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.
Related
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.
In our controller class we reach out to another service to get some data :
Future<JsonNode> futureSite = someClient.getSite(siteId, queryParams);
return FutureConverters.toJava(futureSite).thenApplyAsync((siteJson) -> {
Site site = Json.fromJson(siteJson, Site.class);
try {
return function.apply(site);
} catch (RequestException e) {
return e.result;
}
}).exceptionally(throwable -> {
if(throwable instanceof OurClientException) {
if(((OurClientException) throwable).httpStatusCode == 404) {
return entityNotFound("Site", siteId);
}
}
return null;
});
What we notice is that context which is set in unit tests (we use scalatest-play) is lost and becomes null after we make the Async call (FutureConverters.toJava(futureSite).thenApplyAsync((siteJson), as t is on a separate thread.
Which causes problem down in the controller code, where we use the above function ... request() would now throw a runtime exception saying there is no context available.
How can we preserve the context ?
You should inject play.libs.concurrent.HttpExecutionContext to your controller and then specify current context as second argument for CompletionStage#thenApplyAsync(..,..).
public class Application extends Controller {
#Inject HttpExecutionContext ec;
public CompletionStage<Result> index() {
someCompletableFuture.supplyAsync(() -> {
// do something with request()
}, ec.current());
}}
P.S. https://www.playframework.com/documentation/2.5.x/JavaAsync#Using-CompletionStage-inside-an-Action
I addition to Nick's V answer.
If you are building a non-blocking app using Play Java API, it might become quite cumbersome to inject HttpExecutionContext and pass ec.current()) every time you need to call methods on CompletionStage.
To make life easier you can use a decorator, which will preserve the context between calls.
public class ContextPreservingCompletionStage<T> implements CompletionStage<T> {
private HttpExecutionContext context;
private CompletionStage<T> delegate;
public ContextPreservingCompletionStage(CompletionStage<T> delegate,
HttpExecutionContext context) {
this.delegate = delegate;
this.context = context;
}
...
}
So you will need to pass context only once:
return new ContextPreservingCompletionStage<>(someCompletableFuture, context)
.thenCompose(something -> {...});
.thenApply(something -> {...});
Instead of
return someCompletableFuture.thenComposeAsync(something -> {...}, context.current())
.thenApplyAsync(something -> {...}, context.current());
That is particularly useful if you are building a multi-tier app, and passing CompletionStages between different classes.
Full decorator implementation example is here.
I have a method which i'd like to refactor
Basically i want to split the top level method in a abstract and a final part.
The method in question is overridden in quite a few places where additional functionality is added, but eventualy the super call is always made.
The code now basically look like:
(not all Extending classes override but those that do, do it this way)
class Base {
public Object getStuff(String key) {
out = //code to get data from the Database.
return out
}
class Extended1 extends Base {
public Object getStuff(String key) {
if("some_non_db_value".equals(key)) {
return "some custom stuff";
}
return super.getStuff(key);
}
}
What i'd like as a result would be something like:
class Base {
public final Object getStuff(String key) {
out = getCustom(key);
if(out != null) {
return custom;
}
out = //code to get data from the Database.
return out
}
public abstract Object getCustom(String key);
}
class Extended1 extends Base {
public Object getCustom(String key) {
if("some_non_db_value".equals(key)) {
return "some custom stuff";
}
return null;
}
}
I was hoping there would be a refactor action (or partial refactor) to get to (or closer to) this point.
I would first rename getStuff() to getCustom() which would take care of all the extended classes. Then changing the Base class should be relatively easy.
I'm trying to find a way to test a abstract class constant that must exist and match/not match a value. Example:
// to be extended by ExternalSDKClild
abstract class ExternalSDK {
const VERSION = '3.1.1.';
}
class foo extends AController {
public function init() {
if ( ExternalSDK::VERSION !== '3.1.1' ) {
throw new Exception('Wrong ExternalSDK version!');
}
$this->setExternalSDKChild(new ExternalSDKChild());
}
}
Limitations... The framework we use doesn't allow dependency injection in the init() method. (Suggestion to refactor the init() method could be the way to go...)
The unit tests and code coverage I have run, cover all but the Exception. I can't figure out a way to make the ExternalSDK::Version to be different from what it is.
All thoughts welcome
First, refactor the call to new into a separate method.
Second, add a method to acquire the version instead of accessing the constant directly. Class constants in PHP are compiled into the file when parsed and cannot be changed.* Since they are accessed statically, there's no way to override it without swapping in a different class declaration with the same name. The only way to do that using standard PHP is to run the test in a separate process which is very expensive.
class ExternalSDK {
const VERSION = '3.1.1';
public function getVersion() {
return static::VERSION;
}
}
class foo extends AController {
public function init() {
$sdk = $this->createSDK();
if ( $sdk->getVersion() !== '3.1.1' ) {
throw new Exception('Wrong ExternalSDK version!');
}
$this->setExternalSDKChild($sdk);
}
public function createSDK() {
return new ExternalSDKChild();
}
}
And now for the unit test.
class NewerSDK extends ExternalSDK {
const VERSION = '3.1.2';
}
/**
* #expectedException Exception
*/
function testInitFailsWhenVersionIsDifferent() {
$sdk = new NewerSDK();
$foo = $this->getMock('foo', array('createSDK'));
$foo->expects($this->once())
->method('createSDK')
->will($this->returnValue($sdk));
$foo->init();
}
*Runkit provides runkit_constant_redefine() which may work here. You'll need to catch the exception manually instead of using #expectedException so you can reset the constant back to the correct value. Or you can do it in tearDown().
function testInitFailsWhenVersionIsDifferent() {
try {
runkit_constant_redefine('ExternalSDK::VERSION', '3.1.0');
$foo = new foo();
$foo->init();
$failed = true;
}
catch (Exception $e) {
$failed = false;
}
runkit_constant_redefine('ExternalSDK::VERSION', '3.1.1');
if ($failed) {
self::fail('Failed to detect incorrect SDK version.');
}
}
Why does .net MVC source code ControllerBuilder use a delegate to assign the controller factory?:
private Func<IControllerFactory> _factoryThunk;
public void SetControllerFactory(IControllerFactory controllerFactory) {
_factoryThunk = () => controllerFactory;
}
Why can't it just assign the ControllerFactory directly?, ie:
private IControllerFactory _factory;
public void SetControllerFactory(IControllerFactory controllerFactory) {
_factory = controllerFactory;
}
public void SetControllerFactory(Type controllerFactoryType) {
_factory = (IControllerFactory)Activator.CreateInstance(controllerFactoryType);
}
The reason that _factoryThunk is currently defined as a Func<IControllerFactory> is that it's a generic means to support both overloads:
void SetControllerFactory(Type);
void SetControllerFactory(IControllerFactory);
The implementation of the first one uses the fact that _factoryThunk is a Func by declaring that Func inline by using Activator to instantiate the Type lazily:
this._factoryThunk = delegate {
IControllerFactory factory;
try
{
factory = (IControllerFactory) Activator.CreateInstance(controllerFactoryType);
}
catch (Exception exception)
{
throw new InvalidOperationException(string.Format(CultureInfo.CurrentUICulture, MvcResources.ControllerBuilder_ErrorCreatingControllerFactory, new object[] { controllerFactoryType }), exception);
}
return factory;
};
Therefore, the reason the other overload looks like it has a spurious implementation is that since _factoryThunk is declared as a Func, the line you propose wouldn't have even compiled:
_factoryThunk = controllerFactory;
_factoryThunk is a Func<IControllerFactory> whereas controllerFactory is an IControllerFactory -- incompatible types.