I have:
val observable: Observable[Int] = Observable.from(List(5))
and I can test that the input list is indeed passed on to the observable by testing:
materializeValues(observable) should contain (5)
where materializeValues is:
def materializeValues[T](observable: Observable[T]): List[T] = {
observable.toBlocking.toIterable.toList
}
Now, if I create an observable from a future, I can't seem to use materializeValues for the test as the test times out. So if I have:
val futVal = Future.successful(5)
val observable: Observable[Int] = Observable.from(futVal)
materializeValues(observable) should contain(5)
it times out and does not pass the test. What is different in the process of materializing these two observables, which leads to me not being able to block on it?
Also, what is the idomatic way of testing an observable? Is there any way of doing it without calling toBlocking?
I think the problem is that you use AsyncWordSpecLike (by the way why AsyncWordSpecLike instead of AsyncWordSpec?). AsyncWordSpecLike/AsyncWordSpec are designed to simplify testing Future. Unfortunately Observable is a more powerful abstraction that can't be easily mapped onto a Future.
Particularly AsyncWordSpecLike/AsyncWordSpec allow your tests to return Future[Assertion]. To make it possible it provides custom implicit ExecutionContext that it can force to execute everything and know when all scheduled jobs have finished. However the same custom ExecutionContext is the reason why your second code doesn't work: processing of the scheduled jobs starts only after execution of your test code has finished but your code blocks on the futVal because unlucklily for you callback registered in Future.onComplete is scheduled to be run on the ExecutionContext. It means that you have a kind of dead-lock with your own thread.
I'm not sure what is the official way to test Observable on Scala. In Java I think TestSubscriber is the suggested tool. As I said Observable is fundamentally more powerful thing than Future so I think to test Observable you should avoid using AsyncWordSpecLike/AsyncWordSpec. If you switch to use FlatSpec or WordSpec, you can do something like this:
class MyObservableTestSpec extends WordSpec with Matchers {
import scala.concurrent.ExecutionContext.Implicits.global
val testValue = 5
"observables" should {
"be testable if created from futures" in {
val futVal = Future.successful(testValue)
val observable = Observable.from(futVal)
val subscriber = TestSubscriber[Int]()
observable(subscriber)
subscriber.awaitTerminalEvent
// now after awaitTerminalEvent you can use various subscriber.assertXyz methods
subscriber.assertNoErrors
subscriber.assertValues(testValue)
// or you can use Matchers as
subscriber.getOnNextEvents should contain(testValue)
}
}
}
Related
I have published a minimal project showcasing my problem at https://github.com/Zwackelmann/mockito-actor-test
In my project I refactored a couple of components from classes to objects in all cases where the class did not really have a meaningful state. Since some of these objects establish connections to external services that need to be mocked, I was happy to see that mockito-scala introduced the withObjectMocked context function, which allows mocking objects within the scope of the function.
This feature worked perfectly for me until I introduced Actors in the mix, which would ignore the mocked functions despite being in the withObjectMocked context.
For an extended explanation what I did check out my github example project from above which is ready to be executed via sbt run.
My goal is to mock the doit function below. It should not be called during tests, so for this demonstration it simply throws a RuntimeException.
object FooService {
def doit(): String = {
// I don't want this to be executed in my tests
throw new RuntimeException(f"executed real impl!!!")
}
}
The FooService.doit function is only called from the FooActor.handleDoit function. This function is called by the FooActor after receiving the Doit message or when invoked directly.
object FooActor {
val outcome: Promise[Try[String]] = Promise[Try[String]]()
case object Doit
def apply(): Behavior[Doit.type] = Behaviors.receiveMessage { _ =>
handleDoit()
Behaviors.same
}
// moved out actual doit behavior so I can compare calling it directly with calling it from the actor
def handleDoit(): Unit = {
try {
// invoke `FooService.doit()` if mock works correctly it should return the "mock result"
// otherwise the `RuntimeException` from the real implementation will be thrown
val res = FooService.doit()
outcome.success(Success(res))
} catch {
case ex: RuntimeException =>
outcome.success(Failure(ex))
}
}
}
To mock Foo.doit I used withObjectMocked as follows. All following code is within this block. To ensure that the block is not left due to asynchronous execution, I Await the result of the FooActor.outcome Promise.
withObjectMocked[FooService.type] {
// mock `FooService.doit()`: The real method throws a `RuntimeException` and should never be called during tests
FooService.doit() returns {
"mock result"
}
// [...]
