# Why we Should Stop Putting Logic in Activities

2016-06-14

A while back, I wrote a series of articles about why unit testing Android apps is so difficult and what we can do to make our apps more unit testable. The upshot of the those articles is that dependency injection makes it easier to unit test our Android apps and we can’t get proper dependency injection just by using Dagger (or any other DI framework for that matter) to inject dependencies into our Activitys (or Fragments). I already consider this reason enough to stop putting non-trivial logic in our Activitys (or Fragments).

More recently, however, I noticed that putting non-trivial logic in our Activitys (and Fragments) also makes functional testing difficult. I noticed that google’s code sample contained code that mixed espresso test code with application code, and I couldn’t believe my eyes when I saw that the the Google IO app, an app that’s supposed to serve as a model for Android developers, also mixes espresso test code with application code.

If putting logic in our Activitys (or Frag…) is going to make functional and unit testing difficult, then we all should really consider alternatives ways of structuring our apps. This isn’t just an issue for unit testing nerds anymore.

In this article, I argue that we should stop putting logic in our Activitys. I’ve already shown that putting logic in our Activitys makes them difficult to unit test, so I won’t repeat that point here. I will, however, try to show why putting logic in our Activitys makes functional testing with espresso difficult. Spoiler: its difficult because we don’t have proper dependency injection in Activitys. Next, drawing on some recent comments by Diane Hackborn, I suggest that Activitys were never really designed for holding our app-logic in the first place.

## Why Functional Testing (with Espresso) is Hard

Let’s look at an (abbreviated) snippet of code from the Google IO app:

public class PresenterFragmentImpl extends Fragment
implements Presenter, UpdatableView.UserActionListener,
/**
* The Idling Resources that manages the busy/idle state of the cursor loaders.
*/

/**
* Returns the {@link LoaderIdlingResource} that allows the Espresso UI test framework to track
* the idle/busy state of the cursor loaders used in the {@link Model}.
*/
}

@Override
public void onActivityCreated(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
super.onActivityCreated(savedInstanceState);

// Load data queries if any.
for (int i = 0; i < mInitialQueriesToLoad.length; i++) {
}
} else {
//...
}
}

@Override
}

@Override
}
}

So, here we’re mixing espresso test code with application code. The reason the test code is mixed with application code is so that the espresso tests will “pause” while the data is being loaded during the functional UI tests. We can see that the LoaderIdlingResource gets registered with the espresso tests here:

@RunWith(AndroidJUnit4.class)
@LargeTest
public class VideoLibraryActivityTest {
//...
@Before
public void setupMembersAndIdlingResource() {
mPresenter = (PresenterFragmentImpl) mActivityRule.getActivity()
.getFragmentManager().findFragmentByTag(BaseActivity.PRESENTER_TAG);
}
}

As I said in my PSA, mixing testing code with app code is gross. Unfortunately, separating the testing and application concerns in this case is not as simple as it was last time. In fact, I can understand why the engineers at Google decided to mix application code with test code in this case: it’s because separating the Espresso code from the application code is a lot of work!

Here’s the gist of how we can start to salvage the situation. We need what Michael Feathers calls a “seam,” a way to change the behavior of our PresenterFragmentImpl without having to edit the source of the PresenterFragmentImpl itself. When the PresenterFragmentImpl is run inside a test, we want the PresenterFragmentImpl to notify an espresso test when it’s done loading it’s data. Otherwise, we want the PresenterFragmentImpl to load data normally. To get this seam, we extract the Loader callback code into its own class and use an instance of this class as the LoaderCallbacks argument to the call to initLoader:

private LoaderManager.LoaderCallbacks<Cursor> mLoaderCallbacks;

@Override
public void onActivityCreated(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
super.onActivityCreated(savedInstanceState);
// Load data queries if any.
for (int i = 0; i < mInitialQueriesToLoad.length; i++) {
}
} else {
// No data query to load, update the view.
mUpdatableView.displayData(mModel, null);
}
}

// We've just moved the callback code that was in the Fragment into this class.
}

Next, we provide an alternative implementation of LoaderManager.LoaderCallbacks that we’ll use for our espresso tests. This implementation uses the decorator pattern, just like last time:

private static class EspressoNotifyingLoaderCallbacks implements LoaderManager.LoaderCallbacks<Cursor> {

}

@Override
}

@Override
}

@Override
}
}

Now, here’s where things get tricky. We need to figure out a way to inject the right implementation of LoaderCallbacks into our PresenterFragmentImpl. When we’re testing, we want an instance of EspressoNotifyingLoaderCallbacks. When we running a normal application, we want a CursorLoaderCallbacks.

