I've to write test for a class that calls an API and then processes the response. The class has two public functions and a private function. The first public method fetches a list of IDs. The second public method is called in a loop for every ID to get details associated with an ID. The private method is called inside the second public method, since the calls to fetch details based on id are made asynchronously.
I'm new to JUnits and while I understand that I should not test the API calls, just my functions, I still don't understand what should the unit tests assert.
Below are my functions:
public List<Integer> fetchVehicleIds(String datasetId) throws ApiException {
VehiclesApi vehiclesApi = new VehiclesApi();
List<Integer> vehicleIds;
vehicleIds = vehiclesApi.vehiclesGetIds(datasetId).getVehicleIds();
return vehicleIds;
}
public List<VehicleResponse> fetchVehicleDetails(String datasetId, List<Integer> vehicleIds) throws InterruptedException, ApiException {
CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(vehicleIds.size());
List<VehicleResponse> vehiclesList = new ArrayList<>();
for (Integer vehicleId: vehicleIds) {
populateEachVehicleDetail(datasetId, vehicleId, vehiclesList, latch);
}
latch.await();
return vehiclesList;
}
private void populateEachVehicleDetail(String datasetId, Integer vehicleId, List<VehicleResponse> vehiclesList, CountDownLatch latch) throws ApiException {
ApiCallback<VehicleResponse> vehicleResponseApiCallback = new ApiCallback<VehicleResponse>() {
#Override
synchronized public void onSuccess(VehicleResponse result, int statusCode, Map<String, List<String>> responseHeaders) {
vehiclesList.add(result);
latch.countDown();
}
};
VehiclesApi vehiclesApi = new VehiclesApi();
vehiclesApi.vehiclesGetVehicleAsync(datasetId,vehicleId,vehicleResponseApiCallback);
}
Based on the research I've done so far, I think I have to mock the API calls using mockito? I'm still unclear on how the functionality can be unit tested.
These two statements are indeed the things that you want to isolate in your unit test:
private void populateEachVehicleDetail(String datasetId, Integer vehicleId, List<VehicleResponse> vehiclesList, CountDownLatch latch) throws ApiException {
....
VehiclesApi vehiclesApi = new VehiclesApi();
vehiclesApi.vehiclesGetVehicleAsync(datasetId,vehicleId,vehicleResponseApiCallback);
...
}
1) Make you dependency mockable
But you can mock only something that you can set from the client side of the class.
Here the API is a local variable. So you should change your class to expose the dependency, for example in the constructor.
In this way you could mock it easily.
2) Make your mock not return a result but invoke the callback.
In a synchronous invocation context, you want to mock a returned result.
In an asynchronous invocation context with a callback, things are different. Indeed callbacks don't return to the caller but callbacks are invoked to provide the result of the invocation.So here what you want is that the mocked API invokes the onSuccess() callback with mocked parameters that represent the data set for your unit test :
#Override
synchronized public void onSuccess(VehicleResponse result, int statusCode, Map<String, List<String>> responseHeaders) {
vehiclesList.add(result);
latch.countDown();
}
In your unit test you should mock in this way the callback for each expected invocation :
#Mock
VehiclesApi vehiclesApiMock;
// ...
// when the api method is invoked with the expected dataSetId and vehicleId
Mockito.when(vehiclesApiMock.vehiclesGetVehicleAsync(Mockito.eq(datasetId), Mockito.eq(vehicleId),
Mockito.any(ApiCallback.class)))
// I want to invoke the callback with the mocked data
.then(invocationOnMock -> {
ApiCallback<VehicleResponse> callback = invocationOnMock.getArgument(2);
callback.onSuccess(mockedVehicleResponse, mockedStatusCode,
mockedResponseHeaders);
return null; // it is a void method. So no value to return in T then(...).
});
I think that a cast is missing for ApiCallback but you should have the overall idea.
You are right: since you want to test your unit (i.e. the presented code), you should mock the API (mainly: the vehicleApi instance).