}
I now have two test setups: The first simply calls FooActor.handleDoit directly
def simpleSetup(): Try[String] = {
FooActor.handleDoit()
val result: Try[String] = Await.result(FooActor.outcome.future, 1.seconds)
result
}
The second setup triggers FooActor.handleDoit via the Actor
def actorSetup(): Try[String] = {
val system: ActorSystem[FooActor.Doit.type] = ActorSystem(FooActor(), "FooSystem")
// trigger actor to call `handleDoit`
system ! FooActor.Doit
// wait for `outcome` future. The 'real' `FooService.doit` impl results in a `Failure`
val result: Try[String] = Await.result(FooActor.outcome.future, 1.seconds)
system.terminate()
result
}
Both setups wait for the outcome promise to finish before exiting the block.
By switching between simpleSetup and actorSetup I can test both behaviors. Since both are executed within the withObjectMocked context, I would expect that both trigger the mocked function. However actorSetup ignores the mocked function and calls the real method.
val result: Try[String] = simpleSetup()
// val result: Try[String] = actorSetup()
result match {
case Success(res) => println(f"finished with result: $res")
case Failure(ex) => println(f"failed with exception: ${ex.getMessage}")
}
// simpleSetup prints: finished with result: mock result
// actorSetup prints: failed with exception: executed real impl!!!
Any suggestions?
withObjectMock relies on the code exercising the mock executing in the same thread as withObjectMock (see Mockito's implementation and see ThreadAwareMockHandler's check of the current thread).
Since actors execute on the threads of the ActorSystem's dispatcher (never in the calling thread), they cannot see such a mock.
You may want to investigate testing your actor using the BehaviorTestKit, which itself effectively uses a mock/stub implementation of the ActorContext and ActorSystem. Rather than spawning an actor, an instance of the BehaviorTestKit encapsulates a behavior and passes it messages which are processed synchronously in the testing thread (via the run and runOne methods). Note that the BehaviorTestKit has some limitations: certain categories of behaviors aren't really testable via the BehaviorTestKit.
More broadly, I'd tend to suggest that mocking in Akka is not worth the effort: if you need pervasive mocks, that's a sign of a poor implementation. ActorRef (especially of the typed variety) is IMO the ultimate mock: encapsulate exactly what needs to be mocked into its own actor with its own protocol and inject that ActorRef into the behavior under test. Then you validate that the behavior under test holds up its end of the protocol correctly. If you want to validate the encapsulation (which should be as simple as possible to the extent that it's obviously correct, but if you want/need to spend effort on getting those coverage numbers up...) you can do the BehaviorTestKit trick as above (and since the only thing the behavior is doing is exercising the mocked functionality, it almost certainly won't be in the category of behaviors which aren't testable with the BehaviorTestKit).
In the code example below, how can I wait for ajaxCall() to finish before starting test 1 when using scalatest to test Scala.js code ? I cannot use await in Scala.js.
class ClientGetEntityDynTest
extends AsyncFunSuite
with Matchers
with BeforeAndAfter {
implicit override def executionContext =
scala.scalajs.concurrent.JSExecutionContext.Implicits.queue
before {
ajaxCall(...) // returns Future[...]
... // I would like to wait for ajaxCall to finish before starting test 1
}
test("test 1") {
...
getEntityDyn(...) // returns Future[Assertion]
}
}
This one year old issue seems to be related but not really resolved.
One simple possibility would be to make my own testWithBefore method... that calls test and waits for a Future to complete before calling test but maybe it is possible to do this without this workaround.
I suspect you need to restructure your tests, to not use BeforeAndAfter. I'm not sure of the best solution, but the fall-back would be to create your own higher-order function, called something like beforeAsync(fun: => Future[Any]), and manually use that in your tests.
I suspect it wouldn't be too hard to take BeforeAndAfter.scala, and create a variant BeforeAndAfterAsyc that has this beforeAsync() function in it, but I haven't tried doing so.
I'm attempting to write a method which accepts multiple generic types and takes as an argument a unit of work to execute.
The idea is that the unit of work is a common function that itself is generic. For the sake of example, let's say it's something like the following:
def loadModelRdd[T: TypeTag](sc: SparkContext): RDD[T] = {
...
}
loadModelRdd() will construct an RDD of the given type after some internal processing like loading the Model information, etc.
A prototype method I've been hacking on looks something like the following (non-working):
def forkAll[A : Manifest, B : Manifest](work: => RDD[_]): (RDD[A], RDD[B]) = {
def aFuture = Future { work } // How can I notify that this work call returns type A?
def bFuture = Future { work } // How can I notify that this work call returns type B?
val res = for {
a <- aFuture
b <- bFuture
} yield (a.asInstanceOf[A], b.asInstanceOf[B])
Await.result(res, 10.seconds)
}
This is a shortened version of the code I'm working on as I'm actually looking at accepting as many as 10 different types.
