I have the following test set up. I don't understand how the test is passing successfully since the user is set to "Dummy."
#RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
public class TodoServiceAbstractImplTest
{
#InjectMocks
TodoServiceAbstractImpl todoServiceAbstractImpl = new TodoServiceAbstractImpl();
#Mock
SomeRandomClass someRandomClass;
#Mock
TodoServiceAbstract todoServiceAbstract;
#Test
public void testRetrieveTodo_usingAMock(){
todoServiceAbstractImpl.setUser("Dummy"); //Set the user to be "Dummy" already
assertEquals(null,todoServiceAbstractImpl.getUser()); //Why is the user is still null?
}
}
Here are the relevant classes. I created them to test Mockito as I am still learning testing in Spring Boot.
Definition of the SomeRandomClass:
public class SomeRandomClass{
private String field;
public SomeRandomClass(){
}
public SomeRandomClass(String field){
setRandom(field);
}
public void setRandom(String field){
this.field = field;
}
public String getRandom(){
return field;
}
}
Definition of the Abstract class:
public abstract class TodoServiceAbstract {
#Autowired
private SomeRandomClass RandomUser;
public TodoServiceAbstract(){
//RandomUser = new SomeRandomClass();
}
public void setUser(String user){
this.RandomUser.setRandom(user);
}
public String getUser(){
return RandomUser.getRandom();
}
public abstract List<String> retrieveTodos(String user);
}
Definition of the Abstract Implementation
public class TodoServiceAbstractImpl extends TodoServiceAbstract{
public List<String> retrieveTodos(String user){
if(user == getUser()){
return Arrays.asList("item 1", "item 2",
"item 3");
}
return Arrays.asList("Random item");
}
}
Tom answered in the comments:
Why do you expect something else than null? SomeRandomClass is mocked so it obviously doesn't actually set anything when calling setUser. And why should it? That's the point of a mock.
Remember that mocked implementations are not real, and in particular unstubbed calls will return dummy values such as null, 0, or an empty string.
In addition to what Tom already said in the comments, this test is testing your mocks, rather than your actual implementation. Since you mocked SomeRandomClass, your tests should verify if that method is being called. In this case you should test if SomeRandomClass.setRandom() is called when you call setUser() and likewise, you should test if SomeRandomClass.getRandom() is called when you call getUser().
For example:
#Test
public void getUser_shouldUseGetRandom() {
when(someRandomClass.getRandom()).thenReturn("data");
assertEquals("data", todoServiceAbstractImpl.getUser());
}
To test setUser() you can do something like:
#Test
public void setUser_shouldUseSetRandom() {
todoServiceAbstractImpl.setUser("data");
verify(someRandomClass).setRandom("data");
}
By mocking/stubbing you can write proper unit tests for TodoServiceAbstractImpl without having to take the behaviour of SomeRandomClass.
Related
I am testig a public method and I want to verify if a private method, that have mocked params, is called.
All the answers I have found are using invoke method, but this was removed since JMockit v1.36
public class ClassToTest{
public void methodToTest(){
DependencyClass abc = new DependencyClass();
if(privateMethod1()){
privateMethod2(abc);
}
}
private boolean privateMethod1(){ return true; }
private void privateMethod2(DependencyClass abc){ abc.doStuff(); }
}
public class testClassToTest{
#Mocked
DependencyClass abc;
#Tested
ClassToTest testedClass;
#BeforeEach
public void setUp() {
testedClass = new ClassToTest();
}
#Test
public void testMethod(){
new MockUp<ClassToTest>() {
#Mock
private boolean privateMethod1() {
return true;
}
};
testedClass.methodToTest();
new FullVerificationsInOrder() {{
abc = new DependencyClass();
//Check here if privateMethod2(abc) gets called once
}};
}
You can use Powermock to mock and verify private methods.
Please check https://github.com/powermock/powermock/wiki/MockPrivate
You have two ways:
To level up your method's scope from private to package-private and after it, your method will become visible in the test.
Refactoring your code and encapsulate the private method to Predicate and after it, you can test your primary method and Predicate separately.
You can't test the private method by Junit.
