I have to migrate tests from JUnit 4 to JUnit 5, I had #Rule which sets EnvironmentVariables variable. In Junit 4 variables were cleared for each test, in JUnit 5 i need the same behaviour, because now running tests are passing separately, but when I ran all tests from class then the second test fails because still has the same environment variables.
I had:
#Rule
public final EnvironmentVariables environmentVariables = new EnvironmentVariables();
#Test
void method1(){...}
#Test
void method2(){...}
I'm not familiar yet with Junit 5 so thanks in advance for any help
What you did with #Rule in JUnit 4 should be done with Extension that provides a very close feature in JUnit 5.
So you could create an Extension for example EnvironmentVariablesExtension that performed the logic of your #Rule and use it in your unit test by annotating your test class(es) #ExtendWith(EnvironmentVariablesExtension.class).
Note that if you use a single #Rule in a single unit test class, you could move this logic into the #BeforeEach lifecyle method that is invoked before each ran test.
If you have just few classes that uses this setup in a single project, you can still introduce an abstract base test class that does this setup in a #BeforeEach method and make your unit test classes inherit from this base class.
One of the greatest value of #Rule is when you want to define multiple rules for an unit test or as you want to reuse rules in other apps/projects. It it is not the case, don't feel constraint to introduce them as Extension in JUnit5 and keep things simple for the moment.
The EnvironmentVariables rule above looks like System Rules - https://github.com/stefanbirkner/system-rules
This was superseded by System Lambda - https://github.com/stefanbirkner/system-lambda which allows a variable to be set inside the body of a test:
withEnvironmentVariable("FOO", "bar")
.execute(() -> { ... test code } );
However, there is a new library called System Stubs - https://github.com/webcompere/system-stubs which contains the equivalent of the OP's code:
#ExtendWith(SystemStubsExtension.class)
class SomeTest {
#SystemStub
private EnvironmentVariables environmentVariables;
#Test
void someTest() {
environmentVariables.set("FOO", "bar");
// use environment
// environment cleared at end
}
}
The environment variables object can also be initialised in the #BeforeEach method or constructed explicitly to have values in the initializer list of the test class.
I think You have the problem with keyword final. Remove it, and it should work,
try like this:
#Rule
public EnvironmentVariables environmentVariables = new EnvironmentVariables();
final = define an entity that can only be assigned once
so from my perspective this is messing Your run.
Hope this helps,
Related
My Code is as below,
#RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
public class MyClass {
private static final String code ="Test";
#Mock
private MyClassDAO dao;
#InjectMocks
private MyClassService Service = new MyClassServiceImpl();
#Test
public void testDoSearch() throws Exception {
final String METHOD_NAME = logger.getName().concat(".testDoSearchEcRcfInspections()");
CriteriaDTO dto = new CriteriaDTO();
dto.setCode(code);
inspectionService.searchEcRcfInspections(dto);
List<SearchCriteriaDTO> summaryList = new ArrayList<SearchCriteriaDTO>();
inspectionsSummaryList.add(dto);
when(dao.doSearch(dto)).thenReturn(inspectionsSummaryList);//got error in this line
verify(dao).doSearchInspections(dto);
}
}
I am getting below exception
org.mockito.exceptions.misusing.UnnecessaryStubbingException:
Unnecessary stubbings detected in test class: Test
Clean & maintainable test code requires zero unnecessary code.
Following stubbings are unnecessary (click to navigate to relevant line of code):
1. -> at service.Test.testDoSearch(Test.java:72)
Please remove unnecessary stubbings or use 'silent' option. More info: javadoc for UnnecessaryStubbingException class.
at org.mockito.internal.exceptions.Reporter.formatUnncessaryStubbingException(Reporter.java:838)
at org.mockito.internal.junit.UnnecessaryStubbingsReporter.validateUnusedStubs(UnnecessaryStubbingsReporter.java:34)
at org.mockito.internal.runners.StrictRunner.run(StrictRunner.java:49)
at org.mockito.junit.MockitoJUnitRunner.run(MockitoJUnitRunner.java:103)
at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit4.runner.JUnit4TestReference.run(JUnit4TestReference.java:86)
at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.TestExecution.run(TestExecution.java:38)
at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:459)
at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:675)
at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.run(RemoteTestRunner.java:382)
at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.main(RemoteTestRunner.java:192)
Please help me how to resolve
At first you should check your test logic. Usually there are 3 cases. First, you are mocking the wrong method (you made a typo or someone changed tested code so that mocked method is no longer used). Second, your test is failing before this method is called. Third, your logic falls in wrong if/switch branch somewhere in the code so that mocked method is not called.
