I have a following code
public class Component extend Framework {
private Integer someInt;
private String someString;
public Integer getSomeInt() {
return someInt;
}
public String getSomeString() {
return someString;
}
public void activate() {
Integer tempInt = (Integer)getProperties("key"); // From Framework
if (tempInt == null) {
tempInt = (Integer)getRequest().getProperties("key"); // From Framework
}
if(tempInt == null)
tempInt = (Integer)getBind().getProperties("key"); // From Frameowrk
someString = makeServiceCall("http://.....?key=tempInt");
}
}
Basically activate() method is called by the framework in order to access internal state of the framework to construct Component object. activate() is sort of like a setter for the Component object.
If I were to unit test the code above, what would be the best way to do it without having to have framework running?
One way would be to mock out Component class and stub the super.getProperties... calls, however if we mock the class in question, what is the point of testing to begin with?
I will show how to test one edge case
void testServiceCallWithNoKeyPropertyFound() {
Component componentUnderTest = new Component() {
Integer getProperties(String key) {
return null; // property should not be found
}
Request getRequest() {
return new Request(...); //this request should not contain a property named "key",
}
Bind getBind() {
return new Bind(...); //this bind should not contain a property named "key"
}
String makeServiceCall(String url) {
if (url.endsWith("null")) {
return success;
}
throw new AssertionError("expected url ending with null, but was " + url);
}
};
componentUnderTest.activate();
assertThat(componentUnderTest.getSomeString(), equalTo("success"));
}
Using Mockito (spys) can make this example much more concise. But this would hide the principles how to design the test.
There are some more edge cases:
void testServiceCallWithPropertyFoundInComponent() ...
void testServiceCallWithPropertyFoundInRequest() ...
void testServiceCallWithPropertyFoundInBind() ...
Use Mockito.
Spy the Component class and mock the methods getRequest() and getBind().
Finally, call the activate() method directly from your unit test.
I think it could be a smell of bad design. Maybe you should consider composition instead of inheritance? It would be more testing friendly and more objective. Why Component is inheriting from Framework class?
public class Component {
private int someInt;
private String someString;
private Framework framework;
public Component(Framework framework) {
this.framework = framework
}
public int getSomeInt() {
return someInt;
}
public String getSomeString() {
return someString;
}
public void activate() {
int tempInt = framework.getProperties("key"); // From Framework
if (tempInt == null) {
tempInt = framework.getRequest().getProperties("key"); // From Framework
}
if(tempInt == null)
tempInt = framework.getBind().getProperties("key"); // From Frameowrk
someString = makeServiceCall("http://.....?key=tempInt");
}
}
Related
Having a hard time figuring out how to utilize #ForAll in jqwik on a #Provide function accepting a collection.
Consider:
// domain model
public class Name {
public final String first;
public final String last;
public Name(String f, String l) {
this.first = f;
this.last = l;
}
}
// jqwik domain context
public class NameDomain extends DomainContextBase {
#Provide
public Arbitrary<Name> arbName() {
return Combinators.combine(
Arbitraries.strings().alpha(),
Arbitraries.strings().alpha()
).as(Name::new);
}
}
// properties test
public class NameProperties {
// obviously a made-up use case, just demonstrating the issue
#Provide
#Domain(NameDomain.class)
public Arbitrary<Set<String>> namesToParse(
#ForAll #Size(min = 1, max = 4) Set<Name> names) {
// ... code here
}
#Property
public void namesAreParsed(#ForAll("namesToParse") Set<String> names) {
// ... code here
}
}
When running this, I end up with:
net.jqwik.api.CannotFindArbitraryException:
Cannot find an Arbitrary for Parameter of type [#net.jqwik.api.ForAll(value="", supplier=net.jqwik.api.ArbitrarySupplier$NONE.class) #net.jqwik.api.constraints.Size(value=0, max=4, min=1) Set] in method [public net.jqwik.api.Arbitrary mypackage.NameProperties.namesToParse(java.util.Set)]
Very similar issues attempting to use #UniqueElements List<Name> instead. What am I missing here?
What you are missing is that the #Domain annotation can only be applied to property methods or their container class. What should therefore work is:
#Property
#Domain(NameDomain.class)
public void namesAreParsed(#ForAll("namesToParse") Set<String> names) {
// ... code here
}
or
#Domain(NameDomain.class)
class NameProperties { ... }
That said, you should be aware that using #ForAll params in a providing method will always use flat mapping over the injected parameters.
