We Keep Coding

Access Lambda Arguments with Groovy and Spock Argument Capture

I am trying to unit test a Java class with a method containing a lambda function. I am using Groovy and Spock for the test. For proprietary reasons I can't show the original code.
The Java method looks like this:
class ExampleClass {
AsyncHandler asynHandler;
Component componet;
Component getComponent() {
return component;
}
void exampleMethod(String input) {
byte[] data = input.getBytes();
getComponent().doCall(builder ->
builder
.setName(name)
.data(data)
.build()).whenCompleteAsync(asyncHandler);
}
}
Where component#doCall has the following signature:
CompletableFuture<Response> doCall(Consumer<Request> request) {
// do some stuff
}
The groovy test looks like this:
class Spec extends Specification {
def mockComponent = Mock(Component)
#Subject
def sut = new TestableExampleClass(mockComponent)
def 'a test'() {
when:
sut.exampleMethod('teststring')
then:
1 * componentMock.doCall(_ as Consumer<Request>) >> { args ->
assert args[0].args$2.asUtf8String() == 'teststring'
return new CompletableFuture()
}
}
class TestableExampleClass extends ExampleClass {
def component
TestableExampleClass(Component component) {
this.component = component;
}
#Override
getComponent() {
return component
}
}
}
The captured argument, args, shows up as follows in the debug window if I place a breakpoint on the assert line:
args = {Arrays$ArrayList#1234} size = 1
> 0 = {Component$lambda}
> args$1 = {TestableExampleClass}
> args$2 = {bytes[]}
There are two points confusing me:
When I try to cast the captured argument args[0] as either ExampleClass or TestableExampleClass it throws a GroovyCastException. I believe this is because it is expecting Component$Lambda, but I am not sure how to cast this.
Accessing the data property using args[0].args$2, doesn't seem like a clean way to do it. This is likely linked to the casting issue mentioned above. But is there a better way to do this, such as with args[0].data?
Even if direct answers can't be given, a pointer to some documentation or article would be helpful. My search results discussed Groovy closures and Java lambdas comparisons separately, but not about using lambdas in closures.

Why you should not do what you are trying
This invasive kind of testing is a nightmare! Sorry for my strong wording, but I want to make it clear that you should not over-specify tests like this, asserting on private final fields of lambda expressions. Why would it even be important what goes into the lambda? Simply verify the result. In order to do a verification like this, you
need to know internals of how lambdas are implemented in Java,
those implementation details have to stay unchanged across Java versions and
the implementations even have to be the same across JVM types like Oracle Hotspot, OpenJ9 etc.
Otherwise, your tests break quickly. And why would you care how a method internally computes its result? A method should be tested like a black box, only in rare cases should you use interaction testing,where it is absolutely crucial in order to make sure that certain interactions between objects occur in a certain way (e.g. in order to verify a publish-subscribe design pattern).
How you can do it anyway (dont!!!)
Having said all that, just assuming for a minute that it does actually make sense to test like that (which it really does not!), a hint: Instead of accessing the field args$2, you can also access the declared field with index 1. Accessing by name is also possible, of course. anyway, you have to reflect on the lambda's class, get the declared field(s) you are interested in, make them accessible (remember, they are private final) and then assert on their respective contents. You could also filter by field type in order to be less sensitive to their order (not shown here).
Besides, I do not understand why you create a TestableExampleClass instead of using the original.
In this example, I am using explicit types instead of just def in order to make it easier to understand what the code does:
then:
1 * mockComponent.doCall(_ as Consumer<Request>) >> { args ->
Consumer<Request> requestConsumer = args[0]
Field nameField = requestConsumer.class.declaredFields[1]
// Field nameField = requestConsumer.class.getDeclaredField('arg$2')
nameField.accessible = true
byte[] nameBytes = nameField.get(requestConsumer)
assert new String(nameBytes, Charset.forName("UTF-8")) == 'teststring'
return new CompletableFuture()
}
Or, in order to avoid the explicit assert in favour of a Spock-style condition:
def 'a test'() {
given:
String name
when:
sut.exampleMethod('teststring')
then:
1 * mockComponent.doCall(_ as Consumer<Request>) >> { args ->
Consumer<Request> requestConsumer = args[0]
Field nameField = requestConsumer.class.declaredFields[1]
// Field nameField = requestConsumer.class.getDeclaredField('arg$2')
nameField.accessible = true
byte[] nameBytes = nameField.get(requestConsumer)
name = new String(nameBytes, Charset.forName("UTF-8"))
return new CompletableFuture()
}
name == 'teststring'
}

