I have an internal StreamGobbler class that has 7 methods in it.
I'm looking for a quick way to mock all the methods by default, but override one method named getOutput() (e.g. Partial Mocking).
(full code not shown for clarity)
public class StreamGobbler extends Thread
{
public String getOutput()
public void run()
}
What I would like is to use something like the #Mocked annotation in combination with MockUp to partially mock the getOutput method, but retain all the "default" mocking code on all the other methods. In the docs on partial mocking, it makes the point that if you use MockUp, all non #Mock methods retain their normal functionality. Sometimes that is great, but that isn't what I want in this case.
This is similar to the question JMockit: #Mocke and MockUp combination in the same test, but I can't get away with just looking at method counts.
If I have a test setup like this:
#Test
public void execute(#Mocked StreamGobbler sg)
{
new MockUp<StreamGobbler>()
{
String type = null;
#Mock
void $init(String type)
{
this.type = type;
}
#Mock
String getOutput()
{
if ("OUTPUT".equals(type))
{
return "test output";
}
else
{
return "";
}
}
}
}
I get this error java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Class already mocked
If I try to add the #Override annotation in the MockUp, it doesn't help (and Eclipse complains about it)
What is the best way to handle this? Use a static class outside this test method?
Using JMockit 1.17, and TestNG
In summary, how do I get every method in StreamGobbler mocked (as with #Mocked), but partially override one method (without manually doing it myself inside the MockUp?)
Full example code which meets the given constraints:
public static class StreamGobbler extends Thread {
public StreamGobbler(String type) {}
public String getOutput() { return null; }
#Override public void run() {}
}
public static class TestedClass {
public String doSomething() throws InterruptedException {
StreamGobbler sg1 = new StreamGobbler("OUTPUT");
sg1.start();
StreamGobbler sg2 = new StreamGobbler("ERROR");
sg2.start();
sg1.join(5000);
sg2.join(5000);
String output1 = sg1.getOutput();
String output2 = sg2.getOutput();
return output1 + '|' + output2;
}
}
#Test
public void useStreamGobbler(#Mocked StreamGobbler sg) throws Exception {
new Expectations() {{
new StreamGobbler("OUTPUT").getOutput(); result = "test output";
new StreamGobbler("ERROR").getOutput(); result = "";
}};
String output = new TestedClass().doSomething();
assertEquals("test output|", output);
}
Firstly, since you are creating an anonymous subclass of the MockUp class, using the #Override annotation would certainly be inappropriate. Those methods that you are providing do not belong to the MockUp class, but the generic you are providing.
Later on during runtime, (through some impressive process (based on what I read here, I'm assuming AOP)) the instance you create in this class will then use your provided method signatures instead of its own.
After reading the API on the Mock class more thoroughly as well as getting some information from JMockit's Getting Started page, I think you're issue lies in a different area entirely. If you have other test methods, they will be interfering with this method.
The error you are getting is saying: "There is already an instance of MockUp declared for the type StreamGobbler, and by calling the Mocked annotation in this test method's parameters and attempting to declare another instance of MockUp with the same generic, you are violating a JMockit stipulation."
I would check to see if you are creating an actual MockUp of StreamGobbler outside of the test method and if so (1) if you want to use it, don't redeclare another instance of MockUp in the method but continue to use the Mocked annotation or (2) if you do not want to use it and you want to re-declare a new instance of MockUp wrapping StreamGobbler, do not use the Mocked annotation in the test method's parameters but keep the MockUp instantiation.
Related
I am facing an issue with Mockito junit testing. I am new to it and am a bit confused with the problem I am facing. Any help on this would be appreciated.
class Activity{
public void firstMethod(){
String str = secondMethod();
}
public String secondMethod(){
String str = null;
/* some Code */
return str;
}
}
Getting exception :
*org.mockito.exceptions.misusing.NotAMockException:
Argument passed to when() is not a mock!*
in the below code
class ActivityTest(){
Activity act;
#Before
public void setup(){
act = new Activity();
}
#Test
public void testFirstMethod(){
Mockito.doReturn(Mockito.anyString()).when(act).secondMethod();
act.firstMethod();
verify(act).secondMethod();
}
}
I am aware that activity is not a mock but I am not sure for a way around this as secondMethod() is a method in the same class. I need to write rule for secondMethod() as I have already done its Unit Testing. The definition of secondMethod() consists has external dependencies. Should I be mocking the external dependencies present in secondMethod() and writing rules for them rather than rule for secondMethod()?