As-is right now, there is no way to inject a mocked instance of VehicleApi in your code (well, there is, but it would involve use of reflection... let's not go down this road). You can apply Inversion of Control to make your code testable: instead of constructing a VehicleApi within your object, write a constructor that expects a VehicleApi-instance:
public class YourClass {
private final VehicleApi vehicleApi;
public YourClass(final VehicleApi vehicleApi) {
this.vehicleApi = vehicleApi;
}
[...]
}
What have you won? Well, now you can inject a mocked object into your unit under test:
#RunWith(MockitoJRunner.class)
public class YourClassTest {
private final VehicleApi vehicleApiMock = mock(VehicleApi.class);
private final YourClass underTest = new YourClass(vehicleApiMock);
#Test
void someTest() {
// GIVEN
[wire up your mock if necessary]
// WHEN
[write the test-call]
// THEN
[verify that the unit under test is in the expected state]
}
}
This example assumes JUnit5 as testing- and Mockito as mocking-framework, but there are other options as well.
The test is written in Gherkin language:
- the GIVEN block describes the preconditions, i.e. in which the unit under test and the external (mocked) system(s) are in
- the WHEN block executes the action that should be tested
- the THEN block validates that the unit under test is in the expected state.
Related
I have a JUnit test as:
#Spy
ParallelSender parallelSender = new ParallelSender();
#Test
public void send() {
// making some data...
parallelSender.send(someData);
// check that internal method has been called with Sender Task made from someData
verify(parallelSender).doSend(any(SenderTask.class));
}
I however like to examine that SenderTask contains all the fields exactly as I need them. Can I tell the spy to intercept the doSend call, store its parameters in some array and then continue to real method?
Use the ArgumentCaptor:
#Test
public void send() {
// making some data...
parallelSender.send(someData);
// Define the captor for class
ArgumentCaptor<SenderTask> captor =
ArgumentCaptor.forClass(SenderTask.class);
// Capture input while verifying
verify(parallelSender).doSend(captor.capture());
// Assert
SomeTask result = captor.getValue();
// assertions on result
}
You can use an ArgumentCaptor.
#Captor
ArgumentCaptor<SenderTask> captor;
// or ArgumentCaptor<SenderTask> captor =
// ArgumentCaptor.forClass(SenderTask.class);
#Test public void send() {
// ...
verify(parallelSender).doSend(captor.capture());
SenderTask captured = captor.getValue();
I rarely use argument captor because it's usually not necessary.
Just do this
#Test
public void send() {
//given
SomeData myInput = ...
SenderTask expectedOutput = new SenderTask();
expectedOutput.setSomeField(/*expected field value*/);
//when
parallelSender.send(myInput);
//then
verify(parallelSender).doSend(expectedOutput);
}
The idea behind is to check that "doSend" was called with an expected object.
Note: just make sure that you implemented equals/hash method in SenderTask - or it will not work
Note2: I would suggest avoiding using any() in your unit tests. Usually when your are unit-testing something - you want to be as much precise as possible. So use concrete objects during results verification.
Hopefully it helps
For school purposes I am creating an application that's working with a stock API.
I am trying to write a test for a method that gets all the stock data of the last 10 years. Instead of actually getting all that data, I want to throw an exception.
The method I Want to test:
#Override
public List<StockData> getAllTeslaStockData() throws AlphaVantageException {
List<StockData> stockData;
AlphaVantageConnector apiConnector = new AlphaVantageConnector(APIKEY, TIMEOUT);
TimeSeries stockTimeSeries = new TimeSeries(apiConnector);
try {
Daily responseDaily = stockTimeSeries.daily("TSLA", OutputSize.FULL);
stockData = responseDaily.getStockData();
} catch (AlphaVantageException e) {
LOGGER.log(Level.SEVERE, "something went wrong: ", e);
throw e;
}
return stockData;
}
The stockTimeSeries.daily(....) call can throw the AlphaVantageException.
I've mocked the TimeSeries class like this:
TimeSeries stockTimeSeries = mock(TimeSeries.class);
In my test class I want to mock this call, and return an exception instead of actual data.
when(stockTimeSeries.daily("TSLA", OutputSize.FULL)).thenThrow(new AlphaVantageException("No stock data available"));
Regardless of how I am trying to mock this bit of code, it'll never throw the exception. It will always just execute the code, and return valid stock data, instead of throwing the exception like i've tried to do.
