SanityCheck vs. Unit Tests — When to Use WhichSoftware testing is a layered craft. From quick manual checks to full integration and end-to-end test suites, each layer serves different goals, costs, and trade-offs. Two commonly discussed layers are sanity checks (sometimes called smoke tests or sanity tests) and unit tests. They overlap in purpose—both aim to catch defects early—but they differ in scope, speed, maintenance effort, and where they best fit in the development lifecycle. This article explains those differences, gives guidance on when to prefer one over the other, and offers practical patterns for combining them effectively.
What is a SanityCheck?
A SanityCheck is a fast, high-level test (often automated, sometimes manual) used to verify that the most important functionality of a build or deployment works at a glance. It’s not exhaustive. Instead, it ensures that the system is “sane” enough to continue with further testing or to be used.
Key characteristics:
- Broad but shallow: Covers major flows/endpoints, not internal logic.
- Quick to run: Designed to give a fast signal (seconds to minutes).
- Low maintenance: Should be stable and resistant to frequently changing internals.
- Smoke-test style: Often run immediately after a build or deployment to validate that the release isn’t fundamentally broken.
Common examples:
- Verifying the web server starts and returns 200 on the home page.
- Authenticating a test user and accessing a primary dashboard.
- Running a single critical API call and checking basic response fields.
What are Unit Tests?
Unit tests validate the smallest testable parts of an application—typically functions, classes, or modules—in isolation from external systems. They aim to confirm correct behavior for individual units, covering edge cases and branches of logic.
Key characteristics:
- Narrow and deep: Focus on internals, edge cases, and logic branches.
- Fast: Usually extremely quick (milliseconds to seconds) when isolated from I/O.
- High maintenance: As internal code evolves, tests must be updated to reflect new behaviors, APIs, or refactors.
- Deterministic: Run in a controlled environment with mocks/stubs for dependencies.
Common examples:
- Testing a data transformation function with multiple inputs (valid, invalid, edge).
- Verifying a class method throws the right exception for invalid state.
- Checking a pure utility function’s return values for varied inputs.
Primary Differences — Quick Summary
- Scope: SanityCheck = broad system-level checks; Unit tests = focused internal logic checks.
- Purpose: SanityCheck = Is the product basically functional?; Unit tests = Do units behave correctly?
- Speed: Both can be fast, but unit tests are usually faster per test; a full sanity suite is tuned for overall quick feedback.
- Maintenance: Sanity checks should be resilient to internal refactors; unit tests change frequently when internals change.
- Environment: Sanity checks often exercise integrated components (web server, DB connectivity); unit tests mock external dependencies.
When to Use SanityCheck
Use sanity checks when you need a fast, reliable signal that a build or deployment is usable at a basic level.
Good times to run SanityCheck:
- Immediately after a build completes to decide whether to continue pipeline steps (deploy, integration tests).
- After a deployment to staging/production for a quick health verification.
- When teams need a quick “go/no-go” decision for releasing patches.
- For on-call or SRE playbooks to quickly confirm a service is up.
Advantages:
- Fast feedback for critical failures.
- Low signal-to-noise ratio when designed correctly (fewer false positives).
- Simple to run in multiple environments (CI, staging, production).
Limitations:
- Won’t find subtle logic bugs or non-critical regressions.
- Poorly scoped sanity checks can become flaky and lose trust.
When to Use Unit Tests
Use unit tests as the foundation of your test suite to ensure internal correctness and to enable safe refactoring.
Good times to run unit tests:
- During local development and pre-commit hooks to catch regressions early.
- In CI on every pull request to enforce correctness before merge.
- When refactoring to ensure existing behavior is preserved.
Advantages:
- High coverage of logic and edge cases when written well.
- Fast and isolated, enabling frequent runs.
- Supports confident refactoring and clearer documentation of expected behavior.
Limitations:
- Does not validate integration or production configuration issues.
- Can be brittle if they tightly couple to implementation details.