As you can see, the overall goal of the forkAll method is to wrap the unit of work in a Future, fork-join the execution of the unit of work for each type, then return the results as a Tuple'd result. An example consumer statement would be:
val (a, b) = forkAll[ClassA, ClassB](loadModelRdd)
i.e I want to fork-join at this point and wait for the results, but I want the executions to be executed in parallel and then collected back to the Driver (Spark Driver to be specific).
The problem is I'm not sure how to coerce the type returned by the unit of work within forkAll when constructing the Future {} blocks. Without the forkAll, the implementation looked like the following:
val resA = loadModelRdd[ClassA](sc)
val resB = loadModelRdd[ClassB](sc)
...
I am looking at doing this for two reasons:
To abstract the details of fork-join for any unit of work which matches this model.
A version of this code, which explicitly states what the unit of work is, is working in Production and was responsible for cutting execution of a long-running block by close to half. I have a couple of execution steps where this pattern could be applied
Is this something that is possible in Scala's type system? Or should I look at this problem from a different perspective? I've tried a couple of implementations (including one described here) but I haven't quite found one that fits my current view of the problem
Please let me know if there is any additional information needed.
Thanks!
Short answer: Scala does not allow functions with type parameters, so what you want is not exactly possible.
You are attempting to pass a method with a type parameter. Although methods are allowed to have type parameters, functions are not. When you try to pass a method, it acts like an anonymous function, so you must specify a type.
However, since methods do allow type parameters, you can take advantage of this by creating an abstract class that will do your fork/join
abstract class ForkJoin {
protected def work[T]: RDD[T]
def apply[A, B]: (RDD[A], RDD[B]) = {
// Write implementation of fork/join here
(work[A], work[B])
}
}
then overriding the type generic work method so that it does what you want, such as calling some other pre-defined method.
val forkJoin = new ForkJoin {
override protected def work[T]: RDD[T] =
loadModelRdd[T](sc)
}
val (intRdd, stringRdd) = forkJoin[Int, String]
Check out this for a prototype implementation that compiles and runs without issues.
Experimenting with concurrent execution I was wondering how to actually test it.
The execution flow is of a side-effect nature and futures are created to wrap independent executions/processing.
Been searching for some good examples on how to properly unit test the following scenarios (foo and bar are the methods I wish to test):
scenario #1
def foo : Unit = {
Future { doSomething }
Future { doSomethingElse }
}
private def doSomething : Unit = serviceCall1
private def doSomethingElse : Unit = serviceCall2
Scenario motivation
foo immediately returns but invokes 2 futures which perform separate tasks (e.g. save analytics and store record to DB). These service calls can be mocked, but what I'm trying to test is that both these services are called once I wrap them in Futures
scenario #2
def bar : Unit = {
val futureX = doAsyncX
val futureY = doAsyncY
for {
x <- futureX
y <- futureY
} yield {
noOp(x, y)
}
}
Scenario motivation
Start with long running computations that can be executed concurrently (e.g. get the number of total visitors and get the frequently used User-Agent header to our web site). Combine the result in some other operation (which in this case Unit method that simply throws the values)
Note I'm familiar with actors and testing actors, but given the above code I wonder what should be the most suitable approach (refactoring included)
EDIT What I'm doing at the moment
implicit value context = ExecutionContext.fromExecutor(testExecutor)
def testExecutor = {
new Executor {
def execute(runnable : Runnable) = runnable.run
}
}
This ExecutionContext implementation will not run the Future as a separate thread and the entire execution will be done in sequence. This kinda feels like a hack but based on Electric Monk answer, it seems like the other solution is more of the same.
One solution would be to use a DeterministicExecutor. Not a scalaesque solution, but should so the trick.
If you are using ScalaTest, take a look at: http://doc.scalatest.org/2.0/index.html#org.scalatest.concurrent.Futures
Specs2 also has support for testing Futures:
http://etorreborre.github.io/specs2/guide/org.specs2.guide.Matchers.html
ScalaTest 3.x supports asynchronous non-blocking testing.
Suppose I need to process files in a given folder in parallel. In Java I would create a FolderReader thread to read file names from the folder and a pool of FileProcessor threads. FolderReader reads file names and submits the file processing function (Runnable) to the pool executor.
In Scala I see two options:
create a pool of FileProcessor actors and schedule a file processing function with Actors.Scheduler.
create an actor for each file name while reading the file names.
Does it make sense? What is the best option?
Depending on what you're doing, it may be as simple as
for(file<-files.par){
//process the file
}
I suggest with all my energies to keep as far as you can from the threads. Luckily we have better abstractions which take care of what's happening below, and in your case it appears to me that you do not need to use actors (while you can) but you can use a simpler abstraction, called Futures. They are a part of Akka open source library, and I think in the future will be a part of the Scala standard library as well.
A Future[T] is simply something that will return a T in the future.
