Develop Reference

Validate "spring.jpa.hibernate.ddl-auto" during springboot startup

Is there a way to validate the "spring.jpa.hibernate.ddl-auto" property during application startup to ensure that it's set only to none? I want to force all deployments(including dev) to use liquibase.
Edit :- I also need to ensure that this property is not accidentally set in production, which could wipe out the data.

You can hook up on starting of your application by implementing ApplicationListener<ContextRefreshedEvent> class, like:
#Component
public class YourListner implements ApplicationListener<ContextRefreshedEvent> {
#Value("${spring.jpa.properties.hibernate.ddl-auto}")
private String hibernateDdlAuto;
#Override
public void onApplicationEvent(ContextRefreshedEvent event) {
if (!"none".equalsIgnoreCase(hibernateDdlAuto))
throw new MyValidationException();
}
}
Moreover, you can even make it more verbose by registering your own FailureAnalyzer.

As a best practice, you can maintain a universal application.properties/yml file and set the property (spring.jpa.hibernate.ddl-auto) there. Afterwards, maintain a separate property/yml file (application_*.properties/yml) which will fetch the properties from application.properties/yml file, by default.
Also, you can maintain other "common" properties in the parent file.

Overriding/Wrapping spring beans in java based config multiple times

I have a (web-)application that needs special configurations and/or extensions based on the customer using the application. I call these additions "plugins" and they are auto discovered by classpath scanning when the application starts. For extensions that is incredibly easy. Let's say I want to have a plugin which adds an API that prints "hello world" when the URL /myplugin/greet is called: I just create a #Controller annotated class with the according #RequestMapping, put this in a myplugin.jar, copy that on the classpath and that's it.
Problems come up when I want to change some defaults and especially if I want to do this multiple times. Let's say my core application has a config like this:
#Configuration
public class CoreConfiguration {
#Bean
public Set<String> availableModules() {
return Collections.singleton("core");
}
}
Now I have two plugins that don't know about each other (but they do know the CoreConfig), but they both want to add themselves to the list of available modules. How would I do that? If I only had a single plugin that wants to override the module list I could override the existing bean from CoreConfiguration, but with two plugins that becomes a problem. What I imagine is something like this:
#Configuration
public class FirstPluginConfiguration {
#Bean
public Set<String> availableModules(Set<String> availableModules) {
Set<String> extendedSet = new HashSet<>(availableModules);
extendedSet.add("FirstPlugin");
return extendedSet;
}
}
Of course a SecondPluginConfiguration would look nearly exactly like this, except that the Set is not extended by "FirstPlugin", but by "SecondPlugin". I tested it to check what would happen and spring will just never call the First/SecondPluginConfiguration "availableModules" methods but it does not show an error either.
Now of course in this case this could easily be solved by using a mutable Set in the CoreConfiguration and then autowiring and extending the set in the other configurations, but for example I also want to be able to add method interceptors to some beans. So for example I might have an interface CrashLogger which has a logCrash(Throwable t) method and in CoreConfiguration a ToFileCrashLogger is created that writes stack traces to files as the name suggests. Now a plugin could say that he also wants to get notified about crashes, for example the plugin wants to ADDITIONALLY send the stacktrace to someone by email. For that matter that plugin could wrap the CrashLogger configured by the CoreConfiguration and fire BOTH. A second plugin could wrap the wrapper again and do something totally different with the stacktrace and still call both of the other CrashLoggers.
The later does sound somewhat like AOP and if I'd just let ALL my beans be proxied (I did not test that) I could autowire them into my plugin configurations, cast them to org.springframework.aop.framework.Advised and then add advices that manipulate behaviour. However it does seem like a huge overkill to generate proxies for each and everyone of my beans just so that that plugin can potentially add one or two advices one one or two beans.

