Related
public class A {
public void method(boolean b){
if (b == true)
method1();
else
method2();
}
private void method1() {}
private void method2() {}
}
public class TestA {
#Test
public void testMethod() {
A a = mock(A.class);
a.method(true);
//how to test like verify(a).method1();
}
}
How to test private method is called or not, and how to test private method using mockito?
Not possible through mockito. From their wiki
Why Mockito doesn't mock private methods?
Firstly, we are not dogmatic about mocking private methods. We just
don't care about private methods because from the standpoint of
testing private methods don't exist. Here are a couple of reasons
Mockito doesn't mock private methods:
It requires hacking of classloaders that is never bullet proof and it
changes the api (you must use custom test runner, annotate the class,
etc.).
It is very easy to work around - just change the visibility of method
from private to package-protected (or protected).
It requires me to spend time implementing & maintaining it. And it
does not make sense given point #2 and a fact that it is already
implemented in different tool (powermock).
Finally... Mocking private methods is a hint that there is something
wrong with OO understanding. In OO you want objects (or roles) to
collaborate, not methods. Forget about pascal & procedural code. Think
in objects.
You can't do that with Mockito but you can use Powermock to extend Mockito and mock private methods. Powermock supports Mockito. Here's an example.
Here is a small example how to do it with powermock
public class Hello {
private Hello obj;
private Integer method1(Long id) {
return id + 10;
}
}
To test method1 use code:
Hello testObj = new Hello();
Integer result = Whitebox.invokeMethod(testObj, "method1", new Long(10L));
To set private object obj use this:
Hello testObj = new Hello();
Hello newObject = new Hello();
Whitebox.setInternalState(testObj, "obj", newObject);
While Mockito doesn't provide that capability, you can achieve the same result using Mockito + the JUnit ReflectionUtils class or the Spring ReflectionTestUtils class. Please see an example below taken from here explaining how to invoke a private method:
ReflectionTestUtils.invokeMethod(student, "saveOrUpdate", "From Unit test");
Complete examples with ReflectionTestUtils and Mockito can be found in the book Mockito for Spring.
Official documentation Spring Testing
By using reflection, private methods can be called from test classes.
In this case,
//test method will be like this ...
public class TestA {
#Test
public void testMethod() {
A a= new A();
Method privateMethod = A.class.getDeclaredMethod("method1", null);
privateMethod.setAccessible(true);
// invoke the private method for test
privateMethod.invoke(A, null);
}
}
If the private method calls any other private method, then we need to spy the object and stub the another method.The test class will be like ...
//test method will be like this ...
public class TestA {
#Test
public void testMethod() {
A a= new A();
A spyA = spy(a);
Method privateMethod = A.class.getDeclaredMethod("method1", null);
privateMethod.setAccessible(true);
doReturn("Test").when(spyA, "method2"); // if private method2 is returning string data
// invoke the private method for test
privateMethod.invoke(spyA , null);
}
}
**The approach is to combine reflection and spying the object.
**method1 and **method2 are private methods and method1 calls method2.
Think about this in terms of behaviour, not in terms of what methods there are. The method called method has a particular behaviour if b is true. It has different behaviour if b is false. This means you should write two different tests for method; one for each case. So instead of having three method-oriented tests (one for method, one for method1, one for method2, you have two behaviour-oriented tests.
Related to this (I suggested this in another SO thread recently, and got called a four-letter word as a result, so feel free to take this with a grain of salt); I find it helpful to choose test names that reflect the behaviour that I'm testing, rather than the name of the method. So don't call your tests testMethod(), testMethod1(), testMethod2() and so forth. I like names like calculatedPriceIsBasePricePlusTax() or taxIsExcludedWhenExcludeIsTrue() that indicate what behaviour I'm testing; then within each test method, test only the indicated behaviour. Most such behaviours will involve just one call to a public method, but may involve many calls to private methods.
Hope this helps.
I was able to test a private method inside using mockito using reflection.
Here is the example, tried to name it such that it makes sense
//Service containing the mock method is injected with mockObjects
#InjectMocks
private ServiceContainingPrivateMethod serviceContainingPrivateMethod;
//Using reflection to change accessibility of the private method
Class<?>[] params = new Class<?>[]{PrivateMethodParameterOne.class, PrivateMethodParameterTwo.class};
Method m = serviceContainingPrivateMethod .getClass().getDeclaredMethod("privateMethod", params);
//making private method accessible
m.setAccessible(true);
assertNotNull(m.invoke(serviceContainingPrivateMethod, privateMethodParameterOne, privateMethodParameterTwo).equals(null));
You're not suppose to test private methods. Only non-private methods needs to be tested as these should call the private methods anyway. If you "want" to test private methods, it may indicate that you need to rethink your design:
Am I using proper dependency injection?
