Where to start with introducing TDD to a new Rails app

by Jason Swett,

A Code With Jason reader recently wrote me with the following question:

How do I introduce TDD into a new Rails app? Where do I start? I am deeply knowledgable on RSpec and use it a lot. I am not sure how to get started with testing in Rails. When should testing be introduced? (hopefully as soon as possible) What should be testing vs. what should I assume works because it was tested in some other way? For example, why test generated code?

There are a lot of good questions here. I’ll pick a couple and address them individually.

How do I introduce TDD into a new Rails app?

This depends on your experience level with Rails and with testing.

I personally happen to be very experienced with both Rails and testing. When I build a new Rails application, I always start writing tests from the very beginning of the project.

If you’re new to Rails AND new to testing, I wouldn’t recommend trying to learn both at the same time. That’s too much to learn at once. Instead, get comfortable with Rails first and then start learning testing.

What if you’re comfortable with Rails but not testing yet? How do you introduce testing to a new Rails app then?

I would suggest starting with testing from the very beginning. Adding tests to your application is never going to be easier than it will be at the very beginning. In fact, retroactively adding tests to an existing application is notoriously super hard.

The kinds of tests to start with

What kinds of tests should you add at the beginning? I would recommend starting with acceptance tests, also known to some as integration tests, end-to-end tests or, in RSpec terminology, feature specs. The reason I recommend starting with feature specs is that they’re conceptually easy to grasp. They’re a simulation of a human opening a browser and clicking on things and typing stuff.

You can start with a feature spec “hello world” where you just visit a static page and verify that it says “hello world”. Once you’re comfortable with that, you can add feature specs to all your CRUD operations. I have a step-by-step formula for writing feature specs that you can use too.

Once you’re somewhat comfortable with feature specs, you can move on to model specs.

Testing vs. TDD

I’ve been sloppy with my language so far. I’ve been talking about testing but the question was specifically about TDD. How do you introduce TDD into a new Rails app?

First let me say that I personally don’t do TDD 100% of the time. I maybe do it 60% of the time.

I mainly write two types of tests in Rails: feature specs and model specs. When I’m building a new feature, I often don’t know exactly what form the UI is going to take or what labels or IDs all the page elements are going to have. This makes it really hard for me to try to write a feature spec before I write any code. So, usually, I don’t bother.

Another reason I don’t always do TDD is that I often use scaffolds, and scaffolds and TDD are incompatible. With TDD you write the tests first and the code after. Since scaffolds give you all the code up front, it’s of course impossible to write the tests before the code because the code already exists.

So again, the only case when I do TDD is when I’m writing model code, and I would guess this is maybe 60% of the time.

How, then, should you start introducing TDD to a new Rails app? I personally start TDD’ing when I start writing my first model code. The model code is often pretty trivial for the first portion of a Rails app’s lifecycle, so it’s usually a while before I get into “serious TDD”.

What should I be testing vs. what should I assume works because it was tested in some other way? For example, why test generated code?

I’ll answer the second part of this question first.

Why test generated code?

I assume when we say “generated code” we’re mainly talking about scaffolding.

If you’re never ever going to modify the generated code there’s little value in writing tests for it. Scaffold-generated CRUD features pretty much always just work.

However, it’s virtually never the case that a scaffolded feature comes out exactly the way we want with no modification required. For anything but the most trivial models, a little tweaking of the scaffold-generated code is necessary in order to get what we need, and each tweak carries a risk of introducing a bug. So it’s not really generated code. Once a human starts messing with it, all bets are off.

That’s not even the main value of writing tests for generated code though. The main value of the tests covering generated code (which, again, is rarely 100% actual generated code) is that the tests help protect against regressions that may be introduced later. If you have tests, you can refactor freely and be reasonably confident that you’re not breaking anything.

Having said that, I don’t try to test all parts of the code generated by a scaffold. There are some things that are pointless to test.

What should I test and what should I assume works?

When I generate a scaffold, there are certain types of tests I put on the scaffold-generated code. I have a step-by-step process I use to write specific test scenarios.

I typically write three feature specs: a feature spec for creating a record using valid inputs, a feature spec for trying to create a record using invalid inputs, and a feature spec for updating a record. That’s enough to give me confidence that things aren’t horribly broken.

At the model level, I’ll typically add tests for validations (I am TDD’ing in this case) and then add the validations. Usually I only need a few presence validations and maybe a uniqueness validation. It’s not common that I’ll need anything fancier than that at that time.

There are certain other types of tests I’ve seen that I think are pointless. These include testing the presence of associations, testing that a model responds to certain methods, testing for the presence of callbacks, and testing for database columns and indexes. There’s no value in testing these things directly. These tests are tautological. What’s better is to write tests for the behaviors that these things (i.e. these associations, methods, etc.) enable.

Suggestions for further reading

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *