I have a Logger class that logs events in my application. While I only need one instance of the logger in this application, I want this class to be reusable, so I don't want to make it a singleton and couple it with my specific needs for this application.
I want to be able to access this Logger instance from anywhere in the application without having to create a new one every time or pass it around to every class that might need to log something. What I currently do is have an ApplicationUtils singleton that I use as the point of access for the application's Logger:
object ApplicationUtils {
lazy val log : Logger = new Logger()
}
Then I have a Loggable trait that I add to classes that need the Logger:
trait Loggable {
protected[this] lazy val log = ApplicationUtils.log
}
Is this a valid approach for what I am trying to accomplish? It feels a little hack-y. Is there a better approach I could be using? I'm pretty new to Scala.
Be careful when putting functionality in objects. That functionality is easily testable, but if you need to test clients of that code to make sure they interact with it correctly (via mocks and spies), you're stuck 'cause objects compile to final classes and thus cannot be mocked.
Instead, use this pattern:
trait T { /* code goes here */ }
object T extends T /* pass this to client code from main sources */
Now you can create Mockito mocks / spies for trait T in your test code, pass that in and confirm that the interactions of the code under test with the trait T code are what they should be.
If you have code that's a client of T and whose interactions with it don't require testing, you can directly reference object T.
To address what you're trying to do (rather than what you're asking), take a look at TypeSafe's scalalogging package. It provides a Logging trait that you can use like so:
class MyClass extends Logging {
logger.debug("This is very convenient ;-)")
}
It's a macro-based wrapper for SLF4J, so something like logger.debug(...) gets compiled as if (logger.isDebugEnabled) logger.debug(...).
Related
In particular situations, you need to have some utility methods that are required across different classes. To solve this situation, you create an Util object wherein you place all these methods
object AggregatorUtil {
def aggregateValues(list : List[BigDecimal]) = //some logic...
}
// Import everything in the Utilities object
import AggregatorUtil._
and then import whichever members of util are required in your class. However, the downside to this is that, as all your methods are inside the singleton object and it becomes tricky to mock the object and unit test methods of the class that use utility methods.
To solve this problem again, the only solution that came to mind was Extracting the functionality out to a trait and then mocking the trait.
Please let me know if there is any other approach for handling and testing of util methods and which one is a rather cleaner approach.
Thanks in advance !!!
Note: -I am using scalatest and mockito in my project.
If you need to mock, putting this all in a mocked-out trait is the way forward. If mocking is unnecessary though, avoid it. Mocking unnecessarily is... unnecessary. You'll just be wasting time and effort for something which provides no additional value.
Mocking is best used when you have complex functionality or functionality in other files which you want to treat as a black box and just assume it works as expected (you'd then typically unit test this stuff separately). If you can avoid it and use the functions' actual functionality though, you'll get a much more realistic view of what your application does and will spot new bugs/breaking changes quicker (if you have mocked out functionality and forget to update your mocks, you might not any spot new bugs you introduce).
A good example of when mocking is necessary is when you're mocking calls to a database in a MVC application (e.g. a Scala Play microservice). You obviously don't want to have to run an actual database when testing your code, so you'd typically mock out your connector layer and return dummy/mocked data from your connector functions.
An example of something you wouldn't mock is something like:
trait MyTrait {
def toInt(str: String): Int
}
val mockedTrait = mock[MyTrait]
when(mockedTrait.toInt(eq("3")).thenReturn(3)
It's a bit of a silly example, but I think it explains the point clearly - doing something like this would be ridiculous. Mocking isn't always the answer.
I mostly mock with Test-Implementation which I find more readable and you don't have to learn a mocking framework.
Here an example:
The Interface:
trait DataRepo {
def persist(data: DataObject): Future[DataObject]
def idents(): Future[List[String]]
def insertData(dataCont: DataObject): Future[Int]
...
}
The Mocked Interface:
object DataRepoMock extends DataRepo {
def persist(data: DataObject): Future[DataObject] = ??? // only implement when needed
def idents(): Future[List[String]] = Future.successful((0 to 10).map(_=>Random.nextInt(100)))
def insertData(dataCont: DataObject): Future[Int] = Future.successful(Random.nextInt(100))
...
}
You can also use all the Scala goodies, like Pattern Matching, to make your Mock react differently to input.
Here is an example that this is not just used by myself;):
EPFLx: scala-reactiveX see Lecture 2.5 Testing Actor Systems:
def fakeGetter(url:String, depth: Int):Props =
Props(new Getter(url, depth){
override def webClient: WebClient = FakeWebClient
})
I have a complex project which reads configurations from a DB through the object ConfigAccessor which implements two basic APIs: getConfig(name: String) and storeConfig(c: Config).
Due to how the project is currently designed, almost every component needs to use the ConfigAccessor to talk with the DB. Thus, being this component an object it is easy to just import it and call its static methods.
Now I am trying to build some unit tests for the project in which the configurations are stored in a in-memory hashMap. So, first of all I decoupled the config accessor logic from its storage (using the cake pattern). In this way I can define my own ConfigDbComponent while testing
class ConfigAccessor {
this: ConfigDbComponent =>
...
The "problem" is that now ConfigAccessor is a class, which means I have to instantiate it at the beginning of my application and pass it everywhere to whoever needs it. The first way I can think of for passing this instance around would be through other components constructors. This would become quite verbose (adding a parameter to every constructor in the project).
What do you suggest me to do? Is there a way to use some design pattern to overcome this verbosity or some external mocking library would be more suitable for this?
Yes, the "right" way is passing it in constructors. You can reduce verbosity by providing a default argument:
class Foo(config: ConfigAccessor = ConfigAccessor) { ... }
There are some "dependency injection" frameworks, like guice or spring, built around this, but I won't go there, because I am not a fan.
You could also continue utilizing the cake pattern:
trait Configuration {
def config: ConfigAccessor
}
trait Foo { self: Configuration => ... }
class FooProd extends Foo with ProConfig
class FooTest extends Foo with TestConfig
Alternatively, use the "static setter". It minimizes changes to existing code, but requires mutable state, which is really frowned upon in scala:
object Config extends ConfigAccessor {
#volatile private var accessor: ConfigAccessor = _
def configurate(cfg: ConfigAccessor) = synchronized {
val old = accessor
accessor = cfg
old
}
def getConfig(c: String) = Option(accessor).fold(
throw new IllegalStateException("Not configurated!")
)(_.getConfig(c))
You can retain a global ConfigAccessor and allow selectable accessors like this:
object ConfigAccessor {
private lazy val accessor = GetConfigAccessor()
def getConfig(name: String) = accessor.getConfig(name)
...
}
For production builds you can put logic in GetConfigAccessor to select the appropriate accessor based on some global config such as typesafe config.
For unit testing you can have a different version of GetConfigAccessor for different test builds which return the appropriate test implementation.
Making this value lazy allows you to control the order of initialisation and if necessary do some non-functional mutable stuff in the initialisation code before creating the components.
Update following comments
The production code would have an implementation of GetConfigAccessor something like this:
object GetConfigAccessor {
private val useAws = System.getProperties.getProperty("accessor.aws") == "true"
def apply(): ConfigAccessor =
if (useAws) {
return new AwsConfigAccessor
} else {
return new PostgresConfigAccessor
}
}
Both AwsConfigAccessor and PostgresConfigAccessor would have their own unit tests to prove that they conform to the correct behaviour. The appropriate accessor can be selected at runtime by setting the appropriate system property.
For unit testing there would be a simpler implementation of GetConfigAccessor, something like this:
def GetConfigAccessor() = new MockConfigAccessor
Unit testing is done within a unit testing framework which contains a number of libraries and mock objects that are not part of the production code. These are built separately and are not compiled into the final product. So this version of GetConfigAccessor would be part of that unit testing code and would not be part of the final product.
Having said all that, I would only use this model for reading static configuration data because that keeps the code functional. The ConfigAccessor is just a convenient way to access global constants without having them passed down in the constructor.
