I'm trying to get some grasps over the Java 8 functional programming. I tried to write the following IntSupplier "functionally" but I keep getting issues.
import java.util.function.IntSupplier;
#Test public void test_nonFunctional() {
IntSupplier supplier = new IntSupplier() {
private int nextInt = 0;
#Override public int getAsInt() {
return nextInt++;
}
};
}
Here are my attempts. The issues are marked as comments in the code.
import org.junit.Test;
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
import java.util.function.IntSupplier;
public class IntSupplierTest {
#Test public void test_nonFunctional() {
IntSupplier supplier = new IntSupplier() {
private int nextInt = 0;
#Override public int getAsInt() { return nextInt++; }
}; // Works but is not functional.
}
#Test public void test_naive() {
int nextInt = 0;
IntSupplier supplier = () -> nextInt++; // Doesn't compile: requires nextInt to be final.
}
#Test public void test_nextIntIsFinal() {
final int nextInt = 0;
IntSupplier supplier = () -> nextInt++; // Doesn't compile: nextInt can't be incremented because it's final.
}
#Test public void test_useWrapper() {
final AtomicInteger nextInt = new AtomicInteger(0);
IntSupplier supplier = () -> nextInt.getAndIncrement(); // It is not the same as my original question as this test uses an extra object.
}
}
If the answer is simply that it cannot be done without using extra objects, please just say so.
Your definition of the problem is already non-functional. In functional you can't have different output without an argument. That's the definition. But how to create a sequence of numbers you can see in the java libraries: java.util.function.IntUnaryOperator. It's used like this:
IntStream.iterate(0, i -> i+1).limit(10).foreach(System.out::printLn);
you could do something like this:
IntSupplier supplier = new AtomicInteger(0)::incrementAndGet;
There is a standard way of working around this problem:
int[] nextInt = { 0 }; // optionally mark as final
IntSupplier supplier = () -> nextInt[0]++;
but it isn't really any more functional than the "Works but is not functional" solution.
Related
I want to make a simple program to compare how long time takes rewrite and print out collection of Strings by `for loop`, `foreach` or `stream`. String is sentence where it replaces "i" by "y". In my case I made `count()` where I set to count `stream()` method but I want to make universal measuring method. But i dont know how to do it... It should works like: in Main class is `counter(forLoop);` It should call `forLoop();` from Method class `counter(forEach);` It should call `forEach();` from Metrod class`counter(stream);` It should call ` stream();` From Method class IDont know how to pass method as a parameter
I have class where are those metods:
import java.util.*;
import java.util.stream.*;
public class Methods {
private List<String> sentence = new ArrayList<>();
private String oldLetter = "i";
private String newLetter = "y";
private String methodType;
public String getMethodType() {
return methodType;
}
//making a collection with String
public void setSizeOfCollection(int size){
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++) {
sentence.add("Siti Zbinek plitce zvikal sirovi pelinek.");
}
}
public void forLoop(){
methodType = "For loop";
for (int i = 0; i < sentence.size(); i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < sentence.size(); j++) {
String replaceLetters = sentence.get(j);
replaceLetters = replaceLetters.replaceAll(oldLetter, newLetter);
sentence.set(j, replaceLetters);
}
System.out.println(sentence.get(i));
}
}
public void forEach(){
methodType = "For each";
String replacedLetters = "";
for(String oneLine: sentence){
for(String originalLetters: sentence){
replacedLetters = originalLetters.replaceAll(oldLetter,newLetter);
}
System.out.println(replacedLetters);
}
}
public void stream(){
methodType= "Stream";
sentence.stream()
.map(e->e.replaceAll(oldLetter,newLetter))
.collect(Collectors.toList())
.forEach(System.out::println);
}
}
This is count() that works fine, but only for method stream(). In comment is my imagine how it should be. But I dont know how it do by Java :(
import org.apache.commons.lang.time.*;
public class Counter {
private Methods methods;
private String methodType;
private StopWatch stopWatch = new StopWatch();
long timeTaken = 0;
//here should be something like any method as a parameter XXX xxx
// public void count(Methods methods XXX xxx)
public void count(Methods methods){
stopWatch.start();
// here sould be something what call any function by your choice, not only stream()
// methods.xxx;
methods.stream();
stopWatch.stop();
timeTaken= stopWatch.getTime();
System.out.println(methods.getMethodType()+" takes "+ timeTaken + " ms." );
}
}
And finally Main class
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Methods methods = new Methods();
Counter counter = new Counter();
methods.setSizeOfCollection(10000);
counter.count(methods);
//here should be finally three times method, with different parameters:
// counter.count(methods, forEach);
// counter.count(methods, forLoop);
// counter.count(methods, stream);
}
}
Any advice please?