Do I possibly needs to move the private methods into a separate class and rather test that?
Must these methods be private? ...can't they be default or protected rather?
In the above instance, the two methods that are called "randomly" may actually need to be placed in a class of their own, tested and then injected into the class above.
There is actually a way to test methods from a private member with Mockito. Let's say you have a class like this:
public class A {
private SomeOtherClass someOtherClass;
A() {
someOtherClass = new SomeOtherClass();
}
public void method(boolean b){
if (b == true)
someOtherClass.method1();
else
someOtherClass.method2();
}
}
public class SomeOtherClass {
public void method1() {}
public void method2() {}
}
If you want to test a.method will invoke a method from SomeOtherClass, you can write something like below.
#Test
public void testPrivateMemberMethodCalled() {
A a = new A();
SomeOtherClass someOtherClass = Mockito.spy(new SomeOtherClass());
ReflectionTestUtils.setField( a, "someOtherClass", someOtherClass);
a.method( true );
Mockito.verify( someOtherClass, Mockito.times( 1 ) ).method1();
}
ReflectionTestUtils.setField(); will stub the private member with something you can spy on.
I don't really understand your need to test the private method. The root problem is that your public method has void as return type, and hence you are not able to test your public method. Hence you are forced to test your private method. Is my guess correct??
A few possible solutions (AFAIK):
Mocking your private methods, but still you won't be "actually" testing your methods.
Verify the state of object used in the method. MOSTLY methods either do some processing of the input values and return an output, or change the state of the objects. Testing the objects for the desired state can also be employed.
public class A{
SomeClass classObj = null;
public void publicMethod(){
privateMethod();
}
private void privateMethod(){
classObj = new SomeClass();
}
}
[Here you can test for the private method, by checking the state change of the classObj from null to not null.]
Refactor your code a little (Hope this is not a legacy code). My funda of writing a method is that, one should always return something (a int/ a boolean). The returned value MAY or MAY NOT be used by the implementation, but it will SURELY BE used by the test
code.
public class A
{
public int method(boolean b)
{
int nReturn = 0;
if (b == true)
nReturn = method1();
else
nReturn = method2();
}
private int method1() {}
private int method2() {}
}
Put your test in the same package, but a different source folder (src/main/java vs. src/test/java) and make those methods package-private. Imo testability is more important than privacy.
In cases where the private method is not void and the return value is used as a parameter to an external dependency's method, you can mock the dependency and use an ArgumentCaptor to capture the return value.
For example:
ArgumentCaptor<ByteArrayOutputStream> csvOutputCaptor = ArgumentCaptor.forClass(ByteArrayOutputStream.class);
//Do your thing..
verify(this.awsService).uploadFile(csvOutputCaptor.capture());
....
assertEquals(csvOutputCaptor.getValue().toString(), "blabla");
Building on #aravind-yarram's answer: Not possible through mockito. From their wiki
So what's the OO way of testing private methods? Private methods with complex logic might be a sign that your class is violating the principle of single responsibility and that some of the logic should be moved to a new class.
Indeed, by extracting those private methods to public methods of more granular classes, you can unit test them without breaking the encapsulation of your original class.
I want to test a private method in a final utitlity class.
1. The class itself:
The class signature is:
public final class SomeHelper {
/** Preventing class from being instantiated */
private SomeHelper() {
}
And there is the private method itself:
private static String formatValue(BigDecimal value)
The test is allready written, but earlier, the method was in a non-utility non-final class without a private constructor.
The test is using #RunWith(Parameterized.class) already.
Now all I get is an exception:
org.mockito.exceptions.base.MockitoException:
Cannot mock/spy class com.some.package.util.SomeHelper
Mockito cannot mock/spy following:
- final classes
- anonymous classes
- primitive types
2. The test
The most important line in this test is:
String result = Whitebox.invokeMethod(mValue, "formatValue", mGiven);
Is there a way of making the test work?
You don't need to test private methods.
But you SHOULD test the ones that use it. If methods that call your private methods are working as you expect, you can assume private methods are working correctly.
Why?
Nobody will call this method alone, so unit test for it is unnecessary.
You don't need to test private method, because it'll not be called directly. But if it realizes some so complicated logic, you want to do this, you should consider extracting class.
