3. Overview
Junit and Cactus are popular tools for automating
testing of Java classes and web-based components
Automation accomplished using ANT (Java Make utility)
and often tested every time project built
These tools enable testers to “verify” the code is written
correctly – it was built right
Automated tests are very useful to show code works
correctly esp. after refactoring which is central to XP
I picked this article because deals with JUnit & Cactus,
offers a critique of the tools, and was practical, not just
theoretical
As this article describes, the tests themselves must be
built right in order to validate the code being tested
4. Outline
Theme: Risk when testing with JUnit & Cactus
Risk 1: No assert
Risk 2: Unreasonable assert
Risk 3: Console-Based Testing
Risk 4: Unfocused Test Method
Risk 5: Failure To Isolate Each Test
Risk 6: Failure to Isolate Subject
5. Analysis
Thesis: critique was correct but wordy, repetive, and
incomplete – missing some bigger pitfalls
Risk 1-3 are all the same – use assert correctly
Risk 4 is programming rule – write focused method
Risk 5 is JUnit rule – Use setUp and tearDown
Risk 6 is incomplete analysis of Cactus vs MockObj
Overview of Junit and Cactus, then discuss pitfalls, and
finally look at unmentioned pitfalls & issues
6. JUnit Overview
Popular and simple Java framework / library for
automating testing
Integrates well with ANT – Java Make utility
General idea: write one test class per testee
Write one method to verify each main feature
Test class must extend TestCase and each test method
must start with “test”
Order of test method execution varies
Use assertTrue() and assertEquals() to verify code
Use setUp() & tearDown() prepare testcase testfixture
7. JUnit code example
Following test cases test the collection methods, isEmpty() and add()
import junit.framework.*;
public class SimpleTest extends TestCase {
private java.uti.Collection collection;
protected void setUp() { collection = new ArrayList(); } //
instantiates collection test fixture
protected void tearDown() { collection.clear(); }
public void testEmptyCollection() {
assertTrue(collection.isEmpty());
}
public void testOneItemCollection() {
collection.add("itemA");
assertEquals(1, collection.size());
}
}
8. Cactus Overview
Built on Junit framework
Intended to test JSP, Servlets, EJBs, Filters, and custom
tags
Complex architecture that has client JVM call the J2EE
application server JVM via redirector
Testcase classes must reside on client and server
Adds two methods to Junit architecture, beginXX() and
endXX() which get called on client, rest on server
11. Risk 1-3 – No assert, Unreasonable assert,
Console-Based Testing
Risk 1-3 are all the same – use assert correctly
Very important and author points out a major guideline
test what is written in the javadocs for the testee
implies javadocs must be up-to-date with requirements
Author also points out to write a test case if encounter a
defect before it is corrected
However, using assertTrue() and assertEquals() is
obvious
These are the prominent features of the JUnit
12. Risk 4 – Unfocused Test Methods
Writing focused tests is really just writing good code
General rule of programming to make methods succinct,
this applies equally to test methods
Writing focused test methods is the whole point
13. Risk 5 – Failure To Isolate Each
Test
Risk 5 is really saying to use setUp() and tearDown() to prepare/release test
fixture, an obvious suggestion – example from JUnit site
Bigger pitfall is automating creation of the test fixture in distributed
environments
import junit.framework.*;
public class SimpleTest extends TestCase {
private java.uti.Collection collection;
protected void setUp() { collection = new ArrayList(); } // instantiates
collection test fixture for 2 tests
protected void tearDown() { collection.clear(); }
public void testEmptyCollection() {
assertTrue(collection.isEmpty());
}
public void testOneItemCollection() {
collection.add("itemA");
assertEquals(1, collection.size());
}
}
14. Risk 6 – Failure to Isolate Subject
Author points out one drawback of Cactus is that does
not isolate test case as MockObjects does
MockObjects simulates the Servlet container
Mock Object framework does isolate test but at big expense
Massive amount of stubs needed, more code to maintain
While Cactus may be better than MockObjects, it may
NOT be better than HttpUnit, why not compare these?
15. Alternative tools
HttpUnit cleaner, simpler tool than Cactus
HttpUnit is black box testing by calling webserver
Test code resides ONLY on client JVM
Various interfaces like JWebUnit (Java API) and
WebTest (XML) integrate well with ANT
Use Junit for unit tests and HttpUnit for functional
Features to analyze HTML, ie. table element tests
Features to input HTML form elements
http://www.junit.org/news/extension/index.htm
16. Conclusion
Article lists some useful guidelines & pitfalls in an wordy fashion
Many pitfalls were obvious and important ones not mentioned
Important pitfalls not mentioned include
Cost, complexity, difficulty of distributed tests not mentioned
Performs white box tests, yet, JUnit already does this
Does not test HTTP interface (tests presentation layer poorly)
Test code must reside in same package as testee & both JVMs
Testers must be programmers
JWebUnit & WebTest better for web unit testing
At times unclear when addressing Junit vs. Cactus and unnecessarily
complex coding examples
However, automating testing can save time and money in the long run
These tools, while not perfect, are major players for automated Java
testing and can verify functionality during development and refactoring