qttest-best-practices.qdoc

Go to the documentation of this file.

// Copyright (C) 2019 The Qt Company Ltd.
// SPDX-License-Identifier: LicenseRef-Qt-Commercial OR GFDL-1.3-no-invariants-only
 
/*!
    \page qttest-best-practices.qdoc
 
    \title Qt Test Best Practices
 
    \brief Guidelines for creating Qt tests.
 
    We recommend that you add Qt tests for bug fixes and new features. Before
    you try to fix a bug, add a \e {regression test} (ideally automatic) that
    fails before the fix, exhibiting the bug, and passes after the fix. While
    you're developing new features, add tests to verify that they work as
    intended.
 
    Conforming to a set of coding standards will make it more likely for
    Qt autotests to work reliably in all environments. For example, some
    tests need to read data from disk. If no standards are set for how this
    is done, some tests won't be portable. For example, a test that assumes
    its test-data files are in the current working directory only works for
    an in-source build. In a shadow build (outside the source directory), the
    test will fail to find its data.
 
    The following sections contain guidelines for writing Qt tests:
 
    \list
        \li \l {General Principles}
        \li \l {Writing Reliable Tests}
        \li \l {Improving Test Output}
        \li \l {Writing Testable Code}
        \li \l {Setting up Test Machines}
    \endlist
 
    \section1 General Principles
 
    The following sections provide general guidelines for writing unit tests:
 
    \list
        \li \l {Verify Tests}
        \li \l {Give Test Functions Descriptive Names}
        \li \l {Write Self-contained Test Functions}
        \li \l {Test the Full Stack}
        \li \l {Make Tests Complete Quickly}
        \li \l {Use Data-driven Testing}
        \li \l {Use Coverage Tools}
        \li \l {Select Appropriate Mechanisms to Exclude Tests}
        \li \l {Avoid Q_ASSERT}
    \endlist
 
    \section2 Verify Tests
 
    Write and commit your tests along with your fix or new feature on a new
    branch. Once you're done, you can check out the branch on which your work
    is based, and then check out into this branch the test-files for your new
    tests. This enables you to verify that the tests do fail on the prior
    branch, and therefore actually do catch a bug or test a new feature.
 
    For example, the workflow to fix a bug in the \c QDateTime class could be
    like this if you use the Git version control system:
 
    \list 1
        \li Create a branch for your fix and test:
            \c {git checkout -b fix-branch 5.14}
        \li Write a test and fix the bug.
        \li Build and test with both the fix and the new test, to verify that
            the new test passes with the fix.
        \li Add the fix and test to your branch:
            \c {git add tests/auto/corelib/time/qdatetime/tst_qdatetime.cpp src/corelib/time/qdatetime.cpp}
        \li Commit the fix and test to your branch:
            \c {git commit -m 'Fix bug in QDateTime'}
        \li To verify that the test actually catches something for which you
            needed the fix, checkout the branch you based your own branch on:
            \c {git checkout 5.14}
        \li Checkout only the test file to the 5.14 branch:
            \c {git checkout fix-branch -- tests/auto/corelib/time/qdatetime/tst_qdatetime.cpp}
 
            Only the test is now on the fix-branch. The rest of the source tree
            is still on 5.14.
        \li Build and run the test to verify that it fails on 5.14, and
            therefore does indeed catch a bug.
        \li You can now return to the fix branch:
            \c {git checkout fix-branch}
        \li Alternatively, you can restore your work tree to a clean state on
            5.14:
            \c{git checkout HEAD -- tests/auto/corelib/time/qdatetime/tst_qdatetime.cpp}
    \endlist
 
    When you're reviewing a change, you can adapt this workflow to check that
    the change does indeed come with a test for a problem it does fix.
 
    \section2 Give Test Functions Descriptive Names
 
    Naming test cases is important. The test name appears in the failure report
    for a test run. For data-driven tests, the name of the data row also appears
    in the failure report. The names give those reading the report a first
    indication of what has gone wrong.
 
    Test function names should make it obvious what the function is trying to
    test. Do not simply use the bug-tracking identifier, because the identifiers
    become obsolete if the bug-tracker is replaced. Also, some bug-trackers may
    not be accessible to all users. When the bug report may be of interest to
    later readers of the test code, you can mention it in a comment alongside a
    relevant part of the test.
 