All your methods have the signature void(). Consequently, a reference to each method can be stored in a Runnable instance.
public void count(final Runnable method) {
stopWatch.start();
method.run();
stopWatch.stop();
timeTaken= stopWatch.getTime();
System.out.println(methods.getMethodType()+" takes "+ timeTaken + " ms.");
}
And then call as:
final Methods methods = new Methods();
final Counter counter = new Counter();
methods.setSizeOfCollection(10000);
counter.count(methods::stream); // or count(() -> methods.stream());
counter.count(methods::forEach); // count(() -> methods.forEach());
counter.count(methods::loop); // count(() -> methods.loop());
To be able to use method refs or lambdas, you need to have at least Java 8. For earlier Java versions, you would need to implement Runnable with an anonymous class, e.g.
counter.count(new Runnable() {
#Override public void run() { methods.stream(); }
});
or look up the methods by name via Reflection, but Reflection is usually the slowest option.
PS. Note however that your way of measuring method execution times is flawed; see How do I write a correct micro-benchmark in Java? for directions. This answer only explains the part of passing "methods" to another method.
you could pass the method name as a string and look for it with reflexion.
I have a task to get "StackOverflowError" in java without using -Xss and recursion. I really don't have ideas... Only some nonsense like generating huge java class at runtime, compile it and invoke...
Java stores primitive types on the stack. Objects created in local scope are allocated on the heap, with the reference to them on the stack.
You can overflow the stack without recursion by allocating too many primitive types in method scope. With normal stack size settings, you would have to allocate an excessive number of variables to overflow.
Here is the implementation of Eric J. idea of generating excessive number of local variables using javassist library:
class SoeNonRecursive {
static final String generatedMethodName = "holderForVariablesMethod";
#SneakyThrows
Class<?> createClassWithLotsOfLocalVars(String generatedClassName, final int numberOfLocalVarsToGenerate) {
ClassPool pool = ClassPool.getDefault();
CtClass generatedClass = pool.makeClass(generatedClassName);
CtMethod generatedMethod = CtNewMethod.make(getMethodBody(numberOfLocalVarsToGenerate), generatedClass);
generatedClass.addMethod(generatedMethod);
return generatedClass.toClass();
}
private String getMethodBody(final int numberOfLocalVarsToGenerate) {
StringBuilder methodBody = new StringBuilder("public static long ")
.append(generatedMethodName).append("() {")
.append(System.lineSeparator());
StringBuilder antiDeadCodeEliminationString = new StringBuilder("long result = i0");
long i = 0;
while (i < numberOfLocalVarsToGenerate) {
methodBody.append(" long i").append(i)
.append(" = ").append(i).append(";")
.append(System.lineSeparator());
antiDeadCodeEliminationString.append("+").append("i").append(i);
i++;
}
antiDeadCodeEliminationString.append(";");
methodBody.append(" ").append(antiDeadCodeEliminationString)
.append(System.lineSeparator())
.append(" return result;")
.append(System.lineSeparator())
.append("}");
return methodBody.toString();
}
}
and tests:
class SoeNonRecursiveTest {
private final SoeNonRecursive soeNonRecursive = new SoeNonRecursive();
//Should be different for every case, or once generated class become
//"frozen" for javassist: http://www.javassist.org/tutorial/tutorial.html#read
private String generatedClassName;
#Test
void stackOverflowWithoutRecursion() {
generatedClassName = "Soe1";
final int numberOfLocalVarsToGenerate = 6000;
assertThrows(StackOverflowError.class, () -> soeNonRecursive
.createClassWithLotsOfLocalVars(generatedClassName, numberOfLocalVarsToGenerate));
}
#SneakyThrows
#Test
void methodGeneratedCorrectly() {
generatedClassName = "Soe2";
final int numberOfLocalVarsToGenerate = 6;
