Copyright © 2008, 2010--2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

     Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with the Front-Cover texts being ``A GNU Manual,'' and with the Back-Cover Texts as in (a) below.  A copy of the license is included in the section entitled ``GNU Free Documentation License''.

     (a) The FSF's Back-Cover Text is: ``You have the freedom to copy and modify this GNU manual.''

ERT: Emacs Lisp Regression Testing
**********************************

ERT is a tool for automated testing in Emacs Lisp.  Its main features are facilities for defining tests, running them and reporting the results, and for debugging test failures interactively.

ERT is similar to tools for other environments such as JUnit, but has unique features that take advantage of the dynamic and interactive nature of Emacs.  Despite its name, it works well both for test-driven development (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test-driven_development) and for traditional software development methods.

Introduction
************

ERT allows you to define tests in addition to functions, macros, variables, and the other usual Lisp constructs.  Tests are simply Lisp code: code that invokes other code and checks whether it behaves as expected.

ERT keeps track of the tests that are defined and provides convenient commands to run them to verify whether the definitions that are currently loaded in Emacs pass the tests.

Some Lisp files have comments like the following (adapted from the package pp.el):

     ;; (pp-to-string '(quote quote))          ; expected: "'quote"
     ;; (pp-to-string '((quote a) (quote b)))  ; expected: "('a 'b)\n"
     ;; (pp-to-string '('a 'b))                ; same as above

The code contained in these comments can be evaluated from time to time to compare the output with the expected output.  ERT formalizes this and introduces a common convention, which simplifies Emacs development, since programmers no longer have to manually find and evaluate such comments.

An ERT test definition equivalent to the above comments is this:

     (ert-deftest pp-test-quote ()
       "Tests the rendering of `quote' symbols in `pp-to-string'."
       (should (equal (pp-to-string '(quote quote)) "'quote"))
       (should (equal (pp-to-string '((quote a) (quote b))) "('a 'b)\n"))
       (should (equal (pp-to-string '('a 'b)) "('a 'b)\n")))

If you know defun, the syntax of ert-deftest should look familiar: This example defines a test named pp-test-quote that will pass if the three calls to equal all return true (non-nil).

should is a macro with the same meaning as cl-assert but better error reporting.  See The should Macro.

Each test should have a name that describes what functionality it tests. Test names can be chosen arbitrarily---they are in a namespace separate from functions and variables---but should follow the usual Emacs Lisp convention of having a prefix that indicates which package they belong to.  Test names are displayed by ERT when reporting failures and can be used when selecting which tests to run.

The empty parentheses () in the first line don't currently have any meaning and are reserved for future extension.  They also make the syntax of ert-deftest more similar to that of defun.

The docstring describes what feature this test tests.  When running tests interactively, the first line of the docstring is displayed for tests that fail, so it is good if the first line makes sense on its own.

The body of a test can be arbitrary Lisp code.  It should have as few side effects as possible; each test should be written to clean up after itself, leaving Emacs in the same state as it was before the test.  Tests should clean up even if they fail.  See Tests and Their Environment.

How to Run Tests
****************

You can run tests either in the Emacs you are working in, or on the command line in a separate Emacs process in batch mode (i.e., with no user interface).  The former mode is convenient during interactive development, the latter is useful to make sure that tests pass independently of your customizations; and it allows you to invoke tests from makefiles, and to write scripts that run tests in several different Emacs versions.

Running Tests Interactively
===========================

You can run the tests that are currently defined in your Emacs with the command M-x ert RET t RET.  (For an explanation of the t argument, see Test Selectors.) ERT will pop up a new buffer, the ERT results buffer, showing the results of the tests run.  It looks like this:

     Selector: t
     Passed: 31
     Failed: 2 (2 unexpected)
     Total:  33/33

     Started at:   2008-09-11 08:39:25-0700
     Finished.
     Finished at:  2008-09-11 08:39:27-0700

     FF...............................

     F addition-test
         (ert-test-failed
          ((should
            (=
             (+ 1 2)
             4))
           :form
           (= 3 4)
           :value nil))

     F list-test
         (ert-test-failed
          ((should
            (equal
             (list 'a 'b 'c)
             '(a b d)))
           :form
           (equal
            (a b c)
            (a b d))
           :value nil :explanation
           (list-elt 2
                     (different-atoms c d))))

At the top, there is a summary of the results: we ran all tests defined in the current Emacs (Selector: t), 31 of them passed, and 2 failed unexpectedly.  See Expected Failures, for an explanation of the term unexpected in this context.

