I am building an app that implements custom docblock annotations using the Doctrine Annotations library.
For PHPUnit testing, is it possible to create a mocked class that has mock docblocks?
From this answer, I learned how to mock a class, like so:
$foo = $this->getMockBuilder('nonexistant')
->setMockClassName('TestClass')
->getMock();
Is there a way to mock a docblock? Building on the class example, Something like this is what I imagine:
$foo = $this->getMockBuilder('nonexistant')
->setMockClassName('TestClass')
->setMockClassDocblock('/** #SomeAnnotation("foo") */')
->getMock();
If not - is there anything I can do besides just creating actual test classes?
There is no way to mock a docblock. If you can make the case that there should be then please open a ticket.
Related
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).
I designed a new project using Guice/Gin so I could make our code more modular and swap-able especially when testing.
However, I am not able to find out how to make this work in practice. I was under the impression that I could just create a new Gin/Guice module in my test and install my 'base' module, overloading any bindings that I want to replace with specific testing implementations.
I don't want to have to use GWTTestCase and load my entire module, because it is very slow and unecissary for the types of granular testing I need to do.
I have tried using Jukito (http://code.google.com/p/jukito/), gwt-test-utils (http://code.google.com/p/gwt-test-utils/wiki/HowToUseWithGIN) and also some resources on doing this with guice (http://fabiostrozzi.eu/2011/03/27/junit-tests-easy-guice/).
None of these methods are yielding any results.
I think the Guice approach might work, if I defined a mirror guice module for my Gin module. However I really don't want to have to manage both of these. I really just want to test my GIN module like I would assume people test with Guice.
I feel like this should be really simple, can anyone point me to examples that work?
Update
Another way of looking at this question is:
How do I get the examples on the Jukito site (http://code.google.com/p/jukito/) work when the classes I am injecting are in an exernal Gin module?
**Update - In reference to Thomas Boyer's answer **
Thanks for the hint Tom, I was not able to find examples of using the adapter but I tried augmenting the Jukito examples to use the GinModuleAdapter anyway:
#RunWith(JukitoRunner.class)
public class MyGinTest {
public static class Module extends JukitoModule {
protected void configureTest() {
install(new GinModuleAdapter(new ClientModule()));
}
}
#Test
#Inject
public void testAdd(SyncedDOMModel mod){
assertNotNull(mod);
}
}
When I tried to run this test I recieved this exception:
java.lang.AssertionError: should never be actually called
at com.google.gwt.inject.rebind.adapter.GwtDotCreateProvider.get(GwtDotCreateProvider.java:43)
at com.google.inject.internal.InternalFactoryToProviderAdapter.get(InternalFactoryToProviderAdapter.java:40)
at com.google.inject.internal.ProviderToInternalFactoryAdapter$1.call(ProviderToInternalFactoryAdapter.java:46)
at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.callInContext(InjectorImpl.java:1031)
at com.google.inject.internal.ProviderToInternalFactoryAdapter.get(ProviderToInternalFactoryAdapter.java:40)
at com.google.inject.Scopes$1$1.get(Scopes.java:65)
at com.google.inject.internal.InternalFactoryToProviderAdapter.get(InternalFactoryToProviderAdapter.java:40)
at com.google.inject.internal.InternalInjectorCreator$1.call(InternalInjectorCreator.java:204)
at com.google.inject.internal.InternalInjectorCreator$1.call(InternalInjectorCreator.java:198)
at com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.callInContext(InjectorImpl.java:1024)
at com.google.inject.internal.InternalInjectorCreator.loadEagerSingletons(InternalInjectorCreator.java:198)
at com.google.inject.internal.InternalInjectorCreator.injectDynamically(InternalInjectorCreator.java:179)
at com.google.inject.internal.InternalInjectorCreator.build(InternalInjectorCreator.java:109)
at com.google.inject.Guice.createInjector(Guice.java:95)
at com.google.inject.Guice.createInjector(Guice.java:72)
at com.google.inject.Guice.createInjector(Guice.java:62)
at org.jukito.JukitoRunner.ensureInjector(JukitoRunner.java:118)
at org.jukito.JukitoRunner.computeTestMethods(JukitoRunner.java:177)
at org.jukito.JukitoRunner.validateInstanceMethods(JukitoRunner.java:276)
at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.collectInitializationErrors(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:102)
at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.validate(ParentRunner.java:344)
at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.<init>(ParentRunner.java:74)
at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.<init>(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:55)
at org.jukito.JukitoRunner.<init>(JukitoRunner.java:72)
My gin module is part of a GWTP project, and looks like this:
public class ClientModule extends AbstractPresenterModule {
#Override
protected void configure() {
install(new DefaultModule(ClientPlaceManager.class));
bindPresenter(MainPagePresenter.class, MainPagePresenter.MyView.class,
MainPageView.class, MainPagePresenter.MyProxy.class);
bindConstant().annotatedWith(DefaultPlace.class).to(NameTokens.main);
bindPresenterWidget(MapTreePresenter.class,
MapTreePresenter.MyView.class, MapTreeView.class);
bindPresenterWidget(MapTreeItemPresenter.class,
MapTreeItemPresenter.MyView.class, MapTreeItemView.class);
bind(ResourcePool.class).to(DefferredResourcePool.class);
bind(WebSocket.class).to(WebSocketImpl.class);
}
}
As you can somewhat see, the class I am injecting in my test SyncedDOMModel, uses a WebSocket which I bind in my module. When I am testing, I don't want to use a real websocket and server. So I want to overload that binding in my test, with a class that basically emulates the whole thing. It's easier to just inject a different implementation of the WebSocket in this case rather than use mocking.
