Does PHPUnit have functionality (or an external manner) to reflect on the target object, and either fail or markTestIncomplete()'ish on methods which it does not have a test for?
To be clear; this would be in a situation where a test suite exists. A developer adds a new method, but neglects to write a test for it. Currently, it does not affect the unit testing process what-so-ever. I am looking for a way to change this.
Thanks in advance.
PHPUnit can log code coverage data into a file with serialized data, which you can analyze later. This way you can find about untested methods:
$ phpunit --coverage-php coveragedata.ser .
PHPUnit 3.7 itself has no way to fail when classes/methods are untested or when code coverage is below a treshold.
Related
I just started to learn the concept of BDD.
I learn PHPSpec and Behat for that, but it is not clear to my why do I need to use both. I understand that behat is for the functional/acceptance testing and PHPSpec is mainly for unit testing, but the articles and videos I found on this is basicly testing the the code twice: once with behat (with scenarios) and once with with phpspec. Can someone explain to my with easy examples what is the difference and when do I need to use behat and whan phpspec?
Thanks the anwers in advance,
Br.
Well, before starting with the answer, I would like to point out that what follows is a more general answer than a "phpspec and behat" one.
As you correctly stated, phpspec is a tool designed to write unit tests whereas behat is something for other kind of tests (let's say from integration to e2e/smoke tests). So far so good. So now we can abstract and distinct between unit test tools and other testing tools.
Let's start defining what a unit test is and what is not. A unit test is a kind of test done against a "small" part (the unit) of a system. Typically it's focus is on a single class or method (whereas not always true). Unit tests promote fast refactor as they run fast and in isolation. Please, focus on fast and isolation, we'll be back at them sooner.
Other kind of tests are more cumbersome and oriented to test an interaction between some components, or a whole function, or the "whole" system as the user would use it. Why cumbersome? Because you may have to setup a database, you may have to run a webserver, you may have need for a browser simulator like selenium, and so on. Because of this, those kind of test are much slower than unit ones. Moreover, when an error arise from other tests but unit, as you have a "whole" funcionality, it will be more painful to hunt down the bug whereas with unit tests, at least, you know what class (or group of them) are causing the bug.
Having said that, remeber the statement about unit test speed and isolation? Well, speed helps you to "fail faster" (you don't need to wait the whole system bootstrap, whatever it means for your project) and fail in a more "localized" way (isolation).
My suggestion is to follow the test pyramid: a lot of unit tests (all possibile permutation of I/O, for instance, of a method) and only what's valuable for integration and above. Just to make an example: you can test a repository (that iteracts with DB, so something you can not do with unit) for a particular query, you can test for the login page or homepage to be reached (as a status for the application health) and so on.
My answer is just a short summary; hope that drives you in the right direction.
I have defined two test-suites in phpunit.xml file, one for Unit Tests and other for Functional Test. For some functions which can't be unit tested, I am using #codeCoverageIgnore in my source code. But I do not want this code to be ignored when running Functional Tests.
Is it possible to add test-suite name to codeCoverageIgnore so that my code is ignored for unit tests and not for functional tests.
No, that is not possible. If you think it should be possible then please open a ticket.
In addition to unit testing with PHPUnit, I would like to do integration testing where my php test is loaded just like a php page would be with all Apache context available to the test (and the methods being tested).
In JUnit and Spring I would do this by using the AbstractJUnit4SpringContextTests class which would load the application context and make it available to the tests. I don't see a similar concept in the PHPUnit documentation.
If you aren't able to (or don't want to) mock everything necessary to test PHP code, is there a way to run PHPUnit tests through Apache?
As a concrete example, I want to test a method that calls X existing methods, many of which use the _SERVER array or other request-specific variables that I can't mock without a lot of work.
I never try this, but it should work:
public function testSomeMethod()
{
$_SERVER['some-var'] = 'some value';
$x = $this->obj->getSomething();
$this->assertEquals('expected', $x);
}
You can also backup $_SERVER variable and restore it later.
