Suppose I have the following class :
public class Math {
public int mult(int a, int b) {
return 4;
}
public int mul (int a, int b) {
return mult(a,b);
}
}
And the following test class :
public class TestMockito {
Math testMath;
#Before
public void create () {
testMath = *mock*(Math.class);
when(testMath.mult(1,2).thenReturn(2);
}
#Test
public void test() {
System.out.println(testMath.mul(1,2));
}
}
Why does mul(1,2) called in test() not use when(testMath.mult(1,2).thenReturn(2); ?
Is there any other way to mock a method being used inside another method that is being tested ?
Cheers
You usually do not mock the code under test (unless it is an abstract class).
You usually mock other classes (the dependencies) your CUT communicates with.
The reason why your test does not work (as you expect) is that the mock is not an object of the real class (which is the reason why we mock it BTW....). It has been derived by the mocking framework not to behave like the original code but like it has been configured for the test.
If you really want the real methods being called in the mock (which is not what you want most of the time) you need to tell mockito that when creating the mock:
mock(ClassToBeMocked.class,Mockito.CALL_REAL_METHODS);
Related
For example:
public class NumberService {
public boolean isNaturalNumber(int num) {
return num > 0;
}
public String getClassificationInfo(int num) {
return isNaturalNumber(num) ? num + "is a natural number" : num + "is not a natural number";
}
}
Here are two public method, and the method getClassificationInfo called the method isNaturalNumber.
Is it a good practice to mock isNaturalNumber when testing getClassificationInfo?
Like this:
#RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
public class NumberServiceTest {
#Spy
private NumberService numberService;
#Test
public void test_getClassificationInfo_when_is_natural_number() {
int num = generateInt();
doReturn(true).when(numberService).isNaturalNumber(num);
String classificationInfo = numberService.getClassificationInfo(num);
assertThat(classificationInfo).isEqualTo(num + "is a natural number");
}
#Test
public void test_getClassificationInfo_when_is_not_natural_number() {
int num = generateInt();
doReturn(false).when(numberService).isNaturalNumber(num);
String classificationInfo = numberService.getClassificationInfo(num);
assertThat(classificationInfo).isEqualTo(num + "is not a natural number");
}
// the other test for isNaturalNumber
private int generateInt() {
return new Random().nextInt();
}
}
In this particular case it does not make sense to mock the method called. It is, however, not just because of the fact that it is a method of the same class. In fact, sometimes methods of the same class are introduced specifically to allow them to be mocked. For example, if within your class you process some data you obtain via file I/O, you could isolate the file I/O into a method of its own. Then, you could test the data processing with a mocked version of your file I/O method.
However, in this case there is no good reason to mock isNaturalNumber in the tests for getClassificationInfo: The method isNaturalNumber has deterministic behaviour and does not lead to unacceptably long execution time. It also seems unlikely that you gain much by simulating the case that isNaturalNumber intentionally behaves wrongly in one of the tests of getClassificationInfo.
You don't have to mock everything dogmatically. For example, you also don't mock standard library math functions like sin or cos, because they also don't cause problems in most cases. Mocking should be done for a reason. Therefore, if you consider mocking a function or method, you should know which problem you are about to solve. If there is no problem to solve, don't mock.
No Its not good practice because we should mock stubs where other module/class object is involve.
eg:
public class A{
private B aObj;
public void aDoingSomeBWork(){
aObj.someMethod();
someLogic();
}
private/public/any modifier void someLogic(){
//some logic
}
}
public class B{
public void someMethod(){}
}
then in that you should mock B's someMethod() but should not A's someLogic() beacuse you are unit testing A's aDoingSomeBWork() method. if you mock someLogic(); in unit testing then there might be a case your code break.
Suppose I have class with simple dependency:
public interface Dependency {
int doSomething(int value);
void doMore(int value);
int doALotMore(int value);
}
public final class A implements SomeInterface {
private final Dependency dep;
public A (Dependency dep) {
this.dep = dep;
}
#Override
public int add(final int x) {
dep.doMore(x);
return x + dep.doSomething(x) + dep.doALotMore(x);
}
}
And I'm writing test using mocks:
public class TestA {
private Dependency mockDep;
private SomeInterface a;
#Before
public void setUp() {
mockDep = Mockito.mock(Dependency.class);
a = new A(mockDep);
}
#Test
public void shouldAdd() {
final int x = 5;
when(mockDep.doSomething(x)).thenReturn(6);
when(mockDep.doALotMore(x)).thenReturn(7);
int actual = a.add(x);
assertThat(actual, is(18));
verify(mockDep, times(1)).doSomething();
verify(mockDep, times(1)).doALotMore();
verify(mockDep, times(1)).doMore();
verifyNoMoreInteractions(mockDep);
}
}
So far so good.