If this is the first case you always want to change the mocked method for the one used in the code. With the second and the third it depends. Usually you should just delete this mock if it has no use. But sometimes there are certain cases in parametrized tests, which should take this different path or fail earlier. Then you can split this test into two or more separate ones but that's not always good looking. 3 test methods with possibly 3 arguments providers can make your test look unreadable. In that case for JUnit 4 you silent this exception with either
#RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.Silent.class)
annotation or if you are using rule approach
#Rule
public MockitoRule rule = MockitoJUnit.rule().strictness(Strictness.LENIENT);
or (the same behaviour)
#Rule
public MockitoRule rule = MockitoJUnit.rule().silent();
For JUnit 5 tests you can silence this exception using this annotation provided in mockito-junit-jupiter package:
#ExtendWith(MockitoExtension.class)
#MockitoSettings(strictness = Strictness.LENIENT)
class JUnit5MockitoTest {
}
Replace #RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class) with #RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.Silent.class).
For me neither the #Rule nor the #RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.Silent.class) suggestions worked. It was a legacy project where we upgraded to mockito-core 2.23.0.
We could get rid of the UnnecessaryStubbingException by using:
Mockito.lenient().when(mockedService.getUserById(any())).thenReturn(new User());
instead of:
when(mockedService.getUserById(any())).thenReturn(new User());
Needless to say that you should rather look at the test code, but we needed to get the stuff compiled and the tests running first of all ;)
Silent is not a solution. You need fix your mock in your test. See official documentation here.
Unnecessary stubs are stubbed method calls that were never realized during test execution (see also MockitoHint), example:
//code under test:
...
String result = translator.translate("one")
...
//test:
...
when(translator.translate("one")).thenReturn("jeden"); // <- stubbing realized during code execution
when(translator.translate("two")).thenReturn("dwa"); // <- stubbing never realized
...
Notice that one of the stubbed methods were never realized in the code under test, during test execution. The stray stubbing might be an oversight of the developer, the artifact of copy-paste or the effect not understanding the test/code. Either way, the developer ends up with unnecessary test code. In order to keep the codebase clean & maintainable it is necessary to remove unnecessary code. Otherwise tests are harder to read and reason about.
To find out more about detecting unused stubbings see MockitoHint.
when(dao.doSearch(dto)).thenReturn(inspectionsSummaryList);//got error in this line
verify(dao).doSearchInspections(dto);
The when here configures your mock to do something. However, you donot use this mock in any way anymore after this line (apart from doing a verify). Mockito warns you that the when line therefore is pointless. Perhaps you made a logic error?
Replace
#RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
with
#RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.Silent.class)
or remove #RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
or just comment out the unwanted mocking calls (shown as unauthorised stubbing).
This was already pointed out in this comment, but I think that's too easy to overlook: You may run into an UnnecessaryStubbingException if you simply convert a JUnit 4 test class to a JUnit 5 test class by replacing an existing #Before with #BeforeEach, and if you perform some stubbing in that setup method that is not realized by at least one of the test cases.
This Mockito thread has more information on that, basically there is a subtle difference in the test execution between #Before and #BeforeEach. With #Before, it was sufficient if any test case realized the stubbings, with #BeforeEach, all cases would have to.
If you don't want to break up the setup of #BeforeEach into many small bits (as the comment cited above rightly points out), there's another option still instead of activating the lenient mode for the whole test class: you can merely make those stubbings in the #BeforeEach method lenient individually using lenient().
As others pointed out it is usually the simplest to remove the line that is unnecessarily stubbing a method call.
In my case it was in a #BeforeEach and it was relevant most of the time. In the only test where that method was not used I reset the mock, e.g.:
myMock.reset()
Hope this helps others with the same problem.
(Note that if there are multiple mocked calls on the same mock this could be inconvenient as well since you'll have to mock all the other methods except the one that isn't called.)
Looking at a part of your stack trace it looks like you are stubbing the dao.doSearch() elsewhere. More like repeatedly creating the stubs of the same method.
Following stubbings are unnecessary (click to navigate to relevant line of code):
1. -> at service.Test.testDoSearch(Test.java:72)
Please remove unnecessary stubbings or use 'silent' option. More info: javadoc for UnnecessaryStubbingException class.
