Develop Reference

How to create objects for all JUnit tests?

While creating JUnit test cases, it takes a long time to reconstruct objects for every single one of them and perform some operations that all my unit tests use.
Is there anyway I can make some objects in a test case that I can freely use in all of my tests without recreating them each time?
Thanks in advance!

A simple way of doing this is to create a private method that creates test objects. These can take in the parameters (the ones that need to change in the various test cases), or just provide a default object that you could in turn change. If the same objects are used in multiple tests, then a testdata-builder might be what you are looking for.
Say you have a class like this:
public class Something {
private String someString;
private Integer someInt;
public Something(final String someString, final Integer someInt) {
this.someString = someString;
this.someInt = someInt;
}
//getters and stuff
}
Then you can create a testdata builder like this:
public class SomethingBuilder {
private String someString;
private Integer someInt;
public SomethingBuilder() {
someString = "Some default value";
someInt = 42;
}
public SomethingBuilder withSomeString(final String someString) {
this.someString = someString;
return this;
}
public SomethingBuilder withSomeInt(final Integer someInt) {
this.someInt = someInt;
return this;
}
public Something build() {
final Something something = new Something(someString, someInt);
return something;
}
}
Then, creating test data becomes really simple, you can mutate the fields you different than your default values easily:
final Something something =
new SomethingBuilder().withSomeString("I want to override the default!").build();
Might seem like a bit of overkill for my small, example class, but if you have a central data class that appears in many tests, it will save you a lot of time and lines of code.

Extending enum fields Java

I know that it isn't possible to extend enum in Java, but I am trying to find an elegant solution for the below
I am trying to model enums (or classes) which will contain http end points of various web services across regions, say I have service A and B, each will have 4 region specific end points in US, EU, JP or CN. (This is basically for some seperate debug code that I am writing, in production the end points will be picked from configuration)
I was hoping to do something like this (not compliant java code).
public enum IEndPoint {
NA_END_POINT,
EU_END_POINT,
JP_END_POINT,
CN_END_POINT,
}
public enum ServiceAEndPoint extends IEndPoint {
NA_END_POINT("http://A.com/");
EU_END_POINT("http://A-eu.com/");
JP_END_POINT("http://A-jp.com/");
CN_END_POINT("http://A-cn.com/");
}
I could do this using interfaces where I have a method for each region, but in my opinion the enum way is more expressive, is there any better way I could model this ? What I am looking for is if there is any better way to model the inheritence relation and also having the expressive power of enumerations.
ServiceAEndPoint.NA_END_POINT
vs
serviceAEndPoint.getNAEndPoint()

I'm assuming that you will also want a ServiceBEndPoint enum (and similar). In which case I don't think your model really makes that much sense.
IEndPoint is really an enumeration of the kind of environments/regions where a service might be running. It is not an enumeration of the services themselves. Each individual service (A, B or whatever) will have different addresses for each of the regions.
Therefore I would stick with just the IEndPoint enum, and then in some service-specific code have a lookup map that will give you the address for a given end-point. Something like this:
public enum IEndPoint {
NA_END_POINT,
EU_END_POINT,
JP_END_POINT,
CN_END_POINT,
}
public class ServiceABroker {
private static final Map<IEndPoint, String> addressesByEndPoint;
static {
addressesByEndPoint = new EnumMap<>();
addressesByEndPoint.put(NA_END_POINT, "http://A.com/");
addressesByEndPoint.put(EU_END_POINT, "http://A-eu.com/");
addressesByEndPoint.put(JP_END_POINT, "http://A-jp.com/");
addressesByEndPoint.put(CN_END_POINT, "http://A-cn.com/");
}
public String getAddressForEndPoint(IEndPoint ep) {
return addressesByEndPoint.get(ep);
}
}

If these are static final constants, then just put them in an interface. Name the interface something like IServiceAEndPointKeys, where the keys part is a convention.
Here's where I consider enums to be more appropriate and useful:
Example 1: File type. An enum containing jpg, pdf etc.
Example 2: Column definitions. If I have a table with 3 columns, I would write an enum declaring ID, Name, Description (for example), each one having parameters like column header name, column width and column ID.

