Develop Reference

PowerMockito mocking static class INSIDE enum?

I have a enum that has to have a inner static class for bean injection.
I feel I'm facing the most difficult situation for a mock: enum, static class, static field, static method..
public enum Category{
C1(Something(Constants.getFactory().createSomething(""))),
C2(...);
public static Constants {
#Autowired
private static Factory factory;
public static Factory getFactory(){
return factory;
}
}
}
And my testing class using PowerMockito is:
#RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
#PrepareForTest({Category.class,Category.Constants.class})
public class CategoryTests {
#Before
public void setUp() throws Exception {
PowerMockito.mockStatic(Category.class);
PowerMockito.mockStatic(Category.Constants.class);
//This simply testing mock didn't work
//PowerMockito.when(Category.Constants
// .getFactory()).thenReturn("123");
//I tried to mock the inner field 'factory' and use it directly without a getter
//(with small changes in the original class)
//But it didn't work either
Factory factory = PowerMockito.mock(Factory.class);
NewClass newClass = PowerMockito.mock(NewClass.class);
PowerMockito.when(Factory.createSomething(anySring()))
.thenReturn(newClass);
Whitebox.setInternalState(
Category.Constants.class,"factory",Factory);
//This is like the most common way to stub
//It didn't work, so I believe the inner static class were never mocked
PowerMockito.doReturn(factory).when(Category.Constants.class,
"getFactory", anyString());
}
//I don't know if real test cases matter that much but I update to add it for reference.
#Test(dataProvider = "Case1")
public void testFromFilterType(final String testName, String input, final Category expected) {
assertEquals(Category.doSomething(input), expected);
}
#DataProvider(name = "Case1")
Object[][] fromFilterTypeCases() {
return new Object[][] {
{ "C1", "input1", Category.C1 },
{ "C2", "input2", Category.C2 },
};
}
}
//Currently the tests got skipped because in class Category Constants.getFactory().createSomething(""),
//where Constants.getFactory() returns null and mocking doesn't work.
At first I didn't mock the Enum, but just the static inner class. After heavily searching, I tried in all ways. The setup seems correct but it may miss some tricks. Any helps?

A bit of guessing: Category.class is the class you intend to test. That class itself contains nothing that should require mocking/preparation.
So: drop these parts in your code. Even if it doesn't cause your current issue, I am pretty sure that it might have all kinds of unwanted consequences when you start testing things later on.
Beyond that, the real answer would be to avoid the necessity for PowerMock(ito) in the very first place. You are already using #Autowired, which implies that you are using a DI framework. Most DI frameworks also have hooks for unit testing. So you should rather try to get #Autowired to work in your test setup.

Powermock - mocking static class members

I'm trying to mock the following class which contains some static members
public class ClientFact {
private static final String BASE_URL = Config.getProperty("prop1");
private static final String USERID = Config.getProperty("prop2");
......................
public static Client createClient() throws AppException {
}
}
but i'm running into issues with the static member variables which are populated by Config.getProperty. This class does a read on a properties file like so
public class Config {
...............
public static String getProperty(Param param) {
String value = null;
if (param != null) {
value = properties.getProperty(param.toString());
}
return value;
}
}
I'm trying to mock this call since i dont care about the loaded properties in my test. This is what ive tried
#RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
#PrepareForTest({ClientFact.class})
public class MyTests {
#Test
public void test() {
PowerMock.mockStaticPartial(Config.class, "getProperty");
EasyMock.expect(Config.getProperty(EasyMock.anyObject())).andReturn(EasyMock.anyString()).anyTimes();
PowerMock.mockStatic(ClientFact.class);
}
}
but its giving the following error...
java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: org/easymock/internal/MocksControl.createMock(Ljava/lang/Class;[Ljava/lang/reflect/Method;)Ljava/lang/Object;
at org.powermock.api.easymock.PowerMock.doCreateMock(PowerMock.java:2214)
at org.powermock.api.easymock.PowerMock.doMock(PowerMock.java:2163)
any ideas what im doign wrong here?

A non-answer: consider not making static calls there.
You see, that directly couples that one class to the implementation of that static method in some other class; for no real reason. (and for the record: it seems strange that a USER_ID String is a static field in your ClientFact class. Do you really intend that all ClientFacts are using the same USER_ID?!)
You could replace that static call with a non-static version (for example by introducing an interface); and then you can use dependency injection to make an instance of that interface available to your class under test. And then all your testing works without the need to Powermock.
Long story short: very often (but not always!) the need to turn to Powermock originates in production code which wasn't written to be testable (like in your case). Thus instead of using the big bad Powermock hammer to "fix" your testing problem, you should consider improving your production code.
You might want to listen to those videos to get a better understanding what I am talking about.

How can we test that a class implements many interfaces?