I found this post:
Mockito Spy'ing on the object being unit tested
However separating the secondMethod() into a different class does not make sense. My method is related to this class. Creating a different class for testing does not seem right to me. Even mocking the actual class using spy() is not the most correct way as already explained in the post.
I don't think I should be creating a mock of the Activity class as that is the class I am testing. I would really appreciate help and insights into this.
As you noted, act is not a mock, and therefore you cannot record behavior on it. You could use Mockito.spy to, well, spy (or partially mock) the act object so that you only record the behavior of secondMethod and execute the actual code for firstMethod.
Note, however, that matchers can't be used in doReturn calls regardles of how you're mocking or spying your object. A return value must be a concrete object.
class ActivityTest() {
Activity act;
#Before
public void setup(){
act = Mockito.spy(new Activity()); // Here!
}
#Test
public void testFirstMethod(){
Mockito.doReturn("someString").when(act).secondMethod();
act.firstMethod();
verify(act).secondMethod();
}
}
A slightly more elegant syntax allows you to use annotations instead of explicitly calling Mockito.spy, but it's a matter of taste really:
#RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
class ActivityTest() {
#Spy
Activity act = new Activity();
#Test
public void testFirstMethod(){
Mockito.doReturn("someString").when(act).secondMethod();
act.firstMethod();
verify(act).secondMethod();
}
}
There is no reason to mock anything in this example. Since there are no dependencies and both methods are public, you can test them directly.
public class ActivityTest() {
private Activity act = new Activity();
#Test
public void testSecondMethod(){
assertEquals("expected-value", act.secondMethod());
}
#Test
public void testFirstMethod() {
act.firstMethod();
// success if no exception occurs
}
}
Since firstMethod does not have any detectable effect on the Act instance, nor on any dependency (since there are none) you can simply call the method and be satisfied if no exception is thrown. One could also reason that such a method should not be tested at all.
I assume the example given is a simplification of a class where calling firstMethod actually does have side effects, who knows...
Here are some hints:
Mock the Activity.
Tweak the behavior of secondMethod with when / then / doReturn
Use doCallRealMethod when firstMethod is invoked.
Hope it helps.
I have got a problem with testing how many times concrete methods (IFunction in the Operation instance) is invoked.
According to:
http://easymock.org/user-guide.html#mocking-annotations
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/j-easymock/
How to use EasyMock expect
I wrote something as:
class Operation{
public double[] calculateSth(IFunction function, int [] t){
for(int i=0 ; i<5 ; i+=1)
function(t, new int[]{1,2,3});
return new double[]{1,2,3};
}
}
interface IFunction{
double f(int[] a, int[]b);
}
class ConcreteF implements IFunction{
double f(int[]a, int[]b){
return 5;
}
}
And my test class:
#TestSubject
Operation op;
#Mock
IFunction function;
#Before
public void setUp() throws Sth{
op=new Operation();
function = EasyMock.createMock(IFunction.class);
}
#Test
public void howManyTimes(){
EasyMock.expect(function.f(EasyMock.notNull(), EasyMock.notNull())
)
.andReturn((double)EasyMock.anyDouble()).times(3);
EasyMock.replay(function);
op.calculateSth(function, new double[]{0,0,0});
//verify
EasyMock.verify(function);
}
Result:
java.lang.NullPointerException
at org.easymock.internal.Injector.injectMocks(Injector.java:80)
at org.easymock.EasyMockSupport.injectMocks(EasyMockSupport.java:624)
at org.easymock.EasyMockRunner.withBefores(EasyMockRunner.java:50)
It's my first time using easymock and i don't know how to fix it ;/
I'll answer this question without going into the details of whether the original method does anything useful (the code doesn't even compile anyway), let alone the test method.
#TestSubject Operation op;
This line is a suspect. I realize that you are instantiating it in the #Before annotated setUp method, but it looks like the Easymock tries to inject the mocks (the ones annotated with #Mock) before it does anything (and understandably so) and blows up since the reference is null at that point.
