In this new post to his site Michaelangelo van Dam looks at user acceptance testing with PHPUnit and Selenium.

Last week I spoke at php[tek] 2013 where I explained to people how to get started with Selenium IDE to record user interaction with the web interface, convert them to PHPUnit testcases and automatically execute them on multiple browsers on multiple platforms. The twitter I also received a bunch of questions regarding how to set up multiple platforms and why I used Windows in my presentation to deploy to. So today I deceided it was time to write a full article on this subject.

He introduces Selenium and what kinds of things it can be used to test. He also defines "user acceptance testing" and talks about why they're an important part of the testing ecosystem. He then walks you through the process of getting the testing environment set up, creating a few tests and how to convert them over to PHPUnit tests (using a built-in tool). Screencasts show you each step of the way. He includes a little tweaking you'll need to do to to the test code to get it working with your own Selenium server

On the Engine Yard blog today they've posted a conversation about testing between Ed Finkler and Chris Hartjes (also the hosts of the DevHell podcast).

Our friends Ed Finkler and Chris Hartjes recently had a chat about testing in PHP. Read on to get the low down on different testing tools and their relative merits-check it out as Ed and Chris weep for the future, come to some interesting conclusions and get their hands dirty so you don't have to.

They talk some about the current tools for unit testing in PHP applications and show what a sample test looks like. Ed talks about how the current testing tools can make it intimidating for people to get started testing and mentions the built-in testing library in Python that is a bit easier. There's also some mention of acceptance/functional testing and the Behat + Mink combo.

On the Codeception site today there's a new post that compares their tool, Behat and PHPUnit for testing your applications.

This is guest post by Ragazzo. He uses Behat as well as Codeception for making his project better. He was often asked to do a comparison between Codeception, Behat, and PhpUnit. In this post he explains the commons and different parts of this products.

The author talks some about the difference between functional/acceptance tests and how they fit in with behavior driven development. He includes some examples of Behat test formats (Gherkin) and how it can be used for both the functional and acceptance side of things. He also talks some about why he prefers Codeception over Behat(+Mink) for his testing. A sample Codeception test is included, showing a login form check.

On the Inviqa TechPortal today there'a a new post from Konstantin Kudryashov showing you how to use Mink for functional testing (an extension of Behat) of you web application.

Automated testing is big news these days. There's hardly a PHP conference happening without a talk on testing automation or derivative methodologies. TDD (Test-Driven Development) and BDD (Behaviour Driven Development) are all around us. So why should you care about all this? [...] The more complex an application becomes, the harder it is to be sure that each new feature or bug fix won't break the system, and that decreases your overall confidence in your work as developer. That's exactly the reason why you need automated testing - to be confident that you're not breaking important parts of an application.

For his examples he uses a simple Silex-based application (found here on github) that just shows a main page and an "add article" page that returns a preview when submitted. He shows how to get Behat/Mink installed and how to bootstrap PHPUnit to allow you to execute your tests. Also included is a sample test that clicks the "Add Article" link, runs a few checks and fills in some data. The form is submitted and the "preview" page is checked for valid results.

Alvaro Videla has a new post today showing how he used RabbitMQ in his unit testing runs with a small, quickly installed version of the server that can be removed once the tests are complete.

In this blog post I want to show you a very simple technique for using RabbitMQ in our Unit or Functional Tests. Let's say you wrote a bunch of tests for your RabbitMQ consumers and then it's time to run them. To do that you probably need to setup a RabbitMQ server just for tests with their own users and passwords, or you need to set up a whole new virtual host for your tests. [...] With a future release of RabbitMQ that we can already test on the nightlies website, we can run RabbitMQ without the need to install Erlang. We created a package that ships a stripped down version of Erlang together with the broker bits, so running RabbitMQ now is as easy as downloading a tarball, uncompressing it and starting the server.

With a combination of this more self-contained package and some listener handling through PHPUnit, they uncompress the tarball with a PHP script and start the server with the defined configuration. Then, once the tests are done, it cleans itself up and removes the entire server directory to make for a clean run the next time.

