Coding Is Like Cooking

JUseCase is the Java version of PyUseCase, for testing GUIs written in Swing. It was originally written as a master’s thesis by Claes Verdoes in 2005, under Geoff’s supervision. Since then it hasn’t been used much, and has lain idle and unmaintained for a while. In the meantime, Geoff has made some major changes to PyUseCase, culminating in the recent release of version 3.0, which I think is hugely better than any competing tools. But then I am biassed 🙂

I would love to see JUseCase resurrected and to support more of the features of PyUseCase 3.0. We originally got a lot of criticism of JUseCase that it required too many changes in application code; many developers are leery of changing their code to put in hooks “just for the tests”. PyUseCase 3.0 removes the need for much of that, and I think JUseCase could do the same.

In JUseCase, you have to connect widgets to domain actions by adding bits of code like this:

JTextField originField = new JTextField(“ANY");
ScriptedTextField.connect("choose origin", originField, ScriptedTextField.EDIT);

i.e. the text field “originField” should record a domain action “choose origin” when it is edited. This enables JUseCase to record and replay user actions in a domain language, at a higher level of abstraction than just widget names.

In PyUseCase 3.0 these kinds of code changes are replaced by the UI map file. Widgets are identified by name, something like this:

[Name=originField]
edited = choose origin

So all you have to do in the code is make sure all your widgets have unique names. Good names are useful for accessability, (blind people etc), and for internationalization, so you can argue you’re not just doing it for the tests.

The second thing that PyUseCase 3.0 does to reduce code changes is to automatically generate the UI log, rather than you having to insert log statements by hand. The UI log is the part of the test definition that TextTest uses to assert the application is behaving correctly. It should be a low-fidelity rendering of what the UI looks like, in plain text.

For example, for the simple application in my last post, the ui log might look like this:

---------- Window 'Book Animals for Procedures' ----------
Focus widget is 'available procedures'
Showing available procedures with columns: available procedures
-> abdominocentesis
-> haircut
-> re-shoe
-> milking ,
Showing available animals with columns: available animals , animal type
-> Good Morning Sunshine | mare
-> Goat 3 | goat
-> Goat 4 | goat
-> Guicho | gelding
-> Misty | mare
Button 'book'


This log is created just by inspecting the GUI elements in turn, and writing out a sketch of their contents.

In order to add to this log as the user interacts with the application, PyUseCase attaches itself as a listener to each widget, so it finds out when they change. Then after the user has done some actions, when the GUI event queue is empty, it takes the opportunity to write a few log statements about what has changed since the last time it logged something. In this way it produces a neat summary of what the user does and what the UI looks like after each action. I should think JUseCase could do something similar.

Then all that is left to hand code is to put in the application events – basically writing a log statement that you’re doing something in another thread of execution, that the tests should wait for before proceeding. There shouldn’t be too many of those calls, so hopefully they can slip under the radar.

Anyone looking for a masters thesis topic fancy giving it a go?

I recently read this post in Brian Marick’s blog, and it set me thinking. He’s talking about a test whose intention in some way survived three major GUI revisions. The test code had to be rewritten each time, but the essence of it was retained. He says:

I changed the UI of an app and so… I had to rewrite the UI code and the tests/checks of the UI code. It might seem the checks were worthless during the rewrite (and in 1997, I would have thought so). But it turns out that all (or almost all) of those checks contained an idea that needed to be preserved in the new interface. They were reminders of important things to think about, and that (it seemed to me) repaid the cost of rewriting them.

That was a big surprise to me.

I’m not sure why Brian is so surprised about this. If the user intentions and business rules are the same, then some aspects of the tests should also be preserved. A change in UI layout or technology should mean superficial changes only. In fact, one of the main claims for PyUseCase is that by having the tests written in a domain language decoupled from the specifics of the UI, it enables you to write tests that survive major UI changes. In practice this means when you rewrite the UI, you are saved the trouble of also rewriting the tests. So Geoff and I decided to write some code and see if this was true for the example Brian outlines.

