We Keep Coding

Java unit test - exception not being thrown

Trying to write a test that will call my method, when that method makes a call to another method we will throw a custom exception i have made. Here i have simplified it all
2 functions
public MyJsonResponse hello() {
MyJsonResponse response = new MyJsonResponse();
response.setErrorMessage("1");
response.setStatus("some status");
response.setData("1");
response.setHttpResponse(200);
try{
hi();
return response;
}catch (MyServiceException e) {
response.setErrorMessage(e.getMessage());
response.setStatus("error creating");
response.setData("2");
response.setHttpResponse(e.getResponseStatus());
return response;
}
}
public String hi() throws MyServiceException{
LOG.error("Exception");
return "yea";
}
The test I have written is this
#Test
public void myTest() throws Exception {
given(service.hi()).willAnswer( invocation -> { throw new MyServiceException("abc msg",511); });
MyJsonResponse actual = service.hello();
Assert.assertNotNull(actual);
assertEquals(511, actual.getHttpResponse());
}
But unfortunately the result is as follows
java.lang.AssertionError:
Expected :511
Actual :200

Please, be sure that you are using a spy as you want to use the actual code for some methods of your mocked service and just stubbing specific methods of it. Please, see for instance this related SO question about the subject.
Also, consider modifying your test definition to use willThrow instead of willAnswer: as pointed out by #eis, you can still use the later, but the former is more straightforward.
Your code will look similar to this:
#Test
public void myTest() throws Exception {
MyService service = spy(MyService.class);
willThrow(new MyServiceException("abc msg",511))
.given(service)
.hi()
;
// As pointed out by #eis, you can still use willAnswer
// willAnswer(
// invocation -> { throw new MyServiceException("abc msg",511);}
// )
// .given(service)
// .hi()
// ;
MyJsonResponse actual = service.hello();
Assert.assertNotNull(actual);
assertEquals(511, actual.getHttpResponse());
}

regarding what you explain and what your code look like, I am not sure if I have well understood.
Thus, if you want that, your hi() : function throws an exception.
You have to make it first throws an exception. Take a look at code below!
public String hi() throws MyServiceException{
/*LOG.error("Exception");//No don't just log, throw a real exception as below*/
throw new MyServiceException("text here, if your constructor support it or nothing otherwise")
/*return "yea";//Nothing to return? we have just break the code by throwing the exception above*/
}
After that, please be very sure that your 'MyServiceException.getHttpResponse()' will really return 511

For this test to make sense, your hi() call should be done calling another service that you stub/mock in your test class. You're not doing that, so this approach won't work.
You wrote "the real method that hi represents does a lot", so it's about time you extract that to another service.

Argument(s) are different! Wanted:

I am writing a unit test for my below code
public class Class1 {
protected void execute(String a, String b) {
try{
process(a,b);
}
catch(Exception E){
Class2.write(e,Class1.class.getSimpleName())
}
}
private void process(String a, String b) {
validate(a,b);
// Doing some processing on a and b values
}
private void validate (String a, String b) {
if(a==null || a.isEmpty() || b==null || b.isEmpty())
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Input value cannot be null or empty");
}
}
For the above code, I am trying to write a UT which covers the exception use case. Below is my UT code,
#Test
public void test1(){
try {
PowerMockito.mockStatic(Class2.class);
PowerMockito.when(Class2.class, "write", Mockito.anyObject(), Mockito.anyString())
.thenCallRealMethod();
Class1 class1 = new Class1();
Class2.write(new IllegalArgumentException("Input value cannot be null or empty"),Class1.class.getSimpleClassName());
PowerMockito.verifyStatic(Class2.class, VerificationModeFactory.times(1));
class1.execute(Mockito.anyString(),Mockito.anyString());
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
Assert.fail(e.getMessage());
}
}
I am getting the below exception when I execute the above test
Argument(s) are different! Wanted:
Class2.write{
java.lang.IllegalArgumentException:Input value cannot be null or empty,
Class1
}
Actual invocation has different arguments:
Class2.write{
java.lang.IllegalArgumentException:Input value cannot be null or empty,
Class1
}
Can someone please help me on resolving this issue?
I really appreciate your help and time
Thanks in Advance

