i have post method in rest controller and i want to create a test for this method:
This is my method:
#PostMapping("/persons")
public ResponseEntity<PersonDto> createPerson(#RequestBody PersonDto personDto) {
try {
personService.createPerson(personDto);
return ResponseEntity.ok(personDto);
} catch (Exception e) {
return ResponseEntity.badRequest().build();
}
}
I have no idea how this test with mock should look like.
As you use Spring, I recommend you to use #WebMvcTest to mock all things but the Controller under test.
You should so explicitly mock the dependencies of this Controller. In your case, mocking the personService field is enough.
In your test class declare a personService field annotated with #MockBean to create a Mockito mock of the class that will be added to the Spring context.
Then record a behavior for this mock.
You have two branches here : it works and an exception is risen.
So you could define two test method and record a specific behavior in each one.
At last assert the gotten response from the controller.
I already have test for deleting method. Yes i use springboot, jpa, rest, h2:
#Test
public void shouldDeletePersonById() throws Exception {
Mockito.doCallRealMethod().when(personService).deleteById(1L);
mockMvc.perform(delete("/persons/{id}", 1L)
.accept(MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON))
.andExpect(status().isNotFound());
}
But for create person this looks for me very hard. I don't know what i should call of in posy method(like in delete i call id to find what i want to delete).
Related
While working on RestAssured I came across the concept of Serialization and DeSerialization(POJO Classes) to read and validate the response. I went through some tutorial and was able to create the POJO class based on my response.
However, when I use the POJO class reference in my Tests I am not able to use the then() block for different assertions. Below details might clear things bit more :
TestMethod without POJO :
public void listUsers() {
RestAssured.baseURI="https://reqres.in/";
Response res = RestAssured.given()
.contentType("application/json")
.queryParam("page", 2)
.when()
.get("/api/users")
.then()
.assertThat().statusCode(200).and()
.body("page", Matchers.equalTo(2)).and()
.body("total", Matchers.greaterThanOrEqualTo(1))
.body("data.email", Matchers.hasItem("george.edwards#reqres.in"))
.extract().response();
JsonPath jsonpath = new JsonPath(res.asString());
System.out.println(jsonpath.get("data[0].email"));
}
Test Method with POJO :
public void listUserswithPOJO() {
RestAssured.baseURI="https://reqres.in/";
ListUsers res = RestAssured.given()
.contentType("application/json")
.queryParam("page", 2)
.when()
.get("/api/users").as(ListUsers.class);
System.out.println(res.getData().get(1).getEmail());
}
Test Class :
#Test
public void listUsersTest() {
ReqResApi TS1 = new ReqResApi();
TS1.listUserswithPOJO();
}
I want to keep the assertions of the then block as it is while using POJO classes as well. When I try to do so after as(ListUser.class), it gives the compilation error that then() is undefined for ListUser class.
Is there any way in which I can use both POJO class as well as then() block in my rest assured tests.
This is not possible because Return types of these options are different.
MainPojo m1 =RestAssured.given().contentType("application/json").queryParam("page", 2).when().get("/api/users")
.as(MainPojo.class)==> Return Type is ur Class, in this example Main Pojo
System.out.println(m1.getData().get(0).getFirst_name());
RestAssured.given().contentType("application/json").queryParam("page", 2).when()
.get("/api/users").then().assertThat().statusCode(200).and().body("page", Matchers.equalTo(2)).and()
.body("total", Matchers.greaterThanOrEqualTo(1))
.body("data.email", Matchers.hasItem("george.edwards#reqres.in")).extract().response();---> Return Type is Response
I have a strange issue and didn't find any information about it at all.
Having a simple POJO like (simplified..)
#XmlRootElement
public class Bill {
List<Position> positions
.. getter/setter
}
#XmlRootElement
public class Position {
.. some simple properties with getters/setters
}
I am unable to call a RESTful Service using instances of these classes. I'm getting real weird errors I don't really understand.
org.codehaus.jackson.map.JsonMappingException: Can not deserialize instance of java.util.List out of START_OBJECT token
The funny thing is, when I just test serialization/deserialization using Jackson Object mapper directly, it works as expected!
ObjectMapper mapper = new ...
mapper.writeValue(stringWriter, bill);
mapper.readValue(stringWriter.toString(), Bill.class);
This works perfectly. So I guess the POJO itself is OK and Jackson is able to handle the JSON-String.
