These thoughts have become better because of these specific commenters on part 1: Jeff Nyman, James Huggett, Sean McErlean, Liza Ivinskaia, Jokin Aspiazu, Maxim Mikhailov, Anita Gujarathi, Mike Talks, Amit Wertheimer, Simon Morley, Dimitar Dimitrov, John Stevenson. Additionally, thank you Michael Bolton and thanks to the student whose productive confusion helped me discover a blindspot in my work, Anita Gujarathi.
Integration testing is a term I don’t use much– not because it doesn’t matter, but because it is so fundamental that it is already baked into many of the other working concepts and techniques of testing. Still, in the past week, I decided to upgrade my ability to quickly explain integration, integration risk, and integration testing. This is part of a process I recommend for all serious testers. I call it: reinventing testing. Each of us may reinvent testing concepts for ourselves, and engage in vigorous debates about them (see the comments on part 1, which is now the most commented of any post I have ever done).
For those of you interested in getting to a common language for testing, this is what I believe is the best way we have available to us. As each of us works to clarify his own thinking, a de facto consensus about reasonable testing ontology will form over time, community by community.
So here we go…
There several kinds of testing that involve or overlap with or may even be synonymous with integration testing, including: regression testing, system testing, field testing, interoperability testing, compatibility testing, platform testing, and risk-based testing. Most testing, in fact, no matter what it’s called, is also integration testing.
Here is my definition of integration testing, based on my own analysis, conversations with RST instructors (mainly Michael Bolton), and stimulated by the many commenters from part 1. All of my assertions and definitions are true within the Rapid Software Testing methodology namespace. Which means that you don’t have to agree with me unless you claim to be using RST.
What is integration testing?
Integration testing is:
1. Testing motivated by potential risk related to integration.
2. Tests designed specifically to assess risk related to integration.
1. “Motivated by” and “designed specifically to” overlap but are not the same. For instance, if you know that a dangerous criminal is on the loose in your neighborhood you may behave in a generally cautious or vigilant way even if you don’t know where the criminal is or what he looks like. But if you know what he looks like, what he is wearing, how he behaves or where he is, you can take more specific measures to find him or avoid him. Similarly, a newly integrated product may create a situation where any kind of testing may be worth doing, even if that testing is not specifically aimed at uncovering integration bugs, as such; OR you can perform tests aimed at exposing just the sort of bugs that integration typically causes, such as by performing operations that maximize the interaction of components.
The phrase “integration testing” may therefore represent ANY testing performed specifically in an “integration context”, or applying a specific “integration test technique” in ANY context.
This is a special case of the difference between risk-based test management and risk-based test design. The former assigns resources to places where there is potential risk but does not dictate the testing to be performed; whereas the latter crafts specific tests to examine the product for specific kinds of problems.
2. “Potential risk” is not the same as “risk.” Risk is the danger of something bad happening, and it can be viewed from at least three perspectives: probability of a bad event occurring, the impact of that event if it occurs, and our uncertainty about either of those things. A potential risk is a risk about which there is substantial uncertainty (in other words, you don’t know how likely the bug is to be in the product or you don’t know how bad it could be if it were present). The main point of testing is to eliminate uncertainty about risk, so this often begins with guessing about potential risk (in other words, making wild guesses, educated guesses, or highly informed analyses about where bugs are likely to be).
Example: I am testing something for the first time. I don’t know how it will deal with stressful input, but stress often causes failure, so that’s a potential risk. If I were to perform stress testing, I would learn a lot about how the product really handles stress, and the potential risk would be transformed into a high risk (if I found serious bugs related to stress) or a low risk (if the product handled stress in a consistently graceful way).
What is integration?
General definition from the Oxford English Dictionary: “The making up or composition of a whole by adding together or combining the separate parts or elements; combination into an integral whole: a making whole or entire.”
Based on this, we can make a simple technical definition related to products:
v. the process of constructing a product from parts.
n. a product constructed from parts.
Now, based on General Systems Theory, we make these assertions:
An integration, in some way and to some degree:
- Is composed of parts:
- …that come from differing sources.
- …that were produced for differing purposes.
- …that have differing attributes.
- Creates or represents an internal environment for its parts:
- …in which its parts interact among themselves.
- …in which its parts depend on each other.
- …in which its parts interact with or depend on an external environment.
- …in which these things are not visible from the outside.
- Possesses attributes relative to its parts:
- …that depend on them.
- …that differ from them.
Therefore, you might not be able to discern everything you want to know about an integration just by looking at its parts.
