Separation of Interface From Implementation
Because some classes may have references to other classes, testing a class can frequently spill over into testing another class. A common example of this is classes that depend on a database: in order to test the class, the tester often writes code that interacts with the database. This is a mistake, because a unit test should usually not go outside of its own class boundary, and especially should not cross such process/network boundaries because this can introduce unacceptable performance problems to the unit test-suite. Crossing such unit boundaries turns unit tests into integration tests, and when test cases fail, makes it less clear which component is causing the failure. See also Fakes, mocks and integration tests
Instead, the software developer should create an abstract interface around the database queries, and then implement that interface with their own mock object. By abstracting this necessary attachment from the code (temporarily reducing the net effective coupling), the independent unit can be more thoroughly tested than may have been previously achieved. This results in a higher quality unit that is also more maintainable.
Read more about this topic: Unit Testing
Famous quotes containing the words separation of and/or separation:
“... the separation of church and state means separation—absolute and eternal—or it means nothing.”
—Agnes E. Meyer (1887–1970)
“Like sleep disturbances, some worries at separation can be expected in the second year. If you accept this, then you will avoid reacting to this anxiety as if it’s your fault. A mother who feels guilty will appear anxious to the child, as if to affirm the child’s anxiety. By contrast, a parent who understands that separation anxiety is normal is more likely to react in a way that soothes and reassures the child.”
—Cathy Rindner Tempelsman (20th century)