    Likewise, when writing data-driven tests, give descriptive names to the
    test-cases, that indicate what aspect of the functionality each focuses on.
    Do not simply number the test-case, or use bug-tracking identifiers. Someone
    reading the test output will have no idea what the numbers or identifiers
    mean. You can add a comment on the test-row that mentions the bug-tracking
    identifier, when relevant. It's best to avoid spacing characters and
    characters that may be significant to command-line shells on which you may
    want to run tests. This makes it easier to specify the test and tag on \l{Qt
    Test Command Line Arguments}{the command-line} to your test program - for
    example, to limit a test run to just one test-case.
 
    \section2 Write Self-contained Test Functions
 
    Within a test program, test functions should be independent of each other
    and they should not rely upon previous test functions having been run. You
    can check this by running the test function on its own with
    \c {tst_foo testname}.
 
    Do not re-use instances of the class under test in several tests. Test
    instances (for example widgets) should not be member variables of the
    tests, but preferably be instantiated on the stack to ensure proper
    cleanup even if a test fails, so that tests do not interfere with
    each other.
 
    \section2 Test the Full Stack
 
    If an API is implemented in terms of pluggable or platform-specific backends
    that do the heavy-lifting, make sure to write tests that cover the
    code-paths all the way down into the backends. Testing the upper layer API
    parts using a mock backend is a nice way to isolate errors in the API layer
    from the backends, but it is complementary to tests that run the actual
    implementation with real-world data.
 
    \section2 Make Tests Complete Quickly
 
    Tests should not waste time by being unnecessarily repetitious, by using
    inappropriately large volumes of test data, or by introducing needless
    idle time.
 
    This is particularly true for unit testing, where every second of extra
    unit test execution time makes CI testing of a branch across multiple
    targets take longer. Remember that unit testing is separate from load and
    reliability testing, where larger volumes of test data and longer test
    runs are expected.
 
    Benchmark tests, which typically execute the same test multiple times,
    should be located in a separate \c tests/benchmarks directory and they
    should not be mixed with functional unit tests.
 
    \section2 Use Data-driven Testing
 
    \l{Chapter 2: Data Driven Testing}{Data-driven tests} make it easier to add
    new tests for boundary conditions found in later bug reports.
 
    Using a data-driven test rather than testing several items in sequence in
    a test saves repetition of very similar code and ensures later cases are
    tested even when earlier ones fail. It also encourages systematic and
    uniform testing, because the same tests are applied to each data sample.
 
    When a test is data-driven, you can specify its data-tag along with the
    test-function name, as \c{function:tag}, on the command-line of the test to
    run the test on just one specific test-case, rather than all test-cases of
    the function. This can be used for either a global data tag or a local tag,
    identifying a row from the function's own data; you can even combine them as
    \c{function:global:local}.
 
    \section2 Use Coverage Tools
 
    Use a coverage tool such as \l {Coco} or \l {gcov}
    to help write tests that cover as many statements, branches, and conditions
    as possible in the function or class being tested. The earlier this is done
    in the development cycle for a new feature, the easier it will be to catch
    regressions later when the code is refactored.
 
    \section2 Select Appropriate Mechanisms to Exclude Tests
 
    It is important to select the appropriate mechanism to exclude inapplicable
    tests.
 
    Use \l QSKIP() to handle cases where a whole test function is found at
    run-time to be inapplicable in the current test environment. When just a
    part of a test function is to be skipped, a conditional statement can be
    used, optionally with a \c qDebug() call to report the reason for skipping
    the inapplicable part.
 
    When there are known test failures that should eventually be fixed,
    \l QEXPECT_FAIL is recommended, as it supports running the rest of the
    test, when possible. It also verifies that the issue still exists, and
    lets the code's maintainer know if they unwittingly fix it, a benefit
    which is gained even when using the \l {QTest::}{Abort} flag.
 
    Test functions or data rows of a data-driven test can be limited to
    particular platforms, or to particular features being enabled using
    \c{#if}. However, beware of \l moc limitations when using \c{#if} to
    skip test functions. The \c moc preprocessor does not have access to
    all the \c builtin macros of the compiler that are often used for
    feature detection of the compiler. Therefore, \c moc might get a different
    result for a preprocessor condition from that seen by the rest of your
    code. This may result in \c moc generating meta-data for a test slot that
    the actual compiler skips, or omitting the meta-data for a test slot that
    is actually compiled into the class. In the first case, the test will
    attempt to run a slot that is not implemented. In the second case, the
    test will not attempt to run a test slot even though it should.
 
