Note: this article was first published on Praqma’s blog
Writing tests for ‘Theatrical Players’
When I read Fowler’s new ‘Refactoring’ book I felt sure the example from the first chapter would make a good Code Kata. However, he didn’t include the code for the test cases. I can fix that!
Martin Fowler recently published a new edition of his classic book ‘Refactoring’. The first chapter is a worked example of how he would go about refactoring a small piece of code that he needs to update with some new functionality.
This is a really common scenario faced by software developers daily. It’s impossible to anticipate every future change and enhancement, so the design of the code will often not be extensible in the direction you need to take it. Refactoring the design in order to make a proposed update easier is an essential skill.
I like using small exercises to practice these kinds of skills, called ‘Code Katas’. I’ve got a whole collection of them in my book ‘The Coding Dojo Handbook’, and more on my github page. When I saw Fowler’s example I felt it would make a really good kata. The particular refactoring techniques he demonstrates are techniques that many developers would benefit from learning and practicing.
I asked Fowler for permission to use his code, which he kindly granted, then I set about transforming this example into a kata.
Creating a new Code Kata
This is Fowler’s example javascript code, which produces a statement for a customer. The new functionality that’s needed is to produce the same information but formatted as HTML.
statement.js
function statement (invoice, plays) {
let totalAmount = 0;
let volumeCredits = 0;
let result = `Statement for ${invoice.customer}\n`;
const format = new Intl.NumberFormat("en-US",
{ style: "currency", currency: "USD",
minimumFractionDigits: 2 }).format;
for (let perf of invoice.performances) {
const play = plays[perf.playID];
let thisAmount = 0;
switch (play.type) {
case "tragedy":
thisAmount = 40000;
if (perf.audience > 30) {
thisAmount += 1000 * (perf.audience - 30);
}
break;
case "comedy":
thisAmount = 30000;
if (perf.audience > 20) {
thisAmount += 10000 + 500 * (perf.audience - 20);
}
thisAmount += 300 * perf.audience;
break;
default:
throw new Error(`unknown type: ${play.type}`);
}
// add volume credits
volumeCredits += Math.max(perf.audience - 30, 0);
// add extra credit for every ten comedy attendees
if ("comedy" === play.type) volumeCredits += Math.floor(perf.audience / 5);
// print line for this order
result += ` ${play.name}: ${format(thisAmount/100)} (${perf.audience} seats)\n`;
totalAmount += thisAmount;
}
result += `Amount owed is ${format(totalAmount/100)}\n`;
result += `You earned ${volumeCredits} credits\n`;
return result;
}
As you can see, the logic for formatting the statement is all mixed up with the calculation logic, so as it stands it’s not straightforward to add the HTML formatting feature. What’s needed is to change the design and detangle the logic, via refactoring.
Fowler mentions that the first step in refactoring is always the same – to ensure you have a solid set of tests for that section of code.
However, he did not include the test code he used in the book. (It’s a book primarily about refactoring, and I guess including test code would have taken attention away from that topic). To make this example into a Kata, I wanted to include some tests.
The testing approach I favour in this kind of situation is approval testing. The code exists already and it works, so the easiest way to add a regression test is to find some test data, exercise the code, and approve the result.
This is different from a test-driven development approach where you define the test case before the code exists. (You can use approval testing in that kind of scenario too, but that’s a topic for another article). I usually find it much quicker and easier to add an approval test to existing code than a classic assertion-based test case.
Creating a first approval test
Fowler supplies us with some test data – a sample invoice:
invoice.json
{
"customer": "BigCo",
"performances": [
{
"playID": "hamlet",
"audience": 55
},
{
"playID": "as-like",
"audience": 35
},
{
"playID": "othello",
"audience": 40
}
]
}And a list of plays:
plays.json
{
"hamlet": {"name": "Hamlet", "type": "tragedy"},
"as-like": {"name": "As You Like It", "type": "comedy"},
"othello": {"name": "Othello", "type": "tragedy"}
}
The function that we want to test, statement, returns the information to send to the customer, formatted as a plain text string. This statement string is perfect to use as the approved value in the approval test.
This is the test case I designed, it uses the Jest testing framework:
statement.test.js
test('example statement', () => {
const invoice = JSON.parse(fs.readFileSync('test/invoice.json', 'utf8'));
const plays = JSON.parse(fs.readFileSync('test/plays.json', 'utf8'));
const statement_string = statement(invoice, plays);
expect(statement_string).toMatchSnapshot();
});
First, I read both data files and parse them into javascript objects. Then I call the function we want to test – “statement” and store the result in the ‘statement_string’ constant. The last line of the test checks that this result matches the approved value. What it does is compare the actual value against a stored value which I checked and approved earlier.
