I am trying to do junit testing on a libgdx game, and have found this thread to be very helpful: Unit-testing of libgdx-using classes
I have a test class similar to the following:
public class BoardTest {
private static Chess game;
private static HeadlessApplication app;
#BeforeClass
public static void testStartGame() {
game = new Chess();
final HeadlessApplicationConfiguration config = new HeadlessApplicationConfiguration();
config.renderInterval = 1f/60; // Likely want 1f/60 for 60 fps
app = new HeadlessApplication(game, config);
}
#Test
public void testSetUpBoard() {
final boolean isFalse = false;
Gdx.app.postRunnable(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
//do stuff to game
fail(); //see if the test will fail or not
}
});
}
}
When I run this test class, it runs testSetUpBoard() and passes, instead of failing like it should. The reason for this, I believe, is because the executed code is in a separate thread as per Gdx.app.postRunnable(). Is there any way that I can communicate back to the junit thread, so that I can complete my tests like described?
You can wait for the thread to finish like this:
private boolean waitForThread = true;
#Test
public void testSetUpBoard() {
final boolean isFalse = false;
Gdx.app.postRunnable(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
//do stuff to game
waitForThread = false;
}
});
while(waitForThread) {
try {
Thread.sleep(10);
} catch(Exception e ) {
}
}
// fail or pass...
fail(); //see if the test will fail or not
}
Related
I am trying to create a synchronized version of data and using junit to test my method. The code below is what I came so far. It works quite well if I put on the main method (the counter is increased one by one by each thread) but the test process will stop immediately. Is this the problem by using Thread.sleep() on a test case?
public void testGeneral() {
class SynchronizedData {
public AtomicBoolean lock = new AtomicBoolean(false);
public int counter = 0;
public void update() {
if(lock.compareAndSet(false, true)) {
counter++;
System.out.println(counter);
lock.set(false);
}
}
}
SynchronizedData data = new SynchronizedData();
class Handler implements Runnable {
String name;
public Handler(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
#Override
public void run() {
for(;;) {
try {
Thread.sleep(new Random().nextInt(100));
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println(e);
}
System.out.println(this.name);
data.update();
}
}
}
new Thread(new Handler("One")).start();
new Thread(new Handler("Two")).start();
}
I have been wanting for a long time to add schedulers to my API. So I set a class for the purpose. Here it is.
public abstract class SyncScheduler extends Scheduler {
private Thread thread = null;
private boolean repeating = false;
#Override
public synchronized void runTask() {
thread = new Thread(this);
thread.start();
}
#Override
public synchronized void runTaskLater(long delay) {
thread = new Thread(this);
try {
Thread.sleep(delay * 1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
thread.run();
}
#Override
public synchronized void runRepeatingTask(long period) {
thread = new Thread(this);
repeating = true;
while (!thread.isInterrupted()) {
thread.run();
try {
Thread.sleep(period * 1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
#Override
public synchronized void cancel() {
if (thread != null || !repeating) {
throw new SchedulerException("Scheduler is not started or is not a repeating task!");
} else {
thread.interrupt();
repeating = false;
}
}}
Scheduler just implements Runnable.
The problem is that whenever I try to create 2 or more Schedulers, the second one never starts until the first one is finished! For example if I have on Scheduler that runs every X seconds and I have another one the cancels it, the one that cancels the first one never starts! This is the problem.
How could I run two of these schedulers in parallel?
Also these are my two test main classes.
public class Test {
static Scheduler scheduler = new SyncScheduler() {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("It works.");
}
};
public static void main(String[] args) {
scheduler.runRepeatingTask(1);
new SyncScheduler() {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("Stopped.");
scheduler.cancel();
}
}.runTaskLater(2);
}}
And here's the second one.
public class Test {
static Scheduler scheduler = new SyncScheduler() {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("It works.");
new SyncScheduler() {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("Stopped.");
scheduler.cancel();
}
}.runTaskLater(2);
}
};
public static void main(String[] args) {
scheduler.runRepeatingTask(1);
}}
The first one outputs "It works." repeatedly until I force stop the test.
The second one gives me "It works." for once, then It gives me "Stopped." and with it and exception.
You are using the thread object wrongly.
To start a Runnable object (in this case, Thread object) in a different thread, the object must call start() method. You are using run() method, which just calling the method in the same thread without creating a new thread.
Try to change run() in SyncScheduler.runRepeatingTask and SyncScheduler.runTaskLater.