The annotation support introduced in v3.2 is also seen as a way to eliminate the need for setUp method. But you seem to be mixing both and using it wrongly. Choose one or the other - I'd recommend you to use the annotations.
Quoting the Easymock user guide (this user guide is as good as it can ever be, so be sure read this up before using the library),
#RunWith(EasyMockRunner.class)
public class ExampleTest {
#TestSubject
private ClassUnderTest classUnderTest = new ClassUnderTest(); // 2
#Mock
private Collaborator mock; // 1
#Test
public void testRemoveNonExistingDocument() {
replay(mock);
classUnderTest.removeDocument("Does not exist");
}
}
The mock is instantiated by the runner at step 1. It is then set by
the runner, to the listener field on step 2. The setUp method can be
removed since all the initialization was done by the runner.
public class First {
public First(){
}
public String doSecond(){
Second second = new Second();
return second.doJob();
}
}
class Second {
public String doJob(){
return "Do Something";
}
}
Here I want to test the method "doSecond()" of class "First". For the same, I want to mock the method "doJob" of class "Second".
I know that I can create a mocked instance of class "Second" using the code below.
Second sec = mock(Second.class);
when(sec.doJob()).thenReturn("Stubbed Second");
But I cannot relate this mocked instance with class "First" as of the current code.
Without refactoring the source code, is there any way by which i can achieve the requirement.
Please help.
Take a look at powermock's ability to intercept calls to new and return mocks instead
https://code.google.com/p/powermock/wiki/MockConstructor
This doesn't require changing any sourcecode.
here's the test code where we actually return a mock when First.doSecond() calls new Second()
#RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
#PrepareForTest(First.class)
public class TestFirst {
#Test
public void mockSecond() throws Exception{
Second mock = PowerMockito.mock(Second.class);
PowerMockito.whenNew(Second.class).withNoArguments().thenReturn(mock);
PowerMockito.when(mock.doSecond()).thenReturn("from mock");
First first = new First();
assertEquals("from mock", first.doSecond());
}
}
It's tricky to mock an instance that you create inside of a method, but it's possible.
Using PowerMock, you can accomplish this with the PowerMock.expectNew() method:
#RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
#PrepareForTest(First.class)
public class StackOverflowTest {
#Test
public void testFirst() throws Exception {
Second secondMock = EasyMock.createMock(Second.class);
PowerMock.expectNew(Second.class).andReturn(secondMock);
expect(secondMock.doSecond()).andReturn("Mocked!!!");
PowerMock.replay(secondMock, Second.class);
String actual = new First().doSecond();
PowerMock.verify(secondMock, Second.class);
assertThat(actual, equalTo("Mocked!!!"));
}
}
Effectively, PowerMock is proxying the creation of the new object and substituting whatever value we want when we invoke doSecond().
So, it's possible. However, this is a terrible practice to get into.
One typically wants to mock objects if they involve an outside concern, such as another layer (i.e. database, validation), or if the desired output is coming from other objects that are injected but are safe enough to consider tested.
If your method is capable of getting or retrieving data from a non-injectable source, you should not want to mock that out.
Considering that your method is simple and straightforward, you should really not need to do any mocks here at all. But if you felt that you were forced to, you could do one of a few things:
Create a factory for the creation of Second, and mock the results of the returning factory object with Mockito.
Pass in an instance of Second to that method, and use Mockito as the mock instance.
Declare it as a field (i.e. injected dependency), and use Mockito.
For completeness, here is how the test can be written with the JMockit mocking API, without any refactoring of the original code under test:
public class ExampleTest
{
#Test
public void firstShouldCallSecond(#Mocked final Second secondMock) {
new NonStrictExpectations() {{
secondMock.doJob(); result = "Mocked!!!";
}};
String actual = new First().doSecond();
assertEquals("Mocked!!!", actual);
}
}
Is it possible to mock a class object using Mockito and/or PowerMockito?
