Skip to main content

Flow Testing - Initial Ideas

I'm toying with the idea of a new way to write tests. This is a cross between state and interaction based testing, and also tries to make setting up the test environments easier. I call it "Flow Testing" as it tests how the various states of the test target flow from one to the next.

The idea is several-fold. We begin on the idea that we are testing names, because everything in Python starts with a name. You will test different things about names, such as type, what attributes or other properties apply to certain conditions, etc.

Flow testing is very tree-oriented. For every name, you define the state you expect to begin, and branch into the state you expect for various properties. For example, you may have a state for the name 'foo' and a branch state for 'foo.bar'. These are branches within one state, while wthere are other branches across states called Interaction Branches. These states define the interactions that lead to them and the states expected.

The example below defines a test for a simple module that should have a simple function. It defines that the name foo should be a module and that the state of its 'bar' attribute should be a callable. It then defines the state of a call to bar, and details it under more specific conditions of the interaction (specific arguments given).

import flowtest

import foo


class test_foo(flowtest.State):
targetType = flowtest.module
targetHasAttributes = ('bar',)

class test_bar(flowtest.State):
targetType = flowtest.callable

class testReturn(flowtest.State):
targetType = basestring

class testReturn(flowtest.State):
flowtest.callArguments()
flowtest.callArguments('hi')

targetContains = u"hello"

class testReturn(flowtest.State):
flowtest.callArguments('bye')

targetType = basestring
targetContains = u"goodbye"


This is just an idea, and does not work or exist yet. Any comments? If it seems solid, I'd like to start working on it.

Comments

fumanchu said…
Hmm. My first reaction to the example code is, "what does it do?" Lots of inner classes (that never get instantiated?!) is off-putting at best. Isn't there a way to implement it so the user writes normal, imperative OO Python?

Also, the string "flowstate." is in there way too many times IMO to be an easy-to-use API. :/ Wouldn't it be cleaner if most of those were replaced with "self." (since you're already subclassing flowstate.State, etc.)?

Popular posts from this blog

Respect and Code Reviews

Code Reviews in a development team only function best, or possible at all, when everyone approaches them with respect. That’s something I’ve usually taken for granted because I’ve had the opportunity to work with amazing developers who shine not just in their technical skills but in their interpersonal skills on a team. That isn’t always the case, so I’m going to put into words something that often exists just in assumptions.
You have to respect your code. This is first only because the nature and intent of code reviews are to safeguard the quality of your code, so even having code reviews demonstrates a baseline of respect for that code. But, maybe not everyone on the team has the same level of respect or entered a team with existing review traditions that they aren’t acquainted with.
There can be culture shock when you enter a team that’s really heavy on code reviews, but also if you enter a team or interact with a colleague who doesn’t share that level of respect for the process or…

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this.


CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer. 
One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC?

It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on. The only re…

How To Care If BSD, MIT, or GPL Licenses Are Used

The two recent posts about some individuals' choice of GPL versus others' preference for BSD and MIT style licensing has caused a lot of debate and response. I've seen everything as an interesting combination of very important topics being taken far too seriously and far too personally. All involved need to take a few steps back.

For the uninitiated and as a clarifier for the initiated, we're dealing with (basically) three categories of licensing when someone releases software (and/or its code):
Closed Source. Easiest to explain, because you just get nothing.GPL. If you get the software, you get the source code, you get to change it, and anything you combine it with must be under the same terms.MIT and BSD. If you get the software, you might get the source code, you get to change it, and you have no obligations about anything else you combine it with.The situation gets stickier when we look at those combinations and the transitions between them.

Use GPL code with Closed S…