The issue is that I have a method starting a new thread for a time-consuming work. I want to test the callback result, but the child thread may still running, so as a result, what I get is not the right stub.
I think the code may explain itself:
public class JustAClass {
//it is a callback for async
public interface JustACallBack {
void callFunc(JustAResult result);
}
//this is the result interface
public interface JustAResult {
}
//this is a real class for the interface
public class JustAResultReal implements JustAResult{
public JustAResultReal(String content) {this.content = content;}
public String content;
}
//here is the key function
public void threadFunc(final JustACallBack callBack) {
BCCache.executorService.execute(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
//just to simulate a time-consuming task
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
//now we callback
callBack.callFunc(new JustAResultReal("can you reach me"));
}
});
}
}
and the test function could be(I am using mockito):
#Test
public void testThreadFunc() throws Exception {
JustAClass justAClass = new JustAClass();
JustAClass.JustACallBack callBack = Mockito.mock(JustAClass.JustACallBack.class);
justAClass.threadFunc(callBack);
//add this line, we can get the expected result
Thread.sleep(1200);
Mockito.verify(callBack).callFunc(captor.capture());
System.out.println(((JustAClass.JustAResultReal)captor.getValue()).content);
}
I know we can add a sleep to wait and expect that the child thread would exit within the period, but could there be a better way? Actually how could I know how long the child thread would take? Setting a very long time can be an approach but just seems not very nice.
The general approach in #stalet's answer is close, but doesn't quite work since any assertion failures from a separate thread are not noticed by the main thread. Therefore your test will always pass, even when it shouldn't. Instead, try using ConcurrentUnit (which I authored):
#Test
public void testInvoke() throws Throwable {
Waiter waiter = new Waiter();
JustAClass justAClass = new JustAClass();
JustAClass.JustACallBack callBack = new JustAClass.JustACallBack() {
#Override
public void callFunc(final JustAClass.JustAResult result) {
waiter.assertNotNull(result);
waiter.assertTrue(result instanceof JustAClass.JustAResultReal);
waiter.resume();
}
};
justAClass.threadFunc(callBack);
waiter.await(1200, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
}
The key here is ConcurrentUnit's Waiter will properly report any assertions failures to the main test thread and the test will pass or fail as it should.
I aggree with #Gimbys comment about this is no longer a unit-test when you start testing the the threading aspect.
Nevertheless it is interesting as a way to integration-test a asynchronous invokation.
To avvoid sleep i tend to use the class CountDownLatch to wait for invokations.
In order to count down you need an actuall implementation of the callback interface - so in my example I have made a mock implementation of this.
Since there is no actual methods to fetch the data - i am just testing that it is in fact a instance of the JustAReal interface.
#Test
public void testInvoke() throws Exception {
final CountDownLatch countDownLatch = new CountDownLatch(1); //1 is how many invokes we are waiting for
JustAClass justAClass = new JustAClass();
JustAClass.JustACallBack callBack = new JustAClass.JustACallBack() {
#Override
public void callFunc(final JustAClass.JustAResult result) {
assertNotNull("Result should not be null", result);
assertTrue("Result should be instance of JustAResultReal", result instanceof JustAClass.JustAResultReal);
countDownLatch.countDown();
}
};
justAClass.threadFunc(callBack);
if(!countDownLatch.await(1200, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS)){
fail("Timed out, see log for errors");
}
}
Related
I would like to add tests for method, which contains CompletableFuture:
public void report(List<String> srcList) {
if (srcList != null) {
...
CompletableFuture.runAsync(() ->
....
srcList.forEach(src-> downloader.send(url)));
}
}
I would like to test, that method send is called. My test looks like:
#Test
public void _test() {
List<String> events = new ArrayList();
events.add("http://xxxx//");
events.add("http://xxxx//");
expect(downloader.send(events.get(0))).andReturn("xxx").times(2);
replay(downloader);
eventReporter.report(events);
verify(downloader);
}
And I get such error Downloader.send("http://xxxx//"): expected: 2, actual: 0
One way to avoid this error, is to set Thread.sleep(100); timeout. Then the thread will wait and verify that the method had called. But this will increase tests time.