I'm doing some unit test but I'm having problems trying to test a class. I have a class with a static builder method which returns the class instance:
public class MessageCaller {
public static MessageCaller builder() {
return new MessageCaller();
}
//Other methods
public String publish() {
//publishing to some Messages
return "something";
}
public MessageCaller withAttribute(String key, String value) {
//Some code
return this;
}
}
public class MessageCallerExtended extends MessageCaller {
private Map<String, String> attributes;
#Override
public MessageCaller withAttribute(String key, String value) {
if (this.attributes == null) {
this.attributes = new HashMap();
}
this.attributes.put(key, value);
return this;
}
//It's not working because it's calling the base class builder and is not possible to be Overriten
//because it's a static method.
public static MessageCallerExtended builder() {
return new MessageCallerExtended();
}
#Override
public String publish() {
return "test";
}
}
This is the method which I would like to test, the problem is that is calling the real publish method taking some time to finalize.
public void sendMessages(#Nonnull String group, #Nonnull String state) {
this.message.builder()
.toTopic(xxxx)
.withAttribute(xxx, xxx)
.withAttribute(xxx, xxx)
.withAttribute(xxx,xxx)
.publish();
}
I'm sending the message object in the constructor of the class.
I've created a Wrapper class to use in the unit test but the problem is that the builder method is static and for that reason is not possible to #Override, if I don't use the #Override tag I'll invoke the real builder method and then the real publish method and it is taking too much time to be processed, causing some problems, because is invoked for several unit test.
With Mockito I having similar issues with the static builder method, in fact it's not possible to mock static methods with Mockito. I'm not allowed to use another library like PowerMock for instance.
Any ideas?
How to test void methods in Mockito with assertSame or assertEquals. I am able to do verify only.
i am getting sonar or PMD rules violation -"JUnit tests should include assert() or fail()".
Below is my sample class with test class.
#Service
public class MyServiceImpl implements IService {
#Autowired
private IDyDBDAO dyDBDAO;
#Override
public void update() {
dyDBDAO.save(getDetailData());
}
#Override
public List<Detail> getCurrentDetail() {
return getDetails(dyDBDAO.findAll());
}
private List<Detail> getDetails(Iterable<Detail> details) {
...blah...
}
private String getPlace(){
Places p = Places.getPlace();//static
return p == null? PlacesUtil.getName("DH"): p.getName;
}
private Detail getDetailData() {
Detail d = new Detail();
d.setName("blah");
d.setDesc("fsdfsdfdsf");
d.setPlace(getPlace());
return d;
}
}
#RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
#PrepareForTest({Places.class, PlacesUtil.class})
public class MyServiceImplTest {
#InjectMocks
private MyServiceImpl myServiceImpl;
#Mock
private IDyDBDAO dyDBDAO;
#Test
public void testGetCurrentDetail() {
given(dyDBDAO.findAll()).willReturn(getMockDetails());
assertSame(myServiceImpl.getCurrentDetail().size(), 2);
}
#Test
public void testUpdate() {
PowerMockito.mockStatic(Places.class);
// first update , second update -us-west-2 will update
given(Places.getPlace()).willReturn(PlacesUtil.getName("UH"))
.willReturn(null);
myServiceImpl.syncStatus();
// update again with DH
myServiceImpl.syncStatus();
verify(dyDBDAO, times(2)).save(any(Detail.class));
// how to assert checking here
}
private Iterable<Detail> getMockDetails() {
Detail d1 = new Detail();
d1.setName("blah");
d1.setDesc("fsdfsdfdsf");
d1.setPlace("sdfsdf");
Detail d2 = new Detail();
d2.setName("blahblah1");
d2.setDesc("e345345");
d2.setPlace("8907j");
List<Detail> listOfDetail = new ArrayList<>();
listOfDetail.add(eps1);
listOfDetail.add(eps2);
return listOfDetail;
}
}
You need to capture the value passed to the dao save method. Use mockito's ArgumentCaptor for that. Then assert on that value.
Something along these lines:
ArgumentCaptor<Detail> captor = ArgumentCaptor.forClass(Detail.class);
verify(dyDBDAO, times(2)).save(captor.capture());
Detail detail1 = captor.getValues().get(0)
assertEquals(expectedDetail, detail1)
I would assume that your void method that needs to be tested is update in MyServiceImpl.
Firstly, you can verify if dyDBDAO.save() is called.
Mockito.verify(dyDBDAO).save(Mockito.anyList...);
Secondly, you can check the modified or created records in the database by retrieving them and comparing to the inputs from getMockDetails.
This question already has answers here:
Test class with a new() call in it with Mockito
(7 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
This is not a duplicate of Test class with a new() call in it with Mockito. I'm trying to write a test to verify that certain methods are being called within the constructor of my spy object (mockToyFacade).
The class under test is ToyFactoryFacade. The idea is clients interact with the ToyFactoryFacade (which wraps a ToyFactory) to generate ToyFacades, which itself is a wrapper around the Toy object.
