I have following class which I need to write unit tests to. I need to verify the invocations of own methods of MyClass by itself.
public class MyClass {
public void init() {
}
public void testMethod() {
}
}
I wrote following test class to test MyClass
public class MyClassTest {
#Tested
MyClass myClass;
#Test
public void initTest() {
// new Expectations(myClass) {{
// }};
myClass.init();
new Verifications() {{
myClass.testMethod();
}};
}
}
As it can be seen, init() does not call testMethod(), but for my surprise, above test case succeeds.
If I partially mock myClass by uncommenting the empty Expectations block above, test fails with Missing invocation error, which is expected. So, it seems that I have to partially mock the tested object.
But, partially mocking a test object of a complex class throws various exceptions when testing, which is very hard to debug because breakpoints in Intellij IDEA doesn't work in this situation.
So, what may be going wrong here? Or, is it not supposed to verify the invocations of methods in the tested object itself?
JMockit cannot verify method invocations on non-mocked class. In your example as stated, with the commented-out Expectations, the myClass object is not mocked at all, and verifications cannot actually verify that methods on it got called. It's not, strictly speaking, because you are verifying the #Tested object; you'd get the same issue if you created a new List and tried putting one of its methods in the Verifications.
Related
I want to unit test Java code that calls System.exit(-1) and want it to just do nothing instead of exiting the process. The underlying reason is that otherwise JaCoCo does not work properly and project guidelines want to see that line covered. Changing the tested code is not an option, too. Other calls to System should work normally. PowerMockito 2.0.7 is already used in the project and should be used here, too. My current Java version is 1.8.0_181 on Windows.
I tried with
PowerMockito.spy(System.class);
PowerMockito.doNothing().when(System.class, "exit", ArgumentMatchers.any(int.class));
//here comes the code under test that calls System.exit
It does not seem to work, System.exit seems to exit the process anyway.
How do it get this to work?
I think you should replace both the lines in your sample code
PowerMockito.spy(System.class);
PowerMockito.doNothing.....
to
PowerMockito.mockStatic(System.class);
This change works in my local as System.exit does nothing because of the mock on static method.
Also, I hope you are using PrepareForTest annotation
#PrepareForTest(CLASS_UNDER_TEST)
The spy method is to call real methods and have some wrapper around the non-static methods. Since you need a mock for static methods, mockStatic method should be used instead.
Update 1
The PowerMockito mockStatic method by default creates mock for all the static methods within the class. I don't have any clean solution. But, I can suggest a solution which looks ugly but does what is needed i.e only mock specific static method and remaining methods are invoking real methods. PoweMockito's mockStatic method is internally calling DefaultMockCreator to mock the static methods.
#RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
public class StaticTest {
#Test
public void testMethod() throws Exception {
// Get static methods for which mock is needed
Method exitMethod = System.class.getMethod("exit", int.class);
Method[] methodsToMock = new Method[] {exitMethod};
// Create mock for only those static methods
DefaultMockCreator.mock(System.class, true, false, null, null, methodsToMock);
System.exit(-1); // This will be mocked
System.out.println(System.currentTimeMillis()); // This will call up real methods
}
}
As per the PowerMockito documentation, the right way to call static void method is -
PowerMockito.mockStatic(SomeClass.class);
PowerMockito.doNothing().when(SomeClass.class);
SomeClass.someVoidMethod();
Reference - https://github.com/powermock/powermock/wiki/Mockito#how-to-stub-void-static-method-to-throw-exception
This should create the mock behaviour for the specific static void method. Unfortunately, this doesn't work for System Class because System class is final. Had it been not final, this would have worked. I tried it and I got this exception -
org.mockito.exceptions.base.MockitoException:
Cannot mock/spy class java.lang.System
Mockito cannot mock/spy because :
- final class
Code -
#Test
public void testMethod() throws Exception {
PowerMockito.mockStatic(System.class);
PowerMockito.doNothing().when(System.class);
System.exit(-1); // mockito error coming here
System.exit(-1);
System.currentTimeMillis();
}
I'm using Mockito 1.9.0. I want mock the behaviour for a single method of a class in a JUnit test, so I have
final MyClass myClassSpy = Mockito.spy(myInstance);
Mockito.when(myClassSpy.method1()).thenReturn(myResults);
The problem is, in the second line, myClassSpy.method1() is actually getting called, resulting in an exception. The only reason I'm using mocks is so that later, whenever myClassSpy.method1() is called, the real method won't be called and the myResults object will be returned.
