How do I use Hamcrest to test for an exception? According to a comment in https://code.google.com/p/hamcrest/wiki/Tutorial, "Exception handling is provided by Junit 4 using the expected attribute."
So I tried this and found that it worked:
public class MyObjectifyUtilTest {
#Test
public void shouldFindFieldByName() throws MyObjectifyNoSuchFieldException {
String fieldName = "status";
String field = MyObjectifyUtil.getField(DownloadTask.class, fieldName);
assertThat(field, equalTo(fieldName));
}
#Test(expected=MyObjectifyNoSuchFieldException.class)
public void shouldThrowExceptionBecauseFieldDoesNotExist() throws MyObjectifyNoSuchFieldException {
String fieldName = "someMissingField";
String field = MyObjectifyUtil.getField(DownloadTask.class, fieldName);
assertThat(field, equalTo(fieldName));
}
}
Does Hamcrest provide any additional functionality above and beyond the #Test(expected=...) annotation from JUnit?
While someone asked about this in Groovy (How to use Hamcrest to test for exception?), my question is for unit tests written in Java.
Do you really need to use the Hamcrest library?
If not, here's how you do it with Junit's support for exception testing. The ExpectedException class has a lot of methods that you can use to do what you want beyond checking the type of the thrown Exception.
You can use the Hamcrest matchers in combination with this to assert something specific, but it's better to let Junit expect the thrown exceptions.
public class MyObjectifyUtilTest {
// create a rule for an exception grabber that you can use across
// the methods in this test class
#Rule
public ExpectedException exceptionGrabber = ExpectedException.none();
#Test
public void shouldThrowExceptionBecauseFieldDoesNotExist() throws MyObjectifyNoSuchFieldException {
String fieldName = "someMissingField";
// a method capable of throwing MyObjectifyNoSuchFieldException too
doSomething();
// assuming the MyObjectifyUtil.getField would throw the exception,
// I'm expecting an exception to be thrown just before that method call
exceptionGrabber.expect(MyObjectifyNoSuchFieldException.class);
MyObjectifyUtil.getField(DownloadTask.class, fieldName);
...
}
}
This approach better than the
#Test (expected=...) approach because #Test (expected=...) only
tests if the method execution halts by throwing the given exception,
not if the call you wanted to throw the exception threw one. For example, the test will succeed even if doSomething method threw the MyObjectifyNoSuchFieldException exception which may not be desirable
You get to test more than just the type of the exception being thrown. For example, you could check for a particular exception instance or exception message and so on
The try/catch block approach, because of readability and conciseness.
I couldn't implement it in a nice way if counting assertion error descriptions (probably this is why Hamcrest does not provide such a feature), but if you're playing well with Java 8 then you might want something like this (however I don't think it would be ever used because of the issues described below):
IThrowingRunnable
This interface is used to wrap code that could potentially throw exceptions. Callable<E> might be used as well, but the latter requires a value to be returned, so I think that a runnable ("void-callable") is more convenient.
#FunctionalInterface
public interface IThrowingRunnable<E extends Throwable> {
void run()
throws E;
}
FailsWithMatcher
This class implements a matcher that requires the given callback to throw an exception. A disadvantage of this implementation is that having a callback throwing an unexpected exception (or even not throwing a single) does not describe what's wrong and you'd see totally obscure error messages.
public final class FailsWithMatcher<EX extends Throwable>
extends TypeSafeMatcher<IThrowingRunnable<EX>> {
private final Matcher<? super EX> matcher;
private FailsWithMatcher(final Matcher<? super EX> matcher) {
this.matcher = matcher;
}
public static <EX extends Throwable> Matcher<IThrowingRunnable<EX>> failsWith(final Class<EX> throwableType) {
return new FailsWithMatcher<>(instanceOf(throwableType));
}
public static <EX extends Throwable> Matcher<IThrowingRunnable<EX>> failsWith(final Class<EX> throwableType, final Matcher<? super EX> throwableMatcher) {
return new FailsWithMatcher<>(allOf(instanceOf(throwableType), throwableMatcher));
}
#Override
protected boolean matchesSafely(final IThrowingRunnable<EX> runnable) {
try {
runnable.run();
return false;
} catch ( final Throwable ex ) {
return matcher.matches(ex);
}
}
#Override
public void describeTo(final Description description) {
description.appendText("fails with ").appendDescriptionOf(matcher);
}
}
ExceptionMessageMatcher
This is a sample matcher to make a simple check for the thrown exception message.