Is there other way to test multithreading with EasyMock?
It is a bad practice to unit test asynchronoys code with Thread.sleep() method
because if it even works test will be unstable and flicker (run 3 times 2 pass and 1 fail)
if you set up big time of sleep and write few tests like this you meet a big time of execution
that may be exceed dozens of seconds. For complete this task you need to decouple asynchronous part
of you code from synchronous. Example how to do it:
class Service {
private Downloader downloader;
private ExecutorService service;
public Service (Downloader downloader, ExecutorService service) {
//set variables
}
public void doWork(List<String> list) {
for (String item : list) {
service.submit(() -> {
downloader.download(item);
});
}
}
}
ExecutorService is interface and we need to make our Service that will be synchronous
class SycnronousService impliments ExecutorService {
//methods empty implementations
public void submit(Runnable runnable) {
runnable.run(); //run immediately
}
//methods empty implementations
}
public class ServiceTest {
public void shouldPassAllItemsToDownloader() {
Downloader mockDownloader = AnyMockFramework.mockIt();
Service service = new Service(mockDownloader, new SycnronousService());
List<String> tasks = Arrays.asList("A", "B");
service.doWork(tasks);
verify(mockDownloader).download("A"); //verify in your way with EasyMock
verify(mockDownloader).download("B"); //verify in your way with EasyMock
// no more Timer.sleep() , test runs immeadetely
}
}
You need to replace CompletableFuture to something like in my example, because
unit testing this code not able in this way.
Later in you app you will be able to replace SycnronousService to asynchronous implementation and all will be work as expected.
I agree with #joy-dir 's answer. And you should probably do what she said to simplify your testing.
For the sake of completeness, your problem here is that the verify is called before your tasks being actually finished. There are many things you could do.
One is to loop on verify.
#Test
public void test() throws Exception {
List<String> events = new ArrayList();
events.add("http://xxxx//");
events.add("http://xxxx//");
expect(downloader.send(events.get(0))).andReturn("xxx").times(2);
replay(downloader);
report(events);
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
try {
verify(downloader);
return;
} catch(AssertionError e) {
// wait until it works
}
Thread.sleep(10);
}
verify(downloader);
}
It won't sleep a long time for nothing when successful. However, you indeed need to make sure you wait enough to prevent the test from being flaky.
Another solution is actually to use the CompletableFuture returned by runAsync. I prefer this solution.
public CompletableFuture<Void> report(List<String> srcList) {
if (srcList != null) {
return CompletableFuture.runAsync(() -> srcList.forEach(src-> downloader.send(src)));
}
return CompletableFuture.completedFuture(null);
}
#Test
public void test2() throws Exception {
List<String> events = new ArrayList();
events.add("http://xxxx//");
events.add("http://xxxx//");
expect(downloader.send(events.get(0))).andReturn("xxx").times(2);
replay(downloader);
CompletableFuture<Void> future = report(events);
future.get(100, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
verify(downloader);
}
Finally, there is a hackish way. You ask the common pool if it is done. It is hackish because something else might use it. So it's cute but I wouldn't really recommend it.
#Test
public void test3() throws Exception {
List<String> events = new ArrayList();
events.add("http://xxxx//");
events.add("http://xxxx//");
expect(downloader.send(events.get(0))).andReturn("xxx").times(2);
replay(downloader);
report(events);
while(!ForkJoinPool.commonPool().isQuiescent()) {
Thread.sleep(10);
}
verify(downloader);
}
I am trying to write a test for my android app that communicates with a cloud service.