Your Problem:
IllegalArgumentException does not use the string message for equality. It would be safer to test the string message or the class type. I would prefer that the test detect the type rather than the message, as the string message should not be used for control flow, it is an implementation detail.
System.out.println(Objects.equals(
new IllegalArgumentException(),
new IllegalArgumentException()));
// false
System.out.println(Objects.equals(
new IllegalArgumentException().getClass(),
new IllegalArgumentException().getClass()));
// true
So to mock this I would use matchers:
any(IllegalArgumentException.class), eq(Class1.class.getSimpleName())
Issues with your design:
I'm going to end with an argument against how this code is structured, being that it is not built around dependency injection. Rather than calling the static method Class2::write, you could be calling an instance method.
For example, create the interface:
public interface Writer {
void write(Exception e, String source);
}
You can now refactor the class to provide two ctors, one that accepts any writer, and one that defaults to Class2.
public class Class1 {
private final Writer writer;
public Class1() {
this(Class2::write);
}
public Class1(Writer writer) {
this.writer = writer;
}
protected void execute(String a, String b) {
try {
process(a,b);
}
catch (Exception E) {
writer.write(e, Class1.class.getSimpleName());
}
}
...
}
Using this strategy you can now simply create an instance mock of Writer. This avoids having to mock as static method which changes the bytecode of your application, and also make your class more flexible as it can support many different writer implementations now. Anything that is modifying the bytecode of the application should be used very sparingly, such as replacing static method calls, does not truly validate the runtime execution of your code.
In my opinion, the majority of the PowerMockito/PowerMock only help verify code which was not built with testability / flexibility in mind. You shouldn't need to use anything outside of the Mockito/EasyMock tool-set for well structured code. There are some exceptions but the tool-set should be used very sparingly.

PowerMock UnfinishedStubbingException error on final class

Trying to get Mockito and PowerMock to behave, but I'm getting an UnfinishedStubbingException when trying to run this code:
#RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
#PrepareForTest(FileIOHelper.class)
public class FileIOHelperTest {
#Test
public void testIOExceptionOnWrite() {
PowerMockito.mockStatic(FileIOHelper.class);
PowerMockito.doThrow(new IOException()).when(FileIOHelper.class);
PowerMockito.verifyStatic();
FileIOHelper.write(Mockito.anyString(), Mockito.anyString());
}
#After
public void validate() {
Mockito.validateMockitoUsage();
}
}
and this IO class
public final class FileIOHelper {
public static void write(final String file, String message, final boolean appendNewLine) {
if(checkArgs(file, message)) {
final Path path = Paths.get(file);
StandardOpenOption mode = StandardOpenOption.APPEND;
if(Files.notExists(path)) {
mode = StandardOpenOption.CREATE_NEW;
}
if(appendNewLine) {
message += System.getProperty("line.separator");
}
try {
Files.write(path, message.getBytes(), mode);
} catch(IOException e) {
handleException(e, "Problem writing to " + file);
}
}
}
private static boolean checkArgs(final String... args) {
if(args != null && args.length > 0) {
for(final String arg : args) {
if(arg == null || arg.isEmpty()) {
return false;
}
}
}
return true;
}
private static void handleException(final IOException e, final String errorMsg) {
handleException(e, errorMsg, true);
}
private static void handleException(final IOException e, final String errorMsg, final boolean printStace) {
checkArgs(errorMsg);
System.err.println(errorMsg);
System.err.println(e.getMessage());
if(printStace) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
What I want to do is somehow trigger the IOException so handleException can be tested. Why one might ask? I'm looking at my Jacoco report and I see this:
I've looked at:
How to mock a void static method to throw exception with Powermock?
Powermock/mockito does not throw exception when told to
PowerMockito mock static method which throws exception
https://github.com/jayway/powermock/wiki/MockitoUsage#how-to-stub-void-static-method-to-throw-exception
http://www.johnmullins.co/blog/2015/02/15/beginners-guide-to-using-mockito-and-powermockito-to-unit-test-java/
and I'm still completely lost. I have no idea if I need to trigger the IOException or if I can somehow verify the output of handleException without doThrow. Someone, help!
Error log:
org.mockito.exceptions.misusing.UnfinishedStubbingException:
Unfinished stubbing detected here:
-> at FileIOHelperTest.testIOExceptionOnWrite(FileIOHelperTest.java:8) // doThrow line
E.g. thenReturn() may be missing.
Examples of correct stubbing:
when(mock.isOk()).thenReturn(true);
when(mock.isOk()).thenThrow(exception);
doThrow(exception).when(mock).someVoidMethod();
Hints:
1. missing thenReturn()
2. you are trying to stub a final method, you naughty developer!
3: you are stubbing the behaviour of another mock inside before 'thenReturn' instruction if completed

