public class example
{
public void method()
{
System.out.println("Shouldn't be here!");
}
}
public class examplemain
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
example obj = new example();
obj.method();
System.out.println("Inside Main");
}
}
I want to test main only and do not want to call method function.
I used this-
class examplemainTest
{
#Test
void main()
{
example obj = mock(example.class);
doNothing().when(obj).method();
String[] args = new String[0];
examplemain.main(args); //line 1
obj.method(); //line 2
}
}
But still it is calling method function in line 1 and it is only working for line 2.
Following is the output I got after running the test.
Shouldn't be here!
Inside Main
Process finished with exit code 0
The obj variable in examplemain.main() and examplemainTest.main() refer to different objects. In examplemain.main() you call method on the concrete object that you created on the previous line. In examplemainTest.main() you call the method on the mocked object you created in the beginning of the method.
You seem have trouble understanding some of the most fundamental concepts in Java programming. You should spend more time studying object initialization, object references, static access, field visibility and scope before diving into the fairly advanced topic of mocking dependencies in unit tests.
I researched a little bit, best way to handle testing of such kind of classes is provided here
I was writing a code in which I print a statement "Hello World" but an error occur named cannot find symbol. I tried hard to remove this error but failed.
public class Input{
System.out.println("Hello World");}
This is the statement and the error
Please anyone can help me in resolving this error and tell me why this error occur so I will not repeat this mistake in future.
Use this :
public class Input {
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("Hello World");
}
}
You can't print in the scope of a class. You need to inform more about the difference between a function and a class.
A "class" is sort of like a noun. It's the person, place or thing.
public class myThing {
//This is a comment
//put stuff that describes the thing in the curly braces
}
In order to make the thing do something, you must put it in a method
public void myMethod(){
//code in here gets run when myMethod runs
}
Methods must be in a class though. A method can usually be though of as "something a thing can do"
public class myThing {
public void myThingCanDoThis(){
//does this stuff only when called from somewhere else
}
}
The main method is a special type of method that always looks like this:
public static void main(String[] args) {
//This special method gets run automatically when your program runs
}
Your hello world should define a thing. It should have the method, or "verb", of "main".
public class myThing {
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("Hello World");
}
}
For now just assume that all your java code must go inside of the main method. Learn the basics and then when you learn more start to pay attention to things like "public", "static", "class" , "void" etc. It will all make sense in time
This is a question from this book: https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/teaching/0506/ConcSys/cs_a-2005.pdf page 28
Can you write an additional Java class which creates an
object that, when passed to the test method causes it to
print “Here!”? As I say in the code, editing the class A
itself, or using library features like reflection, serialization,
or native methods are considered cheating! I’ll provide
some hints in lectures if nobody can spot it in a week or
so. None of the PhD students has got it yet.
public class A {
// Private constructor tries to prevent A
// from being instantiated outside this
// class definition
//
// Using reflection is cheating :-)
private A() {
}
// ’test’ method checks whether the caller has
// been able to create an instance of the ’A’
// class. Can this be done even though the
// constructor is private?
public static void test(Object o) {
if (o instanceof A) {
System.out.println("Here!");
}
}
}
I know the question is a lot unclear. I can think of many different 'hack-ish' solutions but not sure if they will be counted as 'cheating' or not :)
I can't find the official answer so asking you for what would be a good answer.
If we consider that nesting class A does not "modify it" (as, technically, all lines of code are intact) then this solution is probably the only valid option:
class B
{
static
public class A {
// Private constructor tries to prevent A
// from being instantiated outside this
// class definition
//
// Using reflection is cheating :-)
private A() {
}
// ’test’ method checks whether the caller has
// been able to create an instance of the ’A’
// class. Can this be done even though the
// constructor is private?
public static void test(Object o) {
if (o instanceof A) {
System.out.println("Here!");
}
}
}
public static void main (String[] args) throws java.lang.Exception
{
A.test(new A());
}
}
What I mean is, technically it follows all the rules:
Can you write an additional Java class which creates an object that, when passed to the test method causes it to print “Here!”? - Done
As I say in the code, editing the class A itself ... considered cheating! - Technically, the class is unedited. I copy pasted it into my code.
