It's my first time with Mockery for PHPUnit. I followed examples from this forum and still getting this error:
Mockery\Exception\InvalidCountException: Method all() from
Mockery_0_App_Card should be called exactly 1 times but called 0
times.
Basically, I'm injecting my model in my controller. Like this:
class CardController extends Controller
{
protected $repository;
function __construct(Model $repository)
{
$this->repository = $repository;
}
public function index()
{
$data = $this->repository->all();
return $data;
}
}
And trying testing like this:
class CardTest extends TestCase
{
protected $mock;
protected function setUp(): void
{
parent::setUp();
$this->mock = Mockery::mock('Model', '\App\Card');
}
public function testCardsList()
{
$this->mock->shouldReceive('all')
->once()
->andReturn(json_encode([[
"id"=> 1,
"name"=> "Aut modi quasi corrupti.",
"content"=> "..."
],
[
"id"=> 2,
"name"=> "Voluptas quia distinctio.",
"content"=> "..."
]]));
$this->app->instance('\App\Card', $this->mock);
$response = $this->json('GET', $this->api.'/cards');
$this->assertEquals(200, $response->status(), 'Response code must be 200');
}
}
I've tried a couple of variants but it's always the same. Like, setting Mockery in the controller or using Card::class notation. Any clue?
Also, I'm sure that the response is pulling data from DB and not using the array I provided. So, Mockery is having no incidence on my model.
After some readings, I'm convinced that testing with a SQLite DB is way better than creating mockups for Models. You don't have to work that much creating mockups. I'm linking to some discussion threads about how to implement the test environment, but I'm also pasting the code the I ended up writing.
Basically, you have to configure the DB to be SQLite. And you'll declare that it will run in memory. That's much faster than using a file.
Then, you want to run your migrations. And in my case, also seed the DB.
<?php
namespace Tests;
use DirectoryIterator;
use Illuminate\Foundation\Testing\TestCase as BaseTestCase;
use Illuminate\Support\Facades\Artisan;
use Illuminate\Support\Facades\Config;
abstract class TestCase extends BaseTestCase
{
use CreatesApplication;
protected function setUp()
{
parent::setUp();
Config::set('database.connections.sqlite.database', ':memory:');
Config::set('database.default', 'sqlite');
Artisan::call('migrate');
Artisan::call('db:seed');
protected function tearDown()
{
Artisan::call('migrate:reset');
parent::tearDown();
}
}
There's a caveat: setUp() is called once for each test. And I find out that this kind of notation will not work because the DB will be regenerated each time:
#depends testCreateCard
I was using that notation to pass an ID from testCreate() to several other methods. But ended up trusting in my seeds and using a hardcoded value.
Refs:
Laravel 5 - Using Mockery to mock Eloquent model
https://www.patrickstephan.me/post/setting-up-a-laravel-5-test-database.html
https://laracasts.com/discuss/channels/testing/how-to-specify-a-testing-database-in-laravel-5
https://laracasts.com/discuss/channels/general-discussion/how-to-migrate-a-testing-database-in-laravel-5
Related
I am very new to C# and nunit. Pls bear with me if this is basic and has been already been asked here.
We have a global setup,defined by [SetupFixture] class,which is expected to be run only once. The private variables are defined in it's [setup]. We wish to use the same variables in all our testfixtures,hence inheriting the testbase class in all our testfixtures.
But, while executing Testcase1, i observe that globalSetup() is called more than once. Can anyone point me the issue? sample code is as below.
namespace CTB
{
[SetupFixture]
public class Testbase
{
private byte val1;
private byte val2;
[setup]
public void globalSetup
{
val1 = 5;
val2 = 10;
}
[Teardown]
public void globalTeardown
{
//
}
}
}
namespace CTB.Testcase
{
public class TestCase : Testbase
{
[Setup]
public void Setup()
{
}
[Teardown]
public void Teardown()
{
}
[Test]
public void Testcase1()
{
byte val3 = val1 + val2; // Expect 15
}
}
}
I'm assuming that the answer to my comment is "No" and that you are using a current version of NUnit 3. Please correct me if I'm wrong. :-)
You have made the class TestBase serve two functions:
It's the base class for your TestFixture and therefore it's a TestFixture itself.
It's marked as a SetUpFixture so it also serves that function - a completely different function, by the way.
To be clear, you should never do this. It's a sort of "trick" that almost seems designed to confuse NUnit - not your intention of course. Your test fixtures should have no inheritance relationship with any SetUpFixture. Use different classes for the test fixture base and the setup fixture.
With that out of the way, here is the longer story of what is happening...
Before your tests even execute, the SetUpFixture is first "run" - in quotes because it actually does nothing. That's because it doesn't contain any methods marked with [OneTimeSetUp] or '[OneTimeTearDown]`.
