I am trying to unit test a Java class with a method containing a lambda function. I am using Groovy and Spock for the test. For proprietary reasons I can't show the original code.
The Java method looks like this:
class ExampleClass {
AsyncHandler asynHandler;
Component componet;
Component getComponent() {
return component;
}
void exampleMethod(String input) {
byte[] data = input.getBytes();
getComponent().doCall(builder ->
builder
.setName(name)
.data(data)
.build()).whenCompleteAsync(asyncHandler);
}
}
Where component#doCall has the following signature:
CompletableFuture<Response> doCall(Consumer<Request> request) {
// do some stuff
}
The groovy test looks like this:
class Spec extends Specification {
def mockComponent = Mock(Component)
#Subject
def sut = new TestableExampleClass(mockComponent)
def 'a test'() {
when:
sut.exampleMethod('teststring')
then:
1 * componentMock.doCall(_ as Consumer<Request>) >> { args ->
assert args[0].args$2.asUtf8String() == 'teststring'
return new CompletableFuture()
}
}
class TestableExampleClass extends ExampleClass {
def component
TestableExampleClass(Component component) {
this.component = component;
}
#Override
getComponent() {
return component
}
}
}
The captured argument, args, shows up as follows in the debug window if I place a breakpoint on the assert line:
args = {Arrays$ArrayList#1234} size = 1
> 0 = {Component$lambda}
> args$1 = {TestableExampleClass}
> args$2 = {bytes[]}
There are two points confusing me:
When I try to cast the captured argument args[0] as either ExampleClass or TestableExampleClass it throws a GroovyCastException. I believe this is because it is expecting Component$Lambda, but I am not sure how to cast this.
Accessing the data property using args[0].args$2, doesn't seem like a clean way to do it. This is likely linked to the casting issue mentioned above. But is there a better way to do this, such as with args[0].data?
Even if direct answers can't be given, a pointer to some documentation or article would be helpful. My search results discussed Groovy closures and Java lambdas comparisons separately, but not about using lambdas in closures.
Why you should not do what you are trying
This invasive kind of testing is a nightmare! Sorry for my strong wording, but I want to make it clear that you should not over-specify tests like this, asserting on private final fields of lambda expressions. Why would it even be important what goes into the lambda? Simply verify the result. In order to do a verification like this, you
need to know internals of how lambdas are implemented in Java,
those implementation details have to stay unchanged across Java versions and
the implementations even have to be the same across JVM types like Oracle Hotspot, OpenJ9 etc.
Otherwise, your tests break quickly. And why would you care how a method internally computes its result? A method should be tested like a black box, only in rare cases should you use interaction testing,where it is absolutely crucial in order to make sure that certain interactions between objects occur in a certain way (e.g. in order to verify a publish-subscribe design pattern).
How you can do it anyway (dont!!!)
Having said all that, just assuming for a minute that it does actually make sense to test like that (which it really does not!), a hint: Instead of accessing the field args$2, you can also access the declared field with index 1. Accessing by name is also possible, of course. anyway, you have to reflect on the lambda's class, get the declared field(s) you are interested in, make them accessible (remember, they are private final) and then assert on their respective contents. You could also filter by field type in order to be less sensitive to their order (not shown here).
Besides, I do not understand why you create a TestableExampleClass instead of using the original.
In this example, I am using explicit types instead of just def in order to make it easier to understand what the code does:
then:
1 * mockComponent.doCall(_ as Consumer<Request>) >> { args ->
Consumer<Request> requestConsumer = args[0]
Field nameField = requestConsumer.class.declaredFields[1]
// Field nameField = requestConsumer.class.getDeclaredField('arg$2')
nameField.accessible = true
byte[] nameBytes = nameField.get(requestConsumer)
assert new String(nameBytes, Charset.forName("UTF-8")) == 'teststring'
return new CompletableFuture()
}
Or, in order to avoid the explicit assert in favour of a Spock-style condition:
def 'a test'() {
given:
String name
when:
sut.exampleMethod('teststring')
then:
1 * mockComponent.doCall(_ as Consumer<Request>) >> { args ->
Consumer<Request> requestConsumer = args[0]
Field nameField = requestConsumer.class.declaredFields[1]
// Field nameField = requestConsumer.class.getDeclaredField('arg$2')
nameField.accessible = true
byte[] nameBytes = nameField.get(requestConsumer)
name = new String(nameBytes, Charset.forName("UTF-8"))
return new CompletableFuture()
}
name == 'teststring'
}
Related
I want to print automatically all the parameter values of my functions at runtime.