I am currently going to start from scratch with the phpunit tests for a project. So I was looking into some projects (like Zend) to see how they are doing things and how they organizing their tests.
Most things are pretty clear, only thing I have some problems with is how to organize the test suites properly.
Zend has an AllTests.php from which loads others test suites.
Tough looking at the class it is useing PHPUnit_Framework_TestSuite to create a suite object and then add the other suites to it, but if I look in the PHPUnit docs for organizing tests in PHPUnit versions after 3.4 there is only a description for XML or FileHierarchy. The one using classes to organize the tests was removed.
I haven't found anything that this method is deprecated and projects like Zend are still using it.
But if it is deprecated, how would I be able to organize tests in the same structure with the xml configuration? Executing all tests is no problem, but how would I organize the tests (in the xml) if I only wanted to execute a few tests. Maybe creating several xmls where I only specify a few tests/test suites to be run?
So if I would want to only test module1 and module2 of the application, would I have an extra xml for each and defining test suites only for those modules (classes used by the module) in it. And also one that defines a test suite for all tests?
Or would it be better to use the #group annotation on the specific tests to mark them to be for module1 or module2?
Thanks in advance for pointing me to some best practices.
I'll start of by linking to the manual and then going into what I've seen and heard in the field.
Organizing phpunit test suites
Module / Test folder organization in the file system
My recommended approach is combining the file system with an xml config.
tests/
\ unit/
| - module1
| - module2
- integration/
- functional/
with a phpunit.xml with a simple:
<testsuites>
<testsuite name="My whole project">
<directory>tests</directory>
</testsuite>
</testsuites>
you can split the testsuites if you want to but thats a project to project choice.
Running phpunit will then execute ALL tests and running phpunit tests/unit/module1 will run all tests of module1.
Organization of the "unit" folder
The most common approach here is to mirror your source/ directory structure in your tests/unit/ folder structure.
You have one TestClass per ProductionClass anyways so it's a good approach in my book.
In file organization
One class per file.
It's not going to work anyways if you have more than one test class in one file so avoid that pitfall.
Don't have a test namespace
It just makes writing the test more verbose as you need an additional use statement so I'd say the testClass should go in the same namespace as the production class but that is nothing PHPUnit forces you to do. I've just found it to be easier with no drawbacks.
Executing only a few tests
For example phpunit --filter Factory executes all FactoryTests while phpunit tests/unit/logger/ executes everything logging related.
You can use #group tags for something like issue numbers, stories or something but for "modules" I'd use the folder layout.
Multiple xml files
It can be useful to create multiple xml files if you want to have:
one without code coverage
one just for the unit tests (but not for the functional or integration or long running tests)
other common "filter" cases
PHPBB3 for example does that for their phpunit.xmls
Code coverage for your tests
As it is related to starting a new project with tests:
My suggestion is to use #covers tags like described in my blog (Only for unit tests, always cover all non public functions, always use covers tags.
Don't generate coverage for your integration tests. It gives you a false sense of security.
Always use whitelisting to include all of your production code so the numbers don't lie to you!
Autoloading and bootstrapping your tests
You don't need any sort of auto loading for your tests. PHPUnit will take care of that.
Use the <phpunit bootstrap="file"> attribute to specify your test bootstrap. tests/bootstrap.php is a nice place to put it. There you can set up your applications autoloader and so on (or call your applications bootstrap for that matter).
Summary
Use the xml configuration for pretty much everything
Seperate unit and integration tests
Your unit test folders should mirror your applications folder structure
To only execute specif tests use phpunit --filter or phpunit tests/unit/module1
Use the strict mode from the get go and never turn it off.
Sample projects to look at
Sebastian Bergmanns "Bank Account" example project
phpBB3 Even so they have to fight some with their legacy ;)
Symfony2
Doctrine2
Basic Directory Structure:
I have been experimenting with keeping the test code right next to the code being tested, literally in the same directory with a slightly different file name from the file with the code it is testing. So far I am liking this approach. The idea is you don't have to spend time and energy keeping the directory structure in sync between your code and your test code. So if you change the name of the directory the code is in, you don't then also need to go and find and change the directory name for the test code. This also causes you to spend less time looking for the test code that goes with some code as it is right there next to it. This even makes it less of a hassle to create the file with the test code to begin with because you don't have to first find the directory with the tests, possibly create a new directory to match the one you are creating tests for, and then create the test file. You just create the test file right there.
