I'm creating a series of unit tests for an EJB application which uses JPA for the database persistence layer. As these are unit tests I'm treating the EJB beans as POJOs and using Mockito to mock the EntityManager calls.
The issue I've encountered is that one of the methods in my class under test changes a value in the entity before calling the EntityManager merge(...) method to save the entity, but I can't see how the unit test is able to check whether the method being tested did actually change the value.
Whilst I could add another when(...) method so that the merge(...) method returns an instance of the entity with the modified value, I don't think this would be of any benefit as it wouldn't actually test that the class under test had modified the value and would defeat the purpose of the test.
The method in my class under test is as follows:
public void discontinueWidget(String widgetId) {
Widget widget = em.find(Widget.class, widgetId);
//Code that checks whether the widget exists has been omitted for simplicity
widget.setDiscontinued(true);
em.merge(widget);
}
The code in my unit test is as follows:
#Mock
private EntityManager em;
#InjectMocks
private WidgetService classUnderTest;
#Test
public void discontinueWidget() {
Widget testWidget = new Widget();
testWidget.setWidgetName("foo");
when(em.find(Widget.class, "foo")).thenReturn(testWidget);
classUnderTest.discontinueWidget("en");
//something needed here to check whether testWidget was set to discontinued
//this checks the merge method was called but not whether the
//discontinued value has been set to true
verify(em).merge(testWidget );
}
As the Widget class isn't being mocked I can't call something along the lines of verify(testWidget).setDiscontinued(true);
My question is how can I check whether the discontinueWidget(...) method in the class under test has actually set the discontinued variable in the Widget class to true?
I'm using JUnit version 4.12 and Mockito version 1.10.19.
You can declare the Widget in your test as being a mock also, and verify on it.
Widget testWidget = mock(Widget.class);
when(em.find(Widget.class, "foo")).thenReturn(testWidget);
classUnderTest.discontinueWidget("en");
//something needed here to check whether testWidget was set to discontinued
verify(testWidget).setDiscontinued(true);
//this checks the merge method was called but not whether the
//discontinued value has been set to true
verify(em).merge(testWidget );
Related
I want to mock a dependency and return a default value in most test cases since most of them should not care about the values returned but there are some certain cases like I would like to test like the dependency returns some weird values or just throw. So I am modeling it in this way. Most cases, it should return a nice and valid value.
Test Setup which return the 20L by default for all test classes.
Dependency dependency = Mockito.mock(Dependency.class);
when(dependency.returnSomeVal()).thenReturn(20L);
In a specific test cases class, I would like to override the behavior like below:
when(dependency.returnSomeVal()).thenThrow(); //failure cases
when(dependency.returnSomeVal()).thenReturn(Weird_Val); //failure cases
But I don't find a good solution to override the existing behavior? Any idea?
You can reset the mock and add behavior. In the test, do
Mockito.reset(dependency);
when(dependency.returnSomeVal()).thenThrow(); //failure cases
when(dependency.returnSomeVal()).thenReturn(Weird_Val); //failure cases
Resetting will remove all mocked behavior on this class though. If you want to remock only some methods, then you have to create the mock from scratch.
I ended using myself this pattern to mock a bunch of methods of a class providing configurations.
In a #Before method I setup a bunch of stubs for a mocked object that provide a correct configuration for each test. Afterwards, in each test it was extremely convenient to only override one of those stubs to provide a different configuration and test a different error case.
I think the response from Hari Menon is correct but it somehow defeats the purpose explained in the question. If the mock is reset, all the stubs would need to be added again, making this pattern very confusing (it would be better to not use any overriding than using reset in this case, the code would be way more straightforward).
The comments added to the question provide indeed an indirect answer on how to achieve this, and why it works, but it took me a bit to get it working.
In spite of one of the comments, I made everything work by using in my #Before fixture when().thenReturn() and overriding the concrete stub with doReturn().when()
Example:
public class WorkerTest {
private ConfigProvider mockedConfigProvider = mock(ConfigProvider.class);
#Before
public void setup() {
// Setup stubs with a correct config
when(mockedConfigProvider.getValue("property1")).thenReturn("value1");
when(mockedConfigProvider.getValue("property2")).thenReturn("value2");
when(mockedConfigProvider.getValue("property3")).thenReturn("value3");
when(mockedConfigProvider.getValue("property4")).thenReturn("value4");
}
#Test
public void test_GoodConfig(){
// The config object gets injected in the test worker
Worker testWorker = new Worker(mockedConfigProvider);
// testWorker.execute() returns true if everything went well
assertTrue(testWorker.execute());
}
#Test
public void test_BadConfigProp1(){
// Test now with a broken 'property1', overriding that stub.
doReturn(null).when(mockedConfigProvider).getValue("property1");
Worker testWorker = new Worker(mockedConfigProvider);
// testWorker.execute() returns false if there is a problem.
assertFalse(testWorker.execute());
}
#Test
public void test_BadConfigProp2(){
// This test needs to only override the result of property2
doReturn("crazy result").when(mockedConfigProvider).getValue("property2");
...
}
I am fairly new to mockito framework. I've been reading upon multiple tutorials in regards to it. One of them I was following is this: https://www.tutorialspoint.com/mockito/mockito_first_application.htm
There is a statement creating a mock of Stock Service.