If you are also writing data then this is more like a real DB than a configuration. In that case I would create custom accessors for each component that give access to different parts of the DB. That way it is clear which parts of the data are updated by each component. These accessors would be passed down to the component and can then be unit tested with the appropriate mock implementation as normal.
You may need to partition your data into static config and dynamic config and handle them separately.
I used to get the application.conf variable in Play 2.4.x with Play.current.configuration.getString('NAME_HERE'), and it was working good in class, object and companion object too.
Now, I'm using Play 2.5.4 with Scala in a new project, and I won't use this Play.current, because it's deprecated, but there is an alternative using DI, like this :
class HomeController #Inject() (configuration: play.api.Configuration) extends Controller {
def config = Action {
Ok(configuration.underlying.getString("db.driver"))
}
}
This DI Injection works like a charm in class, but in this project, I need to get the variable db.driver in a object? And as far I know, with an object I can't use DI.
Maybe using Guice would help?
You can use #Singleton annotated class instead of object
trait Foo {}
#Singleton
class FooImpl #Inject()(configuration: play.api.Configuration)) extends Foo {
//do whatever you want
}
#Singleton makes the class singleton.It feels bit awkward because Scala itself natively have syntax object to create a singleton, But this is the easiest and probably best solution to DI into a singleton.
You also may create the singleton eagerly like the code below.
bind(classOf[Foo]).to(classOf[FooImpl])asEagerSingleton()
for more detail Info, You can look up Google Guice Wiki and Playframework site
EDIT
How you call it is exactly the same as how you DI in Playframework2.5.
class BarController #Inject()(foo: Foo) extends Controller {
//Do whatever you want with Foo
}
Guice basically generates new instance every time you DI, Once you put #Singleton, Guice use only one instance instead.
DI is for anti-high coupling.So when you want to use a class you defined from another class,You need to DI otherwise the classes are highly coupled which end up making it harder to code your unit test.
FYI, You can use them outside of Play with this technique.
Create an Instance of class which does DI via Playframework Guice Independently in Scala
Have you tried
import com.typesafe.config.ConfigFactory
val myConfig = ConfigFactory.load().getString("myConfig.key")
Above approach doesn't require you to convert your object to singleton class.
You can do
Play.current.configuration
however that will (probably) no longer be possible with Play 2.6.
Ideally, however, you would pass the configuration in as a parameter to that method of the object or, use a class instead of an object.
What I somtimes do to migrate 'from object to class':
class MyComponent #Inject() (config: Configuration) {
// here goes everything nice
def doStuff = ???
}
object MyComponent {
#deprecated("Inject MyComponent")
def doStuff = {
val instance = Play.current.injector.instanceOf[MyComponent]
instance.doStuff
}
}
This way, you're not breaking existing code while all users of your methods can slowly migrate to using classes.
I am doing a web application with Scala and Akka actors and I'm having some troubles with the tests.
In my case I need to taste an actor who talks with the Database. To do the unit testing I would like to use a Fake Database but I can't replace the new with my desired fake object.
Let's see some code:
Class MyActor extends Actor {
val database = new Database()
def receive = { ... }
}
And in the tests I would like to inject a FakeDatabase object instead Database. I've been looking in Internet but the best that I found is:
Add a parameter to the constructor.
Convert the val database to a var so in the test I could access the attribute by the underlying and replace it.
Both solutions solve the problem but are very dirty.
Isn't a better way to solve the problem?
Thanks!
The two primary options for this scenario are:
Dependency Injection Use a DI framework to inject a real or mock service as needed. In Akka: http://letitcrash.com/post/55958814293/akka-dependency-injection
Cake Pattern This is a Scala-specific way of achieving something akin to dependency injection without actually relying on injection. See: Akka and cake pattern
Echoing the advice here, I wouldn't call injecting the database in the constructor dirty. It might have plenty of benefits, including decoupling actor behaviour from the particular database instance.