One huge advantage of this is it means the other employees (not you because you would never do this) will be less likely to avoid writing test code to begin with because it is just too much work. Even as they add methods to existing classes they will be less likely to not feel like adding tests to the existing test code, because of the low friction of finding the test code.
One disadvantage is this makes it harder to release your production code without the tests accompanying it. Although if you use strict naming conventions it still might be possible. For example, I have been using ClassName.php, ClassNameUnitTest.php, and ClassNameIntegrationTest.php. When I want to run all the unit tests, there is a suite that looks for files ending in UnitTest.php. The integration test suite works similarly. If I wanted to, I could use a similar technique to prevent the tests from getting released to production.
Another disadvantage of this approach is when you are just looking for actual code, not test code, it takes a little more effort to differentiate between the two. But I feel this is actually a good thing as it forces us to feel the pain of the reality that test code is code too, it adds its' own maintenance costs, and is just as vitally a part of the code as anything else, not just something off to the side somewhere.
One test class per class:
This is far from experimental for most programmers, but it is for me. I am experimenting with only having one test class per class being tested. In the past I had an entire directory for each class being tested and then I had several classes inside that directory. Each test class setup the class being tested in a certain way, and then had a bunch of methods each one with a different assertion made. But then I started noticing certain conditions I would get these objects into had stuff in common with other conditions it got into from other test classes. The duplication become too much to handle, so I started creating abstractions to remove it. The test code became very difficult to understand and maintain. I realized this, but I couldn't see an alternative that made sense to me. Just having one test class per class seemed like it would not be able to test nearly enough situations without becoming overwhelming to have all that test code inside one test class. Now I have a different perspective on it. Even if I was right, this is a huge dampener on other programmers, and myself, wanting to write and maintain the tests. Now I am experimenting with forcing myself to have one test class per class being tested. If I run into too many things to test in that one test class, I am experimenting with seeing this as an indication that the class being tested is doing too much, and should be broken up into multiple classes. For removing duplication I am trying to stick to simpler abstractions as much as possible that allows everything to exist in one readable test class.
UPDATE
I am still using and liking this approach, but I have found a very good technique for reducing the amount of test code and the amount of duplication. It is important to write reusable assertion methods inside the test class itself that gets heavily used by the test methods in that class. It helps me to come up with the right types of assertion methods if I think of them as internal DSLs (something Uncle Bob promotes, well actually he promotes actually making internal DSLs). Sometimes you can take this DSL concept even further (actually make a DSL) by accepting a string parameter that has a simple value that refers to what kind of test you are trying to perform. For example, one time I made a reusable asssertion method that accepted a $left, $comparesAs, and a $right parameter. This made the tests very short and readable as the code read something like $this->assertCmp('a', '<', 'b').
Honestly, I can't emphasize that point enough, it is the entire foundation of making writing tests something that is sustainable (that you and the other programmers want to keep doing). It makes it possible for the value that tests add to outweigh what they take away. The point is not that you need to use that exact technique, the point is you need to use some kind of reusable abstractions that allow you to write short and readable tests. It might seem like I'm getting off topic from the question, but I'm really not. If you don't do this, you will eventually fall into the trap of needing to create multiple test classes per class being tested, and things really break down from there.
Is there a way to run in-memory database such as hsqldb?
I need it for unit testing. In Java there's no problem with it. But, unfortunately, there is a problem with it in PHP. So, is there a way?
You should be able to use this Perl module to access HSQLDB via PHP
https://metacpan.org/pod/DBD::JDBC
Ideally for unit testing you should be mocking your data access in order to test your components in isolation - so you would use mocks and stubs to remove the dependency on the database in your tests.