We Keep Coding

Creating a configurable JUnit library to test same features across several microservices

A set of tests should be run on every microservice. Current solution is to have an abstract class and extend in every service, providing the necessary properties in abstract getters.
public abstract class AbstractTest {
#LocalServerPort
protected int serverPort;
protected abstract String getPath();
#Test
void someTest() {}
#Test
void conditionalTest() {}
}
#SpringBootTest(
webEnvironment = SpringBootTest.WebEnvironment.DEFINED_PORT,
classes = {...})
#ActiveProfiles(...) // etc
public class MyTest extends AbstractTest {
// ... implement getPath()
// tests from parent will be executed
}
The goal:
Ditch inheritance and have the AbstractTest's logic get executed automatically with conditional #Test execution based on beans/properties etc.
The possible solution:
A concrete class with all the tests or some sort of Configuration/TestFactory to create the necessary tests. It should take into account available properties and beans to determine which tests to run.
The problem:
How can those tests (created in runtime) be discovered and registered for execution?
How to inject all the properties that are part of the current context of the #SpringBootTest?
Failed attempts:
TestInstanceFactory extension doesn't seem to be the solution as it requires an instance of the class which it annotates.
Using the Launcher API seems overkill, and also doesn't seem to work, since the library class won't be created with the Spring context configs.
using cglib and a base class Spring Contract-style is not a desirable solution
Ideally I don't want the client of this lib to implement/create anything, so abstract String getPath(); would be a test.lib.path property, and if it's present, a test from the library which uses it will run.
Any thoughts on this would be great, because right now this just seems impossible to me.

What is the reason to have the inheritance for tests?
In case you need to share some common logic within the tests you may try JUnit features (custom rules/extensions), for example
For junit < 5.x.x #Rule functionality https://junit.org/junit4/javadoc/4.12/org/junit/rules/TemporaryFolder.html https://stackoverflow.com/a/34608174/6916890
For junit >= 5.x.x (jupiter) there is an extension API
https://junit.org/junit5/docs/current/user-guide/#writing-tests-built-in-extensions-TempDirectory

getting TestNG to treat class variables like JUnit with Guice

I am trying to setup TestNG so that it gives me new instances of my class variable for each test (basically like JUnit). I need this as I intend to parallelize my tests at the method level. I have been experimenting with both standalone Guice and the built in Guice functionality that TestNG provides to try to accomplish this but I have had no luck. I know that I can use ThreadLocal, but calling .get() for every variable in the test is pretty unappealing. I am weary of using GuiceBerry as it does not really have a lot of updates/activity and it's last release is not even acquirable via Maven. I am pretty set on TestNG as for all the inconvenience this is causing me it still does a lot of great things. I am open to things other tools though to accomplish my goal. Basically I want things setup so the below tests would work consistently. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
// just has a variable thats a class called child with a simple string variable
// with a value of "original
Parent p;
#Test
public void sometest1(){
p.child.value = "Altered";
Assert.assertTrue(p.child.value.equals("Altered"));
}
#Test
public void sometest2(){
Assert.assertTrue(p.child.value.equals("original"));
}

TestNG doesn't create a new instance for each test. If you want such a behavior than I recommend creating separate test classes. e.g.:
public class SomeTest1 {
Parent p;
#Test
public void something(){
p.child.value = "Altered";
Assert.assertTrue(p.child.value.equals("Altered"));
}
}
public class SomeTest2 {
Parent p;
#Test
public void something(){
Assert.assertTrue(p.child.value.equals("original"));
}
}
Note that TestNG can run JUnit 3 and JUnit 4 tests (you might maintain a mixed suite depending on the style you want to use in a given test class).

Non static #BeforeClass equivalent when Spring unit test runner? [duplicate]

Are there any best practices to get Junit execute a function once in a test file , and it should also not be static.
like #BeforeClass on non static function?
Here is an ugly solution :
#Before void init(){
if (init.get() == false){
init.set(true);
// do once block
}
}
well this is something i dont want to do , and i am looking for an integrated junit solution.

A simple if statement seems to work pretty well too:
#RunWith(SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.class)
#ContextConfiguration(locations = {"classpath:test-context.xml"})
public class myTest {
public static boolean dbInit = false;
#Autowired
DbUtils dbUtils;
#Before
public void setUp(){
if(!dbInit){
dbUtils.dropTables();
dbUtils.createTables();
dbInit = true;
}
}
...