So the question is: do we violate encapsulation of class A by verifying how exactly the dependency was used? Does it really needed to test that dependency was used in exactly that way? Shouldn't we test A like a black-box (delete verify invocations from test case and leave just assertThat)? And how to deal with dependencies in such case?
The reason I'm asking is that I caught myself writing good amount of verification dependency code and it seems that we start to test actual internal realization details about class. And I feel uncomfortable about that because when I will try to rewrite this realization details in another way I need to rewrite test cases although the result of add for example will be the same. If I would test my class as a black-box I can change realization details and still be sure that given input will give same output.
Or it is necessary to actually test exactly the realization details and that is the point of unit-test itself? It seems somewhat wrong for me.
Consider this test instead:
public class TestA {
private Dependency mockDep;
private SomeInterface a;
private final int x = 5;
#Before
public void setUp() {
mockDep = Mockito.mock(Dependency.class);
a = new A(mockDep);
when(mockDep.doSomething(x)).thenReturn(6);
when(mockDep.doALotMore(x)).thenReturn(7);
}
#Test
public void shouldAdd() {
int actual = a.add(x);
assertThat(actual, is(18));
}
}
It really depends on logic which you're testing. Since your example don't provide any context, I'll give you a case when I feel not only comfortable to test such interaction, but even mandatory:
Let's say you're testing authentication token validation. You pas some token to your validator and it returns true/false. Inside of your validator you're calling some jwt.validate or any other 3rd party hash validation method. In this case I need to know that this validator will be called every time, because I can introduce some if token == null condition inside which will bypass this validation call and just return false. Then your tests could still pass but your code is now vulnerable to timing attack.
It's one kind of example. The other type of test I'm comfortable of testing that way is so called border testing. I want to know that my class triggers stripe payment gateway - so I mock it and just make sure it gets called without checking anything sophisticated in this particular test.
I am new to Mockito, please help in understanding the basic.
According to me above code is supposed to print 5 when mocked.add(6,7) gets called , but add() method is not getting called and the code prints 0.. why ? any solution for this code ?
import org.mockito.Mockito;
import static org.mockito.Mockito.*;
class Calc{
int add(int a,int b){
System.out.println("add method called");
return a+b;
}
}
class MockTest{
public static void main(String[] args) {
Calc mocked=mock(Calc.class);
when(mocked.add(2,3)).thenReturn(5);
System.out.println(mocked.add(6,7));
}
}
In order to get result of 5, you have to pass the exact params as when you set up the when..then. Otherwise mockito will return a 'default' value (which is 0 for integer:
What values do mocks return by default?
In order to be transparent and unobtrusive all Mockito mocks by
default return 'nice' values. For example: zeros, falseys, empty
collections or nulls. Refer to javadocs about stubbing to see exactly
what values are returned by default.
If you want to return 5 for any integer then use:
when(mocked.add(Mockito.any(Integer.class),Mockito.any(Integer.class))).thenReturn(5);
A "mock" is just an empty dummy object that simulates behaviour of a "real" object. If you define a behaviour such like when(mocked.add(2,3)).thenReturn(5); you specifically tell this mock what to do, when it receives those exact values.
mocked.add(6,7) will return 0 at that point, since you haven't defined its behaviour for those values and therefore uses a default value. So if you want to cover all possible inputs, you can go with the solution #MaciejKowalski posted and use the generic matchers like Mockito.any(Integer.class).
Still I believe it is not clear how to correctly handle mocks. Mocks are a way of providing external dependencies to a system-under-test without the need to set up a whole dependency tree. The real methods inside that class are usually not called. That's what something like when(mocked.add(2,3)).thenReturn(5); means. It tells the mock to behave like the real dependency without actually having it at hand.
An example could look like this:
public class TestClass {
private ExternalDependency dep;
public void setDep(ExternalDependency dep) {
this.dep = dep;
}
public int calculate() {
return 5 + dep.doStuff();
}
}
public class ExternalDependency {
public int doStuff() {
return 3;
}
}
Now in your test code you can use mocks like this:
#Test
public void should_use_external_dependency() {
// Aquire a mocked object of the class
ExternalDependency mockedDep = Mockito.mock(ExternalDependency.class);
// Define its behaviour
Mockito.when(mockedDep.doStuff()).thenReturn(20);
TestClass sut = new TestClass();
sut.setDep(mockedDep);
// should return 25, since we've defined the mocks behaviour to return 20
Assert.assertEquals(25, sut.calculate());
}
If sut.calculate() is invoked, the method in ExternalDependency should not be really called, it delegates to the mocked stub object instead. But if you want to call the real method of the real class, you could use a Spy instead with Mockito.spy(ExternalDependency.class) or you could do that with when(mockedDep.doStuff()).thenCallRealMethod();
I have a problem with a class that I am testing where in almost every method I want to test, one of the first things each method does is call this one specific method. This method that is called once by all of these other methods takes a long time to execute. I don't want to have to wait for this every time I run my tests, it really is just a huge waste of time.