Here’s the problem: the EspressoNotifyingLoaderCallbacks has a LoaderIdlingResource. LoaderIdlingResource depends on an Activity's LoaderManager, which means that we can’t create the EspressoNotifyingLoaderCallbacks until after the activity has been created.

We can’t afford to wait this long! We need the EspressoNotifyingLoaderCallbacks to be injected into the Activity before that Activity adds the PresenterFragmentImpl, thereby triggering it’s lifecycle methods that create a Loader.

Technically, in this particular case, we can inject the EspressoNotifyingLoaderCallbacks into the PresenterFragmentImpl before that Fragment is added to it’s hosting Activity, but if we were trying to test logic in an Activity, we’d be out of luck. Either way, moving our logic out of the PresenterFragmentImpl would give us a cleaner way of separating our test code from our application code. I’ll attempt to show this cleaner separation in another post.

I can think of a few ways around this problem, but none of them seem particularly pretty. If we didn’t have any logic in our Activity and PresenterFragmentImpl in the first place and if we placed that logic in a POJO that could make use of constructor dependency injection, this would be much easier. We could just pass the EspressoNotifyingLoaderCallbacks as a dependency to some POJO’s constructor. The Activity, moreover, could just forward its lifecycle calls to that POJO, so that it would act appropriately.

So, the reason why functional testing with Android Activity's is so hard is the same reason why unit testing Activity's is hard: we can’t do proper dependency injection.

## Activities weren’t Designed for App Logic

Diane Hackborn wrote an interesting post on Google Plus recently, and I think several of her comments suggest that Activity's were never really designed to be the home of our app-logic in the first place. Here’s one such comment:

We often see questions from developers that are asking from the Android platform engineers about the kinds of design patterns and architectures they use in their apps. But the answer, maybe surprisingly, is we often don’t have a strong opinion or really an opinion at all.

This may be surprising, because Android could feel like it has strong opinions on how apps should be written. With its Java language APIs and fairly high-level concepts, it can look like a typical application framework that is there to say how applications should be doing their work. But for the most part, it is not.

It is probably better to call the core Android APIs a “system framework.” For the most part, the platform APIs we provide are there to define how an application interacts with the operating system; but for anything going on purely within the app, these APIs are often just not relevant.

Here’s another telling comment:

In Android…we explicitly decided we were not going to have a main() function, because we needed to give the platform more control over how an app runs…To accomplish this, we decomposed the typical main entry point of an app into a few different types of interactions the system can have with it. And these are the Activity, BroadcastReceiver, Service, and ContentProvider APIs that Android developers quickly become familiar with.

Together I take these two comments to mean something like this: Activity's are entry points to your application. That’s all we know. When we designed it we had no intentional at all as to whether you should put your app-logic within it. We don’t even have an opinion on whether this is a good idea.

After seeing that putting our logic in Activitys makes unit and functional testing difficult, and after getting some insight into the intended design of Activitys, I think we wouldn’t be crazy in thinking that putting app-logic in our Activity makes about as much sense as putting app-logic in a main function of a java program.

Of course, I’m open to being wrong about any of this. I’m offering this argument mainly as a way of getting a conversation going in the community about best practices in Android development. I mostly just don’t want to open up the Google IO app for 2017 and see test code mixed in with application code. As long as we can agree on a way of avoiding that, I’ll be happy, even if I turn out to be wrong about this.

androidtesting

How to Safely move Logic out of Activities

A New way of Learning (Android Development)