To use an empty constructor is the easiest solution. You can still override the constructor in the extended class.
But it's not optimal with all the inheritance. That's why JUnit 4 uses annotations instead.
Another option is to create a helper method in a factory/util class and let that method do the work.
If you're using Spring, you should consider using the #TestExecutionListeners annotation.
Something like this test:
#RunWith(SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.class)
#TestExecutionListeners({CustomTestExecutionListener.class,
DependencyInjectionTestExecutionListener.class})
#ContextConfiguration("test-config.xml")
public class DemoTest {
Spring's AbstractTestExecutionListener contains for example this empty method that you can override:
public void beforeTestClass(TestContext testContext) throws Exception {
/* no-op */
}
NOTE: DO NOT overlook/miss DependencyInjectionTestExecutionListener while adding custom TestExecutionListeners. If you do, all the autowires will be null.

If you don't want to set up static initializers for one time initialization and are not particular about using JUnit, take a look at TestNG. TestNG supports non-static, one-time initialization with a variety of configuration options, all using annotations.
In TestNG, this would be equivalent to:
#org.testng.annotations.BeforeClass
public void setUpOnce() {
// One time initialization.
}
For teardown,
#org.testng.annotations.AfterClass
public void tearDownOnce() {
// One time tear down.
}
For the TestNG equivalent of JUnit 4's #Before and #After, you can use #BeforeMethod and #AfterMethod respectively.

Easily use #BeforeAllMethods/#AfterAllMethods annotations to run a method inside the instance context (non-static), where all injected values will be available.
There is a special testing library for this:
https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.bitbucket.radistao.test/before-after-spring-test-runner/0.1.0
https://bitbucket.org/radistao/before-after-spring-test-runner/
The only limitation: works only for Spring testing.
(I'm the developer of this testing library)

I've never tried but maybe you can create a no-argument constructor and call you function from there?

The article discuss 2 very nice solutions for this problem:
"clean" junit with custom Runner (using interface but you could extend it with a custom annotation e.g. #BeforeInstance)
Spring execution listeners as mentioned by Espen before.

UPDATE: Please see the comment by Cherry for why the suggestion below is flawed. (Am keeping the answer on here rather than deleting as the comment may provide useful information to others as to why this doesn't work.)
Another option worth considering if using dependency injection (e.g. Spring) is #PostConstruct. This will guarantee dependency injection is complete, which wouldn't be the case in a constructor:
#PostConstruct
public void init() {
// One-time initialization...
}

Just use #BeforeClass:
#BeforeClass
public static void init() {
}
It doesn't make sense for init to be non-static because each test is run in a separate instance. The instance
that init is run on would not match the instance of any test.
The only reason that you might want it to be non-static is to override it in subclasses, but you can do this
with static methods too. Just use the same name, and only the subclass init method will be called.

Conditional execution of a method using annotation

In java can I have conditional execution of a method using annotations?
I wish to have some system property set and based on that system property I wish to either execute or not execute a method (specifically ant script based JUnits) at runtime.
Please let me know if it's possible using the annotations.

I think that you can implement it in Java but I suggest you to take a look on Spring AOP - I believe that this is what you are looking for.

You can group tests by #Category and tell the running to include this category.
From http://alexruiz.developerblogs.com/?p=1711
public interface FastTests { /* category marker */ }
public interface SlowTests { /* category marker */ }
public class A {
#Category(SlowTests.class)
#Test public void a() {}
}
#Category(FastTests.class})
public class B {
#Test public void b() {}
}
#RunWith(Categories.class)
#IncludeCategory(SlowTests.class)
#ExcludeCategory(FastTests.class)
#SuiteClasses({ A.class, B.class })
public class SlowTestSuite {}

You can implement your own TestRunner or user AOP for this.

