I call a method passing a parameter. If this parameter is equal to something particular then a thread is started doing something repeatedly until it is stopped. In every repetition some values are changed.
Is there any way to check these values from JUnit?
If you are spawning threads you are not unit testing anymore - you are integration testing. Refactor your code so that the logic that changes this 'value' can be tested without the thread spawning. If it works without spawning a thread then it will work when spawning threads (I know I've set myself up for a lecture on that one... You will need to make sure you are properly synchronizing any potentially shared variables and don't have any code that could cause a deadlock).
Without seeing the code it is difficult to try to suggest ways to test it. However, you are definitely not unit testing if you are spawning threads.
If you are trying to test to see if each iteration modified the values appropriately, then call the iteration code with the expected inputs and test the expected outputs. Test each peice in isolation:
pseudo java code:
for each (file : files) {
doSomething(file); // this updates some running totals or something
}
Then you want to write some unit tests that call your doSomething() on each input you want to test and see if the values update appropriately (mock where necessary). Then do an integration test where you let the thread spawn and check the resulting values.
Related
I have a scenario where two functionalities run parallel.
Below is sample pseudo code.
MainActor{
// retrive company ids
//for each company id i need to run another two different actions simultaniously
tell(A_Actor)
tell(B_Actor)
//if I call above they are calling sequentially i.e. first it runs tell(A_Actor)
//then comes to tell(B_Actor).
//If tell(A_Actor) fails it wont run tell(B_Actor).
}
A_Actor{
// do ingest into a file.
}
B_Actor{
// do ingest into a DB.
}
Question :
How to run two functionalities i.e. tell(A_Actor) & tell(B_Actor) run parallel?
The tell method is asynchronous. When you fire a tellto actorA, it doesn't wait until actorA finishes or crashes to execute the next action, which here is to tell actorB
If you need to paralelize the two tell methods, then you can do the following :
val tellActions = Vector(() => actorA.tell(messageA, senderActor), () => actorB.tell(messageB, senderActor))
tellActions.par.foreach(_.apply())
Note that this is Scala code
This has been pointed out in several comments (including mine), but I felt it deserved an answer.
In short, you need to distinguish between calling the tell method in parallel with the functionality that the actors execute within their receive methods being executed in parallel. The functionality will be executed in parallel automatically, and calling the tell method in parallel doesn't make any sense.
The code you show will execute the ingest in a file and ingest into the DB in parallel. This is automatic and requires no action on your part; this is how actors and tell works. And, despite what you say, if something goes wrong with the file ingestion it will not affect the ingestion into the DB. (Assuming you built the actors and messages correctly, since you don't list their implementation.)
The tell method is asynchronous: it returns nearly immediately and doesn't do the actual logic (ingestion in this case): the only thing it does is place the message in the recipient's mailbox. Ismail's answer, in theory, shows you how you could "invoke tell" in parallel, but in that example you "sequentially" are creating the array that is used for parallel tells and the whole process will be very inefficient.) His code, while technically doing what you ask, is nonsensical in practice: it accomplishes nothing except slowing the code down significantly.
In short, I think you either:
Have something fundamentally wrong with your actors and how you are calling them.
You are actually are executing the functionality in parallel and you just aren't realizing it because you are measuring/observing something incorrectly.
I have a problem with running JUnit tests on my server. When I run the test on my machine, there is no problem at all. When I run it on the server, there is a failure on all my server "sometimes". It means tests pass sometimes in 60% of attempts and 40% fail.
I am using Mockito. My test starts with mocking some replies using MessageListener and map every request to a response and under the hood I am using Collections.synchronizedSet(new HashSet<>()) which is thread-safe.(Every modification on my synchronizedSet happens in a synchronized(mySynchronizedSet){....}) Then, I am using RestAssurd to get the response of a particular REST endpoint and assert some values.
When a test fails and I look on the Stacktrace, I see that one of my mappings (always on the same object) didn't work and there is no map between this specific request and response in my collection and naturally, I get null on requesting this endpoint.
I am using Jenkins to automate the compilation and running the test and I get the stack trace on fail or my Printlns otherwise, there are no debug facilities available.
It sounds like a concurrency problem to me. I mean it seems my collection does not have time to get ready before RestAssurd request for an endpoint. I've tested locks, sleep, and another simple java concurrency solutions but they don't help and the probabilistic character of this problem has led me to a dead end.
Every thought will be appreciated.