NOTE: As an alternate explanation, if you are using a pretty old version of NUnit, the [SetUp] and [TearDown] methods are actually called at this point. Nnit V2 used those attributes with different meanings when encountered in a SetUpFixture versus a TestFixture.
Next your tests execute. Before each test, the inherited [SetUp] and [TearDown] methods are run. Of course, these are actually the same methods as in step 1. NUnit has been tricked into doing this!
Here is some general guidance for the future...
If you want multiple fixtures to use the same data, a base class is useful. Any public or protected fields or properties will be shared by the inheriting fixtures.
If you want to do some common setup or teardown for a group of unrelated test fixtures, use a SetUpFixture. Note that the only way to pass data from a SetUpFixture to the test fixtures is through static fields or properties. Generally, you use a SetUpFixture to set up the environment in which the test is run, not to provide data.
Never use the same class for both purposes.
I need to display two different index pages to two different user groups. For example, a regular user should see one page, and a privileged user - another one. I see two ways of approaching this issue:
One index action with conditionals:
public function index()
{
// view for privileged users
if(request()->user()->hasRole('privileged')){
return view('index_privileged');
}
// view for regular users
if(request()->user()->hasRole('regular')){
return view('index_regular');
}
return redirect('/');
}
Multiple actions:
public function index_privileged()
{
return view('index_privileged');
}
public function index_regular()
{
return view('index_regular');
}
Which approach is more "restful-friendly" and generally better?
I'm a big fan of light controllers. This might be a little overboard for a simple problem but if something like this pops up again, you'd already have everything all setup.
With that said, it might be best to create a PrivilegedUser class and a RegularUser class and give them both an index method which returns their respective views. Code them both to an interface UserInterface and make sure they both implement that.
Here is what those looked like in my test.
class RegularUser implements UserInterface
{
public function index()
{
return view('index_regular');
}
}
class PrivilegedUser implements UserInterface
{
public function index()
{
return view('index_privileged');
}
}
interface UserInterface
{
public function index();
}
Then you can add a listener which should run for the event Illuminate\Auth\Events\Login. Laravel will fire this event for you automatically when someone logs in. This goes into the file EventServiceProvider.php.
protected $listen = [
'Illuminate\Auth\Events\Login' => [
'App\Listeners\AuthLoginListener',
],
];
Now you can run php artisan event:generate to generate the new listener. Here is what my listener looks like, it should work for you.
namespace App\Listeners;
use Illuminate\Auth\Events\Login;
use Illuminate\Foundation\Application;
class AuthLoginListener
{
/**
* Create the event listener.
*
* #param Application $app
*/
public function __construct(Application $app)
{
$this->app = $app;
}
/**
* Handle the event.
*
* #param Login $event
* #return void
*/
public function handle(Login $event)
{
if ($event->user->hasRole('privileged')) {
$this->app->bind('App\Repositories\UserInterface', 'App\Repositories\PrivilegedUser');
} else if ($event->user->hasRole('regular')) {
$this->app->bind('App\Repositories\UserInterface', 'App\Repositories\RegularUser');
}
}
}
Essentially what this is doing is telling Laravel to load up a certain class based on the type of user that just logged in. The User instance is available through the Login object which was automatically passed in by Laravel.
Now that everything is setup, we barely have to do anything in our controller and if you need to do more things that are different depending on the user, just add them to the RegularUser or PrivilegedUser class. If you get more types of users, simply write a new class for them that implements the interface, add an additional else if to your AuthLoginListener and you should be good to go.
To use this, in your controller, you'd do something like the following...
// Have Laravel make our user class
$userRepository = App::make('App\Repositories\UserInterface');
return $userRepository->index()->with('someData', $data);
Or even better, inject it as a dependency.
use App\Repositories\UserInterface;
class YourController extends Controller
{
public function index(UserInterface $user)
{
return $user->index();
}
}
Edit:
I just realized I forgot the part where you wanted to return redirect('/'); if no condition was met. You could create a new class GuestUser (I know this sounds like an oxymoron) which implements UserInterface but instead of using the AuthLoginListener, I'd bind it in a service provider when Laravel boots. This way Laravel will always have something to return when it needs an implementation of UserInterface in the event it needs this class if no one is logged in.
Well, its more like a refactoring "issue" than a rest-friendly issue. Check this guideline and you can see that most of the things that makes an api friendly is concerned to the url.
But, lets answer what you are asking. The thing you wanna do is a refactoring method but it is not only the move method but something like the extract variable.
The second option would make the code more readable, either ways are right but the second is more developer friendly. It enhances the code readability from any developer. I would recommend using the second option.
Refactoring is never enough, but read something like this, it will help you a lot writing more readable codes.