Don't use that if you actually want to just map over or combine the injected parameters. In that case your providing method would look something like:
#Provide
public Arbitrary<Set<String>> namesToParse() {
SetArbitrary<Name> names = Arbitraries.defaultFor(Name.class)
.set().ofMinSize(1).ofMaxSize(4);
// Code here just an example of what could be done:
return names.mapEach((Set<Name> ignore, Name n) -> n.first + " " + n.last);
}
Is it possible to test code that is written in lambda function that is passed inside the method process?
#AllArgsConstructor
public class JsonController {
private final JsonElementProcessingService jsonElementProcessingService;
private final JsonObjectProcessingService jsonObjectProcessingService;
private final JsonArrayProcessingService jsonArrayProcessingService;
public void process(String rawJson) {
jsonElementProcessingService.process(json -> {
JsonElement element = new JsonParser().parse(json);
if (element.isJsonArray()) {
return jsonArrayProcessingService.process(element.getAsJsonArray());
} else {
return jsonObjectProcessingService.process(element.getAsJsonObject());
}
}, rawJson);
}
}
Since the lambda is lazy the function is not invoked (Function::apply) when I call JsonController::process so is there any way to check that jsonArrayProcessingService::process is called?
#RunWith(JMockit.class)
public class JsonControllerTest {
#Injectable
private JsonElementProcessingService jsonElementProcessingService;
#Injectable
private JsonObjectProcessingService jsonObjectProcessingService;
#Injectable
private JsonArrayProcessingService jsonArrayProcessingService;
#Tested
private JsonController jsonController;
#Test
public void test() {
jsonController.process("[{\"key\":1}]");
// how check here that jsonArrayProcessingService was invoked?
}
}
Just make it testable (and readable) by converting it to a method:
public void process(String rawJson) {
jsonElementProcessingService.process(this::parse, rawJson);
}
Object parse(String json) {
JsonElement element = new JsonParser().parse(json);
if (element.isJsonArray()) {
return jsonArrayProcessingService.process(element.getAsJsonArray());
} else {
return jsonObjectProcessingService.process(element.getAsJsonObject());
}
}
The relevant guiding principles I personally follow are:
anytime my lambdas require curly brackets, convert them to a method
organise code so that it can be unit tested
You may need to change the return type of the parse method to match whatever your processing services (which you didn’t show) return.
Given its relatively-basic redirection logic, don't you just want to confirm which of the #Injectables got called:
#Test
public void test() {
jsonController.process("[{\"key\":1}]");
new Verifications() {{
jsonArrayProcessingService.process(withInstanceOf(JsonArray.class));
}};
}
I'm just getting into testing of code. I have done unit tests before but haven't really isolated them. So they were more like integration test (indirectly). I want to give Mockito a try and I have added it to my Intellij IDE.
But I have no idea of how to actually implement mocking at all. There are examples on their website but I just can't wrap my head around the concept of mocking. I know that one uses mocking to isolate the unit testing to ensure that the errors are in the unit itself and not in a dependency.
I wrote the following:
#Test
public void testChangeMemberReturnsTrue() throws Exception {
Member tempMem = new Member();
tempMem.setMemberFirstName("Swagrid");
tempMem.setMemberLastName("McLovin");
tempMem.setMemberID("SM666");
SQLDUMMY.saveMember(tempMem); //Save member to dummy DB.
Member checkMem = new Member();
ArrayList<Member> memArr = SQLDUMMY.getAllMembers();
for (Member m : memArr) { // Look through all saved members
if (m.equals(tempMem)) { // If match, save to checkMem
checkMem = m;
}
}
assertTrue(tempMem.equals(checkMem)); // Make sure they are really equal.
String newfirstname = "Darius";
String newlastname = "DunkMaster";
assertTrue(memhandling.changeMember(tempMem, newfirstname, newlastname));
}
And here is the actual method:
public boolean changeMember(Member mem, String n1, String n2) {
try {
ArrayList<Member> memArr = SQLDUMMY.getAllMembers();
for (Member m : memArr) {
if (m.equals(mem)) {
m.setMemberFirstName(n1);
m.setMemberLastName(n2);
m.setMemberID(ensureUniqueID(m, m.getMemberID())); //Just a method call to another method in the same class to ensure ID uniqueness.
return true;
}
else {
return false;
}
}
}
catch (Exception e) {
System.out.println("Error4.");
}
return false;
}
I'd like to mock the SQLDUMMY (Which I created just to see if my tests would pass at all, which they do.) The SQLDUMMY class looks like this:
public class SQLDUMMY {
private static ArrayList<Member> memberList = new ArrayList<>();
private static ArrayList<Ship> shipList = new ArrayList<>();
public static ArrayList<Member> getAllMembers() {
return memberList;
}
public static void saveMember(Member m) {
memberList.add(m);
}
public static void deleteMember(Member memIn) {
memberList.remove(memIn);
}
public static void saveShip(Ship newShip) {
shipList.add(newShip);
}
public static ArrayList<Ship> getAllShips() {
return shipList;
}
public static void deleteShip(Ship s) {
shipList.remove(s);
}
}
It basically just consists of getters and add/remove for the ArrayLists that act as a contemporary DB storage.
