Is 100% code coverage a really good thing when doing unit tests? [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers. 开发者_JAVA百科

---

Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.

Closed 5 years ago.

The community reviewed whether to reopen this question last month and left it closed:

Original close reason(s) were not resolved

Improve this question

I always learned that doing maximum code coverage with unit tests is good. I also hear developers from big companies such as Microsoft saying that they write more lines of testing code than the executable code itself.

Now, is it really great? Doesn't it seem sometimes like a complete loss of time which has an only effect to making maintenance more difficult?

For example, let's say I have a method DisplayBooks() which populates a list of books from a database. The product requirements tell that if there are more than one hundred books in the store, only one hundred must be displayed.

So, with TDD,

1. I will start by making an unit test BooksLimit() which will save two hundred books in the database, call DisplayBooks(), and do an Assert.AreEqual(100, DisplayedBooks.Count).
2. Then I will test if it fails,
3. Then I'll change DisplayBooks() by setting the limit of results to 100, and
4. Finally I will rerun the test to see if it succeeds.

Well, isn't it much more easier to go directly to the third step, and do never make BooksLimit() unit test at all? And isn't it more Agile, when requirements will change from 100 to 200 books limit, to change only one character, instead of changing tests, running tests to check if it fails, changing code and running tests again to check if it succeeds?

Note: lets assume that the code is fully documented. Otherwise, some may say, and they would be right, that doing full unit tests will help to understand code which lacks documentation. In fact, having a BooksLimit() unit test will show very clearly that there is a maximum number of books to display, and that this maximum number is 100. Stepping into the non-unit-tests code would be much more difficult, since such limit may be implemented though for (int bookIndex = 0; bookIndex < 100; ... or foreach ... if (count >= 100) break;.

---

Well, isn't it much more easier to go directly to the third step, and do never make BooksLimit() unit test at all?

Yes... If you don't spend any time writing tests, you'll spend less time writing tests. Your project might take longer overall, because you'll spend a lot of time debugging, but maybe that's easier to explain to your manager? If that's the case... get a new job! Testing is crucial to improving your confidence in your software.

Unittesting gives the most value when you have a lot of code. It's easy to debug a simple homework assignment using a few classes without unittesting. Once you get out in the world, and you're working in codebases of millions of lines - you're gonna need it. You simply can't single step your debugger through everything. You simply can't understand everything. You need to know that the classes you're depending on work. You need to know if someone says "I'm just gonna make this change to the behavior... because I need it", but they've forgotten that there's two hundred other uses that depend on that behavior. Unittesting helps prevent that.

With regard to making maintenance harder: NO WAY! I can't capitalize that enough.

If you're the only person that ever worked on your project, then yes, you might think that. But that's crazy talk! Try to get up to speed on a 30k line project without unittests. Try to add features that require significant changes to code without unittests. There's no confidence that you're not breaking implicit assumptions made by the other engineers. For a maintainer (or new developer on an existing project) unittests are key. I've leaned on unittests for documentation, for behavior, for assumptions, for telling me when I've broken something (that I thought was unrelated). Sometimes a poorly written API has poorly written tests and can be a nightmare to change, because the tests suck up all your time. Eventually you're going to want to refactor this code and fix that, but your users will thank you for that too - your API will be far easier to use because of it.

A note on coverage:

To me, it's not about 100% test coverage. 100% coverage doesn't find all the bugs, consider a function with two if statements:

// Will return a number less than or equal to 3
int Bar(bool cond1, bool cond2) {
  int b;
  if (cond1) {
    b++;
  } else {
    b+=2;
  }

  if (cond2) {
    b+=2;
  } else {
    b++;
  }
}

Now consider I write a test that tests:

EXPECT_EQ(3, Bar(true, true));
EXPECT_EQ(3, Bar(false, false));

That's 100% coverage. That's also a function that doesn't meet the contract - Bar(false, true); fails, because it returns 4. So "complete coverage" is not the end goal.

Honestly, I would skip tests for BooksLimit(). It returns a constant, so it probably isn't worth the time to write them (and it should be tested when writing DisplayBooks()). I might be sad when someone decides to (incorrectly) calculate that limit from the shelf size, and it no longer satisfies our requirements. I've been burned by "not worth testing" before. Last year I wrote some code that I said to my coworker: "This class is mostly data, it doesn't need to be tested". It had a method. It had a bug. It went to production. It paged us in the middle of the night. I felt stupid. So I wrote the tests. And then I pondered long and hard about what code constitutes "not worth testing". There isn't much.

So, yes, you can skip some tests. 100% test coverage is great, but it doesn't magically mean your software is perfect. It all comes down to confidence in the face of change.

If I put class A, class B and class C together, and I find something that doesn't work, do I want to spend time debugging all three? No. I want to know that A and B already met their contracts (via unittests) and my new code in class C is probably broken. So I unittest it. How do I even know it's broken, if I don't unittest? By clicking some buttons and trying the new code? That's good, but not sufficient. Once your program scales up, it'll be impossible to rerun all your manual tests to check that everything works right. That's why people who unittest usually automate running their tests too. Tell me "Pass" or "Fail", don't tell me "the output is ...".

OK, gonna go write some more tests...

---

100% unit test coverage is generally a code smell, a sign that someone has come over all OCD over the green bar in the coverage tool, instead of doing something more useful.