public final class ExceptionMessageMatcher<EX extends Throwable>
extends TypeSafeMatcher<EX> {
private final Matcher<? super String> matcher;
private ExceptionMessageMatcher(final Matcher<String> matcher) {
this.matcher = matcher;
}
public static <EX extends Throwable> Matcher<EX> exceptionMessage(final String message) {
return new ExceptionMessageMatcher<>(is(message));
}
#Override
protected boolean matchesSafely(final EX ex) {
return matcher.matches(ex.getMessage());
}
#Override
public void describeTo(final Description description) {
description.appendDescriptionOf(matcher);
}
}
And the test sample itself
#Test
public void test() {
assertThat(() -> emptyList().get(0), failsWith(IndexOutOfBoundsException.class, exceptionMessage("Index: 0")));
assertThat(() -> emptyList().set(0, null), failsWith(UnsupportedOperationException.class));
}
Note that this approach:
... is test-runner-independent
... allows to specify multiple assertions in a single test
And the worst thing, a typical fail will look like
java.lang.AssertionError:
Expected: fails with (an instance of java.lang.IndexOutOfBoundsException and is "Index: 0001")
but: was <foo.bar.baz.FailsWithMatcherTest$$Lambda$1/127618319#6b143ee9>
Maybe using a custom implementation of the assertThat() method could fix it.
I suppose the cleanest way is to define a function like
public static Throwable exceptionOf(Callable<?> callable) {
try {
callable.call();
return null;
} catch (Throwable t) {
return t;
}
}
somewhere and then e.g. call
assertThat(exceptionOf(() -> callSomethingThatShouldThrow()),
instanceOf(TheExpectedException.class));
perhaps also using something like the ExceptionMessageMatcher of this answer.
Since junit 4.13 you can use its Assert.assertThrows, like this:
import static org.junit.Assert.assertThrows;
...
MyObjectifyNoSuchFieldException ex = assertThrows(MyObjectifyNoSuchFieldException.class, () -> MyObjectifyUtil.getField(DownloadTask.class, fieldName));
// now you can go further and assert things about the exception ex
// if MyObjectifyUtil.getField(...) does not throw exception, the test will fail right at assertThrows
In my opinion this sort of exceptions asserting is superior to #Test(expected=MyObjectifyNoSuchFieldException.class) because you can:
further assert things about the exception itself;
assert things about side effects (in your mocks, for example);
continue your test case.
You should use junit-utils, which does contain an ExceptionMatcher that can be used together with Hamcrest's assertThat() method.
Example 1:
assertThat(() -> MyObjectifyNoSuchFieldException.class,
throwsException(MyObjectifyNoSuchFieldException.class));
Example 2:
assertThat(() -> myObject.doStuff(null),
throwsException(MyObjectifyNoSuchFieldException.class)
.withMessageContaining("ERR-120008"));
Additional details here: obvj.net/junit-utils
In addition to the above.
if you change the interfaces to ... extends Exception, you can throw an Error like this:
#Override
protected boolean matchesSafely(final IThrowingRunnable<EX> runnable) {
try {
runnable.run();
throw new Error("Did not throw Exception");
} catch (final Exception ex) {
return matcher.matches(ex);
}
}
trace will look like this:
java.lang.Error: Did not throw Exception
at de.test.test.FailsWithMatcher.matchesSafely(FailsWithMatcher.java:31)
at de.test.test.FailsWithMatcher.matchesSafely(FailsWithMatcher.java:1)
at org.hamcrest.TypeSafeMatcher.matches(TypeSafeMatcher.java:65)
at org.hamcrest.MatcherAssert.assertThat(MatcherAssert.java:12)
at org.junit.Assert.assertThat(Assert.java:956)
at org.junit.Assert.assertThat(Assert.java:923)
at
...