Just imagin that I have the following two methods:
public void doAction(String firstParam, String SecondParam) {
Util.printAllParameter(this);
}
public void doAction(String firstParam) {
Util.printAllParameter(this);
}
If I call to this functions:
doAction("a", "b"); --> Desired result: Print "a, b"
doAction("a"); --> Desired result: Print "a"
I don't want something like this (This is not reusable, it is static):
System.out.println(firstParam + "," + SecondParam);
I need a reusable method that I can use in different functions with different number of parameter. I want to call a function like "Util.printAllParameter()" and then print all the parameters.
Thanks in advance.
To do it generally would require rewriting the bytecode (probably with a Java Agent, or library using it) or the source code.
The way do it without hacking the code is to use an interface and a Proxy. Interfaces are often suggested, but Java gets in the way with its old fashioned, super verbose syntax.
import java.io.*;
import java.lang.reflect.*;
import java.util.*;
import java.util.stream.*;
// Gratuitous use of new fangled record feature and streams.
record TraceInvocation(PrintStream out) {
public <T> T trace(Class<T> type, T target) {
Objects.requireNonNull(target);
return type.cast(Proxy.newProxyInstance(
type.getClassLoader(),
new Class<?>[] { type },
(proxy, method, args) -> {
// Apparently args can be null. Ffs.
out.println(
(target==null ? type.getSimpleName() : escape(target))+
"."+method.getName()+
// There's probably a better way without {}.
"("+(args==null ? "" : String.join(", ",
Stream.of(args)
.map(TraceInvocation::escape)
.toArray(String[]::new)
))+")"
);
return method.invoke(target, args);
}
));
}
// Don't even think about allowing log injection.
// (Okay, weird syntax.)
private static String escape(Object object) {
// I am not a fan of streams.
int[] escaped = String.valueOf(object).codePoints().flatMap(cp ->
(cp == '\\' || cp == '.' || cp == ',') ?
IntStream.of('\\', cp) :
(' ' <= cp && cp <= '~' ) ?
IntStream.of(cp) :
("\\"+/*(int)*/cp+"\\").codePoints()
).toArray();
return new String(escaped, 0, escaped.length);
}
}
Use as:
CharSequence cs = new TraceInvocation(System.err)
.trace(CharSequence.class, "Scunthorpe");
cs.subSequence(4, 10).length(); // No log for length
cs.charAt(2);
cs.length();
Possible variation include filtering which methods to display, logging return values/exceptions, alternative to toString and tracing returned values.
I found this approach really useful when dealing with sending and receiving a stream in a proprietary format.
You can write a simple utility method that like:
public void trace(String methodName, Object... args) {
that then inspects all the arguments and prints a nice string for you.
But you have that explicit passing of the method name as string, which can't be avoided. Yes, theoretically, one call create a stack trace by throwing/catching an exception, and deduce the method name, but that is a real performance killer, which you absolutely can't do for ordinary tracing that is supposed to happen millions of time per day.
So: there are no "built-in" mechanisms in the Java language to get you there. No "macros" or some sort of "templating" to just "pull" such behavior into your production code without doing it explicitly.
But there is the concept of "Aspect Oriented Programming". Meaning: you have another tool that modifies your production code, for example to automatically add such trace statements, as a part of the build/compile process.
Certain technology stacks, for example spring might come with such technology.
If you are not using such frameworks, you would have to "add" something like that to your setup.