Somewhere around 85% is the sweet spot, where a test failing more often that not indicates an actual or potential problem, rather than simply being an inevitable consequence of any textual change not inside comment markers. You are not documenting any useful assumptions about the code if your assumptions are 'the code is what it is, and if it was in any way different it would be something else'. That's a problem solved by a comment-aware checksum tool, not a unit test.

I wish there was some tool that would let you specify the target coverage. And then if you accidentally go over it, show things in yellow/orange/red to push you towards deleting some of the spurious extra tests.

---

When looking at an isolated problem, you're completely right. But unit tests are about covering all the intentions you have for a certain piece of code.

Basically, the unit tests formulate your intentions. With a growing number of intentions, the behavior of the code to be tested can always be checked against all intentions made so far. Whenever a change is made, you can prove that there is no side-effect which breaks existing intentions. Newly found bugs are nothing else but an (implicit) intention which is not held by the code, so that you formulate your intention as new test (which fails at first) and the fix it.

For one-time code, unit tests are indeed not worth the effort because no major changes are expected. However, for any block of code which is to be maintained or which serves as component for other code, warranting that all intentions are held for any new version is worth a lot (in terms of less effort for manually trying to check for side effects).

The tipping point where unit tests actually save you time and therefore money depends on the complexity of the code, but there always is a tipping point which usually is reached after only few iterations of changes. Also, last but not least it allows you to ship fixes and changes much faster without compromising the quality of your product.

---

There is no exlpicit relation between code coverage and good software. You can easily imagine piece of code that has 100%(or close) code coverage and it still contains a lot of bugs. (Which does not mean that tests are bad!)

Your question about agility of 'no test at all' approach is a good one only for short perspective (which means it is most likely not good if you plan to build your program for longer time). I know from my experience that such simple tests are very useful when your project gets bigger and bigger and at some stage you need to make significant changes. This can be a momment when you'll say to yourself 'It was a good decision to spend some extra minutes to write that tiny test that spotted bug I just introduced!".

I was a big fan of code coverage recently but now it turned (luckilly) to something like 'problems coverage' approach. It means that your tests should cover all problems and bugs that were spotted not just 'lines of code'. There is no need to do a 'code coverage race'.

I understand 'Agile' word in terms of number tests as 'number of tests that helps me build good software and not waste time to write unnecessary piece of code' rather than '100% coverage' or 'no tests at all'. It's very subjective and it based on your experience, team, technology and many others factors.

The psychological side effect of '100% code coverage' is that you may think that your code has no bugs, which never is true:)

---

Sorry for my english.

100% code coverage is a managerial physiological disorder to impress stakeholders artificially. We do testing because there is some complex code out there which can lead to defects. So we need to make sure that the complex code has a test case, its tested and the defects are fixed before its live.

We should aim at test something which is complex and not just everything. Now this complex needs to be expressed in terms of some metric number which can be ether cyclomatic complexity , lines of code , aggregations , coupling etc. or its probably culmination of all the above things. If we find that metric higher we need to ensure that , that part of the code is covered. Below is my article which covers what is the best % for code coverage.

Is 100% code coverage really needed ?

---

I agree with @soru, 100% test coverage is not a rational goal.

I do not believe that any tool or metric can exist that can tell you the "right" amount of coverage. When I was in grad school, my Thesis advisor's work was on designing test coverage for "mutated" code. He's take a suite of tests, and then run an automated program to make errors in the source code under test. The idea was that the mutated code contained errors that would be found in the real world, and thus a test suite that found the highest percentage of broken code was the winner.

While his thesis was accepted, and he is now a Professor at a major engineering school, he did not find either:

1) a magic number of test coverage that is optimal 2) any suite that could find 100% of the errors.

Note, the goal is to find 100% of the errors, not to find 100% coverage.

Whether @soru's 85% is right or not is a subject for discussion. I have no means to assess if a better number would be 80% or 90% or anything else. But as a working assessment, 85% feels about right to me.

---

First 100% is hard to get especially on big projects ! and even if you do when a block of code is covered it doesn't mean that it is doing what it is supposed to unless your test are asserting every possible input and output (which is Almost impossible).

So i wouldn't consider a piece of software to be good simply because it has 100% code coverage but code coverage still a good thing to have.

Well, isn't it much more easier to go directly to the third step, and do never make BooksLimit() unit test at all?

well having that test there makes you pretty confident that if someone changes the code and the test fails you will notice that something is wrong with the new code therefore you avoid any potencial bug in your application

---

When the client decides to change the limit to 200, good luck finding bugs related to that seemingly trivial test. Specially, when you have other 100 variables in your code, and there are other 5 developers working on code that relies on that tiny piece of information.

My point: if it's valuable to the business value (or, if you dislike the name, to the very important core of the project), test it. Only discard when there is no possible (or cheap) way of testing it, like UI or user interaction, or when you are sure the impact of not writing that test is minimal. This holds truer for projects with vague, or quickly changing requirements [as I painfully discovered].

For the other example you present, the recommended is to test boundary values. So you can limit your tests to only four values: 0, some magical number between 0 and BooksLimit, BooksLimit, and some number higher.

And, as other people said, make tests, but be 100% positive something else can fail.