Related
I'm looking for a way to cause a succeed through an custom exception without expecting it all the time in junit4. Is this possible with a testrule or something, without touching every single testcase?
I know these options exist but then the exception is expected and the test fails, if no exception is thrown. I want the test to continue even if no exception is thrown and just use the exception to end the test in some special cases through aspectj.
#Test(TestSuccessException.class)
public void testCase() {
...
}
public class TestClass{
#Rule
public ExpectedException thrown = ExpectedException.none();
#Test
public void someTest() {
thrown.expect(MyRuntimeException.class);
...
}
}
As far as the junit4 source code looks, there isn't a way to achieve this.
The only way I found is by customizing the runner itself.
So something like this:
public class CustomTestRunner extends Runner {
private Class testClass;
public CustomTestRunner(Class testClass) {
super();
this.testClass = testClass;
}
#Override
public Description getDescription() {
return Description.EMPTY;
}
#Override
public void run(RunNotifier notifier) {
// Load all methods with #Test annotation from the given class and fire the execution
try {
Object testObject = testClass.getConstructor().newInstance();
for (Method method : testClass.getMethods()) {
if (method.isAnnotationPresent(Test.class)) {
fire(notifier, testObject, method);
}
}
} catch (Exception e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
private void fire(RunNotifier notifier, Object testObject, Method method) throws IllegalAccessException, InvocationTargetException {
notifier.fireTestStarted(Description
.createTestDescription(testClass, method.getName()));
try {
// Call the test method
method.invoke(testObject);
} catch (InvocationTargetException e) {
// method.invoke wraps the original exception with InvocationTargetException
// The original exception is accessible via getCause()
// Check if the type of the original exception is the custom "early exist" exception
// If it doesn't match, throw the exception again; otherwise, ignore and mark the test as successful
if (!(e.getCause() instanceof EndTestEarlyException)) {
throw e;
}
}
notifier.fireTestFinished(Description
.createTestDescription(testClass, method.getName()));
}
}
You can use this by annotating the Test class as follows:
#RunWith(CustomTestRunner.class)
class MyIntegrationTest {
...
}
Note: Runner is the most generic Runner possible.
You could also attempt overriding a more specific runner if you already use one.
Edit:
As you are working with legacy, I intentionally tried not to use newer language features, like generics (Class<?>).
The solution is based on this baeldung article.
Junit5
Last but not least:
This is probably not relevant in your particular case but might be interesting for future readers.
If you manage to upgrade to Junit5, you could handle this within an extension.
You could implement a custom extension like this:
public class IgnoreEndTestEarlyException implements TestExecutionExceptionHandler {
#Override
public void handleTestExecutionException(ExtensionContext context,
Throwable throwable) throws Throwable {
if (throwable instanceof EndTestEarlyException ) {
return;
}
throw throwable;
}
}
And use it like this:
#ExtendWith(IgnoreEndTestEarlyException.class)
public class MyIntegrationTest
I tend to create another annotation (something like #IntegrationTest), put the #ExtendsWith on there, and use the new annotation.
It would be cleaner and easier to add multiple extensions.
You can run Junit4 and Junit5 within the same module, but you must replace all annotations within your integration test suit.
It might not be worth the effort for multiple thousand tests.
For Junit4 I found a better solution for my usecase. Just override the runChild Method from BlockJUnit4ClassRunner and add a try catch for the EndTestEarlyException.
