Develop Reference

Refactoring static mocks in Mockito 3.4

I have a Jupiter based UnitTest in a java project where I need to mock some static methods of an external utility. Mockito 3.4 allows for mocking static methods, so no need for PowerMock any more. We all use static mocks by defining them in a try(){} block and overwriting methods on those static mocks inside the block. All fine, but things sometimes get annoying when you have to implement a non trivial mocking cascade. Which is especially annoying of you have to do that in several test cases inside your test class.
class ClassA {
public static void methodA() { ... }
public static void methodB() { ... }
}
class ClassB {
public static void methodA() { ... }
public static void methodB() { ... }
}
class ClassC {
public static void methodA() { ... }
public static void methodB() { ... }
}
class ClassX {
public int doSomething() {
// does something using static methods from classes ClassA, ClassB, ClassC
return 3;
}
}
A test class might (roughly) look like that (please excuse typos and nonsense, this is only meant as a demonstration, this is not working code):
#Test
void test_doSomething() {
int result = 0;
ClassX classX = new ClassX();
try (MockedStatic<ClassA> classAMockStatic = Mockito.mockStatic(ClassA.class);
MockedStatic<ClassB> classBMockStatic = Mockito.mockStatic(ClassB.class);
MockedStatic<ClassC> classCMockStatic = Mockito.mockStatic(ClassC.class)) {
// this is a block where static methods get overwritten, also some mocks are created
// this code does not make sense, it is just to demonstrate the issue of non trivial mocking scenarios
// situations like this often arise when mocking building patterns for example
classAMockStatic.when(ClassA::methodA).thenReturn("fooA");
ClassB classBMock = mock(ClassB.class);
when(classBMock.methodA()).thenReturn("barA");
classAMockStatic.when(ClassA::methodB).thenReturn(classBMock);
ClassC classCMock = mock(ClassC.class);
when(classCMock.someMethodA()).thenReturn("abc");
when(classCMock.methodA()).thenReturn("barA");
classAMockStatic.when(ClassA::methodA).thenReturn(classCMock);
// and so on and so on, you get the idea
result = classX.doSomething();
}
assertThat(result).equals(3);
}
Typically the question arises if this cannot be refactored to implement the mocking cascade only once. And use it in several test cases. I tried that, I was surprised to find that some of my overwritten methods worked as expected, but not all. I failed to find a working solution:
// THIS DOES NOT WORK
#Test
void test_doSomething() {
int result = 0;
ClassX classX = new ClassX();
try (MockedStatic<ClassA> classAMockStatic = createStaticMockA();
MockedStatic<ClassB> classBMockStatic = createStaticMockB();
MockedStatic<ClassC> classCMockStatic = createStaticMockC()) {
result = classX.doSomething();
}
assertThat(result).equals(3);
}
private MockedStatic<ClassA> createStaticMockA() {
MockedStatic<ClassA> classAMockStatic = Mockito.mockStatic(ClassA.class);
classAMockStatic.when(ClassA::methodA).thenReturn("fooA");
ClassB classBMock = mock(ClassB.class);
when(classBMock.methodA()).thenReturn("barA");
classAMockStatic.when(ClassA::methodB).thenReturn(classBMock);
return classAMockStatic;
}
private MockedStatic<ClassB> createStaticMockB() {
MockedStatic<ClassB> classAMockStatic = Mockito.mockStatic(ClassB.class);
ClassB classBMock = mock(ClassB.class);
when(classBMock.someMethodA()).thenReturn("aaa");
when(classBMock.someMethodB()).thenReturn("bbb");
when(classBMock.methodA()).thenReturn("barA");
classBMockStatic.when(ClassB::methodA).thenReturn(classBMock);
return classBMockStatic;
}
private MockedStatic<ClassC> createStaticMockC() {
MockedStatic<ClassC> classAMockStatic = Mockito.mockStatic(ClassC.class);
ClassC classCMock = mock(ClassC.class);
when(classCMock.someMethodA()).thenReturn("abc");
when(classCMock.methodB()).thenReturn("barC");
classCMockStatic.when(ClassC::methodA).thenReturn(classCMock);
return classCMockStatic;
}
So this looks cleared up, but does not work.
I know that I obviously could just extract the mocking section into a method and call that first in the try block. But that separates the static setup from the mock generation. And it is not as clean as my idea.
Yes, I tried implementing an execution method which accepts a lambda holding the code actually meant to be executed. So that the try(){} block gets stowed away into a method, leaving only the call to that method with a lambda in the test case. Works, but is hard to read and to understand. Not a good solution in my experience.
And yes, I also know that one should try to refactor production code so that it is easier to mock it. Sometimes that is simply not possible (read: external dependencies).
So what are my questions here?
does anyone have an idea how to achieve a clean, refactored look which actually works?
can anyone explain to me why some of the overwritten methods work as expected while others don't? I know, all the examples on the internet demonstrate that you use the straight approach, but the examples are obviously showing trivial situations.
is it really true that no one else is annoyed by that situation of have to setup the mock cascade exactly where it confuses? And that you have to reimplement it for each test case?

