I have a module that uses random numbers in it. For testing purposes, I want to set the random number generator to provide a given number before it's called. My code under test includes the dependency like so:
use Math::Random::MT qw(rand);
And uses it like so:
my $currdice = int(rand($right) + 1);
And my mocking is done like so:
my $mockRand;
BEGIN {
$mockRand = Test::MockModule->new('Math::Random::MT');
use_ok(LogiDice);
}
$mockRand->mock('rand' => sub {return 1});
($successes, $output) = LogiDice::roll("3d10","ww");
ok($successes == 0, "WhiteWolf mode can return 0 successes") or diag ("Reported " . $successes . " successes instead.");
I'm getting random numbers of successes instead of always getting 0 (since the random number should always be 1, which should always be a failure). Is this something to do with how I did qw(rand)? Am I using MockModule incorrectly? Should I be using MockModule at all? I tried MockObject before I found MockModule but that wasn't working either.
So, what I think happens is...
You make your mock wrapper
Then you call "use_ok(LogiDice)", which triggers "Math::Random::MT qw(rand);" and immediately pulls a copy of "rand" into it's own namespace
Your mock call replaces MT::rand (but not affecting which already has a direct reference to the old "rand")
It would probably work if you move "use_ok" after your call to mock "rand". Alternatively, one could make LogiDice not import "rand" into it's own namespace, and always refer to MT::rand.
Related
I am trying to filter a liststore using the GTK2::TreeModelFilter. I can't seem to find an example online that uses perl and I am getting syntax errors. Can someone help me with the syntax below? The $unfiltered_store is a liststore.
$filtered_store = Gtk2::TreeModeFilter->new($unfiltered_store);
$filtered_store->set_visible_func(get_end_products, $unfiltered_store);
$combobox = Gtk2::ComboBoxEntry->new($filtered_store,1);
Then somewhere below:
sub get_end_products {
my ($a, $b) = #_;
warn(Dumper(\$a));
warn(Dumper(\$b));
return true; # Return all rows for now
}
Ultimately what I want to do is look at column 14 of the listore ($unfiltered_store) and if it is a certain value, then it filtered into the $filtered_store.
Can someone help me with the syntax on this? I checked a bunch of sites, but they're in other languages and using different syntax (like 'new_filter' -- doesn't exist with Perl GTK).
This is the most elegant solution to a fix I need to make and I would prefer to learn how to use this rather than using a brute force method of pulling and saving the filtered data.
The set_visible_func method of the filtered store should get a sub reference as the first argument, but you are not passing a sub reference here:
$filtered_store->set_visible_func(get_end_products, $unfiltered_store);
This will instead call the sub routine get_end_products and then pass on its return value (which is not a sub reference). To fix it add the reference operator \& in front of the sub name:
$filtered_store->set_visible_func(\&get_end_products, $unfiltered_store);
Regarding your other question in the comments:
According to the documentation the user data parameter is passed as the third parameter to get_end_products, so you should define it like this:
sub get_end_products {
my ($model, $iter, $user_data) = #_;
# Do something with $user_data
return TRUE;
}
If for some reason $unfiltered_store is not passed on to get_end_products, you can try pass it using an anonymous sub instead, like this:
$filtered_store->set_visible_func(
sub { get_end_products( $unfiltered_store) });
I have the following code in our webapp written using Mojolicious, and it doesn't work as expected: the bridge handler doesn't get the correct stash data derived from routes (gets undef), so the rest of code fails, however, debug output of $self->stash('city') in any of route handlers is as expected.
...
# Router.
my $r = $self->routes->bridge->to('Main#common');
$r->route('/')->to('Main#index')->name('start');
$r->route('/:region/:city/category/:id')->to('Main#list_category')->name('list_category');
$r->route('/:region/:city/part/:id/:name')->to('Main#show_part')->name('show_part');
...