This is why integration risk exists. In complex or important systems, integration testing will be critically important, especially after changes have been made.
It may be possible to gain enough knowledge about an integration to characterize the risk (or to speak more plainly: it may be possible to find all the important integration bugs) without doing integration testing. You might be able to do it with unit testing. However, that process, although possible in some cases, might be impractical. This is the case partly because the parts may have been produced by different people with different assumptions, because it is difficult to simulate the environment of an integration prior to actual integration, or because unit testing tends to focus on what the units CAN do and not on what they ACTUALLY NEED to do. If you unit test a calculator, that’s a lot of work. But if that calculator will only ever be asked to add numbers under 50, you don’t need to do all that work.
Integration testing, although in some senses being complex, may actually simplify your testing since some parts mask the behavior of other parts and maybe all you need to care about is the final outputs.
1. “In some way and to some degree” means that these assertions are to be interpreted heuristically. In any specific situation, these assertions are highly likely to apply in some interesting or important way, but might not. An obvious example is where I wrote above that the “parts interact with each other.” The stricter truth is that the parts within an integration probably do not EACH directly interact with ALL the other ones, and probably do not interact to the same degree and in the same ways. To think of it heuristically, interpret it as a gentle warning such as “if you integrate something, make it your business to know how the parts might interact or depend on each other, because that knowledge is probably important.”
By using the phrase “in some way and to some degree” as a blanket qualifier, I can simplify the rest of the text, since I don’t have to embed other qualifiers.
1. “Constructing from parts” does not necessarily mean that the parts pre-existed the product, or have a separate existence outside the product, or are unchanged by the process of integration. It just means that we can think productively about pieces of the product and how they interact with other pieces.
2. A product may possess attributes that none of its parts possess, or that differ from them in unanticipated or unknown ways. A simple example is the stability of a tripod, which is not found in any of its individual legs, but in all the legs working together.
3. Disintegration also creates integration risk. When you takes things away, or take things apart, you end up with a new integration, and that is subject to the much the same risk as putting them together.
5. The attributes of a product and all its behaviors obviously depend largely on the parts that comprise it, but also on other factors such as the state of those parts, the configurations and states of external and internal environments, and the underlying rules by which those things operate (ultimately, physics. but more immediately, the communication and processing protocols of the computing environment).
6. Environment refers to the outside of some object (an object being a product or a part of a product), comprising factors that may interact with that object. A particular environment might be internal in some respects or external in other respects, at the the same time.
- An internal environment is an environment controlled by the product and accessible only to its parts. It is inside the product, but from the point vantage point of some of parts, it’s outside of them. For instance, to a spark plug the inside of an engine cylinder is an environment, but since it is not outside the car as a whole, it’s an internal environment. Technology often consists of deeply nested environments.
- An external environment is an environment inhabited but not controlled by the product.
- Control is not an all-or-nothing thing. There are different levels and types of control. For this reason it is not always possible to strictly identify the exact scope of a product or its various and possibly overlapping environments. This fact is much of what makes testing– and especially security testing– such a challenging problem.
7. An interaction occurs when one thing influences another thing. (A “thing” can be a part, an environment, a whole product, or anything else.)
8. A dependency occurs when one thing requires another thing to perform an action or possess an attribute (or not to) in order for the first thing to behave in a certain way or fulfill a certain requirement. See connascence and coupling.
9. Integration is not all or nothing– there are differing degrees and kinds. A product may be accidentally integrated, in that it works using parts that no one realizes that it has. It may be loosely integrated, such as a gecko that can jettison its tail, or a browser with a plugin. It may be tightly integrated, such as when we take the code from one product and add it to another product in different places, editing as we go. (Or when you digest food.) It may preserve the existing interfaces of its parts or violate them or re-design them or eliminate them. Integration is a sort of heuristic pattern– a lens– by which we can make better sense of the product and how it might fail. Different people may identify different things as parts, environments or products. That’s okay. We are free to move the lens around and try out different perspectives, too.
Example of an Integration Problem
This diagram shows a classic integration bug: dueling dependencies. In the top two panels, two components are happy to work within their own environments. Neither is aware of the other while they work on, let’s say, separate computers.
But when they are installed together on the same machine, it may turn out that each depends on factors that exclude the the other. Even though the components themselves don’t clash (the blue A box and the blue B boxes don’t overlap). Often such dependencies are poorly documented, and may be entirely unknown to the developer before integration time.
It is possible to discover this through unit testing… but so much easier and probably cheaper just to try to integrate sooner rather than later and test in that context.