This is kept in another file:
__snapshots__/statement.test.js.snap
exports[`example statement 1`] = `
"Statement for BigCo
Hamlet: $650.00 (55 seats)
As You Like It: $580.00 (35 seats)
Othello: $500.00 (40 seats)
Amount owed is $1,730.00
You earned 47 credits
"
`;
Is it called Snapshot or Approval testing?
The Jest testing framework calls the approved value a ‘snapshot’. I prefer to talk about ‘approval’ testing and comparing with an ‘approved’ value. I think these words get to the heart of what you’re doing – deciding what is good enough to test against.
‘Snapshot’ as a word just implies it will be updated again soon. I like to emphasize the human agency involved in inspecting and deciding whether to approve a new value or not.
Is this test good enough to support refactoring?
This test goes a long way to giving us the confidence we need to start refactoring the ‘statement’ code. It generates a full statement with test data that seems realistic enough for this context.
I think it’s a good idea to do a little more analysis of whether this test is sufficient to support the refactoring we want to do. One way to do that is to run the test and measure code coverage. Lines of code that are not covered could be refactored away, or have bugs inserted into them, without the tests failing.
The coverage data shows only one line of code which is not covered by this test:
Line 28 in statement.js:
throw new Error(`unknown type: ${play.type}`);
Our test case is pretty good, to only have one line uncovered. The test data supplied by Fowler includes different kinds of play that already exercise several paths through the code.
This code path is different, however. If you end up on this line then the function aborts, and doesn’t produce a statement. We can’t tweak the data in our existing code to make it also execute this line and still produce a statement.
What we need is an additional test, one that uses an unsupported play type. I invented some new data that continues the Theatrical theme:
new_plays.json
{
"henry-v": {"name": "Henry V", "type": "history"},
"as-like": {"name": "As You Like It", "type": "pastoral"}
}
invoice_new_plays.json
{
"customer": "BigCoII",
"performances": [
{
"playID": "henry-v",
"audience": 53
},
{
"playID": "as-like",
"audience": 55
}
]
}
This is the test case that uses them:
statement.test.js
test('statement with new play types', () => {
const invoice = JSON.parse(fs.readFileSync('test/invoice_new_plays.json', 'utf8'));
const plays = JSON.parse(fs.readFileSync('test/new_plays.json', 'utf8'));
expect(() => {statement(invoice, plays)}).toThrow(/unknown type/);
});
This test is not an approval test, it’s a normal assertion-based test. It checks that the error is thrown and the message contains the string ‘unknown type’.
I could have instead used an approval test to check the error message. In this case I chose not to do that. The string to be checked is quite short, and there is little advantage in storing it in a separate file away from the test code.
Confidence in the tests
With that test added, we’re more confident we can use this test suite to support refactoring.
We have 100% coverage now, after all. Unfortunately, that is no guarantee that our tests are perfect, or even reasonably good. One thing I like to do is a spot of (manual) mutation testing. to assess how good my tests are.
I edit the code to insert a bug, then run my tests. If they fail, then that’s a good sign. I might try adding bugs in several different places to increase my confidence.
When I try it on this code, I find any change that affects the way the statement is presented gives me a failing test. I can also easily get a nice diff showing exactly what I broke.
I’m now feeling pretty confident these tests will be good enough to support refactoring.
This is a good starting point for the kata. From here you can practice all the refactorings demonstrated by Fowler in his book, with a safety net to alert you if you make a mistake.
When you come to implement the HTML rendering feature, it should be straightforward to add a new test for it too.
Adding more languages to your tests
In the book, the example language is Javascript, which is widely-used and understood. I often work with teams who also use languages like Java, C# and Python, and the refactoring techniques are just as relevant in those languages. Once I had this JavaScript version working, I added a translation or two. One of the reasons I keep my exercises publicly available on GitHub is so that people can send me pull requests.
If you’d like to do this exercise in a programming language that’s not supported yet, you can fix that for everyone 🙂 I particularly like getting pull requests with translations of my exercises.
The published code kata
The starting point for this new exercise ‘Theatrical-Players-Refactoring-Kata’ is now published and available for download.
The first chapter of ‘Refactoring’ containing a worked solution to this problem is available as a free sample. You have every opportunity to practice and learn these testing and refactoring techniques now.
Happy coding!