However if you know there is only ONE database you will be always using in your production code, then think about defining a package level accessible constructor and a companion object returning a Props object without parameters by default.
Example below:
object MyActor {
def props() : Props = Props(new MyActor(new Database()))
}
class MyActor private[package](database : IDatabase) extends Actor {
def receive = { ... }
}
In this case you will still be able to inject the test database in your tests case (given the same package structure), but prevent users of your code from instantiating MyActor with unexpected database instance.
I was searching a way of doing dependency injection in Scala kind of like Spring or Unity in C# and I found nothing really interesting.
MacWire: I don't understand the benefit as we have to give the class in wire[CASS]. So what's the point if you give the implementation when you call wire? I can do new CASS it will be the same.
Cake pattern with self type: Seems to not answer what I'm searching for.
So I decided to make my implementation and ask you what do you think because it's surprising me that nothing like this has been done before. Maybe my implementation have lot's of issues in real life also.
So here is an example:
trait Messenger {
def send
}
class SkypeMessenger extends Messenger {
def send = println("Skype")
}
class ViberMessenger extends Messenger {
def send = println("Viber")
}
I want here to inject everywhere in my app the implementation configured in only one place:
object App {
val messenger = Inject[Messenger]
def main(args: Array[String]) {
messenger.send
}
}
Note the Inject[Messenger] that I define like below with the config I want (prod or dev):
object Inject extends Injector with DevConfig
trait ProdConfig {
this: Injector =>
register[Messager](new SkypeMessager)
register[Messager](new ViberMessager, "viber")
}
trait DevConfig {
this: Injector =>
register[Messager](new ViberMessager)
register[Messager](new ViberMessager, "viber")
}
And finally here is the Injector which contains all methods apply and register:
class Injector {
var map = Map[String, Any]()
def apply[T: ClassTag] =
map(classTag[T].toString).asInstanceOf[T]
def apply[T: ClassTag](id: String) =
map(classTag[T].toString + id).asInstanceOf[T]
def register[T: ClassTag](instance: T, id: String = "") = {
map += (classTag[T].toString + id -> instance)
instance
}
}
To summaries:
I have a class Injector which is a Map between interfaces/traits (eventually also an id) and an instance of the implementation.
We define a trait for each config (dev, prod...) which contains the registers. It also have a self reference to Injector.
And we create an instance of the Injector with the Config we want
The usage is to call the apply method giving the Interface type (eventually also an id) and it will return the implementation's instance.
What do you think?
You code looks a lot like dependency injection in Lift web framework. You can consult Lift source code to see how it's implemented or just use the framework. You don't have to run a Lift app to use its libraries. Here is a small intro doc. Basically you should be looking at this code in Lift:
package net.liftweb.http
/**
* A base trait for a Factory. A Factory is both an Injector and
* a collection of FactorMaker instances. The FactoryMaker instances auto-register
* with the Injector. This provides both concrete Maker/Vender functionality as
* well as Injector functionality.
*/
trait Factory extends SimpleInjector
You can also check this related question: Scala - write unit tests for objects/singletons that extends a trait/class with DB connection where I show how Lift injector is used.
Thanks guys,
So I make my answer but the one from Aleksey was very good.
I understand better the Cake Pattern with this sample:
https://github.com/freekh/play-slick/tree/master/samples/play-slick-cake-sample
Take a look also to the other implementations without DI and compare:
https://github.com/freekh/play-slick/tree/master/samples/
And so the cake pattern doesn't have a centralized config like we can have with my shown lift style DI. I will anyway use the Cake pattern as it fits well with Slick.
What I didn't like with Subcut is the implicits everywhere. I know there is a way to avoid them but it looks like a fix to me.
Thanks
To comment on MacWire, you are right that you could just use new - and that's the whole point :). MacWire is there only to let you remove some boilerplate from your code, by not having to enumerate all the dependencies again (which is already done in the constructor).
The main idea is that you do the wiring at "the end of the world", where you assemble your application (or you could divide that into trait-modules, but that's optional). Otherwise you just use constructors to express dependencies. No magic, no frameworks.