What I finally did is based on the answer from question How do I test a class that has private methods, fields or inner classes? that #Sachin Handiekar provided in a comment.
It's not the most beautiful way, considering that private methods should not be tested, but I wanted it tested and I was just curious.
This is how I did it.
Class someHelper = SomeHelper.class;
Method formatValue = someHelper.getDeclaredMethod("formatValue ", BigDecimal.class);
formatValue.setAccessible(true);
String result = (String) formatValue .invoke(new String(), mGiven);
And it works like a charm.
My unit test uses an enum as datapoints (see JUnit Theories).
This enum is only used in the test, therefore I prefer it to be encapsulated and a private nested class. JUnit requires test methods to be public. The test methods have the private enum as argument:
#RunWith(Theories.class)
class ExampleTest {
private enum Lists {
EMPTY,
SINGLE_ELEMENT,
OTHER_ELEMENT,
TWO_ELEMENTS;
public Object createElements() {
// Imagine createElements being abstract and
// implemented in each enum constant.
}
}
#DataPoints
public static final Lists[] ALL_LISTS = Lists.values();
private List<Object> tested;
#Theory
public void add_sizeIncreased(Lists elementsToAdd) {
int oldSize = tested.size();
int nElementsAdded = elementsToAdd.size();
tested.addAll(elementsToAdd);
assertThat(tested.size(), is(equalTo(oldSize + nElementsAdded));
}
}
This rightly causes the warning/hint: "Exporting non-public type through public API" (in Netbeans at least).
What is the correct way to solve this?
I have not found a 'SuppressWarnings'-annotation for it;
The answers to related SO questions Sachin, Aselivanov, and user329820 argue that the warning is correct and that you should make the types public. The unittest differs from these other situations in that the test's public methods are not called by any other code.
(I admit the testframework calls them, but I hope you see my point).
As far as I know, JUnit will not invoke private test methods, in fact it throws an error when it sees a private method annotated with 'Theory'.
Two suggestions:
Just make the enum public. Since it is in test code it will not be exported in you jar / war so no big deal.
Accept an Object in your test method instead of Lists and cast.
public class A {
public void method(boolean b){
if (b == true)
method1();
else
method2();
}
private void method1() {}
private void method2() {}
}
public class TestA {
#Test
public void testMethod() {
A a = mock(A.class);
a.method(true);
//how to test like verify(a).method1();
}
}
How to test private method is called or not, and how to test private method using mockito?
Not possible through mockito. From their wiki
Why Mockito doesn't mock private methods?
Firstly, we are not dogmatic about mocking private methods. We just
don't care about private methods because from the standpoint of
testing private methods don't exist. Here are a couple of reasons
Mockito doesn't mock private methods:
It requires hacking of classloaders that is never bullet proof and it
changes the api (you must use custom test runner, annotate the class,
etc.).
It is very easy to work around - just change the visibility of method
from private to package-protected (or protected).
It requires me to spend time implementing & maintaining it. And it
does not make sense given point #2 and a fact that it is already
implemented in different tool (powermock).
Finally... Mocking private methods is a hint that there is something
wrong with OO understanding. In OO you want objects (or roles) to
collaborate, not methods. Forget about pascal & procedural code. Think
in objects.
You can't do that with Mockito but you can use Powermock to extend Mockito and mock private methods. Powermock supports Mockito. Here's an example.
Here is a small example how to do it with powermock
public class Hello {
private Hello obj;
private Integer method1(Long id) {
return id + 10;
}
}
To test method1 use code:
Hello testObj = new Hello();
Integer result = Whitebox.invokeMethod(testObj, "method1", new Long(10L));
To set private object obj use this:
Hello testObj = new Hello();
Hello newObject = new Hello();
Whitebox.setInternalState(testObj, "obj", newObject);
While Mockito doesn't provide that capability, you can achieve the same result using Mockito + the JUnit ReflectionUtils class or the Spring ReflectionTestUtils class. Please see an example below taken from here explaining how to invoke a private method:
ReflectionTestUtils.invokeMethod(student, "saveOrUpdate", "From Unit test");
Complete examples with ReflectionTestUtils and Mockito can be found in the book Mockito for Spring.
Official documentation Spring Testing
By using reflection, private methods can be called from test classes.
In this case,
//test method will be like this ...
public class TestA {
#Test
public void testMethod() {
A a= new A();
Method privateMethod = A.class.getDeclaredMethod("method1", null);
privateMethod.setAccessible(true);
// invoke the private method for test
privateMethod.invoke(A, null);
}
}
If the private method calls any other private method, then we need to spy the object and stub the another method.The test class will be like ...