Also, I just noticed in your cancel() method:
if (thread != null || !repeating) {
throw new SchedulerException("Scheduler is not started or is not a repeating task!");
} else {
thread.interrupt();
repeating = false;
}
This would make the method throw exception if thread started. I think it should be if (thread == null || !repeating) {
I've a core method in my project which I need it to be synchronized in order not to be accessed twice at the same time, and hence I have a thread which uses an instance from this class to access this method, but inside this thread I need to have a long life loop to be used to access the same method with a fixed value so I have to use another thread in order to allow the first thread to move on and complete it's duties, but for sure the method doesn't run from that second thread using the same instance used in the first thread, and somehow I can't instantiate another instance from the class as I have to use this instance exactly, so how to overcome this problem.
below is the problem translated to java:
public class ClassOne {
synchronized public void my_method(int number) {
// Do some Work
}
}
public class ClassTwo {
private void some_method() {
Thread one = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
ClassOne class_one = new ClassOne();
// DO Work
class_one.my_method(0);
run_loop(class_one);
// Complete Work
}
});
one.start();
}
boolean running = true;
private void run_loop(final ClassOne class_one) {
Thread two = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
while (running) {
class_one.my_method(1); // won't run
Thread.sleep(10000);
}
}
});
two.start();
}
}
Actual problem overview:
my_method --- > is to send UDP packets.
the method has to be synchronized otherwise I'll get the socket is already open exception when trying to use it more than once repeatedly.
at some point, I have to send a KeepAlive message repeatedly each 10 seconds, so, I have to launch a separate thread for that which is thread two in run_loop method.
Putting something that will compile and work. I don't see why you need this function to be synchronized. Check the output for this program...The second thread access this method only when the first thread is done accessing (unless you have missed adding some additional code).
class ClassOne {
int criticalData = 1;
synchronized public void my_method(int number) {
// Do some Work
criticalData *= 31;
System.out.println("Critical data:" + criticalData + "[" + Thread.currentThread().getName() + "]");
}
}
class ClassTwo {
boolean running = true;
public void some_method() {
Thread one = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
ClassOne class_one = new ClassOne();
// DO Work
class_one.my_method(0);
run_loop(class_one);
// Complete Work
}
});
one.start();
}
public void run_loop(final ClassOne class_one) {
Thread two = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
while (running) {
class_one.my_method(1); // won't run
try {
Thread.sleep(10000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
});
two.start();
}
}
public class StackExchangeProblem {
public static void main(String[] args) {
ClassTwo two = new ClassTwo();
two.some_method();
}
}
I have following method for test:
public class classToTest{
#Autowired
private Alternator alternator;
public void methodToTest(){
Thread t = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
while(true) {
if(alternator.get()) {
System.out.print("Hello");
alternator.set(false);
}
}
}
};
t.start()
}
}
I need to check that was invoked method
alternator.set(false);
How can I do it?
Instead of starting a thread directly, can you pass in an "Executor" instance?
For example...
public class ClassToTest{
#Autowired
private Alternator alternator;
#Autowired #Qualifier("myExecutor")
private java.util.concurrent.Executor executor;
public void methodToTest() {
Runnable runnable = new Runnable() {
public void run() {
while(true) {
if(alternator.get()) {
System.out.print("Hello");
alternator.set(false);
}
}
};
executor.execute(runnable);
}
}
Now you can test this easier...
public class ClassToTestTest {
...
#Before
public void setup() {
alternator = mock(Alternator.class);
executor = mock(Executor.class);
obj = new ClassToTest();
ReflectionTestUtils.setField(obj, "alternator", alternator);
ReflectionTestUtils.setField(obj, "executor", executor);
}
#Test
public void shouldStartRunnable() {
obj.methodToTest();
ArgumentCaptor<Runnable> runnableCaptor = ArgumentCaptor.forClass(Runnable.class);
verify(executor).execute(runnableCaptor.capture());
Runnable runnable = runnableCaptor.getValue();
// Now test your actual "runnable"...
when(alternator.get()).thenReturn(true);
runnable.run();
verify(alternator).set(false);
}
}
(Have not tried to compile this, so I apologise if there are any mistakes!!)
Though Bret's post of passing in an executor is very much recommended, you can use the timeout() mock verification setting to test for asynchronous conditions.
verify(alternator, timeout(500)).set(false);
Note that this will necessarily increase the flakiness of your test (i.e. the likelihood that the test fails when the code passes). With a sensible timeout value, that flakiness should be negligible, but if you're making this a part of your core test infrastructure you may consider refactoring to allow for synchronous execution in the test.
I have a bunch of threads running concurrently. Sometimes a thread needs to notify other threads to wait for it to finish a job and signal them again to resume. Since I'm somehow new to Java's synchronization, I wonder what is the right way to do such thing. My code is something like this:
private void Concurrent() {
if (shouldRun()) {
// notify threads to pause and wait for them
DoJob();
// resume threads
}
// Normal job...