Im not sure I understand you question, but you can add methods to an enum for example you could do something like the following:
public enum ServiceAEndPoint{
NA_END_POINT("http://A.com/");
EU_END_POINT("http://A-eu.com/");
JP_END_POINT("http://A-jp.com/");
CN_END_POINT("http://A-cn.com/");
private final String url;
private EndPoint(String url){
this.url=url;
}
public String getURL(){
return url;
}
}

Enums cannot be extended in such a manner, mostly because enums cannot be sub-classed or the constraints they must adhere to will not be possible to impose.
Instead leverage interfaces, like so
public interface IEndPoint;
public enum DefaultEndPoints implements IEndPoint {
NA_END_POINT,
EU_END_POINT,
JP_END_POINT,
CN_END_POINT,
}
public enum DefaultServiceEndPoints implements IEndPoint {
NA_END_POINT("http://A.com/");
EU_END_POINT("http://A-eu.com/");
JP_END_POINT("http://A-jp.com/");
CN_END_POINT("http://A-cn.com/");
}
public void doSomething(IEndPoint endpoint) {
...
}
The reason why one can't subclass in the manner you wish is related to the contract that enums will be both equal via .equals(object) and via ==. If you could subclass, would this make sense?
if ( (DefaultEndPoints)JP_END_POINT == (DefaultServiceEndPoints)JP_END_POINT) {
}
if you say "yes" then I would expect to be able to do this
DefaultEndPoint someEndpoint = DefaultServiceEndPoints.JP_END_POINT;
which would leave a door open for error, as there is no guarantee that a enum entry in one enum declaration is in the other enum declaration.
Could it be different? Perhaps, but it isn't, and changing it would definately introduce a lot of complications that would have to be thoroughly thought out (or it would open avenues to work around Java's strong static-type checking).

You may want to consider something like this:
public abstract class EndpointFactory {
public abstract String getNAEndPoint();
public abstract String getEUEndPoint();
}
public class ServiceAEndpointFactory extends EndpointFactory {
public static final String NA_END_POINT = "http://A.com/";
public static final String EU_END_POINT = "http://A-eu.com/";
public String getNAEndPoint() {
return ServiceAEndpointFactory.NA_END_POINT;
}
public String getEUEndPoint() {
return ServiceAEndpointFactory.EU_END_POINT;
}
}
public class ServiceBEndpointFactory extends EndpointFactory {
public static final String NA_END_POINT = "http://B.com/";
public static final String EU_END_POINT = "http://B-eu.com/";
public String getNAEndPoint() {
return ServiceAEndpointFactory.NA_END_POINT;
}
public String getEUEndPoint() {
return ServiceAEndpointFactory.EU_END_POINT;
}
}
Then you can refer to your strings directly like this:
ServiceAEndpointFactory.NA_END_POINT;
Or, you can use the base object if the type of service is not known until execution:
EndpointFactory ef1 = new ServiceAEndpointFactory();
String ep = ef1.getNAEndPoint();
The drawback of this is the redefinition of the get*Endpoint() functions in each sub-class. You could eliminate that by moving the static final variables to be not static in the base class and putting the getter/setter in the base class only one time. However, the drawback of that is you are not able to reference the values without instantiating an object (which essentially emulates what I find valuable with ENUMs).

How does a pattern like this appeal to you? I let the enum implement an interface and implement the interface in a Debug set and a Release set. The release set can then derive the property name from the enum name - which is neat.
public interface HasURL {
public String getURL();
}
public enum DebugEndPoints implements HasURL {
NA,
EU,
JP,
CN;
#Override
public String getURL() {
// Force debug to go to the same one always.
return "http://Debug.com/";
}
}
public enum NormalEndPoints implements HasURL {
NA,
EU,
JP,
CN;
final String url;
NormalEndPoints () {
// Grab the configured property connected to my name.
this.url = getProperty(this.name());
}
#Override
public String getURL() {
return url;
}
}