# Controller.
sub common
{
my $self=shift;
my $db=$self->db;
my $city=$self->stash('city');
my $region=$self->db->selectrow_hashref('select * from region where LOWER(translit)=? ORDER BY region_id LIMIT 1',undef,$city);
say "City=$city.";
if(!$region)
{
$region={};
}
$self->stash(region=>$region);
return 1;
}
...
I think it's correct behavior.
Look at this code.
Placeholder is added when the appropriate route is taken to the processing, i.e., step by step.
Really, look at you routes.
my $r = $self->routes->bridge->to('Main#common');
$r->route('/')->to('Main#index')->name('start');
$r->route('/:region/:city/category/:id')->to('Main#list_category')->name('list_category');
$r->route('/:region/:city/part/:id/:name')->to('Main#show_part')->name('show_part');
I can't understand what behavior you expect when go to route /.
Sub common will be invoked in this case. There are no value for placeholder city!
So, correct solution for your routes must look like this:
my $r = $self->routes;
$r->route('/')->to('Main#index')->name('start');
my $r_city = $r->bridge('/:region/:city/')->to('Main#common');
$r_city->route('/category/:id')->to('Main#list_category')->name('list_category');
$r_city->route('/part/:id/:name')->to('Main#show_part')->name('show_part');
By the way,
starting from Mojolicious version 6.0 bridge was deprecated to favor under. So, you need to replace bridge on under.
But, if you very-very want to have value of placeholder city in common function, you may look at this two line.
You need to write this BAD code in common sub:
sub common {
my $self = shift;
my $stack = $self->match->stack;
warn $self->dumper($stack);
...
}
Print $stack and you understand how to get value of placeholder city.
I am using Xamarin Studio 5.2 on Mac OS X 10.9.4 with NUnit 2.6.3 and FakeItEasy 1.23.0.
When I run tests for this code:
using System;
using ValueSet = System.Collections.Generic.HashSet<uint>;
using NUnit.Framework;
using FakeItEasy;
namespace SetTest
{
[TestFixture]
class TestFixture
{
[Test]
public void CallsUsersWithSetAndReducedSet()
{
var values = new ValueSet { 1, 2, 3 };
var setUser = A.Fake<SetUser>();
ClassUnderTest testInstance = new ClassUnderTest();
using (var scope = Fake.CreateScope())
{
testInstance.RunWith(setUser);
using (scope.OrderedAssertions())
{
A.CallTo(() => setUser.Use(A<ValueSet>.That.IsEqualTo(values))).MustHaveHappened(Repeated.Exactly.Once);
A.CallTo(() => setUser.Use(A<ValueSet>.That.Matches(set =>
set.Count == 2 && set.Contains(1)))).MustHaveHappened(Repeated.Exactly.Once);
}
}
}
}
public class SetUser
{
public virtual void Use(ValueSet set)
{
}
}
class ClassUnderTest
{
public static void Main(string[] arguments)
{
}
public void RunWith(SetUser setUser)
{
var values = new ValueSet { 1, 2, 3 };
setUser.Use(values);
values.Remove(3);
setUser.Use(values);
}
}
}
I get the following error output:
FakeItEasy.ExpectationException: Assertion failed for the following call: SetTest.SetUser.Use(1[System.UInt32]>) Expected to find it exactly once but found it #0 times among the calls:
1. SetTest.SetUser.Use(set: System.Collection.Generic.HashSet1[System.UInt32]) repeated 2 times
I don't understand what is causing this failure and how to fix it.
What is needed to get this type of test to pass?
#Tim Long is on the right track in his comment.
Here's a little more detail, as well as updates to respond to your comments of 2014-08-11 03:25:56:
The first reason the first MustHaveHappened fails:
According to the FakeItEasy argument constraints documentation, That.IsEqualTo tests for "object equality using object.Equals". That's what's causing the unexpected behaviour.