How can I mock this bit of code, so that itll throw the exception I am expecting for my tests.
The AlphaVantageConnector, TimeSeries and Daily classes are part of a library used to access the stock API, so I can't change these classes.
I am using JUnit 4.12 and Mockito to try and achieve this.
You can use thenThrow() method. Below is the example
#Test(expected = NullPointerException.class)
public void whenConfigNonVoidRetunMethodToThrowEx_thenExIsThrown() {
MyDictionary dictMock = mock(MyDictionary.class);
when(dictMock.getMeaning(anyString()))
.thenThrow(NullPointerException.class);
dictMock.getMeaning("word");
The TimeSeries object is created in the method itself, so you can't mock it - mocking is intended to mock members.
What you can do is to do something like
class YourClass {
private Supplier<TimeSeries> seriesCreator = () -> {
return new TimeSeries(new AlphaVantageConnector(APIKEY, TIMEOUT));
}
which you use to create the series in your method
#Override
public List<StockData> getAllTeslaStockData() throws AlphaVantageException {
TimeSeries stockTimeSeries = seriesCreator.get();
Now you can mock that Supplier.
#Mock Supplier<TimeSeries> seriesCreatorMock;
#InjectMocks MyClass sut;
and in your test
#Test(expected = AlphaVantageException.class)
void testException() {
when(seriesCreatorMock.get()).thenThrow(new AlphaVantageException());
sut.getAllTeslaStockData()
}
EDIT: as suggested by Angkur in the comments, the clean way would be to
class SeriesCreator implements Supplier<TimeSeries> {
public TimeSeries get() {
return new TimeSeries(new AlphaVantageConnector(APIKEY, TIMEOUT));
}
}
class YourClass {
private Supplier<TimeSeries> seriesCreator = new SeriesCreator();
// ...
The code in the main class is creating a new instance of TimeSeries which it will use every time this method is called, so the mocked TimeSeries object is not getting used at all.
TimeSeries stockTimeSeries = new TimeSeries(apiConnector); // --> This is not getting mocked
try {
Daily responseDaily = stockTimeSeries.daily("TSLA", OutputSize.FULL);
stockData = responseDaily.getStockData();
}
You should create another method in your class (or even a separate class if it better satisfies the SOLID principles) which returns you the TimeSeries object. Something like:-
<access modifier> TimeSeries getTimeSeries(...) {
}
and then this method should be mocked in the Junit, and when mocked, it should return the Mocked TimeSeries reference (which is created in TimeSeries stockTimeSeries = mock(TimeSeries.class); ). You would need to use .spy() on the main class (unless you are using a different class to create TimeSeries object) in order to be able to mock the specific method getTimeSeries() but not the others.
MainClass mainObject = Mockito.spy(new MainClass());
Mockito.when(mainObject.getTimeSeries()).thenReturn(stockTimeSeries);
Then, the method call stockTimeSeries.daily() will get actually mocked by your existing code :
when(stockTimeSeries.daily("TSLA", OutputSize.FULL)).thenThrow(new AlphaVantageException("No stock data available"));
NOTE: you should also consider using .anyString() style methods provided by Mockito API while mocking.
I have the following object which I want to test:
public class MyObject {
#Inject
Downloader downloader;
public List<String> readFiles(String[] fileNames) {
List<String> files = new LinkedList<>();
for (String fileName : fileNames) {
try {
files.add(downloader.download(fileName));
} catch (IOException e) {
files.add("NA");
}
}
return files;
}
}
This is my test:
#UseModules(mockTest.MyTestModule.class)
#RunWith(JukitoRunner.class)
public class mockTest {
#Inject Downloader downloader;
#Inject MyObject myObject;
private final String[] FILE_NAMES = new String[] {"fail", "fail", "testFile"};
private final List<String> EXPECTED_FILES = Arrays.asList("NA", "NA", "mockContent");
#Test
public void testException() throws IOException {
when(downloader.download(anyString()))
.thenThrow(new IOException());
when(downloader.download("testFile"))
.thenReturn("mockContent");
assertThat(myObject.readFiles(FILE_NAMES))
.isEqualTo(EXPECTED_FILES);
}
public static final class MyTestModule extends TestModule {
#Override
protected void configureTest() {
bindMock(Downloader.class).in(TestSingleton.class);
}
}
}
I am overwriting the anyString() matcher for a specific argument. I am stubbing the download() method so that it returns a value for a specific argument and otherwise throws an IOException which gets handled by MyObject.readFiles.