Class<?> generated = soeNonRecursive.createClassWithLotsOfLocalVars(generatedClassName, numberOfLocalVarsToGenerate);
//Arithmetic progression
long expected = Math.round((numberOfLocalVarsToGenerate - 1.0)/2 * numberOfLocalVarsToGenerate);
long actual = (long) generated.getDeclaredMethod(generatedMethodName).invoke(generated);
assertEquals(expected, actual);
}
}
EDIT:
The answer is incorrect, because it is one type of recursion. It is called indirect recursion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursion_(computer_science)#Indirect_recursion.
I think the simplest way to do this without recursion is the following:
import java.util.LinkedList;
import java.util.List;
interface Handler {
void handle(Chain chain);
}
interface Chain {
void process();
}
class FirstHandler implements Handler {
#Override
public void handle(Chain chain) {
System.out.println("first handler");
chain.process();
}
}
class SecondHandler implements Handler {
#Override
public void handle(Chain chain) {
System.out.println("second handler");
chain.process();
}
}
class Runner implements Chain {
private List<Handler> handlers;
private int size = 5000; // change this parameter to avoid stackoverflowerror
private int n = 0;
public static void main(String[] args) {
Runner runner = new Runner();
runner.setHandlers();
runner.process();
}
private void setHandlers() {
handlers = new LinkedList<>();
int i = 0;
while (i < size) {
// there can be different implementations of handler interface
handlers.add(new FirstHandler());
handlers.add(new SecondHandler());
i += 2;
}
}
public void process() {
if (n < size) {
Handler handler = handlers.get(n++);
handler.handle(this);
}
}
}
At first glance this example looks a little crazy, but it's not as unrealistic as it seems.
The main idea of this approach is the chain of responsibility pattern. You can reproduce this exception in real life by implementing chain of responsibility pattern. For instance, you have some objects and every object after doing some logic call the next object in chain and pass the results of his job to the next one.
You can see this in java filter (javax.servlet.Filter).
I don't know detailed mechanism of working this class, but it calls the next filter in chain using doFilter method and after all filters/servlets processing request, it continue working in the same method below doFilter.
In other words it intercepts request/response before servlets and before sending response to a client.It is dangerous piece of code because all called methods are in the same stack at the same thread. Thus, it may initiate stackoverflow exception if the chain is too big or you call doFilter method on deep level that also provide the same situation. Perhaps, during debugging you might see chain of calls
in one thread and it potentially can be the cause of stackoverflowerror.
Also you can take chain of responsibility pattern example from links below and add collection of elements instead of several and you also will get stackoverflowerror.
Links with the pattern:
https://www.journaldev.com/1617/chain-of-responsibility-design-pattern-in-java
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain-of-responsibility_pattern
I hope it was helpful for you.
Since the question is very interesting, I have tried to simplify the answer of hide :
public class Stackoverflow {
static class Handler {
void handle(Chain chain){
chain.process();
System.out.println("yeah");
}
}
static class Chain {
private List<Handler> handlers = new ArrayList<>();
private int n = 0;
private void setHandlers(int count) {
int i = 0;
while (i++ < count) {
handlers.add(new Handler());
}
}
public void process() {
if (n < handlers.size()) {
Handler handler = handlers.get(n++);
handler.handle(this);
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Chain chain = new Chain();
chain.setHandlers(10000);
chain.process();
}
}
It's important to note that if stackoverflow occurs, the string "yeah" will never be output.