If it helps, this is a basic outline of the SyncedDOMMOdel class:
public class SyncedDOMMOdel {
....
#Inject
public SyncedDOMModel(WebSocket socket){
this.socket = socket;
}
....
}
You can use the GinModuleAdapter to use any GinModule as a Guice Module.
Obviously, you won't benefit from GIN's specific features: default to GWT.create() when something has no particular binding (this includes interfaces and abstract classes, which would throw in Guice), and automatically search for a RemoteService interface when an interface whose name ends Async has no specific binding.
And you won't be able to use anything that depends on JSNI or deferred binding (GWT.create()), as in any non-GWTTestCase unit test.
I am trying to implement gwt editor framework.
I have created a driver as follows:
final Driver driver = GWT.create(Driver.class);
ABC is my class and I am passing object of my ABC class to
driver.edit();
function.
Now instead of class I want to use Interface.
But since we cant create instance of an interface how shall i proceed
for the same?
Can we use interfaces in above mentioned case ?
The Editor framework won't ever instantiate anything (other than its own internal things, of course), so using interfaces is safe, and just like with classes.
Try it, it just works.
I have a factory class which provides a bunch of similar methods by using autoload. For a longer list of different object types it can do things like
Factory->objects();
Factory->object(23);
Factory->object(name => "foo");
Now I want to write a test for this class. I started with something like this:
use Test::More;
BEGIN { use_ok 'Factory' }
my $objects = Factory->objects;
# more tests following ...
The test fails in the line with Factory->objects because it implicitly checks if Factory can do objects(). I could not find some documentation for this. But if I run the same call in a non-testing script it works perfectly.
How to test this?
Update: ARGH, I've just recognized I put all of this in the test for the Factory model class in my Catalyst app. Well, this model class is an Adapter for the Factory class in my external model (which I actually intended to test). The work perfectly for the model itself. Still would appreciate to know how to test method from an adapted class. This is how the adapter class looks like:
package MyCatalystApp::Model::Factory;
use Moose;
extends 'Catalyst::Model';
extends 'Catalyst::Model::Adaptor';
__PACKAGE__->config(class => 'MyModel::Factory');
MyModel::Factory is the same class as Factory in the original question. I skipped the difference between Catalyst and the model in the original question for simplification.
You should simply add "use Factory;" before calling the tests (after use_ok).
Catalyst instantiates models (components) during setup_components by calling the COMPONENT method. I guess Catalyst::Model::Adaptor relies on this happening.
When you use MyCatalystApp::Model::Factory you can get away with calling my $factory = MyCatalystApp::Model::Factory->COMPONENT() from within tests instead of new() to make them work.
I am new to using Mockito and I am running through an example test class written in our GWT project.
At some places ,in order to get a Mock we used Mockito.mock(SecurityDao.class)
but in other places in the same test class we instantiated other classes using the "new" keyword.
I think that in order to mock a class i need to pass in the interface as the parameter to Mockito.mock ,and if my class does not implement an interface then i need to use the "new" keyword to instantiate the class.
Is this correct?When should i really use Mockito.mock??
Thanks
Always use Mockito#mock() when creating an object other than that under test. Mockito can create mocks for interfaces and classes.