I have an old question sustained in my mind for a long time. When I was writing code in Spring, there are lots dirty and useless code for DTO, domain objects. For language level, I am hopeless in Java and see some light in Kotlin. Here is my question:
Style 1 It is common for us to write following code (Java, C++, C#, ...)
// annot: AdminPresentation
val override = FieldMetadataOverride()
override.broadleafEnumeration = annot.broadleafEnumeration
override.hideEnumerationIfEmpty = annot.hideEnumerationIfEmpty
override.fieldComponentRenderer = annot.fieldComponentRenderer
Sytle 2 Previous code can be simplified by using T.apply() in Kotlin
override.apply {
broadleafEnumeration = annot.broadleafEnumeration
hideEnumerationIfEmpty = annot.hideEnumerationIfEmpty
fieldComponentRenderer = annot.fieldComponentRenderer
}
Sytle 3 Can such code be even simplified to something like this?
override.copySameNamePropertiesFrom (annot) { // provide property list here
broadleafEnumeration
hideEnumerationIfEmpty
fieldComponentRenderer
}
First Priority Requirments
Provide property name list only one time
The property name is provided as normal code, so as to we can get IDE auto complete feature.
Second Priority Requirements
It's prefer to avoid run-time cost for Style 3. (For example, 'reflection' may be a possible implementation, but it do introduce cost.)
It's prefer to generated code like style1/style2 directly.
Not care
The final syntax of Style 3.
I am a novice for Kotlin language. Is it possible to use Kotlin to define somthing like 'Style 3' ?
It should be pretty simple to write a 5 line helper to do this which even supports copying every matching property or just a selection of properties.
Although it's probably not useful if you're writing Kotlin code and heavily utilising data classes and val (immutable properties). Check it out:
fun <T : Any, R : Any> T.copyPropsFrom(fromObject: R, vararg props: KProperty<*>) {
// only consider mutable properties
val mutableProps = this::class.memberProperties.filterIsInstance<KMutableProperty<*>>()
// if source list is provided use that otherwise use all available properties
val sourceProps = if (props.isEmpty()) fromObject::class.memberProperties else props.toList()
// copy all matching
mutableProps.forEach { targetProp ->
sourceProps.find {
// make sure properties have same name and compatible types
it.name == targetProp.name && targetProp.returnType.isSupertypeOf(it.returnType)
}?.let { matchingProp ->
targetProp.setter.call(this, matchingProp.getter.call(fromObject))
}
}
}
This approach uses reflection, but it uses Kotlin reflection which is very lightweight. I haven't timed anything, but it should run almost at same speed as copying properties by hand.
Now given 2 classes:
data class DataOne(val propA: String, val propB: String)
data class DataTwo(var propA: String = "", var propB: String = "")
You can do the following:
var data2 = DataTwo()
var data1 = DataOne("a", "b")
println("Before")
println(data1)
println(data2)
// this copies all matching properties
data2.copyPropsFrom(data1)
println("After")
println(data1)
println(data2)
data2 = DataTwo()
data1 = DataOne("a", "b")
println("Before")
println(data1)
println(data2)
// this copies only matching properties from the provided list
// with complete refactoring and completion support
data2.copyPropsFrom(data1, DataOne::propA)
println("After")
println(data1)
println(data2)
Output will be:
Before
DataOne(propA=a, propB=b)
DataTwo(propA=, propB=)
After
DataOne(propA=a, propB=b)
DataTwo(propA=a, propB=b)
Before
DataOne(propA=a, propB=b)
DataTwo(propA=, propB=)
After
DataOne(propA=a, propB=b)
DataTwo(propA=a, propB=)
I'm putting more attention into unit tests these days and I got in a situation for which I'm not sure how to make a good test.
I have a function which creates and returns an object of class X. This X class is part of the framework, so I'm not very familiar with it's implementation and I don't have freedom as in the case of my "regular collaborator classes" (the ones which I have written). Also, when I pass some arguments I cannot check if object X is set to right parameters and I'm not able to pass mock in some cases.
My question is - how to check if this object was properly created, that is, to check which parameters were passed to its constructor? And how to avoid problem when constructor throws an exception when I pass a mock?
