Skip to main content

Unit Tests? Integration Tests? Acceptance Tests? What do they mean?

I'm currently working with a new team who haven't really worked in an Agile way before, nor do they have much experience of what types of testing you can do on an application, so in preparation I tried to come up with simple definitions on the above types of tests.

I thought it would make a good blog post, as it's somethign that I would undoubtedly find useful at a future point... So here goes:

To define a Unit Test it's a simple test that tests a single piece of code/logic. When it fails it will tell you what piece of code is broken.

An Integration Test is a test that tests the combination of different pieces of an application, when it fails it will tell you that your system(s) are not working together as you thought they would.

An Acceptance Test is a test that tests the software does what is expected by the customer/user of the software. When it fails it tells you that your application is not doing what the customer/user thought it would do or even what it should do.

These are quick, simple and dirty definitions of the different types of testing you might come across in a project, there are more, but these are the ones that I am going through with the team, so these are the ones that have made it into this blog post!

Feel free to agree/disagree/add more...

Comments

  1. Your definitions are, more or less, what I would have said. But there is a key distinction that needs to be identified, I think, between Acceptance Testing, and all the rest.

    Instead of the traditional testing "pyramid", think instead, of a modern rail or vehicle bridge.

    All the "lower" forms of testing cover the "vertical" stacks: unit, functional, and even some forms of integration, basically are the tests that insure that the pillars or pylons of the bridge are sound.

    Acceptance Testing, however, covers the "horizontal plane". It is designed to be sure of one basic goal: can the user cross the bridge? Can he get from point A to point B, consistently?

    Why is this distinction important? Well, because it helps to better understand what we mean when we say something is "covered".

    Staying with the metaphor, I can write a Gherkin spec covering a user journey across that bridge that passes consistently for months. What does that tell us with any certainty about the underlying bridge supports? Only that they managed to keep the bridge up while I crossed it.

    But without unit, functional, and integration tests, the Gherkin specs can't know if any particular pillar has hairline cracks in the concrete, or that a faulty girder bolt has sheered and is putting extra stress on the suspension cables, or that debris is building up around the base, which will eventually rot the connecting beams.

    And why is all this important? Because a lot of people point to that old testing "pyramid" and complain about "duplication of effort", not realizing that you're testing *two different things*. The user journey, and the application, are fundamentally two different things. And the testing must reflect that. So yes, it's possible that some unit tests are exercising the same piece of code as a Gherkin spec, but they're doing it *under different conditions*, in different contexts, with different goals in mind. What those folks who complain about duplication are missing, is that testing is not a linear activity, and that product quality is not one-dimensional.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Testers: Be more like a Super-Villain!

Who doesn't love a Super Hero? Talk to my son, and he'll tell you how much he loves them, talk to many adults and they'll say the same! Deep down, we all love to be the Super Hero, we all want to save the day! However, I want to talk about the flip side of Super Heroes, the Super Villains... I often play Imaginext with my son, and I (unfortunately?) am nearly always the Super Villain! Be it Lex Luthor, Joker, Two Face, Mr Freeze or The Riddler! These are all great characters and great Super Villains, but why would I want to write about Super Villains? A while ago where I worked, we had a few Super Heroes, people who would be able to come in and "fix" things that had broken and help deliver projects on time. We then shifted, we decided to do away with the Super Hero culture and try and prevent from being in that position in the first place, whilst we didn't go as far as wanting to hire Super Villains, it's definitely a story that has stuck with me and t...

QA is Awesome!

No real point to this post other than I have had the song stuck in my head and figured I could change it slightly and quite easily make QA is Awesome! Oh and I haven't even seen the movie all the way through! But for some reason that song is incredibly catchy! Not much point to this post in fact, just thought I'd put it out there :)

What we (Asos Testers) are working towards this year...

At Asos we have a large testing team (30+ testers), they all work within their development teams, and the way development teams work can vary and understandably so. Helping the 30+ testers we have a number of Test Leads, of which I am one, recently we (the leads) all got together to come up with a plan of things that we feel we need to work on/define/have an idea of how to approach them for the next year to help improve our testing standards across the boards and improve the skillset of testers within the teams. To help with this we got together and came up with a mindmap, the plan going forward is for us to take ownership of one of the areas and come up with a strategy/approach/implement actions to help improve the areas and define whatever is needed. There's a lot there, and I'll probably write seperately about each one, and what we're doing, as it's always good to share ideas and get feedback... so watch this space!