An annotation, in the Java computer programming language, is a form of syntactic metadata that can be added to Java source code. Classes, methods, variables, parameters and packages may be annotated.
Take a look at this

I'd write a simple custom test runner by extending BlockJUnit4ClassRunner. That runner would read a configuration from a system property or a configuration file to only run the defined tests. The simplest solution would be a blacklist to exclude selected methods, because the default behaviour of this (default!) runner is to run every test.
Then just say
#RunWith(MyTestRunner.class)
public void TestClass {
// ...
}
For the implementation, it could be sufficiant to just overwrite the getChildren() method:
#Overwrite
List<FrameworkMethod> getChildren() {
List<FrameworkMethod> fromParent = super.getChildren();
List<FrameworkMethod> filteredList = new ArrayList(filter(fromParent));
return filteredList;
}
where filter checks for every FrameworkMethod whether it should be executed or not according to the "blacklist", that has been created based on the property.

gwt-log and gwt-test-utils not playing nice together

I've got a project that has gwt-log logging lines scattered throughout. Now I'm trying to write some unit tests and nothing seems to be working.
Any class I test that uses the gwt-log facility causes the following exception to be raised:
Caused by: com.googlecode.gwt.test.exceptions.GwtTestConfigurationException:
A custom Generator should be used to instanciate
'com.allen_sauer.gwt.log.client.LogMessageFormatter',
but gwt-test-utils does not support GWT compiler API,
so you have to add our own GwtCreateHandler with
'GwtTest.addGwtCreateHandler(..)' method or to declare your
tested object with #Mock
I have no need for the logger to function during unit tests, I'd prefer to mock it away.
I've attempted to use Mockito to mock the logger, in a few different ways... obviously I have no idea what I'm doing here, none of the following code snippets helped the situation:
public class ClockTest extends GwtTest {
#Mock private LogMessageFormatter lmf;
...
or
...
#Before
public void init() throws Exception {
LogMessageFormatter lmf = mock(LogMessageFormatter.class);
...
Any clues on how to work this out would be most appreciated!

Colin is right, you have 2 ways to deal with your error :
1) Mock the LogMessageFormatter, or at a higher level, mock your Logger instance. gwt-test-utils provides a simple API for mocking with both Mockito or EasyMock : http://code.google.com/p/gwt-test-utils/wiki/MockingClasses
2) provide your own GwtCreateHandler to instanciate the LogMessageFormatter, or at a higher your own Logger instance.
Internally, gwt-log relies on GWT's deferred binding to instanciate a LogMessageFormatter object based on your configuration, which is parsed at compile time. It use GWT's generator API to create the LogMessageFormatter class, but gwt-test-utils is not able to use those kind of Generators.
You'll have to do it "by hand", with gwt-test-utils deferred binding support : GwtCreateHandlers.
Your "LoggerGwtCreateHandler" could use JDK's InvocationHandler and Proxy classes to write a proxy for the Logger interface which would simply silent each method call, since I guess you won't care about any log call in your tests.
Here is a discussion on how to write a GwtCreateHandler : https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/gwt-test-utils-users/r_cbPsw9nIE

From the error message you posted:
you have to add our own GwtCreateHandler with
'GwtTest.addGwtCreateHandler(..)' method or to declare your
tested object with #Mock
These are the two options you have to proceed. I've only just begun to work with gwt-test-utils, but the main premise is that it doesn't run the GWT compiler or Dev Mode, so it needs other ways to handle implementing 'magic' features like GWT.create. Its method is to either require you to mock the instance (this should be a fairly common idea in most of your tests for other objects involved in testing) or to provide something like a generator, and hook it up using GwtTest.addGwtCreateHandler.
Building a mock logger shouldn't be too bad, nor should implementing GwtCreateHandler - you just need to make something that has all the log methods. If you want the logging to work, then those methods need to actually invoke some other logger, like java.util.Logger, log4j, slf4j, etc but that is not required for just getting the tests to run (but may be handy for making sure that you logging works, or finding out why your test is failing.

for those still in pain with this damn problem here is what I managed to get (With a lot of pain too ...). It'll solve the conflict between Gwt-test-utils and Gwt-log.
You're of course welcome to modify the format method ;) :
#Before
public void correctLog() {
this.addGwtCreateHandler(new GwtCreateHandler() {
#Override
public Object create(Class<?> classLiteral) throws Exception {
if (classLiteral.isAssignableFrom(LogMessageFormatter.class)) {
return new LogMessageFormatter() {
#Override
public String format(String logLevelText, String category,
String message, Throwable throwable) {
return message + " : " + throwable.getLocalizedMessage();
}
};
}
return null;
}
});
}