how to merge these two RunWith runners? - junit-runner

I have created two Runners both of whom are inherited from BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.
One is to filter some tests based on conditions. The other is to run test multiple methods concurrently. I want to apply both these runner so that the tests are run based on conditions and concurrently.
The problem is we cannot annotate multiple #RunWith to the same tests, according to Multiple RunWith Statements in jUnit.
my question is since both these two runners are inherited from the same base class BlockJUnit4ClassRunner, can I combine these two runners to be one so that RunWith this runner, I can run test methods based on conditions and using concurrent way? And How to do that?
Here are the two runners I created:
1) This runner runs test methods based on some conditions defined in FunctionalTestFilter:
public class FilterRunner extends BlockJUnit4ClassRunner {
public FilterRunner(Class<?> clazz) throws InitializationError {
super(clazz);
Filter f = new FunctionalTestFilter();
try {
f.apply(this);
} catch (NoTestsRemainException ex) {
System.out.println("Warning! No method run in " + clazz.getName());
}
}
2) This runner runs test methods concurrently using multi-threading:
public static class ConcurrentJunitMethodRunner extends BlockJUnit4ClassRunner {
public ConcurrentJunitMethodRunner(final Class<?> testclass) throws InitializationError {
super(testclass);
setScheduler(new RunnerScheduler() {
ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(5);
CompletionService<Void> completionService = new ExecutorCompletionService<Void>(executorService);
Queue<Future<Void>> tasks = new LinkedList<Future<Void>>();
#Override
public void schedule(Runnable childStatement) {
tasks.offer(completionService.submit(childStatement, null));
}
#Override
public void finished() {
try {
while (!tasks.isEmpty())
tasks.remove(completionService.take());
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
} finally {
while (!tasks.isEmpty())
tasks.poll().cancel(true);
executorService.shutdownNow();
}
}
});
}
}

Related

Solr custom query component does not return correct facet counts

I have a simple Solr query component as follows:
public class QueryPreprocessingComponent extends QueryComponent implements PluginInfoInitialized {
private static final Logger LOG = LoggerFactory.getLogger( QueryPreprocessingComponent.class );
private ExactMatchQueryProcessor exactMatchQueryProcessor;
public void init( PluginInfo info ) {
initializeProcessors(info);
}
private void initializeProcessors(PluginInfo info) {
List<PluginInfo> queryPreProcessors = info.getChildren("queryPreProcessors")
.get(0).getChildren("queryPreProcessor");
for (PluginInfo queryProcessor : queryPreProcessors) {
initializeProcessor(queryProcessor);
}
}
private void initializeProcessor(PluginInfo queryProcessor) {
QueryProcessorParam processorName = QueryProcessorParam.valueOf(queryProcessor.name);
switch(processorName) {
case ExactMatchQueryProcessor:
exactMatchQueryProcessor = new ExactMatchQueryProcessor(queryProcessor.initArgs);
LOG.info("ExactMatchQueryProcessor initialized...");
break;
default: throw new AssertionError();
}
}
#Override
public void prepare( ResponseBuilder rb ) throws IOException
{
if (exactMatchQueryProcessor != null) {
exactMatchQueryProcessor.modifyForExactMatch(rb);
}
}
#Override
public void process(ResponseBuilder rb) throws IOException
{
// do nothing - needed so we don't execute the query here.
return;
}
}
This works as expected functionally except when I use this in a distributed request, it has an issue with facets counts returned. It doubles the facet counts.
Note that I am not doing anything related to faceting in plugin. exactMatchQueryProcessor.modifyForExactMatch(rb); does a very minimal processing if the query is quoted otherwise it does nothing. Even if the incoming query is not quoted, facet count issue is there. Even if I comment everything inside prepare function, issue persists.
Note that this component is declared in as first-components in solrconfig.xml.
I resolved this issue by extending the class to SearchComponent instead of QueryComponent. It seems that SearchComponent sits at higher level of abstraction than QueryComponent and is useful when you want to work on a layer above shards.