MyClass is an interface and myInstance is an implementation of that, if that matters.
What do I need to do to correct this spying behaviour?
Let me quote the official documentation:
Important gotcha on spying real objects!
Sometimes it's impossible to use when(Object) for stubbing spies. Example:
List list = new LinkedList();
List spy = spy(list);
// Impossible: real method is called so spy.get(0) throws IndexOutOfBoundsException (the list is yet empty)
when(spy.get(0)).thenReturn("foo");
// You have to use doReturn() for stubbing
doReturn("foo").when(spy).get(0);
In your case it goes something like:
doReturn(resultsIWant).when(myClassSpy).method1();
In my case, using Mockito 2.0, I had to change all the any() parameters to nullable() in order to stub the real call.
My case was different from the accepted answer. I was trying to mock a package-private method for an instance that did not live in that package
package common;
public class Animal {
void packageProtected();
}
package instances;
class Dog extends Animal { }
and the test classes
package common;
public abstract class AnimalTest<T extends Animal> {
#Before
setup(){
doNothing().when(getInstance()).packageProtected();
}
abstract T getInstance();
}
package instances;
class DogTest extends AnimalTest<Dog> {
Dog getInstance(){
return spy(new Dog());
}
#Test
public void myTest(){}
}
The compilation is correct, but when it tries to setup the test, it invokes the real method instead.
Declaring the method protected or public fixes the issue, tho it's not a clean solution.
The answer by Tomasz Nurkiewicz appears not to tell the whole story!
NB Mockito version: 1.10.19.
I am very much a Mockito newb, so can't explain the following behaviour: if there's an expert out there who can improve this answer, please feel free.
The method in question here, getContentStringValue, is NOT final and NOT static.
This line does call the original method getContentStringValue:
doReturn( "dummy" ).when( im ).getContentStringValue( anyInt(), isA( ScoreDoc.class ));
This line does not call the original method getContentStringValue:
doReturn( "dummy" ).when( im ).getContentStringValue( anyInt(), any( ScoreDoc.class ));
For reasons which I can't answer, using isA() causes the intended (?) "do not call method" behaviour of doReturn to fail.
Let's look at the method signatures involved here: they are both static methods of Matchers. Both are said by the Javadoc to return null, which is a little difficult to get your head around in itself. Presumably the Class object passed as the parameter is examined but the result either never calculated or discarded. Given that null can stand for any class and that you are hoping for the mocked method not to be called, couldn't the signatures of isA( ... ) and any( ... ) just return null rather than a generic parameter* <T>?
Anyway:
public static <T> T isA(java.lang.Class<T> clazz)
public static <T> T any(java.lang.Class<T> clazz)
The API documentation does not give any clue about this. It also seems to say the need for such "do not call method" behaviour is "very rare". Personally I use this technique all the time: typically I find that mocking involves a few lines which "set the scene" ... followed by calling a method which then "plays out" the scene in the mock context which you have staged... and while you are setting up the scenery and the props the last thing you want is for the actors to enter stage left and start acting their hearts out...
But this is way beyond my pay grade... I invite explanations from any passing Mockito high priests...
* is "generic parameter" the right term?
One more possible scenario which may causing issues with spies is when you're testing spring beans (with spring test framework) or some other framework that is proxing your objects during test.
Example
#Autowired
private MonitoringDocumentsRepository repository
void test(){
repository = Mockito.spy(repository)
Mockito.doReturn(docs1, docs2)
.when(repository).findMonitoringDocuments(Mockito.nullable(MonitoringDocumentSearchRequest.class));
}
In above code both Spring and Mockito will try to proxy your MonitoringDocumentsRepository object, but Spring will be first, which will cause real call of findMonitoringDocuments method. If we debug our code just after putting a spy on repository object it will look like this inside debugger:
repository = MonitoringDocumentsRepository$$EnhancerBySpringCGLIB$$MockitoMock$
#SpyBean to the rescue
If instead #Autowired annotation we use #SpyBean annotation, we will solve above problem, the SpyBean annotation will also inject repository object but it will be firstly proxied by Mockito and will look like this inside debugger
repository = MonitoringDocumentsRepository$$MockitoMock$$EnhancerBySpringCGLIB$
and here is the code:
#SpyBean
private MonitoringDocumentsRepository repository
void test(){
Mockito.doReturn(docs1, docs2)
.when(repository).findMonitoringDocuments(Mockito.nullable(MonitoringDocumentSearchRequest.class));
}
Important gotcha on spying real objects
When stubbing a method using spies , please use doReturn() family of methods.
when(Object) would result in calling the actual method that can throw exceptions.
