by ·0 Comments

Its been a while now, but Roy Osherove posted some articles about Testable Object-Oriented Programming.  That is, designing your code to be testable by default.  The part of this that is most interesting is that he suggests that sometimes you need to sacrifice encapsulation in favor of being able to test your code.  This is where one of the biggest flaws with TDD (at least in my opinion) begins to show.  I think the idea of making code testable breaking encapsulation is one of the only arguments against TDD that I have heard that I can’t give a good defense for, and it makes me crazy.

Overall I would consider myself a competent OO programmer…I might even venture to say that I’m really good, so this issue is one that bugs me.  I think encapsulation is one of the most powerful tools out there for making good OO code.  So now I’m a big fan of TDD, which does not allow me to use this tool as much as I would like….so what gives?

The Problem
There are many cases (at least that I’ve seen) where it makes sense to restrict the visibility of pieces of your object model.  In this context the situation is generally calling for classes/methods to be Internal (Package in Java), or Protected Internal.  I have a feeling, even though I have no evidence to back it up, that this is probably the least-used of all the visibility constraints.  What I’ve found, though, is that using it allows you to create well-factored classes, that abide by the Single Responsibility Principle, and still present a minimal interface to other layers/users of your code.  There is also the problem of exposing internal dependencies so that those dependencies can be injected during testing (this is where stubs or mock objects come into play).  In many cases there is no real reason to expose this information, and in fact making it available is probably a bad thing because it will make code that is consuming your object more aware of the implementation than it needs to be…And Steve McConnell did a good job at letting us know this is bad.

These are extremely brief introductions to the problems, and even though these are simple examples, such things can get ugly quickly in a large project.  The main reason being that all of a sudden there are many, many more things available to the developer who is just trying to use your class to get some work done.

Some Solutions
There are some solutions which can reduce the complexity somewhat.  In the case of using Internal objects, there is always the option of including your test classes in the same project as the code you are testing.  Microsoft seems to have done this with EnterpriseLibrary 1.1.  The biggest downside to this, however, is that in a lot of cases you don’t want to ship your tests with the rest of your production code, so you have to figure out how to do some clever things like conditional compilation to avoid compiling those classes into your production assemblies.  Granted with a build tool like NAnt this becomes easier, but if your not familiar with it, there is a rather steep learning curve.

In the realm of exposing implementation details, one possible course of action is to use a Inversion Of Control container like the Castle Microkernel/Windsor tools.  With these you can write your objects so that they request instances of the dependencies from the IoC container, and not create new instances themselves (or expect you to provide them).  This begs the question of where the IoC container lives, though.  In the case of testing you would want to fill the container with mocks or stubs of the appropriate objects, so that the class your testing gets those objects instead.  In some cases this may mean that your IoC container needs to live in a central repository where all of the objects can get to it…or you could pass around your IoC instance, instead of your dependencies.

The other solution, which was the point of the 2nd post from Roy on TOOD, is to use a tool like TypeMock, which has the remarkable ability to mock objects and give you access to the internal/protected/private members in your tests.  Pretty serious stuff.  It doesn’t solve the problem of dependency injection completely, though.  There is also the issue of cost if you want all of the really nifty features (though the Community Edition seems to include the ability to mock all methods/properties of an object).

The Ultimate Solution
In my mind what is needed to really bridge the divide between the issues here (which are testability and good OO practices like encapsulation) is to make support for TDD a first-class feature of a language or runtime.  What I mean by that is that the .Net Framework, for example, would have knowledge of test classes and test methods, and loosen the visibility restrictions while running a test.  Most likely this would mean some serious changes to the CLR, but it seems like it should be possible to set up a sandbox environment for testing, where the CLR would evaluate the objects being tested, and then allow full access to all fields and methods.  It would have to be seriously limited, and there may even need to be some restrictions around when and where this sort of behavior can happen, but ultimately it seems like the best solution.  It seems like a stretch, but in my mind it is the only real solution to the problem.  Until that point, we are stuck making decisions about where to draw the line between testability and good OO design.

by ·0 Comments

I have officially crossed over….I am now using Mock Objects in my tests and loving it.  After much humming and hawing, and trying to figure out how to write truly effective tests, I decided to give it a go, and so grabbed a copy of Rhino Mocks and started the grueling task of converting some data access code so that I no longer needed a database to run the tests.  It took a little bit to get my mind around the new way of thinking, but I have to say it worked great.  I’m now able to test my data access routines with complete success, and about a 95% code coverage rate.  This is all on top of the fact that I’m using Enterprise Library (for 1.1) for data access and exception handling.

Now, there is a very interesting article from Martin Fowler which is called simply “Mocks aren’t Stubs”.  In this article he is discussing two approaches for dealing with the sort of problem that I had with my data access code.  One is to create object stubs within your tests that you can use to feed known values back to your tests.  This is not at all a bad approach, and I am using it in some cases in conjunction with my mock objects.  The other approach is to use Mock Objects for all of the tricky stuff.  He observed an interesting dichotomy between the sort of TDD folks who follow each approach:  The folks that use stubs tend to be very results oriented in their testing…That is they are verifying the values of various object after performing an action using the test frameworks Assert calls.  This, I think, is most in line with the way TDD is supposed to work.  For the Mock Object folks, though, another thing starts to happen.  These test gain the ability to verify that specific methods are called in a specific order, and therefore the tests that come from this approach start becoming less results-oriented, and rely more on the method verification from the Mocking framework.  He points out these two styles of testing without really saying one is better than the other (he does indicate that he tends to be in the Stub camp, but I think that is a personal choice and level of comfort thing), beyond pointing out that relying on the results of the test tends to be more in line with the pure TDD way of doing things.

Now, I had read this article before I started using mocks within my project.  I thought about using stubs throughout, but since I was testing data access code, I would have a lot of methods to implement in my stub objects that wouldn’t really be part of what I was testing, so it seemed a large waste of my time.  As I started implementing mocks in the tests, I paid attention to how I was testing to see if I was becoming a “Mockist” in the Fowler sense.  Overall I would say that I am not, currently, a “Mockist”.  I’m still overwhelmingly validating the results of calls based on the methods I’m testing, and just using the mocks to feed appropriate values into the classes I’m trying to test.  As a matter of fact, I could probably remove the call to _mocks.VerifyAll() at the end of my tests, since I don’t really care.  I can say, though, that the ability to verify what is being called with what arguments has been extremely useful in my data access testing space.  I’ve basically got objects which are making calls to stored procs on Oracle to do my data work. The DAL is a real simple deal that doesn’t have much in the way of smarts, but works well enough for a small project.  Because of the fact that I’m making stored proc calls to the database, I can now use the mocks to make sure that when I call the Save() method on my User object (for example), It’s calling ExecuteNonQuery() with the proc name of SAVE_USER.  I can also verify that all of the input an output parameters are being set correctly, which is a big consideration when adding a property to the data objects.  In that way I can know that my Save() method is doing what it is supposed to even though it returns no value.  This checking could probably be done by stubbing the EnterpriseLibrary Database and DBCommand objects, and then setting values within my stub object, which I could verify using an Assert call, but that seems like an awful lot of work when I have the option to simply set expectations, and then do a VerifyAll().

I think the Fowler article may be making much of a practice which is not that common among people using mocks in TDD.  Or maybe there is a slow creep that happens to the developer after months and years of using mocks in their tests that turn them into Mockists.  Personally I find that there is a very broad and comfortable middle ground which allows me more flexibility to express my intent quickly and concisely.  And after all, expressing intent is one of the major boons of TDD.