... or using library features like reflection, serialization, or native methods are considered cheating! - Done
If, however, you decide that nesting class A should not be allowed, then I believe there is no proper solution to the problem given the current definition. Also, given the section of the book this task is given in, I bet that the author wanted to make the constructor protected but not private.
Somehow, I don't like this sort of questions. It's from a lecture back in 2005, and according to websearches, it seems that nobody has found "the" solution until now, and no solution has been published.
The constraints are clear, but the question of what is allowed or not is somewhat fuzzy. Every solution could be considered as "cheating", in one or the other way, because a class with a private constructor is not meant to be subclassed. That's a critical security mechanism, and the responsible engineers are working hard to make sure that this security mechanism cannot be trivially circumvented.
So of course, you have to cheat in order to solve this.
Nevertheless, I spent quite a while with this, and here's how I eventually cheated it:
1.) Download the Apache Bytecode Engineering Library, and place the bcel-6.0.jar in one directory.
2.) Create a file CreateB.java in the same directory, with the following contents:
import java.io.FileOutputStream;
import org.apache.bcel.Const;
import org.apache.bcel.generic.*;
public class CreateB
{
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception
{
ClassGen cg = new ClassGen("B", "A", "B.java",
Const.ACC_PUBLIC | Const.ACC_SUPER, new String[] {});
ConstantPoolGen cp = cg.getConstantPool();
InstructionList il = new InstructionList();
MethodGen method = new MethodGen(Const.ACC_PUBLIC, Type.VOID,
Type.NO_ARGS, new String[] {}, "<init>", "B", il, cp);
il.append(InstructionFactory.createReturn(Type.VOID));
method.setMaxStack();
method.setMaxLocals();
cg.addMethod(method.getMethod());
il.dispose();
cg.getJavaClass().dump(new FileOutputStream("B.class"));
}
}
3.) Compile and execute this class:
javac -cp .;bcel-6.0.jar CreateB.java
java -cp .;bcel-6.0.jar CreateB
(note: On linux, the ; must be a :). The result will be a file B.class.
4.) Copy the class that was given in the question (verbatim - without any modification) into the same directory and compile it.
5.) Create the following class in the same directory, and compile it:
public class TestA
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
A.test(new B());
}
}
6.) The crucial step: Call
java -Xverify:none TestA
The output will be Here!.
The key point is that the CreateB class creates a class B that extends A, but does not invoke the super constructor. (Note that an implicit super constructor invocation would normally be added by the compiler. But there's no compiler involved here. The bytecode is created manually). All this would usually fail with a VerifyError when the class is loaded, but this verification can be switched off with -Xverify:none.
So in summary:
The class A itself is not edited (and also its byte code is not edited, I hope this is clear!)
No reflection
No serialization
No custom native methods
There are a few options here:
Create a class:
public class Y extends A {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
X.test(new Y());
}
}
And then edit the bytecode and remove the call to X.. Of course this violates the JVM specification and has to be run with -Xverify:none as said above. This is essentially the same as the one #Marco13.
Option 2:
import sun.misc.Unsafe;
public class Y extends A {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
Unsafe uf = Unsafe.getUnsafe();
X.test((X) uf.allocateInstance(X.class));
}
}
Compile the code and run it by putting your classpath in the sysloader (otherwise it won't work):
$ java -Xbootclasspath/p:. Y
Both work for me :) Of course, they are both cheating. The first option isn't Java. The second is, well, evil :)
If I find out another way, I'll post it :)
In any case this can't be done without low-level tricks. The JVM Specification explicitly prohibits the creation of an object without calling the constructor as the object in the stack is uninitialized. And the JVM Specification explicitly prohibits not calling the super constructor. And the JVM Specification explicitly requires verification of access protection.
Still funny, though :)
Java can support unicode class name:)
The A in "if (o instanceof A)" could be different from the A in "public class A"
For example, the code below will print "Here!" instead of "bad".