Theoretically the flow for the test is supposed to be this:
Send request to the server in a worker thread
Wait for the response from the server
Check the response returned by the server
I am trying to use Espresso's IdlingResource class to accomplish that but it is not working as expected. Here's what I have so far
My Test:
#RunWith(AndroidJUnit4.class)
public class CloudManagerTest {
FirebaseOperationIdlingResource mIdlingResource;
#Before
public void setup() {
mIdlingResource = new FirebaseOperationIdlingResource();
Espresso.registerIdlingResources(mIdlingResource);
}
#Test
public void testAsyncOperation() {
Cloud.CLOUD_MANAGER.getDatabase().getCategories(new OperationResult<List<Category>>() {
#Override
public void onResult(boolean success, List<Category> result) {
mIdlingResource.onOperationEnded();
assertTrue(success);
assertNotNull(result);
}
});
mIdlingResource.onOperationStarted();
}
}
The FirebaseOperationIdlingResource
public class FirebaseOperationIdlingResource implements IdlingResource {
private boolean idleNow = true;
private ResourceCallback callback;
#Override
public String getName() {
return String.valueOf(System.currentTimeMillis());
}
public void onOperationStarted() {
idleNow = false;
}
public void onOperationEnded() {
idleNow = true;
if (callback != null) {
callback.onTransitionToIdle();
}
}
#Override
public boolean isIdleNow() {
synchronized (this) {
return idleNow;
}
}
#Override
public void registerIdleTransitionCallback(ResourceCallback callback) {
this.callback = callback;
}}
When used with Espresso's view matchers the test is executed properly, the activity waits and then check the result.
However plain JUNIT4 assert methods are ignored and JUnit is not waiting for my cloud operation to complete.
Is is possible that IdlingResource only work with Espresso methods ? Or am I doing something wrong ?
I use Awaitility for something like that.
It has a very good guide, here is the basic idea:
Wherever you need to wait:
await().until(newUserIsAdded());
elsewhere:
private Callable<Boolean> newUserIsAdded() {
return new Callable<Boolean>() {
public Boolean call() throws Exception {
return userRepository.size() == 1; // The condition that must be fulfilled
}
};
}
I think this example is pretty similar to what you're doing, so save the result of your asynchronous operation to a field, and check it in the call() method.
Junit will not wait for async tasks to complete. You can use CountDownLatch to block the thread, until you receive response from server or timeout.
Countdown latch is a simple yet elegant solution and does NOT need an external library. It also helps you focus on the actual logic to be tested rather than over-engineering the async wait or waiting for a response
void testBackgroundJob() {
Latch latch = new CountDownLatch(1);
//Do your async job
Service.doSomething(new Callback() {
#Override
public void onResponse(){
ACTUAL_RESULT = SUCCESS;
latch.countDown(); // notify the count down latch
// assertEquals(..
}
});
//Wait for api response async
try {
latch.await();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
assertEquals(expectedResult, ACTUAL_RESULT);
}
I'm struggling with a network connection class I've created. The result of the Runnable I create returns a JSON object that contains all the information needed from the server. The thread runs, and receives the data perfectly, but of course, the program keeps running in the meantime, which results in a JSONException as being NULL.
I created a class called NetworkManager, which has the following method (jsonResponse is initialized at the beginning of the class)
JSONObject jsonResponse;
public void createNetworkThread(Context context, final String requestURI, final RequestBody formParameters) {
Runnable runnable = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
OkHttpClient client = new OkHttpClient();
Request request = new Request.Builder().url(requestURI).post(formParameters).build();
Response response = null;
try {
response = client.newCall(request).execute();
String stringResponse = response.body().string();
NetworkManager.this.jsonResponse = new JSONObject(stringResponse);
// This works perfectly, "message" is received and printed to the log //
Log.d("Net", NetworkManager.this.jsonResponse.getString("message"));
} catch (IOException e) {
Log.d("Net", "Failed");
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (JSONException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
};
Thread thread = new Thread(runnable);
thread.start();
}
The above is called from the Activity, as:
Net.createNetworkThread(SignupActivity.this, requestURI, formVars);
JSONObject jsonResponse = Net.jsonResponse;
The JSON object jsonResponse is returning as NULL because the Thread is still accessing the server for the response.
I need to figure out how to stop the jsonResponse Object from being populated by Net.jsonResponse until the thread completes in order to stop it from returning NULL.
Any help?
I would only agree to the comments on your question and let you know, what you can do here.