Summary: How can I mock the SQLDUMMY class (DAO), so it is no longer a dependency for the Unit tests?
You need to read on how Mockito works.
The basic idea is that it extends you class and and overrides all methods and allows you to return what ever you want it too.
Syntax is :
SQLDummy sqlDummy = Mockito.mock(SQLDummy.class);
Mockito.when(sqlDummy.getAllShips()).thenReturn(new ArrayList< Ship >())
I need to build a process which will validate a record against ~200 validation rules. A record can be one of ~10 types. There is some segmentation from validation rules to record types but there exists a lot of overlap which prevents me from cleanly binning the validation rules.
During my design I'm considering a chain of responsibility pattern for all of the validation rules. Is this a good idea or is there a better design pattern?
Validation is frequently a Composite pattern. When you break it down, you want to seperate the what you want to from the how you want to do it, you get:
If foo is valid
then do something.
Here we have the abstraction is valid -- Caveat: This code was lifted from currrent, similar examples so you may find missing symbology and such. But this is so you get the picture. In addition, the
Result
Object contains messaging about the failure as well as a simple status (true/false).
This allow you the option of just asking "did it pass?" vs. "If it failed, tell me why"
QuickCollection
and
QuickMap
Are convenience classes for taking any class and quickly turning them into those respected types by merely assigning to a delegate. For this example it means your composite validator is already a collection and can be iterated, for example.
You had a secondary problem in your question: "cleanly binding" as in, "Type A" -> rules{a,b,c}" and "Type B" -> rules{c,e,z}"
This is easily managed with a Map. Not entirely a Command pattern but close
Map<Type,Validator> typeValidators = new HashMap<>();
Setup the validator for each type then create a mapping between types. This is really best done as bean config if you're using Java but Definitely use dependency injection
public interface Validator<T>{
public Result validate(T value);
public static interface Result {
public static final Result OK = new Result() {
#Override
public String getMessage() {
return "OK";
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return "OK";
}
#Override
public boolean isOk() {
return true;
}
};
public boolean isOk();
public String getMessage();
}
}
Now some simple implementations to show the point:
public class MinLengthValidator implements Validator<String> {
private final SimpleResult FAILED;
private Integer minLength;
public MinLengthValidator() {
this(8);
}
public MinLengthValidator(Integer minLength) {
this.minLength = minLength;
FAILED = new SimpleResult("Password must be at least "+minLength+" characters",false);
}
#Override
public Result validate(String newPassword) {
return newPassword.length() >= minLength ? Result.OK : FAILED;
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return this.getClass().getSimpleName();
}
}
Here is another we will combine with
public class NotCurrentValidator implements Validator<String> {
#Autowired
#Qualifier("userPasswordEncoder")
private PasswordEncoder encoder;
private static final SimpleResult FAILED = new SimpleResult("Password cannot be your current password",false);
#Override
public Result validate(String newPassword) {
boolean passed = !encoder.matches(newPassword,user.getPassword());
return (passed ? Result.OK : FAILED);
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return this.getClass().getSimpleName();
}
}
Now here is a composite:
public class CompositePasswordRule extends QuickCollection<Validator> implements Validator<String> {
public CompositeValidator(Collection<Validator> rules) {
super.delegate = rules;
}
public CompositeValidator(Validator<?>... rules) {
super.delegate = Arrays.asList(rules);
}
#Override
public CompositeResult validate(String newPassword) {
CompositeResult result = new CompositeResult(super.delegate.size());
for(Validator rule : super.delegate){
Result temp = rule.validate(newPassword);
if(!temp.isOk())
result.put(rule,temp);
}
return result;
}
public static class CompositeResult extends QuickMap<Validator,Result> implements Result {
private Integer appliedCount;
private CompositeResult(Integer appliedCount) {
super.delegate = VdcCollections.delimitedMap(new HashMap<PasswordRule, Result>(), "-->",", ");
this.appliedCount = appliedCount;
}
#Override
public String getMessage() {
return super.delegate.toString();
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return super.delegate.toString();
}
#Override
public boolean isOk() {
boolean isOk = true;
for (Result r : delegate.values()) {
isOk = r.isOk();
if(!isOk)
break;
}
return isOk;
}
public Integer failCount() {
return this.size();
}
public Integer passCount() {
return appliedCount - this.size();
}
}
}
and now a snippet of use:
private Validator<String> pwRule = new CompositeValidator<String>(new MinLengthValidator(),new NotCurrentValidator());
Validator.Result result = pwRule.validate(newPassword);
if(!result.isOk())
throw new PasswordConstraintException("%s", result.getMessage());
user.obsoleteCurrentPassword();
user.setPassword(passwordEncoder.encode(newPassword));
user.setPwExpDate(DateTime.now().plusDays(passwordDaysToLive).toDate());
userDao.updateUser(user);
Chain of responsibility implies that there is an order in which the validations must take place. I would probably use something similar to the Strategy pattern where you have a Set of validation strategies that are applied to a specific type of record. You could then use a factory to examine the record and apply the correct set of validations.