The weird thing here is that the second stub (downloader.download("testFile")) throws the IOException set in the first stub (downloader.download(anyString())). I have validated that by throwing a different exception in my first stub.
Can someone explain me why the exception is thrown when adding an additional stub? I thought that creating a stub does not call the method/other stubs.
The problem is that when you write
when(downloader.download("testFile")).thenReturn("mockContent");
the first thing to be called is downloader.download, which you've already stubbed to throw an exception.
The solution is to use the slightly more versatile stubbing syntax that Mockito provides. This syntax has the advantage that it doesn't call the actual method when stubbing.
doThrow(IOException.class).when(downloader).download(anyString());
doReturn("mock content").when(downloader).download("test file");
I have listed other advantages of this second syntax, in my answer here
I thought that creating a stub does not call the method/other stubs.
This assumption is wrong, because stubbing is calling the mocks methods. Your test methods are still plain java!
Since stubbing for anyString will overwrite stubbing for any specific string you will either have to write two tests or stub for two specific arguments:
when(downloader.download("fail")).thenThrow(new IOException());
when(downloader.download("testFile")).thenReturn("mockContent");
Mockito is a very sophisticated piece of code that tries its best so that you can write
when(downloader.download(anyString())).thenThrow(new IOException());
which means “when the downloaders mock download method is called with anyString argument thenThrow an IOException” (i.e. it can be read from left to right).
However, since the code is still plain java, the call sequence actually is:
String s1 = anyString(); // 1
String s2 = downloader.download(s1); // 2
when(s2).thenThrow(new IOException()); // 3
Behind the scenes, Mockito needs to do this:
register an ArgumentMatcher for any String argument
register a method call download on the downloader mock where the argument is defined by the previously registered ArgumentMatcher
register an action for the previously registered method call on a mock
If you now call
... downloader.download("testFile") ...
the downloader mock checks whether there is an action register for "testFile" (there is, since there is already an action for any String) and accordingly throws the IOException.
Your 2nd mock statement is getting overriden by the first mock statement (because both mock statements are passing a String argument). If you want to cover try as well as catch back through your mock test then write 2 different test cases.
I am new to writing tests in java, and seem to be unable to test if a method of a class is called.
I am sending metrics to datadog, and want to test in the code if a function of another class was called.
It says I need to mock first, but I couldn't get it to work.
MetricRecorder.java
import com.timgroup.statsd.StatsDClient;
import com.timgroup.statsd.NonBlockingStatsDClient;
import com.google.common.base.Preconditions;
public class MetricRecorder {
private final String namespace;
private final static StatsDClient metrics = new NonBlockingStatsDClient(
"my.prefix",
"localhost",
8125,
new String[] {"tag:value"}
);
public MetricRecorder(String namespace) {
Preconditions.checkNotNull(namespace);
this.namespace = namespace;
}
public void inc(String metricName) {
this.inc(metricName, 1);
}
public void inc(final String metricName, final long value) {
Preconditions.checkNotNull(metricName);
try {
metrics.recordHistogramValue(MetricRecorder.name(namespace, metricName), value);
} catch (Exception e) {
logger.warn("Unable to record metric {} due to :", metricName, e);
}
}
...
}
MetricRecorderTest.java
public class MetricsRecorderTest {
#Test
public void metricsRecorderTest() {
MetricRecorder recorder = new MetricRecorder("dev");
recorder.inc("foo", 1);
verify(recorder.metrics, times(1)).recordHistogramValue(eq("dev.foo"), 1);
}
}
When I run the test I get this => org.mockito.exceptions.misusing.NotAMockException:
Argument passed to verify() is of type NonBlockingStatsDClient and is not a mock!
Any idea of how I should be testing if recordHistogramValue was called, and if so with what arguments?
