We Keep Coding

How to unit test the catch exception statement?

How do I test the catch statement below? My coverlay is failing and I am not sure how to cover this line.
public Method execute(#NonNull final String test) throws ServiceException {
try {
object = javaClient.fetchInfo(test);
} catch (ClientException | InternalServerError e) {
throw serviceExceptionAdapter.apply(e);
}
return object;
}
This is currently what I have in my test file:
#BeforeEach
void setup() {
this.serviceExceptionAdapter = mock(ExceptionAdapter.class);
this.mockJavaClient = mock(JavaClient.class);
proxy = new Proxy(mockJavaClient, serviceExceptionAdapter);
}
#Test
void test_InternalServerError() {
when(mockJavaClient.fetchInfo(any())).thenThrow(InternalServerError.class);
when(serviceExceptionAdapter.apply(any())).thenThrow(ServiceException.class);
assertThrows(ServiceException.class, () -> proxy.execute(test));
verify(serviceExceptionAdapter, times(1)).apply(any());
}

I have to guess a little bit, as you didn't provide a full working example. From what I see in your catch block
} catch (ClientException | InternalServerError e) {
throw serviceExceptionAdapter.apply(e);
}
you expect the return value of your .apply(e) function to be an exception and throw that exception. In your test however, your mocked serviceExceptionAdapter doesn't return an Exception, but throws one instead:
when(serviceExceptionAdapter.apply(any()))
.thenThrow(ServiceException.class);
If my interpretations are correct, your code should work if you change the mentioned line in the test to the following:
when(serviceExceptionAdapter.apply(any()))
.thenReturn(new ServiceException(...));

Why should I use nested try-catch blocks in Java?

I really don't get the point in using nested try-catch blocks. They are difficult to read and sometimes non pretty straightforward. For instance:
try {
// do something
}
catch ( [exception_1] e) {}
catch ( [exception_2] e) {}
catch ( [exception_3] e) {}
The code above is more readable and I can understand what it does - if an exception occurs it can be handled by one of the catch blocks.
But if I use the nested form:
try {
try {
try {
// Do something for try-block 3
}
catch ( [exception_1] except_1) {};
// Do something for try-block 2
}
catch ( [exception_2] except_2) {};
// Do something for try-block 1
}
catch ( [exception_3] except_3) {}
The code above is a mess, but it achieves exactly the same of the first code. Or it doesn't? Help me figure this out.

OK - a bit contrived but demonstrates the point that the two try-catch structures are different - dependent on the actually implementation (this may be exactly what #KosztDojscia was pointing out so then consider this answer a duplicate) :
public class Main
{
public static class Exception1 extends Exception { }
public static class Exception2 extends Exception { }
public static class Exception3 extends Exception { }
public static void main(String[] args) {
int i = 0;
// "messy" structure
try {
try {
try {
i = 3; if (i == 3) throw new Exception1();
} catch (Exception1 e1) { i = 300; }
i = 4; if (i == 4) throw new Exception2();
} catch (Exception2 e2) { i = 400; }
i = 5; if (i == 5) throw new Exception3();
} catch (Exception3 e3) { i = 500; }
System.out.println(i);
// "clean" structure
try {
i = 3; if (i == 3) throw new Exception1();
i = 4; if (i == 4) throw new Exception2();
i = 5; if (i == 5) throw new Exception3();
} catch (Exception1 e1) { i = 300; }
catch (Exception2 e2) { i = 400; }
catch (Exception3 e3) { i = 500; }
System.out.println(i);
}
}
Prints:
500
300

Nested try-catch blocks are very useful for setting up auto-closed resources that may require some intermediate processing at the stages in-between, in place of listing all resources in the outer try block:
try(var autoClosedA = initResourceA()) {
var somevar = someprocessingfor(autoClosedA);
try(var autoClosedB = initResourceB(somevar)) {
// Some processing
}
} catch (SomeException | OtherException ex) {
logger.error("Failed to handle XYZ on params: "+someparam, ex);
throw ex;
}
Note that you don't necessarily need to make the code untidy with exception handling at each level as later JDKs allow re-use of the same exception handler as shown above. You don't even need the catch in multiple methods as you can keep all application error reporting in the highest level of your application.

Emm, it depends on how you write code. If some code will be used for example...
try {
try {
-->in here<--
try {
// Do something for try-block 3
}
catch ( [exception_1] except_1) {};
// Do something for try-block 2
}
catch ( [exception_2] except_2) {};
// Do something for try-block 1
}
catch ( [exception_3] except_3) {}
then if exception_1 is raised, won't be caught. If everything will be used inside third try, then there is no difference.