In my app, I was testing Google Directions API with ajax, but since I was just testing all the logic was in the routes.php file. Now I want to do things the proper way and have three layers: route, controller and service.
So in the routes I tell Laravel which method should be executed:
Route::get('/search', 'DirectionsAPIController#search');
And the method just returns what the service is supposed to return:
class DirectionsAPIController extends BaseController {
public function search() {
$directionsSearchService = new DirectionsSearchService();
return $directionsSearchService->search(Input::all());
}
}
I created the service in app/libraries/Services/Directions and called it DirectionsSearchService.php and copied all the logic I developed in routes:
class DirectionsSearchService {
public function search($input = array()) {
$origin = $input['origin'];
$destination = $input['destination'];
$mode = $input['mode'];
// do stuf...
return $data;
}
}
I read the docs and some place else (and this too) and did what I was supposed to do to register a service:
class DirectionsAPIController extends BaseController {
public function search() {
App::register('libraries\Services\Directions\DirectionsSearchService');
$directionsSearchService = new DirectionsSearchService();
return $directionsSearchService->search(Input::all());
}
}
// app/libraries/Services/Directions/DirectionsSearchService.php
use Illuminate\Support\ServiceProvider;
class DirectionsSearchService extends ServiceProvider {
}
I also tried adding libraries\Services\Directions\DirectionsSearchService to the providers array in app/config/app.php.
However, I am getting this error:
HP Fatal error: Class
'libraries\Services\Directions\DirectionsSearchService' not found in
/home/user/www/my-app-laravel/bootstrap/compiled.php on line 549
What am I doing wrong? And what is the usual way to use your own services? I don't want to place all the logic in the controller...
2 main things that you are missing:
There is a difference between a ServiceProvider and your class. A service provider in Laravel tells Laravel where to go look for the service, but it does not contain the service logic itself. So DirectionsSearchService should not be both, imho.
You need to register your classes with composer.json so that autoloader knows that your class exists.
To keep it simple I'll go with Laravel IoC's automatic resolution and not using a service provider for now.
app/libraries/Services/Directions/DirectionsSearchService.php:
namespace Services\Directions;
class DirectionsSearchService
{
public function search($input = array())
{
// Your search logic
}
}
You might notice that DirectionsSearchService does not extend anything. Your service becomes very loosely coupled.
And in your DirectionsAPIController.php you do:
class DirectionsAPIController extends BaseController
{
protected $directionsSearchService;
public function __construct(Services\Directions\DirectionsSearchService $directionsSearchService)
{
$this->directionsSearchService = $directionsSearchService;
}
public function search()
{
return $this->directionsSearchService->search(Input::all());
}
}
With the code above, when Laravel tries to __construct() your controller, it will look for Services\Directions\DirectionsSearchService and injects into the controller for you automatically. In the constructor, we simply need to set it to an instance variable so your search() can use it when needed.
The second thing that you are missing is to register your classes with composer's autoload. Do this by adding to composer.json's autoload section:
"autoload": {
"classmap": [
... // Laravel's default classmap autoloads
],
"psr-4": {
"Services\\": "app/libraries/Services"
}
}
And do a composer dump-autoload after making changes to composer.json. And your code should be working again.
The suggestion above can also be better with a service provider and coding to the interface. It would make it easier to control what to inject into your controller, and hence easier to create and inject in a mock for testing.
It involves quite a few more steps so I won't mention that here, but you can read more in Exploring Laravel’s IoC container and Laravel 4 Controller Testing.
I'm currently using SOA, I've a bunch of Service, (ArticleService, CommentService, UserService, etc..)
I also have a ConfigurationService which is filled from an XML configuration file.
I'm using Zend Framework.
THis configuration service is needed in some of my service, and I'm using dependency injection, is it a good practice, to add ConfigurationService in constructor of most my Service to be able to fetch global configuration?
Thank you for your feedbacks.
I would say, no, don't pass the config container - neither as a service nor as an array nor a Zend_Config instance - in the constructor of your other services. I would keep the injection (whether by constructor or by setter) for those services focused on the actual objects/collaborators/data they actually need.
So, for example, an ArticleService might depend upon an ArticleRepository interface/object or on an ArticleMapper or on a db adapter. Let the constructor/setter signatures for the ArticleService reflect what it truly needs.
Instead, what I would do is during Bootstrap, create some kind of factory object - perhaps as an application resource - that accepts in its constructor your config data/object/service (or even better, the bootstrap instance itself, from which you could get, not just your config data, but also any application resources, like a db adapter, that were created during the bootstrap process). Then write methods on your factory object that create/deliver the other services you need. Internally, the factory maintains a registry of already created services so that it can lazy-create instances where required.