Consider the below Test Class for example:
#RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
public class SomeTest {
#Mock
Service1 svc1Mock1;
#Mock
Service2 svc2Mock2;
#InjectMock
TestClass class;
//Assume you have many dependencies and you want to set up all the stubs
//in one place assuming that all your tests need these stubs.
//I know that any initialization code for the test can/should be in a
//#Before method. Lets assume there is another method just to create
//your stubs.
public void setUpRequiredStubs() {
when(svc1Mock1.someMethod(any(), any())).thenReturn(something));
when(svc2Mock2.someOtherMethod(any())).thenReturn(somethingElse);
}
#Test
public void methodUnderTest_StateUnderTest_ExpectedBehavior() {
// You forget that you defined the stub for svcMock1.someMethod or
//thought you could redefine it. Well you cannot. That's going to be
//a problem and would throw your UnnecessaryStubbingException.
when(svc1Mock1.someMethod(any(),any())).thenReturn(anyThing);//ERROR!
setUpRequiredStubs();
}
}
I would rather considering refactoring your tests to stub where necessary.
Well, In my case Mockito error was telling me to call the actual method after the when or whenever stub. Since we were not invoking the conditions that we just mocked, Mockito was reporting that as unnecessary stubs or code.
Here is what it was like when the error was coming :
#Test
fun `should return error when item list is empty for getStockAvailability`() {
doAnswer(
Answer<Void> { invocation ->
val callback =
invocation.arguments[1] as GetStockApiCallback<StockResultViewState.Idle, StockResultViewState.Error>
callback.onApiCallError(stockResultViewStateError)
null
}
).whenever(stockViewModelTest)
.getStockAvailability(listOf(), getStocksApiCallBack)
}
then I just called the actual method mentioned in when statement to mock the method.
changes done is as below
stockViewModelTest.getStockAvailability(listOf(), getStocksApiCallBack)
#Test
fun `should return error when item list is empty for getStockAvailability`() {
doAnswer(
Answer<Void> { invocation ->
val callback =
invocation.arguments[1] as GetStockApiCallback<StockResultViewState.Idle, StockResultViewState.Error>
callback.onApiCallError(stockResultViewStateError)
null
}
).whenever(stockViewModelTest)
.getStockAvailability(listOf(), getStocksApiCallBack)
//called the actual method here
stockViewModelTest.getStockAvailability(listOf(), getStocksApiCallBack)
}
it's working now.
If you're using this style instead:
#Rule
public MockitoRule rule = MockitoJUnit.rule().strictness(Strictness.STRICT_STUBS);
replace it with:
#Rule
public MockitoRule rule = MockitoJUnit.rule().silent();
I had UnnecessaryStubbingException when I tried to use the when methods on a Spy object.
Mockito.lenient() silenced the exception but the test results were not correct.
In case of Spy objects, one has to call the methods directly.
#ExtendWith(MockitoExtension.class)
#RunWith(JUnitPlatform.class)
class ArithmTest {
#Spy
private Arithm arithm;
#Test
void testAddition() {
int res = arithm.add(2, 5);
// doReturn(7).when(arithm).add(2, 5);
assertEquals(res, 7);
}
}
In case of a large project, it's difficult to fix each of these exceptions. At the same time, using Silent is not advised. I have written a script to remove all the unnecessary stubbings given a list of them.
https://gist.github.com/cueo/da1ca49e92679ac49f808c7ef594e75b
We just need to copy-paste the mvn output and write the list of these exceptions using regex and let the script take care of the rest.
If you use any() when mocking, you have to relpace #RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class) with
#RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.Silent.class).
I've written a JUnit test that uses Mockito and PowerMock to mock some classes. I'm trying to convert it a Cucumber test, but the static PowerMock features don't work.
