I'm using Mockito with ScalaTest. Consider this simplified example.
Model case class:
case class Batch(batchId: Long,
timestamp: Option[LocalDateTime] = Some(LocalDateTime.now),
invoicesReceived: Option[Int])
In my test I'm mocking a class called BatchRepository which has a method with this signature:
def create(conn: Connection, batch: Batch): Long
Relevant bit of test code:
verify(batchRepository, times(1)).create(anyObject(),
Batch(anyLong(), anyObject(), Matchers.eq(Some(1))))
)
The beef is: I'd like to verify that the code under test calls the mocked repository method with whatever Connection and a Batch instance with whatever id and timestamp, but invoicesReceived being exactly Some(1).
Using Mockito, is this possible at all, and if so, how?
The production code creates a new Batch which sets the timestamp to current moment, so I think it's pretty much impossible to create a real Batch object in the test for the verify() call with the exact same timestamp. So at least for the timestamp I'd need anyObject().
I tried many variations, like wrapping the whole Batch in Matchers.eq(), but I haven't found anything that works:
Invalid use of argument matchers! 2 matchers expected, 4 recorded [...]
I'd be happy to hear I'm using matchers all wrong if there turns out to be some alternative way to use Mockito to test what I want. 🙂
(I was having hard time writing a good name for this question; please edit or leave a comment if you understand what I'm asking and can express it more succinctly.)
The problem is you are trying to verify two calls at once - create and Batch.apply. Can't do that.
One way to do what you want is ArgumentCaptor:
val captor = ArgumentCaptor.forClass(classOf[Batch])
verify(batchRepository).create(any(), captor.capture)
captor.getValue should matchPattern {
case Batch(_, _, Some(1)) =>
}
// or just `captor.getValue.infoReceived shouldBe Some(1)`
Have you tried mockito-scala? it supports partial functions as matchers so you could just write
verify(batchRepository, times(1)).create(any, argMatching({case Batch(_, _, Some(1)) => }))
Or even better if you use the idiomatic syntax
batchRepository.create(*, argMatching({case Batch(_, _, Some(1)) => })) was called
Related
In previous versions of Elastic4s you could do something like
val argument1: ArgumentCapture[DeleteIndexDefinition] = ???
verify(client).execute(argument1.capture())
assert(argument1 == ???)
val argument2: ArgumentCapture[IndexDefinition] = ???
verify(client, times(2)).execute(argument2.capture())
assert(argument2 == ???)
after several executions in your test (i.e. one DeleteIndexDefinition, followed of two IndexDefinition). And each verify would be matched against its type.
However, Elastic4s now takes an implicit parameter in its client.execute method. The parameter is of type Executable[T,R], which means you now need something like
val argument1: ArgumentCapture[DeleteIndexDefinition] = ???
verify(client).execute(argument1.capture())(any[Executable[DeleteIndexDefinition,R]])
assert(argument1 == ???)
val argument2: ArgumentCapture[IndexDefinition] = ???
verify(client, times(2)).execute(argument2.capture())(any[Executable[IndexDefinition,R]])
assert(argument2 == ???)
After doing that, I was getting an error. Mockito is considering both three client.execute in the first verify. Yes, even if the first parameter is of a different type.
That's because the implicit(the second parameter) has, after type erasure, the same type Executable.
So the asertions were failing. How to test in this setup?
The approach now taken in elastic4s to encapsulate the logic for executing each request type is one using typeclasses. This is why the implicit now exists. It help modularize each request type, and avoids the God class anti-pattern that was starting to creep into the ElasticClient class.
Two things I can think of that might help you:
What you already posted up, using Mockito and passing in the implicit as another matcher. This is how you can mock a method using implicits in general.
Not use mockito, but spool up a local embedded node, and try it against real data. This is my preferred approach when I write elasticsearch code. The advantages are that you're testing real queries against the real server, so not only checking that they are invoked, but that they actually work. (Some people might consider this an integration test, but whatever I don't agree, it all runs inside a single self contained test with no outside deps).
The latest release of elastic4s even include a testkit that makes it really easy to get the embedded node. You can look at almost any of the unit tests to give you an idea how to use it.
My solution was to create one verify with a generic type. It took me a while to realise that even if there is no common type, you always have AnyRef.
So, something like this works
val objs: ArgumentCaptor[AnyRef] = ArgumentCaptor.forClass(classOf[AnyRef])
verify(client, times(3)).execute(objs.capture())(any())
val values = objs.getAllValues
assert(values.get(0).isInstanceOf[DeleteIndexDefinition])
assert(values.get(1).isInstanceOf[IndexDefinition])
assert(values.get(2).isInstanceOf[IndexDefinition])
I've created both the question and the answer. But I'll consider other answers.
I am trying to analyze Scala code written by someone else, and in doing so, I would like to be able to write Unit Tests (that were not written before the code was written, unfortunately).
Being a relative Newbie to Scala, especially in the Futures concept area, I am trying to understand the following line of code.
val niceAnalysis:Option[(niceReport) => Future[niceReport]] = None
Update:
The above line of code should be:
val niceAnalysis:Option[(NiceReport) => Future[NiceReport]] = None
- Where NiceReport is a case class
-----------Update ends here----------------
Since I am trying to mock up an Actor, I created this new Actor where I introduce my niceAnalysis val as a field.
