Test-Driven Development – A blueprint for creating effective telemetry data title image

Test-Driven Development – A blueprint for creating effective telemetry data

This is a guest post from our friend Dave Josephsen at Librato.


Librato is a tiny, but prolific engineering shop. We range between 40-60 deployments per day. In fact, as I write this, so far today we’ve deployed code 40 times -- 12 of which were production changes (the others targeted for various staging environments). I can see all of these deployments in our corporate chatroom, because we use chatbots to push code into production.

In fact, most of our interaction with the services that make up our metrics product are abstracted behind chatbots in one way or another. We receive notifications of new users and production problems from chatbots, we manage our feature-flagging via chatbots, and, perhaps obviously, we’ve integrated our Github and Travis-CI interactions into chat.

The upshot of all of this, is that when someone merges some code into a production repo, I can see it in group-chat:


And not only can I see the change, I can see the change pass or fail its unit tests:


And not only can I see the test result, but there’s even a link to the Travis output right there, so I can see everything that Travis did. Forgive me if I sound like I’m gushing; because I am. It all still seems so Sci-Fi to me -- what with our chatbot (twke by name -- literally named after the ambiquad in Buck-Rogers) instantiating a whole new computer just to run hundreds of automated tests that are intended to vet my work before it’s automatically deployed onto the inter-cloud. But I say that as someone who still thinks MUD’s are pretty rad. YMMV.

How many tests are there?

I’ll pick on our alerting service, because it’s written in Go and (because it uses Go’s built-in testing framework) is easy for a knuckle-dragger like myself to inspect with grep.

bash find . | grep _test.go | wc -l

Yields 44 individual, test-laden files. Roughly one for every other .go-suffixed file in this repository, each one named for the unit it tests. Ergo, for foo.go, we find foo_test.go about half the time. Lightly poking into the files that don’t have an associated test file, I find mostly type definitions, and other data-structure related code (not the sort of thing you normally test directly).

bash grep -ri 'func Test.(testing.T' . | wc -l

Yields 172 individual tests. About a 4-1 ratio of total functions, to test functions.

bash find . | grep _test.go | while read i; do egrep -v '({|})' ${i} | grep '[a-z][A-Z]'; done | wc -l

Gives me close to 2400 lines of code devoted to tests. In fact, test-related code, makes up almost half of this repository measured by lines. So OK, we test a lot, but then all of us do nowadays who work in continuous integration shops doing web operations/engineering work (right?).

If you don’t live in our particular echo chamber, and those numbers seem excessive to you, I’ll digress for a moment to explain that all this testing forms a vast layer of the substrate upon which continuous integration is built. Like the 12 axe-handles Penelope’s suitors had to fire their arrow through, our tests obstruct our access to production. They form a line of hoops, logarithmically decreasing in size, through which our code must jump before it’s considered suitable for prime-time. Without them, continuous integration becomes a very error-prone endeavor.

Good Tests help us ship more quickly


Of course, our tests can’t protect the production environment if they aren’t meaningful. In creating them, we generally need to be both procedural and selective. Continuous integration relies on good tests (along with peer review and etc..) as a substitute for more traditional change control processes. Only good and meaningful tests make it possible to ship more quickly.

Good tests add context and encourage cooperation


If we make our tests too difficult, obtrusive, or meaningless, or if we try to enforce things like coding style that everyone hasn’t already agreed to, people will just work around them. Self-defeating behavior like this is more likely to emerge when we sequester test creation to a particular team. Tests should mostly enforce the expected operational parameters of the things we create. Everyone should craft them, because they help us all reason about what we expect from the things we build. Tests that we didn’t write should give us insight into new code-bases, rather than encourage adversarial relationships between engineers.

Good tests make good codebases


So creating and maintaining good tests is both art and science. It requires us to reason about “correctness” when we design and create software, thereby making us cognizant of our own expectations and assumptions. Choosing good test parameters means thoroughly understanding not only what we’ve created, but also the difference between what we’ve created and what we set out to create in the first place. Testable code is usually well implemented code, and poorly implemented code, is usually hard to test.

There’s another class of code in this repository that’s neither functional to the application, nor related to unit-tests. An example looks something like this:

javascript metrics.Measure("outlet.poll.alerts.count", len(alerts))

This is instrumentation code, and grep counts a little over 200 lines of it in this repository. The idea behind instrumentation is to measure important aspects of the application from within. Instrumentation like this quantifies things like queue sizes, worker-thread counts, inter-service latency, and request-types. These metrics are then exported to a centralized system that helps us visualize the inner workings of our applications. Below for example, is the dashboard we use to keep an eye on our Alerting services metrics.


Good metrics help us ship more quickly

At Librato, we find metrics like these indispensable. They are the primary means by which we understand the behavior of our applications in the wild. As a result, we carefully choose the metrics we track, and perhaps unsurprisingly, our choices mirror our testing choices in fundamental ways.


Like our tests, our metrics can’t protect the production environment if they aren’t meaningful. Continuous integration at Librato relies heavily on good metrics because they give fantastic visibility; they let us watch as the changes we introduce impact production entities.


Good Metrics Make Good Codebases

Good metrics test systems hypothesis. They confirm our expectations about how the things we build perform in real life. Just like tests, everyone should be able to choose and work with their own metrics, because they help us all reason about what we expect from the things we build. Metrics can teach us a lot about code bases that we aren’t familiar with. Without any documentation whatsoever, I can infer many things from the metric above, like that this service sends alerts, the number of customers using it, the total and individual rates at which alerts are fired, and even the seasonality of the use-pattern.


So creating and maintaining good metrics is also art and science. Choosing meaningful metrics requires us to reason about “correctness” when we design and create software, but when we do it correctly, we gain ongoing operational insight that’s invaluable to everyone whether they’re designing systems, regression testing, supporting infrastructure or shipping features.

Designing software with instrumentation is healthy. It keeps us cognizant of our own expectations and assumptions. Well measured code is usually well implemented code, and poorly implemented code, is usually difficult to measure. At Librato we believe that if you create unit tests today, you already know what you need to choose and combine metrics into a powerful telemetry stream that you can rely on to keep your customers delighted.

Librato offers a free 30-day trial, and free limited-use developer accounts. Sign up today and add insight to your engineering endeavors.