Java class: limit instance variable to one of several possible values, depending on other instance variables

I am sorry for the vague question. I am not sure what I'm looking for here.
I have a Java class, let's call it Bar. In that class is an instance variable, let's call it foo. foo is a String.
foo cannot just have any value. There is a long list of strings, and foo must be one of them.
Then, for each of those strings in the list I would like the possibility to set some extra conditions as to whether that specific foo can belong in that specific type of Bar (depending on other instance variables in that same Bar).
What approach should I take here? Obviously, I could put the list of strings in a static class somewhere and upon calling setFoo(String s) check whether s is in that list. But that would not allow me to check for extra conditions - or I would need to put all that logic for every value of foo in the same method, which would get ugly quickly.
Is the solution to make several hundred classes for every possible value of foo and insert in each the respective (often trivial) logic to determine what types of Bar it fits? That doesn't sound right either.
What approach should I take here?
Here's a more concrete example, to make it more clear what I am looking for. Say there is a Furniture class, with a variable material, which can be lots of things, anything from mahogany to plywood. But there is another variable, upholstery, and you can make furniture containing cotton of plywood but not oak; satin furniture of oak but not walnut; other types of fabric go well with any material; et cetera.

I wouldn't suggest creating multiple classes/templates for such a big use case. This is very opinion based but I'll take a shot at answering as best as I can.
In such a case where your options can be numerous and you want to keep a maintainable code base, the best solution is to separate the values and the logic. I recommend that you store your foo values in a database. At the same time, keep your client code as clean and small as possible. So that it doesn't need to filter through the data to figure out which data is valid. You want to minimize dependency to data in your code. Think of it this way: tomorrow you might need to add a new material to your material list. Do you want to modify all your code for that? Or do you want to just add it to your database and everything magically works? Obviously the latter is a better option. Here is an example on how to design such a system. Of course, this can vary based on your use case or variables but it is a good guideline. The basic rule of thumb is: your code should have as little dependency to data as possible.
Let's say you want to create a Bar which has to have a certain foo. In this case, I would create a database for BARS which contains all the possible Bars. Example:
ID NAME FOO
1 Door 1,4,10
I will also create a database FOOS which contains the details of each foo. For example:
ID NAME PROPERTY1 PROPERTY2 ...
1 Oak Brown Soft
When you create a Bar:
Bar door = new Bar(Bar.DOOR);
in the constructor you would go to the BARS table and query the foos. Then you would query the FOOS table and load all the material and assign them to the field inside your new object.
This way whenever you create a Bar the material can be changed and loaded from DB without changing any code. You can add as many types of Bar as you can and change material properties as you goo. Your client code however doesn't change much.
You might ask why do we create a database for FOOS and refer to it's ids in the BARS table? This way, you can modify the properties of each foo as much as you want. Also you can share foos between Bars and vice versa but you only need to change the db once. cross referencing becomes a breeze. I hope this example explains the idea clearly.

You say:
Is the solution to make several hundred classes for every possible
value of foo and insert in each the respective (often trivial) logic
to determine what types of Bar it fits? That doesn't sound right
either.
Why not have separate classes for each type of Foo? Unless you need to define new types of Foo without changing the code you can model them as plain Java classes. You can go with enums as well but it does not really give you any advantage since you still need to update the enum when adding a new type of Foo.
In any case here is type safe approach that guarantees compile time checking of your rules:
public static interface Material{}
public static interface Upholstery{}
public static class Oak implements Material{}
public static class Plywood implements Material{}
public static class Cotton implements Upholstery{}
public static class Satin implements Upholstery{}
public static class Furniture<M extends Material, U extends Upholstery>{
private M matrerial = null;
private U upholstery = null;
public Furniture(M matrerial, U upholstery){
this.matrerial = matrerial;
this.upholstery = upholstery;
}
public M getMatrerial() {
return matrerial;
}
public U getUpholstery() {
return upholstery;
}
}
public static Furniture<Plywood, Cotton> cottonFurnitureWithPlywood(Plywood plywood, Cotton cotton){
return new Furniture<>(plywood, cotton);
}
public static Furniture<Oak, Satin> satinFurnitureWithOak(Oak oak, Satin satin){
return new Furniture<>(oak, satin);
}

