ISE Blog

A Portfolio Approach to Test Automation

At what level should you automate tests? Unit test only? GUI-driven tests? Something else? In this blog post, I reflect on a recent experience with both pain and value, and how I am coming to imagine a portfolio approach to test automation. 

Consider an example application or system (such as a web application or a mobile application). When viewed in layers, it might look like this:

Application in Layers
When I write an automated test for such a system, there are different levels of the system that might be tested. 

Automated Test in Levels
I think of these in the following terms:

  • "Unit Tests" and "Class Specification Tests" - these test individual modules or classes
  • "Integration Tests" or "Subsystem Tests" - these test multiple classes or modules working together, but not the whole system
  • "Full Stack Tests" - these test the whole system or application, perhaps through the GUI or APIs

As teams I've worked with have implemented different kinds of test automation, I've noticed the following patterns in these different kinds of tests:

Unit Tests and Class Specification Tests

Advantages

Disadvantages

  • Tests run very fast and provide immediate feedback
  • Easy to run both in the developer environment and in a Continuous Integration environment (e.g. Jenkins)
  • Can comprehensively test class/module behavior
  • When used with TDD (Test-Driven Development) or BDD (Behavior-Driven Development), helps drive clear class behavior
  • Writing classes for testability helps drive clear interfaces and modularity
  • Temptation to write "white box" tests that depend on implementation rather than behavior
  • A class may do what you designed it to do, but the overall system behavior can still be wrong; this level of testing does not reveal overall behavior. Easy to lose focus on the overall desired behavior.
  • Easy to write obscure tests (yes, the test is setting up this mock behavior, but why?)

 

Integration Tests and Subsystem Tests

Advantages

Disadvantages

  • Tests may run fast and provide immediate feedback
  • Can test that many classes interacting add up to desired behavior
  • When used with BDD, helps drive clear system behavior and clear visibility of intention
  • Encourages clear separation of logic from presentation - "removing logic from the GUI"
  • Establishing known conditions (e.g. database state) may slow down tests
  • Establishing the framework for "partial system" tests may take significant work
  • May be time consuming to test "many variations" of a scenario

 

Full Stack Tests

Advantages

Disadvantages

  • Provides high confidence that the entire system or application works - that all the parts play together and add up to the desired behavior
  • Can be easy to get started
  • GUI-driven tests in particular tend to be slow to run and fragile (high maintenance cost, intermittent failures)
  • Can be difficult to implement in Continuous Integration
  • Testing "many variations" of a scenario leads to long-running tests
  • May need to have "many instances" of the target environment to allow parallel testing

 

What's to be done?

I've noticed that when teams focus on only one of these kinds of testing, we get both the advantages - and disadvantages - of that kind of testing. For example, a team that focuses only on the Unit/Class level tests can create reusable, modular classes, but runs into unexpected system behavior. A team that focuses on GUI-level tests creates few integration bugs but finds that the suite of tests become less and less useful over time due to fragility and the length of time it takes to run the suite.

While I don't believe there is "one right answer," an approach I'm coming to is thinking of the overall test suite (including manual tests, which I have not discussed), as a portfolio. As such, the question becomes "what mix of tests will provide us with the best value for our investment?" Factors in determining a test mix might involve the following questions:

  • What kinds of issues create the most adverse impacts for us? How could we mitigate those first?
  • If we scale up a certain kind of testing (do more if it), how will that impact us? How will it benefit us?
  • What mix of skills and experience do we have? What investments would we need to make to extend our current capabilities?
  • What technical capabilities (for test) exist for our platforms? What would we need to invest to extend those?
  • What's needed to enable test-first development approaches (TDD and BDD)?
  • How can we get fast feedback?

For our current environment, my favorite mix of tests is:

  • Cucumber-style integration tests that run most of the application stack but bypass the GUI - these allow BDD in a desktop environment, even though our targets are web app (host side) and Android (device side).
  • Class specification tests - these allow fast BDD/TDD at the class level.
  • A small number of full stack tests that help ensure the overall application integration and user flows are in good shape.

Resources:

  • For a good introduction to Behavior-Driven Development, read The RSpec Book. While the book is specifically about Ruby, Cucumber and RSpec, the concepts port easily into other frameworks.
  • For BDD with C#, we use SpecFlow.

What about you? What determines your portfolio of test automation approaches? What parts of your approach work well, and what would you like to improve? Comment below and let us know your thoughts!

Andrew Smith, Principal Architect

Andrew Smith, Principal Architect

Andrew is a Principal Architect at ISE and leads ISE’s Agile community. He recently earned two new Agile certifications: ICAgile Certified Expert – Agile Coaching (ICE-AC) and ACI Certified Teams Transformation Coach (ACI-CTTC). Andrew is passionate about creating great teams, great software and great customer experiences, and is constantly looking for ways to adapt industry experience and best practices into ISE. In his free time, Andrew enjoys dancing Argentine Tango, public speaking with Toastmasters International, and Yoga.