As Tim Moore suggests, if you have:
class StaticUtil {
public static void foo() { ... }
}
You can introduce an interface and an implementation to inject into your clients:
interface Util {
void foo();
}
class DefaultUtil {
public void foo() {
StaticUtil.foo();
}
This makes writing tests simpler as you can just mock Util in the normal way.

Execute a function "before each" method of the same class in java

I have several methods in a class that require a boolean to be set to true in order to execute correctly.
I could write the if statement in each method, but it is not convenient if I or someone else wants to ad another method. I or he could forget about the check.
Is there a way in java to execute a method before each other methods (exactly like JUnit does with #BeforeEach ) in a class ?
Edit: Lots of very interesting techniques/answers/concepts proposed. I'll be in touch when I've understood them. Thanks.

Lets make a method turnBooleanTrue() where effectively the boolean is set to true in order for the method to be execute correctly.
Then, you can write up your very own InvocationHandler that would intercept calls to your objects, and then reflectively (using reflection API) invoke first the turnBooleanTrue() method followed by the method to which the call was made.
Will look something like this
public class MyClassInvocationHandler implements InvocationHandler {
// initiate an instance of the class
MyClass myClass = new MyClassImpl();
#Override
public Object invoke(Object proxy, Method method, Object[] args)
throws Throwable {
// look up turnBooleanTrue() method
Method turnBooleanTrue = myClass.getClass().getMethod("turnBooleanTrue");
// invoke the method
turnBooleanTrue.invoke(...); // toggle the boolean
// invoke the method to which the call was made
// pass in instance of class
Object returnObj = method.invoke(myClass, args);
return returnObj;
}
EDIT
Added some lines to have an object of MyClass initialized. You need something to invoke the method on and maintain the state. Changed util to myClass in the code example above.

Considering my use case, it was a bit overkill to use AOP or other concepts. So I basically did a check in each functions.

With AOP, this is how what you need would look:
// wraps around all methods in your class that have a boolean parameter
#Around(value = "#target(*..YourClass) && args(yourBool)", argNames = "jp,yourBool")
Object scheduleRequest(ProceedingJoinPoint jp, boolean yourBool) {
if (yourBool) {
jp.proceed(yourBool);
} else {
throw new RuntimeException("cannot execute this method!");
}
}
This would handle the case that the method take the boolean you say needs evaluation as its (only) parameter. If it comes from a different source, you may need to wire it into the aspect somehow, that depends on your overall design.