It depends on what you really want to achieve. Creating objects and passing them around will not magically solve your domain-specific problems.
If you cannot think of any real behavior to add to your objects (except the validation), then it might make more sense to just store your data and read them into memory whenever you want. Even treat rules as data.
Here is an example:
public class Furniture {
String name;
Material material;
Upholstery upholstery;
//getters, setters, other behavior
public Furniture(String name, Material m, Upholstery u) {
//Read rule files from memory or disk and do all the checks
//Do not instantiate if validation does not pass
this.name = name;
material = m;
upholstery = u;
}
}
To specify rules, you will then create three plain text files (e.g. using csv format). File 1 will contain valid values for material, file 2 will contain valid values for upholstery, and file 3 will have a matrix format like the following:
upholstery\material plywood mahogany oak
cotton 1 0 1
satin 0 1 0
to check if a material goes with an upholstery or not, just check the corresponding row and column.
Alternatively, if you have lots of data, you can opt for a database system along with an ORM. Rule tables then can be join tables and come with extra nice features a DBMS may provide (like easy checking for duplicate values). The validation table could look something like:
MaterialID UpholsteryID Compatability_Score
plywood cotton 1
oak satin 0
The advantage of using this approach is that you quickly get a working application and you can decide what to do as you add new behavior to your application. And even if it gets way more complex in the future (new rules, new data types, etc) you can use something like the repository pattern to keep your data and business logic decoupled.
Notes about Enums:
Although the solution suggested by #Igwe Kalu solves the specific case described in the question, it is not scalable. What if you want to find what material goes with a given upholstery (the reverse case)? You will need to create another enum which does not add anything meaningful to the program, or add complex logic to your application.

This is a more detailed description of the idea I threw out there in the comment:
Keep Furniture a POJO, i.e., just hold the data, no behavior or rules implemented in it.
Implement the rules in separate classes, something along the lines of:
interface FurnitureRule {
void validate(Furniture furniture) throws FurnitureRuleException;
}
class ValidMaterialRule implements FurnitureRule {
// this you can load in whatever way suitable in your architecture -
// from enums, DB, an XML file, a JSON file, or inject via Spring, etc.
private Set<String> validMaterialNames;
#Overload
void validate(Furniture furniture) throws FurnitureRuleException {
if (!validMaterialNames.contains(furniture.getMaterial()))
throws new FurnitureRuleException("Invalid material " + furniture.getMaterial());
}
}
class UpholsteryRule implements FurnitureRule {
// Again however suitable to implement/config this
private Map<String, Set<String>> validMaterialsPerUpholstery;
#Overload
void validate(Furniture furniture) throws FurnitureRuleException {
Set<String> validMaterialNames = validMaterialsPerUpholstery.get(furniture.getUpholstery();
if (validMaterialNames != null && !validMaterialNames.contains(furniture.getMaterial()))
throws new FurnitureRuleException("Invalid material " + furniture.getMaterial() + " for upholstery " + furniture.getUpholstery());
}
}
// and more complex rules if you need to
Then have some service along the lines of FurnitureManager. It's the "gatekeeper" for all Furniture creation/updates:
class FurnitureManager {
// configure these via e.g. Spring.
private List<FurnitureRule> rules;
public void updateFurniture(Furniture furniture) throws FurnitureRuleException {
rules.forEach(rule -> rule.validate(furniture))
// proceed to persist `furniture` in the database or whatever else you do with a valid piece of furniture.
}
}