#Override
protected void runChild(final FrameworkMethod method, RunNotifier notifier) {
Description description = describeChild(method);
if (isIgnored(method)) {
notifier.fireTestIgnored(description);
} else {
Statement statement = new Statement() {
#Override
public void evaluate() throws Throwable {
try {
methodBlock(method).evaluate();
} catch (EndTestEarlyException e) {
System.out.println("EndTestEarlyException - ignore");
}
}
};
runLeaf(statement, description, notifier);
}
}
In a project I am working at, I have found a class which wraps all methods of its super-class in some elaborate exception handling. It looks similar to that:
public void method1() throws ExceptionA {
String exceptionString = "";
try {
super.method1();
} catch (ExceptionA e) {
exceptionString = // <convert the exception to string in an elaborate way>
throw e;
} finally {
// <an elaborate logger call which uses value of exceptionString>
}
}
public void method2() throws ExceptionB, ExceptionC {
String exceptionString = "";
try {
super.method2();
} catch (ExceptionB | ExceptionC e) {
exceptionString = // <convert the exception to string in elaborate way>
throw e;
} finally {
// <an elaborate logger call which uses value of exceptionString>
}
}
// ... <a bunch of other methods like this>
I immediately though "Wow, how could would it be to have one generic wrapper and just call it in every of these methods. The class would be like 10x shorter!".
So I got to work.
This is where I got stuck:
private interface ThrowingMethod<E extends Exception> {
void run() throws E;
}
public <E extends Exception> void wrapMethod(ThrowingMethod<E> method) throws E {
String exceptionString = "";
try {
method.run();
} catch (Exception e) {
exceptionString = // <convert the exception to string in an elaborate way>
throw e;
} finally {
// <an elaborate logger call which uses value of exceptionString>
}
}
public void method1() throws ExceptionA {
wrapMethod(super::method1); // works
}
public void method2() throws ExceptionB, ExceptionC {
wrapMethod(super::method2); // Error in Eclipse: "Unhandled exception type Exception"
}
// ... <a bunch of other methods like this>
In conclusion, this approach works for methods that throws only one type of checked exception. When method throws multiple checked exceptions, Java assumes that the exception type is Exception.
I tried to add more generic parameters to ThrowingMethod and wrapMethod but it doesn't change anything.
How can I get a functional interface to work with multiple generic exceptions?
When you expand your interface to use two type variables, i.e.
private static interface ThrowingMethod<E1 extends Exception,E2 extends Exception> {
void run() throws E1, E2;
}
public <E1 extends Exception,E2 extends Exception>
void wrapMethod(ThrowingMethod<E1,E2> method) throws E1,E2 {
// same as before
}
the rules regarding the type inference do not change and they are the same for both type variables. E.g. you can still use
public void method1() throws ExceptionA {
wrapMethod(super::method1);
}
as before, as the compiler simply infers the same single exception type for both type variables.
For the method declaring two exceptions, it won’t pick up one for the first type variable and the other for the second; there is no rule which could tell the compiler which exception to use for which type variable.
But you can help the compiler out in this case, e.g.
public void method2() throws ExceptionB, ExceptionC {
wrapMethod((ThrowingMethod<ExceptionB, ExceptionC>)super::method2);
}
which is the best you can get with this approach.
So your goal is just to wrap a bunch of methods with logging? A typical way to handle this is with AOP. You'd just create a single pointcut that matches all those methods, and you wouldn't have a bunch of repeated boilerplate. No need for those interfaces or wrapping methods.
According to
Cannot Create, Catch, or Throw Objects of Parameterized Types (Java Tutorials):
You can, however, use a type parameter in a throws clause:
class Parser<T extends Exception> {
public void parse(File file) throws T { // OK
// ...
}
}
But why would you want to? You can't construct T here. If you inject T after building it outside, isn't its stack trace going to be all wrong? Were they simply documenting a feature that happened to work regardless of it's usefulness?
Why not
class FooParser extends Parser<FooException> {
public void parse(File file) throws FooException {
throw new FooException("Not Supported");
}
}
You could have
public class ExceptionWithPayload<T> extends Exception {
private final T payload;
public ExceptionWithPayload(T payload) {
this.payload = payload;
}
public T getPayload(){
return payload;
}
}
and then in some other class, you could write
throw new ExceptionWithPayload<MyClass>(myObject);
so as to be able to pass any object you like back to the thing that catches the exception, but with type checking in the catch clause.