Mock an Interface with Mockito return a NullPointerException

I m trying create unit tests for one project.I m facing a problem because when I try control the result of an interface(mock). When the code get the Interface variable that return a NullPointerException.
Firstly I tried #Override the method in my test class (ClassA), but it don't work. After that I tried mock the interface object and control the comportment with Mockito.When().tehnReturn();
I will put here my code, I read some solutions but none works.
My Interface:
#FunctionalInterface
public interface Interface {
UpdateXResponse process(UpdateXRequest request) throws Exception;
}
The class I want to test:
#Service(ClassA.class)
public class ClassA extends VService implements UpdateX {
#Reference
#Inject
private Interface interface;
#Inject
public ClassA(...) {...}
#Override
public UpdateXResponse process(UpdateXRequest request) throws Exception {
UpdateXResponse response = initResponse(context, request, new UpdateXResponse());
UpdateXInput input = request.getInput();
UpdateXOutput output = new UpdateXOutput();
response.setOutput(output);
try {
firstMethodCall(...);
} catch (Exception t) {
throwCorrectException(t, logger);
}
return response;
}
private void firstMethodCall(...) throws Exception {
TypeF typeF = callInterfaceMethod(...);
...
}
/**
* Orchestrates Interface service
*/
protected TypeF callInterfaceMethod(...) {
...
request.setInput(input);
request.setHeader(header);
InterfaceResponse response = interface.process(request); // LINE ERROR - In this step interface is NULL when the test get this
return response;
}
}
And finally my class test:
#RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
#PrepareForTest(value = {ClassA.class,Interface.class} )
public class WithPowerMockUnitTest{
#InjectMocks
private ClassA classA;
private Interface interface;
#Before
public void setUp() throws Exception {
InterfaceRequest InterfaceRequest = createInterfaceRequest();
InterfaceResponse serviceUnavailableResponse = createInterfaceResponse();
Interface = Mockito.mock(Interface.class);
when(Interface.process(Mockito.any(InterfaceRequest.class))).thenReturn(serviceUnavailableResponse);
}
#Test
public void testh() throws SOAException {
InterfaceResponse res = interface.process(Mockito.any(InterfaceRequest.class)); // There all run ok. The interface is not null and return what i expected.
System.out.println("RES "+res);
}
#Test
public void test() {
assertNotNull(classA); // not null
assertNotNull(interface); // not null
}
#Test
public void newTest() throws Exception {
InterfaceRequest InterfaceRequest = createInterfaceRequest();
InterfaceResponse serviceUnavailableResponse = createInterfaceResponse();
UpdateXResponse response = ClassA.process(updateXRequest()); // PROBLEM!! When that get the LINE ERROR the interface is null! WHY?
}
}
I put some comments in the lines where the problem exists for me.
public interface A{
Response process(Request r) throws Exception;
}
public class B{
private Class_That_Override_Interface_method ctoim;
public Response function(){
X res = method_B();
}
protected X method_B(){
response res = ctoim.process(request); // That ctoim is always NULL when the test get that line/call
}
}
Thanks
You're missing the #Mock annotation on your Interface variable.
Therefore the mock is not injected into your classA and the newTest() fails. (In this case remove Interface = Mockito.mock(Interface.class); from the setUp method).
Alternativly remove the #InjectMocks annotation and create your class under test manually passing your mock into the constructor.
For this specific case (assuming its a different case from the last question)
there doesn't seem to be a need to involve PowerMockito. So unless you left out some relevant parts you might as well just use the MockitoJUnitRunner.
Ps.:
Also remeber what I said last time about compilable examples?
interface is a keyword and can't be used for variables.
You should also aim to write variables identical all the times (not Interface and interface / classA and ClassA)
And in case you haven't read it yet check out the help section about minmal reproducible examples.
Edit:
I fogot to mention that the line interface.process(Mockito.any(InterfaceRequest.class)); in testh() is actually invalid syntax. You should use ArgumentMatchers only for parameters of mocked methods.
Also consider adding the MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this); to your setUp method, when using the PowerMockRunner.

