Develop Reference

Mockito mocks locally final class but fails in Jenkins

I have written some unit tests for a static method. The static method takes only one argument. The argument's type is a final class. In terms of code:
public class Utility {
public static Optional<String> getName(Customer customer) {
// method's body.
}
}
public final class Customer {
// class definition
}
So for the Utility class I have created a test class UtilityTests in which I have written tests for this method, getName. The unit testing framework is TestNG and the mocking library that is used is Mockito. So a typical test has the following structure:
public class UtilityTests {
#Test
public void getNameTest() {
// Arrange
Customer customerMock = Mockito.mock(Customer.class);
Mockito.when(...).thenReturn(...);
// Act
Optional<String> name = Utility.getName(customerMock);
// Assert
Assert.assertTrue(...);
}
}
What is the problem ?
Whereas the tests run successfully locally, inside IntelliJ, they fail on Jenkins (when I push my code in the remote branch, a build is triggered and unit tests run at the end). The error message is sth like the following:
org.mockito.exceptions.base.MockitoException: Cannot mock/spy class
com.packagename.Customer Mockito
cannot mock/spy because :
- final class
What I tried ?
I searched a bit, in order to find a solution but I didn't make it. I note here that I am not allowed to change the fact that Customer is a final class. In addition to this, I would like if possible to not change it's design at all (e.g. creating an interface, that would hold the methods that I want to mock and state that the Customer class implements that interface, as correctly Jose pointed out in his comment). The thing that I tried is the second option mentioned at mockito-final. Despite the fact that this fixed the problem, it brake some other unit tests :(, that cannot be fixed in none apparent way.
Questions
So here are the two questions I have:
How that is possible in the first place ? Shouldn't the test fail both locally and in Jenkins ?
How this can be fixed based in the constraints I mentioned above ?
Thanks in advance for any help.

An alternative approach would be to use the 'method to class' pattern.
Move the methods out of the customer class into another class/classes, say CustomerSomething eg/CustomerFinances (or whatever it's responsibility is).
Add a constructor to Customer.
Now you don't need to mock Customer, just the CustomerSomething class! You may not need to mock that either if it has no external dependencies.
Here's a good blog on the topic: https://simpleprogrammer.com/back-to-basics-mock-eliminating-patterns/

How that is possible in the first place? Shouldn't the test fail both locally and in Jenkins ?
It's obviously a kind of env-specifics. The only question is - how to determine the cause of difference.
I'd suggest you to check org.mockito.internal.util.MockUtil#typeMockabilityOf method and compare, what mockMaker is actually used in both environments and why.
If mockMaker is the same - compare loaded classes IDE-Client vs Jenkins-Client - do they have any difference on the time of test execution.
How this can be fixed based in the constraints I mentioned above?
The following code is written in assumption of OpenJDK 12 and Mockito 2.28.2, but I believe you can adjust it to any actually used version.
public class UtilityTest {
#Rule
public InlineMocksRule inlineMocksRule = new InlineMocksRule();
#Rule
public MockitoRule mockitoRule = MockitoJUnit.rule();
#Test
public void testFinalClass() {
// Given
String testName = "Ainz Ooal Gown";
Client client = Mockito.mock(Client.class);
Mockito.when(client.getName()).thenReturn(testName);
// When
String name = Utility.getName(client).orElseThrow();
// Then
assertEquals(testName, name);
}
static final class Client {
final String getName() {
return "text";
}
}
static final class Utility {
static Optional<String> getName(Client client) {
return Optional.ofNullable(client).map(Client::getName);
}
}
}
With a separate rule for inline mocks:
import org.junit.rules.TestRule;
import org.junit.runner.Description;
import org.junit.runners.model.Statement;
import org.mockito.internal.configuration.plugins.Plugins;
import org.mockito.internal.util.MockUtil;
import java.lang.invoke.MethodHandles;
import java.lang.invoke.VarHandle;
import java.lang.reflect.Field;
import java.lang.reflect.Modifier;
public class InlineMocksRule implements TestRule {
private static Field MOCK_MAKER_FIELD;
static {
try {
MethodHandles.Lookup lookup = MethodHandles.privateLookupIn(Field.class, MethodHandles.lookup());
VarHandle modifiers = lookup.findVarHandle(Field.class, "modifiers", int.class);
MOCK_MAKER_FIELD = MockUtil.class.getDeclaredField("mockMaker");
MOCK_MAKER_FIELD.setAccessible(true);
int mods = MOCK_MAKER_FIELD.getModifiers();
if (Modifier.isFinal(mods)) {
modifiers.set(MOCK_MAKER_FIELD, mods & ~Modifier.FINAL);
}
} catch (IllegalAccessException | NoSuchFieldException ex) {
throw new RuntimeException(ex);
}
}
#Override
public Statement apply(Statement base, Description description) {
return new Statement() {
#Override
public void evaluate() throws Throwable {
Object oldMaker = MOCK_MAKER_FIELD.get(null);
MOCK_MAKER_FIELD.set(null, Plugins.getPlugins().getInlineMockMaker());
try {
base.evaluate();
} finally {
MOCK_MAKER_FIELD.set(null, oldMaker);
}
}
};
}
}

