Topic: Unit testing

In computer programming, unit testing is a procedure used to validate that individual modules or units of source code are working properly.

More technically one should consider that a unit is the smallest testable part of an application. In a Procedural Design a unit may be an individual program, function, procedure, web page, menu etc. But in Object Oriented Design, the smallest unit is always a Class; which may be a base/super class, abstract class or derived/child class.

A unit test is a test for a specific unit. Ideally, each test case is independent from the others; mock objects and test harnesses can be used to assist testing a module in isolation. Unit testing is typically done by the developers and not by end-users.

The goal of unit testing is to isolate each part of the program and show that the individual parts are correct. Unit testing provides a strict, written contract that the piece of code must satisfy. As a result, it affords several benefits.

Unit testing allows the programmer to refactor code at a later date, and make sure the module still works correctly (i.e. regression testing). The procedure is to write test cases for all functions and methods so that whenever a change causes a regression, it can be quickly identified and fixed. This provides the benefit of encouraging programmers to make changes to the code since it is easy for the programmer to check if the piece is still working properly. Good unit test design produces test cases that cover all paths through the unit with attention paid to loop conditions.

In continuous unit testing environments, through the inherent practice of sustained maintenance, unit tests will continue to accurately reflect the intended use of the executable and code in the face of any change. Depending upon established development practices and unit test coverage up-to-the-second accuracy can be maintained.

Unit testing helps to eliminate uncertainty in the units themselves and can be used in a bottom-up testing style approach. By testing the parts of a program first and then testing the sum of its parts, integration testing becomes much easier.

A heavily debated matter exists in assessing the need to perform manual integration testing. While an elaborate hierarchy of unit tests may seem to have achieved integration testing, this presents a false sense of confidence since integration testing evaluates many other objectives that can only be proven through the human factor. Some argue that given a sufficient variety of test automation systems, integration testing by a human test group is unnecessary. Realistically, the actual need will ultimately depend upon the characteristics of the product being developed and its intended uses. Additionally, the human or manual testing will greatly depend on the availability of resources in the organization.

Unit testing provides a sort of "living document". Clients and other developers looking to learn how to use the module can look at the unit tests to determine how to use the module to fit their needs and gain a basic understanding of the API.

Unit test cases embody characteristics that are critical to the success of the unit. These characteristics can indicate appropriate/inappropriate use of a unit as well as negative behaviors that are to be trapped by the unit. A unit test case, in and of itself, documents these critical characteristics, although many software development environments do not rely solely upon code to document the product in development.

On the other hand, ordinary narrative documentation is more susceptible to drifting from the implementation of the program and will thus become outdated (e.g. design changes, feature creep, relaxed practices to keep documents up to date).

Because some classes may have references to other classes, testing a class can frequently spill over into testing another class. A common example of this is classes that depend on a database: in order to test the class, the tester often writes code that interacts with the database. This is a mistake, because a unit test should never go outside of its own class boundary. As a result, the software developer abstracts an interface around the database connection, and then implements that interface with their own mock object. By abstracting this necessary attachment from the code (temporarily reducing the net effective coupling), the independent unit can be more thoroughly tested than may have been previously achieved. This results in a higher quality unit that is also more maintainable. In this manner, the benefits themselves begin returning dividends back to the programmer creating a seemingly perpetual upward cycle in quality.

Unit testing will not catch every error in the program. By definition, it only tests the functionality of the units themselves. Therefore, it will not catch integration errors, performance problems or any other system-wide issues. In addition, it may not be easy to anticipate all special cases of input the program unit under study may receive in reality. Unit testing is only effective if it is used in conjunction with other software testing activities.

It is unrealistic to test all possible input combinations for any non-trivial piece of software. Like all forms of software testing, unit tests can only show the presence of errors; it cannot show the absence of errors.

To obtain the intended benefits from unit-testing, a rigorous sense of discipline is needed throughout the software development process. It is essential to keep careful records, not only of the tests that have been performed, but also of all changes that have been made to the source-code of this or any other unit in the software. Use of a so-called "version control system" is essential: if a later version of the unit fails a particular test that it had previously passed, the version-control software can provide list of the source-code changes (if any) that have been applied to the unit since that time.