TDD - 100％覆盖率的方法来说包裹SQL [英] TDD - 100% Coverage for methods that wrap SQL

问题描述

我刚刚读完用C＃专业测试驱动开发，并一直试图找到一种方法，在我的代码，实现100％覆盖。这一切都很好，直到我打了一个充满实现这样的方法仓储类：

<预类=郎-CS prettyprint-覆盖> 公共IEnumerable的< MyDataContract> LoadConditional（布尔isCondition）
{
常量字符串QUERY = @SELECT ... ...场迈德特FROM WHERE [IsCondition] = @IsCondition;
返回DataAccessor.ReadMyContracts（QUERY，isCondition）; //什么，什么......
}


我一直在想这个对一段时间，一直没能找到直接回答这个问题在互联网上一个答案。

• 我读到的东西，会建议SQL相关业务将存在另一个程序。我不要求这虽然不相信我应该去那里。而这一点，从代码覆盖的角度来看是一个非常肤浅的改变。




• 我读过，你可以连接数据库的单元测试（我'已经做过）。但是，这只是嗯......我不知道，这感觉不对。该测试是缓慢的，在维护显著上升。

我的直觉是，如果没有最后一点我提到，这种方法不能单元测试。我应该怎么看这个问题？

解决方案

首先我要说，我认为，要实现100％的覆盖是毫无意义可言，并不能证明任何事情。

话虽这么说，我通常使用DB和业务逻辑之间的一些层 - 一些简单的映射器（PetaPoco，短小精悍，OrmLite），或很少，一个完全成熟的ORM（NHibernate的）。

在我需要对一个DB集成测试的情况下，这些工具允许我对运行测试DB相同的查询（如一个内存中的SQLite DB），而不是真实的数据库服务器。

至于你的担忧，测试是缓慢的，在维护显著上升。你应该记住，这些都不是单元测试了 - 这些都是集成测试，他们不能以最快的速度单元测试

I've just finished reading "Professional Test-Driven Development with C#" and have been trying to find a way to achieve 100% coverage in my code. It's all good until I hit a repository class that is filled with methods implemented something like this:

public IEnumerable<MyDataContract> LoadConditional(bool isCondition)
{
   const string QUERY = @"SELECT ...fields... FROM MyData WHERE [IsCondition] = @IsCondition";
   return DataAccessor.ReadMyContracts(QUERY, isCondition); // something, something...
}        

I've been thinking about this for some time, and have not been able to find an answer on the internet that answers this question directly.

• I read things that would suggest that SQL related business would exist in another assembly. I don't require this though and don't believe I should have to go there. And this, from a code coverage, perspective is a pretty superficial change.

• I've read that you can hook up databases for your unit tests (which I've done before). But this just well... I dunno, it doesn't feel right. The tests are slow and have a significant increase in maintenance.

My gut feeling is that without the last bit I mentioned, this method can't be unit tested. How should I be viewing this problem?

解决方案

First let me say that I believe that achieving 100% coverage makes no sense at all and doesn't prove anything.

That being said, I typically use some layer between DB and business logic - some simple mapper (PetaPoco, Dapper, OrmLite) or, rarely, a full blown ORM (NHibernate).

In cases where I need integration tests against a DB, these tools allow me to run the same queries against a test DB (e.g. an in-memory SQLite DB) instead of 'real' DB server.

With regard to your concern that "the tests are slow and have a significant increase in maintenance." you should bear in mind that these are not unit tests anymore - these are integration tests and they can't be as fast as unit tests.

这篇关于TDD - 100％覆盖率的方法来说包裹SQL的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！