//test method will be like this ...
public class TestA {
#Test
public void testMethod() {
A a= new A();
A spyA = spy(a);
Method privateMethod = A.class.getDeclaredMethod("method1", null);
privateMethod.setAccessible(true);
doReturn("Test").when(spyA, "method2"); // if private method2 is returning string data
// invoke the private method for test
privateMethod.invoke(spyA , null);
}
}
**The approach is to combine reflection and spying the object.
**method1 and **method2 are private methods and method1 calls method2.
Think about this in terms of behaviour, not in terms of what methods there are. The method called method has a particular behaviour if b is true. It has different behaviour if b is false. This means you should write two different tests for method; one for each case. So instead of having three method-oriented tests (one for method, one for method1, one for method2, you have two behaviour-oriented tests.
Related to this (I suggested this in another SO thread recently, and got called a four-letter word as a result, so feel free to take this with a grain of salt); I find it helpful to choose test names that reflect the behaviour that I'm testing, rather than the name of the method. So don't call your tests testMethod(), testMethod1(), testMethod2() and so forth. I like names like calculatedPriceIsBasePricePlusTax() or taxIsExcludedWhenExcludeIsTrue() that indicate what behaviour I'm testing; then within each test method, test only the indicated behaviour. Most such behaviours will involve just one call to a public method, but may involve many calls to private methods.
Hope this helps.
I was able to test a private method inside using mockito using reflection.
Here is the example, tried to name it such that it makes sense
//Service containing the mock method is injected with mockObjects
#InjectMocks
private ServiceContainingPrivateMethod serviceContainingPrivateMethod;
//Using reflection to change accessibility of the private method
Class<?>[] params = new Class<?>[]{PrivateMethodParameterOne.class, PrivateMethodParameterTwo.class};
Method m = serviceContainingPrivateMethod .getClass().getDeclaredMethod("privateMethod", params);
//making private method accessible
m.setAccessible(true);
assertNotNull(m.invoke(serviceContainingPrivateMethod, privateMethodParameterOne, privateMethodParameterTwo).equals(null));
You're not suppose to test private methods. Only non-private methods needs to be tested as these should call the private methods anyway. If you "want" to test private methods, it may indicate that you need to rethink your design:
Am I using proper dependency injection?
Do I possibly needs to move the private methods into a separate class and rather test that?
Must these methods be private? ...can't they be default or protected rather?
In the above instance, the two methods that are called "randomly" may actually need to be placed in a class of their own, tested and then injected into the class above.
There is actually a way to test methods from a private member with Mockito. Let's say you have a class like this:
public class A {
private SomeOtherClass someOtherClass;
A() {
someOtherClass = new SomeOtherClass();
}
public void method(boolean b){
if (b == true)
someOtherClass.method1();
else
someOtherClass.method2();
}
}
public class SomeOtherClass {
public void method1() {}
public void method2() {}
}
If you want to test a.method will invoke a method from SomeOtherClass, you can write something like below.
#Test
public void testPrivateMemberMethodCalled() {
A a = new A();
SomeOtherClass someOtherClass = Mockito.spy(new SomeOtherClass());
ReflectionTestUtils.setField( a, "someOtherClass", someOtherClass);
a.method( true );
Mockito.verify( someOtherClass, Mockito.times( 1 ) ).method1();
}
ReflectionTestUtils.setField(); will stub the private member with something you can spy on.
I don't really understand your need to test the private method. The root problem is that your public method has void as return type, and hence you are not able to test your public method. Hence you are forced to test your private method. Is my guess correct??
A few possible solutions (AFAIK):
Mocking your private methods, but still you won't be "actually" testing your methods.
Verify the state of object used in the method. MOSTLY methods either do some processing of the input values and return an output, or change the state of the objects. Testing the objects for the desired state can also be employed.
public class A{
SomeClass classObj = null;
public void publicMethod(){
privateMethod();
}
private void privateMethod(){
classObj = new SomeClass();
}
}
[Here you can test for the private method, by checking the state change of the classObj from null to not null.]
Refactor your code a little (Hope this is not a legacy code). My funda of writing a method is that, one should always return something (a int/ a boolean). The returned value MAY or MAY NOT be used by the implementation, but it will SURELY BE used by the test
code.
public class A
{
public int method(boolean b)
{
int nReturn = 0;
if (b == true)
nReturn = method1();
else
nReturn = method2();
}
private int method1() {}
private int method2() {}
}
Put your test in the same package, but a different source folder (src/main/java vs. src/test/java) and make those methods package-private. Imo testability is more important than privacy.