The line of dots and Fs is a progress bar where each character represents one test; it fills while the tests are running.  A dot means that the test passed, an F means that it failed.  Below the progress bar, ERT shows details about each test that had an unexpected result.  In the example above, there are two failures, both due to failed should forms.  See Understanding Explanations, for more details.

In the ERT results buffer, TAB and S-TAB cycle between buttons.  Each name of a function or macro in this buffer is a button; moving point to it and typing RET jumps to its definition.

Pressing r re-runs the test near point on its own.  Pressing d re-runs it with the debugger enabled.  . jumps to the definition of the test near point (RET has the same effect if point is on the name of the test).  On a failed test, b shows the backtrace of the failure.

l shows the list of should forms executed in the test. If any messages were generated (with the Lisp function message) in a test or any of the code that it invoked, m will show them.

By default, long expressions in the failure details are abbreviated using print-length and print-level.  Pressing L while point is on a test failure will increase the limits to show more of the expression.

Running Tests in Batch Mode
===========================

ERT supports automated invocations from the command line or from scripts or makefiles.  There are two functions for this purpose, ert-run-tests-batch and ert-run-tests-batch-and-exit. They can be used like this:

     emacs -batch -l ert -l my-tests.el -f ert-run-tests-batch-and-exit

This command will start up Emacs in batch mode, load ERT, load my-tests.el, and run all tests defined in it.  It will exit with a zero exit status if all tests passed, or nonzero if any tests failed or if anything else went wrong.  It will also print progress messages and error diagnostics to standard output.

If ERT is not part of your Emacs distribution, you may need to use -L /path/to/ert/ so that Emacs can find it.  You may need additional -L flags to ensure that my-tests.el and all the files that it requires are on your load-path.

Test Selectors
==============

Functions like ert accept a test selector, a Lisp expression specifying a set of tests.  Test selector syntax is similar to Common Lisp's type specifier syntax:

  * nil selects no tests.

  * t selects all tests.

  * :new selects all tests that have not been run yet.

  * :failed and :passed select tests according to their most recent result.

  * :expected, :unexpected select tests according to their most recent result.

  * A string is a regular expression that selects all tests with matching names.

  * A test (i.e., an object of ert-test data type) selects that test.

  * A symbol selects the test that the symbol names.

  * (member TESTS...) selects the elements of TESTS, a list of tests or symbols naming tests.

  * (eql TEST) selects TEST, a test or a symbol naming a test.

  * (and SELECTORS...) selects the tests that match all SELECTORS.

  * (or SELECTORS...) selects the tests that match any SELECTOR.

  * (not SELECTOR) selects all tests that do not match SELECTOR.

  * (tag TAG) selects all tests that have TAG on their tags list. (Tags are optional labels you can apply to tests when you define them.)

  * (satisfies PREDICATE) selects all tests that satisfy PREDICATE, a function that takes a test as argument and returns non-nil if it is selected.

Selectors that are frequently useful when selecting tests to run include t to run all tests that are currently defined in Emacs, "^foo-" to run all tests in package foo (this assumes that package foo uses the prefix foo- for its test names), result-based selectors such as (or :new :unexpected) to run all tests that have either not run yet or that had an unexpected result in the last run, and tag-based selectors such as (not (tag :causes-redisplay)) to run all tests that are not tagged :causes-redisplay.

How to Write Tests
******************

ERT lets you define tests in the same way you define functions.  You can type ert-deftest forms in a buffer and evaluate them there with eval-defun or compile-defun, or you can save the file and load it, optionally byte-compiling it first.

Just like find-function is only able to find where a function was defined if the function was loaded from a file, ERT is only able to find where a test was defined if the test was loaded from a file.

The should Macro
================

Test bodies can include arbitrary code; but to be useful, they need to check whether the code being tested (or code under test) does what it is supposed to do.  The macro should is similar to cl-assert from the cl package (see Assertions (Common Lisp Extensions)), but analyzes its argument form and records information that ERT can display to help debugging.

This test definition

     (ert-deftest addition-test ()
       (should (= (+ 1 2) 4)))

will produce this output when run via M-x ert:

     F addition-test
         (ert-test-failed
          ((should
            (=
             (+ 1 2)
             4))
           :form
           (= 3 4)
           :value nil))

In this example, should recorded the fact that (= (+ 1 2) 4) reduced to (= 3 4) before it reduced to nil.  When debugging why the test failed, it helps to know that the function + returned 3 here.  ERT records the return value for any predicate called directly within should.