Calling the RESTful service using the same Bill instance fails with the error mentioned above. I see it is using Jackson as well, here is part of stack trace:
at org.codehaus.jackson.map.JsonMappingException.from(JsonMappingException.java:160)
at org.codehaus.jackson.map.deser.StdDeserializationContext.mappingException(StdDeserializationContext.java:198)
at org.codehaus.jackson.map.deser.CollectionDeserializer.deserialize(CollectionDeserializer.java:103)
at org.codehaus.jackson.map.deser.CollectionDeserializer.deserialize(CollectionDeserializer.java:93)
at org.codehaus.jackson.map.deser.CollectionDeserializer.deserialize(CollectionDeserializer.java:25)
at org.codehaus.jackson.map.deser.SettableBeanProperty.deserialize(SettableBeanProperty.java:230)
And here is how the RESTful Application is configured:
#javax.ws.rs.ApplicationPath("rest")
public class ApplicationConfig extends Application {
public Set<Class<?>> getClasses() {
return getRestResourceClasses();
}
/**
* Do not modify this method. It is automatically generated by NetBeans REST support.
*/
private Set<Class<?>> getRestResourceClasses() {
Set<Class<?>> resources = new java.util.HashSet<Class<?>>();
resources.add(rest.RestAPI.class);
// following code can be used to customize Jersey 1.x JSON provider:
try {
Class jacksonProvider = Class.forName("org.codehaus.jackson.jaxrs.JacksonJsonProvider");
resources.add(jacksonProvider);
} catch (ClassNotFoundException ex) {
java.util.logging.Logger.getLogger(getClass().getName()).log(java.util.logging.Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
return resources;
}
}
Do you have any idea what I'm missing?
I generated the service and the client with NetBeans. Oh and it works when I use XML instead of JSON.
Any help would be very much appreciated.
I'm sorry but after hours of testing and debugging I finally found the cause of the problem.
Still I would be very interested why this is?
Commenting out the following code did the trick:
// following code can be used to customize Jersey 1.x JSON provider:
try {
Class jacksonProvider = Class.forName("org.codehaus.jackson.jaxrs.JacksonJsonProvider");
resources.add(jacksonProvider);
} catch (ClassNotFoundException ex) {
java.util.logging.Logger.getLogger(getClass().getName()).log(java.util.logging.Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
I have read dozens of posts about PROs and CONs of trying to mock \ fake EF in the business logic.
I have not yet decided what to do - but one thing I know is - I have to separate the queries from the business logic.
In this post I saw that Ladislav has answered that there are 2 good ways:
Let them be where they are and use custom extension methods, query views, mapped database views or custom defining queries to define reusable parts.
Expose every single query as method on some separate class. The method
mustn't expose IQueryable and mustn't accept Expression as parameter =
whole query logic must be wrapped in the method. But this will make
your class covering related methods much like repository (the only one
which can be mocked or faked). This implementation is close to
implementation used with stored procedures.
Which method do you think is better any why ?
Are there ANY downsides to put the queries in their own place ? (maybe losing some functionality from EF or something like that)
Do I have to encapsulate even the simplest queries like:
using (MyDbContext entities = new MyDbContext)
{
User user = entities.Users.Find(userId); // ENCAPSULATE THIS ?
// Some BL Code here
}
So I guess your main point is testability of your code, isn't it? In such case you should start by counting responsibilities of the method you want to test and than refactor your code using single responsibility pattern.
Your example code has at least three responsibilities:
Creating an object is a responsibility - context is an object. Moreover it is and object you don't want to use in your unit test so you must move its creation elsewhere.
Executing query is a responsibility. Moreover it is a responsibility you would like to avoid in your unit test.
Doing some business logic is a responsibility
To simplify testing you should refactor your code and divide those responsibilities to separate methods.
public class MyBLClass()
{
public void MyBLMethod(int userId)
{
using (IMyContext entities = GetContext())
{
User user = GetUserFromDb(entities, userId);
// Some BL Code here
}
}
protected virtual IMyContext GetContext()
{
return new MyDbContext();
}
protected virtual User GetUserFromDb(IMyDbContext entities, int userId)
{
return entities.Users.Find(userId);
}
}
Now unit testing business logic should be piece of cake because your unit test can inherit your class and fake context factory method and query execution method and become fully independent on EF.
// NUnit unit test
[TestFixture]
public class MyBLClassTest : MyBLClass
{
private class FakeContext : IMyContext
{
// Create just empty implementation of context interface
}
private User _testUser;
[Test]
public void MyBLMethod_DoSomething()
{
// Test setup
int id = 10;
_testUser = new User
{
Id = id,
// rest is your expected test data - that is what faking is about
// faked method returns simply data your test method expects
};
// Execution of method under test
MyBLMethod(id);
// Test validation
// Assert something you expect to happen on _testUser instance
// inside MyBLMethod
}
protected override IMyContext GetContext()
{
return new FakeContext();
}
protected override User GetUserFromDb(IMyContext context, int userId)
{
return _testUser.Id == userId ? _testUser : null;
}
}
As you add more methods and your application grows you will refactor those query execution methods and context factory method to separate classes to follow single responsibility on classes as well - you will get context factory and either some query provider or in some cases repository (but that repository will never return IQueryable or get Expression as parameter in any of its methods). This will also allow you following DRY principle where your context creation and most commonly used queries will be defined only once on one central place.