Generic Type From Enum & The Builder Pattern

I'm trying to create a builder pattern that uses generics to provide type checking on some of the methods. Currently I have the following working:
ParameterBuilder.start(String.class).setName("foo").setDefaultValue("Hello").build();
ParameterBuilder.start(Integer.class).setName(bar).setDefaultValue(42).build();
ParameterBuilder.start(Boolean.class).setName(bar).setDefaultValue(false).build();
Using the code:
public class ParameterBuilder<T> {
private String name;
private T defaultValue;
public static <T2> ParameterBuilder<T2> start(Class<T2> type) {
return new ParameterBuilder<T2>();
}
// Other methods excluded for example
}
So the type of the input for the setDefaultValue method is defined by what's passed into the start method, just as I want.
But now I want to extend what's being passed into start() to contain a little more information. Essentially I want to pass in a "type" for the parameters I creating. Sometimes these parameters will be things like "email", "url" etc. The default value will still be of a known type (String in those cases), so I'd like to have something like:
ParameterBuilder.start(EMAIL).setName("email").setDefaultValue("foo#bar.com").build();
ParameterBuilder.start(URL).setName("website").setDefaultValue("http://www.somewhere.com").build();
Where at the moment EMAIL & URL are enums, containing amongst other things - the class of the default value. But if I go down this route, how would I instantiate the parameter builder?
public static <T2> ParameterBuilder<T2> start(ParameterType paramType) {
Class<T2> type = paramType.getTypeClass();
// How do I instantiate my ParameterBuilder with the right type?
}
If it can't be done using enums (which I can see being the case), does anyone have a suggestion for a different solution?

I think you need one enum per class type (I don't see how you could have one enum cover several types and keep the thing working). In that case, a common generic interface could do what you want. You can then create some sort of factory to provide the enum constants if that helps.
This compiles:
static interface ParameterType<T> {}
static enum ParameterTypeEnum implements ParameterType<String> { EMAIL; }
public static void main(String[] args) {
ParameterBuilder
.start(ParameterTypeEnum.EMAIL)
.setName("email")
.setDefaultValue("foo#bar.com")
.build();
}
public static class ParameterBuilder<T> {
private String name;
private T defaultValue;
public static <T2> ParameterBuilder<T2> start(ParameterType<T2> paramType) {
return new ParameterBuilder<T2>();
}
ParameterBuilder<T> setName(String name) {
this.name = name;
return this;
}
ParameterBuilder<T> setDefaultValue(T defaultValue) {
this.defaultValue = defaultValue;
return this;
}
void build() {}
}

I'm not sure the context in what you want to use this, but I think the following might be an option.
You can follow the Open/Closed principle and create an interface Parameter and have one implementation per type. The benefit of this, is that you don't need to add a new enum value for each new Parameter you want. You can later pass the class to ParameterBuilder rather than the enum and the ParameterBuilder and Parameter would work together to build what you need.
So ParameterBuilder.start() could return an instance of the specific Parameter and the parameter might have different methods depending on the type of parameter.
I don't think this answer is really good, but hopefully can give you a hint in how to build a potential solution for your context.

You could create an object hierachie for these Email and Url types
public class DefaultType {
protected String name;
protected String defaultValue;
//some constructor
}
public class EmailType extends DefaultType {
...
}
public class URLType extends DefaultType {
...
}
then the parameter builder could look something like this:
public static ParameterBuilder start(DefaultType type) {
ParameterBuilder builder = new ParameterBuilder(type);
builder.setType(type);
return builder;
}
Then you could call it like this:
ParameterBuilder.start(new EmailType("name","value");...
does this help or dont you want to go in this direction?

Builder (Joshua Bloch-style) for concrete implementation of abstract class?