In addition to should, ERT provides should-not, which checks that the predicate returns nil, and should-error, which checks that the form called within it signals an error.  An example use of should-error:

     (ert-deftest test-divide-by-zero ()
       (should-error (/ 1 0)
                     :type 'arith-error))

This checks that dividing one by zero signals an error of type arith-error.  The :type argument to should-error is optional; if absent, any type of error is accepted. should-error returns an error description of the error that was signaled, to allow additional checks to be made.  The error description has the format (ERROR-SYMBOL . DATA).

There is no should-not-error macro since tests that signal an error fail anyway, so should-not-error is effectively the default.

See Understanding Explanations, for more details on what should reports.

Expected Failures
=================

Some bugs are complicated to fix, or not very important, and are left as known bugs.  If there is a test case that triggers the bug and fails, ERT will alert you of this failure every time you run all tests.  For known bugs, this alert is a distraction.  The way to suppress it is to add :expected-result :failed to the test definition:

     (ert-deftest future-bug ()
       "Test `time-forward' with negative arguments.
     Since this functionality isn't implemented, the test is known to fail."
       :expected-result :failed
       (time-forward -1))

ERT will still display a small f in the progress bar as a reminder that there is a known bug, and will count the test as failed, but it will be quiet about it otherwise.

An alternative to marking the test as a known failure this way is to delete the test.  This is a good idea if there is no intent to fix it, i.e., if the behavior that was formerly considered a bug has become an accepted feature.

In general, however, it can be useful to keep tests that are known to fail.  If someone wants to fix the bug, they will have a very good starting point: an automated test case that reproduces the bug.  This makes it much easier to fix the bug, demonstrate that it is fixed, and prevent future regressions.

ERT displays the same kind of alerts for tests that pass unexpectedly as it displays for unexpected failures.  This way, if you make code changes that happen to fix a bug that you weren't aware of, you will know to remove the :expected-result clause of that test and close the corresponding bug report, if any.

Since :expected-result evaluates its argument when the test is loaded, tests can be marked as known failures only on certain Emacs versions, specific architectures, etc.:

     (ert-deftest foo ()
       "A test that is expected to fail on Emacs 23 but succeed elsewhere."
       :expected-result (if (string-match "GNU Emacs 23[.]" (emacs-version))
                            :failed
                          :passed)
       ...)

Tests and Their Environment
===========================

The outcome of running a test should not depend on the current state of the environment, and each test should leave its environment in the same state it found it in.  In particular, a test should not depend on any Emacs customization variables or hooks, and if it has to make any changes to Emacs's state or state external to Emacs (such as the file system), it should undo these changes before it returns, regardless of whether it passed or failed.

Tests should not depend on the environment because any such dependencies can make the test brittle or lead to failures that occur only under certain circumstances and are hard to reproduce.  Of course, the code under test may have settings that affect its behavior.  In that case, it is best to make the test let-bind all such setting variables to set up a specific configuration for the duration of the test.  The test can also set up a number of different configurations and run the code under test with each.

Tests that have side effects on their environment should restore it to its original state because any side effects that persist after the test can disrupt the workflow of the programmer running the tests.  If the code under test has side effects on Emacs's current state, such as on the current buffer or window configuration, the test should create a temporary buffer for the code to manipulate (using with-temp-buffer), or save and restore the window configuration (using save-window-excursion), respectively.  For aspects of the state that can not be preserved with such macros, cleanup should be performed with unwind-protect, to ensure that the cleanup occurs even if the test fails.

An exception to this are messages that the code under test prints with message and similar logging; tests should not bother restoring the *Message* buffer to its original state.

The above guidelines imply that tests should avoid calling highly customizable commands such as find-file, except, of course, if such commands are what they want to test.  The exact behavior of find-file depends on many settings such as find-file-wildcards, enable-local-variables, and auto-mode-alist.  It is difficult to write a meaningful test if its behavior can be affected by so many external factors.  Also, find-file has side effects that are hard to predict and thus hard to undo: It may create a new buffer or reuse an existing buffer if one is already visiting the requested file; and it runs find-file-hook, which can have arbitrary side effects.

Instead, it is better to use lower-level mechanisms with simple and predictable semantics like with-temp-buffer, insert or insert-file-contents-literally, and to activate any desired mode by calling the corresponding function directly, after binding the hook variables to nil.  This avoids the above problems.