Of course we can do it :) . No recursion at all!
public static void main(String[] args) {
throw new StackOverflowError();
}
Looking at this answer below, not sure if this works for Java, but sounds like you can declare an array of pointers? Might be able to achieve Eric J's idea without requiring a generator.
Is it on the Stack or Heap?
int* x[LARGENUMBER]; // The addresses are held on the stack
int i; // On the stack
for(i = 0; i < LARGENUMBER; ++i)
x[i] = malloc(sizeof(int)*10); // Allocates memory on the heap
I'm having problems with two void methods. In encouragedVenturesScoring I've followed this answer mocking an arraylist that will be looped in a for loop and haven't mocked the list, but passed a real list and added mocked objects.
Mockito gives me an InvalidUseOfMatchersException on this line
verify(effectList.get(Mockito.anyInt())).execute(playerHandler);
There are lots of questions on SO on this exception , and I think it's because of anyInt(). Anyway I changed it to
verify(effectList.get(0)).execute(playerHandler);
And now it's saying Wanted but not invoked effect.execute(playerHandler)
Actually there were zero interactions with this mock
Is it because I put doNothing ?
doNothing().when(effect).execute(playerHandler);
In my second method militaryStrengthScoring() method is there a way to skip the first chunk of code and just test the if..else condition? What would be the best approach to test this method?
Thank you for your time.
This is the class to be tested
public class EndGameScoringBaseController implements EndGameScoringHandler {
private static final int[] TERRITORIES_REWARD = {0,0,1,4,10,20};
private static final int[] CHARACTERS_REWARD = {1,3,6,10,15,21};
private static final int RESOURCES_RATE = 5;
private static final int FIRST_MILITARY_REWARD = 5;
private static final int SECOND_MILITARY_REWARD = 2;
private PlayerHandler player;
public EndGameScoringBaseController(PlayerHandler player) {
super();
this.player = player;
}
#Override
public void encouragedVenturesScoring() {
for (DevelopmentCard card : player.getPlayer().getPersonalBoard().getVentures()) {
for (Effect e : card.getPermanentEffects())
e.execute(player);
}
}
#Override
public void militaryStrengthScoring(GameController game) {
Set<Integer> points = new HashSet<>();
int myPoints = this.player.getPointsHandler().getMilitaryPoints();
for (PlayerHandler p: game.getPlayers()) {
points.add(p.getPointsHandler().getMilitaryPoints());
}
int[] rank = new int[points.size()];
int j = 0;
for (Integer i : points) {
rank[j] = i;
j++;
}
Arrays.sort(rank);
if (rank[rank.length-1] == myPoints) {
player.getPointsHandler().winMilitaryPoints(FIRST_MILITARY_REWARD);
}
else if (rank[rank.length-2] == myPoints) {
player.getPointsHandler().winVictoryPoints(SECOND_MILITARY_REWARD);
}
}
Tested method for encouragedVenturesScoring
#Test
public void encouragedVenturesScoringTest() {
//given
List<DevelopmentCard> ventureList;
ventureList = Arrays.asList(developmentCard, developmentCard);
when(playerHandler.getPlayer().getPersonalBoard().getVentures()).thenReturn(ventureList);
List<Effect> effectList;
effectList = Arrays.asList(effect, effect);
when(developmentCard.getPermanentEffects()).thenReturn(effectList);
doNothing().when(effect).execute(playerHandler);
//when
endgameController.encouragedVenturesScoring();
//then
verify(effectList.get(Mockito.anyInt())).execute(playerHandler);
}
Incomplete tested method for militaryStrengthScoring
#Test
public void militaryStrengthScoringTest() {
//given
when(playerHandler.getPointsHandler().getMilitaryPoints()).thenReturn(4);
doNothing().when(playerHandler.getPointsHandler()).winMilitaryPoints(FIRST_MILITARY_REWARD);
//when
endgameController.militaryStrengthScoring(gameController);
//then
/../
}
You're right that this is the problem:
verify(effectList.get(Mockito.anyInt())).execute(playerHandler);
Mockito only allows for calls like any() and anyInt() to stand in for parameters to the mock themselves, due to the internal implementation of matchers.