You can throw checked exceptions where it was not expected with the sneaky throw trick: http://rdafbn.blogspot.hu/2013/07/lomboks-sneaky-throws.html
Or without magic: http://www.mail-archive.com/javaposse#googlegroups.com/msg05984.html
I'll try to provide a hackneyed, useless example that reduces the problem nicely :-)
I have a GenericException, and a MoreSpecificException which extends GenericException.
I need to test that SomeService.doThis() throws a MoreSpecificException. JUnit lets me do this elegantly like so.
#Test(expected = MoreSpecificException.class)
public void testDoThis() throws GenericException {
new SomeService().doThis();
}
However, I also need to test that SomeService.doThat() throws a GenericException, so I tried this.
#Test(expected = GenericException.class)
public void testDoThat() throws GenericException {
new SomeService().doThat();
}
However, I found that if doThat() actually throws a MoreSpecificException then the second test still passes. I assume this is because MoreSpecificException is a GenericException and the annotation is implemented to respect that relationship.
While this is a sensible default behaviour, I don't want this. I want to test that doThat() throws a GenericException and only a GenericException. If it throws a MoreSpecificException or any other subclass of GenericException, I want the test to fail.
Reading the docs it doesn't seem I can do anything with the annotation to change this behaviour, so looks like I'll have to use another solution.
At the moment I'm resorting to the following ugly solution - EDIT made significantly less ugly by Nathan Hughes' answer :-)
#Test
public void testDoThat() {
try {
new SomeService().doThat();
Assert.fail();
} catch(GenericException ex) {
Assert.assertEquals(GenericException.class, ex.getClass());
}
}
Is there a more elegant way to achieve what I want within the JUnit framework?
BDD Style Solution
JUnit 4 + Catch Exception + AssertJ
The most elegant solution ;) Readable, without boilerplate code.
#Test
public void testDoThat() {
when(new SomeService()).doThat();
then(caughtException()).isExactlyInstanceOf(GenericException.class);
}
The code is identical for FEST Assertions 2 + Catch-Exceptions.
Source code
https://gist.github.com/mariuszs/7489706
Dependencies
org.assertj:assertj-core:1.4.0
com.googlecode.catch-exception:catch-exception:1.2.0
You can assert that the class of the Exception is what you expect:
#Test
public void testDoThat() {
try {
new SomeService().doThat();
Assert.fail();
} catch(GenericException ex) {
assertEquals(GenericException.class, ex.getClass());
}
}
Also got rid of the flag, instead having the test fail if no exception is thrown.
You can use the ExpectedException rule and a custom Hamcrest matcher that specifies which class can be thrown.
The following test will print that you expected an instance of RuntimeException, but got an IllegalArgumentException.
#Rule
public ExpectedException thrown = ExpectedException.none();
#Test
public void testThrows() {
thrown.expect(isClass(RuntimeException.class));
throw new IllegalArgumentException("FAKE");
}
public class ClassMatchMatcher extends BaseMatcher<Object> {
private final Class<?> expectedClass;
private ClassMatchMatcher(Class<?> expectedClass) {
this.expectedClass = expectedClass;
}
#Override
public boolean matches(Object item) {
return expectedClass.equals(item.getClass());
}
#Override
public void describeTo(Description description) {
description.appendText("an instance of ")
.appendText(expectedClass.getName());
}
}
public class ExtraMatchers {
public static Matcher<Object> isClass(Class<?> aClass) {
return new ClassMatchMatcher(aClass);
}
}
Edit: Added a static factory method to make the test code cleaner.
I'm using EasyMock to create mock objects for JUnit testing in Java. I create a mock object and pass it to another thread where it expects methods to be called. In the other thread, the calls are enclosed in a try/catch(Throwable) block, so when an unexpected call occurs on the mock and it thus throws AssertionError, that error is caught by the catch block and treated. So, even though an unexpected call occurred, the test passes.