    If an entire test program is inapplicable for a specific platform or unless
    a particular feature is enabled, the best approach is to use the parent
    directory's build configuration to avoid building the test. For example, if
    the \c tests/auto/gui/someclass test is not valid for \macOS, wrap its
    inclusion as a subdirectory in \c{tests/auto/gui/CMakeLists.txt} in a
    platform check:
 
    \badcode
    if(NOT APPLE)
        add_subdirectory(someclass)
    endif
    \endcode
 
    or, if using \c qmake, add the following line to \c tests/auto/gui.pro:
 
    \badcode
    mac*: SUBDIRS -= someclass
    \endcode
 
    See also \l {Chapter 6: Skipping Tests with QSKIP}
    {Skipping Tests with QSKIP}.
 
    \section2 Avoid Q_ASSERT
 
    The \l Q_ASSERT macro causes a program to abort whenever the asserted
    condition is \c false, but only if the software was built in debug mode.
    In both release and debug-and-release builds, \c Q_ASSERT does nothing.
 
    \c Q_ASSERT should be avoided because it makes tests behave differently
    depending on whether a debug build is being tested, and because it causes
    a test to abort immediately, skipping all remaining test functions and
    returning incomplete or malformed test results.
 
    It also skips any tear-down or tidy-up that was supposed to happen at the
    end of the test, and might therefore leave the workspace in an untidy state,
    which might cause complications for further tests.
 
    Instead of \c Q_ASSERT, the \l QCOMPARE() or \l QVERIFY() macro variants
    should be used. They cause the current test to report a failure and
    terminate, but allow the remaining test functions to be executed and the
    entire test program to terminate normally. \l QVERIFY2() even allows a
    descriptive error message to be recorded in the test log.
 
    \section1 Writing Reliable Tests
 
    The following sections provide guidelines for writing reliable tests:
 
    \list
        \li \l {Avoid Side-effects in Verification Steps}
        \li \l {Avoid Fixed Timeouts}
        \li \l {Beware of Timing-dependent Behavior}
        \li \l {Avoid Bitmap Capture and Comparison}
    \endlist
 
    \section2 Avoid Side-effects in Verification Steps
 
    When performing verification steps in an autotest using \l QCOMPARE(),
    \l QVERIFY(), and so on, side-effects should be avoided. Side-effects
    in verification steps can make a test difficult to understand. Also,
    they can easily break a test in ways that are difficult to diagnose
    when the test is changed to use \l QTRY_VERIFY(), \l QTRY_COMPARE() or
    \l QBENCHMARK(). These can execute the passed expression multiple times,
    thus repeating any side-effects.
 
    When side-effects are unavoidable, ensure that the prior state is restored
    at the end of the test function, even if the test fails. This commonly
    requires use of an RAII (resource acquisition is initialization) class
    that restores state when the function returns, or a \c cleanup() method.
    Do not simply put the restoration code at the end of the test. If part of
    the test fails, such code will be skipped and the prior state will not be
    restored.
 
    \section2 Avoid Fixed Timeouts
 
    Avoid using hard-coded timeouts, such as QTest::qWait() to wait for some
    conditions to become true. Consider using the \l QSignalSpy class,
    the \l QTRY_VERIFY() or \l QTRY_COMPARE() macros, or the \c QSignalSpy
    class in conjunction with the \c QTRY_ macro variants.
 
    The \c qWait() function can be used to set a delay for a fixed period
    between performing some action and waiting for some asynchronous behavior
    triggered by that action to be completed. For example, changing the state
    of a widget and then waiting for the widget to be repainted. However,
    such timeouts often cause failures when a test written on a workstation is
    executed on a device, where the expected behavior might take longer to
    complete. Increasing the fixed timeout to a value several times larger
    than needed on the slowest test platform is not a good solution, because
    it slows down the test run on all platforms, particularly for table-driven
    tests.
 
    If the code under test issues Qt signals on completion of the asynchronous
    behavior, a better approach is to use the \l QSignalSpy class to notify
    the test function that the verification step can now be performed.
 
    If there are no Qt signals, use the \c QTRY_COMPARE() and \c QTRY_VERIFY()
    macros, which periodically test a specified condition until it becomes true
    or some maximum timeout is reached. These macros prevent the test from
    taking longer than necessary, while avoiding breakages when tests are
    written on workstations and later executed on embedded platforms.
 
    If there are no Qt signals, and you are writing the test as part of
    developing a new API, consider whether the API could benefit from the
    addition of a signal that reports the completion of the asynchronous
    behavior.
 
    \section2 Beware of Timing-dependent Behavior
 
    Some test strategies are vulnerable to timing-dependent behavior of certain
    classes, which can lead to tests that fail only on certain platforms or that
    do not return consistent results.
 
    One example of this is text-entry widgets, which often have a blinking
    cursor that can make comparisons of captured bitmaps succeed or fail
    depending on the state of the cursor when the bitmap is captured. This,
    in turn, may depend on the speed of the machine executing the test.
 