In the blog post, there is only one small screenshot and some vague descriptions of the GUIs these tests are for, so we did some interpolation. I hope we have written an application that gets to the gist of the problem, although it is undoubtedly less beautiful and sophisticated than the one Brian was working on. All the code and tests is on launchpad here.

We started by writing an application which I hope is like his current GUI. You select animals in a list, click “book” and they appear in a new list below. You select procedures from another list, and unsuitable animals disappear.

In my app, I had to make up some procedures, in this case “milking”, which is unsuitable for Guicho (no udders on a gelding!), and “abdominocentesis” which is suitable for all animals, (no idea what that is, but it was in Brian’s example :-). Brian describes a test where an animal that is booked should not stay booked if you choose a procedure that is unsuitable for it, then change your mind and instead choose a procedure that it is suitable for.

select animals Guicho
book selected animals
choose procedure milking
choose procedure abdominocentesis
quit

This is a list of the actions the user must take in the GUI. So Guicho should disappear when you select “milking”, and reappear as available, but not as booked, when you select “abdominocentesis”. This information is not in the use case file, since it only documents user actions.

The other part of the test is the UI log, which documents what the application actually does in response to the user actions. This log is auto generated by pyUseCase. For this test, I won’t repeat the whole file, (you can view it here), but I will go through the important parts:

‘select animals’ event created with arguments ‘Guicho’

‘book selected animals’ event created with arguments ”

Updated : booked animals with columns: booked animals ,
-> Guicho | gelding

This part of the log shows that Guido is listed as booked.

‘choose procedure’ event created with arguments ‘milking’

Updated : available animals with columns: available animals , animal type
-> Good Morning Sunshine | mare
-> Goat 3 | goat
-> Goat 4 | goat
-> Misty | mare

Updated : booked animals with columns: booked animals ,

So you see that after we select “milking” the lists of available and booked animals are updated, Guicho disappears, and the “booked animals” section is now blank. The log goes on to show what happens when we select “abdominocentesis”:

‘choose procedure’ event created with arguments ‘abdominocentesis’

Updated : available animals with columns: available animals , animal type
-> Good Morning Sunshine | mare
-> Goat 3 | goat
-> Goat 4 | goat
-> Guicho | gelding
-> Misty | mare

‘quit’ event created with arguments ”

ie the “available animals” list is updated and Guicho reappears, but the booked animals list is not updated. This means we know the application behaves as desired – booked animals that are not suitable for a procedure do not reappear as booked if another procedure is selected.

Ok, so far so good. What happens to the test when we compeletely re-jig the UI and it instead looks like this?

Now there is no book button, and you book animals by ticking a checkbox. Selecting a procedure will remove unsuitable animals from the list in the same way as before. So now if you change your mind about the procedure, animals that reappear on the list should not be marked as booked, even if they were before they disappeared. There is no separate list of booked animals.

What we did was take a copy of the tests and the code, updated the code, and see what we needed to do to the tests to make them work again. In the end it was reasonably straightforward. We didn’t re-record or rewrite any tests. We just had to modify the use cases to remove the reference to the book button, and save new versions of the UI log to reflect the new UI layout. The use case part of the test looks like this now:

book animal Guicho
choose procedure milking
choose procedure abdominocentesis
quit

which is one line shorter than before, since we no longer have separate user actions for selecting and booking an animal.

So updating the tests to work with the changed UI consisted of:

1. remove reference to “book” button in UI map file, since button no longer exists
2. in use case files for all tests, replace “select animals x, y” with a line for each animal, “book animal x” and “book animal y”.
3. Run the tests. All fail in identical manner. Check the changes in the UI log file using a graphical diff tool, once. (no need to look at every test since they are grouped together as identical by TextTest)
4. Save the updated use cases and UI logs. (the spurious line “book selected animals” is removed from the use case files since the button no longer exists)
5. Run the tests again. All pass.