What I am trying to verify with Mockito?
I want to verify that addToyName(toyName) and addCreationTime(creationTimestamp) are being called on the ToyFacade. Both of these methods are called in the constructor of the ToyFacade.
What's the issue?
When I try to spy the ToyFacade, and verify that both aforementioned methods are called, I receive an error, which says "Actually, there were zero interactions with this mock." When I call the methods separately (i.e., not via the constructor), the verification check out correctly. I'm not sure what I'm doing incorrectly.
Test Code
public class ToyFactoryFacadeTest {
private Toy mockToy;
private ToyFacade mockToyFacade;
// System under test.
private ToyFactoryFacade toyFactoryFacade;
private ToyFactory mockToyFactory;
#Before
public void setup() {
mockToy = mock(Toy.class);
mockToyFacade = spy(new ToyFacade(mockToy, "Phone", System.currentTimeMillis()));
mockToyFactory = mock(ToyFactory.class);
toyFactoryFacade = new ToyFactoryFacade(mockToyFactory) {
#Override
public Toy getToyFacade(String toyName, long creationTimestamp){
return mockToyFacade;
}
};
}
#Test
public void testToyFactoryFacade() {
toyFactoryFacade.initializeAndGetToy("Phone", System.currentTimeMillis());
verify(mockToyFacade).addToyName("Phone");
verify(mockToyFacade).addCreationTime(anyLong());
}
}
Source Code
public class ToyFactoryFacade {
private final ToyFactory toyFactory;
public ToyFactoryFacade(ToyFactory toyFactory) {
this.toyFactory = toyFactory;
}
public ToyFacade initializeAndGetToy(String toyName, long creationTimestamp)
{
getToyFacade(toyName, creationTimestamp);
}
// For testing.
protected ToyFacade getToyFacade(String toyName, long creationTimestamp
{
return new ToyFacade(toyFactory.newToy(), toyName, creationTimestamp);
}
}
public class ToyFactory {
public Toy newToy() {
return new Toy();
}
}
public class ToyFacade {
private final Toy toy;
public ToyFacade(Toy toy, String toyName, long creationTimeStamp) {
this.toy = toy;
addToyName(toyName);
addCreationTime(creationTimestamp);
}
public void addToyName(String name) {
toy.addToyName(toyName);
}
public void addCreationTime(long timestamp) {
toy.addCreationTime(timestamp);
}
}
public class Toy {
public String toyName;
public String creationTimestamp;
public void addToyName(String name) {
toyName = name;
}
public void addCreationTime(long timestamp) {
creationTimestamp = timestamp;
}
}
Your test isn't doing what you expect because the method calls that you're trying to verify have already taken place before you create your spy. What you really want to do is to test the effect of those two method calls, rather than the calls themselves. This would look something like
verify(mockToy).addToyName("Phone");
verify(mockToy).addCreationTime(timestamp);
where timestamp is whatever you pass in in the setUp method.
I want to use Guice and GuiceBerry to inject a non-static legacy service into a factory class. I then want to inject that factory into my Parameterized JUnit test.
However, the issue is JUnit requires that the #Parameters method be static.
Example factory:
#Singleton
public class Ratings {
#Inject
private RatingService ratingService;
public Rating classicRating() {
return ratingService.getRatingById(1002)
}
// More rating factory methods
}
Example test usage:
#RunWith(Parameterized.class)
public class StaticInjectParamsTest {
#Rule
public GuiceBerryRule guiceBerryRule = new GuiceBerryRule(ExtendedTestMod.class)
#Inject
private static Ratings ratings;
#Parameter
public Rating rating;
#Parameters
public static Collection<Rating[]> ratingsParameters() {
return Arrays.asList(new Rating[][]{
{ratings.classicRating()}
// All the other ratings
});
}
#Test
public void shouldWork() {
//Use the rating in a test
}
}
I've tried requesting static injection for the factory method but the Parameters method gets called before the GuiceBerry #Rule. I've also considered using just the rating's Id as the parameters but I want to find a reusable solution. Maybe my approach is flawed?
Unfortunately, JUnit needs to be able to enumerate all of the tests before running any tests, so the parameters method must be called before rules.