In this example, we've created a mock of Stock Service to get the dummy price of some stocks
My question is Stock Service is a real service class or mock service class you have to manually stand up for mimicking the real service class. I am a bit confused. Having basic understanding of junit framework. What I had practiced before was if there is a service class Foo then I used actual class that provides all the exposed methods.
public class Foo {
public Foo() { } // construtor
public String returnAddress(String userId) {
// ...
return dataAccesobj.getAddress(userId);
}
}
Calling foo.returnAddress(..) in unit test if I remember right.
The reason I am asking this question is while I was working with mockitoto create a test method for a class, I ran into a unique(?) challenge.
I started with a real service class which depends on its super class constructor to return its instance. The challenge I ran into was this super class constructor initiates DB connection and loading/parsing properties files which I do not need for my test. I was thinking about how to prevent DB connection and loading/reading prop files....
I thought I read from one of mockito tutorials you can isolate testing without having such services. I tried with #Mock and #Spy (not fully understanding well still what they are for..) but it didn't make a difference for output (maybe I misused those annotations).
So what I did was actually creating fake/mock class out of real service class (e.g. Foo) by simply copying it and renamed it as FooMock and put it in src/test/java folder in where unit test class is running from. I kept the mock class exactly same as the real service class except taking out unwanted logic such as db connection or loading/reading prop file for env specific. By doing that I was able to test one of exposed methods that read ldap directory...
I am sorry I got digressed but hope my point is clear at this point. I am not sure the way I handled this situation is right or wrong. I'd appreciate experienced engineers would clarify the way I handled the matter is acceptable in mockito way or not. If not, then plz advise me best way to handle it.
With Mockito,
a mock is an implementation of a wrapper class.
The mock object "wraps" the target of the mock
(the service in your example)
and allows you to define functionality of each method.
There are two mocked functionality options with Mockito;
call the wrapped method and don't call the wrapped method.
I don't know when it would make sense to call the wrapped method,
so I always use don't call the wrapped method.
After you create the mock,
use the Mockito.doReturn(returnvalue).when(mockObject).method(method parameters) method to mock functionality.
Edit: some more info.
I will assume that you are using junit v4.
The details of this will differ based on the the junit major release number,
but the actual work will be the same.
Use annotations to define your Mock objects (#Mock),
except in a few special cases.
This will create mocks of non-final classes,
abstract classes,
and interfaces.
Create a "before-test" method using the #Before annotation;
I traditionally name this method preTestSetup,
but the actual name does not matter.
Call MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this) as the first line of code
in the "before-test" method.
This will find the #Mock annotations and instantiate a mock for each.
Use the ReflectionTestUtils.setField method to inject the mocks into your object (assuming that you don't have setter methods,
which I traditionally don't like).
Define the mocked functionality of each method using the Mockito.doReturn(returnvalue).when(mockObject).method(method parameters) technique.
Here is some example code
(caveat:
this should be fully functional,
but I did not compile it):
public interface MyService
{
String blammy(SomeParameter parameter);
}
public class UsesMyService
{
#Autowired
private MyService myService;
public String kapow(final SomeParameter parameter)
{
return myService.blammy(parameter);
}
}
public class UnitTestUsesMyService
{
private UsesMyService classToTest;
#Mock
private MyService mockMyService;
#Mock
private SomeParameter mockSomeParameter;
#Before
public void preTestSetup()
{
MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this);
classToTest = new UsesMyService();
doReturn("Blam").when(mockMyService).blammy(mockSomeParameter);
ReflectionTestUtils.setField(
classToTest,
"myService",
mockMyService);
}
#Test
public void kapow_allGood_success()
{
final String actualResult;
actualResult = classToTest.kapow(mockSomeParameter);
assertNotNull(actualResult); // Not strictly necessary.
assertEquals(
"Blam",
actualResult);
}
}
My Junit test code looks like this.
private static boolean setupDone = false;
private Box box;
#Before
public void setup(){
if (setupDone){
return true;
}
box = new BoxCreator(this.applicationContext);
applicationContext.getAutowireCapableBeanFactory().autowireBean(box);
setupDone = true;
}
#Test
public void Test1(){
String response = box.getBoxResponse();
...asserts go here as usual....
}
#Test
public void Test2(){
String response = box.getBoxResponse();
...asserts go here as usual....
}
Now what happens is that Setup method runs only once as desired by virtue of setupDone variable.
Setup method after creating an instance of Box object autowires it as seen in the code above. Intention is to have a singleton of this class and use the same instance in every test.
Now the problem is that whichever test method runs first gets the value of box object and the second test method sees box as null. Not sure why it becomes null when the second test method is executed.
I suspect its not using the same instance of the test class for each test method's run.
If you make "box" static, it might work better. Note that "setupDone" and "box" are initialized in the #Before method together and should reside in the same place whether its the class as for statics or the instance as for merely global variables.
The problem with that is that if one test modifies the state of the object or its inner objects, a following test might not work right.
As Lee Meador mentioned, JUnit creates a new instance of the test class before invoking each #Test method. By doing this it provides independence between test methods and avoids unintentional side effects in the test code. Each test should be individually executed without any effect of the previous test and hence should have different application contexts in your case.
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).