A.java
public class A {
// Private constructor tries to prevent A
// from being instantiated outside this
// class definition
//
// Using reflection is cheating :-)
private A() {
// A: U+0041
}
// ’test’ method checks whether the caller has
// been able to create an instance of the ’A’
// class. Can this be done even though the
// constructor is private?
public static void test(Object o) {
if (o instanceof А) {
System.out.println("Here!");
}
}
}
А.java
public class А {
// A: U+0410, not A: U+0041
}
Main.java
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
A.test(new А());
}
}
I'm trying to write an expression or series of statements of Java source code that when written inside a static method evaluates to null, but if the method is non-static evaluates to this.
My initial idea was to 'overload' on static vs non-static, as below:
public class test {
public void method1() {
System.out.println(getThisOrNull());
}
public static void method2() {
System.out.println(getThisOrNull());
}
private static Object getThisOrNull() {
return null;
}
private Object getThisOrNull() {
return this;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
test t = new test();
System.out.println(t);
t.method1();
t.method2();
}
}
Unfortunately this isn't actually legal Java, you can't 'overload' like that and it just gives a compiler error:
test.java:14: error: method getThisOrNull() is already defined in class test
private Object getThisOrNull() {
^
1 error
Clearly in an ideal world I wouldn't write it like that to begin with, but the problem is this code will be generated automatically by a tool that is not really semantically or syntactically enough to distinguish between the static vs non-static case.
So, how can I write some source code that, although byte for byte identical compiles and behaves differently in depending on the presence of the static modifier for the method?
This can be achieved with a trick and a bit of help from Java's reflection facilities. It's ugly, but it works:
import java.lang.reflect.Field;
public class test {
public void method1() {
System.out.println(getThisOrNull(new Object(){}));
}
public static void method2() {
System.out.println(getThisOrNull(new Object(){}));
}
private static Object getThisOrNull(final Object o) {
for (Field f: o.getClass().getDeclaredFields()) {
if (f.getType().equals(test.class)) {
try {
return f.get(o);
}
catch (IllegalAccessException e) {
// Omm nom nom...
}
}
}
return null;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
test t = new test();
System.out.println(t);
t.method1();
t.method2();
}
}
This compiles and runs as hoped for:
test#183f74d
test#183f74d
null
The trick that makes this possible is the use of new Object(){}, which creates a new, anonymous class within the existing method that we're trying to figure out if it's static or not. The behaviour of this is subtly different between the two cases.
If the goal were just to figure out if the method is static or not we could write:
java.lang.reflect.Modifiers.isStatic(new Object(){}.getClass().getEnclosingMethod().getModifiers())
Since we want to get this (when available) we need to do something slightly different. Fortunately for us classes defined within the context of an instance of an object in Java get an implicit reference to the class that contains them. (Normally you'd access it with test.this syntax). We needed a way to access test.this if it existed, except we can't actually write test.this anywhere because it too would be syntactically invalid in the static case. It does however exist within the object, as a private member variable. This means that we can find it with reflection, which is what the getThisOrNull static method does with the local anonymous type.
The downside is that we create an anonymous class in every method we use this trick and it probably adds overheads, but if you're backed into a corner and looking for a way of doing this it does at least work.
Why does the following code print "YO"? Whose printYo() is being called? I would think that this code would not compile because printYo() is private to t.
public class Test {
private void printYo() {
System.out.println("YO");
}
public void doubleTrouble(Test t) {
t.printYo();
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Test test = new Test();
test.doubleTrouble(new Test());
}
}
What can I do to make sure the outer object doesn't mutate the argument class?
printYo() is private to t
No. That method is private in regards to the class Test. Any piece of code within Test can use it.
What can I do to make sure the outer object doesn't mutate the argument class?
Java does not have any built in mechanism to refuse access to members on a per instance basis. (If that is what you meant.)
You are calling the method with in the class , which sound correct for the output . Even if you call the main method from different class it gives the same output.