Let's say I have an abstract class (BaseThing). It has one required parameter ("base required") and one optional parameter ("base optional"). I have a concrete class that extends it (Thing). It also has one required parameter ("required") and one optional parameter ("optional"). So something like:
public abstract class BaseThing {
public static final String DEFAULT_BASE_OPTIONAL = "Default Base Optional";
private final String baseRequired;
private String baseOptional = DEFAULT_BASE_OPTIONAL;
protected BaseThing(final String theBaseRequired) {
this.baseRequired = theBaseRequired;
}
final void setBaseOptional(final String newVal) {
this.baseOptional = newVal;
}
public final void selfDescribe() {
System.out.println("Base Required: " + baseRequired);
System.out.println("Base Optional: " + baseOptional);
selfDescribeHook();
}
protected abstract void selfDescribeHook();
}
and:
public final class Thing extends BaseThing {
public static final String DEFAULT_OPTIONAL = "Default Optional";
private final String required;
private String optional = DEFAULT_OPTIONAL;
Thing(final String theRequired, final String theBaseRequired) {
super(theBaseRequired);
required = theRequired;
}
#Override
protected void selfDescribeHook() {
System.out.println("Required: " + required);
System.out.println("Optional: " + optional);
}
void setOptional(final String newVal) {
optional = newVal;
}
}
I want to have a Joshua Bloch-style builder for Thing objects. More generally, though, I want to make it easy for concrete implementations of BaseThing to have builders, so what I really want (I think) is a BaseThing builder that can easily be used to make a ThingBuilder, or an OtherThingBuilder, or a SuperThingBuilder.
Is there a better way than the following that I've come up with (or are there problems with what I've come up with)?
public abstract class BaseThingBuilder<T extends BaseThing> {
private String baseOptional = BaseThing.DEFAULT_BASE_OPTIONAL;
public BaseThingBuilder<T> setBaseOptional(final String value) {
baseOptional = value;
return this;
}
public T build() {
T t = buildHook();
t.setBaseOptional(baseOptional);
return t;
}
protected abstract T buildHook();
}
and:
public final class ThingBuilder extends BaseThingBuilder<Thing> {
private final String baseRequired;
private final String required;
private String optional = Thing.DEFAULT_OPTIONAL;
public ThingBuilder(final String theRequired,
final String theBaseRequired) {
required = theRequired;
baseRequired = theBaseRequired;
}
public ThingBuilder setOptional(final String value) {
optional = value;
return this;
}
protected Thing buildHook() {
Thing thing = new Thing(required, baseRequired);
thing.setOptional(optional);
return thing;
}
}
Which can be used to build Thing objects in a manner similarly to the following:
BaseThingBuilder<Thing> builder =
new ThingBuilder("Required!", "Base Required!")
.setOptional("Optional!")
.setBaseOptional("Base Optional!");
Thing thing = builder.build();
thing.selfDescribe();
Which outputs:
Base Required: Base Required!
Base Optional: Base Optional!
Required: Required!
Optional: Optional!
One issue that I know about, but that I don't consider particularly important (though if it can be improved it would be nice to do so) is that you have to set all non-base options before you set any base option: Doing otherwise would result in a syntax error, as setBaseOptional() returns a BaseThingBuilder rather than a ThingBuilder.
Thanks in advance.

