Unit Testing Data: Can I Trust This Data? · Deep Linking - Trail of Bread Crumbs Test Recipes (10...

Unit Testing Data:Can I Trust This Data?

"Can I trust this data?" When asked this question it can be a difficult task to objectively measure and answer.

Similar to how unit tests have provided metrics for code coverage and bug regressions, this talk aims to show techniques and recipes developed to quantify data sanitisation and coverage. It also demonstrates an extensible design pattern that allows further tests to be developed.

If you can write a query, you can write data unit tests.

These strategies have been implemented at Invoice2go in their ETL pipeline for the last 2 years to detect data regressions in their Amazon Redshift data warehouse.

Abstract

● Introduction / Scenario (5 min)● Design Pattern (10 min)

○ Test History Table○ Test Scaffold○ Current Status View○ Deep Linking - Trail of Bread Crumbs

● Test Recipes (10 min)○ Basic Tests○ Time Series tests○ Meta testing

● Conclusion and Questions (5 min)

Who am I?

Josh Wilson

Senior Software Engineer @ Invoice2go

Data Engineering Team

Twitter: @_neozenithLinkedIn: https://au.linkedin.com/in/neozenith

Scenario

● You work for the Data Engineering and/or Data Analytics team within your company.

http://www.traveltechsolutions.com/images/graph-icon1.png

Scenario

● You have a Daily KPI dashboard for Business Managers

Scenario

● Everyday at 6am your boss gets emailed this dashboard

Scenario

● 6.05am you get an email from your boss saying:

Scenario

● 6.05am you get an email from your boss saying:

http://www.traveltechsolutions.com/images/graph-icon1.pngCan I Trust This Data?

Scenario

Scenario - Can I trust this data?

● How do you even define trust?

○ “firm belief in the reliability, truth, or ability of someone or something”

● What do you do?

○ Run a bunch of queries

● What do you do?

● Then how do you measure trust?

● What do you do?

○ Build a series of queries (tests) which affirm if an assumption is true.

● What do you do?

○ Build a series of queries (tests) which affirm if an assumption is true.○ Assertions of truth… sounds like Unit Testing.

Design Pattern

● Test History Table– a place to save all test results

● Test Scaffold– What’s the basic boilerplate for a test

● Current Status View– What is the latest status for each test

● Deep Links– Reproducibility, traceability, deeper analysis

Design Pattern

● Test Scaffold– What’s the basic boilerplate for a test

Design Pattern

Design - Test History Table

CREATE TABLE "public"."etl_qa_history" ("id" int4 NOT NULL DEFAULT "identity"(1, 0, '0,1'::text),"table_name" varchar(255), -- each table is a unit"test_name" varchar(255), -- create a naming convention for tests"test_time_utc" timestamp NULL DEFAULT getdate(), -- timestamp everything"status" varchar(4), -- PASS / FAIL / WARN / NA"description" varchar(MAX), -- human readable error messages"url" varchar(256) -- deep linking

● Test Scaffold– The basic boilerplate for a test

Design Pattern

Design - Test Scaffold

INSERT INTO public.etl_qa_history ( table_name, test_name, status, description, url)

WITH -- make use of CTEs to keep queries neattest_source AS (...), test_cases AS (...)

SELECT 'internal.ios_hardware_strings'::text as table_name, 'detect unmapped ios hardware strings'::text as test_name, status::text, description::text, url::textFROM test_cases;

WITH test_duplicate_test_name as (...), watchdog_issues as (...), warning_watchdog as (...), valid_status as (...)

, all_tests as (SELECT table_name, test_name, status, description, url FROM test_duplicate_test_nameUNION ALLSELECT table_name, test_name, status, description, url FROM warning_watchdog UNION ALLSELECT table_name, test_name, status, description, url FROM valid_status)

SELECT table_name:: text, test_name:: text, status:: text, description:: text, url::textFROM all_tests;

Design - Test Scaffold - Combine Multiple Tests

SELECT table_name::text, test_name::text, status::text, description::text, url::textFROM all_tests;

“If you can write a query, you can write a data unit test”- Josh Wilson

Design Pattern

Design - Current Status View

CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW "public"."etl_qa_current_status" ASSELECT table_name, test_name, last_run_time_utc, status, description, url FROM ( SELECT table_name, test_name, test_time_utc as last_run_time_utc, status, description, url, rank() OVER (PARTITION BY table_name, test_name ORDER BY test_time_utc DESC) as rank FROM public.etl_qa_history ) as rank_eventWHERE ( (rank_event.rank = 1) -- Only the most recent test result AND (rank_event.last_run_time_utc >= date_add('day', -7, getdate())) -- window only a week worth of tests);

Design Pattern

● Deep Links– Reproducibility, traceability, deeper analysis and 3am PagerDuty

Design Pattern

Design - Deep Linking

Design - Deep Linking + Parameters

Test Recipes

● Basic tests○ Some simple property tests

● Time Series tests○ Time evolving tests

● Meta testing○ Testing the tests

Test Recipes

Test Recipes - Basic Tests

● 0 row count

● Duplicates

● Data Age

WITHsource_tables as (...), test_row_count as (...), test_dedupe as (...), test_data_age as (...)