material should be of type Enum.
public enum Material {
MAHOGANY,
TEAK,
OAK,
...
}
Furthermore you can have a validator for Furniture that contains the logic which types of Furniture make sense, and then call that validator in every method that can change the material or upholstery variable (typically only your setters).
public class Furniture {
private Material material;
private Upholstery upholstery; //Could also be String depending on your needs of course
public void setMaterial(Material material) {
if (FurnitureValidator.isValidCombination(material, this.upholstery)) {
this.material = material;
}
}
...
private static class FurnitureValidator {
private static boolean isValidCombination(Material material, Upholstery upholstery) {
switch(material) {
case MAHOGANY: return upholstery != Upholstery.COTTON;
break;
//and so on
}
}
}
}

We often are oblivious of the power inherent in enum types. The Java™ Tutorials clearly states "you should use enum types any time you need to represent a fixed set of constants."
How do you simply make the best of enum in resolving the challenge you presented? - Here goes:
public enum Material {
MAHOGANY( "satin", "velvet" ),
PLYWOOD( "leather" ),
// possibly many other materials and their matching fabrics...
OAK( "some other fabric - 0" ),
WALNUT( "some other fabric - 0", "some other fabric - 1" );
private final String[] listOfSuitingFabrics;
Material( String... fabrics ) {
this.listOfSuitingFabrics = fabrics;
}
String[] getListOfSuitingFabrics() {
return Arrays.copyOf( listOfSuitingFabrics );
}
public String toString() {
return name().substring( 0, 1 ) + name().substring( 1 );
}
}
Let's test it:
public class TestMaterial {
for ( Material material : Material.values() ) {
System.out.println( material.toString() + " go well with " + material.getListOfSuitingFabrics() );
}
}

Probably the approach I'd use (because it involves the least amount of code and it's reasonably fast) is to "flatten" the hierarchical logic into a one-dimensional Set of allowed value combinations. Then when setting one of the fields, validate that the proposed new combination is valid. I'd probably just use a Set of concatenated Strings for simplicity. For the example you give above, something like this:
class Furniture {
private String wood;
private String upholstery;
/**
* Set of all acceptable values, with each combination as a String.
* Example value: "plywood:cotton"
*/
private static final Set<String> allowed = new HashSet<>();
/**
* Load allowed values in initializer.
*
* TODO: load allowed values from DB or config file
* instead of hard-wiring.
*/
static {
allowed.add("plywood:cotton");
...
}
public void setWood(String wood) {
if (!allowed.contains(wood + ":" + this.upholstery)) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("bad combination of materials!");
}
this.wood = wood;
}
public void setUpholstery(String upholstery) {
if (!allowed.contains(this.wood + ":" + upholstery)) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("bad combination of materials!");
}
this.upholstery = upholstery;
}
public void setMaterials(String wood, String upholstery) {
if (!allowed.contains(wood + ":" + upholstery)) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("bad combination of materials!");
}
this.wood = wood;
this.upholstery = upholstery;
}
// getters
...
}
The disadvantage of this approach compared to other answers is that there is no compile-time type checking. For example, if you try to set the wood to plywoo instead of plywood you won’t know about your error until runtime. In practice this disadvantage is negligible since presumably the options will be chosen by a user through a UI (or through some other means), so you won’t know what they are until runtime anyway. Plus the big advantage is that the code will never have to be changed so long as you’re willing to maintain a list of allowed combinations externally. As someone with 30 years of development experience, take my word for it that this approach is far more maintainable.
With the above code, you'll need to use setMaterials before using setWood or setUpholstery, since the other field will still be null and therefore not an allowed combination. You can initialize the class's fields with default materials to avoid this if you want.