I don't think it's a good idea to think of builders that way. A hierarchy of builders usually leads to headaches and fragile code.
Cutting down the amount of code that needs to be written in the concrete builders and reusing logic from the base builder is closely tied to the domain. It's not easy to develop a general solution. But, let's try to go through an example anyway:
public interface Builder<T> {
T build();
}
public class Person {
private final String name;
//the proper way to use a builder is to pass an instance of one to
//the class that is created using it...
Person(PersonBuilder builder) {
this.name = builder.name;
}
public String getName(){ return name; }
public static class PersonBuilder implements Builder<Person> {
private String name;
public PersonBuilder name(String name){ this.name = name; return this; }
public Person build() {
if(name == null) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Name must be specified");
}
return new Person(this);
}
}
}
Groovy, baby! Now what? Maybe you want to add a class to represent a student. What do you do? Do you extend Person? Sure, that's valid. How about taking a more "strange" route and attempting aggregation? Yep, you can do that too... Your choice would have an affect on how you will end up implementing builders. Let's say you stick to the traditional path and extend Person (you should already starting asking yourself, does it make sense for Person to be a concrete class? If I make it abstract, do I really need a builder? If the class is abstract should the builder be abstract?):
public class Student extends Person {
private final long id;
Student(StudentBulder builder) {
super(builder);
this.id = builder.id;
}
public long getId(){ return id; }
//no need for generics, this will work:
public static class StudentBuilder extends PersonBuilder {
private long id;
public StudentBuilder id(long id){ this.id = id; return this; }
public Student build() {
if(id <= 0) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("ID must be specified");
}
return new Student(this);
}
}
}
Ok, this looks exactly like what you wanted! So, you try it:
Person p = new PersonBuilder().name("John Doe").build();
Student s = new StudentBuilder().name("Jane Doe").id(165).build();
Looks great! Except, it doesn't compile... There's an error at line 2 and it states The method id(int) is undefined for the type Person.PersonBuilder. The problem is that PersonBuilder#name returns a builder of type PersonBuilder, which isn't what you want. In StudentBuilder you actually want the return type of name to be StudentBuilder. Now, you think ahead and realize that if anything extends StudentBuilder you'd want it to return something else entirely... Is that doable? Yes, with generics. However, it's ugly as hell and introduces quite a bit of complexity. Therefore, I refuse to post the code that illustrates it, for the fear that someone will see this thread and actually use it in their software.
You might think rearranging method calls will work (calling id before calling name): new StudentBuilder().id(165).name("Jane Doe").build(), but it won't. At least not without an explicit cast to Student: (Student)new StudentBuilder().id(165).name("Jane Doe").build() since, in this case, PersonBuilder#build is being called which has a return type of Person... This is simply unacceptable! Even if it worked without an explicit cast, it should make you wince to know that a builder's methods must be called in a certain order. Because if you don't, something won't work...
There are many more problems that would arise if you continue trying to get it to work. And even if you did get it to work, I don't think it would be easily comprehensible and certainly not elegant. Of course, feel free to prove me wrong and post your solution here.
By the way, you should also ask yourself what is an abstract builder? Because, it sounds like an oxymoron.
In the end, I believe that the scope of this question is too great. The answer is domain-specific and hard to come up with in the absence of your requirements. Just remember, the general guideline for builders is to have them be as simple as possible.
Also, take a look at a related question.

As far as I can tell if you remove the generics then
BaseThingBuilder<Thing> builder =
new ThingBuilder("Required!", "Base Required!")
changes to
BaseThingBuilder builder =
new ThingBuilder("Required!", "Base Required!")
The rest of it all remains same, including the restriction that subclass has to be initialized first. So I really don't think this warrants use of generics. Maybe I am missing something.
I seem to remember something like this from Bjarne Stroustrup, long back...

Handling more than 7 Parameters

I have a public class, which needs 7 parameters to be passed down. At the moment, I am able to make 3 of them being passed to constructor and another 4 to a public method in the class . Like this:
Public Class AClass{
private XClass axClass;
private String par4;
private String par5;
private String par6;
private String par7;
public AClass(String par1, String par2, String par3){
aXClass = new XClass(par1,par2,par3);
}
public execute(String par4,String par5, String par6, String par7){
//this is needed because they are used in other private methods in this class
this.par4 = par4;
this.par5 = par5;
this.par6 = par6;
this.par7 = par7;
//call other private methods within this class.
//about 7 lines here
}
}
My question is, is this the right way to ask client of the class to passing in paramters?

There shouldn't be anything stopping you from passing 7 parameters to a constructor, if that's what you want. I don't know if there's a maximum number of parameters that can be passed to a method in Java, but it's certainly higher than 7 if there is a max.
When you create a class and its public methods, you're creating an interface on how to use and access that class. So technically what you've done so far is correct. Is it the "right way" to ask the client of a class to pass in arguments? That's up to you, the designer of the interface.
My first instinct when I saw 7 parameters being passed was to silently ask "Is there some relationship between some or all of these parameters that might mean they'd go together well in a class of their own?" That might be something you address as you look at your code. But that's a question of design, not one of correctness.