How to set up a configured embedder for use of meta filters (-skip) with Serenity, JBehave and Selenium

While creating new scenarios I only want to test the scenario I am currently working with. For this purpose I want to use the Meta: #skip tag before my scenarios. As I found out I have to use the embedder to configure the used meta tags, so I tried:
configuredEmbedder().useMetaFilters(Arrays.asList("-skip"));
but actually this still has no effect on my test scenarios. I used it in the constructor of my SerenityStories test suite definition. Here is the complete code of this class:
public class AcceptanceTestSuite extends SerenityStories {
#Managed
WebDriver driver;
public AcceptanceTestSuite() {
System.setProperty("webdriver.chrome.driver", "D:/files/chromedriver/chromedriver.exe");
System.setProperty("chrome.switches", "--lang=en");
System.setProperty("restart.browser.each.scenario", "true");
configuredEmbedder().useMetaFilters(Arrays.asList("-skip"));
runSerenity().withDriver("chrome");
}
#Override
public Configuration configuration() {
Configuration configuration = super.configuration();
Keywords keywords = new LocalizedKeywords(DEFAULTSTORYLANGUAGE);
Properties properties = configuration.storyReporterBuilder().viewResources();
properties.setProperty("encoding", "UTF-8");
configuration.useKeywords(keywords)
.useStoryParser(new RegexStoryParser(keywords, new ExamplesTableFactory(new LoadFromClasspath(this.getClass()))))
.useStoryLoader(new UTF8StoryLoader()).useStepCollector(new MarkUnmatchedStepsAsPending(keywords))
.useDefaultStoryReporter(new ConsoleOutput(keywords)).storyReporterBuilder().withKeywords(keywords).withViewResources(properties);
return configuration;
}
}
Is this the wrong place or have I missed something? Still all scenarios are executed.
EDIT:
I changed following classes and now I think that it "works"
public AcceptanceTestSuite() {
System.setProperty("webdriver.chrome.driver", "D:/files/chromedriver/chromedriver.exe");
System.setProperty("chrome.switches", "--lang=de");
System.setProperty("restart.browser.each.scenario", "true");
this.useEmbedder(configuredEmbedder());
runSerenity().withDriver("chrome");
}
#Override
public Embedder configuredEmbedder() {
final Embedder embedder = new Embedder();
embedder.embedderControls()
.useThreads(1)
.doGenerateViewAfterStories(true)
.doIgnoreFailureInStories(false)
.doIgnoreFailureInView(false)
.doVerboseFailures(true);
final Configuration configuration = configuration();
embedder.useConfiguration(configuration);
embedder.useStepsFactory(stepsFactory());
embedder.useMetaFilters(Arrays.asList("-skip"));
return embedder;
}
But now I get the message [pool-1-thread-1] INFO net.serenitybdd.core.Serenity - TEST IGNORED but the scenario is still executed. Only in the result page I get the info that this scenario is ignored (but still executed). Is there a way to SKIP the scenario so it won't run?

I could not make it run with using configuredEmbedder() but by adding -Dmetafilter="+working -finished" as goals in my mvn run configurations and using the tags #working for scenarios I'm working with and which I want to run and #finsihed for scenarios I don't want to execute. Still I have to change the run configuration if I want to change the meta tags so it is not very comfortable but still I get what I was looking for.

As long as you document it well (some doc in https://github.com/serenity-bdd/the-serenity-book would be brilliant), I think as a JBehave/Serenity user you are well enough placed to decide which option makes the most sense.