Something like:
Class<Runnable> mockRunnableClass = mock(Class<Runnable>.class);
An alternative to mocking Class might be to use a Factory instead. I know you are concerned about refactoring, but this could be done without changing the public API of the class. You haven't provided much code to understand the class you are trying to test, but here's an example of refactoring without changing the API. It's a trivial class, but it might give you an idea.
public class Instantiator {
public Runnable getNewInstance(Class<Runnable> runnableClass) throws Exception {
return runnableClass.newInstance();
}
}
Of course, the easiest thing to do to test this trivial class would be to use a genuine Runnable class, but if you tried to mock the Class, you would run into the problems you're having. So, you could refactor it thus:
public class PassThruFactory {
public Object newInstance(Class<?> clazz) throws Exception {
return clazz.newInstance();
}
}
public class Instantiator {
private PassThruFactory factory = new PassThruFactory();
public Runnable getNewInstance(Class<Runnable> runnableClass) throws Exception {
return (Runnable)factory.newInstance(runnableClass);
}
}
Now Instantiator does exactly the (trivially simple) thing it was doing before with the same public API and no need for any client of the class to do any special injecting of their own. However, if you wanted to mock the factory class and inject it, that's very easy to do.
why not using an agent if you can't refactor the code there isn't many options, as #jherics mentionned, java system classes are loaded by the bootstrap classloader and powermock can't redefine their bytecode.
However Powermock now coms with an agent, that will allow system classes mock. Check here for complete explanation.
The main idea is to modify your java command and add :
-javaagent: path/to/powermock-module-javaagent-1.4.12.jar
The basic thing this agent is doing is to definalize classes, to allow future mocking in a specific test, that's why you'll need to use specific types to communicate with the agent, for example with JUnit :
#Rule PowerMockRule rule = new PowerMockRule(); // found in the junit4 rule agent jar
TestNG is also supported. Just check the wiki page for more information.
Hope that helps.
First, as stated in the comments, you would need to do:
Class<Runnable> mockRunnableaClass = (Class<Runnable>)mock(Class.class);
But that won't work in the usual way because of a limitation with PowerMock. You cannot simply mock classes in from java.lang, java.net, java.io or other system classes because they're loaded by Java's bootstrap classloader and cannot be byte-code manipulated by PowerMock's classloader. (See PowerMock FAQ #4.) As of PowerMock 1.2.5, you can work around this. If the class you wanted to test was this:
public class ClassToTest {
private Class<Runnable> runnableClass;
public void setRunnableClass(Class<Runnable> runnableClass) {
this.runnableClass = runnableClass;
}
public Runnable foo() {
return runnableClass.newInstance();
}
}
Then you would do this:
#RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
#PrepareForTest({ ClassToTest.class }) // Prepare the calling class for test
public class SystemClassUserTest {
#Test
public void testFoo() throws Exception {
Class<Runnable> mockClass = (Class<Runnable>) mock(Class.class);
Runnable mockRunnable = mock(Runnable.class);
ClassToTest objectUT = new ClassToTest();
objectUT.setRunnableClass(mockClass);
when(mockClass.newInstance()).thenReturn(mockRunnable);
assertThat(objectUT.foo(), is(sameInstance(mockRunnable);
}
}
How about this. creating a get method of the has a Object (MS) in class PCService and then mock it.
public class PCService implements PCServiceIf {
public MSIf getMS() {
return ms;
}
private MSIf ms = new MS();
public boolean isMovieAccessibleToMyLevel(String myLevel, String movieId) {
return getMS().getPCL(movieId);
}
}
#Test
public void testIsMovieAccessibleToMyLevelMock() {
msMock = mock(MS.class);
spy = spy(new PCService());
doReturn(msMock).when(spy).getMS();
when(msMock.getPCL(movieId)).thenReturn(value);
when(spy.getMS().getPCL(movieId)).thenReturn(value);
assertTrue(spy.isMovieAccessibleToMyLevel("PG", movieId) == true);
}
How to spy parameter 'param' in nested method during getData() mock testing ?
Is it possible with Easymock 3 ?
Source code
public class ServiceLogic {
public void getData(){
// some business logic
serviceDAO.executeStatement(param);
}
}
Easymock test :
ServiceLogic _serviceLogicMock = EasyMock.createNiceMock(ServiceLogic.class);
ServiceDAO _serviceDAOMock = EasyMock.createNiceMock(ServiceDAO .class);
_serviceLogicMock.setServiceDAO(_serviceDAOMock);
//some other method calls -> .execute(...).andReturn(...);
EasyMock.replay(_serviceLogicMock);
//run
_serviceLogicMock.getData();
How to check with EasyMock whether executeStatement() method is called with correct parameter ?!