Using reflection to identify if the error thrown matches expected error

I need to write a simple code tester program, but I got stuck comparing the given error class with the test expected class. I am supposed to use reflection in this exercise.
I have my code testing class:
public class TestRunner {
private String result = "";
public void runTests(List<String> testClassNames) {
for (String testClassName : testClassNames) {
Class<?> clazz;
try {
clazz = Class.forName(testClassName);
} catch (ClassNotFoundException e) {
throw new IllegalStateException("No such class.");
}
Method[] methods = clazz.getMethods();
for (Method method : methods) {
if (method.getAnnotation(MyTest.class) != null) {
if (testClassName.equals("reflection.tester.ExampleTests1")) {
result += method.getName() + "() - ";
ExampleTests1 instance = new ExampleTests1();
try {
// if null, result = OK
method.invoke(instance);
result += "OK\n";
} catch (IllegalArgumentException | IllegalAccessException | InvocationTargetException e) {
// if error is caught result = FAILED
result += "FAILED\n";
}
} else {
// the second class. should only return "OK" if the error is implemented from the exception class
result += method.getName() + "() - ";
ExampleTests2 instance = new ExampleTests2();
try {
method.invoke(instance);
result += "FAILED\n";
} catch (RuntimeException e) {
Throwable original = e.getCause();
Object expected = method.getReturnType();
if (original.getClass().isAssignableFrom(expected.getClass())) {
result += "OK\n";
} else {
result += "FAILED\n";
}
} catch (InvocationTargetException | IllegalAccessException e) {
result += "ERROR\n";
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
Also have two test classes. In the first one there is only one rule, if the test won't throw an exception the test should pass, and it is working. The second class is more complicated. If the thrown error class is implemented or same to the expected error class then the test should pass and OK should be added to the result. Currently my code won't catch RunTimeException at all and moves to the last catch block. How can I fix this?
I will also add the test class for more information.
public class ExampleTests2 {
#MyTest(expected = RuntimeException.class)
public void test3() {
throw new IllegalStateException();
}
#MyTest(expected = IllegalStateException.class)
public void test4() {
throw new RuntimeException();
}
#MyTest(expected = IllegalStateException.class)
public void test5() {
throw new IllegalStateException();
}
#MyTest(expected = IllegalStateException.class)
public void test6() {
}
public void helperMethod() {
}
}
test3() and test5() should pass, test4() and test6() should fail, helperMethod() won't be checked because I only need to use the tests with #MyTest annotation.

JUnit has an assertThrows method that checks that an Exception is thrown. It has a method signature of
static <T extends Throwable> assertThrows​(Class<T> expectedType, Executable executable){}
Here's the documentation: https://junit.org/junit5/docs/current/api/org.junit.jupiter.api/org/junit/jupiter/api/Assertions.html#assertThrows(java.lang.Class,org.junit.jupiter.api.function.Executable)
and here's how JUnit implements it:
https://github.com/junit-team/junit5/blob/main/junit-jupiter-api/src/main/java/org/junit/jupiter/api/AssertThrows.java

Java: check if a class exists and call a specific method if it exists

Is there a way to do the following? Check if a class exists (in the same package) and if it does exist, check if a particular method exists, and if so, calling it?
Say that I have class X. In some method of class X, I want to do the following:
if (class Y exists) { //Maybe use Class.forName("Y")?
if ( Y has method a(String, String) ) {
call Y.a("hello", "world");
}
}
Is such a thing possible? And is doing such a thing reasonable? Thanks.

Is such a thing possible? And is doing such a thing reasonable?
Thanks.
Of course it is possible.
If you develop a program or a library that has to discover dynamically some classes, it is a very reasonable thing.
If it is not the case, it could not be.
If your need makes sense, you should ask you an additional question : should you invoke a static or instance method ?
Here is a sample example with both solutions :
ReflectionClass that contains the logic using reflection :
import java.lang.reflect.Method;
public class ReflectionCalls {
public static void main(String[] args) {
new ReflectionCalls();
}
public ReflectionCalls() {
callMethod(true);
callMethod(false);
}
private void callMethod(boolean isInstanceMethod) {
String className = "DiscoveredClass";
String staticMethodName = "methodStatic";
String instanceMethodName = "methodInstance";
Class<?>[] formalParameters = { int.class, String.class };
Object[] effectiveParameters = new Object[] { 5, "hello" };
String packageName = getClass().getPackage().getName();
try {
Class<?> clazz = Class.forName(packageName + "." + className);
if (!isInstanceMethod) {
Method method = clazz.getMethod(staticMethodName, formalParameters);
method.invoke(null, effectiveParameters);
}
else {
Method method = clazz.getMethod(instanceMethodName, formalParameters);
Object newInstance = clazz.newInstance();
method.invoke(newInstance, effectiveParameters);
}
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
DiscoveredClass (the class we manipulate in the example)
package reflectionexp;
public class DiscoveredClass {
public static void methodStatic(int x, String string) {
System.out.println("static method with " + x + " and " + string);
}
public void methodInstance(int x, String string) {
System.out.println("instance method with " + x + " and " + string);
}
}
Output :
instance method with 5 and hello
static method with 5 and hello

