Qapitol QA

A journey through the Testing Pyramid: Why your tests are bad

Table of Contents

Introduced in 2012, the test pyramid is a concept by Mike Cohn that helps development teams think strategically about their testing. It uses a pyramid structure to represent the ideal distribution of different test types within your test suite. The Test Pyramid was created to guide us on how to integrate automated testing in development by organizing it into layers.

The three layers of the Testing Pyramid

Unit Tests — The base layer: The most numerous and fundamental component, unit tests focus on the smallest testable units of code — individual functions, classes, or modules. They are designed to be fast, reliable, and provide immediate feedback to developers on code changes. Developers are primarily responsible for writing unit tests, and verifying the correctness and behavior of their code in isolation from dependencies like databases or external services. The benefits of Unit Tests include early defect detection, improved code quality, and faster development. Imagine the project management tool as a complex machine. Unit testing focuses on testing individual gears and levers — the small, independent parts.

Here are some examples:

  • Task creation: We test if adding a new task captures all necessary details (title, description, deadline) and handles errors like missing information.
  • User login: We ensure the login feature validates credentials and handles incorrect usernames or passwords gracefully.
  • Notifications: We check if the system generates alerts for task deadlines and updates, ensuring users stay informed.

These tests isolate the component being tested, mimicking dependencies like databases with mock data. They run frequently during development to catch bugs early.

Integration Tests — The middle layer: Building upon the foundation of unit tests, integration tests verify how different units work together. They test the interactions between components, modules, and external services to ensure seamless data flow and functionality across the system’s various parts. Integration tests focus on ensuring individual units can collaborate effectively to achieve the desired outcomes. The benefits of Integration Tests include — discovering inter-component issues, system-level verifications, and reduced regression risks. Imagine connecting the levers — ensuring smooth interaction between parts.

Here are some examples:

  • Task-calendar integration: We check if creating a task adds it to the calendar on the correct date and updates are reflected when deadlines change.
  • User permissions: We ensure changes made by one user (like updating a task status) are visible to others with access to the same project. This tests user roles, task management, and real-time updates.

These tests involve multiple components and might require a real database or API calls for a more realistic setup. They are run after a group of functionalities are developed or updated, less frequently than unit tests.

End-to-end tests — The top layer: E2E tests simulate real-world user scenarios and interactions with the entire system. They provide a holistic view of how the application flows from start to finish, encompassing user interface, database interactions, APIs, and backend processes. While E2E tests are crucial for verifying user-facing functionality, they are typically slower to write and execute compared to unit and integration tests. The benefits of E2E tests include real user experience validation, regression prevention, and system-wide smoke tests. E2E testing puts the entire project management machine to the test. Imagine a user operating the machine from start to finish.

Here are some examples:

  • Project lifecycle: We test creating a project, adding members, managing tasks, updating statuses, and archiving or completing it, simulating the entire project journey.
  • Collaboration features: We check if multiple users can work on a project collaboratively, assigning tasks, commenting, and tracking progress in real-time.

These tests use tools that mimic user interactions like clicking buttons and filling forms. They require a fully deployed application and run at critical milestones, like releases or significant feature additions.

Disadvantages of the Testing Pyramid

The test pyramid, while a valuable tool, can lead to problems if not approached thoughtfully. Let’s explore two key areas where the test pyramid can create unintended consequences:

False confidence from flawed tests: Test coverage is a metric often used to measure testing effectiveness. However, high coverage doesn’t guarantee quality. Flaky or poorly designed tests can create a false sense of security. Imagine a test that seems to cover a method but doesn’t verify its functionality. This can lead to undetected bugs and a false sense of confidence in the code.

Dogmatic application stifling change: The test pyramid can become a rigid framework if applied dogmatically. Treating it as an absolute rule can discourage critical thinking and hinder adaptation. For instance, developers may avoid refactoring code for fear of breaking existing tests, even if refactoring improves the code’s structure and maintainability.

Hinders refactoring: A dogmatic approach to the test pyramid can discourage code improvements. If developers view extensive tests as unbreakable rules, they might hesitate to refactor their code for fear of breaking the tests. This can hinder efforts to improve code structure and maintainability, even when beneficial changes are identified.

Overlooks other testing needs: The test pyramid primarily focuses on functional testing (unit, integration, E2E). However, a comprehensive test suite also needs non-functional testing like performance, security, and usability. These areas require different approaches and shouldn’t be neglected in favor of solely focusing on the pyramid’s structure.

While the test pyramid offers a valuable framework for building a test suite, it’s crucial to recognize its limitations. Over emphasizing test coverage can lead to a false sense of security with poorly designed tests. A dogmatic adherence to the pyramid’s structure can stifle refactoring and discourage improvements. Additionally, it prioritizes functional testing, neglecting crucial areas like performance, security, and usability. Remember, the test pyramid is a guide, not a rigid rule. By acknowledging its limitations and employing critical thinking, developers can leverage its strengths while avoiding its drawbacks.

Follow our newsletter for more insights.

Wondering if your testing strategy is truly effective? Let our experts guide you to better results.

Share this post:

Talk to us