I suggest a simple solution by dividing your workflow in four components.
You have an interface you use to execute commands.
You have an interface that defines which commands you can use.
You have one wrapper that analyzes your boolean value.
You have an implementation of the work performing class, that implements the second interface.
Your wrapper initialize the worker.
Your wrapper exposes an action performing command that accepts the executing interface.
if the boolean is true, pass the worker to the executing interface work method.
the executing interfaces work method calls the work function on the command instance interface, the worker.
See it online: https://ideone.com/H6lQO8
class Ideone
{
public static void main (String[] args) throws java.lang.Exception
{
WorkDistributer wd = new WorkDistributer();
wd.enable();
wd.performAction((w) -> {w.printHello();});
wd.disable();
wd.performAction((w) -> {w.printHello();});
wd.enable();
wd.performAction((w) -> {w.printAnswer();});
wd.disable();
wd.performAction((w) -> {w.printAnswer();});
}
}
class WorkDistributer
{
private boolean enabled = false;
private ActionPerformer worker;
public WorkDistributer() {
this.worker = new Worker();
}
public void enable() {
enabled = true;
}
public void disable() {
enabled = false;
}
public void performAction(ActionCommand command) {
if(this.enabled) {
command.run(this.worker);
}
}
}
class Worker implements ActionPerformer {
public void printHello() {
System.out.println("hello");
}
public void printAnswer() {
System.out.println(21 * 2);
}
}
interface ActionPerformer {
public void printHello();
public void printAnswer();
}
interface ActionCommand {
public void run(ActionPerformer worker);
}

Encapsulating and mocking

Suppose I have class with simple dependency:
public interface Dependency {
int doSomething(int value);
void doMore(int value);
int doALotMore(int value);
}
public final class A implements SomeInterface {
private final Dependency dep;
public A (Dependency dep) {
this.dep = dep;
}
#Override
public int add(final int x) {
dep.doMore(x);
return x + dep.doSomething(x) + dep.doALotMore(x);
}
}
And I'm writing test using mocks:
public class TestA {
private Dependency mockDep;
private SomeInterface a;
#Before
public void setUp() {
mockDep = Mockito.mock(Dependency.class);
a = new A(mockDep);
}
#Test
public void shouldAdd() {
final int x = 5;
when(mockDep.doSomething(x)).thenReturn(6);
when(mockDep.doALotMore(x)).thenReturn(7);
int actual = a.add(x);
assertThat(actual, is(18));
verify(mockDep, times(1)).doSomething();
verify(mockDep, times(1)).doALotMore();
verify(mockDep, times(1)).doMore();
verifyNoMoreInteractions(mockDep);
}
}
So far so good.
So the question is: do we violate encapsulation of class A by verifying how exactly the dependency was used? Does it really needed to test that dependency was used in exactly that way? Shouldn't we test A like a black-box (delete verify invocations from test case and leave just assertThat)? And how to deal with dependencies in such case?
The reason I'm asking is that I caught myself writing good amount of verification dependency code and it seems that we start to test actual internal realization details about class. And I feel uncomfortable about that because when I will try to rewrite this realization details in another way I need to rewrite test cases although the result of add for example will be the same. If I would test my class as a black-box I can change realization details and still be sure that given input will give same output.
Or it is necessary to actually test exactly the realization details and that is the point of unit-test itself? It seems somewhat wrong for me.
Consider this test instead:
public class TestA {
private Dependency mockDep;
private SomeInterface a;
private final int x = 5;
#Before
public void setUp() {
mockDep = Mockito.mock(Dependency.class);
a = new A(mockDep);
when(mockDep.doSomething(x)).thenReturn(6);
when(mockDep.doALotMore(x)).thenReturn(7);
}
#Test
public void shouldAdd() {
int actual = a.add(x);
assertThat(actual, is(18));
}
}

It really depends on logic which you're testing. Since your example don't provide any context, I'll give you a case when I feel not only comfortable to test such interaction, but even mandatory:
Let's say you're testing authentication token validation. You pas some token to your validator and it returns true/false. Inside of your validator you're calling some jwt.validate or any other 3rd party hash validation method. In this case I need to know that this validator will be called every time, because I can introduce some if token == null condition inside which will bypass this validation call and just return false. Then your tests could still pass but your code is now vulnerable to timing attack.
It's one kind of example. The other type of test I'm comfortable of testing that way is so called border testing. I want to know that my class triggers stripe payment gateway - so I mock it and just make sure it gets called without checking anything sophisticated in this particular test.