On DZone.com today Giorgio Sironi has posted a "cheat sheet" to help you correlate the functionality of two PHP unit testing tools - PHPUnit vs Phake (for mocking objects).

Benjamin Eberlei introduced me to Phake with his recent article: it is a Composer-ready PHP library that integrates easily with PHPUnit and provides an independent Test Doubles framework, capable of producing Stubs, Mocks, and Spies. The syntax and object model reminds me of Mockito, the Java Test Double framework from the authors of Growing Object-Oriented Software. I like tools that do one thing and do it well, and after experimenting with Phake I'm using it on all new code.

He compares the two tools on a few different pieces of functionality including creating stubs, mocks and spies. Sample code is included for both sides. It's not a detailed guide by any means, but it can give you a better picture of how the two compare.

Juan Treminio has posted the latest part of his unit testing series to his site today - the fifth part that looks at using mock methods on mock objects and overriding constructors.

Previously in my PHPUnit tutorial series, you learned about the very powerful concept of mock objects and stub methods. This concept is central to successful unit testing, and once it fully 'clicks' in your head you will start to realize how useful and simple testing can be. There is also another thing I want to make clear: creating tests is basically a puzzle - you simply have to go step by step, making sure all the pieces fit together correctly so you can get your green. I hope to make clear what I mean by the end of this tutorial.

He assumes you already know about mock objects and introduces the concept of "stub methods" and "mock methods", noting the difference between them. He then gets into what he calls the "four pathways of getMockBuilder" and talks about the rationale behind mocking methods in the first place. He then gets into constructors and how you can work around the "bad" ones with help from mock object functionality.

If you're interested in reading the rest of the series, you can find links to them here.

The /Dev/Hell podcast has posted their latest episode - #30 - "It's Episode 30, You Guys":

In our action-packed 30th episode Ed and Chris discussed their experiences with JavaScript testing tools, specifically how certain tools push you towards specific refactoring patterns. Chris talked about the successful launch of his latest book on using PHPUnit and got into some honest talk about revenue and how the product development course helped him make this book do 4 times the launch day revenue of his previous one. Ed discussed his plans to talk about mental illness on the conference circuit this year. Please help out by donating to the campaign!

You can listen to this latest episode either using the downloading the mp3. You can also subscribe to the feed to get this and future episodes as they're released.

In his most recent post Michelangelo van Dam talks about unit testing and databases and how, to effectively test what should be tested (the code, not "the ability to fetch data") you need to correctly mock your database objects.

When I state "as is", I truly mean the way it's being used in production. So the database call collects real data on which business logic is applied. You can see this is not a healthy situation, especially when you also have services that apply business logic on data and store it back into the database. In "Chris Hartjes wrote this one sentence that says it all: "Unit test suites are meant to be testing code, not the ability of a database server to return results". And he's right, you shouldn't use database connections when your testing business rules and functional logic.

He goes on to show a few code examples that show a pre-mocked state of testing where the Product information is pulled directly from a PDO connection. The more correct version mocks out this object, though, and overrides the "execute" and "fetchAll" methods to return mocked results.

On DZone.com today there's an update about recent additions to Paratest, the parallel PHPUnit test runner (created by Brian Scaturro). He talks some about the benefits of running tests in parallel and shares some of the recent contributions to the project from other developers.

I've already written about my experiments with Paratest. Paratest is a PHPUnit wrapper that allows you to run tests written for PHPUnit in parallel, making us of multiple processes running on the same machine. In a world where cycle time is an important metric, trading resources to get the test suite to finish earlier is a net gain; especially when you're stepping on unstable stones and run the suite very often.

He (Giorgio Sironi) has contributed a new test runner to the project - the "WrapperRunner" that limits the number of processes spawned by the parallel testing tool. Another contribution came from Dimitris Baltas involving the addition of a TEST_TOKEN variable that can be used to uniquely identify each process as they're executing.