Does TDD apply well when developing an UI?

Question

What are your opinions and experiences regarding using TDD when developing an user interface?

I have been pondering about this question for some time now and just ca

Answer 1

I can't speak to Microsoft Silverlight, but I never use TDD for any kind of layout issues, just is not worth the time. What works well is using Unit Testing for checking any kind of wiring, validation and UI logic that you implemented. Most systems provide you with programmatic access to the actions the user takes, you can use these to assert that your expectations are correctly met. E.g. calling the click() method on a button should execute what ever code you intended. Selecting an item in a list view changes all the UI elements content to this items properties ...

Answer 2

At my workplace we use TDD and we actually unit test our UI code (for a web application) thanks to Apache Wicket's WicketTester but it's not testing that some descriptive label is before a text field or something like that, instead we test that hierarchy of the components is somewhat correct ("label is in the same subset as text field") and the components are what they're supposed to be ("this label really is a label").

Like others have already said, it's up to the real person to determine how those components are placed on the UI, not the programmer, especially since programmers have a tendency of doing all-in-one/obscure command line tools instead of UIs which are easy to use.

Answer 3

GUIs by their very nature are difficult to test, so as Brian Rasmussen suggests keep the dialog box code separate from the the GUI code.

This is the Humble Dialog Box Pattern.

For example, you may have a dialog box where details (e.g. credit card number) are input and you need to verify them. For this case you would put the code that checks the credit card number with the Luhn algorithm into a separate object which you test. (The algorithm in question just tests if the number is plausible - it's designed for checking for transcription errors.)

Answer 4

If you separate you logic from the actual GUI code, you can easily use TDD to build the logic and it will be a lot easier to build another interface on top of your logic as well, if you ever need that.

Answer 5

Based on your edit, here's a little more detail about how we do it on my current team. I'm doing Java with GWT, so the application to Silverlight might be a bit off.

Requirement or bug comes in to the developer. If there is a UI change (L&F) we do a quick mock up of the UI change and send it over to the product owner for approval. While we are waiting on that, we start the TDD process.

We start with at least on of either a Web test (using Selenium to drive user clicks in a browser), or a "headless" functional test using Concordion, FiT or something like it. Once that's done and failing, we have a high level vision of where to attack the underlying services in order to make the system work right.

Next step is to dig down and write some failing unit and integration tests (I think of unit tests as stand-alone, no dependencies, no data, etc. Integration tests are fully wired tests that read/write to the database, etc.)

Then, I make it work from bottom up. Sounds like your TDD background will let you extrapolate the benefits here. Refactor on the way up as well....

Answer 6

Test-Driven Development lends itself more to developing code than for developing user-interfaces. There are a few different ways in which TDD is performed, but the preferred way of true TDD is to write your tests first, then write the code to pass the tests. This is done iteratively throughout development.

Personally, I'm unsure of how you would go about performing TDD for UI's; however, the team that I am on performs automated simulation tests of our UIs. Basically, we have a suite of simulations that are run every hour on the most recent build of the application. These tests perform common actions and verify that certain elements, phrases, dialogs, etc, etc, properly occur based on, say, a set of use cases.

Of course, this does have its disadvantages. The downside to this is that the simulations are locked into the code representing the case. It leaves little room for variance and is basically saying that it expects the user to do exactly this behavior with respect to this feature.

Some testing is better than no testing, but it could be better.