}
Update:
Note that the code I wrote is inside a class which will be executed by each thread. I don't have access to those threads or how they are running. I'm just inside threads.
Update 2:
My code is from a crawler class. The crawler class (crawler4j) knows how to handle concurrency. The only thing I need is to pause other crawlers before running a function and resume them afterwards. This code is the basics of my crawler:
public class TestCrawler extends WebCrawler {
private SingleThread()
{
//When this function is running, no other crawler should do anything
}
#Override
public void visit(Page page) {
if(SomeCriteria())
{
//make all other crawlers stop until I finish
SingleThread();
//let them resume
}
//Normal Stuff
}
}
Here is a short example on how to achieve this with the cool java concurrency stuff:
snip old code doesn't matter anymore with the Pause class.
EDIT:
Here is the new Test class:
package de.hotware.test;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
public class Test {
private Pause mPause;
public Test() {
this.mPause = new Pause();
}
public void concurrent() throws InterruptedException {
while(true) {
this.mPause.probe();
System.out.println("concurrent");
Thread.sleep(100);
}
}
public void crucial() throws InterruptedException {
int i = 0;
while (true) {
if (i++ % 2 == 0) {
this.mPause.pause(true);
System.out.println("crucial: exclusive execution");
this.mPause.pause(false);
} else {
System.out.println("crucial: normal execution");
Thread.sleep(1000);
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
final Test test = new Test();
Runnable run = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
test.concurrent();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
};
Runnable cruc = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
test.crucial();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
};
ExecutorService serv = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
serv.execute(run);
serv.execute(run);
serv.execute(cruc);
}
}
And the utility Pause class:
package de.hotware.test;
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicBoolean;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.Condition;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.Lock;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantLock;
/**
* Utility class to pause and unpause threads
* with Java Concurrency
* #author Martin Braun
*/
public class Pause {
private Lock mLock;
private Condition mCondition;
private AtomicBoolean mAwait;
public Pause() {
this.mLock = new ReentrantLock();
this.mCondition = this.mLock.newCondition();
this.mAwait = new AtomicBoolean(false);
}
/**
* waits until the threads until this.mAwait is set to true
* #throws InterruptedException
*/
public void probe() throws InterruptedException {
while(this.mAwait.get()) {
this.mLock.lock();
try {
this.mCondition.await();
} finally {
this.mLock.unlock();
}
}
}
/**
* pauses or unpauses
*/
public void pause(boolean pValue) {
if(!pValue){
this.mLock.lock();
try {
this.mCondition.signalAll();
} finally {
this.mLock.unlock();
}
}
this.mAwait.set(pValue);
}
}
The basic usage is to call probe() before each run. This will block if it is paused until pause(false) is called.
Your class would look like this:
public class TestCrawler extends WebCrawler {
private Pause mPause;
public TestCrawler(Pause pPause) {
this.mPause = pPause;
}
private SingleThread()
{
//When this function is running, no other crawler should do anything
}
#Override
public void visit(Page page) {
if(SomeCriteria())
{
//only enter the crucial part once if it has to be exclusive
this.mPause.probe();
//make all other crawlers stop until I finish
this.mPause.pause(true);
SingleThread();
//let them resume
this.mPause.pause(false);
}
this.mPause.probe();
//Normal Stuff
}
}
public class StockMonitor extends Thread {
private boolean suspend = false;
private volatile Thread thread;
public StockMonitor() {
thread = this;
}
// Use name with underscore, in order to avoid naming crashing with
// Thread's.
private synchronized void _wait() throws InterruptedException {
while (suspend) {
wait();
}
}
// Use name with underscore, in order to avoid naming crashing with
// Thread's.
public synchronized void _resume() {
suspend = false;
notify();
}
// Use name with underscore, in order to avoid naming crashing with
// Thread's.
public synchronized void _suspend() {
suspend = true;
}
public void _stop() {
thread = null;
// Wake up from sleep.
interrupt();
}
#Override
public void run() {
final Thread thisThread = Thread.currentThread();
while (thisThread == thread) {
_wait();
// Do whatever you want right here.
}
}
}
Calling _resume and _suspend will enable you to resume and pause the Thread. _stop will let you stop the thread gracefully. Note that, once you stop the Thread, there is no way to resume it again. The Thread is no longer usable.
The code is being picked from a real world open source project : http://jstock.hg.sourceforge.net/hgweb/jstock/jstock/file/b17c0fbfe37c/src/org/yccheok/jstock/engine/RealTimeStockMonitor.java#l247
You can use wait() and notify()
thread waiting:
// define mutex as field
Object mutex = new Object();
// later:
synchronized(mutex) {
wait();
}
notify the thread to continue
synchronized (mutex) {
notify();
}