/* OK */ when(yourMock.yourMethod(anyInt())).thenReturn(42);
/* BAD */ when(yourList.get(anyInt()).yourMethod(0)).thenReturn(42);
/* OK */ verify(yourMock).yourMethod(anyInt());
/* BAD */ verify(yourList.get(anyInt())).yourMethod(0);
The failure with get(0) is likely an actual failure, and may be related to the fact that your encouragedVenturesScoringTest is actually not calling encouragedVenturesScoring, it's calling influencedCharactersScoring. If this continues to give you trouble after fixing that error, in ways related to Mockito, please edit your question.
You can only verify mock objects created by Mockito.
But effectList is a "real" list. Therefore Mockito knows nothing about that object. Thus any attempt to verify that list must fail.
If you want to verify that object - then you have to mock it!
Of course, this means that you have specify all calls that will go to the mocked list.
I have a code which calculates something, caches is, and if already calculated, then reads from the cache; similar to this:
public class LengthWithCache {
private java.util.Map<String, Integer> lengthPlusOneCache = new java.util.HashMap<String, Integer>();
public int getLenghtPlusOne(String string) {
Integer cachedStringLenghtPlusOne = lengthPlusOneCache.get(string);
if (cachedStringLenghtPlusOne != null) {
return cachedStringLenghtPlusOne;
}
int stringLenghtPlusOne = determineLengthPlusOne(string);
lengthPlusOneCache.put(string, new Integer(stringLenghtPlusOne));
return stringLenghtPlusOne;
}
protected int determineLengthPlusOne(String string) {
return string.length() + 1;
}
}
I want to test if function determineLengthPlusOne has been called adequate number of times, like this:
public class LengthWithCacheTest {
#Test
public void testGetLenghtPlusOne() {
LengthWithCache lengthWithCache = new LengthWithCache();
assertEquals(6, lengthWithCache.getLenghtPlusOne("apple"));
// here check that determineLengthPlusOne has been called once
assertEquals(6, lengthWithCache.getLenghtPlusOne("apple"));
// here check that determineLengthPlusOne has not been called
}
}
Mocking class LengthWithCache does not seem a good option, as I want to test their functions. (According to my understanding we mock the classes used by the tested class, and not the tested class itself.) Which is the most elegant solution for this?
My first idea was to create another class LengthPlusOneDeterminer containing function determineLengthPlusOne, add pass it to function getLenghtPlusOne as parameter, and mock LengthPlusOneDeterminer in case of unit testing, but that seems a bit strange, as it has unnecessary impact on the working code (the real clients of class LengthWithCache).
Basically I am using Mockito, but whatever mock framework (or other solution) is welcome! Thank you!
Most elegant way would be to create a separate class that does the caching and decorate with it the current class (after removal of the caching), this way you can safely unit test the caching itself without interfering with functionalities of the base class.
public class Length {
public int getLenghtPlusOne(String string) {
int stringLenghtPlusOne = determineLengthPlusOne(string);
lengthPlusOneCache.put(string, new Integer(stringLenghtPlusOne));
return stringLenghtPlusOne;
}
protected int determineLengthPlusOne(String string) {
return string.length() + 1;
}
}
public class CachedLength extends Length {
private java.util.Map<String, Integer> lengthPlusOneCache = new java.util.HashMap<String, Integer>();
public CachedLength(Length length) {
this.length = length;
}
public int getLenghtPlusOne(String string) {
Integer cachedStringLenghtPlusOne = lengthPlusOneCache.get(string);
if (cachedStringLenghtPlusOne != null) {
return cachedStringLenghtPlusOne;
}
return length.getLenghtPlusOne(string);
}
}
Then you can easily test the caching my injecting a mocked Length:
Length length = Mockito.mock(Length.class);
CachedLength cached = new CachedLength(length);
....