Investigation
I debugged the serenity-jbehave classes, trying to understand why setting
configuredEmbedder().useMetaFilters(Collections.singletonList("-skip"))
is not working in all the possible places I put it within my class extending the SerenityStories, I found the strategic code place where metaFilters in ExtendedEmbedder#embedder are overwritten with what we define in our class into settings from serenity-jbehave.
This method is SerenityReportingRunner#createPerformableTree:
private PerformableTree createPerformableTree(List<CandidateSteps> candidateSteps, List<String> storyPaths) {
ExtendedEmbedder configuredEmbedder = this.getConfiguredEmbedder();
configuredEmbedder.useMetaFilters(getMetaFilters());
BatchFailures failures = new BatchFailures(configuredEmbedder.embedderControls().verboseFailures());
PerformableTree performableTree = configuredEmbedder.performableTree();
RunContext context = performableTree.newRunContext(getConfiguration(), candidateSteps,
configuredEmbedder.embedderMonitor(), configuredEmbedder.metaFilter(), failures);
performableTree.addStories(context, configuredEmbedder.storyManager().storiesOfPaths(storyPaths));
return performableTree;
}
This line changes the set metaFilters:
configuredEmbedder.useMetaFilters(getMetaFilters());
It overrides the current metaFilters value.
Going further the call chain, we get to the logic that defines from where it gets metaFilters, i.e. where we can actually set it.
SerenityReportingRunner#createPerformableTree
↓
SerenityReportingRunner#getMetaFilters
↓
SerenityReportingRunner#getMetafilterSetting
This is the method we need!
private String getMetafilterSetting() {
Optional<String> environmentMetafilters = getEnvironmentMetafilters();
Optional<String> annotatedMetafilters = getAnnotatedMetafilters(testClass);
Optional<String> thucAnnotatedMetafilters = getThucAnnotatedMetafilters(testClass);
return environmentMetafilters.orElse(annotatedMetafilters.orElse(thucAnnotatedMetafilters.orElse("")));
}
As we see here, the metaFilters can be defined in three places, and they override each other. In the priority lowering order, they are:
Value of metafilter (exactly all lowercase!) VM property.
Value of on net.serenitybdd.jbehave.annotations.Metafilter annotation on our SerenityStories class.
Value of on net.thucydides.jbehave.annotations.Metafilter annotation on our SerenityStories class. This annotation is deprecated, but left in place for backwards-compatibility.
Solution that is working with the current serenity-jbehave version
I've tried/debugged all these three options, they work and override each other as described above.
1. Use environment metafilter property
Added this to my JVM run arguments:
-Dmetafilter=skip
2. Use the modern #Metafilter annotation
import net.serenitybdd.jbehave.SerenityStories;
import net.serenitybdd.jbehave.annotations.Metafilter;
#Metafilter("-skip")
public class Acceptance extends SerenityStories {
3. Use the deprecated #Metafilter annotation
import net.serenitybdd.jbehave.SerenityStories;
import net.thucydides.jbehave.annotations.Metafilter;
#Metafilter("-skip") // warned as deprecated
public class Acceptance extends SerenityStories {
Solution for my current project is to use the current #Metafilter("-skip") annotation on my test class, to not depend on/have to change VM properties of the particular Jenkins/local dev execution.
Possible pull request to make
https://github.com/serenity-bdd/serenity-core/issues/95 — here Serenity guys have suggested me to do a PR with this fix, since they are not concentrated on Serenity + JBehave now.
I understand where to make the changes (in the code chain described above), but I don't know what overriding logic should be:
— MetaFilters from configuredEmbedder override any of ENV/annotation MetaFilters.
OR
— Any ENV/annotation MetaFilters override Metafilters from configuredEmbedder
OR
— MetaFilters from configuredEmbedder are merged with ENV/annotation MetaFilters. This option required merging priority.
Any suggestions?
In any type of fix, I would prefer add the explicit logs about how the overriding is now working into SerenityReportingRunner#getMetafilterSetting, since the current behaviour is really non-obvious and took lots of time to investigate.

What is the most elegant way to choose what service implementation must be used?

in my controller, I need to choose what service implementation I need to use on spring. Before I was encapsulating this code in a factory, but I think that its not a good practice...
#Component
public class StoreServiceFactory {
#Autowired
private List<StoreService> storeServices;
public StoreService getService(){
if(isActiveSale){
return storeServices.get("PublicStoreService")
}
return storeServices.get("PrivateStoreService")
}
}
So I would like to encapsulate this behaviour to not care about inside my controller.. How can I get it??

If isActiveSale changes when the application is running, I think that what you got is a good solution. Since the Controller is a singleton you can't expect a different injection everytime this value changes.
If you get the value only on the startup of the application(e.g. from some property) you can use a profile.

There is nothing wrong with a factory, although as #R4J points out in the comments it is more of a provider, since it doesn't instantiate anything. I would consider the factory/provider a good choice if the 'isActiveSale' status changes based on things outside of the current control flow, like a configuration in a property file. A setting set in some adminstration screen, or maybe based on the time of day.

I can't unit test my class without exposing private fields -- is there something wrong with my design?