I attempted to #Spy the method using Mocktio, but I ran into problems because the really long method doesn't return anything. Can someone suggest a good way to mock out a single method inside a class I am trying to test?
Example:
public class myClass {
public void methodOne() {
reallyLongMethod();
// More code
}
public void methodTwo() {
reallyLongMethod();
// More code
}
.
.
.
public void methodN() {
reallyLongMethod();
// More code
}
public void reallyLongMethod() {
}
}
This is the class I am trying to test. I want to test all of the 'methodX()' methods. I don't want to run reallyLongMethod everysingle time however.
So, is there a way to use Mockito 'Spy' to stub out reallyLongMethod()? Even though it doesn'treturn anything?
You can use a Spy with doNothing(), but make sure you use the spy during the test. Mockito spies copy the original, instead of delegating to it.
#RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
public class YourTest {
// Option 1:
// #Spy MyClass myClass = new MyClass();
// Option 2 (see #Before method)
MyClass myClass;
#Before public void ignoreReallyLongMethod() {
myClass = spy(new MyClass()); // discard original
doNothing().when(myClass).reallyLongMethod();
}
#Test public void methodOneWorks() {
myClass.methodOne(); // you're using the spy here
assertEquals(42, myClass.getFoo());
}
}
Though this does evoke a code smell, don't mock or stub the class under test, as long as you're careful to test the method behavior (methodOne) and not the stubbed behavior (reallyLongMethod) you'll be good to go. If you do want to test reallyLongMethod you'll want to use a different object instance or else you'll "test" the doNothing() call alone. Do bear in mind that if reallyLongMethod and your other methods have any negative interactions, these tests won't tell you about that.
By the way, you can also do the equivalent without using Mockito, which may make a little clearer what you are or aren't doing with your mocks:
#RunWith(JUnit4.class)
public class YourTest {
MyClass myClass;
#Before public void createMyClass() {
myClass = new MyClass() { // create an anonymous inner class
#Override public void reallyLongMethod() {} // that does nothing here
};
}
}
I use Mockito 1.8.0 so I do not have AnyVararg. Upgrading to later version of Mockito is not on cards from my team at the moment. So please bear with me.
What the class looks like:
public abstract class Parent {
public void someMethod(String a, String b)
{
//.....
}
public void foo(String a, String... b)
{
//.....
}
}
public class Child extends Parent{
public void bar() {
someMethod(a,b);
foo(a,b,c);
methodToFailUsingSpy();
}
}
Unit tests
#Test
public void someTest() {
private spyOfChild = //initialize here;
doReturn("Something")).when(spyOfChild).methodToFailUsingSpy();
/* Tried using this, but did not help.
doCallRealMethod().when(spyOfChild).foo(anyString());
*/
spyOfChild.bar();
}
Problem -
When the spy sees someMethod(), it calls the real method in the abstract class. But when it sees foo(), it tries to find a matching stubbed method i.e control goes to Mockito's MethodInterceptorFilter, since it is not able to find a mock, it throws java.lang.reflect.InvocationTargetException.
I do not want foo() to be mocked. I want the real method to be called like it happens in someMethod(). Can someone explain if it is because of using method with variable length arguments with a spy?
This is a bug in Mockito.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/mockito/P_xO5yhoXMY/FBeS4Nf4X9AJ
Your example is quite complicated, to reproduce the problem is very simple:
class SimpleClass {
public String varargsMethod(String... in) {
return null;
}
public void testSpyVarargs() {
SimpleClass sc = Mockito.spy(new SimpleClass());
sc.varargsMethod("a", "b");
}
}
Even this will produce the error you describe, and the workaround suggested in the link doesn't work for me.
Unfortunately to get around this you will need to upgrade Mockito. Changing to version 1.9.5 makes the above run fine, plus you get the varargs matchers as you say (although note that your problem isn't to do with matchers but how Mockito handles spied varargs methods).
I don't think there were too many huge changes between 1.8.0 and 1.9.5, it shouldn't be too painful.