A couple of weeks ago, I did the
the Ohce kata in
a Barcelona Software Craftsmanship event (I wrote
a previous post about it).
I wasn't happy with the resulting tests for the
Ohce class:
What I didn't like about the tests was that they weren't independent from each other.
When I started doing TDD, they were independent, but as soon as I introduced the loop to
request more user phrases, I had to stub a call to the
PhraseReader in each test that returned the stop phrase
to avoid infinite loops.
This made the tests to be very coupled to
Ohce's implementation:
Another problem was a violation of the
Law of Demeter caused by
asking the
Phrase value object, being returned by the
PhraseReader, if it was a palindrome.
This made it necessary to stub some calls to the
PhraseReader returning dummy phrases to avoid
getting null pointer exceptions.
These problems in the tests were a signal of problems in the design (see
What the tests will tell you).
I think there were two main problems:
- Ohce code had too many responsibilities.
- Controlling the dialog with the user.
- Responding to the user inputs.
- Ohce code was too procedural.
How could I fix them?
Well, I started thinking about a metaphor in which
Ohce was having a dialog with the user and responded to each user phrase, and how this dialog might be infinite unless the user made it stop by introducing an stop phrase.
This made me realize that there were some missing abstractions.
So I decided to explore this metaphor of an
infinite dialog comprised of
responses to each user phrase:
InfiniteDialog only had the responsibility of going on reading and responding to the user phrases until told to stop.
Going on with the metaphor, each of those responses to the user input might be seen a sequence of two responses: one that reversed the
user phrase and another one that celebrated when the user phrase was a palindrome.
To compose several independent responses, I used a
decorator:
Then I just needed to separately code each concrete response:
Notice how all the tests in
InfiniteDialogTest,
SequenceOfResponsesTest,
ReversingResponseTest and
PalindromeResponseTest were just adaptations of tests that were originally in
OhceTest, only that now they were much more focused and simple.
I regard this as a sign of design improvement.
Finally, I refactored the code to make
Ohce start using the
InfiniteDialog by applying
parallel change. It was a very smooth refactoring during which no tests were broken.
I think that this smoothness was a special case, because all the expectations in old
Ohce's tests were also satisfied
using
InfiniteDialog. Using
InfiniteDialog just added some new layers of abstraction over
old
Ohce's collaborators, but behind those layers the old collaborations were still happening.
In a different case, I might have probably broken some
Ohce's unit tests, but that wouldn't have been
a problem because the behavior would have been still protected by the
end-to-end tests.
So, I could have just deleted the broken unit tests and written a new one for the collaboration between
Ohce and
Dialog.
These were the new tests for
Ohce:
And this is its new code:
We've seen how listening to some problems in
Ohce's tests, led me to find some design problems,
that once fixed produced much more focused, clearer and less coupled tests, and how
having used mocks didn't suppose any problem at all during the whole refactoring process.
--------------------
You can find all the code in this
GitHub repository.