All you need to run a future, is to have an implicit ExecutionContext, which you can derive from a java executor service. Then you will be able to enjoy the elegant API and the fact that a future is a monad to transform collections into collections of futures, collect the result and so on. I suggest you to give a look to http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/2.0.1/scala/futures.html
object TestingFutures {
implicit val executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(20)
implicit val executorContext = ExecutionContext.fromExecutorService(executorService)
def testFutures(myList:List[String]):List[String]= {
val listOfFutures : Future[List[String]] = Future.traverse(myList){
aString => Future{
aString.reverse
}
}
val result:List[String] = Await.result(listOfFutures,1 minute)
result
}
}
There's a lot going on here:
I am using Future.traverse which receives as a first parameter which is M[T]<:Traversable[T] and as second parameter a T => Future[T] or if you prefer a Function1[T,Future[T]] and returns Future[M[T]]
I am using the Future.apply method to create an anonymous class of type Future[T]
There are many other reasons to look at Akka futures.
Futures can be mapped because they are monad, i.e. you can chain Futures execution :
Future { 3 }.map { _ * 2 }.map { _.toString }
Futures have callback: future.onComplete, onSuccess, onFailure, andThen etc.
Futures support not only traverse, but also for comprehension
Ideally you should use two actors. One for reading the list of files, and one for actually reading the file.
You start the process by simply sending a single "start" message to the first actor. The actor can then read the list of files, and send a message to the second actor. The second actor then reads the file and processes the contents.
Having multiple actors, which might seem complicated, is actually a good thing in the sense that you have a bunch of objects communicating with eachother, like in a theoretical OO system.
Edit: you REALLY shouldn't be doing doing concurrent reading of a single file.
I was going to write up exactly what #Edmondo1984 did except he beat me to it. :) I second his suggestion in a big way. I'll also suggest that you read the documentation for Akka 2.0.2. As well, I'll give you a slightly more concrete example:
import akka.dispatch.{ExecutionContext, Future, Await}
import akka.util.duration._
import java.util.concurrent.Executors
import java.io.File
val execService = Executors.newCachedThreadPool()
implicit val execContext = ExecutionContext.fromExecutorService(execService)
val tmp = new File("/tmp/")
val files = tmp.listFiles()
val workers = files.map { f =>
Future {
f.getAbsolutePath()
}
}.toSeq
val result = Future.sequence(workers)
result.onSuccess {
case filenames =>
filenames.foreach { fn =>
println(fn)
}
}
// Artificial just to make things work for the example
Thread.sleep(100)
execContext.shutdown()
Here I use sequence instead of traverse, but the difference is going to depend on your needs.
Go with the Future, my friend; the Actor is just a more painful approach in this instance.
But if use actors, what's wrong with that?
If we have to read / write to some property file. There is my Java example. But still with Akka Actors.
Lest's say we have an actor ActorFile represents one file. Hm.. Probably it can not represent One file. Right? (would be nice it could). So then it represents several files like PropertyFilesActor then:
Why would not use something like this:
public class PropertyFilesActor extends UntypedActor {
Map<String, String> filesContent = new LinkedHashMap<String, String>();
{ // here we should use real files of cource
filesContent.put("file1.xml", "");
filesContent.put("file2.xml", "");
}
#Override
public void onReceive(Object message) throws Exception {
if (message instanceof WriteMessage) {
WriteMessage writeMessage = (WriteMessage) message;
String content = filesContent.get(writeMessage.fileName);
String newContent = content + writeMessage.stringToWrite;
filesContent.put(writeMessage.fileName, newContent);
}
else if (message instanceof ReadMessage) {
ReadMessage readMessage = (ReadMessage) message;
String currentContent = filesContent.get(readMessage.fileName);
// Send the current content back to the sender
getSender().tell(new ReadMessage(readMessage.fileName, currentContent), getSelf());
}
else unhandled(message);
}
}
...a message will go with parameter (fileName)
It has its own in-box, accepting messages like:
WriteLine(fileName, string)
ReadLine(fileName, string)
Those messages will be storing into to the in-box in the order, one after antoher. The actor would do its work by receiving messages from the box - storing/reading, and meanwhile sending feedback sender ! message back.
Thus, let's say if we write to the property file, and send showing the content on the web page. We can start showing page (right after we sent message to store a data to the file) and as soon as we received the feedback, update part of the page with a data from just updated file (by ajax).
Well, grab your files and stick them in a parallel structure
scala> new java.io.File("/tmp").listFiles.par
res0: scala.collection.parallel.mutable.ParArray[java.io.File] = ParArray( ... )
Then...
scala> res0 map (_.length)
res1: scala.collection.parallel.mutable.ParArray[Long] = ParArray(4943, 1960, 4208, 103266, 363 ... )