Smarty
Let's build an xUnit-style test runner for Go!Why? What do you mean 'why'? Because we can! What's wrong with you?
Michael Whatcott
Michael Whatcott
 • 
July 2, 2018
Tags

Writing test functions in Go is easy:

package stuff

import "testing"

func TestStuff(t *testing.T) {
    t.Log("Hello, World!")
}

Running test functions is also easy:

$ go test -v
=== RUN   TestStuff
--- PASS: TestStuff (0.00s)
	stuff_test.go:6: Hello, World!
PASS
ok  	github.com/smartystreets/stuff	0.006s

Preparing shared state for multiple test functions is problematic. The usual recommendation is to use table-drive tests. But this approach has its limits. For us, xUnit is the ideal solution. It's simple, lightweight, and flexible. Wouldn't it be nice if we could define test methods on struct types and leverage common xUnit conventions like setups/teardowns, skipped tests, etc..? I'm thinking along these imaginary lines:

package stuff

import "testing"

// Define fields to manage system-under-test here (the fixture state).
type TestCase struct {
	*testing.T // Embedding *testing.T seems like a good idea for defining a test suite.
	sut *SystemUnderTest
}

// Perform setup actions here (instantiate test fixture state).
func (t *TestCase) Setup() {
	t.sut = NewSystemUnderTest()
}

func (t *TestCase) Test42() {
	if result := t.sut.Computation(42); result != 42 {
		t.Errorf("Got: [%d] Want: [%d]", result, 42)
	}
}

func (t *TestCase) Test43() {
	if result := t.sut.Computation(43); result != 43 {
		t.Errorf("Got: [%d] Want: [%d]", result, 43)
	}
}

The only problem is that the go test tool expects top-level functions, not methods on a struct type. And that's not going to change.

$ go test -v
testing: warning: no tests to run
PASS
ok  	github.com/smartystreets/stuff	0.006s

So, we need a way to connect a test function to methods on a struct type. And ideally, we could instantiate new instances of that type (with freshly initialized state) for each test method. Maybe a variation that leverages subtests would be closer to reality?

package stuff

import "testing"

func TestStuff(t *testing.T) {
	t.Run("Test42", new(TestCase).Test42)
	t.Run("Test43", new(TestCase).Test43)
}

// Define fields to manage system-under-test here (the fixture state).
type TestCase struct {
	sut *SystemUnderTest
}

// Perform setup actions here (instantiate test fixture state).
func (test *TestCase) Setup() {
	test.sut = NewSystemUnderTest()
}

func (test *TestCase) Test42(t *testing.T) {
    test.Setup()
	if result := test.sut.Computation(42); result != 42 {
		t.Errorf("Got: [%d] Want: [%d]", result, 42)
	}
}

func (test *TestCase) Test43(t *testing.T) {
    test.Setup()
	if result := test.sut.Computation(43); result != 43 {
		t.Errorf("Got: [%d] Want: [%d]", result, 43)
	}
}

That was certainly more effective:

$ go test -v
=== RUN   TestStuff
=== RUN   TestStuff/Test42
=== RUN   TestStuff/Test43
--- PASS: TestStuff (0.00s)
    --- PASS: TestStuff/Test42 (0.00s)
    --- PASS: TestStuff/Test43 (0.00s)
PASS
ok  	github.com/smartystreets/stuff	0.006s

But there are problems with this approach. Every time we define a new test method on the TestCase type we have to remember to register a subtest in the top-level test function. Oh, and did you notice how each test was calling the Setup method directly? This is something that should happen automatically if we're going to call this an xUnit-style test runner. It would be great if we could just call a method that points to our TestCase and iterates all test methods, calling Setup followed by a call to the test method.

From the calling side it could look something like this:

func TestStuff(t *testing.T) {
    xunit.RunTests(new(TestCase), t)
}

Notice we have to provide the *testing.T and an instance of our TestCase. The behavior defined in the mysterious xunit package would then find all the tests and run them. Impossible, you say? Not so! In fact, a draft implementation is trivial!

package xunit

import (
	"reflect"
	"strings"
	"testing"
)

func RunTests(fixture interface{}, t *testing.T) {
	fixtureType := reflect.TypeOf(fixture)

	for x := 0; x < fixtureType.NumMethod(); x++ {
		testMethodName := fixtureType.Method(x).Name
		if strings.HasPrefix(testMethodName, "Test") {
			// IMPORTANT: each test gets a new instance!
			instance := reflect.New(fixtureType.Elem())

			setupMethod := instance.MethodByName("Setup")
			callableSetup := setupMethod.Interface().(func())
			callableSetup()

			testMethod := instance.MethodByName(testMethodName)
			callableTest := testMethod.Interface().(func(t *testing.T))
			t.Run(testMethodName, callableTest)
		}
	}
}

This implementation makes a LOT of assumptions, lacks several features (like 'teardowns' and skipped tests) and isn't very robust, but hopefully you can see the emergence of an xUnit-style test runner. Most importantly, the tests are passing again:

$ go test -v
=== RUN   TestStuff
=== RUN   TestStuff/Test42
=== RUN   TestStuff/Test43
--- PASS: TestStuff (0.00s)
    --- PASS: TestStuff/Test42 (0.00s)
    --- PASS: TestStuff/Test43 (0.00s)
PASS
ok  	github.com/smartystreets/stuff	0.006s

Congratulations, you now possess a basic understanding of the inner workings of gunit! Stay tuned for a future post featuring a more in-depth look into xUnit-style testing in Go with gunit. In the meantime, feel free to kick the tires and fix things up a bit.


Source Code Download

Subscribe to our blog!
Learn more about RSS feeds here.
rss feed iconSubscribe Now
Read our recent posts
World Juggling Day: Tips from Smarty’s jester
Arrow Icon
It’s that time of year when we toss aside our fears and woes and throw our hands up in celebration; World Juggling Day is here. Whether you toss hacky sacs, bowling pins, flaming torches, or your cookies, juggling has been a long-standing form of fun, fitness, and flair. Let’s talk about this quirky holiday. History of jugglingThe history of juggling is rich and dates back almost&nbsp;4,000 years. In ancient Egyptian times, tombs shared depictions of juggling. Greeks and Romans also tossed their hats into the juggling arena, yet juggling began to be scorned and overlooked by many in the Middle Ages due to claims that jugglers dealt with immorality and witchcraft.
Wizardry - How Smarty makes professional improvement magical, and you can, too
Arrow Icon
Alright, gather 'round, fellow wizards and witches! It's time to unveil the secrets to mastering the mystical art of professional development at Smarty. Yes, “wizardry” typically refers to wearing cloaks, wielding wands, riding broomsticks, and mixing potions. At Smarty, we think of “wizardry” as being the best at doing what we do. We’re going above and beyond to not only become experts in our field but also stay that way through shifts in technology and culture. However, being the best shouldn’t be an afterthought; at Smarty, it’s not.
Authentic culture: Exploring the depths with Smarty
Arrow Icon
Navigating the depths of corporate cultureIn today's business world, many companies create a surface-level culture within their company structures but stop there, never seeming to invest fully in deepening a healthy culture. Surface-level culture can be visually appealing and immediately gratifying. Imagine, for example, a delicious cake. It’s beautifully decorated but tastes off or is missing an ingredient that spoils the final product. An intentional and deep culture is hard work. It takes time, action, correction, and honest feedback from everyone in the company.