Mockito.verify(length, Mockito.times(5)).getLenghtPlusOne(Mockito.anyInt());
You don't need mock to address your need.
To test the internal behavior (is getLenghtPlusOne() was called or not called), you would need to have a method to access to the cache in LengthWithCache.
But at level of your design, we imagine that you don't want to open the cache in a public method. Which is normal.
Multiple solutions exist to do a test on the cache behavior despite this constraint.
I will present my way of doing. Maybe, there is better.
But I think that in most of cases, you will be forced to use some tricks or to complexify your design to do your unit test.
It relies on augmenting your class to test by extending it in order to add the needed information and behavior for your test.
And it's this subclass you will use in your unit test.
The most important point in this class extension is not to break or modify the behavior of the object to test.
It must add new information and add new behavior and not modify information and behavior of the original class otherwise the test loses its value since it doesn't test any longer the behavior in the original class.
The key points :
- having a private field lengthPlusOneWasCalledForCurrentCallwhich registers for the current call if the method lengthPlusOneWasCalledwas called
- having a public method to know the value of lengthPlusOneWasCalledForCurrentCall for the string used as parameter. It enable the assertion.
- having a public method to clean the state of lengthPlusOneWasCalledForCurrentCall. It enable to keep a clean state after the assertion.
package cache;
import java.util.HashSet;
import java.util.Set;
import org.junit.Assert;
import org.junit.Test;
public class LengthWithCacheTest {
private class LengthWithCacheAugmentedForTest extends LengthWithCache {
private Set<String> lengthPlusOneWasCalledForCurrentCall = new HashSet<>();
#Override
protected int determineLengthPlusOne(String string) {
// start : info for testing
this.lengthPlusOneWasCalledForCurrentCall.add(string);
// end : info for testing
return super.determineLengthPlusOne(string);
}
// method for assertion
public boolean isLengthPlusOneCalled(String string) {
return lengthPlusOneWasCalledForCurrentCall.contains(string);
}
// method added for clean the state of current calls
public void cleanCurrentCalls() {
lengthPlusOneWasCalledForCurrentCall.clear();
}
}
#Test
public void testGetLenghtPlusOne() {
LengthWithCacheAugmentedForTest lengthWithCache = new LengthWithCacheAugmentedForTest();
final String string = "apple";
// here check that determineLengthPlusOne has been called once
Assert.assertEquals(6, lengthWithCache.getLenghtPlusOne(string));
Assert.assertTrue(lengthWithCache.isLengthPlusOneCalled(string));
// clean call registered
lengthWithCache.cleanCurrentCalls();
// here check that determineLengthPlusOne has not been called
Assert.assertEquals(6, lengthWithCache.getLenghtPlusOne(string));
Assert.assertFalse(lengthWithCache.isLengthPlusOneCalled(string));
}
}
Edit 28-07-16 to show why more code is needed to handle more scenarios
Suppose, i will improve the test by asserting that there is no side effects : adding an element in the cache for a key has not effect on how the cache is handled for other keys.
This test fails because it doesn't rely on the string key. So, it always increments.