A snippet of what I have in mind might be as follows:
Bootstrap snippet:
class Bootstrap extends Zend_Application_Bootstrap_Bootstrap
{
protected function _initFactory()
{
$factory = new My_Factory($this);
return $factory;
}
}
Then the factory:
class My_Factory
{
protected $_registry;
protected $_bootstrap;
public function __constructor($bootstrap)
{
$this->_bootstrap = $bootstrap;
}
public function getDbAdapter()
{
if (!isset($this->_registry['dbAdapter']){
$this->_bootstrap->bootstrap('db'); // probably using app resource
$this->_registry['dbAdapter'] = $This->_bootstrap->getResource('db');
}
return $this->_registry['dbAdapter'];
}
public function getArticleService()
{
if (!isset($this->_registry['articleService']){
$dbAdapter = $this->getDbAdapter();
$this->_registry['articleService'] = new My_ArticleService($dbAdapter);
}
return $this->_registry['articleService'];
}
public function getTwitterService()
{
if (!isset($this->_registry['twitterService']){
$options = $this->_bootstrap->getOptions();
$user = $options['twitter']['user'];
$pass = $options['twitter']['pass'];
$this->_registry['twitterService'] = new My_TwitterService($user, $pass);
}
return $this->_registry['twitterService'];
}
}
Then in a controller, you could grab an ArticleService instance:
class SomeController extends Zend_Controller_Action
{
protected $_factory;
public function init()
{
$this->_factory = $this->getInvokeArg('bootstrap')->getResource('factory');
}
public function someAction()
{
$articleService = $this->_factory->getArticleService();
$this->view->articles = $articleService->getRecentArticles(5); // for example
}
}
The upshot here is that each service explicitly identifies the collaborators it needs and the factory is a single place that takes care of creating/injecting all those collaborators.
Finally, I confess that I am just spitballing here. To me, this is essentially a rudimentary dependency injection container; in that sense, using a fully-featured DIC - perhaps the Symfony DIC or the new Zend\Di package in ZF2 - might be better. But after many months of struggling with all the best-practice recommendations to inject your dependencies, this is what I have come up with. If it's goofy or just plain wrong, please (please!) straighten me out. ;-)
How do I begin testing my models in a Zend Framework 1.8+ application?
Let's say I have my application set up to start testing. I have already tested a controller, so I know it works. I have all my controllers extending my ControllerTestCase.php file:
<?php
require_once 'Zend/Application.php';
require_once 'Zend/Test/PHPUnit/ControllerTestCase.php';
abstract class ControllerTestCase extends Zend_Test_PHPUnit_ControllerTestCase
{
public $application;
public function setUp()
{
$this->application = new Zend_Application(
APPLICATION_ENV,
APPLICATION_PATH . '/configs/application.ini'
);
$this->bootstrap = array($this, 'appBootstrap');
parent::setUp();
}
public function appBootstrap()
{
$this->application->bootstrap();
}
public function tearDown()
{
Zend_Controller_Front::getInstance()->resetInstance();
$this->resetRequest();
$this->resetResponse();
$this->request->setPost(array());
$this->request->setQuery(array());
parent::tearDown();
}
}
But now I want to start testing my models. It seems like my ModelTestCase.php would not extend Zend_Test_PHPUnit_ControllerTestCase but rather a Zend_Test_PHPUnit_ModelTestCase, but no such class exists that I know of. How can I start testing my Zend Framework models?
There is a base ControllerTestCase provided for you because there are complex steps needed to setup and tear down the environment for testing a controller. The input is a mock HTTP request, and the output is rendered HTML that you need to scrape to find expected content.
A Model is more like a plain old PHP object. There's less environment to set up. The interface is simply method calls to the object.
So I would start a TestCase class that extends PHPUnit's plain TestCase, and start by adding at least one test method (as an empty function) for each method in your Model class. You will eventually have many test methods for each method in your Model class, but creating the empty test methods is a good way to keep from forgetting some of your Model methods.
Note that a Model is not a Table -- a Model typically uses one or more Table objects. By following this pattern, you have the opportunity to create mock objects for Tables so you can run the test suite without requiring a live connection to a database.
Here's an example of setting up a mock Table object, which is hardcoded to return a synthetic data set instead of a data set from a database.
<?php
class MyModelTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase
{
protected $_model;
public function setUp()
{
$foo = $this->getMock('FooTable', array('find'));
$foo->expects($this->any())
->method('find')
->will($this->returnValue(array("id"=>"123")));
$this->_model = new MyModel();
$this->_model->setFooTable($foo);
}
public function testCountElements()
{
$this->_model->get(123);
$n = $this->_model->countElements();
$this->assertEquals(1, $n);
}
public function testAsArray()
{
$this->_model->get(123);
$a = $this->_model->asArray();
$this->assertType('array', $a);
}
public function testAddElement()
{
// ...etc.
}
public function testGetElement()
{
// ...etc.
}
}