Maybe I'm not clear enough, here is a snippet:
public class InputSplitCreator {
Table table;
Scan scan;
RegionLocator regionLocator;
public InputSplitCreator(Table table, Scan scan, RegionLocator regionLocator) {
this.table = table;
this.scan = scan;
this.regionLocator = regionLocator;
}
public InputSplit getInputSplit(String scanStart, String scanStop, Pair<byte[][], byte[][]> startEndKeys, int i) {
String start = Bytes.toString(startEndKeys.getFirst()[i]);
String end = Bytes.toString(startEndKeys.getSecond()[i]);
String startSalt;
if (start.length() == 0)
startSalt = "0";
else
startSalt = start.substring(0, 1);
byte[] startRowKey = Bytes.toBytes(startSalt + "-" + scanStart);
byte[] endRowKey = Bytes.toBytes(startSalt + "-" + scanStop);
TableSplit tableSplit;
try {
HRegionLocation regionLocation = regionLocator.getRegionLocation(startEndKeys.getFirst()[i]);
String hostnamePort = regionLocation.getHostnamePort();
tableSplit = new TableSplit(table.getName(), scan, startRowKey, endRowKey, hostnamePort);
} catch (IOException ex) {
throw new HBaseRetrievalException("Problem while trying to find region location for region " + i, ex);
}
return tableSplit;
}
}
So, this creates an InputSplit. I would like to know whether this split is created with correct parameters. How to do that?
If the class is part of a framework, then you shouldn't test it directly, as the framework has tested it for you. If you still want to test the behaviour of this object, look at the cause-reaction this object would cause. More specifically: mock the object, have it do stuff and check if the affected objects (which you can control) carry out the expected behaviour or are in the correct state.
For more details you should probably update your answer with the framework you're using and the class of said framework you wish to test
This is possibly one of those cases where you shouldn't be testing it directly. This object is supposedly USED for something, yes? If it's not created correctly, some part of your code will break, no?
At some point or another, your application depends on this created object to behave in a certain way, so you can test it implicitly by testing that these procedures that depend on it are working correctly.
This can save you from coupling more abstract use cases from the internal workings and types of the framework.
UPDATE: After getting an unexpected-in-a-good-way answer, I've added some context to the bottom of this question, stating exactly how I'll be using these string-function-calls.
I need to translate a string such as
my.package.ClassName#functionName(1, "a string value", true)
into a reflective call to that function. Getting the package, class, and function name is not a problem. I have started rolling my own solution for parsing the parameter list, and determining the type of each and returning an appropriate object.
(I'm limiting the universe of types to the eight primitives, plus string. null would be considered a string, and commas and double-quotes must be strictly escaped with some simple marker, such as __DBL_QT__, to avoid complications with unescaping and splitting on the comma.)
I am not asking how to do this via string-parsing, as I understand how. It's just a lot of work and I'm hoping there's a solution already out there. Unfortunately it's such generic terminology, I'm getting nowhere with searching.
I understand asking for an external existing library is off topic for SO. I'm just hoping to get some feedback before it's shutdown, or even a suggestion on better search terms. Or perhaps, there is a completely different approach that might be suggested...
Thank you.
Context:
Each function call is found within a function's JavaDoc block, and represents a piece of example code--either its source code or its System.out output--which will be displayed in that spot.
The parameters are for customizing its display, such as
indentation,
eliminating irrelevant parts (like the license-block), and
for JavaDoc-linking the most important functions.
This customization is mostly for the source-code presentation, but may also be applied to its output.
(The first parameter is always an Appendable, which will do the actual outputting.)
The user needs to be be able to call any function, which in many cases will be a private-static function located directly below the JavaDoc-ed function itself.
The application I'm writing will read in the source-code file (the one containing the JavaDoc blocks, in which these string-function-calls exist), and create a duplicate of the *.java file, which will subsequently processed by javadoc.