Normally when using Mockito I will do something like:
Mockito.when(myObject.myFunction(myParameter)).thenReturn(myResult);
Is it possible to do something along the lines of
myParameter.setProperty("value");
Mockito.when(myObject.myFunction(myParameter)).thenReturn("myResult");
myParameter.setProperty("otherValue");
Mockito.when(myObject.myFunction(myParameter)).thenReturn("otherResult");
So rather than when just using the parameter to determine the result. It is using a value of a property inside the parameter to determine the result.
So when the code is executed it behaves like so:
public void myTestMethod(MyParameter myParameter,MyObject myObject){
myParameter.setProperty("value");
System.out.println(myObject.myFunction(myParameter));// outputs myResult
myParameter.setProperty("otherValue");
System.out.println(myObject.myFunction(myParameter));// outputs otherResult
}
Here is the current solution, hopefully something better can be suggested.
private class MyObjectMatcher extends ArgumentMatcher<MyObject> {
private final String compareValue;
public ApplicationContextMatcher(String compareValue) {
this.compareValue= compareValue;
}
#Override
public boolean matches(Object argument) {
MyObject item= (MyObject) argument;
if(compareValue!= null){
if (item != null) {
return compareValue.equals(item.getMyParameter());
}
}else {
return item == null || item.getMyParameter() == null;
}
return false;
}
}
public void initMock(MyObject myObject){
MyObjectMatcher valueMatcher = new MyObjectMatcher("value");
MyObjectMatcher otherValueMatcher = new MyObjectMatcher("otherValue");
Mockito.when(myObject.myFunction(Matchers.argThat(valueMatcher))).thenReturn("myResult");
Mockito.when(myObject.myFunction(Matchers.argThat(otherValueMatcher))).thenReturn("otherResult");
}
In Java 8 it is even simpler than all of the above:
when(mockObject.myMethod(anyString()))
.thenAnswer(invocation ->
invocation.getArgumentAt(0, String.class));
Here's one way of doing it. This uses an Answer object to check the value of the property.
#RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
public class MyTestClass {
private String theProperty;
#Mock private MyClass mockObject;
#Before
public void setUp() {
when(mockObject.myMethod(anyString())).thenAnswer(
new Answer<String>(){
#Override
public String answer(InvocationOnMock invocation){
if ("value".equals(theProperty)){
return "result";
}
else if("otherValue".equals(theProperty)) {
return "otherResult";
}
return theProperty;
}});
}
}
There's an alternative syntax, which I actually prefer, which will achieve exactly the same thing. Over to you which one of these you choose. This is just the setUp method - the rest of the test class should be the same as above.
#Before
public void setUp() {
doAnswer(new Answer<String>(){
#Override
public String answer(InvocationOnMock invocation){
if ("value".equals(theProperty)){
return "result";
}
else if("otherValue".equals(theProperty)) {
return "otherResult";
}
return theProperty;
}}).when(mockObject).myMethod(anyString());
}
Yes you can, using a custom argument matcher.
See the javadoc of Matchers for more details, and more specifically ArgumentMatcher.
Here is how it would look like in Kotlin with mockito-kotlin library.
mock<Resources> {
on {
mockObject.myMethod(any())
} doAnswer {
"Here is the value: ${it.arguments[0]}"
}
}
You can do this with Mockito 3.6.0:
when(mockObject.myMethod(anyString()))
.thenAnswer(invocation -> myStringMethod(invocation.getArgument(0)));
This answer is based on Sven's answer and Martijn Hiemstra's comment, with getArgumentAt() changed to getArgument().