Testing the test suite

Testing is good! Or at least is can be. Tests increase our confidence that code is correct. However, writing bad tests is incredibly easy and assessing the quality of a test suite is a perfect example of the "crowbar inside the box" problem. If we can be sure we wrote the test correctly, why can't we make the same assertion about the code already?

Easy Cases

There are times when the tests truly are "easier", "simpler" or "more nailed down" and in these cases, we might feel safe.

For example, sometimes, the test is much simpler than the code, and sometimes the test really is externally prescribed, and in these cases, writing tests is pretty safe - we're unlikely to make the same errors in test and code.

Sometimes too, we can form extra, trivial-to-write, tests by not getting hung up on true "unit" testing and working with inverse pairs instead. For example we can verify our file writing and reading are the reverse of each other, and give us the correct object back. We can verify that our "plus" and "minus" are the reverse of each other, and that A + B - B == A. Making the test extremely simple means it has very little chance to be wrong, but it also limits how thoroughly we are testing things.

Code Coverage

You may have heard of coverage testing - adding confidence in your test suite by verifying that it actually "exercises" every line of your code. At least, that's what you hope. However, in general all coverage does is say that you ran a line - it can't say whether you verified the outcome.

But the Tests Passed!

To come to the important point: the tests are testing the code, and the code is testing the tests. If both agree, great. What if they don't? Are you really sure that the error is in the code, not the test? And on the flip side, if the tests pass, does that _really_ make you confident in the code?

Mutant Code

Enter "mutation testing" - a way to test our *test suite* using our *code*.

Mutation testing belongs near the end of development, once code is written, tests pass, coverage is good (all for a given function or set of functions, not necessarily the whole code), and you are wondering if there may still be bugs, or you are trying to get something ready for "prime time" and want to be confident it will work when used in ways you haven't been using it.

It's based on a very simple premise - if the code is broken, the test ought to fail. Sounds obvious, but have a good hard look at some tests you've written or worked with. Are you sure that will happen? Are there cases or paths that don't get checked? Are you catching all the edge cases and transition values in your test?

Once again, if just looking over the test code let you guarantee those things, then you could do the same to your code, and not need the tests at all.

Instead, let's break the code and see what happens. Swap operators, add off-by-one errors, remove checks on bad input! Force the tests to prove that they can fail! Then we know that passing means something.

Practical Mutation Testing

Obviously we want something systematic to do this, and that is actually pretty hard, and the topic of active Computer Science research still, in spite of having existed for ever already. But as always, "the perfect is the enemy of the good" or indeed the "good enough". The more holes we can close, the fewer will be left, so even something not great is worth a try.

The idea is as follows:

• generate systematic "mutations" of the source code

• check that these compile or run
• try and systematically eliminate "equivalents" - code that, although different, has the same effect

• run the test suite against every "mutant"

• If the tests fail, the mutant has been "killed"
• If the tests pass, there is a hole - an error they are missing

• try and fix the holes in the test suite

NOTE: there are a few things this can turn up that do indicate changes to the code are in order, but in general you should primarily be altering the test suite. If that causes tests to fail that you expected to pass, then you need to alter the code. If that shows sections of "dead" code, then you might want to alter the code. Try and keep these two processes separate.

NOTE 2: BE VERY VERY wary about altering your code just to allow it to be tested.

Tools

Recommending a tool is tricky. Github right now has ~300 repos tagged mutation-testing covering a bunch of languages. It also has several repos just listing extant and abandoned tools. The UniversalMutator (https://github.com/agroce/universalmutator) deserves a mention, as a language agnostic and pretty usable option.

If you're not sure if this is worth doing, try flipping a bunch of operators in your code, adding some range errors, deleting a statement etc and running your tests. See if you have gaps to fill.

Brief Aside:

Note for the interested: while that all might sound pretty convincing, there's a lot we are skipping over. For instance, we have to assume that big errors tend to occur due to multiple small errors, and thus squashing the small bugs will squash the big ones too. This is known as the "coupling effect" e.g. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/75309.75324which also discusses the wonderfully descriptive "Competent Programmer Hypothesis" which posits that we normally only make small mistakes in things.

Conclusions

Some times it is tempting to talk about testing as infallible. This has come up a lot recently with some high profile failures of large products, where many people despair that "they obviously didn't test it". That's just not true, we only know they didn't test for the specific failure.

Actually implementing "quality testing" is about a lot more than just adding a few test cases, and in important software, library software etc, it is good to be aware of just how much moreis needed to be truly confident in code quality.

If you take one point away from this, let it be this one: A test that cannot fail is no better than no test at all.

Heather Ratcliffe : 24 Jul 2024 14:36 |  Tags: Bugs Code Programming Training |  Comments (0) |  Report a problem