Verify private static method on final class gets called using PowerMockito

I have the following class
public final class Foo {
private Foo() {}
public static void bar() {
if(baz("a", "b", new Object())) { }
}
private static boolean baz(Object... args) {
return true; // slightly abbreviated logic
}
}
And this is my Test:
#PrepareOnlyThisForTest(Foo.class)
#RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
public class FooTest {
#Test
public void bar() {
PowerMockito.mockStatic(Foo.class); // prepare
Foo.bar(); // execute
verifyPrivate(Foo.class, times(1)).invoke("baz", anyVararg()); // verify - fails
}
}
For that, I get the following error message - and I don't understand why...
Wanted but not invoked com.example.Foo.baz(
null );
However, there were other interactions with this mock.
Removing the prepare line above seems to make the verify line pass no matter for how many times you check for... :(
(Our SONAR code checks enforce that each test has some sort of assertXyz() in it (hence the call to verify()) and enforces a very high test coverage.)
Any ideas how to do this?

The problem with your code is that you mock Foo so your method implementations won't be called by default such that when you call Foo.call() it does nothing by default which means that it never avtually calls baz that is why you get this behavior. If you want to partially mock Foo, mock it using the option Mockito.CALLS_REAL_METHODS in order to make it call the real methods as you seem to expect, so the code should be:
#PrepareOnlyThisForTest(Foo.class)
#RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
public class FooTest {
#Test
public void bar() throws Exception {
PowerMockito.mockStatic(Foo.class, Mockito.CALLS_REAL_METHODS); // prepare
...
}
}

What is the advantage of using Dependency Injection over new?

In the following code (using Guice and Dependency Injection):
public class Main {
public static class Foo {
private FooInterface anInterface;
#Inject
Foo(FooInterface anInterface) {
this.anInterface = anInterface;
}
public void talk() {
anInterface.talk();
}
}
interface FooInterface {
void talk();
}
static class English implements FooInterface {
#Override
public void talk() {
System.out.println("Hello");
}
}
static class Spanish implements FooInterface {
#Override
public void talk() {
System.out.println("Hola");
}
}
public static class Module extends AbstractModule {
#Override
protected void configure() {
bind(FooInterface.class).to(English.class);
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Injector injector = Guice.createInjector(new Module());
Foo injectorInstanceFoo = injector.getInstance(Foo.class);
injectorInstanceFoo.talk();
Foo regularInstanceFoo = new Foo(new Spanish());
regularInstanceFoo.talk();
}
}
What is the advantage of using Guice(injectorInstanceFoo) to get instances of Foo over the "direct" way (regularInstanceFoo)?

Let's talk about what a program that uses your toy code might be like. Imagine that it is a console application, and the talk() method is needed when drawing the opening screen. In your settings, you control whether the English or the Spanish instance is bound (using a different module; don't use conditional logic INSIDE a module). The first advantage of using Dependency Injection is that your logic can easily control which language gets provided elsewhere in the code, so that callers don't all have to have logic to pick the implementation they want.
It also makes unit testing much easier - I'll go into a some more depth here to illustrate: You want to write some test code that tests the behavior of creating the message for your login screen. In this class LoginScreen, you #Inject a different FooInstance based on your regionalization settings:
public class LoginScreen {
private final String message;
#Inject
public LoginScreen(FooInstance foo) {
foo.talk();
// use other methods on foo that you didn't write
//
}
}
Now, you want to test the behavior of LoginScreen - not the behavior of FooInstance or its implementations. This syntax uses JUnit and Mockito (for conciseness), but it's fairly self explanatory:
public class LoginScreenTest() {
#Test
public void testMessage() {
FooInstance foo = mock(FooInstance.class);
LoginScreen screen = new LoginScreen(foo);
verify(foo).talk();
}
}
In this scenario, I don't care whether FooInstance is English or Spanish. I am trusting that those classes have been implemented correctly (and I would write a test for them in a different unit test). The contract of FooInstance is that talk() will write a greeting to the console - all I care about is that LoginScreen grabbed that greeting, but I don't care that FooInstance behaved correctly.
This isn't super meaningful in your example, because I could just call FooInstance foo = new English();. However, what if, instead of a System.out.println(), FooInstance had to load a database? Or what if it popped up a Swing dialog box? Or what if FooInstance had other dependencies? In all three of those cases it would be pretty painful to call new English() in your test.
Note: this is not the best way to do regionalization, but I'm just running with your example.