Judging by what you said, it seems you have a misunderstanding of how things work in 3 specific cases.
First
and most obvious, and I apologize for even mentioning this, but the reason that I do at all is because I'm gathering that you're still learning (I apologize further if you're not still learning! and at the same rate, you might not have even implied it with the way I read it, so sorry if I misread): you aren't compiling with Jenkins, you're compiling with whatever JDK flavor you have on your machine (be it Oracle, Apple, GCJ, etc). Jenkins is an automation tool that helps facilitate your tedious jobs you expect to run regularly. I only mention this because I know college students nowadays use IDE's in there opening classes and can't distinguish between the compiler, the runtime, and the IDE.
Secondly
by using a threadsafe library, it doesn't automatically make everything you do inherently threadsafe. Consider the following example:
final Map<Object, Object> foo = Collections.synchronizedMap(new HashMap <>());
final String bar = "bar";
foo.put(bar, new Object());
new Thread(new Runnable(){
#Override
public void run(){
foo.remove(bar);
}
}).start();
new Thread(new Runnable(){
#Override
public void run(){
if(foo.containsKey(bar)){
foo.get(bar).toString();
}
}
}).start();
There is no guarantee that the second thread's call to #get(Object) will happen before or after the first thread's call to #remove(Object). Consider that
the second thread could call #containsKey(Object)
then the first thread obtains CPU time and calls #remove(Object)
then the second thread now has CPU time and calls #get(Object)
at this point, the returned value from get(Object) will be null, and the call to #toString() will result in a NullPointerDereference. You say you're using Set, so this example using a Map is mainly to prove a point: just because you're using a threadsafe collection, doesn't automatically make everything you do threadsafe. I imagine there are things you are doing with your set that match this sort of behavior, but without code snippets, I can only speculate.
And Lastly
You should be careful with how you write JUnits. A proper JUnit test is what's called a "whitebox" test. In otherwords, you know everything that is happening in the test, and you are explicitly testing everything that is happening in only the unit under test. The unit under test is just the method you are calling - not the methods that are called by your method, only the method itself. What that means, is that you need a good mocking framework, and mock out any subsequent method calls that your unit under test may invoke. Some good frameworks are JMockit, Mockito+PowerMock, etc.
The importance of this is that your test is supposed to test your isolated code. If you're allowing network access, disk access, etc, then your test may fail and it may have nothing to do with code you wrote, and it invalidates the test entirely. In your case, you hint at network access, so imagine that there is some throughput issue with your switches/router/etc, or that your NIC buffer gets full and can't process fast enough for what your program is trying to do. Sure, the failure is not good, and should be fixed, but that should be tested in "blackbox" testing. Your tests should be written so that you eliminate these sort of issues from being present and only test your code in the particular method for the unit under test, and nothing else.
Edit: I actually posted an answer to a separate discussion about whitebox testing that might be relevant: Is using a test entity manager a legitamate testing practice?
I have implemented a method that executes some logic, after a certain amount of time, using a TimerTask and Timer.schedule.
I want to verify this behaviour using Junit, however, I would like to know if there are better ways to test it, without using thread sleeping, or measuring time.
Thanks.
You can use a "own thread" excecutor service to get around the "multiple threads" complications.
You can further test that some class A pushes tasks into such a service; and you can also use unit tests to ensure that the parameters used when pushing tasks are what you expect them to be.
In other words: you really don't want to use unit tests to prove that scheduling is working (assuming that you didn't completely re-invent the wheel and you implemented your own scheduling ... which is something that you simply should not do). You want use unit tests to prove that your code is using existing (well tested) frameworks with the arguments you expect to see.
Suppose I want to manually run from my IDE (Intellij IDEA, or eclipse) 4000 JUnit tests; the first 1000 tests run pretty smoothly (say they take 3 minutes all 1000) but the test 1001 takes alone over 30 minutes.
Is there a way I can skip the test 1001 (while it's still running) and to let the test 1002 (and the others) keep going. I do not want to #Ignore the test 1001 and rerun the suite because I already have the answer for tests 1-1000; also I do not want to select tests 1001-4000 because it takes too much time.
I would some kind of button - Skip Current Test - which can be pressed when the test is running.
In case such feature does not exist, an enhancement for it needs to be done by the IDE developers or by JUnit developers?
This is actually pretty simple with JUnit 4 using Assume. Assume is a helper class like Assert. The difference is that Assert will make the test fail while Assume will skip it.