Your test does seem wrong:
Your unit test is about testing ServiceLogic why do you mock it then ?
Also you don't have any expectations on any interaction with your ServiceDAO mock.
As the question is tagged Mockito, I propose the following solution (minus the imports) that you can adapt to your code :
#RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
public class ServiceLogicTest {
#Mock ServiceDAO serviceDAO;
#InjectMocks ServiceLogic serviceLogic;
#Test
public void ensure_executeStatement_is_called_with_right_param() throws Exception {
// given
String input = "Some input";
// when
serviceLogic.getDataFrom(input);
// then
verify(serviceDAO).executeStatement("expected param");
}
}
When writing tests, I like to use the BDD (Behavior Driven Development) style to guide me to what I want to test. I encourage you to practice it, you can have look at the wiki page.
So for your question, you should take a look at the verify line, it put the mock in a verification mode, so can actually verify that the method executeStatement is actually called with the argument value "expected param".
If you have more complex parameters, you can use some matchers using the Hamcrest library:
verify(serviceDAO).executeStatement(argThat(hasProperty("propertyName")));
Or you can use a Mockito's ArgumentCaptor in combination with the FEST-Assert library (usually my preferred approach):
ArgumentCaptor<ComplexArgument> argCaptor = ArgumentCaptor.forClass(ComplexArgument.class);
verify(serviceDAO).executeStatement(argCaptor.capture());
assertThat(argCaptor.getValue()).isNotNull().satisfies(myComplexArgumentCondition());
The main idea is to have understandable code, in production code and in test code.
For further reading have a look at the Mockito Javadoc.
Like #Brice, I prefer Mockito to EasyMock, but here's the EasyMock version that is closer to your original example since your example was EasyMock.
public class ServiceLogicTest {
#Test
public void ensure_executeStatement_is_called_with_right_param() throws Exception {
ServiceLogic _serviceLogicUT = new ServiceLogic();
ServiceDAO _serviceDAOMock = EasyMock.createNiceMock(ServiceDAO .class);
_serviceLogicUT.setServiceDAO(_serviceDAOMock);
String input = "Some input";
//some other method calls -> .execute(...).andReturn(...);
_serviceDaoMock.executeStatement("expected para"); // assuming a void method
EasyMock.replay(_serviceDaoMock);
// run
_serviceLogicUT.getDataFrom(input);
// verifies that the expected calls were made
EasyMock.verify(_serviceDaoMock);
}
}
EasyMock also has argument capture functionality. That would look like this:
public class ServiceLogicTest {
#Test
public void ensure_executeStatement_is_called_with_right_param() throws Exception {
ServiceLogic _serviceLogicUT = new ServiceLogic();
ServiceDAO _serviceDAOMock = EasyMock.createNiceMock(ServiceDAO .class);
_serviceLogicUT.setServiceDAO(_serviceDAOMock);
String input = "Some input";
//some other method calls -> .execute(...).andReturn(...);
Capture<ComplexParam> capturedParam = new Capture<ComplexParam>();
_serviceDaoMock.executeStatement(EasyMock.capture(capturedParam)); // assuming a void method
EasyMock.replay(_serviceDaoMock);
// run
_serviceLogicUT.getDataFrom(input);
ComplexParam actualParam = capturedParam.getValue();
// make various assertions on actual param
}
}
I think you can see from the two examples why many people prefer Mockito, but if there's some reason you prefer or are mandated to use EasyMock, you can do just about anything you can do with Mockito, just with more lines of code.
This should be possible with jmockit, unless you DAO has final methods. However, this is better and easier done with jMockit:
#Test
public void testMethod(#Mocked final ServiceDAO serviceDAO) {
new Expectations() {{
serviceDAO.executeStatement(expectedOParams);returns(expectedReturnValue)
}};
(new ServiceLogic(serviceDAO)).getData();
}
That's almost complete test save assertions. And it works with final, static, abstract and whatever methods.