As an absolute beginner to the language I needed to write my first Perl script. As a big fan of Test-Driven Development (TDD) I thought it would be a good idea to start with a test when doing the first Perl program. And it worked really nice. This post should be a simple step-by-step tutorial for Perl beginners who want to write simple Unit Tests for Perl. I will use my first Perl script as an example.
The Example: A ClearCase trigger
To customize the behaviour of ClearCase you have to write Perl scripts
which can be associated with any ClearCase command as a so called
ClearCase trigger (see IBM Rational ClearCase: The ten best triggers). For my example, I needed a trigger that updates a FitNesse Wiki page (the file name is always "content.txt") when it is checked-in to ClearCase. If the file contains a string like "$Revision: \main\MAINLINE_SQE\3 $" the Perl script should update the version information. That's it.
Step-by-Step Tutorial
Install Perl.
Create a folder "PerlScripts" for the new Perl scripts. We will have two files in this folder: "CiVersionFitnesseTrigger.pl" is the Perl script for the trigger. "CiVersionFitnesseTriggerTests.pl" is the Perl script for the corresponding Unit Tests.
Download the Test::Simple Perl module. Unpack the gz archive. We will only need the file "Simple.pm" from the folder "lib/Test". Create a folder "Test" as sub folder of our "PerlScripts" folder. Copy the file "Simple.pm" to this "Test" folder.
We start writing our first test in "CiVersionFitnesseTriggerTests.pl":
use Test::Simple tests => 1;
# System under test
require 'CiVersionFitnesseTrigger.pl';
# Testing is_fitnesse_wiki_page() method
ok(FitTrigger::is_fitnesse_wiki_page('content.txt'), 'content.txt is page');
We start defining an empty sub routine and an empty main routine in "CiVersionFitnesseTrigger.pl":
package FitTrigger;
sub is_fitnesse_wiki_page {
return 0;
}
#
# Main method
#
1;
We can now run the first unit test and see it failing:
Now we have the infrastructure to start implementation. We fix the first failing test:
package FitTrigger;
sub is_fitnesse_wiki_page {
my ($file_name) = @_;
return $file_name =~ m/^(.*\\)?content\.txt$/
}
#
# Main method
#
1;
Now run the unit test again and it succeeds:
We continue the cycle of writing new unit tests and implementing the script step by step. In the end we have 12 unit tests and 1 integration test:
use Test::Simple tests => 13;
# System under test
require 'CiVersionFitnesseTrigger.pl';
# Testing is_fitnesse_wiki_page() method
ok(FitTrigger::is_fitnesse_wiki_page('content.txt'), 'content.txt is page');
ok(FitTrigger::is_fitnesse_wiki_page('c:\content.txt'), 'c:\content.txt is page');
ok(FitTrigger::is_fitnesse_wiki_page('..\content.txt') , '..\content.txt is page');
ok(FitTrigger::is_fitnesse_wiki_page('c:\temp\content.txt'), 'c:\temp\content.txt is page');
ok(!FitTrigger::is_fitnesse_wiki_page('content.txt.old') , 'content.txt.old is not a page');
ok(!FitTrigger::is_fitnesse_wiki_page('somecontent.txt') , 'somecontent.txt is not a page');
ok(!FitTrigger::is_fitnesse_wiki_page('content.txt\something.txt') , 'content.txt\something.txt is not a page');
# Testing getTempFolder() method
my $tmpFolder = FitTrigger::get_temp_folder();
ok(defined($tmpFolder) && $tmpFolder ne '' && length($tmpFolder) > 1 , 'temporary folder not empty');
# Testing getTempFile() method
my $tmpFile = FitTrigger::get_temp_file();
ok(defined($tmpFile) && $tmpFile ne '' && length($tmpFile) > 1 , 'temporary file not empty');
# Testing update_revision_in_target() method
my $testFile = "$tmpFolder\\test.txt";
my $targetFile = "$tmpFolder\\target.txt";
open("TESTFILE", ">$testFile") ||
&error("Could not open test File $testFile for writing");
print TESTFILE "hallo1\nhallo2\n\$Revision: VERSION_ZZZ \$\n";
close TESTFILE;
my $newVersion = 'VERSION_111';
FitTrigger::update_revision_in_target($testFile,$targetFile,$newVersion);
open(F,"$targetFile");
my @list = ;
my $content=join('',@list);
close F;
my $expectedContent = "hallo1\nhallo2\n\$Revision: VERSION_111 \$\n";
ok($content eq $expectedContent, 'version was updated in target file');
# Testing overwrite_file() method
FitTrigger::overwrite_file($targetFile,$testFile);
open(F2,"$testFile");
@list=;
my $newContent =join('',@list);
close F2;
ok($newContent eq $expectedContent, 'file was overwritten with a modified file');
ok(! -e $targetFile, 'modified file is deleted');
# Testing main() method
$testFile = "$tmpFolder\\content.txt";
open("TESTFILE", ">$testFile") ||
&error("Could not open test File $testFile for writing");
print TESTFILE "hallo1\nhallo2\n\$Revision: VERSION_ZZZ \$\n";
close TESTFILE;
$ENV{CLEARCASE_PN}=$testFile;
$ENV{CLEARCASE_ID_STR}='VERSION_888';
system ("perl CiVersionFitnesseTrigger.pl");
my $expectedContentMain = "hallo1\nhallo2\n\$Revision: VERSION_888 \$\n";
open(F3,"$testFile");
@list=;
my $newContentMain =join('',@list);
close F3;
ok($newContentMain eq $expectedContentMain, 'perl script has updated content.txt');
The complete implementation in "CiVersionFitnesseTrigger.pl" looks like:
package FitTrigger;
sub is_fitnesse_wiki_page {
my ($file_name) = @_;
return $file_name =~ m/^(.*\\)?content\.txt$/
}
sub get_temp_folder {
my $tmp_folder = $ENV{TMP};
$tmp_folder = $ENV{TEMP} unless ($tmp_folder);
$tmp_folder = "/tmp" unless ($tmp_folder);
return $tmp_folder;
}
sub get_temp_file {
my $tmp_folder = get_temp_folder();
return "$tmpFolder\\ccTriggerTmp.$$";
}
sub update_revision_in_target {
my $source = @_[0];
my $target = @_[1];
my $revision = @_[2];
open("SOURCE", "$source") ||
&error("Could not open source file $source for reading");
open("TARGET", ">$target") ||
&error("Could not open target file $target for reading");
while ()
{
if (/\$Revision:?.*\$/) {
s/\$Revision:?.*\$/\$Revision: $revision \$/;
}
print TARGET;
}
close SOURCE;
close TARGET;
}
sub overwrite_file {
my $source = @_[0];
my $target = @_[1];
open (SOURCE, "$source") ||
&error ("Could not open source file $source for reading");
open (TARGET, ">$target") ||
&error ("Could not open target file $target for writing");
while() {
print TARGET;
}
close(SOURCE);
close(TARGET);
unlink($source);
}
sub error {
my ($message) = @_;
die ($message."\nUnable to continue checkin ...\n");