Yes, this can be done. I've created a Test class in the same Package as the current class.
import java.lang.reflect.Method;
public class Sample {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Class<?> clazz = null;
try {
clazz = Class.forName("Test");
} catch (ClassNotFoundException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
if (clazz == null) {
System.out.println("class not found. Go eat some waffles and correct the name");
return;
}
Method m = null;
try {
m = clazz.getMethod("foo", null);
} catch (NoSuchMethodException | SecurityException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
if (m == null) {
System.out.println("method not found. Go eat some waffles and correct the name");
return;
}
Test t;
try {
t = (Test) clazz.newInstance();
m.invoke(t, null);
} catch (Exception e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
public class Test {
static {
System.out.println("test...");
}
public void foo() {
System.out.println("foo");
}
}
O/P :
test...
foo

You can use Class.forName:
try {
Class yourClass = Class.forName( "classname" );
Object o = yourClass.newInstance();
} catch( ClassNotFoundException e ) {
//Throw error or whatever
}
To check if a method exists you could use the NoSuchMethodError e in a try/catch

You can do this using reflection, however it isnt really practical unless you are trying to access classes that potentially will not be present at runtime or if you are trying to access private or hidden fields. Example below.
public static void reflectionDemo(){
//Here we attempt to get the common URI class
//If it is found, we attempt to get the create method
//We then invoke the create method and print the class name of the result.
try {
Class<?> uriClass = Class.forName("java.net.URI");
//getMethod(String name, Class<?>... args);
java.lang.reflect.Method create = uriClass.getMethod("create", String.class);
//The first parameter is null because this is a static method.
//invoke(Object target, Object... args);
System.out.println(create.invoke(null, "some/uri").getClass());
//Will print class java.net.URI
} catch (ClassNotFoundException e) {
// If class doesnt exist
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (NoSuchMethodException e) {
// If method doesnt exist
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (SecurityException e) {
// See Javadoc
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (IllegalAccessException e) {
// From invoke
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (IllegalArgumentException e) {
// From invoke
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (java.lang.reflect.InvocationTargetException e) {
// From invoke
e.printStackTrace();
}
}

To find whether a class exists, you can use the forName() method on Class.
To find whether a method exists, you can use the getMethod() method on Class.
Documentation here:
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/lang/Class.html#forName(java.lang.String)
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/lang/Class.html#getMethod(java.lang.String,%20java.lang.Class...)
For your class problem, you'd want to use code like:
try {
Class.forName("Y");
}
catch (ClassNotFoundException e) {
}
For your method problem, you'd want to use code like:
try {
Class.getMethod(a);
}
catch (NoSuchMethodException e) {
}

You can check if the Class exists with Class.forName("classname");
See this SO question: Check if class exists somewhere in package
If a method exists can be catched with NoSuchMethodError in your try/catch.
See this SO question: Check if method exists at Runtime in Java
try {
Object object = Class.forName("Y").newInstance();
object.a(String, String);
} catch( ClassNotFoundException | NoSuchMethodError ex) {
//do Something else
}

Catching Exception with JUnit #Test(expected=Exception.Class)

I am writing a test case using JUnit and I am trying to catch an Exception using #Test(expected=Exception.Class). For some reason I am unable to catch the exception. If I pass null it would throw NullPointerException and the test catches it because Exception is the parent class but on my Coverage report the exception is still not covered.
Method under test:
private static final String CONTENT_LENGTH = "Content-Length";
protected long getContentLength( MultivaluedMap<String, String> headers ) {
String length = headers.getFirst( CONTENT_LENGTH );
if( length != null ) {
try {
return Long.valueOf( length );
} catch( Exception e ) {}
}
return 0;
}
JUnit test case:
#Test(expected=Exception.class)
public void testGetContentLength() {
new TestBaseMessageBodyReader().getContentLength(null);
}
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks

Catching generic exception is bad practice and even worse to catch an exception and do nothing. in your try catch you should catch NumberFormatException which is what Long.valueOf has the potential of throwing. Even then your jUnit will not never catch the exception because you are catching the exception but not doing anything with it, the method would always return 0 as it's currently written (provided you're not passing null)
Here is some code that would catch the exception on your unit test. I'd create two unit tests, one to catch your the first exception and one to catch the second.
protected long getContentLength(MultivaluedMap<String, String> headers)
{
if(null == headers)
{
throw new SomeCustomException("some message");
}
Long returnValue = 0;
String length = headers.getFirst(CONTENT_LENGTH);
try
{
returnValue = Long.valueOf(length);
}
catch (NumberFormatException e) {
// if you can recover handle it here
// if you can't recover then break the app
throw new SomeOtherCustomException("some other message");
}
return returnValue;
}