Does #Beforemethod() and beforeInvocation() listener do the same? Please help with the difference!
#Beforemethod: The annotated method will be run before each test method meaning Methods annotated with #Test annotation
If you have implemented the IInvokedMethodListener listener
void beforeInvocation(IInvokedMethod method, ITestResult testResult)
void afterInvocation(IInvokedMethod method,ITestResult testResult)
then IInvokedMethodListener will be invoked for configuration(#BeforeSuite...) and test methods (#Test ...).
From an execution stage perspective, both get executed before a method annotated with #Test is called. It allows you to do any kind of setup you need for a test.
But when do you use what will be based on what is it you want to do.
If you have a specific setup for only a few tests, I will use #BeforeMethod in a class which would apply only to a few tests.
But if it is an suite wide setup, say initializing a driver object or creating an API token which needs to be done for every single test in your suite, then I would prefer listeners.
Related
I have a method in an #Aspect service method called logChangesAndAnnounceNewContributions that fires whenever somewhere in the webapp the save method of Spring-data's JpaRepository is called. I don't want the logChanges method to be called when the save method is used within the Aspect class itself, so i used this in the pointcut definition !within(Services.SystemListenerService). But its not having any effect! The save method is still being called despite using this condition in the definition. The full definition looks like this:
#AfterReturning("execution(* org.springframework.data.jpa.repository.JpaRepository.save(..))" +
"&& !within(Services.SystemListenerService) && args(entity)")
private void logChangesAndAnnounceNewContributions(Object entity){
What am i missing here?
EDIT: I tried changing !within content to !within(#org.aspectj.lang.annotation.Aspect *) but that doesn't work either..
Assuming that Services.SystemListenerService is the fully qualified name of your aspect (class name SystemListenerService, package name Services with strange upper-case first letter), within() does not work because at the time of execution(* org.springframework.data.jpa.repository.JpaRepository.save(..)) we are not within(Services.SystemListenerService) anyway but rather within(org.springframework.data.jpa.repository.JpaRepository). So there is the logical error in your pointcut.
There are ways to solve this in AspectJ, such as
call(A) && !adviceexecution(),
execution(A) && !cflow(execution(B)),
but both pointcut types are unsupported in Spring AOP. So you
either need to activate full AspectJ via LTW in Spring
or abuse some Spring methods in order to get the real object underneath the proxy via ((Advised) myProxy).getTargetSource().getTarget() and call the method directly on that object from your aspect
or obtain a stack trace from a newly created exception or from the current thread and inspect it manually - very ugly.
Sorry, but Spring AOP is just "AOP lite", I think you should go for AspectJ. The second option is also a bit hacky but will probably work.
I'm trying to test my verticle but with mocked MongoDB (not to perform real DB actions during the process of unit testing), I've tried to mock my client, but looks like when I use vertx.deployVerticle() my mocks are not being taken into account.
Here's an example of my test setup:
#RunWith(VertxUnitRunner.class)
#PrepareForTest({ MongoClient.class })
public class VerticleTest {
#Rule
public PowerMockRule rule = new PowerMockRule();
private Vertx vertx;
private Integer port;
#Before
public void setUp(TestContext context) throws Exception {
vertx = Vertx.vertx();
mockStatic(MongoClient.class);
MongoClient mongo = Mockito.mock(MongoClientImpl.class);
when(MongoClient.createShared(any(), any())).thenReturn(mongo);
ServerSocket socket = new ServerSocket(0);
port = socket.getLocalPort();
socket.close();
DeploymentOptions options = new DeploymentOptions().setConfig(new JsonObject().put("http.port", port));
vertx.deployVerticle(TalWebVerticle.class.getName(), options, context.asyncAssertSuccess());
}
And what I actually see, that is that MongoClient.createShared is still being called, though I've mocked it.
What can I do in this case?
Edit 1.
Looks like the problem is that MongoClient is an interface and PowerMockito is not able to mock static methods in this case.
I'm still trying to find workaround for this case.
I didn't know that the MongoClient is an interface then I gave my first answer.
PowerMock doesn't supports mocking static calls interfaces (bug #510, Javaassist fixed exception, but mocking static methods still isn't supported). It will be called in next release.
I was focusing on issue in PowerMock, not why it's needed. I agree with answer which was provided in Mailing List.
You could work around it by creating a helper method in your own code
that returns MongoClient.createdShared(). Then in your test, mock that
helper to return your mocked MongoClientImp
But it will be not a work around, but right design solution. Mocking MongoClient is not a good approach, because you should not mock types you don't own.
So better way will be create a custom helper which will create MongoClientfor you and then mock this the helper in unit test. Also you will need integration tests for this helper which will call real MongoClient.createdShared().
If you don't have an opportunity to change code (or you don't want to change code without tests), then I've create an example with work around how PowerMock bug could be bypassed.
Main ideas:
create a custom MainMockTransformer. The transformer will transform interfaces classes to enable supporting mock static calls for interfaces
create a custom PowerMockRunner which will be used to add the custom MockTransformer to transformers chains.
Please, bring to notice on packages name where these new classes are located. It's important. If you want to move them into another packages then you will need to add these new packages to #PowerMockIgnore.
I have the following class, which uses constructor injection:
public class Service : IService
{
public Service(IRepository repository, IProvider provider) { ... }
}
For most methods in this class, I simply create Moq mocks for IRepository and IProvider and construct the Service. However, there is one method in the class that calls several other methods in the same class. For testing this method, instead of testing all those methods together, I want to test that the method calls those methods correctly and processes their return values correctly.