Translating a string-representation of a function's parameter list to actual parameters, for a reflective call

UPDATE: After getting an unexpected-in-a-good-way answer, I've added some context to the bottom of this question, stating exactly how I'll be using these string-function-calls.
I need to translate a string such as
my.package.ClassName#functionName(1, "a string value", true)
into a reflective call to that function. Getting the package, class, and function name is not a problem. I have started rolling my own solution for parsing the parameter list, and determining the type of each and returning an appropriate object.
(I'm limiting the universe of types to the eight primitives, plus string. null would be considered a string, and commas and double-quotes must be strictly escaped with some simple marker, such as __DBL_QT__, to avoid complications with unescaping and splitting on the comma.)
I am not asking how to do this via string-parsing, as I understand how. It's just a lot of work and I'm hoping there's a solution already out there. Unfortunately it's such generic terminology, I'm getting nowhere with searching.
I understand asking for an external existing library is off topic for SO. I'm just hoping to get some feedback before it's shutdown, or even a suggestion on better search terms. Or perhaps, there is a completely different approach that might be suggested...
Thank you.
Context:
Each function call is found within a function's JavaDoc block, and represents a piece of example code--either its source code or its System.out output--which will be displayed in that spot.
The parameters are for customizing its display, such as
indentation,
eliminating irrelevant parts (like the license-block), and
for JavaDoc-linking the most important functions.
This customization is mostly for the source-code presentation, but may also be applied to its output.
(The first parameter is always an Appendable, which will do the actual outputting.)
The user needs to be be able to call any function, which in many cases will be a private-static function located directly below the JavaDoc-ed function itself.
The application I'm writing will read in the source-code file (the one containing the JavaDoc blocks, in which these string-function-calls exist), and create a duplicate of the *.java file, which will subsequently processed by javadoc.
So for every piece of example code, there will be likely two, and possibly more of these string-function-calls. There may be more, because I may want to show different slices of the same example, in different contexts--perhaps the whole example in the overall class JavaDoc block, and snippets from it in the relevant functions in that class.
I have already written the process that parses the source code (the source code containing the JavaDoc blocks, which is separate from the one that reads the example-code), and re-outputs its source-code blindly with insert example-code here and insert example-code-output here markers.
I'm now at the point where I have this string-function-call in an InsertExampleCode object, in a string-field. Now I need to do as described at the top of this question. Figure out which function they want to invoke, and do so.

Change the # to a dot (.), write a class definition around it so that you have a valid Java source file, include tools.jar in your classpath and invoke com.sun.tools.javac.Main.
Create your own instance of a ClassLoader to load the compiled class, and run it (make it implement a useful interface, such as java.util.concurrent.Callable so that you can get the result of the invocation easily)
That should do the trick.