The new UI log file looks like this:

‘book animal’ event created with arguments ‘Guicho’

Updated : available animals with columns: is booked , available animals , animal type
-> Check box | Good Morning Sunshine | mare
-> Check box | Goat 3 | goat
-> Check box | Goat 4 | goat
-> Check box (checked) | Guicho | gelding
-> Check box | Misty | mare

‘choose procedure’ event created with arguments ‘milking’

Updated : available animals with columns: is booked , available animals , animal type
-> Check box | Good Morning Sunshine | mare
-> Check box | Goat 3 | goat
-> Check box | Goat 4 | goat
-> Check box | Misty | mare

‘choose procedure’ event created with arguments ‘abdominocentesis’

Updated : available animals with columns: is booked , available animals , animal type
-> Check box | Good Morning Sunshine | mare
-> Check box | Goat 3 | goat
-> Check box | Goat 4 | goat
-> Check box | Guicho | gelding
-> Check box | Misty | mare

‘quit’ event created with arguments ”

It is quite explicit that Guicho is marked as booked before he disappears, and not checked when he comes back. Updating the UI map file was very easy – we viewed it in a graphical diff tool, noted the new column for the checkbox and the lack of the list of booked animals were as expected, and clicked “save” in TextTest.

I only actually had like 5 tests, but updating them to cope with the changed UI was relatively straightforward, and would still have been straightforward even if I had had 600 of them.

I’m quite pleased the way PyUseCase coped in this case. I really believe that with this tool you will be able to write your tests once, and they will be able to survive many generations of your UI. I think this toy example goes some way to showing how.

I’ve been doing some work lately creating automated functional test suites using Selenium RC to simulate user interaction with a web GUI. I discovered quickly that the tests you record directly from selenium are rather brittle, and hard to read. In order to make the tests more robust and readable, I have been extracting reusable chunks of script that make sense from the user perspective, into separate methods. For example when testing a page for registering a new provider, you might have a ProviderPage domain class, with method “createNewProvider”. This method encapsulates all the selenium calls that interact with the page, and lets your test be written in terms of the domain.

I just saw this article from Patrick Wilson Welsh basically saying the same thing, only his DSL has three layers of indirection instead of just two. As well as encapsulating page operations in a Page class, he encapsulates operations on widgets within a page. I hadn’t thought of doing that. It makes the code in the Page class more readable. I might try that, and see if it improves my code.

Gathering ideas for my new dojo 🙂

Ivan Sanchez wrote about starting a coding dojo, and he rekons a Randori is best with 10 people or less. We will be more than 10 at JDojo@gbg. He suggests a prepared kata in that case. That might be possible. His favourite starting kata is KataMinesweeper.

Danilo Sato wrote about how to find suitable Katas, and suggests several for beginning dojos, including KataMinesweeper.

Gary Pollice wrote an article about what a coding dojo is, which is quite well explained, but doesn’t give any specific advice for new dojos.

The guys running the finnish dojo have a similar article about what a coding dojo is, and some rules. They put a maximum of 15 participants on their randori. They also introduce “iterations” of 30 minutes, and spend 5 minutes planning in between.

Lots of ideas to think about, anway.

I’m planning to start a new dojo this autumn, called JDojo@Gbg. I was inspired by the guys at Responsive in Linköping, who I met at XP2009. They have been running a dojo for some time now, and find it is an excellent way to introduce programmers from their clients to the ideas of Test Driven Development. I think we could do with more test infected programmers about the place in Göteborg, too.

I already run a dojo as part of GothPy, and Got.rb also runs regular Kata/dojo evenings, but because those programming languages are not mainstream, many developers wouldn’t consider coming along. That is why the new dojo is explicitly going to use Java, or at least, the JVM platform.

I’m thinking about what Katas we are going to tackle at the new dojo, and last night I had a go at KataFizzBuzz in Java. It is an extremely simple problem to solve, and initially I thought it was too easy to be a Kata actually. Then at agile2008 I was looking around for a Kata that Michael Feathers and I could perform in 4 minutes for the “Programming with the Stars” competition, and it seemed to fit the bill. I was quite pleased we got done in that short amount of time (in python of course 🙂

A couple of people have commented that this Kata is actually quite good for teaching TDD, just because it is so simple to solve. People are forced to think about TDD instead of the problem. It can easily be made more interesting by adding new requirements too. So I think I might try it out at JDojo@Gbg.