The best way to do this is to mock Service. I've mocked concrete classes with Moq before without issue. I've even mocked concrete classes that require constructor arguments with Moq without issue. However, this is the first time I've needed to pass mocked arguments into the constructor for a mocked object. Naturally, I tried to do it this way:
var repository = new Mock<IRepository>();
var provider = new Mock<IProvider>();
var service = new Mock<Service>(repository.Object, provider.Object);
However, that does not work. Instead, I get the following error:
Castle.DynamicProxy.InvalidProxyConstructorArgumentsException : Can not instantiate proxy of class: My.Namespace.Service.
Could not find a constructor that would match given arguments:
Castle.Proxies.IRepository
Castle.Proxies.IProvider
This works fine if Service's constructor takes simple arguments like ints and strings, but not if it takes interfaces that I'm mocking. How do you do this?
Why are you mocking the service you are testing? If you are wishing to test the implementation of the Service class (whether that be calls to mocked objects or not), all you need are mocks for the two interfaces, not the test class.
Instead of:
var repository = new Mock<IRepository>();
var provider = new Mock<IProvider>();
var service = new Mock<Service>(repository.Object, provider.Object);
Shouldn't it be this instead?
var repository = new Mock<IRepository>();
var provider = new Mock<IProvider>();
var service = new Service(repository.Object, provider.Object);
I realize that it is possible to mock concrete objects in some frameworks, but what is your intended purpose? The idea behind mocking something is to remove the actual implementation so that it does not influence your test. But in your question, you have stated that you wish to know that certain classes are called on properly, and then you wish to validate the results of those actions. That is undoubtedly testing the implementation, and for that reason, I am having a hard time seeing the goals of mocking the concrete object.
I had a very similar problem when my equivalent of Service had an internal constructor, so it was not visible to Moq.
I added
[assembly: InternalsVisibleTo("DynamicProxyGenAssembly2")]
to my AssemblyInfo.cs file for the implementing project. Not sure if it is relevant, but I wanted to add a suggestion on the off chance that it helps you or someone else.
It must be old version issue, all is ok with latest version. Nick, Please check!
P.s.: I started bounty by misstake (I had wrong signature in my constructor).
In my current project we have a gwt clientapplication based on mvp pattern. Now I have a View that implements Editor and a Presenter who gets the EditorDriver per getter access. The Presenter call edit() and flush() on the EditorDriver.
What I have found is a MockSimpleBeanEditorDriver but nothing like a editormock. A ready to use "MockSimpleBeanEditor" would be nice.
Is there any way to get that working in an JUnit test?
A possible route for you to take is to 'fabricate' a mock editor.
The simplest and elegant way I can think of is Mockito.
Check this out::
Comparable c = mock(Comparable.class);
when(c.compareTo("Test")).thenReturn(1);
assertEquals(1, c.compareTo("Test"));
This code snippet fabricates an instance of Comparable that will return '1' when passed the string 'Test'.
More info here
I'm testing some code that uses StructureMap for Inversion of Control and problems have come up when I use different concrete classes for the same interface.
For example:
[Test]
public void Test1()
{
ObjectFactory.Inject<IFoo>(new TestFoo());
...
}
[Test]
public void Test2()
{
ObjectFactory.Initialize(
x => x.ForRequestedType<IFoo>().TheDefaultIsConcreteType<RealFoo>()
);
// ObjectFactory.Inject<IFoo>(new RealFoo()) doesn't work either.
...
}
Test2 works fine if it runs by itself, using a RealFoo. But if Test1 runs first, Test2 ends up using a TestFoo instead of RealFoo. Aren't NUnit tests supposed to be isolated? How can I reset StructureMap?
Oddly enough, Test2 fails if I don't include the Initialize expression. But if I do include it, it gets ignored...
If you must use ObjectFactory in your tests, in your SetUp or TearDown, make a call to ObjectFactory.ResetAll().
Even better, try to migrate your code away from depending on ObjectFactory. Any class that needs to pull stuff out of the container (other than the startup method) can take in an IContainer, which will automatically be populated by StructureMap (assuming the class itself is retrieved from the container). You can reference the IContainer wrapped by ObjectFactory through its Container property. You can also avoid using ObjectFactory completely and just create an instance of a Container that you manage yourself (it can be configured in the same way as ObjectFactory).
Yes, NUnit tests are supposed to be isolated and it is your responsibility to make sure they are isolated. The solution would be to reset ObjectFactory in the TearDown method of your test fixture. You can use ObjectFactory.EjectAllInstancesOf() for example.
Of course it doesn't reset between tests. ObjectFactory is a static wrapper around an InstanceManager; it is static through an AppDomain and as tests run in the same AppDomain this is why it is not reset. You need to TearDown the ObjectFactory between tests or configure a new Container for each test (i.e., get away from using the static ObjectFactory).
Incidentally, this is the main reason for avoiding global state and singletons: they are not friendly to testing.
From the Google guide to Writing Testable Code:
Global State: Global state is bad from theoretical, maintainability, and understandability point of view, but is tolerable at run-time as long as you have one instance of your application. However, each test is a small instantiation of your application in contrast to one instance of application in production. The global state persists from one test to the next and creates mass confusion. Tests run in isolation but not together. Worse yet, tests fail together but problems can not be reproduced in isolation. Order of the tests matters. The APIs are not clear about the order of initialization and object instantiation, and so on. I hope that by now most developers agree that global state should be treated like GOTO.