Not passing values into the method isn't necessarily a problem, or wouldn't be if ValueSet.Equals performed a value comparison, but ValueSet is a HashSet<uint>, so you can see from that class's method documentation that it doesn't—it uses object.Equals, which tests for reference equality. Thus, your IsEqualTo assertion fails. If you use a more sophisticated matcher that performed a value-type comparison for HashSet, perhaps something closer to what you use in your second A.CallTo, or maybe something using That.Contains, I think you'll have better success.
You may think to use That.IsSameSequenceAs, but be careful if doing so: the HashSet doesn't guarantee the order of the elements in the enumeration, so even if the set has the same elements, you may get a failure.
The second reason the first MustHaveHappened fails:
RunWith changes the contents of the values set between calls to setUser.Use. So the same set is used in two calls, first with 3 elements, then when it has only 2 elements. This means that by the time the first MustHaveHappened call is made, the set has only 2 elements, so the comparison fails. You could see this more clearly by writing an argument formatter for the ValueSet. That would provide more information.
The cause of the mismatch is that when a call is made to a faked method, FakeItEasy captures the arguments. However, for reference types, such as ValueSet (HashSet), only the reference to the argument is kept. Thus, if the object is modified later, in particular between the execution and the verification stages of the test, the object will look different than it did at the time of the faked call. See #jimmy_keen's answer to MustHaveHappened fails when called twice on the same object. There's a little more discussion over at FakeItEasy Issue 306 - Verifying multiple method calls with reference parameters.
In this case, the usual approach is to do as he suggests—provide code to capture the important state of the incoming argument at call time, and then query that saved state later.
You might be able to use something like this:
[Test]
public void CallsUsersWithSetAndReducedSet()
{
var capturedValueSets = new List<List<uint>>();
var setUser = A.Fake<SetUser>();
A.CallTo(() => setUser.Use(A<ValueSet>._)) // matches any call to setUser.Use
.Invokes((ValueSet theSet) => capturedValueSets.Add(theSet.ToList()));
ClassUnderTest testInstance = new ClassUnderTest();
testInstance.RunWith(setUser);
Assert.That(capturedValueSets, Has.Count.EqualTo(2),
"not enough calls to setUser.Use");
Assert.That(capturedValueSets[0], Is.EquivalentTo(new uint[] {1, 2, 3}),
"bad set passed to first call to setUser.Use");
Assert.That(capturedValueSets[1], Has.Count.EqualTo(2) & Has.Member(1),
"bad set passed to second call to setUser.Use");
}
You can see that each time Use is called, we add the contents of the ValueSet argument to capturedValueSets. Then at the end we
make sure 2 calls were made, by checking the length of capturedValueSets
make sure that the first time Use was called, the set had the elements 1, 2, and 3. Is.EquivalentTo checks the two lists but ignores order
make sure that the second time Use was called, the set had 2 elements, one of which was 1
By checking the two captured value sets in turn, all the bits about the scopes and ordered assertions became unnecessary.
I understand that the interface to OpenCPU is RESTful. Nevertheless, I would like to save data between function calls, if possible.
I naively created the following package:
vals <- c()
fnInit <- function() {
vals <<- c('a','b','c')
}
but I got the error: cannot change value of locked binding for 'vals' when I called the fnInit function. I understand why this is happening.
I then tried:
fnBoth <- local({
vals <- c('a','b','c')
function(which) {
if (which == 0) {
vals
} else if (which == 1) {
vals <<- c(vals,'d')
vals
}
}
})
but every time I POST to the fnBoth function with which = 1, I get the same response:
[1] "a" "b" "c" "d"
If I call the function again, I get the same answer. So, it would seem that the value vals is being reset each time.
My question is: Can data be saved between function calls? The above attempts are not meant to be exhaustive - maybe there's another technique? Or, should I simply save the value to disk?
Thanks
It is not completely clear to me what you are trying to accomplish, perhaps you can elaborate a bit on the type of application you wish to build.