    When testing classes that change their state based on timer events, the
    timer-based behavior needs to be taken into account when performing
    verification steps. Due to the variety of timing-dependent behavior, there
    is no single generic solution to this testing problem.
 
    For text-entry widgets, potential solutions include disabling the cursor
    blinking behavior (if the API provides that feature), waiting for the
    cursor to be in a known state before capturing a bitmap (for example, by
    subscribing to an appropriate signal if the API provides one), or
    excluding the area containing the cursor from the bitmap comparison.
 
    \section2 Avoid Bitmap Capture and Comparison
 
    While verifying test results by capturing and comparing bitmaps is sometimes
    necessary, it can be quite fragile and labor-intensive.
 
    For example, a particular widget may have different appearance on different
    platforms or with different widget styles, so reference bitmaps may need to
    be created multiple times and then maintained in the future as Qt's set of
    supported platforms evolves. Making changes that affect the bitmap thus
    means having to recreate the expected bitmaps on each supported platform,
    which would require access to each platform.
 
    Bitmap comparisons can also be influenced by factors such as the test
    machine's screen resolution, bit depth, active theme, color scheme,
    widget style, active locale (currency symbols, text direction, and so
    on), font size, transparency effects, and choice of window manager.
 
    Where possible, use programmatic means, such as verifying properties of
    objects and variables, instead of capturing and comparing bitmaps.
 
    \section1 Improving Test Output
 
    The following sections provide guidelines for producing readable and
    helpful test output:
 
    \list
        \li \l {Test for Warnings}
        \li \l {Avoid Printing Debug Messages from Autotests}
        \li \l {Write Well-structured Diagnostic Code}
    \endlist
 
    \section2 Test for Warnings
 
    Just as when building your software, if test output is cluttered with
    warnings you will find it harder to notice a warning that really is a clue
    to the emergence of a bug. It is thus prudent to regularly check your test
    logs for warnings, and other extraneous output, and investigate the
    causes. When they are signs of a bug, you can make warnings trigger test
    failure.
 
    When the code under test \e should produce messages, such as warnings
    about misguided use, it is also important to test that it \e does produce
    them when so used. You can test for expected messages from the code under
    test, produced by \l qWarning(), \l qDebug(), \l qInfo() and friends,
    using \l QTest::ignoreMessage(). This will verify that the message is
    produced and filter it out of the output of the test run. If the message
    is not produced, the test will fail.
 
    If an expected message is only output when Qt is built in debug mode, use
    \l QLibraryInfo::isDebugBuild() to determine whether the Qt libraries were
    built in debug mode. Using \c{#ifdef QT_DEBUG} is not enough, as it will
    only tell you whether \e{the test} was built in debug mode, and that does
    not guarantee that the \e{Qt libraries} were also built in debug mode.
 
    Your tests can (since Qt 6.3) verify that they do not trigger calls to
    \l qWarning() by calling \l QTest::failOnWarning(). This takes the warning
    message to test for or a \l QRegularExpression to match against warnings; if
    a matching warning is produced, it will be reported and cause the test to
    fail. For example, a test that should produce no warnings at all can
    \c{QTest::failOnWarning(QRegularExpression(u".*"_s))}, which will match any
    warning at all.
 
    You can also set the environment variable \c QT_FATAL_WARNINGS to cause
    warnings to be treated as fatal errors. See \l qWarning() for details; this
    is not specific to autotests. If warnings would otherwise be lost in vast
    test logs, the occasional run with this environment variable set can help
    you to find and eliminate any that do arise.
 
    \section2 Avoid Printing Debug Messages from Autotests
 
    Autotests should not produce any unhandled warning or debug messages.
    This will allow the CI Gate to treat new warning or debug messages as
    test failures.
 
    Adding debug messages during development is fine, but these should be
    either disabled or removed before a test is checked in.
 
    \section2 Write Well-structured Diagnostic Code
 
    Any diagnostic output that would be useful if a test fails should be part
    of the regular test output rather than being commented-out, disabled by
    preprocessor directives, or enabled only in debug builds. If a test fails
    during continuous integration, having all of the relevant diagnostic output
    in the CI logs could save you a lot of time compared to enabling the
    diagnostic code and testing again. Epecially, if the failure was on a
    platform that you don't have on your desktop.
 
    Diagnostic messages in tests should use Qt's output mechanisms, such as
    \c qDebug() and \c qWarning(), rather than \c stdio.h or \c iostream.h output
    mechanisms. The latter bypass Qt's message handling and prevent the
    \c -silent command-line option from suppressing the diagnostic messages.
    This could result in important failure messages being hidden in a large
    volume of debugging output.
 