My recommendation: forget about using PowerMock.
If you have to mock static methods, then build your own little wrapper class around that. Then, for testing, your wrapper can return something you control; and for production usage; your wrapper just calls the static method.
PowerMock looks like the solution to many problems; but rather sooner than later, it will be the cause of much more problems. It breaks coverage, it makes it harder to change the underlying JVM, and so on.
Seriously: if your design can only be tested with PowerMock, this is very often a clear indication that your design is bad. So: focus on reworking your code under test; instead of investing time into a tool like PowerMock that does more harm than good.
I have spent countless hours trying to resolve PowerMock problems; and since I started to instead write "better to test" production code ... I have written hundreds or thousands of tests without ever needing PowerMock again.
In your case: start by avoiding static all over the place. Basically you achieve that by (worst case) pulling little wrapper classes around the static calls you have to make. For testing, you can mock the wrapper object; and in production code, you use dependency injection to provide a (singleton/enum) wrapper object that simply makes the static call.

First of all, IOException is checked exception - it should be declared with throws in the method signature. But your method FileIOHelper.write does not have such. This may be the reason of the UnsutisfiedStubbingException.
I do not understand, what your are trying to test: if the FileIOHelper is a mock - handleException will be never called, since it is called by the real write method, not by mocked.

First, you have to mock the class 'Files', not 'FileIOHelper'. FileIOHelper is the tested class. Second, you didn't specified which method should throw IOException. The unit test method should be as follows (supposing the tested method catches and manage the IOException):
#RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
#PrepareForTest(Files.class)
public class FileIOHelperTest {
#Test
public void testIOExceptionOnWrite() {
PowerMockito.mockStatic(Files.class);
PowerMockito.doThrow(new IOException()).when(Files.class);
Files.write("path", "message", true);
FileIOHelper.write("path", "message", true);
PowerMockito.verifyStatic();
Files.write("path", "message", true);
}
}

Java Refactoring of Exception Handling Best Practice

Description:
I am always told by people check all your parameters all the time which results in a lot of if checks and try catches.
Question:
In the code below I cleaned the code such that only method that handles the exception handling is at the root method that is exposed publicly and not in the refactored private helper methods. Is this practice ok?
I'm not handling exceptions closer to the methods they could occur in but the code is much cleaner.
Code Notes:
Method validateInputs() not included.
ParameterObject a is derived let say from parameters created through "someCode", it represents parameters I want to pass around. Anytime I have a need for more than 2 parameters i refactor those parameters to a parameter object.
Code:
public class UnderTest {
public UnderTest() {}
public boolean runWork( String someValue ) throws CustomException
{
try
{
validateInputs();
// someCode
.
.
processWork( ParameterObject a );
}
catch( Exception e )
{
logError(e);
}
}
private void processWork( ParameterObject a )
{
Operation1( ParameterObject a );
Operation2( ParameterObject a );
}
private void Operation1( ParameterObject a )
{
// someCode
}
private void Operation2( ParameterObject a )
{
// someCode
}
private void logError(Exception e)
{
throw new CustomException(e,"Message");
}
}

I tend to check arguments when they enter the class by some public API. In private methods I check only by assertions or not at all. This implies that I trust my own class a bit more.