Extracts of the two relevant Cucumber classes:
Runner
#RunWith(Cucumber.class)
public class JWTValidatorBDDTest {
}
Steps Class
public class JWTValidatorCukeTest {
String tokenValue;
JWTValidator jwtValidator;
MockHttpServletRequest mockRequest;
#Before
public void before() throws IOException {
this.mockRequest = new MockHttpServletRequest();
PowerMockito.mockStatic(JWTAuthConnectionManager.class);
BDDMockito.given(JWTAuthConnectionManager.postToken(anyString(), anyString(), anyString())).willReturn(200);
Mockito.doReturn(200).when(JWTAuthConnectionManager.postToken(anyString(), anyString(), anyString()));
}
#Given("^a JWT token with the value (.*)")
public void a_JWT_token_with_the_value_(String token) {
this.jwtValidator = new JWTValidator("https://test.7uj67hgfh.com/openam", "Authorization", "Bearer");
this.tokenValue = token;
}
Whilst this code works within the JUnit test, it fails here - it enters the JWTAuthConnectionManager.postToken() method that should be mocked and then fails by executing code within there. I've tried adding the lines:
#RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
#PrepareForTest(JWTAuthConnectionManager.class)
to both of the above classes (although of course I can't use RunWith in the Runner class as it already has one RunWith annotation), but this doesn't change anything.
How do I get PowerMock to work within Cucumber?
Seems like it is possible now with #PowerMockRunnerDelegate annotation. I use #RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class) and #PowerMockRunnerDelegate(Cucumber.class) and it's working. Taken an advise from here: https://medium.com/#WZNote/how-to-make-spock-and-powermock-work-together-a1889e9c5692
Since version 1.6.0 PowerMock has support for delegating the test execution to another JUnit runner without using a JUnit Rule. This leaves the actual test-execution to another runner of your choice. For example tests can delegate to “SpringJUnit4ClassRunner”, “Parameterized” or the “Enclosed” runner.
There are also options of using #Rule: PowerMockRule rule = new PowerMockRule(); instead of #RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class) (so Runner can be something else) - but the comment by Stefan Birkner suggests that Cucumber runner should support rules to use this and I am not sure if it does (now).
Hope it helps someone.
You can't use the PowerMockRunner because a test can only have one runner (in your case Cucumber). But AFAIK you can use the PowerMockRule instead of the PowerMockRunner.
I have two test classes each containing a number of tests. I'd like to run both of these together without having to have the #BeforeClass setup method being ran both times. I am calling the classes like this:
public static void main(String[] args) {
TestListenerAdapter tla = new TestListenerAdapter();
TestNG testng = new TestNG();
testng.setTestClasses(new Class[] { TestClass1.class, TestClass2.class });
testng.addListener(tla);
testng.run();
}
The reason for this is because I have both of them calling in a pop up menu and only want to select the option one time. If this is unclear I will try to further explain.
I have a collection of individual tests across 5 classes. I want each class to be able to run separately, but I also want to make them run collectively should I desire. In the #BeforeClass I have each of them calling another class that will select what URL I want to use (I am testing with TestNG and using Selenium WebDriver).
When this code runs it will execute the #BeforeClass in each class I list, and I would like to, if possible, ignore the #BeforeClass in all the tests if I execute the tests using the code above.
I would recommend passing a transformer in to your TestNG test case that implements, IAnnotationTransformer2. That transformer can allow you to control the behavior of the non #Test Annotations at runtime.
IAnnotationTransformer2
You can use a #BeforeTest in a common class of your 2 test classes.
I understand you want to run the stuff inside #Before only once for your 2 test classes that will be executed at same time together.
If you are using maven + junit 4.x, there is an option for setup things before and after test suit start and complete.
Or you can simply create a #ClassRule at suite level, please see the doc
I've been testing my code behavior using TestNG and JMockit for a while now and I have had no specific issue with their combination. Today I came across a situation where I needed to mock one of my internal dependencies, in the so called, type wide manner and I did not need to keep that mock around since none of the test cases dealt with it directly while they counted on the mocked version functionality. So, naturally, I put the mocking logic in my #BeforeMethod. Here is a sample:
public class SampleTest
{
#Mocked
#Cascading
private InnerDependency dependency;
#BeforeMethod
public void beforeMethod()
{
new NonStrictExpectations()
{
{
dependency.getOutputStream((String)any);
result = new Delegate<OutputStream>()
{
public OutputStream getOutputStream(String url)
{
return null;
}
};
}
};
}
#Test
public void testNormalOperation()
{
// The test whose desired behavior depends on dependency being mocked out
// ..
}
}
But, since my tests do not care about the mocked dependency explicitly, I'm not willing to declare it as a test class field, unlike what is done above. To my knowledge of JMockit The only options remaining would be:
Declare dependency as a local mock field:
new NonStrictExpectations()
{
#Cascading
private InnerDependency dependency;
{
//...