My question is about testing a class that implements many interfaces. For example, I have this class:
public class ServiceControllerImpl extends ServiceController implements IDataChanged, IEventChanged {
}
Now there are two ways for testing. The first is testing directly on the concrete class. That means the object type is the concrete class rather than the interface.
public class ServiceControllerImplTest {
ServiceControllerImpl instance;
#Before
public void setUp() {
instance = new ServiceControllerImpl();
// you can bring this instance anywhere
}
}
The second way is testing on the interface only. We must typecast this object to all interfaces it implements.
public class ServiceControllerImplTest {
ServiceController instance; // use interface here
IDataChanged dataChangeListener;
#Before
public void setUp() {
instance = new ServiceControllerImpl();
dataChangeListener = (IDataChanged) instance;
// instance and dataChangeListener "look like" two different object.
}
}
I prefer the second solution because maybe in future we can change the interface it implements to other objects, so using the concrete class might lead to failing tests in the future. I don't know the best practice for this problem.
Thanks :)

I prefer second solution because in reality, maybe in future we can change the interface it implements to other objects, so force using concreted class maybe leads to fail test in the future.
I guess it will lead to failed tests anyway, because you usually test that assertions are true or false. The question is: Do that tests apply to any IDataChanged or do these assertions only apply to the ServiceControllerImpl?
If the assertions only apply to the ServiceControllerImpl it doesn't matter if you use an IDataChanged instead of an ServiceControllerImpl, because you must edit the test when you use another IDataChanged object - different assertions. The test will fail if you use another object.
The way you setup unit tests Itself gives you an answer. A unit test usually tests one class in isolation. This means that you mock the environment. But mocking the environment means that you know the dependencies of the class you test and this are implementation details. So your test is written on an implemtation basis rather than only the interface.
It's possible to write tests that only test an abstract api - like an interface. But this usually means that your tests are abstract too. E.g.
public abstract class SetTest {
#Test
public void addAlreadyExistentObject(){
Set<String> setUnderTest = createSetUnderTest();
Assert.assertTrue(setUnderTest.isEmpty());
boolean setChanged = setUnderTest.add("Hello");
Assert.assertTrue(setChanged);
setChanged = setUnderTest.add("Hello");
Assert.assertFalse(setChanged);
Assert.assertEquals(setUnderTest.size(), 1);
}
protected abstract Set<String> createSetUnderTest();
}
You can then extend these abstract tests to test the api for concrete classes. E.g.
public class HashSetTest extends SetTest {
#Override
protected Set<String> createSetUnderTest() {
return new HashSet<String>();
}
}
In this case you can replace the implementation and the test must remain green.
But here is another example of an abstract api when replacing the object under test does not really make sense.
What about writing a test for all Runnables?
public class RunnableTest {
#Test
public void run(){
Runnable runnable = ...;
// What to test here?
// run is invoked without throwing any runtime exceptions?
runnable.run();
}
}
As you can see it does not make sense in some cases to write tests in a way so that you can easily replace the object under test.
If an api like the Set api defines a concrete state handling you can write abstract tests that test this.

JayC667 already correctly answered that it's best to refer to a class through its supertype(s) in tests of methods defined by those types. But I'd change the way you did that a bit to avoid casting:
public class ServiceControllerImplTest {
ServiceController controller;
IDataChanged dataChangeListener;
#Before
public void setUp() {
instance = new ServiceControllerImpl();
controller = instance;
dataChangeListener = instance;
}
}

In a JUnit test is there a rule to set the subject of the test

I've been writing a lot of JUnit tests lately and see this same boilerplate pattern.
public class MathOpTest {
private MathOp a;
#Before
public void setUp(){
a = new MathOp();
}
...
}
Is there an annotation to set this up for me as I always need to write a setUp method and it usually only has the single class I'm testing.
Something like:
public class MathOpTest {
#TestSubject
private MathOp a;
...
}

You can assign the fields when they are declared:
public class MathOpTest {
private final MathOp mathOp = new MathOp();
...
}
This is simple and straight-forward, so I recommend that you assign fields in your test class at declaration time whenever possible (certainly in the case you gave).
If you want to understand a bit more, read on.
JUnit will create a unique instance of your test class for each test method, so even if your test modifies internal state of MathOp, using fields this way is safe as long as your tests don't modify global state.
For JUnit4-style tests (i.e. tests that do not extend junit.framework.TestCase) JUnit will create the test class just before the test method is run, and make it eligible for garbage collection after the test method completes.
Use #Before methods for more complex initialization.
Usually I use #Before when:
Initialization of the field is complex
Initialization of the field requires calling code that is declared to throw a checked exception
You need to do initialization after a #Rule has been applied (for instance, injecting a mock into a constructor)
Usually you would create the object under test in the test method when the class needs to be constructed different ways for different use cases.
Examples
Here is an example of using #Before and initMocks():
public class MathOpTest {
#Mock private Calculator mockCalculator;
#Mock private Supplier<Double> mockPreviousResultSupplier;
private MathOp mathOp;
#Before
public void createMathOp() {
MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this);
mathOp = new MathOp(
mockCalculator, mockPreviousResultSupplier);
}
...
}
Here's an example of a #Before method that uses the result of a #Rule:
public class MyWriterTest {
#Rule public final TemporaryFolder folder = new TemporaryFolder();
private File output;
private MyWriter writer;
#Before
public void createMyWriter() {
output = folder.newFile();
writer = new MyWriter(output);
}
...
}
Aside: I personally wouldn't recommend using #InjectMocks to create the class you are testing. It's too much magic for my taste. Having an explicit constructor is cleaner and simpler, and I like my tests to be clear and simple :-)

Nothing like this directly exists in vanilla JUnit to my recollection. Most people elect to either initialize their test subject in a #Before statement, or inside of their tests. In its defense, it makes it clear what is being established before the tests are run, and it always resets the state of your test object.
If you're using Mockito, you actually do have the benefits of declaring a class and annotating it with #InjectMocks to both instantiate the class and inject whatever #Mock classes you had prior.

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.