The class I created for this, called com.github.aliteralmind.codelet.simplesig.SimpleMethodSignature, is a significant piece of Codelet, used to translate the "customizer" portion of each taglet, which is a function that customizes the taglet's output.
(Installation instructions. The only jars that must be in your classpath are codelet and xbnjava.)
Example string signatures, in taglets:
{#.codelet.and.out com.github.aliteralmind.codelet.examples.adder.AdderDemo%eliminateCommentBlocksAndPackageDecl()}
The customizer portion is everything following the percent sign (%). This customizer contains only the function name and empty parameters. This implies that the function must exist in one of a few, strictly-specified, set of classes.
{#.codelet.and.out com.github.aliteralmind.codelet.examples.adder.AdderDemo%lineRange(1, false, "Adder adder", 2, false, "println(adder.getSum())", "^ ")}
This specifies parameters as well, which are, by design, "simple"--either non-null strings, or a primitive type.
{#.codelet.and.out com.github.aliteralmind.codelet.examples.adder.AdderDemo%com.github.aliteralmind.codelet.examples.LineRangeWithLinksCompact#adderDemo_lineSnippetWithLinks()}
Specifies the explicit package and class in which the function exists.
Because of the nature of these taglets and how the string-signatures are implemented, I decided to stick with direct string parsing instead of dynamic compilation.
Two example uses of SimpleMethodSignature:
In this first example, the full signature (the package, class, and function name, including all its parameters) are specified in the string.
import com.github.aliteralmind.codelet.simplesig.SimpleMethodSignature;
import com.github.xbn.lang.reflect.InvokeMethodWithRtx;
import java.lang.reflect.Method;
public class SimpleMethodSigNoDefaults {
public static final void main(String[] ignored) {
String strSig = "com.github.aliteralmind.codelet.examples.simplesig." +
"SimpleMethodSigNoDefaults#getStringForBoolInt(false, 3)";
SimpleMethodSignature simpleSig = null;
try {
simpleSig = SimpleMethodSignature.newFromStringAndDefaults(
String.class, strSig, null, null,
null); //debug (on=System.out, off=null)
} catch(ClassNotFoundException cnfx) {
throw new RuntimeException(cnfx);
}
Method m = null;
try {
m = simpleSig.getMethod();
} catch(NoSuchMethodException nsmx) {
throw new RuntimeException(nsmx);
}
m.setAccessible(true);
Object returnValue = new InvokeMethodWithRtx(m).sstatic().
parameters(simpleSig.getParamValueObjectList().toArray()).invokeGetReturnValue();
System.out.println(returnValue);
}
public static final String getStringForBoolInt(Boolean b, Integer i) {
return "b=" + b + ", i=" + i;
}
}
Output:
b=false, i=3
This second example demonstrates a string signature in which the (package and) class name are not specified. The potential classes, one in which the function must exist, are provided directly.
import com.github.aliteralmind.codelet.simplesig.SimpleMethodSignature;
import com.github.xbn.lang.reflect.InvokeMethodWithRtx;
import java.lang.reflect.Method;
public class SimpleMethodSigWithClassDefaults {
public static final void main(String[] ignored) {
String strSig = "getStringForBoolInt(false, 3)";
SimpleMethodSignature simpleSig = null;
try {
simpleSig = SimpleMethodSignature.newFromStringAndDefaults(
String.class, strSig, null,
new Class[]{Object.class, SimpleMethodSigWithClassDefaults.class, SimpleMethodSignature.class},
null); //debug (on=System.out, off=null)
} catch(ClassNotFoundException cnfx) {
throw new RuntimeException(cnfx);
}
Method m = null;
try {
m = simpleSig.getMethod();
} catch(NoSuchMethodException nsmx) {
throw new RuntimeException(nsmx);
}
m.setAccessible(true);
Object returnValue = new InvokeMethodWithRtx(m).sstatic().
parameters(simpleSig.getParamValueObjectList().toArray()).invokeGetReturnValue();
System.out.println(returnValue);
}
public static final String getStringForBoolInt(Boolean b, Integer i) {
return "b=" + b + ", i=" + i;
}
}
Output:
b=false, i=3

Is it ok to handle a class metadata through reflection to ensure a DRY approach?

The title might seem unsettling, but let me explain.
I'm facing an interesting challenge, where I have a hierarchy of classes that have associated an object that stores metadata related to each one of its attributes (an int-valued enum with edit flags like UPDATED or NO_UPDATE).
The problem comes when merging two objects, because I dont want to check EVERY field on a class to see if it was updated and skip or apply the changes.
My idea: Reflection.
All the objects are behind an interface, so I could use IObject.class.getMethods() and iterate over that array in this fashion:
IClass class = //Instance of the first class;
IAnotherClass anotherClass = //Instance of the second class;
for(Method m : IObject.class.getMethods()) {
if(m.getName().startsWith("get")) {
try {
//Under this method (which is a getter) I cast it on
//both classes who implement interfaces that extend an
//interface that defines the getters to make them
//consistent and ensure I'll invoke the same methods.
String propertyClass = (String)m.invoke(class);
String propertyAnotherClass = (String)m.invoke(anotherClass);
if(propertyClass != propertyAnotherClass) {
//Update attribute and attribute status.
}
} catch (Exception e) {
}
}
}
Is there another way to implement this or should I stick to lengthy methods invoking attribute per attribute and doing the checks like that?. The objects are not going to change that much and the architecture is quite modular, so there is not much update involved if the fields change but having to change a method like that worries me a little.
EDIT 1: I'm posting a working code of what I have got so far. This code is a solution for me but, tough it works, I'm using it as a last resource not because I have time to spend but because I don't want to rediscover the wheel. If I use it, I'll make a static list with the methods so I only have to fetch that list once, considering the fact that AlexR pointed out.
private static void merge(IClazz from, IClazz to) {
Method methods[] = from.getClass().getDeclaredMethods();
for(Method m : methods) {
if(m.getName().startsWith("get") && !m.getName().equals("getMetadata")) {
try {
String commonMethodAnchor = m.getName().split("get")[1];
if(!m.getReturnType().cast(m.invoke(from)).equals(m.getReturnType().cast(m.invoke(to)))) {
String setterMethodName = "set" + commonMethodAnchor;
Method setter = IClazz.class.getDeclaredMethod(setterMethodName, m.getReturnType());
setter.invoke(to, m.getReturnType().cast(m.invoke(from)));
//Updating metadata
String metadataMethodName = "set" + commonMethodAnchor + "Status";
Method metadataUpdater = IClazzMetadata.class.getDeclaredMethod(metadataMethodName, int.class);
metadataUpdater.invoke(to.getMetadata(), 1);
}
} catch (Exception e) {
}
}
}
}
metadataUpdater sets the value to 1 just to simulate the "UPDATED" flag I'm using on the real case scenario.
EDIT 3: Thanks Juan, David and AlexR for your suggestions and directions! They really pointed me to consider things I did not consider at first (I'm upvoting all your answers because all of them helped me).
After adding what AlexR sugegsted and checking jDTO and Apache Commons (finding out that in the end the general concepts are quite similar) I've decided to stick to my code instead of using other tools, since it is working given the object hierarchy and metadata structure of the solution and there are no exceptions popping up so far. The code is the one on the 2nd edit and I've placed it on a helper class that did the trick in the end.