I'd go for the Builder Pattern instead of many constructor parameters as suggested by
Effective Java Item 2: Consider a builder when faced with many constructor parameters
Here's a simple class to illustrate:
public class Dummy {
private final String foo;
private final String bar;
private final boolean baz;
private final int phleem;
protected Dummy(final Builder builder) {
this.foo = builder.foo;
this.bar = builder.bar;
this.baz = builder.baz;
this.phleem = builder.phleem;
}
public String getBar() {
return this.bar;
}
public String getFoo() {
return this.foo;
}
public int getPhleem() {
return this.phleem;
}
public boolean isBaz() {
return this.baz;
}
public static class Builder {
private String foo;
private String bar;
private boolean baz;
private int phleem;
public Dummy build() {
return new Dummy(this);
}
public Builder withBar(final String bar) {
this.bar = bar;
return this;
}
public Builder withBaz(final boolean baz) {
this.baz = baz;
return this;
}
public Builder withFoo(final String foo) {
this.foo = foo;
return this;
}
public Builder withPhleem(final int phleem) {
this.phleem = phleem;
return this;
}
}
}
You would instantiate it like this:
Dummy dummy = new Dummy.Builder()
.withFoo("abc")
.withBar("def")
.withBaz(true)
.withPhleem(123)
.build();
The nice part: you get all the benefits of constructor parameters (e.g. immutability if you want it), but you get readable code too.

Can't you just make a class/hashmap that stores these parameters and pass this to the function?
public excute(Storageclass storageClass){
//this is needed because they are used in other private methods in this class
this.par4 = storageClass.getPar4();
this.par5 = storageClass.getPar5();
this.par6 = storageClass.getPar6();
this.par7 = storageClass.getPar7();
//or
this.storageClass = storageClass;
}

I don't really see the problem with that.
In any case you could create a "Request" object or something like this:
class SomeClass {
private String a;
private String b;
....
public SomeClass( Request r ) {
this.a = r.get("a");
this.b = r.get("b");
...
}
public void execute( Request other ) {
this.d = other.get("d");
this.e = other.get("d");
...
}
}
See also: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TooManyParameters

Without knowing the use of the child class, I can say that there is nothing inherently wrong with what you have done.
Note though that you have to declare
private XClass axClass;
in the variables of your AClass.
However, you say 'I am able to make....' Does this mean there is some problem with declaring this another way?

I don't care for it much, because an object should be 100% ready to be used after its constructor is called. It's not as written in your example.
If the parameters passed into the execute method can simply be consumed, and that's the method of interest for clients, I see no reason for them to be data members in the class.
Without knowing more about your ultimate aims it's hard to tell. But I would re-think this implementation.

If you're planning on introducing an AClass.someMethod() that needs to know par4-7 without requiring you to have called AClass.excute(), then clearly you should be passing the parameters in the constructor.
On the other hand: if you can construct an instance of this object with only par1-3 and do something meaningful with it besides call excute() then it makes sense to allow the object to be constructed with fewer than the full seven parameters.
Yet my own aesthetic is to try and limit the number of "modes" that an object can be in which make certain methods work and others fail. So ideally, a fully-constructed object is ready to run any method the programmer might call. I'd worry about the design issue more than be too concerned about the sheer number of parameters to the constructor.
But as others have pointed out, sometimes there is a natural grouping of these parameters which can deserve objects of their own. For instance: in many APIs instead of passing (x, y, width, height) all over the place they use rectangle objects.

As others already wrote, it is technically correct to pass 7 parameters, although not very 'user-friendly', if you can say so.
Since you didn't write much about this class, I can suggest one small thing: in constructor you're just creating XClass object, so it would be sane to create this object before and pass it as a single parameter.
Something like this:
...
XClass aXClass = new XClass(par1, par2, par3);
AClass aClass = new AClass(aXClass);
...
And this is the constructor:
public AClass(XClass aXClass) {
this.aXClass = aXClass;
}