My interview about software tests and Python

Monday 11 May 2015 Python, Books, TDD, OpenStack, Interview Comments

I've recently been contacted by Johannes Hubertz, who is writing a new book about Python in German called "Softwaretests mit Python" which will be published by Open Source Press, Munich this summer. His book will feature some interviews, and he was kind enough to let me write a bit about software testing. This is the interview that I gave for his book. Johannes translated to German and it will be included in Johannes' book, and I decided to publish it on my blog today. Following is the original version.

How did you come to Python?

I don't recall exactly, but around ten years ago, I saw more and more people using it and decided to take a look. Back then, I was more used to Perl. I didn't really like Perl and was not getting a good grip on its object system.

As soon as I found an idea to work on – if I remember correctly that was rebuildd – I started to code in Python, learning the language at the same time.

I liked how Python worked, and how fast I was to able to develop and learn it, so I decided to keep using it for my next projects. I ended up diving into Python core for some reasons, even doing things like briefly hacking on projects like Cython at some point, and finally ended up working on OpenStack.

OpenStack is a cloud computing platform entirely written in Python. So I've been writing Python every day since working on it.

That's what pushed me to write The Hacker's Guide to Python in 2013 and then self-publish it a year later in 2014, a book where I talk about doing smart and efficient Python.

It had a great success, has even been translated in Chinese and Korean, so I'm currently working on a second edition of the book. It has been an amazing adventure!

Zen of Python: Which line is the most important for you and why?

I like the "There should be one – and preferably only one – obvious way to do it". The opposite is probably something that scared me in languages like Perl. But having one obvious way to do it is and something I tend to like in functional languages like Lisp, which are in my humble opinion, even better at that.

For a python newbie, what are the most difficult subjects in Python?

I haven't been a newbie since a while, so it's hard for me to say. I don't think the language is hard to learn. There are some subtlety in the language itself when you deeply dive into the internals, but for beginners most of the concept are pretty straight-forward. If I had to pick, in the language basics, the most difficult thing would be around the generator objects (yield).

Nowadays I think the most difficult subject for new comers is what version of Python to use, which libraries to rely on, and how to package and distribute projects. Though things get better, fortunately.

When did you start using Test Driven Development and why?

I learned unit testing and TDD at school where teachers forced me to learn Java, and I hated it. The frameworks looked complicated, and I had the impression I was losing my time. Which I actually was, since I was writing disposable programs – that's the only thing you do at school.

Years later, when I started to write real and bigger programs (e.g. rebuildd), I quickly ended up fixing bugs… I already fixed. That recalled me about unit tests and that it may be a good idea to start using them to stop fixing the same things over and over again.

For a few years, I wrote less Python and more C code and Lua (for the awesome window manager), and I didn't use any testing. I probably lost hundreds of hours testing manually and fixing regressions – that was a good lesson. Though I had good excuses at that time – it is/was way harder to do testing in C/Lua than in Python.

Since that period, I have never stopped writing "tests". When I started to hack on OpenStack, the project was adopting a "no test? no merge!" policy due to the high number of regressions it had during the first releases.

I honestly don't think I could work on any project that does not have – at least a minimal – test coverage. It's impossible to hack efficiently on a code base that you're not able to test in just a simple command. It's also a real problem for new comers in the open source world. When there are no test, you can hack something and send a patch, and get a "you broke this" in response. Nowadays, this kind of response sounds unacceptable to me: if there is no test, then I didn't break anything!

In the end, it's just too much frustration to work on non tested projects as I demonstrated in my study of whisper source code.

What do you think to be the most often seen pitfalls of TDD and how to avoid them best?

The biggest problems are when and at what rate writing tests.

On one hand, some people starts to write too precise tests way too soon. Doing that slows you down, especially when you are prototyping some idea or concept you just had. That does not mean that you should not do test at all, but you should probably start with a light coverage, until you are pretty sure that you're not going to rip every thing and start over. On the other hand, some people postpone writing tests for ever, and end up with no test all or a too thin layer of test. Which makes the project with a pretty low coverage.

Basically, your test coverage should reflect the state of your project. If it's just starting, you should build a thin layer of test so you can hack it on it easily and remodel it if needed. The more your project grow, the more you should make it sold and lay more tests.

Having too detailed tests is painful to make the project evolve at the start. Having not enough in a big project makes it painful to maintain it.

Do you think, TDD fits and scales well for the big projects like OpenStack?

Not only I think it fits and scales well, but I also think it's just impossible to not use TDD in such big projects.

When unit and functional tests coverage was weak in OpenStack – at its beginning – it was just impossible to fix a bug or write a new feature without breaking a lot of things without even noticing. We would release version N, and a ton of old bugs present in N-2 – but fixed in N-1 – were reopened.

For big projects, with a lot of different use cases, configuration options, etc, you need belt and braces. You cannot throw code in a repository thinking it's going to work ever, and you can't afford to test everything manually at each commit. That's just insane.