Skip to main content

JavaScript: Perfectly Encapsulated May Mean Perfectly Untestable

It's no secret that JavaScript is like Lisp in that you can accomplish amazing things using a huge number of small, nested functions. In fact, you can write things like:
(function () {
function pickNose() {

function fart() {

In this code, an anonymous function is defined and immediately called. pickNose() and fart() are two internal functions that are used by the outer function, but they are not available to the outside world.

It's amazing what you can get done using nested closures like this, but there's a cost. How do you write tests for pickNose() and fart()? Certainly, you can write a test for the outer function as a whole, but there's no way to test those inner functions in a standalone way without doing some refactoring. In a certain sense, the code is like a script in that you can test the thing as a whole, but you can't test the parts in a standalone way.

What's the solution? I'm sure there are many. You could have the outer function take a parameter such that when the correct value is passed, the code could flip over to testing mode and test itself. Another approach is to use Douglas Crockford's module pattern. The outer function could return an object that has references to the inner functions. That way you can call them externally and test them. However, that may not be an option if you are really paranoid about the outside world getting references to those functions.

In my opinion, getting overly paranoid about people calling your inner functions isn't very fruitful. JavaScript doesn't have much to help you keep modules away from each other. As soon as you have hostile JavaScript on the page, it's sort of game over. All of the JavaScript operates with the same permissions--it's not like you can sandbox a particular module.

Furthermore, it's difficult if not impossible to prevent people from just grabbing your JavaScript source code and hacking it to do whatever they want (especially if they can rely on the help of an external server). To state the obvious, JavaScript doesn't have very good internal security boundaries, so your server must always be distrustful of the JavaScript that it's talking to. Of course, that's the way the web has worked for as long as I've been coding.


Shailen Tuli said…
How do you test the internal functions? You don't. How about giving the outer function a name and defining/calling the inner functions anonymously? You would loose the colorful names, admittedly, but you could make up for that by naming the outer function imaginatively. Then you can write tests for the outer function. You wouldn't be unit-testing in that case, but you always have preferred a more holistic/integrated approach to testing anyway, right?
jjinux said…
If the inner function has some complicated, purely functional logic that simply takes a value and returns a value, there is real value in unit testing it. If the outer function involves lots of DOM manipulation, it may not be possible to fully test the logic of the internal function because it's too hard to test it via its affect on the DOM. As much as I like integration testing, unit testing has real value too.

Popular posts from this blog

Drawing Sierpinski's Triangle in Minecraft Using Python

In his keynote at PyCon, Eben Upton, the Executive Director of the Rasberry Pi Foundation, mentioned that not only has Minecraft been ported to the Rasberry Pi, but you can even control it with Python. Since four of my kids are avid Minecraft fans, I figured this might be a good time to teach them to program using Python. So I started yesterday with the goal of programming something cool for Minecraft and then showing it off at the San Francisco Python Meetup in the evening.

The first problem that I faced was that I didn't have a Rasberry Pi. You can't hack Minecraft by just installing the Minecraft client. Speaking of which, I didn't have the Minecraft client installed either ;) My kids always play it on their Nexus 7s. I found an open source Minecraft server called Bukkit that "provides the means to extend the popular Minecraft multiplayer server." Then I found a plugin called RaspberryJuice that implements a subset of the Minecraft Pi modding API for Bukkit s…

Apple: iPad and Emacs

Someone asked my boss's buddy Art Medlar if he was going to buy an iPad. He said, "I figure as soon as it runs Emacs, that will be the sign to buy." I think he was just trying to be funny, but his statement is actually fairly profound.

It's well known that submitting iPhone and iPad applications for sale on Apple's store is a huge pain--even if they're free and open source. Apple is acting as a gatekeeper for what is and isn't allowed on your device. I heard that Apple would never allow a scripting language to be installed on your iPad because it would allow end users to run code that they hadn't verified. (I don't have a reference for this, but if you do, please post it below.) Emacs is mostly written in Emacs Lisp. Per Apple's policy, I don't think it'll ever be possible to run Emacs on the iPad.

Emacs was written by Richard Stallman, and it practically defines the Free Software movement (in a manner of speaking at least). Stal…

ERNOS: Erlang Networked Operating System

I've been reading Dreaming in Code lately, and I really like it. If you're not a dreamer, you may safely skip the rest of this post ;)

In Chapter 10, "Engineers and Artists", Alan Kay, John Backus, and Jaron Lanier really got me thinking. I've also been thinking a lot about Minix 3, Erlang, and the original Lisp machine. The ideas are beginning to synthesize into something cohesive--more than just the sum of their parts.

Now, I'm sure that many of these ideas have already been envisioned within, LLVM, Microsoft's Singularity project, or in some other place that I haven't managed to discover or fully read, but I'm going to blog them anyway.

Rather than wax philosophical, let me just dump out some ideas:Start with Minix 3. It's a new microkernel, and it's meant for real use, unlike the original Minix. "This new OS is extremely small, with the part that runs in kernel mode under 4000 lines of executable code." I bet it&…