So at the end you can have something like this:
public class MyBLClass()
{
private IContextFactory _contextFactory;
private IUserQueryProvider _userProvider;
public MyBLClass(IContextFactory contextFactory, IUserQueryProvider userProvider)
{
_contextFactory = contextFactory;
_userProvider = userProvider;
}
public void MyBLMethod(int userId)
{
using (IMyContext entities = _contextFactory.GetContext())
{
User user = _userProvider.GetSingle(entities, userId);
// Some BL Code here
}
}
}
Where those interfaces will look like:
public interface IContextFactory
{
IMyContext GetContext();
}
public class MyContextFactory : IContextFactory
{
public IMyContext GetContext()
{
// Here belongs any logic necessary to create context
// If you for example want to cache context per HTTP request
// you can implement logic here.
return new MyDbContext();
}
}
and
public interface IUserQueryProvider
{
User GetUser(int userId);
// Any other reusable queries for user entities
// Non of queries returns IQueryable or accepts Expression as parameter
// For example: IEnumerable<User> GetActiveUsers();
}
public class MyUserQueryProvider : IUserQueryProvider
{
public User GetUser(IMyContext context, int userId)
{
return context.Users.Find(userId);
}
// Implementation of other queries
// Only inside query implementations you can use extension methods on IQueryable
}
Your test will now only use fakes for context factory and query provider.
// NUnit + Moq unit test
[TestFixture]
public class MyBLClassTest
{
private class FakeContext : IMyContext
{
// Create just empty implementation of context interface
}
[Test]
public void MyBLMethod_DoSomething()
{
// Test setup
int id = 10;
var user = new User
{
Id = id,
// rest is your expected test data - that is what faking is about
// faked method returns simply data your test method expects
};
var contextFactory = new Mock<IContextFactory>();
contextFactory.Setup(f => f.GetContext()).Returns(new FakeContext());
var queryProvider = new Mock<IUserQueryProvider>();
queryProvider.Setup(f => f.GetUser(It.IsAny<IContextFactory>(), id)).Returns(user);
// Execution of method under test
var myBLClass = new MyBLClass(contextFactory.Object, queryProvider.Object);
myBLClass.MyBLMethod(id);
// Test validation
// Assert something you expect to happen on user instance
// inside MyBLMethod
}
}
It would be little bit different in case of repository which should have reference to context passed to its constructor prior to injecting it to your business class.
Your business class can still define some queries which are never use in any other classes - those queries are most probably part of its logic. You can also use extension methods to define some reusable part of queries but you must always use those extension methods outside of your core business logic which you want to unit test (either in query execution methods or in query provider / repository). That will allow you easy faking query provider or query execution methods.
I saw your previous question and thought about writing a blog post about that topic but the core of my opinion about testing with EF is in this answer.
Edit:
Repository is different topic which doesn't relate to your original question. Specific repository is still valid pattern. We are not against repositories, we are against generic repositories because they don't provide any additional features and don't solve any problem.
The problem is that repository alone doesn't solve anything. There are three patterns which have to be used together to form proper abstraction: Repository, Unit of Work and Specifications. All three are already available in EF: DbSet / ObjectSet as repositories, DbContext / ObjectContext as Unit of works and Linq to Entities as specifications. The main problem with custom implementation of generic repositories mentioned everywhere is that they replace only repository and unit of work with custom implementation but still depend on original specifications => abstraction is incomplete and it is leaking in tests where faked repository behaves in the same way as faked set / context.
The main disadvantage of my query provider is explicit method for any query you will need to execute. In case of repository you will not have such methods you will have just few methods accepting specification (but again those specifications should be defined in DRY principle) which will build query filtering conditions, ordering etc.
public interface IUserRepository
{
User Find(int userId);
IEnumerable<User> FindAll(ISpecification spec);
}
The discussion of this topic is far beyond the scope of this question and it requires you to do some self study.
Btw. mocking and faking has different purpose - you fake a call if you need to get testing data from method in the dependency and you mock the call if you need to assert that method on dependency was called with expected arguments.