Apache Commons Bean Utils may resolve your problem: http://commons.apache.org/beanutils/
If you want to copy all properties, try to use copyProperties: http://commons.apache.org/beanutils/v1.8.3/apidocs/src-html/org/apache/commons/beanutils/BeanUtils.html#line.134
Look an example from: http://www.avajava.com/tutorials/lessons/how-do-i-copy-properties-from-one-bean-to-another.html
FromBean fromBean = new FromBean("fromBean", "fromBeanAProp", "fromBeanBProp");
ToBean toBean = new ToBean("toBean", "toBeanBProp", "toBeanCProp");
System.out.println(ToStringBuilder.reflectionToString(fromBean));
System.out.println(ToStringBuilder.reflectionToString(toBean));
try {
System.out.println("Copying properties from fromBean to toBean");
BeanUtils.copyProperties(toBean, fromBean);
} catch (IllegalAccessException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (InvocationTargetException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println(ToStringBuilder.reflectionToString(fromBean));
System.out.println(ToStringBuilder.reflectionToString(toBean));

I think the best approach would be using proxy objects, either dynamic proxies or cglib enhancers or something like it, so you decorate the getters and setters and you can keep track of the changes there.
Hope it helps.

Your approach is OK, but keep in mind that getMethod() is much slower than invoke(), so if your code is performance critical you will probably want to cache the Method objects.

Verifying partially ordered method invocations in JMockit

I'm trying to write a unit test (using JMockit) that verifies that methods are called according to a partial order. The specific use case is ensuring that certain operations are called inside a transaction, but more generally I want to verify something like this:
Method beginTransaction is called.
Methods operation1 through to operationN are called in any order.
Method endTransaction is called.
Method someOtherOperation is called some time before, during or after the transaction.
The Expectations and Verifications APIs don't seem to be able to handle this requirement.
If I have a #Mocked BusinessObject bo I can verify that the right methods are called (in any order) with this:
new Verifications() {{
bo.beginTransaction();
bo.endTransaction();
bo.operation1();
bo.operation2();
bo.someOtherOperation();
}};
optionally making it a FullVerifications to check that there are no other side-effects.
To check the ordering constraints I can do something like this:
new VerificationsInOrder() {{
bo.beginTransaction();
unverifiedInvocations();
bo.endTransaction();
}};
but this does not handle the someOtherOperation case. I can't replace the unverifiedInvocations with bo.operation1(); bo.operation2() because that puts a total ordering on the invocations. A correct implementation of the business method could call bo.operation2(); bo.operation1().
If I make it:
new VerificationsInOrder() {{
unverifiedInvocations();
bo.beginTransaction();
unverifiedInvocations();
bo.endTransaction();
unverifiedInvocations();
}};
then I get a "No unverified invocations left" failure when someOtherOperation is called before the transaction. Trying bo.someOtherOperation(); minTimes = 0 also doesn't work.
So: Is there a clean way to specify partial ordering requirements on method calls using the Expectations/Verifications API in JMockIt? Or do I have to use a MockClass and manually keep track of invocations, a la:
#MockClass(realClass = BusinessObject.class)
public class MockBO {
private boolean op1Called = false;
private boolean op2Called = false;
private boolean beginCalled = false;
#Mock(invocations = 1)
public void operation1() {
op1Called = true;
}
#Mock(invocations = 1)
public void operation2() {
op2Called = true;
}
#Mock(invocations = 1)
public void someOtherOperation() {}
#Mock(invocations = 1)
public void beginTransaction() {
assertFalse(op1Called);
assertFalse(op2Called);
beginCalled = true;
}
#Mock(invocations = 1)
public void endTransaction() {
assertTrue(beginCalled);
assertTrue(op1Called);
assertTrue(op2Called);
}
}