In order to have the test fail as expected, I would like to delay all verification of calls to the EasyMock.verify(mock) call made in the test-runner thread at the end. Is this possible and how?
I'm not sure about how to do this with EasyMock, but this behavior is possible with Mockito because verification assertions can be specified at the end of the test.
The correct solution I'd guess is to stop catching Throwable. Doing so catches all Errors as you're finding, which can be quite dangerous... are you absolutely positively 100% sure you need to catch Throwable? Why?
(If it turns out you do, you could catch AssertionError specifically and rethrow it. But that's ugly!)
Try using nice mocks:
http://easymock.org/EasyMock2_5_2_Documentation.html
"Nice Mocks
On a Mock Object returned by createMock() the default behavior for all methods is to throw an AssertionError for all unexpected method calls. If you would like a "nice" Mock Object that by default allows all method calls and returns appropriate empty values (0, null or false), use createNiceMock() instead. "
Default values will be returned for unexpected calls instead of throwing AssertionError, but you can still verify them with the verify() method (in which case the AssertionErrors will be thrown)
As #deterb suggested, it's possible with Mockito but you have to know the method name or you have to set expectations for every method. Here is an example:
The mocked interface:
public interface MyInterface {
void allowedMethod();
void disallowedMethod();
}
The user class which catches AssertionError:
public class UserClass {
public UserClass() {
}
public static void throwableCatcher(final MyInterface myInterface) {
try {
myInterface.allowedMethod();
myInterface.disallowedMethod();
} catch (final Throwable t) {
System.out.println("Catched throwable: " + t.getMessage());
}
}
}
And the Mockito test:
#Test
public void testMockito() throws Exception {
final MyInterface myInterface = mock(MyInterface.class);
UserClass.throwableCatcher(myInterface);
verify(myInterface, never()).disallowedMethod(); // fails here
}
The same is possible with EasyMock but it needs some work:
#Test
public void testEasyMock() throws Exception {
final AtomicBoolean called = new AtomicBoolean();
final MyInterface myInterface = createMock(MyInterface.class);
myInterface.allowedMethod();
myInterface.disallowedMethod();
final IAnswer<? extends Object> answer = new IAnswer<Object>() {
#Override
public Object answer() throws Throwable {
System.out.println("answer");
called.set(true);
throw new AssertionError("should not call");
}
};
expectLastCall().andAnswer(answer).anyTimes();
replay(myInterface);
UserClass.throwableCatcher(myInterface);
verify(myInterface);
assertFalse("called", called.get()); // fails here
}
Unfortunately you also have to know the method names here and you have to define expectations like myInterface.disallowedMethod() and expectLastCall().andAnswer(answer).anyTimes().
Another possibility is creating a proxy with the Proxy class (with a custom InvocationHandler) and using it as a mock object. It definitely needs more work but it could be the most customizable solution.
Finally don't forget that it's also possible to create a custom implementation with or without delegation to the EasyMock mock object. Here is one with delegation:
public class MockedMyInterface implements MyInterface {
private final MyInterface delegate;
private final AtomicBoolean called = new AtomicBoolean();
public MockedMyInterface(final MyInterface delegate) {
this.delegate = delegate;
}
#Override
public void allowedMethod() {
delegate.allowedMethod();
}
#Override
public void disallowedMethod() {
called.set(true);
throw new AssertionError("should not call");
}
public boolean isCalled() {
return called.get();
}
}
And the test for it:
#Test
public void testEasyMockWithCustomClass() throws Exception {
final MyInterface myInterface = createMock(MyInterface.class);
myInterface.allowedMethod();
final MockedMyInterface mockedMyInterface =
new MockedMyInterface(myInterface);
replay(myInterface);
UserClass.throwableCatcher(mockedMyInterface);
verify(myInterface);
assertFalse("called", mockedMyInterface.isCalled()); // fails here
}