I have written some code which I thought was quite well-designed, but then I started writing unit tests for it and stopped being so sure.
It turned out that in order to write some reasonable unit tests, I need to change some of my variables access modifiers from private to default, i.e. expose them (only within a package, but still...).
Here is some rough overview of my code in question. There is supposed to be some sort of address validation framework, that enables address validation by different means, e.g. validate them by some external webservice or by data in DB, or by any other source. So I have a notion of Module, which is just this: a separate way to validate addresses. I have an interface:
interface Module {
public void init(InitParams params);
public ValidationResponse validate(Address address);
}
There is some sort of factory, that based on a request or session state chooses a proper module:
class ModuleFactory {
Module selectModule(HttpRequest request) {
Module module = chooseModule(request);// analyze request and choose a module
module.init(createInitParams(request)); // init module
return module;
}
}
And then, I have written a Module that uses some external webservice for validation, and implemented it like that:
WebServiceModule {
private WebServiceFacade webservice;
public void init(InitParams params) {
webservice = new WebServiceFacade(createParamsForFacade(params));
}
public ValidationResponse validate(Address address) {
WebService wsResponse = webservice.validate(address);
ValidationResponse reponse = proccessWsResponse(wsResponse);
return response;
}
}
So basically I have this WebServiceFacade which is a wrapper over external web service, and my module calls this facade, processes its response and returns some framework-standard response.
I want to test if WebServiceModule processes reponses from external web service correctly. Obviously, I can't call real web service in unit tests, so I'm mocking it. But then again, in order for the module to use my mocked web service, the field webservice must be accessible from the outside. It breaks my design and I wonder if there is anything I could do about it. Obviously, the facade cannot be passed in init parameters, because ModuleFactory does not and should not know that it is needed.
I have read that dependency injection might be the answer to such problems, but I can't see how? I have not used any DI frameworks before, like Guice, so I don't know if it could be easily used in this situation. But maybe it could?
Or maybe I should just change my design?
Or screw it and make this unfortunate field package private (but leaving a sad comment like // default visibility to allow testing (oh well...) doesn't feel right)?
Bah! While I was writing this, it occurred to me, that I could create a WebServiceProcessor which takes a WebServiceFacade as a constructor argument and then test just the WebServiceProcessor. This would be one of the solutions to my problem. What do you think about it? I have one problem with that, because then my WebServiceModule would be sort of useless, just delegating all its work to another components, I would say: one layer of abstraction too far.

Yes, your design is wrong. You should do dependency injection instead of new ... inside your class (which is also called "hardcoded dependency"). Inability to easily write a test is a perfect indicator of a wrong design (read about "Listen to your tests" paradigm in Growing Object-Oriented Software Guided by Tests).
BTW, using reflection or dependency breaking framework like PowerMock is a very bad practice in this case and should be your last resort.

I agree with what yegor256 said and would like to suggest that the reason why you ended up in this situation is that you have assigned multiple responsibilities to your modules: creation and validation. This goes against the Single responsibility principle and effectively limits your ability to test creation separately from validation.
Consider constraining the responsibility of your "modules" to creation alone. When they only have this responsibility, the naming can be improved as well:
interface ValidatorFactory {
public Validator createValidator(InitParams params);
}
The validation interface becomes separate:
interface Validator {
public ValidationResponse validate(Address address);
}
You can then start by implementing the factory:
class WebServiceValidatorFactory implements ValidatorFactory {
public Validator createValidator(InitParams params) {
return new WebServiceValidator(new ProdWebServiceFacade(createParamsForFacade(params)));
}
}
This factory code becomes hard to unit-test, since it is explicitly referencing prod code, so keep this impl very concise. Put any logic (like createParamsForFacade) on the side, so that you can test it separately.
The web service validator itself only gets the responsibility of validation, and takes in the façade as a dependency, following the Inversion of Control (IoC) principle:
class WebServiceValidator implements Validator {
private final WebServiceFacade facade;
public WebServiceValidator(WebServiceFacade facade) {
this.facade = facade;
}
public ValidationResponse validate(Address address) {
WebService wsResponse = webservice.validate(address);
ValidationResponse reponse = proccessWsResponse(wsResponse);
return response;
}
}
Since WebServiceValidator is not controlling the creation of its dependencies anymore, testing becomes a breeze:
#Test
public void aTest() {
WebServiceValidator validator = new WebServiceValidator(new MockWebServiceFacade());
...
}
This way you have effectively inverted the control of the creation of the dependencies: Inversion of Control (IoC)!
Oh, and by the way, write your tests first. This way you will naturally gravitate towards a testable solution, which is usually also the best design. I think that this is due to the fact that testing requires modularity, and modularity is coincidentally the hallmark of good design.