A while back I talked about how testable code helps manage complexity. In that post, I mentioned one common rebuttal to certain design decisions made in code in order to make it more testable.

Why would I want to do XYZ just do improve testability?

integrated-circuit Recently, I heard one variation of this comment in the comments to my post on unit test boundaries. Several people suggested that it’s fine to have unit tests access the database, after all, the code relies on data from the database, it should be tested.

Implicit in this statement is the question, “Why would I want to abstract away the data access just to improve testability?

Keep in mind, I never said you shouldn’t test your code’s interaction with the database. You absolutely should. I merely categorized that sort of test as a different sort of test - an integration test. You might still use your favorite unit testing framework to automate such a test, but I suggest trying to keep it in a separate test suite.

The authors of The Pragmatic Programmer: From Journeyman to Master have a great answer to this question with their comparison to Integrated Circuit’s, which have features designed specifically to enable testability.

The “Design For Test” Wikipedia entry refers to name as encompassing a range of design techniques for adding features to microelectronic hardware in order to make it testable. Examples of these techniques show up as early as the 1940s/50s. So designing for testability is not some whiz-bangy latest methodology flavor of the day the crazy kids are doing.

One key benefit to these techniques is that components can be tested in relative isolation. You don’t have to place them into a product in order to test them, though at the same time, they can be tested while within the product.

So in answer to the original question, I’d ask, “Why wouldn’t we design for testability?”

I think this analogy illustrates one reason why I don’t want my unit tests talking to the database (apart from wanting the tests to run fast). Ideally, someone else down the road, new to the project, should be able to get the latest code from source control and run the unit tests immediately without having to go through the pains of setting up an environment with the correct database.

Another benefit of abstracting away the database so that your code is testable and doesn’t cross boundaries is that your code is then not so dependent on a particular database. I used to argue that there’s no need to insulate your code from the particular database that you are using. I’ve never been on a project where the customer suddenly switches from SQL Server to Oracle. That sort of drastic change very rarely happens.

But it turns out that I have been on projects where we switched from SQL Server 6.5 to 7 (and from 7 to 2000 and so on). Upgrades can be nearly as drastic as choosing a different database vendor. Having your code isolated from your choice of database provides some nice peace of mind here.