if you really need such test then: don't use mocking library but create your own mock with state inside that can simply check the correct order of methods.
but testing order of invocations is usually a bad sign. my advice would be: don't test it, refactor. you should test your logic and results rather than a sequence of invocations. check if side effects are correct (database content, services interaction etc). if you test the sequence then your test is basically exact copy of your production code. so what's the added value of such test? and such test is also very fragile (as any duplication).
maybe you should make your code looks like that:
beginTransaction()
doTransactionalStuff()
endTransaction()
doNonTransactionalStuff()

From my usage of jmockit, I believe the answer is no even in the latest version 1.49.
You can implement this type of advanced verification using a MockUp extension with some internal fields to keep track of which functions get called, when, and in what order.
For example, I implemented a simple MockUp to track method call counts. The purpose of this example is real, for where the Verifications and Expectations times fields did not work when mocking a ThreadGroup (useful for other sensitive types as well):
public class CalledCheckMockUp<T> extends MockUp<T>
{
private Map<String, Boolean> calledMap = Maps.newHashMap();
private Map<String, AtomicInteger> calledCountMap = Maps.newHashMap();
public void markAsCalled(String methodCalled)
{
if (methodCalled == null)
{
Log.logWarning("Caller attempted to mark a method string" +
" that is null as called, this is surely" +
" either a logic error or an unhandled edge" +
" case.");
}
else
{
calledMap.put(methodCalled, Boolean.TRUE);
calledCountMap.putIfAbsent(methodCalled, new AtomicInteger()).
incrementAndGet();
}
}
public int methodCallCount(String method)
{
return calledCountMap.putIfAbsent(method, new AtomicInteger()).get();
}
public boolean wasMethodCalled(String method)
{
if (method == null)
{
Log.logWarning("Caller attempted to mark a method string" +
" that is null as called, this is surely" +
" either a logic error or an unhandled edge" +
" case.");
return false;
}
return calledMap.containsKey(method) ? calledMap.get(method) :
Boolean.FALSE;
}
}
With usage like the following, where cut1 is a dynamic proxy type that wraps an actual ThreadGroup:
String methodId = "activeCount";
CalledCheckMockUp<ThreadGroup> calledChecker = new CalledCheckMockUp<ThreadGroup>()
{
#Mock
public int activeCount()
{
markAsCalled(methodId);
return active;
}
};
. . .
int callCount = 0;
int activeCount = cut1.activeCount();
callCount += 1;
Assertions.assertTrue(calledChecker.wasMethodCalled(methodId));
Assertions.assertEquals(callCount, calledChecker.methodCallCount(methodId));
I know question is old and this example doesn't fit OP's use case exactly, but hoping it may help guide others to a potential solution that come looking (or the OP, god-forbid this is still unsolved for an important use case, which is unlikely).
Given the complexity of what OP is trying to do, it may help to override the $advice method in your custom MockUp to ease differentiating and recording method calls. Docs here: Applying AOP-style advice.