, all_tests as ( SELECT table_name, test_name, status, description, url FROM test_row_count UNION SELECT table_name, test_name, status, description, url FROM test_dedupe UNION SELECT table_name, test_name, status, description, url FROM test_data_age)

SELECT table_name, test_name,status, description, urlFROM all_tests;

source_tables as ( SELECT 'internal.reminders' as table_name -- Give table data a label to identify it , id as pk_id -- Alias primary key id to make it uniform , updated_at as timestamp_utc -- Alias timestamp to make it uniform FROM internal.reminders

UNION ALL

SELECT 'internal.reminder_notifications' as table_name , id as pk_id , updated_at as timestamp_utc FROM internal.reminder_notifications)

UNION ALL

Test Recipes - Basic Tests - Row Count

test_row_count as ( SELECT table_name , 'row_count' as test_name , CASE WHEN count(1) > 0 THEN 'PASS'::text ELSE 'FAIL'::text END as status , (count(1))::text || ' rows found between ' || min(timestamp_utc)::text || ' UTC and ' || max(timestamp_utc)::text || ' UTC.' as description , NULL::text as url FROM source_tables WHERE timestamp_utc >= dateadd(hour, -24, getdate()) -- SLA check last 24 hour window GROUP BY 1)

Test Recipes - Basic Tests - Duplicates

test_dedupe as ( SELECT table_name , 'duplicates' as test_name , CASE WHEN count(1) - count(distinct pk_id) = 0 THEN 'PASS'::text ELSE 'FAIL'::text END as status , (count(1) - count(distinct pk_id))::text || ' duplicates found' as description , NULL::text as url FROM source_tables GROUP BY 1)

Test Recipes - Basic Tests - Data Age

test_data_age as ( SELECT table_name , 'data_age' as test_name , CASE WHEN date_diff('hour', max(timestamp_utc), getdate())::int <= 24 AND date_diff('hour', max(timestamp_utc), getdate())::int >= 0 THEN 'PASS'::text ELSE 'FAIL'::text END as status , (date_diff('hour', max(timestamp_utc), getdate())::int)::text || ' hour(s) since last update at ' || (max(timestamp_utc))::text as description , NULL::text as url FROM source_tables GROUP BY 1)

WITHsource_tables as (...) -- Add more tables in here and have them receieve the same test treatment, test_row_count as (...), test_dedupe as (...), test_data_age as (...)

Test Recipes

Test Recipes - Time Series

“This has been left as an exercise for the reader”

Test Recipes - Time Series

Test Recipes

Test Recipes - Meta Testing

● Warnings Watchdog

○ Promote persistent warnings to failures. Make yourself not lazy.

● Dependencies

○ When derived tables use other failing tables we want to know about errors propagating.

● Dependencies

Test Recipes - Meta Testing - Watchdog

Test Recipes - Meta Testing - Watchdog, watchdog_issues as ( SELECT table_name, test_name FROM public.etl_qa_history WHERE test_time_utc >= dateadd(day, -5, getdate()) AND upper(status) = 'WARN' -- 5 / 5 distinct days this test had warnings and did not pass once GROUP BY 1,2 HAVING count(distinct test_time_utc::date) >= 5

EXCEPT

-- Once the test has 1 pass it will get excluded from these results -- And won't have the FAIL override generated SELECT distinct table_name, test_name FROM public.etl_qa_history WHERE test_time_utc >= dateadd(day, -5, getdate()) AND upper(status) = 'PASS')

EXCEPT

, warning_watchdog as ( SELECT W.table_name, W.test_name , 'FAIL' as status -- hard code this test to FAIL , 'WARNING WATCHDOG: ' || CS.description as description -- Prefix why this warning became a FAIL , CS.url FROM public.etl_qa_current_status as CS -- Intersection of current issues and watchdog flagged issues INNER JOIN watchdog_issues as W ON CS.table_name = W.table_name AND CS.test_name = W.test_name )

● Dependencies

Test Recipes - Meta Testing - Dependencies

INSERT INTO public.etl_qa_history ( table_name, test_name, status, description)

WITH test_source AS (...), test_stats AS (...), test_cases AS (...)

SELECT 'public.customer'::text as table_name, ('data_dependency_'||table_name)::text as test_name, -- each dependency needs to be it's own test status::text, description::text FROM test_cases;

Test Recipes - Meta Testing - Dependenciestest_source AS ( SELECT table_name, status , count(*)::float as test_count FROM public.etl_qa_current_status WHERE --dependency list table_name IN ( 'public.account' , 'public.subscription' , 'public.document' -- etc etc etc )), test_stats AS (...), test_cases AS (...)