Make sure you run the test with the same arguments. Check if your intellij run configurations match the jenkins. https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/creating-and-editing-run-debug-configurations.html. You can try to run test on local machine with the same arguments as on jenkins(from terminal), if it will fail that means the problem is in arguments

JUNIT : run setup only once for a large number of test classes

I have a class, which I use as a basis for my unit tests. In this class I initialize the whole environment for my tests, setting up database mappings, enter a number of database records across multiple tables, etc. That class has a method with a #BeforeClass annotation which does the initialization. Next thing, I extend that class with specific classes in which I have #Test methods.
My question is, since the before class is exactly the same for all these test classes, how can I ensure that they are run only once for all the tests.
One simple solution is that I could keep all the tests in one class. However, the number of tests is huge, also they are categorised based on functional heads. So they are located in different classes. However since they need the exact same setup, they inherit the #BeforeClass. As a result the whole setup is done at least once per test class, taking much more time in total than I would prefer.
I could, though, put them all in various subpackages under one package, hence if there is a way, how I can run set up once for all the tests within that package, it would be great.

With JUnit4 test suite you can do something like this :
#RunWith(Suite.class)
#Suite.SuiteClasses({ Test1IT.class, Test2IT.class })
public class IntegrationTestSuite
{
#BeforeClass
public static void setUp()
{
System.out.println("Runs before all tests in the annotation above.");
}
#AfterClass
public static void tearDown()
{
System.out.println("Runs after all tests in the annotation above.");
}
}
Then you run this class as you would run a normal test class and it will run all of your tests.

JUnit doesn't support this, you will have to use the standard Java work-arounds for singletons: Move the common setup code into a static code block and then call an empty method in this class:
static {
...init code here...
}
public static void init() {} // Empty method to trigger the execution of the block above
Make sure that all tests call init(), for example my putting it into a #BeforeClass method. Or put the static code block into a shared base class.
Alternatively, use a global variable:
private static boolean initialize = true;
public static void init() {
if(!initialize) return;
initialize = false;
...init code here...
}

Create one base class for all tests:
public class BaseTest {
static{
/*** init code here ***/
}
}
and every test should inherit from it:
public class SomeTest extends BaseTest {
}

You can make one BaseTest class with a #BeforeClass method, then have all the other tests inherit from it. This way, when each test object is constructed, #BeforeClass gets executed.
Also avoid executing it just once for all the test suite, since all the test cases should be independent. #BeforeClass should execute only once each test case, not test suite.

If you can tolerate adding spring-test to your project, or you are using it already, then a good approach is to use the technique described here: How to load DBUnit test data once per case with Spring Test

Not sure if anyone still is using JUnit and trying to fix it without using Spring Runner (aka no spring integration). TestNG has this feature. But here is a JUnit based solution.
Create a RunOnce per thread operation like so. This maintains a list of classes for which the operation has run.
public class RunOnceOperation {
private static final ThreadLocal t = new ThreadLocal();
public void run(Function f) {
if (t.get() == null) {
t.set(Arrays.asList(getClass()));
f.apply(0);
} else {
if (!((List) t.get()).contains(getClass())) {
((List) t.get()).add(getClass());
f.apply(0);
}
}
}
}
Back in your unit test
#Before
public beforeTest() {
operation.run(new Function<Integer, Void>() {
#Override
public Void apply(Integer t) {
checkBeanProperties();
return null;
}
});
}
private void checkBeanProperties() {
//I only want to check this once per class.
//Also my bean check needs instance of the class and can't be static.
}
My function interface is like this:
interface Function<I,O> {
O apply(I i);
}
When you use this way, you can perform operations once per class using ThreadLocal.