If you are creating a thread just to get of the main UI thread to do the Network call you probably want to use OkHttp feature which allows you to get the Network call off the thread and provides you with callbacks to get the result something like this. you can check some example here
Request request = new Request.Builder()
.url(url)
.build();
client.newCall(request).enqueue(new Callback() {
#Override
public void onFailure(Request request, IOException e) {
}
#Override
public void onResponse(Response response) throws IOException {
// this is the callback which tells you the network call was successful, If like to make some changes to UI, you should call `runOnUiThread`.
"YourClassName".this.runOnUiThread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
}
});
}
});
or you can use AsyncTask which also gets your job done off the main UI thread and gives you the result in the callbacks.
private class MyTask extends AsyncTask<Void, Void, Void> {
//you can change the Type Void, Void, Void here to something which you want
//First Void belongs to doInBackground(Void... avoid)
//Second Void belongs to onProgressUpdate(Void... progress)
//Third Void belongs to onPostExecute(Void result)
// you may change these as you fit,
//when you want to start this class with your argument you can do something like this.
//new MyTask().execute("your argument to doInBackground");
#Override
protected void onPreExecute() {
super.onPreExecute();
}
#Override
protected Void doInBackground(Void... params) {
// this is the method where you provide your implementation for doing a task off the main UI thread.
return null;
}
#Override
protected void onPostExecute(Void aVoid) {
super.onPostExecute(aVoid);
// in this callback you are back in the main UI thread to make changes to UI depending on your response
}
}
here is an example of AsyncTask
If you want to offload the main thread, you should consider that the parallel task could finish it's execution after, generally speaking, any amount of time. Sure, you can wait in the main thread for the child thread to finish (using 'join()'), though this is kind of questionable in terms of speed gain.
Anyway, answering your question:
I need to figure out how to stop the jsonResponse Object from being
populated by Net.jsonResponse until the thread completes in order to
stop it from returning NULL.
I suggest you change
public void createNetworkThread(...
to
public Thread createNetworkThread(...
{
...
Thread thread = new Thread(runnable);
thread.start();
return thread;
}
And consequently
Thread t = Net.createNetworkThread(SignupActivity.this, requestURI, formVars);
t.join(); // Wait until 't' finishes -- try-catch is omitted for the sake of demo.
JSONObject jsonResponse = Net.jsonResponse;
This, apparently, opens question of performance, since main thread will be effectively completely blocked by 't.join()' until the child thread will finish.
Answering the question in the topic: in Java 8 you can use lambda functional interface like this:
package multithreaded;
import org.slf4j.Logger;
import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory;
public class Multithreaded {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
Logger logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger("Main");
Worker<String, String> worker = new Worker<String, String>(
(String s) ->
{ // This is actual call-back code.
// It will be called by method 'apply' of interface 'Function' in the 'Worker'.
// It will accept String parameter and pass it in this block as variable 's'
logger.info("Embrace the beauty and power of Java 8! "+s); // yes, we can use local variables of the parent thread.
return "Call-Back "+s;
}
);
logger.info("Application starts new Worker.");
worker.start();
logger.info("Worker is running in background.");
Thread.currentThread().sleep(500); // Simulate some activity here...
logger.info("Result is unpredictable (could be null): "+worker.getResult());
// Wait here until worker is fully finished
worker.join();
logger.info("Result is predictable: "+worker.getResult());
}
}
Worker.java:
package multithreaded;
import java.util.function.Function;
public class Worker<T extends String, R extends String> extends Thread {
private final Function<T, R> callBack;
private volatile R result;
public Worker(Function<T, R> callBack)
{ this.callBack = callBack; }
#Override
public void run()
{
try{
int i = (int)(Math.random()*1000);
// simulate some activity unpredictable in terms of duration
Thread.currentThread().sleep(i);
// After "activity" is finished -- call the call-back function and get result in local variable.
// (Synchronization ommited for the sake of simplicity)
result = this.callBack.apply((T)("Result "+i)); // now let's call the call-back function and save the result in local variable.