List spy = spy(new LinkedList());
//Incorrect , spy.get() will throw IndexOutOfBoundsException
when(spy.get(0)).thenReturn("foo");
//You have to use doReturn() for stubbing
doReturn("foo").when(spy).get(0);
I've found yet another reason for spy to call the original method.
Someone had the idea to mock a final class, and found about MockMaker:
As this works differently to our current mechanism and this one has different limitations and as we want to gather experience and user feedback, this feature had to be explicitly activated to be available ; it can be done via the mockito extension mechanism by creating the file src/test/resources/mockito-extensions/org.mockito.plugins.MockMaker containing a single line: mock-maker-inline
Source: https://github.com/mockito/mockito/wiki/What%27s-new-in-Mockito-2#mock-the-unmockable-opt-in-mocking-of-final-classesmethods
After I merged and brought that file to my machine, my tests failed.
I just had to remove the line (or the file), and spy() worked.
One way to make sure a method from a class is not called is to override the method with a dummy.
WebFormCreatorActivity activity = spy(new WebFormCreatorActivity(clientFactory) {//spy(new WebFormCreatorActivity(clientFactory));
#Override
public void select(TreeItem i) {
log.debug("SELECT");
};
});
As mentioned in some of the comments, my method was "static" (though being called on by an instance of the class)
public class A {
static void myMethod() {...}
}
A instance = spy(new A());
verify(instance).myMethod(); // still calls the original method because it's static
Work around was make an instance method or upgrade Mockito to a newer version with some config: https://stackoverflow.com/a/62860455/32453
Bit late to the party but above solutions did not work for me , so sharing my 0.02$
Mokcito version: 1.10.19
MyClass.java
private int handleAction(List<String> argList, String action)
Test.java
MyClass spy = PowerMockito.spy(new MyClass());
Following did NOT work for me (actual method was being called):
1.
doReturn(0).when(spy , "handleAction", ListUtils.EMPTY_LIST, new String());
2.
doReturn(0).when(spy , "handleAction", any(), anyString());
3.
doReturn(0).when(spy , "handleAction", null, null);
Following WORKED:
doReturn(0).when(spy , "handleAction", any(List.class), anyString());
I am having a build failure issue while running a bunch of unit test over a java project. I am getting the NoClassDefFoundError which is happening because of the lack of ability for the unit test to get the dependencies. I am trying to mock an object for the class and then call the function, but the code is structured in a way that is getting a bit complex for me to handle the issue. I am very new to unit testing. I have provided below, a sample of code structure that my project has
Class ServiceProvider(){
obj declarations;
public void mainFunction(){
//Does a couple of things and calls a function in another class
boolean val = subFunction();
}
public boolean subFunction(){
boolean val = AnotherClass.someFunction(text);
//this function throws lots of exceptions and all those are caught and handled
return val;
}
#RunsWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
Class UnitTestBunch(){
#Mock
AnotherClass acObj = new AnotherClass();
#InjectMock
ServiceProvider sp = new ServiceProvider();
#Test
public void unitTest1() throws Exception{
when(acObj.someFunction(text)).thenReturn(true);
}
#Test
public void unitTest2() throws Exception{
thrown.expect(ExceptionName.Class);
sp.mainFunction();
}
I have a test that uses the mock object and performs the function call associated with that class. But, the issue here is that there are a bunch of other unit test cases that are written similar to the unitTest2 function and calls the mainFunction at the end of the test. This mainFunction invokes someFunction() and causes NoCalssDefFoundError(). I am trying to make the unit test execute the content in unitTest1 everytime when it sees the AnotherClass.someFunction(). I am not sure if this is achievable or not. There could be another better way to resolve this issue. Could someone please pitch in some ideas?
