I’d rather read code than tests
But the benefits [of test-driven development] go beyond that. If you want to know how to call a certain API, there is a test that does it. If you want to know how to create a certain object, there is a test that does it. Anything you want to know about the existing system, there is a test that demonstrates it. The tests are like little design documents, little coding examples, that describe how the system works and how to use it.
Have you ever integrated a third party library into your project? You got a big manual full of nice documentation. At the end there was a thin appendix of examples. Which of the two did you read? The examples of course! That’s what the unit tests are! They are the most useful part of the documentation. They are the living examples of how to use the code. They are design documents that are hideously detailed, utterly unambiguous, so formal that they execute, and they cannot get out of sync with the production code.
– TheThreeRulesOfTdd, “Uncle” Bob Martin
I sat down today with a co-worker today to discuss a pull request I had submitted earlier in the day.
“You read it already?” I asked.
“Yeah”, he replied, to which he amended “…well, I didn’t read your tests.”
I wasn’t really surprised at that, since (a) it’s the non-test code that I’m worried about, and (b) I often don’t read tests in pull requests either.
Still, I paused for a moment to discuss this with him, because I remembered Uncle Bob’s paean to unit tests as documentation for code. My colleague admitted that he didn’t read tests because reading the tests required more effort than reading the code.
On further reflection, I realized that I, too, never look at tests when I’m trying to understand an unfamiliar codebase. I just read the code directly.
What’s going on here? My theory is: unit tests are too noisy to be useful for understanding.
For APIs, yes, examples are wonderful: if I need to write code that will call into somebody else’s API, I can never get enough examples. But for most of the code that I read, I’m not trying to understand how to call into it like a library, I’m trying to understand its role in the context of a larger system.
For the code I typically work with, the unit tests require complex setup and assertion sections. This increases the cognitive load on the reader: why expend the extra effort to understand the test when I can read the source directly?
There are techniques for making tests more readable: factor your tests well, use a single assertion per test, use tools to improve readability like Rspec and Hamcrest. Still, it always feels like it isn’t worth the effort to try and understand the tests. After all, I can always just read the code.