SELECT 'public.customer'::text as table_name, ('data_dependency_'||table_name)::text as test_name, -- each dependency needs to be it's own test status::text, description::textFROM test_cases;

Test Recipes - Meta Testing - Dependenciestest_source AS ( SELECT table_name, status , count(*)::float as test_count FROM public.etl_qa_current_status WHERE --dependency list table_name IN ( 'public.account' , 'public.subscription' , 'public.document' -- etc etc etc )), test_stats AS (...), test_cases AS (...)

SELECT 'public.customer'::text as table_name, ('data_dependency_'||table_name)::text as test_name, -- each dependency needs to be it's own test status::text, description::textFROM test_cases;

Test Recipes - Meta Testing - Dependencies

test_source AS (...), test_stats AS ( SELECT table_name -- pivot on status , sum(CASE WHEN status = 'PASS' THEN test_count ELSE 0 END) / sum(test_count) as PASS , sum(CASE WHEN status = 'WARN' THEN test_count ELSE 0 END) / sum(test_count) as WARN , sum(CASE WHEN status = 'FAIL' THEN test_count ELSE 0 END) / sum(test_count) as FAIL , sum(CASE WHEN status = 'N/A' THEN test_count ELSE 0 END) / sum(test_count) as NA , sum(test_count) as total FROM test_source GROUP BY 1), test_cases AS (...)

SELECT ...FROM test_cases;

Test Recipes - Meta Testing - Dependenciestest_source AS (...), test_stats AS (...), test_cases AS (SELECT table_name , CASE WHEN pass = 1 THEN 'PASS'::text WHEN fail > 0 THEN 'FAIL'::text WHEN warn > 0 THEN 'WARN'::text WHEN na > 0 THEN 'N/A'::text ELSE 'FAIL'::text END as status -- Generate Description , round(pass*100,1) || '% tests PASS; ' || round(fail*100,1) || '% tests FAIL; ' || round(warn*100,1) || '% tests WARN; ' || round(na*100,1) || '% tests N/A; ' || round((1-pass-fail-warn-na)*100,1) || '% tests Unaccounted; ' -- catch test unexpected test statuses causing non-passes as descriptionFROM test_stats)

Conclusion

● These tests are an evolution, they are not complete and probably never will be. Which is a good thing.

● This is an engineering process that others in your team can contribute to and expand upon.

● Rather than frantically running a variety of queries from memory, reuse those skills in an automated manner.

● It also isolates scope very quickly of what is and is not passing.

● It helps you in advance to leave a breadcrumb trail of deeper diagnostics.

Conclusion

Thank you.

Questions?

Unit Testing Data: Can I Trust This Data? · Deep Linking - Trail of Bread Crumbs Test Recipes (10...

Documents

Parenteral quality control. Parenteral Quality Control Tests 4 main tests: A. Sterility testing B. Pyrogen testing C. Particulate matter testing D. Package

Unit Tests And Automated Testing

Project Testing - Types of Tests

Better Unit Testing with Approval Tests

Instrument testing Tests instrumentaux

Continuous Delivery - Agile Alliance · diﬀerent kinds of testing Functional acceptance tests Showcases Usability testing Exploratory testing Unit tests Integration tests System

Mulciber Stove Testing Summary. Testing Overview Six Sampling Periods o Warm-Startup – 5 min. after loading for 15 min. o Warm-Steady State – 50 min

Kennismaking met InnSpire - ICTestautomation...UI Tests API Tests Integration Tests Component Tests Unit Tests Software Testing Ice-cream Cone Anti-Pattern watirmelon.com Manual Tests

EVIDENCE ABOUT DIAGNOSTIC TESTS Min H. Huang, PT, PhD, NCS

Security Testing through Automated Software Tests

TESTING, Testing Strategies for taking Standardized Tests

Tests, Testers and Testing: The British Council and language testing ... · CRELLA Professor Cyril J. Weir AcSS Tests, Testers and Testing: The British Council and language testing

PowerPoint ® Presentation Chapter 3 Mechanical Testing Mechanical Testing Dynamic Mechanical Tests Static Mechanical Tests Hardness Testing

Laboratory exercise testing: Exercise testing W170 and maximal tests

Field Sampling and Testing Manual Testing Procedures for All Tests

Cognitive Ability Testing - Wonderlic test · labels and are also called intelligence tests, IQ tests, ability tests, aptitude tests, ... With regard to cognitive ability testing

Lecture 11: Hypothesis Testing III Stratified Tests Renyi and Other Tests

Field Testing – Commissioning & Routine Tests II · Field Testing – Commissioning & Routine Tests II ... Diagnostics of Cable Systems . Commissioning Tests - HV & EHV . HV

Back-testing bank stress tests

Self-Conducted HIV tests: Improving HIV Testing Options · PDF fileSelf-Conducted HIV tests: Improving HIV Testing Options ... status** *Shisana, O, ... Self-Conducted HIV tests: Improving