The common use case is Assume.assumeTrue( isWindows() ) for tests that only work on, say, a Windows file system.
So what you can do is define a system property skipSlowTests and add
Assume.assumeTrue( Boolean.getBoolean("skipSlowTests") )
at the beginning of slow tests that you usually want to skip. Create an Eclipse launch configuration which defines the property to true and you have a convenient way to switch between the two.
If you want to run a slow test, select the method in Eclipse (or the whole class) and use "Run as JUnit Test" from the context menu. Since the property is false by default, the tests will be run.
No, you cannot skip tests if they are already running.
What I suggest you do is use Categories to separate your slow tests from the rest of your tests.
For example:
public interface SlowTests {
}
public class MyTest {
#Test
public void test1{
}
#Category(SlowTests.class)
#Test
public void test1001{
// this is a slow test
}
}
Create a test suite for the fast tests.
#RunWith(Categories.class)
#ExcludeCategory(SlowTests.class)
#SuiteClasses(MyTest.class)
public class FastTestSuite {
}
Now execute the FastTestSuite if you don't want to run the slow tests (e.g. test1001). Execute MyTest as normal if you want to run all the tests.
What you're asking for is to stop executing your code while it is in mid test. You can't stop executing a current test without having hooks in your code to allow it. Your best solution is to use Categories as others have suggested.
Basically, JUnit executes all of the #Before methods (including #Rules), then your #Test method, then the #After methods (again, including #Rules). Even assuming that JUnit had a mechanism for stopping execution of it's bits of the code (which it doesn't), most of the time is spent in your code. So to 'skip' a test which has already started requires you to modify your test code (and potentially the code that it's testing) in order that you can cleanly stop it. Cleanly stopping an executing thread is a question in itself [*].
So what are your options?
Run the tests in parallel, then you don't have to wait as long for the tests to finish. This may work, but parallelizing the tests may well be a lot of work.
Stop execution of the tests, and fix the one that's you're working on. Most IDEs have an option to kill the JVM in which the tests are running. This is definitely the easiest option.
Implement your own test runner, which runs the test in a separate thread. This test runner then either waits for the thread to finish executing, or checks a flag somewhere which would be a signal for it to stop. This sounds complicated, because you need t manage your threads but also to set the flag in a running jvm. Maybe creating a file somewhere? This runner would then fail the currently running test, and you could move on to the next. Please note that 'stopping' a test midway may leave stuff in an inconsistent state, or you may end up executing stuff in parallel.
There are parallel JUnit runners out there, and I don't think you're going to get much help from IDE developers (at least in the short term). Also, look at TestNG, which allows stuff to be run in parallel.
For using categories, one solution I use is to run the long running tests separately using maven surefire or similar, not through the IDE. This involves checking out the source code somewhere else on my machine and building there.
[*]: Java, how to stop threads, Regarding stopping of a thread
I think a more common solution is to have two test suites: one for the fast tests and another for the slow ones. This is typically the way you divide unit tests (fast) and integration tests (slow).
It's highly unlikely that you'll get modifications to JUnit or IntelliJ for something like this. Better to change the way you use them - it'll get you to an answer faster.
You can modify your thest and do something like
public void theTest(){
if (System.getProperty("skipMyTest") == null){
//execute the test
}
}
and pass the environment variable if you want to skip the test
I'd like to know if there are some unit testing frameworks which are capable of writing multi-threaded tests easily?
I would imagine something like:
invoke a special test method by n threads at the same time for m times. After all test threads finished, an assertion method where some constraints should be validated would be invoked.
My current approach is to create Thread objects inside a junit test method, loop manually the real test cases inside each run() method, wait for all threads and then validate the assertions. But using this, I have a large boilerplate code block for each test.
What are your experiences?
There is ConTest, and also GroboUtils.
I've used GroboUtils many years ago, and it did the job. ConTest is newer, and would be my preferred starting point now, since rather than just relying on trial and error, the instrumentation forces specific interleavings of the threads, providing a deterministic test. In contrast, GroboUtils MultiThreadedTestRunner simply runs the tests and hopes the scheduler produces an interleaving that causes the thread bug to appear.
EDIT: See also ConcuTest which also forces interleavings and is free.
There is also MultithreadedTC by Bill Pugh of FindBugs fame.
Just using the concurrency libraries would simplify your code. You can turn your boiler plate code into one method.
Something like
public static void runAll(int times, Runnable... tests) {
}