}
}
Declare dependency as an input argument for beforeMethod(), similar to what is done for normal #Test methods:
#BeforeMethod
public void beforeMethod(#Mocked #Cascading final InnerDependency dependency)
{
// ...
}
I see that JMockit 1.6+ would not like the first option and warns with WARNING: Local mock field "dependency" should be moved to the test class or converted to a parameter of the test method. Hence, to keep everyone happy, I'm ruling this option out.
But for the second option, TestNG (currently 6.8.6) throws exception when running the test saying java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: wrong number of arguments. I don't see this behavior with normal #Test cases passed with #Mocked parameters. Even playing with #Parameter and #Optional will not help (and should not have!).
So, is there any way I could make this work without declaring the unneccessary test class mock field, or am I missing something here?
Thanks
Only test methods (annotated with #Test in JUnit or TestNG) support mock parameters, so the only choice here is to declare a mock field at the test class level.
Even if not used in any test method, I think it's better than having it declared in a setup method (using #Before, #BeforeMethod, etc.). If it were to be possible, the mock would still have to apply to all tests, because of the nature of setup methods; having a mock field of the test class makes it clear what the scope of the mock is.
Dynamic partial mocking is one more technique to specify #Mocked dependencies locally. However, it has it's limitations (see comments below).
I have a folder path set in system variable through JVM arguments in Eclipse and I am trying to access it in my class as:
System.getProperty("my_files_path").
While writing junit test method for this class, I tried mocking this call as test classes do not consider JVM arguments. I have used PowerMockito to mock static System class and tried returning some path when System.getProperpty is being called.
Had #RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class) and #PrepareForTest(System.class) annotations at class level. However, System class is not getting mocked as a result I always get null result.
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks Satish. This works except with a small modification. I wrote PrepareForTest(PathFinder.class), preparing the class I am testing for test cases instead of System.class
Also, as mock works only once, I called my method right after mocking.
My code just for reference:
#RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
#PrepareForTest(PathInformation.class)
public class PathInformationTest {
private PathFinder pathFinder = new PathFinder();
#Test
public void testValidHTMLFilePath() {
PowerMockito.mockStatic(System.class);
PowerMockito.when(System.getProperty("my_files_path")).thenReturn("abc");
assertEquals("abc",pathFinder.getHtmlFolderPath());
}
}
There are certain classes PowerMock can't mock in the usual way. See here:
https://code.google.com/p/powermock/wiki/MockSystem
This, however, may still not work. In order of "good design" preference, you can fall back to these:
Refactor your code! Using a System property for passing a file path around is probably not the best way. Why not use a properties file loaded into a Properties object? Why not use getters/setters for the components that need to know this path? There are many better ways to do this.
The only reason I could think of not to do this is you're trying to wrap a test harness around code you "can't" modify.
Use #Before and #After methods to set the System property to some known value for the test(s). You could even make it part of the #Test method itself. This will be FAR easier than attempting to mock through PowerMock. Just call System.setProperty("my_files_path","fake_path");
System class is declared as final and cannot be mocked by libraries such as PowerMock. Several answers posted here are incorrect. If you are using Apache System Utils you can use getEnvironmentVariable method instead of calling System.getenv directly. SystemUtils can be mocked since it is not declared as final.
Set the system property in your test and ensure that it is restored after the test by using the rule RestoreSystemProperties of the library System Rules.
public class PathInformationTest {
private PathFinder pathFinder = new PathFinder();
#Rule
public TestRule restoreSystemProperties = new RestoreSystemProperties();
#Test
public void testValidHTMLFilePath() {
System.setProperty("my_files_path", "abc");
assertEquals("abc",pathFinder.getHtmlFolderPath());
}
}
The System.setter or getter method should be put in a user defined method and that method can be mocked to return the desired property in unit test.
public String getSysEnv(){
return System.getEnv("thisprp");
}
#RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
#PrepareForTest(System.class)
public class MySuperClassTest {
#Test
public void test(){
PowerMockito.mockStatic(System.class);
PowerMockito.when(System.getProperty("java.home")).thenReturn("abc");
System.out.println(System.getProperty("java.home"));
}
}
Sailaja add System.class because as per the power mock guidelines for static,private mocking you should add the class in prepare for test.
#PrepareForTest({PathInformation.class,System.class})
Hope this helps.let me know if it doesn't work