I would opt for a bit of both. Validating inputs is always a good idea and libraries such as the Apache commons-lang Validate class can make this easier. Generally speaking, an incorrect argument should cause a runtime exception (usually IllegalArgumentException or NullPointerException). How deeply you go into your private methods to do input validation is a matter of taste. Remember that the sooner you spot an invalid argument, the more helpful the error message is going to be.
Of course, this assumes you document your public facing APIs well (and ideally your internal methods too). Make it clear what is valid for your inputs.

Mark unit test as an expected failure in JUnit

How can I mark a test as an expected failure in JUnit 4?
In this case I want to continue to run this test until something is patched upstream. Ignoring the test goes a little too far, as then I might forget about it. I may be able to add an #expected annotation and catch the exception thrown by assertThat, but that also seems to lie about the expected behavior.
Here's what my current test looks like:
#Test
public void unmarshalledDocumentHasExpectedValue()
{
doc = unmarshaller.unmarshal(getResourceAsStream("mydoc.xml"));
final ST title = doc.getTitle();
assertThat(doc.getTitle().toStringContent(), equalTo("Expected"));
}
That assert should succeed, but because of an upstream bug it doesn't. Yet, that test is correct; it should succeed. Virtually all the alternatives that I've found are misleading. Right now I think #Ignore("This test should pass once fixed upstream") is my best bet, but I still have to remember to come back to it. I'd prefer that the test run.
In Python I can use the expectedFailure decorator:
class ExpectedFailureTestCase(unittest.TestCase):
#unittest.expectedFailure
def test_fail(self):
self.assertEqual(1, 0, "broken")
With Qt's QTestLib in C++, you can use QEXPECT_FAIL:
QEXPECT_FAIL("", "Will be fixed next version", Continue);
QCOMPARE(i, 42);
In both cases above, the unit test runs which is what I'm hoping to have happen. Am I missing something in JUnit?

I'm not quite getting the specifics of your scenario, but here's how I generally test for expected failure:
The slick new way:
#Test(expected=NullPointerException.class)
public void expectedFailure() {
Object o = null;
o.toString();
}
for older versions of JUnit:
public void testExpectedFailure() {
try {
Object o = null;
o.toString();
fail("shouldn't get here");
}
catch (NullPointerException e) {
// expected
}
}
If you have a bunch of things that you want to ensure throw an exception, you may also want to use this second technique inside a loop rather than creating a separate test method for each case. If you were just to loop through a bunch of cases in a single method using expected, the first one to throw an exception would end the test, and the subsequent cases wouldn't get checked.

What about explicitly expecting an AssertionError?
#Test(expected = AssertionError.class)
public void unmarshalledDocumentHasExpectedValue() {
// ...
}
If you're reasonably confident that only the JUnit machinery within the test would raise AssertionError, this seems as self-documenting as anything.
You'd still run the risk of forgetting about such a test. I wouldn't let such tests into version control for long, if ever.