OpenCPU supports chaining of function calls to calculate e.g. f(g(x), h(y)). This is done by passing the session ID of a completed call as an argument to a subsequent one. Have a look at the docs about argument formats: https://public.opencpu.org/api.html#api-arguments. It includes an example that illustrates this by calculating summary(read.csv("mydata.csv")):
#upload local file mydata.csv
curl https://public.opencpu.org/ocpu/library/utils/R/read.csv -F "file=#mydata.csv"
#replace session id with returned one above
curl https://public.opencpu.org/ocpu/tmp/x067b4172/R/.val/print
curl https://public.opencpu.org/ocpu/library/base/R/summary -d 'object=x067b4172'
The first request calls the read.csv function which returns a dataframe. In the last line, we call the summary function where we set the object argument equal to the output of the previous call (i.e. the data frame) by passing the session ID.
I am having troubles mocking a subroutine in another module than where I am running the tests.
I have my tests in a file called ParserTests.pl. I am trying to test a subroutine (parse) in a module LogParser.pm
sub parse {
my ($self) = #_;
my $rr = $self->getRR;
while(1) {
my $result = $self->parseCommitSet();
if ($result eq 2) {
last;
}
my $printStatus = $self->printOut($result);
if (!$printStatus) {
say "Problem occurred with writing to output";
return 0;
}
$self->setRR(ReportRecord->new());
}
return 1;
}
I am trying to mock printOut so that it always returns true. What I am trying to do is this:
#! /usr/bin/perl
use v5.10.0;
use strict;
use warnings;
use Test::More 'no_plan';
use Test::MockObject;
use LogParser;
{other tests…}
my $mock = Test::MockObject->new();
$mock->set_true('LogParser::printOut');
my $test100FH = getTestFH($test100SetsNoPrev);
$logParser = LogParser->new($test100FH);
is($logParser->parse, 1, "im ok?");
close $test100FH;
But this test is failing. Can you tell me why and point me in the right path to get it working correctly for when I test parse()? I read up on a bunch of documentation but something like this is still a bit unclear.
The error is
Can't use an undefined value as a symbol reference at /Users/achu/Documents/workspace/Perl_Script/LogParser.pm line 241, <$fh> line 8371.
# Looks like your test exited with 25 just after 91.
That line (line 241) is inside the printOut subroutine though which means that it's not mocking that subroutine like I wanted it to. What am I doing wrong?
Test::MockModule is probably better suited to this;
my $module = Test::MockModule->new('LogParser');
$module->mock( printOut => sub { return 1 } );
This will cause LogParser to use your mocked version until $module goes out of scope.
Test::MockObject does not quite do what you want. It is good for supplying a minimally-implemented stub. But for making an instance of the class under test and selectively overriding its methods, you want Test::MockObject::Extends.
TMOE takes an instance and then lets you change what some of its methods do. In your example, you can use it to write the test thus:
use Test::MockObject::Extends;
my $test100FH = getTestFH($test100SetsNoPrev);
$logParser = Test::MockObject::Extends->new(
LogParser->new($test100FH);
);
$logParser->set_true('printOut');
is($logParser->parse, 1, "im ok?");
close $test100FH;
You didn't provide the error message, but what you've defined is an object called $mock that contains a 'printout' method. But you're calling printout() on $logparser.
The point of MockObject is to create a very bare object, with a few methods so you can test other pieces of code in a algorithm that relies on an external object. For example, you could mock a database handle so that calling $dbh->fetchStuff() always returns on static row, so that you can test the code that consumes the row.
So without more context, I can't tell the possibilities for just creating a stub for printOut() so that parse knows about it.
That being said, I also don't understand the desire to have a test for the return value of the stubbed method.
Please read the documentation for Test::MockObject and try to understand how it works.
You are doing only the first half of what is actually required: You are creating a mock object. But this will not magically end up in your LogParser.
What Test::MockObject gives you is an object that behaves just like the object you want to mock. Of course, somebody or something still has to use that object. And this will have to be the code you are trying to test.