So for every piece of example code, there will be likely two, and possibly more of these string-function-calls. There may be more, because I may want to show different slices of the same example, in different contexts--perhaps the whole example in the overall class JavaDoc block, and snippets from it in the relevant functions in that class.
I have already written the process that parses the source code (the source code containing the JavaDoc blocks, which is separate from the one that reads the example-code), and re-outputs its source-code blindly with insert example-code here and insert example-code-output here markers.
I'm now at the point where I have this string-function-call in an InsertExampleCode object, in a string-field. Now I need to do as described at the top of this question. Figure out which function they want to invoke, and do so.
Change the # to a dot (.), write a class definition around it so that you have a valid Java source file, include tools.jar in your classpath and invoke com.sun.tools.javac.Main.
Create your own instance of a ClassLoader to load the compiled class, and run it (make it implement a useful interface, such as java.util.concurrent.Callable so that you can get the result of the invocation easily)
That should do the trick.
The class I created for this, called com.github.aliteralmind.codelet.simplesig.SimpleMethodSignature, is a significant piece of Codelet, used to translate the "customizer" portion of each taglet, which is a function that customizes the taglet's output.
(Installation instructions. The only jars that must be in your classpath are codelet and xbnjava.)
Example string signatures, in taglets:
{#.codelet.and.out com.github.aliteralmind.codelet.examples.adder.AdderDemo%eliminateCommentBlocksAndPackageDecl()}
The customizer portion is everything following the percent sign (%). This customizer contains only the function name and empty parameters. This implies that the function must exist in one of a few, strictly-specified, set of classes.
{#.codelet.and.out com.github.aliteralmind.codelet.examples.adder.AdderDemo%lineRange(1, false, "Adder adder", 2, false, "println(adder.getSum())", "^ ")}
This specifies parameters as well, which are, by design, "simple"--either non-null strings, or a primitive type.
{#.codelet.and.out com.github.aliteralmind.codelet.examples.adder.AdderDemo%com.github.aliteralmind.codelet.examples.LineRangeWithLinksCompact#adderDemo_lineSnippetWithLinks()}
Specifies the explicit package and class in which the function exists.
Because of the nature of these taglets and how the string-signatures are implemented, I decided to stick with direct string parsing instead of dynamic compilation.
Two example uses of SimpleMethodSignature:
In this first example, the full signature (the package, class, and function name, including all its parameters) are specified in the string.
import com.github.aliteralmind.codelet.simplesig.SimpleMethodSignature;
import com.github.xbn.lang.reflect.InvokeMethodWithRtx;
import java.lang.reflect.Method;
public class SimpleMethodSigNoDefaults {
public static final void main(String[] ignored) {
String strSig = "com.github.aliteralmind.codelet.examples.simplesig." +
"SimpleMethodSigNoDefaults#getStringForBoolInt(false, 3)";
SimpleMethodSignature simpleSig = null;
try {
simpleSig = SimpleMethodSignature.newFromStringAndDefaults(
String.class, strSig, null, null,
null); //debug (on=System.out, off=null)
} catch(ClassNotFoundException cnfx) {
throw new RuntimeException(cnfx);
}
Method m = null;
try {
m = simpleSig.getMethod();
} catch(NoSuchMethodException nsmx) {
throw new RuntimeException(nsmx);
}
m.setAccessible(true);
Object returnValue = new InvokeMethodWithRtx(m).sstatic().
parameters(simpleSig.getParamValueObjectList().toArray()).invokeGetReturnValue();
System.out.println(returnValue);
}
public static final String getStringForBoolInt(Boolean b, Integer i) {
return "b=" + b + ", i=" + i;
}
}
Output:
b=false, i=3
This second example demonstrates a string signature in which the (package and) class name are not specified. The potential classes, one in which the function must exist, are provided directly.
