The difference between unit tests and functional tests

functional-testingtestingunit testing

What is the difference between unit tests and functional tests? Can a unit test also test a function?

Best Answer

Unit tests tell a developer that the code is doing things right; functional tests tell a developer that the code is doing the right things.

You can read more at Unit Testing versus Functional Testing

A well explained real-life analogy of unit testing and functional testing can be described as follows,

Many times the development of a system is likened to the building of a house. While this analogy isn't quite correct, we can extend it for the purposes of understanding the difference between unit and functional tests.

Unit testing is analogous to a building inspector visiting a house's construction site. He is focused on the various internal systems of the house, the foundation, framing, electrical, plumbing, and so on. He ensures (tests) that the parts of the house will work correctly and safely, that is, meet the building code.

Functional tests in this scenario are analogous to the homeowner visiting this same construction site. He assumes that the internal systems will behave appropriately, that the building inspector is performing his task. The homeowner is focused on what it will be like to live in this house. He is concerned with how the house looks, are the various rooms a comfortable size, does the house fit the family's needs, are the windows in a good spot to catch the morning sun.

The homeowner is performing functional tests on the house. He has the user's perspective.

The building inspector is performing unit tests on the house. He has the builder's perspective.

As a summary,

Unit Tests are written from a programmers perspective. They are made to ensure that a particular method (or a unit) of a class performs a set of specific tasks.

Functional Tests are written from the user's perspective. They ensure that the system is functioning as users are expecting it to.

Related Solutions

The difference between integration and unit tests

The key difference, to me, is that integration tests reveal if a feature is working or is broken, since they stress the code in a scenario close to reality. They invoke one or more software methods or features and test if they act as expected.

On the opposite, a Unit test testing a single method relies on the (often wrong) assumption that the rest of the software is correctly working, because it explicitly mocks every dependency.

Hence, when a unit test for a method implementing some feature is green, it does not mean the feature is working.

Say you have a method somewhere like this:

public SomeResults DoSomething(someInput) {
  var someResult = [Do your job with someInput];
  Log.TrackTheFactYouDidYourJob();
  return someResults;
}

DoSomething is very important to your customer: it's a feature, the only thing that matters. That's why you usually write a Cucumber specification asserting it: you wish to verify and communicate the feature is working or not.

Feature: To be able to do something
  In order to do something
  As someone
  I want the system to do this thing

Scenario: A sample one
  Given this situation
  When I do something
  Then what I get is what I was expecting for

No doubt: if the test passes, you can assert you are delivering a working feature. This is what you can call Business Value.

If you want to write a unit test for DoSomething you should pretend (using some mocks) that the rest of the classes and methods are working (that is: that, all dependencies the method is using are correctly working) and assert your method is working.

In practice, you do something like:

public SomeResults DoSomething(someInput) {
  var someResult = [Do your job with someInput];
  FakeAlwaysWorkingLog.TrackTheFactYouDidYourJob(); // Using a mock Log
  return someResults;
}

You can do this with Dependency Injection, or some Factory Method or any Mock Framework or just extending the class under test.

Suppose there's a bug in Log.DoSomething(). Fortunately, the Gherkin spec will find it and your end-to-end tests will fail.

The feature won't work, because Log is broken, not because [Do your job with someInput] is not doing its job. And, by the way, [Do your job with someInput] is the sole responsibility for that method.

Also, suppose Log is used in 100 other features, in 100 other methods of 100 other classes.

Yep, 100 features will fail. But, fortunately, 100 end-to-end tests are failing as well and revealing the problem. And, yes: they are telling the truth.

It's very useful information: I know I have a broken product. It's also very confusing information: it tells me nothing about where the problem is. It communicates me the symptom, not the root cause.

Yet, DoSomething's unit test is green, because it's using a fake Log, built to never break. And, yes: it's clearly lying. It's communicating a broken feature is working. How can it be useful?

(If DoSomething()'s unit test fails, be sure: [Do your job with someInput] has some bugs.)

Suppose this is a system with a broken class:

A single bug will break several features, and several integration tests will fail.

A single bug will break several features, and several integration tests will fail

On the other hand, the same bug will break just one unit test.

The same bug will break just one unit test

Now, compare the two scenarios.

The same bug will break just one unit test.

All your features using the broken Log are red
All your unit tests are green, only the unit test for Log is red

Actually, unit tests for all modules using a broken feature are green because, by using mocks, they removed dependencies. In other words, they run in an ideal, completely fictional world. And this is the only way to isolate bugs and seek them. Unit testing means mocking. If you aren't mocking, you aren't unit testing.

The difference

Integration tests tell what's not working. But they are of no use in guessing where the problem could be.

Unit tests are the sole tests that tell you where exactly the bug is. To draw this information, they must run the method in a mocked environment, where all other dependencies are supposed to correctly work.

That's why I think that your sentence "Or is it just a unit test that spans 2 classes" is somehow displaced. A unit test should never span 2 classes.

This reply is basically a summary of what I wrote here: Unit tests lie, that's why I love them.

What’s the difference between faking, mocking, and stubbing

You can get some information :

From Martin Fowler about Mock and Stub

Fake objects actually have working implementations, but usually take some shortcut which makes them not suitable for production

Stubs provide canned answers to calls made during the test, usually not responding at all to anything outside what's programmed in for the test. Stubs may also record information about calls, such as an email gateway stub that remembers the messages it 'sent', or maybe only how many messages it 'sent'.

Mocks are what we are talking about here: objects pre-programmed with expectations which form a specification of the calls they are expected to receive.

From xunitpattern:

Fake: We acquire or build a very lightweight implementation of the same functionality as provided by a component that the SUT depends on and instruct the SUT to use it instead of the real.

Stub : This implementation is configured to respond to calls from the SUT with the values (or exceptions) that will exercise the Untested Code (see Production Bugs on page X) within the SUT. A key indication for using a Test Stub is having Untested Code caused by the inability to control the indirect inputs of the SUT

Mock Object that implements the same interface as an object on which the SUT (System Under Test) depends. We can use a Mock Object as an observation point when we need to do Behavior Verification to avoid having an Untested Requirement (see Production Bugs on page X) caused by an inability to observe side-effects of invoking methods on the SUT.

Personally

I try to simplify by using : Mock and Stub. I use Mock when it's an object that returns a value that is set to the tested class. I use Stub to mimic an Interface or Abstract class to be tested. In fact, it doesn't really matter what you call it, they are all classes that aren't used in production, and are used as utility classes for testing.