TestNG test inheritance and groups

We have DAO tests that should run against both the real DAO/database, and against a mock dao to verify that the mock dao behaves the same as the real dao. To this end, we have a structure like this:
public abstract class DAOTestBase
{
public void testSimple()
{
// dummy assertion
assertTrue(true, "Hello");
}
}
#Test(groups = "fast")
public class TestMockDAO extends DAOTestBase
{
// setUp/tearDown and helper methods for mock
}
#Test(groups = "slow")
public class TestDAO extends DAOTestBase
{
// setUp/tearDown and helper methods for real DB
}
Unfortunately this doesn't work - TestNG doesn't think that the testSimple method is a test and hence won't run it. So instead I tried to annotate the testSimple method (or the DAOTestBase class):
A #Test annotation without any groups will lead to the same effect - the test won't run for either fast nor slow groups.
A #Test annotation with groups fast and slow will lead to the opposite effect - both TestMockDAO and TestDAO will be run regardless of whether only fast or only slow tests should be run.
A #Test annotation with a different group, say common, plus added dependsOnGroups="common" annotations in both TestMockDAO and TestDAO will also not work unless common is included in the groups to run which leads again to case 2 above (both TestMockDAO and TestDAO are run).
In the end, what I'm looking for is a way to be able to define the group for the inherited tests in the sub class, but it seems as if the #Test annotation is only applied to test methods in that very same class, not also to inherited methods that don't have a #Test annotation. Is there any other way to achieve this (without overriding all methods in the sub classes) ?

I am currently working through a similar situation.
A way to make test cases run is to use something like:
#Test
public void someTest() {
TestNG testng = new TestNG();
testng.setTestClasses(new Class[] { SomeTests.class });
testng.run();
}
Reference: http://testng.org/doc/documentation-main.html#running-testng-programmatically
Unforunately I am currently unable to get it to report the test cases within SomeTests.

Have you tried simply adding a #Test annotation on top of DAOTestBase? Each subclass will override it with its own group and this should make the method in the base a test method.

I am using TestNG 6.14.3 version and I found a solution using priority annotation.
Example:
I have a base test class:
public class TestBase {
#Test(priority = 0)
public void testA() {
assertTrue(true, "testA");
}
}
And another extended test class:
public class Test2 extends TestBase {
#Test(priority = 1)
public void testB() {
assertTrue(true, "testB");
}
}
When I run Test2 test class, I obtain the following esult:
testA: true
testB: true

I solved it this way:
The methods in the base class are in "base" group, but need to check if the test have been initialized.
public abstract DaoTestBase {
private boolean initialized = false;
#Test(groups = "base")
public void testSimple() {
if (!initialized) { return; }
// dummy assertion
assertTrue(true, "Hello");
}
}
The test is initialized in the child, in the BeforeClass annotated method.
#BeforeClass
protected void initialize() {
super.initialized = true;
}
If you annotate the parent class instead of the methods, you must pass inheritGroups=false and the group, since it inherits also the group of the base class and it will not work.
Now, you must run TestNG to check groups base,fast or base,slow. Both tests will be executed, but the one not initialized will do nothing.
It is ugly, and I would not recommend it (it looks better to redefine the methods in child and call the according super method), but in my case I need priority in my test methods, and I want to avoid that repetition in each child class.

Conditionally ignoring tests in JUnit 4

OK, so the #Ignore annotation is good for marking that a test case shouldn't be run.
However, sometimes I want to ignore a test based on runtime information. An example might be if I have a concurrency test that needs to be run on a machine with a certain number of cores. If this test were run on a uniprocessor machine, I don't think it would be correct to just pass the test (since it hasn't been run), and it certainly wouldn't be right to fail the test and break the build.
So I want to be able to ignore tests at runtime, as this seems like the right outcome (since the test framework will allow the build to pass but record that the tests weren't run). I'm fairly sure that the annotation won't give me this flexibility, and suspect that I'll need to manually create the test suite for the class in question. However, the documentation doesn't mention anything about this and looking through the API it's also not clear how this would be done programmatically (i.e. how do I programatically create an instance of Test or similar that is equivalent to that created by the #Ignore annotation?).
If anyone has done something similar in the past, or has a bright idea of how else I could go about this, I'd be happy to hear about it.

