When TDD Is Not a Good Fit
Tags: programming, testing, tdd, testdrivendevelopm
Published: 2019-09-30 08:14:30

---
title: When TDD Is Not a Good Fit
published: true
tags: Programming,Testing,tdd,test-driven developm
canonical_url: https://henrikwarne.com/2019/09/29/when-tdd-is-not-a-good-fit/
---

I like to use Test-Driven Development (TDD) when coding. However, in some circumstances, TDD is more of a hinderance than a help. This happens when _how_ to solve the problem is not clear. Then it is better to first write a solution and evaluate if it solves the problem. Writing tests only makes sense _after_ the solution is viable.[![](https://henrikwarne1.files.wordpress.com/2019/09/dsc_2195-e1569760566557.jpg?w=488&h=202)](https://henrikwarne1.files.wordpress.com/2019/09/dsc_2195-e1569760566557.jpg)

Last week, I came across examples of where I developed new functionality without using TDD. In both cases, it felt like the natural thing to do. So I thought a bit about why that was.

### Avoiding Premature Tests

There were two cases where I didn’t start with tests. In both cases, had I started by writing tests, I would have wasted effort on writing tests for solutions that turned out to be wrong.

**Example 1**. Our system takes in values from an external source. Typically there is a one to one mapping between an external value, and the corresponding internal value. However, now there was a case where we needed to take in two different external values for a given internal value. The decision of which of the two to use would be taken later, and could be changed back and forth.

Even though it sounds straight forward, the code that takes in the values and does the mapping is quite complex. Therefore it is hard to know all the implications of a change. So it took a stab at implementing it the way I thought would be best. But since I wasn’t sure if I would find any problems with my implementation, I did not write any tests. Instead I concentrated on getting an end-to-end solution working, so I could validate that my solution did in fact work. As it turned out, my solution had side-effects that caused some other existing mappings to fail.

So I had to rework my solution to be less general. I opted to identify the specific case I wanted to change, and make sure the new mechanism only applied to that case. With that change, it worked fine. At this point, I added tests for the changes I had made. If I had started by writing tests for the first solution, before I had verified that it would work, I would have wasted my time on tests for the wrong functionality.

**Example 2**. As we were moving some interactions with an external system to be asynchronous, we realized that we must stop some data modifications while waiting for the response. To see how to fit this in, I added a simple _sleep_ in our code to force a longer wait for the response. When attempting a modification in this state, I realized that preventing those modifications was more complicated than I had thought. I already had an idea of what I needed to do, but trying it out in the system showed me the problems with my naive solution.

Here too, I did not start by writing tests. Instead, I started by trying out a solution. At the time I didn’t reflect on why I did it that way. But thinking more about it now, I think it was because I was not confident that I had the right solution. So it made sense to first try out a solution to see if it worked or not.

In both case, once I had confidence in my solution, I added unit tests to cover the new code (where feasible). Even though the tests were added later, the TDD mindset is still helpful. I always consider how the code I write can be tested. For example, using a stand-alone function in Python means that I will be able to test it with minimal surrounding context.

### I Know What I Have To Do

In other cases, TDD works as intended – the tests _drive_ the design. One example is when I needed a message handler that would collect all parts of an SMS message and assemble them in the right order. The message handler also needed to time out after a number of seconds if some parts of the message didn’t arrive. In this case, TDD worked really well. To be able to test the behavior when timing out, I separated out the time-dependent parts – more details are [here](https://henrikwarne.com/2013/12/08/tdd-unit-tests-and-the-passage-of-time/).

The difference here is that it was clear to me what I needed to do. The collecting of the message parts would be a new piece of functionality that was not depending on how other parts worked. Sure, it needed to fit in to the existing code base, but that didn’t affect _how_ it would work. In the two examples above, it was not clear from the start how it would work, so more exploration was needed.

### Conclusion

TDD is supposed to let the tests drive the solution. This works well in a lot of cases. However, if you are not sure a given solution will work, it is a waste of effort to write tests before you know it is the correct solution. This uncertainty often happens when you need to fit new functionality into complicated existing code. In theory you should be able to read the existing code and figure out how the new solution should fit in. However, in practice it might be better to try out a solution in the test system to verify that it works as intended. In any case, writing tests for code you are not sure solves the problem is wasted effort.