refreshLocal on IResource throws exception

I am trying to programmatically refresh a folder inside the project for my Eclipse plugin. I have also included a simple semaphore rule in the Job. Here is the code:
public class MutexRule implements ISchedulingRule {
public boolean isConflicting(ISchedulingRule rule) {
return rule == this;
}
public boolean contains(ISchedulingRule rule) {
return rule == this;
}
}
...
Job refreshJob = new Job("Refreshing...") {
public void run() {
IResource myFolder = ...
if(myFolder != null)
myFolder.refreshLocal(DEPTH_INFINITE, null);
}
};
refreshJob.setRule(
When I schedule two jobs, and run the refresh, I get the following exception:
Attempted to beginRule: P/test, does not match outer scope rule: ...
What am I missing?
What is a possible solution / workaround?
The error you are getting is because the IResource you are refreshing also has a scheduling rule (IResource implements ISchedulingRule). When there are nested scheduling rules the outer rule must 'contain' the inner rule - your MutexRule doesn't do this.
Because the resource already has a scheduling rule there is no need to set a rule on your job.
refreshLocal does not have to in a Job but if it is run from the UI thread a progress monitor should be provided using IProgressService or similar.
Update: refreshLocal can generate many resource changed events, to minimize these use a WorkspaceModifyOperation or a WorkspaceJob:
Job job = new WorkspaceJob("Refreshing") {
public IStatus runInWorkspace(IProgressMonitor monitor) {
monitor.beginTask("", IProgressMonitor.UNKNOWN);
try {
resource.refreshLocal(monitor);
}
finally {
monitor.done();
}
return Status.OK_STATUS;
}
});
or
WorkspaceModifyOperation op = new WorkspaceModifyOperation() {
#Override
protected void execute(IProgressMonitor monitor) throws CoreException {
resource.refreshLocal(monitor);
}
};
If you are in a wizard page you can run the WorkspaceModifyOperation with:
getContainer().run(true, true, op);
elsewhere you can use:
IProgressService service = PlatformUI.getWorkbench().getProgressService();
service.run(true, true, op);
Even better is to use the Eclipse IFile and IFolder APIs to create files and folders, in this case refreshLocal is not required.

How to pass values across test cases in NUnit 2.6.2?

I am having two Methods in Unit Test case where First Insert Records into Database and Second retrieves back data. I want that input parameter for retrieve data should be the id generated into first method.
private int savedrecordid =0;
private object[] SavedRecordId{ get { return new object[] { new object[] { savedrecordid } }; } }
[Test]
public void InsertInfo()
{
Info oInfo = new Info();
oInfo.Desc ="Some Description here !!!";
savedrecordid = InsertInfoToDb(oInfo);
}
[Test]
[TestCaseSource("SavedRecordId")]
public void GetInfo(int savedId)
{
Info oInfo = GetInfoFromDb(savedId);
}
I know each test case executed separately and separate instance we can't share variables across test methods.
Please let me know if there is way to share parameters across the test cases.
The situation you describe is one of unit tests' antipatterns: unit tests should be independent and should not depend on the sequence in which they run. You can find more at the xUnit Patterns web site:
Unit test should be implemented using Fresh Fixture
Anti pattern Shared Fixture
And both your unit tests have no asserts, so they can't prove whether they are passing or not.
Also they are depend on a database, i.e. external resource, and thus they are not unit but integration tests.
So my advice is to rewrite them:
Use mock object to decouple from database
InsertInfo should insert info and verify using the mock that an appropriate insert call with arguments has been performed
GetInfo should operate with a mock that returns a fake record and verify that it works fine
Example
Notes:
* I have to separate B/L from database operations…
* … and make some assumptions about your solution
// Repository incapsulates work with Database
public abstract class Repository<T>
where T : class
{
public abstract void Save(T entity);
public abstract IEnumerable<T> GetAll();
}
// Class under Test
public class SomeRule
{
private readonly Repository<Info> repository;
public SomeRule(Repository<Info> repository)
{
this.repository = repository;
}
public int InsertInfoToDb(Info oInfo)
{
repository.Save(oInfo);
return oInfo.Id;
}
public Info GetInfoFromDb(int id)
{
return repository.GetAll().Single(info => info.Id == id);
}
}
// Actual unittests
[Test]
public void SomeRule_InsertInfo_WasInserted() // ex. InsertInfo
{
// Arrange
Info oInfo = new Info();
oInfo.Desc = "Some Description here !!!";
var repositoryMock = MockRepository.GenerateStrictMock<Repository<Info>>();
repositoryMock.Expect(m => m.Save(Arg<Info>.Is.NotNull));
// Act
var savedrecordid = new SomeRule(repositoryMock).InsertInfoToDb(oInfo);
// Assert
repositoryMock.VerifyAllExpectations();
}
[Test]
public void SomeRule_GetInfo_ReciveCorrectInfo() // ex. GetInfo
{
// Arrange
var expectedId = 1;
var expectedInfo = new Info { Id = expectedId, Desc = "Something" };
var repositoryMock = MockRepository.GenerateStrictMock<Repository<Info>>();
repositoryMock.Expect(m => m.GetAll()).Return(new [] { expectedInfo }.AsEnumerable());
// Act
Info receivedInfo = new SomeRule(repositoryMock).GetInfoFromDb(expectedId);
// Assert
repositoryMock.VerifyAllExpectations();
Assert.That(receivedInfo, Is.Not.Null.And.SameAs(expectedInfo));
}
ps: full example availabel here