Since it looks like StatsDClient is an interface of some kind, it would make your testing effort easier to simply inject this dependency into your object. Even if you're not using an IoC container like Spring or Guice, you can still somewhat control this simply by passing an instance of it in through the constructor.
public MetricRecorder(String namespace, StatsDClient client) {
Preconditions.checkNotNull(namespace);
Preconditions.checkNotNull(client);
this.namespace = namespace;
this.client = client;
}
This will make your testing simpler since all you realistically need to do is mock the object passed in during test.
Right now, the reason it's failing is because you're newing up the instance, and Mockito (in this current configuration) isn't equipped to mock the newed instance. In all honesty, this set up will make testing simpler to conduct, and you should only need your client configured in one area.
#RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
public class MetricsRecorderTest {
#Test
public void metricsRecorderTest() {
StatsDClient dClientMock = Mockito.mock(StatsDClient.class);
MetricRecorder recorder = new MetricRecorder("dev", dClientMock);
recorder.inc("foo", 1);
verify(recorder.metrics).recordHistogramValue(eq("dev.foo"), 1);
}
}
You are getting things wrong here. You don't use a mocking framework to test your "class under test".
You use the mocking framework to create mocked objects; which you then pass to your "class under test" within a test case. Then your "code under test" calls methods on the mocked object; and by controlling returned values (or by verifying what happens to your mock); that is how you write your testcases.
So, your testcase for a MetricRecorder doesn't mock a MetricRecorder; it should mock the StatsDClient class; and as Makoto suggests; use dependency injection to put an object of that class into MetricRecorder.
Besides: basically writing "test-able" code is something that needs to be practiced. I wholeheartedly recommend you to watch these videos if you are serious about getting in this business. All of them; really (worth each second!).
I'm writing a test suite, and I'm thinking about how to mock certain request/response flows. For example, I want to test a method that makes multiple RESTful calls:
getCounts() {
...
Promise<Integer> count1 = getCount1();
Promise<Integer> count2 = getCount2();
// returns a DataModel containing all counts when the Promises redeem
}
getCount1() {
...
Request<Foo> request = new Request<Foo>();
sendRequest(request);
...
}
getCount2() {
...
Request<Bar> request = new Request<Bar>();
sendRequest(request);
...
}
sendRequest(Request<T> request) {...}
However, each getCount() method creates a different Request<T> object, where <T> describes the type of request being made in regards to the count being retrieved. This means I can't simply "mock" the sendRequest() method since it is being called with a different type each time.
I was thinking about an approach where I register a "handler"... when sendRequest() is called, it determines which handler to call, and the handler would know the appropriate type of mock data to return. The registration would be something like storing the handler class type or an instance of the handler class along with the mock data it needs, and when sendRequest() is called, it would look for and invoke the correct handler.
However, I'm not sure if this a good pattern, and I'm wondering if there is a better way of approaching this problem. What is a good pattern for registering a Class or a particular method to execute a specific task later on?
Hard to answer without more context, but the general approach is to use Inversion Of Control (IOC). For example, put the getCountXXX methods into a class of their own, which may be a good idea for better reuse, readability, encapsulation, testability, etc:
public class CountFetcher {
getCount1() { ... }
getCount2() { ... }
}
The original code now gets an instance of CountFetcher using whatever "injection" mechanism is available to you. Simplest is just a constructor:
public class Counter {
private final CountFetcher fetcher;
public Counter(CountFetcher fetcher) {
this.fetcher = fetcher;
}
public getCounts() {
Promise<Integer> count1 = fetcher.getCount1();
Promise<Integer> count2 = fetcher.getCount2();
...
}
}
In your production code, you instantiate Counter with a real CountFetcher. In test code, you inject a mock version of CountFetcher which can have each individual getCountXXX method return whatever you want:
public class MockCountFetcher extends CountFetcher {
#Override
getCount1() { return mockCount1; }
}
public class TestCounter {
#Test
public void smokeTest() {
CountFetcher mockFetcher = new MockCountFetcher();
Counter counter = new Counter(mockFetcher);
assertEquals(someExpectedValue, counter.getCounts());
}
}