You could define an enum for the type of rating:
#RunWith(Parameterized.class)
public class StaticInjectParamsTest {
#Rule
public GuiceBerryRule guiceBerryRule
= new GuiceBerryRule(ExtendedTestMod.class);
#Inject
private Ratings ratings;
#Parameter
public RatingType ratingType;
#Parameters
public static Collection<RatingType> types() {
return Arrays.asList(RatingType.values());
}
#Test
public void shouldWork() {
Rating rating = ratings.get(ratingType);
// Use the rating in a test
}
}
Edit: Code for enum:
public enum RatingType {
CLASSIC(1002),
COMPLEX(1020);
private final int ratingId;
private RatingType(int ratingId) {
this.ratingId = ratingId;
}
// option 1: keep rating ID private by having a method like this
public get(RatingService ratingService) {
return ratingService.getRatingById(ratingId);
}
// option 2: have a package-scope accessor
int getRatingId() {
return ratingId;
}
}
Edit: if you go with option 2 you would then add a new method to get a Rating from a RatingType which would delegate to the service passing ratingId:
#Singleton
public class Ratings {
#Inject
private RatingService ratingService;
public Rating getRating(RatingType ratingType) {
return ratingService.getRatingById(
ratingType.getRatingId());
}
// More rating factory methods
}
If you don't want RatingType to be in your public API, you can define it in your test, and have a method in the enum named getRating()
public enum RatingType {
CLASSIC {
#Override public Rating getRating(Ratings ratings) {
return ratings.getClassicRating();
}
},
COMPLEX {
#Override public Rating getRating(Ratings ratings) {
return ratings.getComplexRating();
}
};
public abstract Rating getRating(Ratings ratings);
}
You could also create a value type instead of an enum.
This assumes you can write tests that should pass for all Rating instances.
If you have some common tests but some rating-specific tests, I would make an abstract base class that contains common tests, and an abstract createRating() method, and subclass it for every rating type.
My solution was to add a RatingId class that wraps an integer and create a factory RatingIds that I could then return static and use as parameters. I overloaded the getRatingById method in my RatingService interface to accept the new RatingId type, and then inject the rating service into my test and use it directly.
Added factory:
public class RatingIds {
public static RatingId classic() {
return new RatingId(1002);
}
// Many more
}
Test:
#RunWith(Parameterized.class)
public class StaticInjectParamsTest {
#Rule
public GuiceBerryRule guiceBerryRule = new GuiceBerryRule(ExtendedTestMod.class)
#Inject
private RatingService ratingService
#Parameter
public RatingId ratingId;
#Parameters
public static Collection<RatingId[]> ratingsParameters() {
return Arrays.asList(new RatingId[][]{
{RatingIds.classic()}
// All the other ratings
});
}
#Test
public void shouldWork() {
Rating rating = ratingService.getRatingById(ratingId.getValue())
//Use the rating in a test
}
}
In cases as yours, where the total number of generated parameter sets is known in advance, but building the parameters itself requires some context (e.g. autowired service instance with Spring) you can go the functional approach (with junit5 & parameterized)
Obviously that does not work, if the createParameter function itself depends on such contex:-/
class MyTestClass {
// may be autowired, cannot be static but is required in parameter generation
SomeInstance instance;
private interface SomeParamBuilder { SomeParam build(SomeInstance i);}
private static Stream<Arguments> createParamterFactories() {
return Stream.of(
Arguments.of((SomeParamBuilder)(i)->
{
return new SomeParam(i);
})
);
}
// does not work, because SomeParam needs SomeInstance for construction
// which is not available in static context of createParameters.
//#ParameterizedTest(name = "[{index}] {0}")
//#MethodSource("createParameters")
//void myTest(SomeParam param) {
//}
#ParameterizedTest(name = "[{index}] {0}")
#MethodSource("createParamterFactories")
void myTest(SomeParamBuilder builder) {
SomeParam param = builder.build(instance);
// rest of your test code can use param.
}
}
maven dep:
<dependency>
<groupId>org.junit.jupiter</groupId>
<artifactId>junit-jupiter-params</artifactId>
<version>5.2.0</version>
<scope>test</scope>
</dependency>
I did not get guiceberry to run (ancient dependencies), but using JUnitParamters and plain guice, this is rather simple:
#RunWith(JUnitParamsRunner.class)
public class GuiceJunitParamsTest {
public static class SquareService {
public int calculate(int num) {
return num * num;
}
}
#Inject
private SquareService squareService;
#Before
public void setUp() {
Guice.createInjector().injectMembers(this);
}
#Test
#Parameters({ "1,1", "2,4", "5,25" })
public void calculateSquares(int num, int result) throws Exception {
assertThat(squareService.calculate(num), is(result));
}
}
If you check the JUnitParams website, you will find a lot of other ways to define the parameters list. It is really easy to do this with the injecte service.