}
catch(InterruptedException e)
{e.printStackTrace();}
}
// Getter for the local variable, populated by call-back function.
// (Synchronization ommited for the sake of simplicity)
public R getResult()
{ return this.result; }
}
Running above code multiple times, you will notice that from the parent thread's perspective the result is still unpredictable until the child thread is completely finished.
P.s. I suggest you re-think entire logic of data processing in your app and consider re-factoring towards entirely independent multi-threaded processing (perhaps using producer-consumer logic).
I have a GUI program that executes TestNG automation scripts. It's meant for users to easily configure some setting and launch the automation script that they want.
One thing I need to add is the ability to instantly stop the running TestNG process. Something like how in Eclipse, the 'Terminate' button will instantly stop whatever is running.
This is what the code that launches the TestNG tests looks like:
public class ScriptRunner implements Runnable {
public void runScript() {
Thread testRun = new Thread(this);
testRun.start();
}
#Override
public void run() {
//various other things are configured for this,
//but they're not relevant so I left them out
TestNG tng = new TestNG();
//While this runs, various browser windows are open,
//and it could take several minutes for it all to finish
tng.run();
}
}
As per the comment, the tng.run() can take several minutes to complete, and it's performing several things, opening/closing browser windows, etc.
How can I just instantly terminate the process, like you would when running an application from an IDE?
EDIT:
Per the comments, I'm attempting to use a ServiceExecutor and shutDownNow() The code is looking like this:
ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
public void runScript() {
executorService.execute(this);
}
//this method gets called when I click the "stop" button
public void stopRun() {
executorService.shutdownNow();
}
#Override
public void run() {
//same stuff as from earlier code
}
Spawn a child JVM process using ProcessBuilder or Runtime and you will be able to terminate that process when the user requests that the script stops running.
You can use ExecutorService to start test execution into one another thread. You can choose to have many thread in parrallel or juste one thread for all tests in sequence by choosing which executor service you need.
After that, start the execution of all tests in the same executor service instance by calling submit() method on it. You can stop the execution of all submitted runnables by calling shutdownNow() method.
It is important to use the same instance of ExecutorService, otherwise you start each test in a different thread and you will not enable to break the execution chain (or by calling shutdownNow() on all of them).
I was recently working on the executor framework. Here I have listed my problem
http://programtalk.com/java/executorservice-not-shutting-down/
Be careful if you are doing some IO operations the executor service may not shutdown immediately. If you see the below code stopThread is important because it tells your program that the thread has been asked to stop. And you can stop some iteration what you are doing.
I will modify your code like this:
public class MyClass {
private ExecutorService executorService;
private boolean stopThread = false;
public void start() {
// gives name to threads
BasicThreadFactory factory = new BasicThreadFactory.Builder()
.namingPattern("thread-%d").build();
executorService = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor(factory);
executorService.execute(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
doTask();
} catch (Exception e) {
logger.error("indexing failed", e);
}
}
});
executorService.shutdown();
}
private void doTask() {
logger.info("start reindexing of my objects");
List<MyObjects> listOfMyObjects = new MyClass().getMyObjects();
for (MyObjects myObject : listOfMyObjects) {
if(stopThread){ // this is important to stop further indexing
return;
}
DbObject dbObjects = getDataFromDB();
// do some task
}
}
public void stop() {
this.stopThread = true;
if(executorService != null){
try {
// wait 1 second for closing all threads
executorService.awaitTermination(1, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
}
}
}
What about this,
add a volatile static boolean and make the thread code look like...
if(ScriptRunner.runThread){
//Do some stuff here
}
if(ScriptRunner.runThread){
//Do some other stuff here
}
if(ScriptRunner.runThread){
//Do some other stuff here
}
if(ScriptRunner.runThread){
//Do rest of the stuff here
}
Now you can add a button in your main GUI that simply sets the runThread to false so the thread will terminate nearly instant leaving all the leftover code untouched as you press the Stop button.
public class ScriptRunner implements Runnable {
volatile static Boolean runThread = true;
public void runScript() {
Thread testRun = new Thread(this);
testRun.start();
}
public void terminate(){
runThread = false;
}
#Override
public void run() {
//various other things are configured for this,
//but they're not relevant so I left them out
TestNG tng = new TestNG();
//While this runs, various browser windows are open,
//and it could take several minutes for it all to finish
tng.run();
}
}
How about a new Thread? You have to add an private Thread thread; in the gui and when ever you start
thread = new thread(){
#Override
public void run(){
//start process here
}
};
thread.start();
and to stop "terminate"
thread.stop();(depracted) or thread.setDeamon(true);
Everytime I have to stop a process by the gui I use this.