I'm assuming here that you want the test to pass if your assert fails, but if the assert succeeds, then the test should pass as well.
The easiest way to do this is to use a TestRule. TestRule gives the opportunity to execute code before and after a test method is run. Here is an example:
public class ExpectedFailureTest {
public class ExpectedFailure implements TestRule {
public Statement apply(Statement base, Description description) {
return statement(base, description);
}
private Statement statement(final Statement base, final Description description) {
return new Statement() {
#Override
public void evaluate() throws Throwable {
try {
base.evaluate();
} catch (Throwable e) {
if (description.getAnnotation(Deprecated.class) != null) {
// you can do whatever you like here.
System.err.println("test failed, but that's ok:");
} else {
throw e;
}
}
}
};
}
}
#Rule public ExpectedFailure expectedFailure = new ExpectedFailure();
// actually fails, but we catch the exception and make the test pass.
#Deprecated
#Test public void testExpectedFailure() {
Object o = null;
o.equals("foo");
}
// fails
#Test public void testExpectedFailure2() {
Object o = null;
o.equals("foo");
}
}
First, note that the first method is marked as #Deprecated. I'm using this as a marker for the method for which I want to ignore any assertion failures. You can do whatever you like to identify the methods, this is just an example.
Next, in the ExpectedFailure#apply(), when I do the base.evaluate(), I'm catching any Throwable (which includes AssertionError) and if the method is marked with the annotation #Deprecated, I ignore the error. You can perform whatever logic you like to decide whether you should ignore the error or not, based on version number, some text, etc. You can also pass a dynamically determined flag into ExpectedFailure to allow it to fail for certain version numbers:
public void unmarshalledDocumentHasExpectedValue() {
doc = unmarshaller.unmarshal(getResourceAsStream("mydoc.xml"));
expectedFailure.setExpectedFailure(doc.getVersionNumber() < 3000);
final ST title = doc.getTitle();
assertThat(doc.getTitle().toStringContent(), equalTo("Expected"));
}
For further examples, see ExternalResource, and ExpectedException
Ignoring an expected failure test rather than passing it
If you want to mark you tests as Ignored rather than Success, it becomes a bit more complex, because tests are ignored before they are executed, so you have to retrospectively mark a test as ignored, which would involve constructing your own Runner. To give you a start, see my answer to How to define JUnit method rule in a suite?. Or ask another question.

One option is mark the test as #Ignore and put text in there that is a bug perhaps and awaiting a fix. That way it won't run. It will then become skipped. You could also make use of the extensions to suit your need in a potentially different way.

I've taken Matthew's answer a step further and actually implemented an #Optional annotation you could use instead of the #Deprecated marker annotation he mentions in his answer. Although simple, I'll share the code with you, maybe it's of help for someone:
#Target(ElementType.METHOD)
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
#Documented
public #interface Optional {
/**
* Specify a Throwable, to cause a test method to succeed even if an exception
* of the specified class is thrown by the method.
*/
Class<? extends Throwable>[] exception();
}
With a simple alteration of Matt's ExpectedFailure class:
public class ExpectedFailure implements TestRule {
#Override
public Statement apply(final Statement base, final Description description) {
return statement(base, description);
}
private Statement statement(final Statement base, final Description description) {
return new Statement() {
#Override
public void evaluate() throws Throwable {
try {
base.evaluate();
} catch (Throwable e) {
// check for certain exception types
Optional annon = description.getAnnotation(Optional.class);
if (annon != null && ArrayUtils.contains(annon.exception(), e.getClass())) {
// ok
} else {
throw e;
}
}
}
};
}
}
You can now annotate your test method with #Optional and it will not fail, even if the given type of exception is raised (provide one or more types you would like the test method to pass):
public class ExpectedFailureTest {
#Rule public ExpectedFailure expectedFailure = new ExpectedFailure();
// actually fails, but we catch the exception and make the test pass.
#Optional(exception = NullPointerException.class)
#Test public void testExpectedFailure() {
Object o = null;
o.equals("foo");
}
}
[UPDATE]
You could also rewrite your tests using JUnit's org.junit.Assume instead of the tradtional org.junit.Assert, if you want your tests to pass even if the assumption does not hold.
From Assume's JavaDoc:
A set of methods useful for stating assumptions about the conditions in which a test is meaningful.A failed assumption does not mean the code is broken, but that the test provides no useful information. The default JUnit runner treats tests with failing assumptions as ignored.
Assume is available since JUnit 4.4

Use mocked upstream class if possible. Stub it with correct result. Optionally, replace mock with real object after bug is fixed.