The JUnit way is to do this at run-time is org.junit.Assume.
#Before
public void beforeMethod() {
org.junit.Assume.assumeTrue(someCondition());
// rest of setup.
}
You can do it in a #Before method or in the test itself, but not in an #After method. If you do it in the test itself, your #Before method will get run. You can also do it within #BeforeClass to prevent class initialization.
An assumption failure causes the test to be ignored.
Edit: To compare with the #RunIf annotation from junit-ext, their sample code would look like this:
#Test
public void calculateTotalSalary() {
assumeThat(Database.connect(), is(notNull()));
//test code below.
}
Not to mention that it is much easier to capture and use the connection from the Database.connect() method this way.

You should checkout Junit-ext project. They have RunIf annotation that performs conditional tests, like:
#Test
#RunIf(DatabaseIsConnected.class)
public void calculateTotalSalary() {
//your code there
}
class DatabaseIsConnected implements Checker {
public boolean satisify() {
return Database.connect() != null;
}
}
[Code sample taken from their tutorial]

In JUnit 4, another option for you may be to create an annotation to denote that the test needs to meet your custom criteria, then extend the default runner with your own and using reflection, base your decision on the custom criteria. It may look something like this:
public class CustomRunner extends BlockJUnit4ClassRunner {
public CTRunner(Class<?> klass) throws initializationError {
super(klass);
}
#Override
protected boolean isIgnored(FrameworkMethod child) {
if(shouldIgnore()) {
return true;
}
return super.isIgnored(child);
}
private boolean shouldIgnore(class) {
/* some custom criteria */
}
}

Additionally to the answer of #tkruse and #Yishai:
I do this way to conditionally skip test methods especially for Parameterized tests, if a test method should only run for some test data records.
public class MyTest {
// get current test method
#Rule public TestName testName = new TestName();
#Before
public void setUp() {
org.junit.Assume.assumeTrue(new Function<String, Boolean>() {
#Override
public Boolean apply(String testMethod) {
if (testMethod.startsWith("testMyMethod")) {
return <some condition>;
}
return true;
}
}.apply(testName.getMethodName()));
... continue setup ...
}
}

A quick note: Assume.assumeTrue(condition) ignores rest of the steps but passes the test.
To fail the test, use org.junit.Assert.fail() inside the conditional statement. Works same like Assume.assumeTrue() but fails the test.

jUnit - How to assert that inherited methods are invoked?

Let's say you have some 3rd-party library class that you want to extend, simply to add convenience methods to it (so you can call an inherited method with default parameters for example).
Using jUnit/jMock, is it possible to write an assertion / mock expection that tests that the correct inherited method is called?
For example, something like this:
class SomeClass extends SomeLibraryClass {
public String method(String code) {
return method(code, null, Locale.default());
}
}
How can I assert that method is being called?

You can make a further subclass inside your unit test that actually tells you:
public class MyTest {
boolean methodCalled = false;
#Test
public void testMySubclass(){
TestSomeClass testSomeClass = new TestSomeClass();
// Invoke method on testSomeclass ...
assertTrue( methodCalled);
}
class TestSomeClass extends SomeClass{
public String method(String code){
methodCalled = true;
}
}
}

Unit testing is more useful to verify the functionality of given methods, not to assert coverage. Unit tests that care more about what method got called know way more about the classes they are testing than they probably should, not to mention will be confusing to the reader.
Coverage tools like Cobertura or EMMA will tell you whether you properly covered your code.

It may indeed be better to only write integration tests in this case, but if you really want a unit test, you can have it just as easily as in any other case:
public class SomeClassTest
{
#Test
public void testMethod()
{
final String code = "test";
new Expectations()
{
SomeLibraryClass mock;
{
mock.method(code, null, (Locale) any);
}
};
new SomeClass().method(code);
}
}
This test uses the JMockit mocking API.

it's hard to tell without a more concrete example, but I'd guess that this ought to be an integration test--test the whole package together--rather than a unit test. Sometimes one can be too fine-grained with unit testing.