The first problem I see with this "niceAnalysis" thing is that it looks like an anonymous function.
How do I "initialize" this val, or to give it an initial value.
My goal is to create a test in my test class, where I am going to pass in this initialized val value into my test actor's receive method.
My naive approach to accomplish this looked like:
val myActorUnderTestRef = TestActorRef(new MyActorUnderTest("None))
Neither does IntelliJ like it. My SBT compile and test fails.
So, I need to understand the "niceAnalyis" declaration first and then understand how to give it an initial value. Please advise.
You are correct that this is a value that might contain a function from type niceReport to Future[niceReport]. You can pass an anonymous function or just a function pointer. The easiest to understand might be the pointer, so I will provide that first, but the easiest in longer terms would be the anonymous function most likely, which I will show second:
import scala.concurrent.Future
import scala.concurrent.ExecutionContext.Implicits.global
def strToFuture(x: String) = Future{ x } //merely wrap the string in a future
val foo = Option(strToFuture)
Conversely, the one liner is as follows:
val foo = Option((x:String)=>Future{x})
This is purely a coding-style question.
A function I'm calling returns an Option, and I want to take a specific action if it's equal to None.
Say, for example, that I'm trying to create a default user at boot time if it doesn't already exist. I'd call a function that attempts to find a user that matches the default one, and returns an Option[User].
If that return value is None, I'd like to run some user creation code. If not, I'm done.
I'm wondering what's the most idiomatic Scala syntax for this. What I have so far is:
def getUser(name: String): Option[User] = ...
getUser("admin") getOrElse createUser("admin", "ChangeThisNow!")
getUser("admin") match {
case None => createUser("admin", "ChangeThisNow!")
case _ =>
}
if(getUser("admin") == None) createUser("admin", "ChangeThisNow!")
The first solution seems like the most functional one, but I can't help but feel that there might be better ones - possibly by using partially applied functions, which I admit I'm still a bit fuzzy about.
Since in your case the goal is to cause a side effect, I'd use a conditional to stress that, instead of using getOrElse.
if (getUser("admin").isEmpty)
createUser("admin", "ChangeThisNow!")
Remember that scala is a multi-paradigm language.
In addition to syntax, you want to consider concepts such as cohesion (single responsibility) and so you can consider the composition of your objects in addition to the actual idioms you use in the syntax.
The OO way might be to decorate the object/class that getUser belongs to in to put that concern of creating the user in a wrapper so that other code that calls the getUser function never has to deal with that concern. This fits nicely with open/closed principle and single responsibility. This is a bit of an anemic domain model anti-pattern here but may show how OO can be used to extend the conversation into actual design.
Either pattern matching or getOrElse are reasonable solutions. Generally if statements aren't used against Monads like the option - at least not that I see.
Either way, I beleive the expression should return the result even if there are side effects (user creation).
case class User(name: String)
class UserService {
def getUser(name: String): Option[User] = ???
def createUser(name: String): User = ???
}
class UserServiceDecorator extends UserService {
override def getUser(name: String): Option[User] =
Some(super.getUser(name).getOrElse(super.createUser(name)))
}
Really the best way to do this is to assign the result to a meaningful variable name so your future code doesn't need to know if createUser was called or not.
val user = getUser("admin").getOrElse(createUser("admin", "ChangeThisNow!"))
This way you can use the user variable regardless of if you've created a new user or not.
I made codes using play framework in scala which look like the following:
object Application extends Controller {
def hoge = Action( implicit request =>
val username = MyCookie.getName.get
Ok("hello " + username)
}
}
object MyCookie {
def getName( implicit request: RequestHeader ) = {
request.cookies.get("name").map(_.value)
}
}
I got a code review from my coworker. He said this code is not readable because of implicit parameter. I couldn't reply to his opinion. So could you tell me what is the best way to use implicit parameters? When should I use implicit parameters?
You should use implicit parameters when there is almost always a "right" way to do things, and you want to ignore those details almost all the time; or when there often is no way to do things, and the implicits provide the functionality for those things that work.
For an example of the first case, in scala.concurrent.Future, almost every method takes an implicit ExecutionContext. You almost never care what your ExecutionContext is from call to call; you just want it to work. But when you need to change the execution context you can supply it as an explicit parameter.
For an example of the second case, look at the CanBuildFroms in the collections library. You cannot build anything from anything; certain capabilities are supplied, and the lack of an implicit that, say, lets you package up a bunch of Vector[Option[String]]s into a HashSet[Char] is one major way to keep the library powerful and flexible yet sane.
You are doing neither: apparently you're just using it to save a little typing in one spot at the expense of the other spot. And, in this case, in doing so you've made it less obvious how things work, as you have to look all over the place to figure out where that implicit request actually gets used. If you want to save typing, you're much better off using short variable names but being explicit about it:
Action{ req => val name = MyCookie.getName(req).get; Ok("hello "+name) }
I'm trying to test-drive some Scala code using Specs2 and Mockito. I'm relatively new to all three, and having difficulty with the mocked methods returning null.