Hope I could help ;)
In your GUI somewhere you have something like
ScriptRunner scriptRunner = new ScriptRunner();
scriptRunner.runScript();
When you want to stop it call
scriptRunner.interrupt();
Change the code in ScriptRunner
private Thread testRun;
public void runScript() {
testRun = new Thread(this);
testRun.start();
}
public void interrupt() {
testRun.interrupt();
}
Save all created processes and kill them when your program ends:
public class ProcessFactory {
private static Set<Process> processes = new HashSet<>();
private static boolean isRunning = true;
public static synchronized Process createProcess(...) throws ... {
if (!isRunning)
throw ...
... // create your spawned process
processes.add(process);
return process;
}
public static synchronized void killAll() {
isRunning = false;
for (Process p : processes)
p.destroy();
processes.clear();
}
public static void registerShutdownHook() {
Runtime.getRuntime().addShutdownHook(new Thread() {
void run() {
killAll();
}
});
}
}
This can be improved by adding a mechanism that removes already dead processes, but you get the general idea.
I am trying to assign a value or return a value in a class. Something like this:
void setOff() {
boolean onValue = true;
Thread t = new Thread(new myClass(onValue));
System.out.println("On: " + onValue);
}
class myClass implements Runnable{
public boolean on;
public myClass (boolean _on) {
on = _on
}
public run() {
on = false;
}
}
Is something like that possible? Thanks!
It is possible, but you need to change your code a bit. Check the following classes:
Callable<V>
FutureTask<V>
The first one is something like a Runnable, but the method you need to implement is defined as V call() throws Exception, instead of void run(): it allows you to return a value.
The second one wraps a Callable<V> (or a Runnable plus a constant return value), and is a Runnable itself, so you can pass it to a Thread just like you were doing with your Runnable.
So, you could change your code to something like the following:
void setOff() {
final FutureTask<Boolean> ft = new FutureTask<Boolean>(new myClass());
new Thread(ft).start();
try {
System.out.println("The result is: " + ft.get());
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
System.err.println("A method executed on the background thread has thrown an exception");
e.getCause().printStackTrack();
}
}
class myClass implements Callable<Boolean> {
#Override public Boolean call() throws Exception {
// let's fake some long running computation:
Thread.sleep(1000);
return true;
}
}
The call ft.get() will only return after the call() method finishes executing (on the background thread), so you will have to wait 1 second before the line gets printed to the console.
There are many other useful methods on FutureTask. Check the documentation.
There are some other classes that you may find useful: ExecutorService and its implementations, and the factory methods in Executors. It has a method called submit which accepts a Runnable or a Callable<V>, and returns a Future<?> or Future<V>, which is one of the interfaces implemented by FutureTask. You get a similar behaviour. For example:
public static void main() {
final ExecutorService es = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
final Future<Boolean> f = es.submit(new myClass());
try {
System.out.println("The result is: " + f.get());
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
System.err.println("A method executed on the background thread has thrown an exception");
e.getCause().printStackTrack();
}
es.shutdown();
}
The advantage of this is that the ExecutorService will manage the threads for you. It may create some threads and reuse them for the Callables and Runnables you submit: this will possibly improve performance if you have many such jobs, since you will avoid creating one thread per job -- thread creation has some overhead!
EDIT: the .get() method throws an ExecutionException, which wraps an exception that might get thrown during the execution of the .call() method. To inspect the exception, catch the ExecutionException and call .getCause() on it. I've just added the missing try/catch block.