upvote this several times, I would :)
It is really valuable when they are named well.
I’ve found this is where LLM can be quite useful, they’re pretty good at summarising.
Someday soon I think we’ll see a language server that checks if comments still match what they’re documenting. The same for tests being named accurately.
You can do better than "testTheThing".
Have your team (or a working group composed of your team, if your team is too big) put together a set of guidelines on naming conventions for unit test methods. Have your team agree to these conventions (assumption is that the working group would have consulted with rest of team and incorporated their feedback).
Then make that part of the code review checklist (so you aren't the one that is actually enforcing the policy). Do spot checks for the first little while, or empower some individuals to be responsible for that - if you really want to. Do a retrospective after a month or 2 months to see how everyone is doing and see how successful this initiative was.
Whereas documentation can (inevitably) go stale with no feedback or build failures
If you're writing the test after then yeah, maybe it's hard, but that's one of the many reasons why it's probably better to write the test before and align it with the actual feature or bugfix you're intending to implement.
describe("foo", () => {
describe("called with true", () => {
it("returns 1", () => {
assert(foo(someComplicatedThing, true) === 1)
})
})
describe("called with false", () => {
it("returns 12", () => {
assert(foo(someOtherIndecipherableThing, false) === 12)
})
})
})
Tests with such names are essentially specifying the function's behaviour as "exactly what it did when first written", which is ignoring (a) that the code may have bugs and (b) that most codebases are in flux, as new features get added, things get refactored, etc. They elevate implementation details to the level of specification, which hinders progress and improvement.
1. The code uses internal interfaces, not meant to be used by users of the code.
2. The code might not use the high level public interfaces you are interested in. Those interfaces are meant to be used by users, and tested by tests.
Having said that reading the code itself is often fruitful. Not for example usages, but to just learn how the thing is implemented.
Unit tests often cover the same line multiple times meaningfully, as it's much easier to exhaust corner case inputs of a single unit in isolation than in an integration test.
Think about a line that does a regex match. You can get 100% line coverage on that line with a single happy path test, or 100% branch coverage with two tests. You probably want to test a regex with a few more cases than that. It can be straightforward from a unit test, but near impossible from an integration test.
Also integration tests inherently exercise a lot of code, then only assert on a few high level results. This also inflates coverage compared to unit tests.
Anyways, as already mentioned earlier: unit tests are code and all quality criteria that apply to any other code apply to unit tests too. We expect identifiers used in code to help understand the code no matter if it's the name of a unit test or any other entity in our program.
NB. To me this argument seems as bizarre as disputing washing your hands after using the bathroom. Why would anyone think that they should get a pass on code quality standards when writing unit tests? This just doesn't make sense...
Sometimes people are pretty bad a coming up new names, but selecting a good name given some options generally isn't a big problem. So maybe we should create a kind o LLM linter for this situation ?
The prompt could be along the lines:
"Given this function: <FUNCTION>
This unit test: <UNIT TEST>
And these naming considerations: <NAMING GUIDE>
Is the current test name a good option?
What would be some better options?"
I did some quick testing and it seems work to reasonably well. It doesn't create anything mind-blowing but at least it seems to provide some consistent options.
Right now it just prints the prompt in the terminal.
Not saying it’s always the case, but it could be. Higher standards are not always better, they have diminishing returns.
In code that was written without tests, inputs/outputs end up being surprisingly far more spread out than you might think. One of the function inputs might be a struct with 5 members, but the function itself only uses one of those members 50 lines in. If it's OOP, one of the inputs might be a member variable that's set elsewhere, and same for the outputs.
A unit test shows the reader what information is needed for the function and what it produces, without having to read the full implementation.
Also, when you write it, you end up discovering things like what I mentioned above, and then you end up refactoring it to make more sense.
But indeed it tended to lead to frustrating social dynamics in stead of happy romcom scripts.
So I gave up on most of it.
That said, my opinion about test code is, it exists to find bugs or steer away from regression. API descriptions, together with a design with some graphs, should be formal and clear enough to understand code usage. I don't want to figure out the usage of fwrite() by going through its elaborate test suite.
Simple tests don't really need descriptive names because what they test should be obvious, while special tests need more than a good name to be documented enough: comments (e.g. why can crazy cases actually occur), links, extra effort to write them clearly, etc.
There could be some sort of formula to explain this better to determine how much effort to spend on tests vs features and product quality and importance of quality compared to that.
Human language is just much more dense in terms of amount of conveyed information.
Not at all. Those kinds of names are like a de-facto standard for the people that try to push this kind of practice. Obviously the example I used is not related to any real test.
> This will help you colleague when he's trying to fix the failing test when you're not around.
Really? Encoding what a test function does in it's name is your recommendation for helping someone understand what the code is doing? There are far better ways of accomplishing this, especially when it comes to tests.
> There are other ways of doing that of course which can be fine as well
'Can be fine as well'? More like 'far superior in every possible way'.
> But the problem that OP is talking about, is that many developers simply don't see the point of putting much effort into making tests readable.
Not at all, making a test readable and trying to encode what it does into it's name are completely separate things.
Realistically, many unit tests are far more complicated (in terms of business logic) than functions where names actually matter, like 'remove()', 'sort()', 'createCustomer()', etc. I've worked in several places where people aggressively pushed the 'encode test description in test name' BS, which invariably always leads to names like 'testThatCreatingACustomerFromSanctionedCountryFailsWithErrorX'. It's completely absurd.
> Also, are you a fan of nesting test classes? Any opinions?
It really depends on the framework you're using, but in general nesting of tests is a good thing, and helps with organizing your tests.
Encoding such information into the name makes about as much sense as encoding constraints into SQL column names.
