I’m going to be doing some presentations on testing for database administrators. I’ve been really excited to be working on pgTAP, and have started using it extensively to write tests for a client with a bunch of PostgreSQL databases. But as I start to push the idea of testing within the PostgreSQL community, I’m running into some surprising resistance.
I asked a major figure in the community about this, someone who has expressed skepticism in my past presentations. He feels that it’s hard to create a generic testing framework. He told me:
Well, you are testing for bugs, and bugs are pretty specific in where they appear. Writing the tests is 90% of the job; writing the infrastructure is minor. If the infrastructure has limitations, which all do, you might as well write that extra 10% too.
I have to say that this rather surprised me. I guess I just thought that everyone was on board with the idea of testing. The PostgreSQL core, after all, has a test suite. But the idea that one writes test to test for bugs seems like a major misconception about testing: I don’t write tests to test bugs (that is what regression tests are for, but there is much more to testing than regression tests); I write tests to ensure consistent and correct behavior in my code as development continues over time.
It has become clear to me that I need to reframe my database testing presentations to emphasize not the how to go about testing; I think that pgTAP does a pretty good job of making it a straight-forward process (at least as straight-forward as when writing tests in Ruby or Perl, for example). What I have to address first is the why of testing. I need to convince database administrators that testing is an essential tool in their kits, and the way to do that is to show them why it’s essential.
With this in mind, I asked, via Twitter, why should database people test their databases? I got some great answers (and, frankly, the 140 character limit of Twitter made them admirably pithy, which is a huge help):
- chromatic_x: @theory, because accidents that happen during tests are much easier to recover from than accidents that happen live.
- caseywest: @Theory When you write code that’s testable you tend to write better code: cleaner interfaces, reusable components, composable pieces.
- depesz_com: @Theory testing prevents repeating mistakes.
- rjbs: @Theory The best ROI for me is “never ship the same bug twice.”
- elein: @Theory trust but verify
- cwinters: @Theory so they can change the system without feeling like they’re on a suicide mission
- caseywest: @Theory So they can document how the system actually works.
- hanekomu: @Theory Regression tests - to see whether, after having changed something here, something else over there falls over.
- robrwo: @Theory Show them a case where bad data is inserted into/deleted from database because constraints weren’t set up.
Terrific ideas there. I thank you, Tweeps. But I ask here, too: Why should we write tests against our databases? Leave a comment with your (brief!) thoughts.
And thank you!
Looking for the comments? Try the old layout.