In your test you seem to be using unitTest1 for setup, not for testing anything. When you run a unit test, each test should be able to run separately or together, in any order.
You're using JUnit4 in your tests, so it would be very easy to add the statement you have in unitTest1 into a #Before method. JUnit4 will call this method before each test method (annotated with #Test).
#Before
public void stubAcObj() throws Exception{
when(acObj.someFunction(text)).thenReturn(true);
}
The method may be named anything, though setUp() is a common name borrowed from a method to override in JUnit3. However, it must be annotated with org.junit.Before.
If you need this from multiple test cases, you should just create a helper, as you would with any code. This doesn't work as well with #InjectMocks, but you may want to avoid using #InjectMocks in general as it will fail silently if you add a dependency to your system-under-test.
public class AnotherClassTestHelper {
/** Returns a Mockito mock of AnotherClass with a stub for someFunction. */
public static AnotherClass createAnotherClassMock() {
AnotherClass mockAnotherClass = Mockito.mock(AnotherClass.class);
when(mockAnotherClass.someFunction(text)).thenReturn(true);
return mockAnotherClass;
}
}
As a side note, this is a counterintuitive pattern:
/* BAD */
#Mock
AnotherClass acObj = new AnotherClass();
You create a new, real AnotherClass, then instruct Mockito to overwrite it with a mock (in MockitoJUnitRunner). It's much better just to say:
/* GOOD */
#Mock AnotherClass acObj;
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'm trying to unit-test some classes that make use of a Singleton class whose constructor does some things I can't (and shouldn't) do from the unit-test environment. My ideal scenario would be to end up with the constructor completely suppressed and then stub out the other member methods that my test classes invoke. My problem is that I can't seem to get the constructor suppressed.
My understanding of a way to solve this would be something like the following:
public class MySingleton extends AbstractSingletonParent {
public final static MySingleton Only = new MySingleton();
private MySingleton(){
super(someVar); // I want the super-class constructor to not be called
//
//more code I want to avoid
}
public Object stubbedMethod() {}
}
public class ClassToBeTested {
public void SomeMethod(){
Object o = MySingleton.Only.stubbedMethod();
}
}
#RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
#PrepareForTest(MySingleton.class)
public class TestClass {
#Test
public void SomeTest() {
suppress(constructor(MySingleton.class));
mockStatic(MySingleton.class);
PowerMock.replay(MySingleton.class);
// invoke ClassToBeTested, etc
PowerMock.verify(MySingleton.class);
//make some assertions
}
}
Unfortunately during the createMock invocation, the MySingleton constructor is hit, and it still calls the super constructor.
Am I doing something silly? I found an example on the web doing almost exactly this, but it was using a deprecated suppressConstructor method. Despite the deprecation I tried that, too, to no avail...
Is what I'm trying to do possible? If so, what am I doing wrong?
*Edited version now works.
You need to annotate TestClass with the #PrepareForTest annotation so it has a chance to manipulate the bytecode of the singletons.
Also, the superclass ctor supression signature should include somevar's class; right now you're just suppressing the default ctor.
See the #PrepareForTest API docs. Here's a blog post with some more details as well.
FWIW, it's working for me:
#RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
#PrepareForTest({EvilBase.class, NicerSingleton.class})
public class TestEvil {
#Test
public void testEvil() {
suppress(constructor(EvilBase.class));
assertEquals(69, EvilBase.getInstance().theMethod());
}
#Test
public void testNice() {
suppress(constructor(EvilBase.class));
suppress(constructor(NicerSingleton.class));
assertEquals(42, NicerSingleton.getInstance().theMethod());
}
}
How about you set the instance field ('only' in your code) of your Singleton with an instance instantiated with the constructor you want (you can do all of this with the Reflection API or dp4j).
The motivating example of a dp4j publication discusses that.
I am not sure what is it that you are doing wrong. But on the design side, i can suggest you look into dependency injection i.e. DI.
For making your code testable, make use of DI. With DI you would pass the singleton class as an constructor argument to your test class. And now since you pass an argument, inside your test case you can create a custom implementation of the AbstractSingleton class and your test case should work fine.
With DI, your code will become more testable.