- Requires substantial effort to maintain as code evolves.
How They Complement Each Other
Treat sanity checks and unit tests as complementary layers:
- Unit tests ensure components do the right thing individually.
- Sanity checks ensure the components integrate and the product is minimally usable.
- Use unit tests to prevent regressions in logic; use sanity checks to catch deployment, configuration, or integration problems that unit tests can’t surface.
A practical pipeline:
- Developer runs unit tests locally and in a fast CI stage on pull request.
- On successful merge, CI builds an artifact and runs SanityCheck on the artifact to ensure basic functionality before deploying to staging.
- After deployment, run a focused sanity suite against staging or production, then run longer integration and end-to-end tests.
Designing Effective Sanity Checks
Principles:
- Test critical user journeys and health indicators.
- Keep them minimal — only the highest-value checks.
- Avoid flakiness: use stable selectors, deterministic accounts, and retry logic with sensible timeouts.
- Make failures actionable: clear error messages and links to logs/metrics.
Example SanityCheck checklist for a web app:
- Home page responds with 200 and contains expected top-level element.
- Login with a test account succeeds and returns a valid session.
- Main dashboard fetches primary data endpoint and shows expected key fields.
- Critical background job enqueues and logs success (or the job status API is healthy).
- Database connectivity check or simple read query succeeds.
Writing Unit Tests That Stay Useful
Strategies:
- Favor testing behavior over implementation details. Avoid over-mocking internal helper functions unless those helpers are public API.
- Use property-based tests where useful to cover many inputs.
- Keep tests small and focused; one assertion per behavior makes failures clearer.
- Use fixtures and factories to create deterministic test data.
- Measure test coverage but treat it as a guide, not the objective. High coverage with poor tests isn’t helpful.
Example unit test targets:
- Boundary conditions (empty inputs, very large inputs).
- Error handling paths and exception messages.
- Business rules and calculations that affect outputs.
When Sanity Checks Become Unit Tests and Vice Versa
- A well-written sanity check can feel like a small integration test; if it grows to cover many flows and setups, consider moving parts into separate integration tests.
- Unit tests that rely on real databases, external services, or complex setup are drifting toward integration tests; convert them to proper integration tests or isolate with mocks.
Guideline: keep tests at the level they’re intended for. If a unit test requires a running service, it’s not a unit test.
Common Anti-Patterns
- Too many sanity checks: slows pipeline and reduces trust.
- Sanity checks that assert implementation details (CSS classes, exact HTML) — brittle.
- Unit tests that mirror the implementation (white-box tests) rather than specifying behavior — fragile under refactor.
- Running long-running end-to-end suites as a sanity gate — defeats the purpose of quick signal.
Sample CI Stage Layout (concise)
- Stage 1: Fast unit tests + linting (on PRs) — fail fast.
- Stage 2: Build artifact.
- Stage 3: Sanity checks against built artifact (before deploy).
- Stage 4: Deploy to staging.
- Stage 5: Post-deploy sanity checks + integration tests.
- Stage 6: Canary/production rollout with production sanity checks and monitoring.
Metrics and Monitoring
Track:
- Sanity check pass rate and time-to-detect failures.
- Unit test run time and flakiness rate.
- Mean time to repair (MTTR) for failures caught by each layer.
Use dashboards and alerts for sanity check failures in production; treat unit test failures as developer workflow issues surfaced in CI.
Final Recommendations
- Make unit tests the broad foundation: write them early, run them on every change.
- Use sanity checks as a fast safety net around builds and deployments; keep them slim and reliable.
- Keep test responsibilities clear: unit tests for logic, sanity for basic end-to-end health, integration/e2e for complex flows.
- Evolve checks: promote useful checks to fuller integration or e2e suites and retire flaky or low-value tests.
Sanity checks and unit tests solve different problems. When used together in a layered testing strategy, they provide quick developer feedback, reduce deployment risk, and help maintain software quality as systems scale.
Leave a Reply