In the following (transcribed with some name changes)
"My Component's process(File)" should {
"pass file to Parser" in new modules {
val file = mock[File]
myComponent.process(file)
there was one(mockParser).parse(file)
}
"pass parse result to Translator" in new modules {
val file = mock[File]
val myType1 = mock[MyType1]
mockParser.parse(file) returns (Some(myType1))
myComponent.process(file)
there was one(mockTranslator).translate(myType1)
}
}
The "pass file to Parser" works until I add the translator call in the SUT, and then dies because the mockParser.parse method has returned a null, which the translator code can't take.
Similarly, the "pass parse result to Translator" passes until I try to use the translation result in the SUT.
The real code for both of these methods can never return null, but I don't know how to tell Mockito to make the expectations return usable results.
I can of course work around this by putting null checks in the SUT, but I'd rather not, as I'm making sure to never return nulls and instead using Option, None and Some.
Pointers to a good Scala/Specs2/Mockito tutorial would be wonderful, as would a simple example of how to change a line like
there was one(mockParser).parse(file)
to make it return something that allows continued execution in the SUT when it doesn't deal with nulls.
Flailing about trying to figure this out, I have tried changing that line to
there was one(mockParser).parse(file) returns myResult
with a value for myResult that is of the type I want returned. That gave me a compile error as it expects to find a MatchResult there rather than my return type.
If it matters, I'm using Scala 2.9.0.
If you don't have seen it, you can look the mock expectation page of the specs2 documentation.
In your code, the stub should be mockParser.parse(file) returns myResult
Edited after Don's edit:
There was a misunderstanding. The way you do it in your second example is the good one and you should do exactly the same in the first test:
val file = mock[File]
val myType1 = mock[MyType1]
mockParser.parse(file) returns (Some(myType1))
myComponent.process(file)
there was one(mockParser).parse(file)
The idea of unit testing with mock is always the same: explain how your mocks work (stubbing), execute, verify.
That should answer the question, now a personal advice:
Most of the time, except if you want to verify some algorithmic behavior (stop on first success, process a list in reverse order) you should not test expectation in your unit tests.
In your example, the process method should "translate things", thus your unit tests should focus on it: mock your parsers and translators, stub them and only check the result of the whole process. It's less fine grain but the goal of a unit test is not to check every step of a method. If you want to change the implementation, you should not have to modify a bunch of unit tests that verify each line of the method.
I have managed to solve this, though there may be a better solution, so I'm going to post my own answer, but not accept it immediately.
What I needed to do was supply a sensible default return value for the mock, in the form of an org.mockito.stubbing.Answer<T> with T being the return type.
I was able to do this with the following mock setup:
val defaultParseResult = new Answer[Option[MyType1]] {
def answer(p1: InvocationOnMock): Option[MyType1] = None
}
val mockParser = org.mockito.Mockito.mock(implicitly[ClassManifest[Parser]].erasure,
defaultParseResult).asInstanceOf[Parser]
after a bit of browsing of the source for the org.specs2.mock.Mockito trait and things it calls.
And now, instead of returning null, the parse returns None when not stubbed (including when it's expected as in the first test), which allows the test to pass with this value being used in the code under test.
I will likely make a test support method hiding the mess in the mockParser assignment, and letting me do the same for various return types, as I'm going to need the same capability with several return types just in this set of tests.
I couldn't locate support for a shorter way of doing this in org.specs2.mock.Mockito, but perhaps this will inspire Eric to add such. Nice to have the author in the conversation...
Edit
On further perusal of source, it occurred to me that I should be able to just call the method
def mock[T, A](implicit m: ClassManifest[T], a: org.mockito.stubbing.Answer[A]): T = org.mockito.Mockito.mock(implicitly[ClassManifest[T]].erasure, a).asInstanceOf[T]
defined in org.specs2.mock.MockitoMocker, which was in fact the inspiration for my solution above. But I can't figure out the call. mock is rather overloaded, and all my attempts seem to end up invoking a different version and not liking my parameters.
So it looks like Eric has already included support for this, but I don't understand how to get to it.
Update
I have defined a trait containing the following:
def mock[T, A](implicit m: ClassManifest[T], default: A): T = {
org.mockito.Mockito.mock(
implicitly[ClassManifest[T]].erasure,
new Answer[A] {
def answer(p1: InvocationOnMock): A = default
}).asInstanceOf[T]
}
and now by using that trait I can setup my mock as
implicit val defaultParseResult = None
val mockParser = mock[Parser,Option[MyType1]]
I don't after all need more usages of this in this particular test, as supplying a usable value for this makes all my tests work without null checks in the code under test. But it might be needed in other tests.
I'd still be interested in how to handle this issue without adding this trait.
Without the full it's difficult to say but can you please check that the method you're trying to mock is not a final method? Because in that case Mockito won't be able to mock it and will return null.
Another piece of advice, when something doesn't work, is to rewrite the code with Mockito in a standard JUnit test. Then, if it fails, your question might be best answered by someone on the Mockito mailing list.