I would like to be able to run tests on my fake repository (that uses a list)
and my real repository (that uses a database) to make sure that both my mocked up version works as expected and my actual production repository works as expected. I thought the easiest way would be to use TestCase
private readonly StandardKernel _kernel = new StandardKernel();
private readonly IPersonRepository fakePersonRepository;
private readonly IPersonRepository realPersonRepository;
[Inject]
public PersonRepositoryTests()
{
realPersonRepository = _kernel.Get<IPersonRepository>();
_kernel = new StandardKernel(new TestModule());
fakePersonRepository = _kernel.Get<IPersonRepository>();
}
[TestCase(fakePersonRepository)]
[TestCase(realPersonRepository)]
public void CheckRepositoryIsEmptyOnStart(IPersonRepository personRepository)
{
if (personRepository == null)
{
throw new NullReferenceException("Person Repostory never Injected : is Null");
}
var records = personRepository.GetAllPeople();
Assert.AreEqual(0, records.Count());
}
but it asks for a constant expression.
Attributes are a compile-time decoration for an attribute, so anything that you put in a TestCase attribute has to be a constant that the compiler can resolve.
You can try something like this (untested):
[TestCase(typeof(FakePersonRespository))]
[TestCase(typeof(PersonRespository))]
public void CheckRepositoryIsEmptyOnStart(Type personRepoType)
{
// do some reflection based Activator.CreateInstance() stuff here
// to instantiate the incoming type
}
However, this gets a bit ugly because I imagine that your two different implementation might have different constructor arguments. Plus, you really don't want all that dynamic type instantiation code cluttering the test.
A possible solution might be something like this:
[TestCase("FakePersonRepository")]
[TestCase("TestPersonRepository")]
public void CheckRepositoryIsEmptyOnStart(string repoType)
{
// Write a helper class that accepts a string and returns a properly
// instantiated repo instance.
var repo = PersonRepoTestFactory.Create(repoType);
// your test here
}
Bottom line is, the test case attribute has to take a constant expression. But you can achieve the desired result by shoving the instantiation code into a factory.
You might look at the TestCaseSource attribute, though that may fail with the same error. Otherwise, you may have to settle for two separate tests, which both call a third method to handle all of the common test logic.
These three tests are identical, except that they use a different static function to create a StartInfo instance. I have this pattern coming up all trough my testcode, and would love
to be be able to simplify this using [TestCase], or any other way that reduces boilerplate code. To the best of my knowledge I'm not allowed to use a delegate as a [TestCase] argument, and I'm hoping people here have creative ideas on how to make the code below more terse.
[Test]
public void ResponseHeadersWorkinPlatform1()
{
DoResponseHeadersWorkTest(Platform1StartInfo.CreateOneRunning);
}
[Test]
public void ResponseHeadersWorkinPlatform2()
{
DoResponseHeadersWorkTest(Platform2StartInfo.CreateOneRunning);
}
[Test]
public void ResponseHeadersWorkinPlatform3()
{
DoResponseHeadersWorkTest(Platform3StartInfo.CreateOneRunning);
}
void DoResponseHeadersWorkTest(Func<ScriptResource,StartInfo> startInfoCreator)
{
ScriptResource sr = ScriptResource.Default;
var process = startInfoCreator(sr).Start();
//assert some things here
}
Firstly, I don't think the original is too bad. It's only messy if your assertions are different from test case to test case.
Anyway, you can use a test case, but it can't be done via a standard [TestCase] attribute due to using more complicated types. Instead, you need to use a public IEnumerable<> as the data provider and then tag your test method with a [TestCaseSource] attribute.
Try something like:
public IEnumerable<Func<ScriptResource, StartInfo>> TestCases
{
get
{
yield return Platform1StartInfo.CreateOneRunning;
yield return Platform2StartInfo.CreateOneRunning;
yield return Platform3StartInfo.CreateOneRunning;
}
}
[TestCaseSource("TestCases")]
public void MyDataDrivenTest(Func<ScriptResource, StartInfo> startInfoCreator)
{
ScriptResource sr = ScriptResource.Default;
var process = startInfoCreator(sr);
// do asserts
}
}
This is a more concise version of the standard pattern of yielding TestCaseData instances containing the parameters. If you yield instances of TestCaseData you can add more information and behaviours to each test (like expected exceptions, descriptions and so forth), but it is slightly more verbose.
Part of the reason I really like this stuff is that you can make one method for your 'act' and one method for your 'assert', then mix and match them independently. E.g. my friend was doing something yesterday where he used two Actions to say ("when method Blah is called, this method on the ViewModel should be triggered"). Very terse and effective!
It looks good. Are you looking to add a factory maybe ? Or you could add these methods to a Action List(in test setup) and call first action delegate, second action delegate and third action delegate.