Useful Techniques when Writing Tests
====================================

Testing simple functions that have no side effects and no dependencies on their environment is easy.  Such tests often look like this:

     (ert-deftest ert-test-mismatch ()
       (should (eql (ert--mismatch "" "") nil))
       (should (eql (ert--mismatch "" "a") 0))
       (should (eql (ert--mismatch "a" "a") nil))
       (should (eql (ert--mismatch "ab" "a") 1))
       (should (eql (ert--mismatch "Aa" "aA") 0))
       (should (eql (ert--mismatch '(a b c) '(a b d)) 2)))

This test calls the function ert--mismatch several times with various combinations of arguments and compares the return value to the expected return value.  (Some programmers prefer (should (eql EXPECTED ACTUAL)) over the (should (eql ACTUAL EXPECTED)) shown here.  ERT works either way.)

Here's a more complicated test:

     (ert-deftest ert-test-record-backtrace ()
       (let ((test (make-ert-test :body (lambda () (ert-fail "foo")))))
         (let ((result (ert-run-test test)))
           (should (ert-test-failed-p result))
           (with-temp-buffer
             (ert--print-backtrace (ert-test-failed-backtrace result))
             (goto-char (point-min))
             (end-of-line)
             (let ((first-line (buffer-substring-no-properties
                                (point-min) (point))))
               (should (equal first-line
                              "  signal(ert-test-failed (\"foo\"))")))))))

This test creates a test object using make-ert-test whose body will immediately signal failure.  It then runs that test and asserts that it fails.  Then, it creates a temporary buffer and invokes ert--print-backtrace to print the backtrace of the failed test to the current buffer.  Finally, it extracts the first line from the buffer and asserts that it matches what we expect.  It uses buffer-substring-no-properties and equal to ignore text properties; for a test that takes properties into account, buffer-substring and ert-equal-including-properties could be used instead.

The reason why this test only checks the first line of the backtrace is that the remainder of the backtrace is dependent on ERT's internals as well as whether the code is running interpreted or compiled.  By looking only at the first line, the test checks a useful property---that the backtrace correctly captures the call to signal that results from the call to ert-fail---without being brittle.

This example also shows that writing tests is much easier if the code under test was structured with testing in mind.

For example, if ert-run-test accepted only symbols that name tests rather than test objects, the test would need a name for the failing test, which would have to be a temporary symbol generated with make-symbol, to avoid side effects on Emacs's state.  Choosing the right interface for ert-run-tests allows the test to be simpler.

Similarly, if ert--print-backtrace printed the backtrace to a buffer with a fixed name rather than the current buffer, it would be much harder for the test to undo the side effect.  Of course, some code somewhere needs to pick the buffer name.  But that logic is independent of the logic that prints backtraces, and keeping them in separate functions allows us to test them independently.

A lot of code that you will encounter in Emacs was not written with testing in mind.  Sometimes, the easiest way to write tests for such code is to restructure the code slightly to provide better interfaces for testing.  Usually, this makes the interfaces easier to use as well.

How to Debug Tests
******************

This section describes how to use ERT's features to understand why a test failed.

Understanding Explanations
==========================

Failed should forms are reported like this:

     F addition-test
         (ert-test-failed
          ((should
            (=
             (+ 1 2)
             4))
           :form
           (= 3 4)
           :value nil))

ERT shows what the should expression looked like and what values its subexpressions had: The source code of the assertion was (should (= (+ 1 2) 4)), which applied the function = to the arguments 3 and 4, resulting in the value nil.  In this case, the test is wrong; it should expect 3 rather than 4.

If a predicate like equal is used with should, ERT provides a so-called explanation:

     F list-test
         (ert-test-failed
          ((should
            (equal
             (list 'a 'b 'c)
             '(a b d)))
           :form
           (equal
            (a b c)
            (a b d))
           :value nil :explanation
           (list-elt 2
                     (different-atoms c d))))

In this case, the function equal was applied to the arguments (a b c) and (a b d).  ERT's explanation shows that the item at index 2 differs between the two lists; in one list, it is the atom c, in the other, it is the atom d.

In simple examples like the above, the explanation is unnecessary. But in cases where the difference is not immediately apparent, it can save time:

     F test1
         (ert-test-failed
          ((should
            (equal x y))
           :form
           (equal a a)
           :value nil :explanation
           (different-symbols-with-the-same-name a a)))

ERT only provides explanations for predicates that have an explanation function registered.  See Defining Explanation Functions.

Interactive Debugging
=====================

Debugging failed tests essentially works the same way as debugging any other problems with Lisp code.  Here are a few tricks specific to tests:

  * Re-run the failed test a few times to see if it fails in the same way each time.  It's good to find out whether the behavior is deterministic before spending any time looking for a cause.  In the ERT results buffer, r re-runs the selected test.