}
#
# Main method
#
# Summary:
# If the name of the checkin file is ‘content.txt’ then search in the content of the file for a string like
# „$Revision: \main\MAINLINE_22_WIPID\4 $“. This string will then be replaced
# with e.g. „$Revision: \main\MAINLINE_22_WIPID\5 $“.
my $check_in_file = $ENV{'CLEARCASE_PN'};
my $revision = $ENV{'CLEARCASE_ID_STR'};
if(is_fitnesse_wiki_page($check_in_file)) {
my $targetFile = get_temp_file();
update_revision_in_target($check_in_file,$targetFile,$revision);
overwrite_file($targetFile,$check_in_file);
}
1;
Currently I'm part of a team that tries to introduce test automation to our organization. We are developing products for the healthcare sector with relatively long release cycles due to high regulatory requirements. These long release cycles are resulting mainly because of high manual test efforts and missing test automation.
There were some discussions which tools to use for test automation. Two main possibilities are available:
Traditional commercial, heavyweight, GUI-based, record and replay tools like HP QuickTest Professional, IBM Rational Robot, QF-Test or Borland SilkTest.
In a pilot project we found some advantages of Fitnesse over traditional commercial testing tools:
No Licence costs for Fitnesse
Ok, in a big company it's not a big issues to spend some money for commercial tools, but even then you will not buy licences for every machine and every employee. Fitnesse we use on every developer machine, on every tester laptop, on every machine in the test lab, on laptops for presentations in meetings. You can use it on every machine you want without filling order forms and waiting weeks for completion of the order process. So the use of Fitnesse is not limited to the test specialist but instead we can use it cross-functional for application specialists, testers, developers and software architects.
Simple Installation of Fitnesse
Fitnesse can be brought to a machine simply by copying a folder with its subfolders. Or you can run it from an USB stick, which is quite practical for tests on systems wich are not connected to the corporate network.
Test-First approach with Fitnesse
It is a natural approach to write down the test specification before or during the development of the software, because developers need the input to provide test fixtures for connecting the Fitnesse tests with the production code.
Please refer to Elisabeth Hendrickson's blog for similar and more advantages:
Agile-Friendly Test Automation Tools/Frameworks
When writing unit tests you have to use mocks or stubs for dependant objects. Very often it is convenient to use a mocking library (like RhinoMocks for .NET or jMock for Java). Just using a mocking library does not guarantee to get readable and maintainable unit tests. It make sense to have a set of rules which are guiding developers when writing unit tests with mock objects. I compiled a list of such best practices for mock objects ("mocking" rules). I use the term mock object for a objects verifying expectations about calls to themselves. Test stubs are only used for feeding inputs into the system under test.
Rule 1: Try to avoid using mock objects and prefer state verification over behaviour verification if it is possible.
If you can verify the outcome of an method by checking the return value or by checking the state of the system under test, this is the preferable method, because it is simpler and makes your test more independent from the implementation details. You may need test stubs to feed indirect inputs into the system under test.
Rule 2: Apply the Law of Demeter („no train wrecks”) to your code you want to unit test as much as possible.
Testing code like "employee.GetDepartment().GetManager().GetOffice().GetAddress().GetZip()" is much harder than "employee.GetManagersOfficeZipCode()".
Avoiding "train wrecks" reduces the number of mocks and stubs you need and therefore improves readability and maintainability for your tests.
Rule 3: Use a minimum number of mock objects per test, preferable is only one mock object.
Concentrate on one aspect per test. A reader can identify the most important part more easily. In one test you may check the call to one depended-on component (DOC) and in another test you will check another DOC. You may need additional test stubs to feed indirect inputs into the system under test.
Rule 4: Define a minimum number of expectations as possible.
It’s easier for the reader to see what is important. Tests are less brittle when code changes. Test what code does, not how.
Divide all object's methods of your code into two sharply separated categories:
Queries: Return a result and do not change the observable state of the system (are free of side effects).
Commands: Change the state of a system but do not return a value.
Queries deliver input for tests, commands are output. Only check the output (what)
Rule 6: At the borderline between your own code towards foreign code, it may be wise to not stub or mock the foreign code directly.
Very often it is better to create an own interface and implement a small layer of adapter code. Test this small layer with integration tests including the foreign code. It is much easier then to stub or mock your own adapter interface when you test your other own code. Examples for foreign code are database access code (like ADO.NET, JDBC in Java, Hibernate, NHibernate), active directory access, network access, and so on.
