Do you understand the dangers of tolerating automated test failures?
Last updated by Lee Hawkins [SSW] over 1 year ago.See historyA big suite of various levels of automated tests can be a great way of quickly identifying problems introduced into the codebase.
As your application changes and the number of automated tests increases over time, though, it becomes more likely that some of them will fail.
It's important to know how to handle these failures appropriately.
Some anti-patterns in handling automated test failures
When automated tests fail due to a genuine problem in the software, this is a good thing! You should thank them and address the problem asap.
But what about test failures due to other reasons? Let's look at some common anti-patterns for dealing with such failures.
Tolerate the failures
Some "reasons" for tolerating test failures include:
- There are some "flaky" tests and they'll probably pass if we just re-run them - read this Twitter thread from Michael Bolton on so-called "flaky tests"
- Only a few tests are failing (out of thousands), so it's not a big deal!
- It's always the same tests that fail, so we know everything is really OK even though the build is not "green"
- We haven't got time to fix the tests right now, we'll come back and fix them later
Tolerating test failures quickly erodes the trust in the results of the tests, to the point where the results are ignored and so they become pointless to run. This is a significant waste of your investment in building automated tests.
You need anything other than a "green build" to be a problem that the whole team takes seriously. This requires your automated tests to be reliable and stable, so that they only fail when they've identified a problem in the software.
Tip: It's better to have fewer, more reliable tests than more, unreliable ones (since the results of these unreliable tests don't tell you anything definitive about the state of the software under test).
"Skip" the failing tests
It might be tempting to deliberately skip the failing tests to get back to a "green build" state, with the intention of fixing them later.
The first problem with this is those failing tests that you're choosing to skip might actually be tests that find significant problems in the software - and now you'll deliberately overlook these problems.
The second problem is that "later" never comes - higher priority work arises and going back to fix up these tests is unlikely to get the priority it needs. Keeping track of which tests are being skipped also adds unnecessary overhead and increases the risk of problems being introduced but going undetected.
Better ways to handle automated test failures
The best measure of success, is how you deal with failure. - Ronnie Radke
When an automated test fails because of a problem in the software, you should prioritise fixing the problem.
When a test fails but not because of a problem in the software:
- If the test is important enough to keep, fix it
- If there's no value in the test anymore, delete it
Remember that you've invested the time and effort into writing automated tests for a reason. Quite reasonably, you have doubts about your code and you write tests to help overcome these doubts.
This means the automated test code is important and needs to be high quality.
