CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2012/ch1 1w18 as: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
==== Functionality ==== | ==== Functionality ==== | ||
Line 74: | Line 72: | ||
|- | |- | ||
|} | |} | ||
==== Code Example ==== | ==== Code Example ==== |
Revision as of 02:47, 11 September 2012
Testing frameworks for Ruby
Introduction
Due to the rapid expansion in the use of Ruby through Ruby on Rails, the landscape of the Ruby testing framework has changed dramatically in recent years. Because of this, it provides a great story in the evolution of these testing frameworks.
Software Testing
Across all of the testing frameworks that Ruby has, most of them fall into two categories: Test Driven Development and Behavior Driven Development. These two types of development styles helped to drive the evolution of the Ruby testing frameworks we will be discussing.
Introduction
Testing Approaches
Test Driven Development (TDD)
Behavior Driven Development (BDD)
Testing in Ruby
There are different testing frameworks available in Ruby<ref name = rubytool />:
Since this will be a comparison across the different frameworks listed, using a common class to test against will provide us with a baseline for our comparisons. As such, we will use the following class implementing a bank account:
class Account @balance @name attr_accessor :balance attr_accessor :name def initialize(amount) @balance = amount end def deposit(amount) @balance += amount end def addinterest(rate) @balance *= (1 + rate) end def withdrawal(amount) @balance -= amount end end
Riot
- HAVE TO MODIFY FROM THIS POINT ********
Overview
Functionality
assert | assert_nil | assert_not_nil | assert_equal | assert_not_equal |
assert_in_delta | assert_raise | assert_nothing_raised | assert_instance_of | assert_kind_of |
assert_respond_to | assert_match | assert_no_match | assert_same | assert_not_same |
assert_operator | assert_throws | assert_send | flunk |
Code Example
require "test/unit" require_relative("../Account.rb") class AccountTest < Test::Unit::TestCase def test_balance a = Account.new(100) assert_equal(100, a.balance()) end def test_deposit a = Account.new(100) assert_equal(200, a.deposit(100)) end def test_withdrawal a = Account.new(100) assert_equal(50, a.withdrawal(50)) end def test_name a = Account.new(100) a.name = "Checking" assert_not_nil(a.name()) end def test_interest a = Account.new(100) assert_equal(150, a.addinterest(0.5)) end def test_fail a = Account.new(100) assert_equal(200, a.balance()) end end
From this we will get the output:
Loaded suite AccountTest-ut Started ..F... Finished in 0.000782 seconds. 1) Failure: test_fail(AccountTest) [AccountTest-ut.rb:40]: <200> expected but was <100>. 6 tests, 6 assertions, 1 failures, 0 errors, 0 skips
Here we can see that in total all 6 test methods were run with one of them failing. The failing test method is indicated by name with the code line, expected output and actual output.
MiniTest
Overview
MiniTest is one of the more recent additions to the Ruby Testing frameworks. MiniTest was created to be a small, clean and fast replacement for the Test::Unit framework.
As previously mentioned, MiniTest is included in the standard library as of Ruby 1.9. (If you are running Ruby 1.8, you can run gem install minitest to get Mini::Test. Alternately, you can install the test-unit gem if you have Ruby 1.9 and want to get the Test::Unit functionality.) MiniTest provides both a Test Driven Development framework and a Behavior Driven Development Framework. Test cases in MiniTest::Unit are built similarly to those in Test::Unit - you create test cases with test methods containing assertions along with optional setup and teardown methods .
Because Mini::Test was based on familiar frameworks, using it is realtively intuitive. As creator, Ryan Davis says, "There is no magic". (View Ryan's presentation on Mini::Test at the Cascadia Ruby 2011 conference.) Mini::Test is simple and straightforward.
Functionality
Most of the assertions in Mini::Test::TestCase are the same as those in its predecessor with some new ones added. The most notable difference is in the negative assertions. In Test::Unit where you have an assert_not_something method, Mini::Test gave them a streamlined name of a refute_something method. (assert_not_raise and assert_not_throws are no longer available.) Mini::Test::Unit provides the following assertions:
assert | assert_block | assert_empty | refute | refute_empty | |
assert_equal | assert_in_delta | assert_in_epsilon | refute_equal | refute_in_delta | refute_in_epsilon |
assert_includes | assert_instance_of | assert_kind_of | refute_includes | refute_instance_of | refute_kind_of |
assert_match | assert_nil | assert_operator | refute_match | refute_nil | refute_operator |
assert_respond_to | assert_same | assert_output | refute_respond_to | refute_same | |
assert_raises | assert_send | assert_silent | assert_throws |
Additional Features
Aside from the API improvements, Mini::Test also provides some additional features such as test randomization. In unit testing, tests should run independent from each other (i.e. the outcome or resulting state(s) of one test should not affect another). By randomizing the order, Mini::Test prevents tests from becoming order-dependent. Should you need to repeat a particular order to test for such issues, Mini::Test provides the current seed as part of the output and gives you the option to run the test using this same seed.
Mini::Test also gives you the ability to skip tests that are not working correctly (for debug at a later time) as well as additional options for determining the performance of your test suite.
Code Example - Mini::Test:Unit
MiniSpec
Overview
MiniSpec (the BDD component of Mini::Test) borrowed concepts from existing BDD frameworks, such as RSpec and Shoulda. Test cases are created using expectations instead of assertions.
MiniSpec contains the following expectations:
must_be | must_be_close_to | must_be_empty | wont_be | wont_be_close_to | wont_be_empty |
must_be_instance_of | must_be_kind_of | must_be_nil | wont_be_instance_of | wont_be_kind_of | wont_be_nil |
must_be_same_as | must_be_silent | must_be_within_delta | wont_be_same_as | wont_be_within_delta | |
must_be_within_epsilon | must_equal | must_include | wont_be_within_epsilon | wont_equal | wont_include |
must_match | must_output | must_raise | wont_match | ||
must_respond_to | must_send | must_throw | wont_respond_to |
Functionality
Code Example - MiniSpec
Capybara
Overview
Functionality
Code Example
Jasmine
Overview
Code Example
Conclusion
Testing has always been an integral part of the Ruby landscape. This culture of testing has given rise to a variety of different testing frameworks. In this article we have reviewed only a few of the most popular offerings<ref name = rubytool /> representing both the Test Driven Development and Behavior Driven Development styles. The matrix below provides a summary of the tools highlighted on this page. Should none of these frameworks meet the Ruby programmer's needs, there are currently a number of others with more being developed every day. See the Ruby Toolbox for a list of additional Ruby testing options.
Framework Matrix
Framework | Website | Documentation | IDE Integration | Type | Ease of Use |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Riot | RubyDoc | RubyDoc | Eclipse, RubyMine | TDD | Easy to learn; Easy to use |
MiniTest | GitHub | RubyDoc | Eclipse | TDD/BDD | Easy to learn; Easy to use |
MiniSpec | http://rspec.info/ | http://rspec.info/ | Eclipse, RubyMine | BDD | Slightly more difficult to learn due to BDD topology; Easy to use |
Capybara | GitHub | RubyDoc | Eclipse, RubyMine | BDD | Easy to learn; Easy to use |
Jasmine | Cucumber | Cucumber Wiki | RubyMine | BDD | Steeper learning curve; Complexity makes use a bit more challenging |
References
<references> <ref name = dannorth> http://dannorth.net/introducing-bdd </ref> <ref name = rubytool> http://ruby-toolbox.com/categories/testing_frameworks.html </ref> <ref name = progruby> Programming Ruby: The Pragmatic Programmers' Guide, Second Ed. </ref> </references>