    \section1 Writing Testable Code
 
    The following sections provide guidelines for writing code that is easy to
    test:
 
    \list
        \li \l {Break Dependencies}
        \li \l {Compile All Classes into Libraries}
    \endlist
 
    \section2 Break Dependencies
 
    The idea of unit testing is to use every class in isolation. Since many
    classes instantiate other classes, it is not possible to instantiate one
    class separately. Therefore, you should use a technique called
    \e {dependency injection} that separates object creation from object use.
    A factory is responsible for building object trees. Other objects manipulate
    these objects through abstract interfaces.
 
    This technique works well for data-driven applications. For GUI
    applications, this approach can be difficult as objects are frequently
    created and destructed. To verify the correct behavior of classes that
    depend on abstract interfaces, \e mocking can be used. For example, see
    \l {Googletest Mocking (gMock) Framework}.
 
    \section2 Compile All Classes into Libraries
 
    In small to medium sized projects, a build script typically lists all
    source files and then compiles the executable in one go. This means that
    the build scripts for the tests must list the needed source files again.
 
    It is easier to list the source files and the headers only once in a
    script to build a static library. Then the \c main() function will be
    linked against the static library to build the executable and the tests
    will be linked against the static libraries.
 
    For projects where the same source files are used in building several
    programs, it may be more appropriate to build the shared classes into
    a dynamically-linked (or shared object) library that each program,
    including the test programs, can load at run-time. Again, having the
    compiled code in a library helps to avoid duplication in the description
    of which components to combine to make the various programs.
 
    \section1 Setting up Test Machines
 
    The following sections discuss common problems caused by test machine setup:
 
    \list
        \li \l {Screen Savers}
        \li \l {System Dialogs}
        \li \l {Display Usage}
        \li \l {Window Managers}
    \endlist
 
    All of these problems can typically be solved by the judicious use of
    virtualisation.
 
    \section2 Screen Savers
 
    Screen savers can interfere with some of the tests for GUI classes, causing
    unreliable test results. Screen savers should be disabled to ensure that
    test results are consistent and reliable.
 
    \section2 System Dialogs
 
    Dialogs displayed unexpectedly by the operating system or other running
    applications can steal input focus from widgets involved in an autotest,
    causing unreproducible failures.
 
    Examples of typical problems include online update notification dialogs
    on macOS, false alarms from virus scanners, scheduled tasks such as virus
    signature updates, software updates pushed out to workstations, and chat
    programs popping up windows on top of the stack.
 
    \section2 Display Usage
 
    Some tests use the test machine's display, mouse, and keyboard, and can
    thus fail if the machine is being used for something else at the same
    time or if multiple tests are run in parallel.
 
    The CI system uses dedicated test machines to avoid this problem, but if
    you don't have a dedicated test machine, you may be able to solve this
    problem by running the tests on a second display.
 
    On Unix, one can also run the tests on a nested or virtual X-server, such as
    Xephyr. For example, to run the entire set of tests on Xephyr, execute the
    following commands:
 
    \code
    Xephyr :1 -ac -screen 1920x1200 >/dev/null 2>&1 &
    sleep 5
    DISPLAY=:1 icewm >/dev/null 2>&1 &
    cd tests/auto
    make
    DISPLAY=:1 make -k -j1 check
    \endcode
 
    Users of NVIDIA binary drivers should note that Xephyr might not be able to
    provide GLX extensions. Forcing Mesa libGL might help:
 
    \code
    export LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/mesa-diverted/x86_64-linux-gnu/libGL.so.1
    \endcode
 
    However, when tests are run on Xephyr and the real X-server with different
    libGL versions, the QML disk cache can make the tests crash. To avoid this,
    use \c QML_DISABLE_DISK_CACHE=1.
 
    Alternatively, use the offscreen plugin:
 
    \code
    TESTARGS="-platform offscreen" make check -k -j1
    \endcode
 
    \section2 Window Managers
 
    On Unix, at least two autotests (\c tst_examples and \c tst_gestures)
    require a window manager to be running. Therefore, if running these
    tests under a nested X-server, you must also run a window manager
    in that X-server.
 
    Your window manager must be configured to position all windows on the
    display automatically. Some windows managers, such as Tab Window Manager
    (twm), have a mode for manually positioning new windows, and this prevents
    the test suite from running without user interaction.
 
    \note Tab Window Manager is not suitable for running the full suite of
    Qt autotests, as the \c tst_gestures autotest causes it to forget its
    configuration and revert to manual window placement.
*/