In cases where the private method is not void and the return value is used as a parameter to an external dependency's method, you can mock the dependency and use an ArgumentCaptor to capture the return value.
For example:
ArgumentCaptor<ByteArrayOutputStream> csvOutputCaptor = ArgumentCaptor.forClass(ByteArrayOutputStream.class);
//Do your thing..
verify(this.awsService).uploadFile(csvOutputCaptor.capture());
....
assertEquals(csvOutputCaptor.getValue().toString(), "blabla");
Building on #aravind-yarram's answer: Not possible through mockito. From their wiki
So what's the OO way of testing private methods? Private methods with complex logic might be a sign that your class is violating the principle of single responsibility and that some of the logic should be moved to a new class.
Indeed, by extracting those private methods to public methods of more granular classes, you can unit test them without breaking the encapsulation of your original class.
Right now I'm thinking about adding a private constructor to a class that only holds some String constants.
public class MyStrings {
// I want to add this:
private MyString() {}
public static final String ONE = "something";
public static final String TWO = "another";
...
}
Is there any performance or memory overhead if I add a private constructor to this class to prevent someone to instantiate it?
Do you think it's necessary at all or that private constructors for this purpose are a waste of time and code clutter?
UPDATE
I'm going for a final class with private constructor and a descriptive javadoc for the class. I can't use a ENUM (which I'd prefer) because I'm stuck on Java 1.4 for now. This would be my modification:
/**
* Only for static access, do not instantiate this class.
*/
public final class MyStrings {
private MyString() {}
public static final String ONE = "something";
public static final String TWO = "another";
...
}
Use of private constructor to prevent instantiation of class?
There are several ways you can think of users preventing from the Instantiations for the purpose of creating the Constants
As you have mentioned a class with the private Constructors and has all the string constants, is one way, even there is an overhead, that can be negligible
Else you can create a Class with Final Modifier and Define your string constants
You can use the Abstract Class with the String Constants
You can define the string constants in the properties files and can access from that, this will definitely reduce the memory and increase the flexibility of your code.
For me the best explanation is in Effective Java book: Item 4: Enforce noninstantiability with a private constructor (See more)
In Summary:
Private constructor is due utility classes were not designed to be instantiated, so is a design decision. (NO performance or memory overhead)
Making a class abstract doesn't work because can be subclassed and then instantiated.
With an abstract class the user may think the class is for inheritance.
The only way to ensure no instantiation is to add a private constructor which ensures the default constructor is not generated.
Private constructor prevents inheritance because the super constructor cannot be called (so it is not need the declare the class as final)
Throw an error in the private constructor avoids call it within the class.
Definetively, the best way would be something like next:
public class MyStrings {
private MyStrings () {
throw new AssertionError();
}
...
}
You could add a private constructor, but there are two other options.
In the same situation I would use an enumerator. If it makes sense to your implementation, you could use that instead, if it's public or private depends on where you need to use it:
public enum MyStrings {
ONE ("something"),
TWO ("something else");
private String value;
private MyStrings(String str) {
this.value = str;
}
}
Another option would be to put it in an abstract class, those can not be instantiated:
public abstract MyStrings {
public static final String STUFF = "stuff";
public static final String OTHER = "other stuff";
}
Access for both enumerator and abstract class works just like with the implementation you presented:
MyStrings.STUFF
If you don't won't anyone to make an object of the class you could make it abstract like this
public abstract class MyStrings {
public static final String ONE = "something";
public static final String TWO = "another";
}
and access your static variables like this
String val1 = MyStrings.ONE;
String val2 = MyStrings.TWO;
I think this would be a nicer solution.
I would rather use an enum to hold that Strings. This would ensure that wherever you use that Strings, you only get passed in one of the allowed Strings.
There is no performance or memory overhead if you add a private constructor in this case. As well, it is not needed since your public static variables are shared among all instances of your object.
If your class has only static members, then there is no need to have a private or public constructor. All members are accessible even without an object. In fact I find it confusing to have a constructor in such a case.
A synthetic public constructor would have been generated any way. So no.
Really a few bytes out of hundreds of millions at runtime isn't going to make much difference.
I also suggest making the class final and just for completeness have the constructor throw an exception.
If you want terse source code, you could create an enum with no values. Might cause some confusion with beginner programmers though.
That's the right way to store some constants, as also suggested in Effective Java (2nd Ed.), item 19.