Your test description/documentation should be sentences, but there is absolutely zero reason to try to encode that into the name of your test function. Not to mention this article then suggests using another tool to decode this function name into a proper sentence for reporting... ok now you completely lost the ability to ctrl+f and jump to the function... terrible advice all around.
Why not just use a testing framework that actually supports free-form sentence descriptions/documentation for your tests?
No. Good docs will explain the context and choices made and trade-offs and risks and relations etc. All the things you can't read from the code. API docs can to a great degree be auto-generated, but not writing the _why_ is the beginning of the end.
Documenting your requirements by writing the tests in advance is of course painful because it forces you to think more upfront about the edge cases in advance. But that's precisely why it saves time in the long run, because then it makes it a lot more likely you can write the function correctly from the start.
There are three hard problems in computer science:
1) Naming things
2) Cachoncurr3)e invalidation
ency
4) Off-by-one errors
I think what you're focusing on is just syntax sugar. Those examples with the 'describe'/'it' pattern are just another way to provide names to test cases, and their goal is exactly the same. If you didn't have this syntactic support, you'd write the function names representing this.
It's exactly the same thing: documenting the test case in the code (so not a separate document), with its name.
The distinction between "comment" and "function name" becomes less relevant once one realizes a function's name is just another comment.
I've worked at companies that required this style naming for tests and it was an unholy mess, and it only works if the unit test is small enough that the name is still a reasonable length which at that point the code should be clear enough to understand what is being tested anyway.
> It doesn't bother me all that much to have test functions with names like `test_transaction_fails_if_insufficient_funds_are_available()
I mean, that's one example where you have one outcome based on one parameter/state. Expand this to a 2-field outcome based on 3 state conditions/parameters and now you have a 100-character long function name.
The point I'm making (and I think you are agreeing with me) is that trying to stuff a test description into a test function name is cumbersome and pointless. There are far better ways of adding descriptions/documentation for unit tests and pretty much every major language/testing framework supports these, nowadays.
The goal may be the same/similar, but one of the approaches is clearly superior to the other for multiple reasons (as stated by me and other many times in this comment tree). Also, I don't think you quite understand what 'syntactic sugar' means.
> If you didn't have this syntactic support, you'd write the function names representing this.
It's not any kind of 'syntactic support'. Pretty much every modern language/testing framework supports adding free-form test descriptions and names through various means.
> It's exactly the same thing: documenting the test case in the code (so not a separate document), with its name.
It's very clearly not the same at all lmao. And a test name, test description, other useful test documentation/metadata are also not the same.
> The distinction between "comment" and "function name" becomes less relevant once one realizes a function's name is just another comment.
Huge differences between a function name, a comment, and an annotation. HUGE. Read the other comments in this thread to understand why. If you actually worked in an environment where stuffing a test description into a test name is the preferred approach for a non-trivial amount of time, you'd know that once you get past a certain level of complexity your test names explode to 100+ character monsters, if only to differentiate them from the other tests, testing a different combination of states/inputs and outputs, etc.
> The article is discussing the quality of the tests, not quality in general and not the quality of the resulting software.
All of my comments in this thread are about unit tests and test quality, not general software quality.
> That was my point.
I still don't see any valid point being made.
Sorry this whole thing seems to upset you so much. Chill!
Unfortunately, integration testing is painful and hardly done here because they keep inventing new bad frameworks for it, sticking more reasonable approaches behind red tape, or raising the bar for unit test coverage. If there were director-level visibility for integration test coverage, would be very different.
Tone is generally completely independent of good faith.
Go heal that ego and try again.
The uninviting tone discourages further discussion. I really appreciated where this convo was going until..
> Read the other comments in this thread to understand why.
This could be restated in a non aggressive way. Eg: 'Other comments go into more details why'
> If you actually worked in an environment
Presumptive statements like this are unhelpful. We need to remember we do not know the context and experiences of others. Usually better to root discussion from ones own experience and not to presume the others perspective.
But I don't get the argument. Perhaps we're talking about different things (or have different mental anchors in mind)?
Giving python unittest syntax as an example, how does having a test called
def test_myMethod_caseWhereZeroInputsAreGiven(): ...
def test_case000135():
"""
Tests: myMethod
Date: 2024-10-23
Commit base: edb78go9
Summary: Tests case where zero inputs are given.
Details: ...
"""
I don't think the bathroom analogy is good here either. I'm not arguing for sloppiness or bad code hygiene. A "better" analogy would be someone complaining about people not using the provided towels like people have always been doing, when the initial argument is that the towels in this particular room seem dirty and there's a perfectly fine airdryer "right there". Hence the answer "why does anyone think they get a pass washing their hands on a towel" just sounds bizzare to me, when the topic is appropriateness of sanitation method, not cleanliness itself.
(note: not being argumentative, I hope my tone does not come across as such; if you do bump onto this again and think I'm misinterpreting or missing some finer point entirely, I'd be interested to hear it)
I don't understand the downvote for my question (shrug).
No, I'm focusing on the most realistic and common ways this kind of pattern actually exists (based on my experience).
> If you name tests according to business domain concepts rather than tying it to individual parameters through some formulaic rubric,
While you say I'm focusing on 'the most obtuse possible way...', this kind of comment makes it seem like you haven't focused on any actual way at all. You're speaking in very ambiguous and vague terms, which actually can't be applied and enforced in practice. If you're actually trying to write a suite of unit tests around, say a function, with 3 parameters and multiple possible outcome states - you can't name your function the same for the different combinations of inputs/outputs, and you can't just handwave a 'business domain concepts' name into existence to cover each case - that just turns into an exercise of finding synonyms, abbreviations, and vague generalizations - it doesn't solve the fact that you still need all of the same test cases and they all still need to have unique function names.
You haven't actually thought through what you're proposing here.