import com.github.aliteralmind.codelet.simplesig.SimpleMethodSignature;
import com.github.xbn.lang.reflect.InvokeMethodWithRtx;
import java.lang.reflect.Method;
public class SimpleMethodSigWithClassDefaults {
public static final void main(String[] ignored) {
String strSig = "getStringForBoolInt(false, 3)";
SimpleMethodSignature simpleSig = null;
try {
simpleSig = SimpleMethodSignature.newFromStringAndDefaults(
String.class, strSig, null,
new Class[]{Object.class, SimpleMethodSigWithClassDefaults.class, SimpleMethodSignature.class},
null); //debug (on=System.out, off=null)
} catch(ClassNotFoundException cnfx) {
throw new RuntimeException(cnfx);
}
Method m = null;
try {
m = simpleSig.getMethod();
} catch(NoSuchMethodException nsmx) {
throw new RuntimeException(nsmx);
}
m.setAccessible(true);
Object returnValue = new InvokeMethodWithRtx(m).sstatic().
parameters(simpleSig.getParamValueObjectList().toArray()).invokeGetReturnValue();
System.out.println(returnValue);
}
public static final String getStringForBoolInt(Boolean b, Integer i) {
return "b=" + b + ", i=" + i;
}
}
Output:
b=false, i=3
I have 3 questions regarding using Groovy in java. They are all related together so I'm only creating one question here.
1) There are: GroovyClassLoader, GroovyShell, GroovyScriptEngine. But what is the difference between using them?
For example for this code:
static void runWithGroovyShell() throws Exception {
new GroovyShell().parse(new File("test.groovy")).invokeMethod("hello_world", null);
}
static void runWithGroovyClassLoader() throws Exception {
Class scriptClass = new GroovyClassLoader().parseClass(new File("test.groovy"));
Object scriptInstance = scriptClass.newInstance();
scriptClass.getDeclaredMethod("hello_world", new Class[]{}).invoke(scriptInstance, new Object[]{});
}
static void runWithGroovyScriptEngine() throws Exception {
Class scriptClass = new GroovyScriptEngine(".").loadScriptByName("test.groovy");
Object scriptInstance = scriptClass.newInstance();
scriptClass.getDeclaredMethod("hello_world", new Class[]{}).invoke(scriptInstance, new Object[]{});
}
2) What is the best way to load groovy script so it remains in memory in compiled form, and then I can call a function in that script when I need to.
3) How do I expose my java methods/classes to groovy script so that it can call them when needed?
Methods 2 and 3 both return the parsed class in return. So you can use a map to keep them in memory once they are parsed and successfully loaded.
Class scriptClass = new GroovyClassLoader().parseClass(new File("test.groovy"));
map.put("test.groovy",scriptClass);
UPDATE:
GroovyObject link to the groovy object docs.
Also this is possible to cast the object directly as GroovyObject and other java classes are indistinguishable.
Object aScript = clazz.newInstance();
MyInterface myObject = (MyInterface) aScript;
myObject.interfaceMethod();
//now here you can also cache the object if you want to
Cannot comment on efficiency. But I guess if you keep the loaded classes in memory, one time parsing would not hurt much.
UPDATE For efficiency:
You should use GroovyScriptEngine, it uses script caching internally.
Here is the link: Groovy Script Engine
Otherwise you can always test it using some performance benchmarks yourself and you would get rough idea. For example: Compiling groovy scripts with all three methods in three different loops and see which performs better. Try using same and different scripts, to see if caching kicks in, in some way.
UPDATE FOR PASSING PARAMS TO AND FROM SCRIPT
Binding class will help you sending the params to and from the script.
Example Link
// setup binding
def binding = new Binding()
binding.a = 1
binding.setVariable('b', 2)
binding.c = 3
println binding.variables
// setup to capture standard out
def content = new StringWriter()
binding.out = new PrintWriter(content)
// evaluate the script
def ret = new GroovyShell(binding).evaluate('''
def c = 9
println 'a='+a
println 'b='+b
println 'c='+c
retVal = a+b+c
a=3
b=2
c=1
''')
// validate the values
assert binding.a == 3
assert binding.getVariable('b') == 2
assert binding.c == 3 // binding does NOT apply to def'd variable
assert binding.retVal == 12 // local def of c applied NOT the binding!
println 'retVal='+binding.retVal
println binding.variables
println content.toString()