  * Use . to jump to the source code of the test to find out exactly what it does.  Perhaps the test is broken rather than the code under test.

  * If the test contains a series of should forms and you can't tell which one failed, use l, which shows you the list of all should forms executed during the test before it failed.

  * Use b to view the backtrace.  You can also use d to re-run the test with debugging enabled, this will enter the debugger and show the backtrace as well; but the top few frames shown there will not be relevant to you since they are ERT's own debugger hook.  b strips them out, so it is more convenient.

  * If the test or the code under testing prints messages using message, use m to see what messages it printed before it failed.  This can be useful to figure out how far it got.

  * You can instrument tests for debugging the same way you instrument defuns for debugging: go to the source code of the test and type C-u C-M-x.  Then, go back to the ERT buffer and re-run the test with r or d.

  * If you have been editing and rearranging tests, it is possible that ERT remembers an old test that you have since renamed or removed: renamings or removals of definitions in the source code leave around a stray definition under the old name in the running process (this is a common problem in Lisp).  In such a situation, hit D to let ERT forget about the obsolete test.

Extending ERT
*************

There are several ways to add functionality to ERT.

Defining Explanation Functions
==============================

The explanation function for a predicate is a function that takes the same arguments as the predicate and returns an explanation. The explanation should explain why the predicate, when invoked with the arguments given to the explanation function, returns the value that it returns.  The explanation can be any object but should have a comprehensible printed representation.  If the return value of the predicate needs no explanation for a given list of arguments, the explanation function should return nil.

To associate an explanation function with a predicate, add the property ert-explainer to the symbol that names the predicate. The value of the property should be the symbol that names the explanation function.

Low-Level Functions for Working with Tests
==========================================

Both ert-run-tests-interactively and ert-run-tests-batch are implemented on top of the lower-level test handling code in the sections of ert.el labeled ``Facilities for running a single test'', ``Test selectors'', and ``Facilities for running a whole set of tests''.

If you want to write code that works with ERT tests, you should take a look at this lower-level code.  Symbols that start with ert-- are internal to ERT, whereas those that start with ert- are meant to be usable by other code.  But there is no mature API yet.

Contributions to ERT are welcome.

Other Testing Concepts
**********************

For information on mocks, stubs, fixtures, or test suites, see below.

Other Tools for Emacs Lisp
==========================

Stubbing out functions or using so-called mocks can make it easier to write tests.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mock_object for an explanation of the corresponding concepts in object-oriented languages.

ERT does not have built-in support for mocks or stubs.  The package el-mock (see http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/el-mock.el) offers mocks for Emacs Lisp and can be used in conjunction with ERT.

Fixtures and Test Suites
========================

In many ways, ERT is similar to frameworks for other languages like SUnit or JUnit.  However, two features commonly found in such frameworks are notably absent from ERT: fixtures and test suites.

Fixtures are mainly used (e.g., in SUnit or JUnit) to provide an environment for a set of tests, and consist of set-up and tear-down functions.

While fixtures are a useful syntactic simplification in other languages, this does not apply to Lisp, where higher-order functions and `unwind-protect' are available.  One way to implement and use a fixture in ERT is

     (defun my-fixture (body)
       (unwind-protect
           (progn [set up]
                  (funcall body))
         [tear down]))

     (ert-deftest my-test ()
       (my-fixture
        (lambda ()
          [test code])))

(Another way would be a with-my-fixture macro.)  This solves the set-up and tear-down part, and additionally allows any test to use any combination of fixtures, so it is more flexible than what other tools typically allow.

If the test needs access to the environment the fixture sets up, the fixture can be modified to pass arguments to the body.

These are well-known Lisp techniques.  Special syntax for them could be added but would provide only a minor simplification.

(If you are interested in such syntax, note that splitting set-up and tear-down into separate functions, like *Unit tools usually do, makes it impossible to establish dynamic `let' bindings as part of the fixture.  So, blindly imitating the way fixtures are implemented in other languages would be counter-productive in Lisp.)

The purpose of test suites is to group related tests together.

The most common use of this is to run just the tests for one particular module.  Since symbol prefixes are the usual way of separating module namespaces in Emacs Lisp, test selectors already solve this by allowing regexp matching on test names; e.g., the selector "^ert-" selects ERT's self-tests.

Other uses include grouping tests by their expected execution time, e.g., to run quick tests during interactive development and slow tests less often.  This can be achieved with the :tag argument to ert-deftest and tag test selectors.

GNU Free Documentation License
******************************

     [file doclicense.texi not included]