How do I mock Class<? extends List> myVar in Mockito?

I want to mock a Class in Mockito. It will then have a .newInstance() call issued which will be expected to return an actual class instance (and will return a mock in my case).
If it was setup correctly then I could do:
ArrayList myListMock = mock(ArrayList.class);
when(myVar.newInstance()).thenReturn(myListMock);
I know I can set it up so that a new instance of class ArrayList will be a mock (using PowerMockito whenNew), just wondering if there was a way to mock this kind of a class object so I don't have to override instance creation...
Below is the real class I'm trying to mock, I can't change the structure it is defined by the interface. What I'm looking for is a way to provide cvs when initialize is called.
public class InputConstraintValidator
implements ConstraintValidator<InputValidation, StringWrapper> {
Class<? extends SafeString> cvs;
public void initialize(InputValidation constraintAnnotation) {
cvs = constraintAnnotation.inputValidator();
}
public boolean isValid(StringWrapper value,
ConstraintValidatorContext context) {
SafeString instance;
try {
instance = cvs.newInstance();
} catch (InstantiationException e) {
return false;
} catch (IllegalAccessException e) {
return false;
}
}
Mockito is designed exclusively for mocking instances of objects. Under the hood, the mock method actually creates a proxy that receives calls to all non-final methods, and logs and stubs those calls as needed. There's no good way to use Mockito to replace a function on the Class object itself. This leaves you with a few options:
I don't have experience with PowerMock but it seems it's designed for mocking static methods.
In dependency-injection style, make your static factory method into a factory instance. Since it looks like you're not actually working with ArrayList, let's say your class is FooBar instead:
class FooBar {
static class Factory {
static FooBar instance;
FooBar getInstance() {
if (instance == null) {
instance = new FooBar();
}
return instance;
}
}
// ...
}
Now your class user can receive a new FooBar.Factory() parameter, which creates your real FooBar in singleton style (hopefully better and more threadsafe than my simple implementation), and you can use pure Mockito to mock the Factory. If this looks like it's a lot of boilerplate, it's because it is, but if you are thinking of switching to a DI solution like Guice you can cut down a lot of it.
Consider making a field or method package-private or protected and documenting that it's visible for testing purposes. Then you can insert a mocked instance in test code only.
public class InputConstraintValidator implements
ConstraintValidator<InputValidation, StringWrapper> {
Class<? extends SafeString> cvs;
public void initialize(InputValidation constraintAnnotation) {
cvs = constraintAnnotation.inputValidator();
}
public boolean isValid(StringWrapper value,
ConstraintValidatorContext context) {
SafeString instance;
try {
instance = getCvsInstance();
} catch (InstantiationException e) {
return false;
} catch (IllegalAccessException e) {
return false;
}
}
#VisibleForTesting protected getCvsInstance()
throws InstantiationException, IllegalAccessException {
return cvs.newInstance();
}
}
public class InputConstaintValidatorTest {
#Test public void testWithMockCvs() {
final SafeString cvs = mock(SafeString.class);
InputConstraintValidator validator = new InputConstraintValidator() {
#Override protected getCvsInstance() {
return cvs;
}
}
// test
}
}
I think you just need to introduce an additional mock for Class:
ArrayList<?> myListMock = mock(ArrayList.class);
Class<ArrayList> clazz = mock(Class.class);
when(clazz.newInstance()).thenReturn(myListMock);
Of course the trick is making sure your mocked clazz.newInstance() doesn't end up getting called all over the place because due to type-erasure you can't specify that it's actually a Class<ArrayList>.
Also, be careful defining your own mock for something as fundamental as ArrayList - generally I'd use a "real one" and populate it with mocks.