#Test
public void verifyInvocationCountsWithDifferentElementsAdded() {
final AtomicInteger plusOneInvkCounter = new AtomicInteger();
LengthWithCache lengthWithCache = new LengthWithCache() {
#Override
protected int determineLengthPlusOne(String string) {
plusOneInvkCounter.incrementAndGet();
return super.determineLengthPlusOne(string);
}
};
Assert.assertEquals(0, plusOneInvkCounter.get());
lengthWithCache.getLenghtPlusOne("apple");
Assert.assertEquals(1, plusOneInvkCounter.get());
lengthWithCache.getLenghtPlusOne("pie");
Assert.assertEquals(1, plusOneInvkCounter.get());
lengthWithCache.getLenghtPlusOne("eggs");
Assert.assertEquals(1, plusOneInvkCounter.get());
}
My version is longer because it provides more features and so, it can handle a broader range of unit testing scenarios .
Edit 28-07-16 to point the Integer caching
No direct relation with the original question but little wink :)
Your getLenghtPlusOne(String string) should use Integer.valueOf(int) instead of new Integer(int)
Integer.valueOf(int) uses in internal a cache
It feels like using mocks is overthinking it. The LengthWithCache can be overridden as an anonymous-inner class within the context of a test to get the invocation count. This requires no restructuring of the existing class being tested.
public class LengthWithCacheTest {
#Test
public void verifyLengthEval() {
LengthWithCache lengthWithCache = new LengthWithCache();
assertEquals(6, lengthWithCache.getLenghtPlusOne("apple"));
}
#Test
public void verifyInvocationCounts() {
final AtomicInteger plusOneInvkCounter = new AtomicInteger();
LengthWithCache lengthWithCache = new LengthWithCache() {
#Override
protected int determineLengthPlusOne(String string) {
plusOneInvkCounter.incrementAndGet();
return super.determineLengthPlusOne(string);
}
};
lengthWithCache.getLenghtPlusOne("apple");
assertEquals(1, plusOneInvkCounter.get());
lengthWithCache.getLenghtPlusOne("apple");
lengthWithCache.getLenghtPlusOne("apple");
lengthWithCache.getLenghtPlusOne("apple");
lengthWithCache.getLenghtPlusOne("apple");
lengthWithCache.getLenghtPlusOne("apple");
lengthWithCache.getLenghtPlusOne("apple");
assertEquals(1, plusOneInvkCounter.get());
}
}
It's worth noting the separation between the two tests. One verifies
that the length eval is right, the other verifies the invocation
count.
If a wider data set for validation is required, then you can turn the Test above into a Parameterized test and provide multiple data sets and expectations. In the sample below I've added a data set of 50 strings (lengths 1-50), an empty string, and a null value.
Null fails
#RunWith(Parameterized.class)
public class LengthWithCacheTest {
#Parameters(name="{0}")
public static Collection<Object[]> buildTests() {
Collection<Object[]> paramRefs = new ArrayList<Object[]>();
paramRefs.add(new Object[]{null, 0});
paramRefs.add(new Object[]{"", 1});
for (int counter = 1 ; counter < 50; counter++) {
String data = "";
for (int index = 0 ; index < counter ; index++){
data += "a";
}
paramRefs.add(new Object[]{data, counter+1});
}
return paramRefs;
}
private String stringToTest;
private int expectedLength;
public LengthWithCacheTest(String string, int length) {
this.stringToTest = string;
this.expectedLength = length;
}
#Test
public void verifyLengthEval() {
LengthWithCache lengthWithCache = new LengthWithCache();
assertEquals(expectedLength, lengthWithCache.getLenghtPlusOne(stringToTest));
}
#Test
public void verifyInvocationCounts() {
final AtomicInteger plusOneInvkCounter = new AtomicInteger();
LengthWithCache lengthWithCache = new LengthWithCache() {
#Override
protected int determineLengthPlusOne(String string) {
plusOneInvkCounter.incrementAndGet();
return super.determineLengthPlusOne(string);
}
};
assertEquals(0, plusOneInvkCounter.get());
lengthWithCache.getLenghtPlusOne(stringToTest);
assertEquals(1, plusOneInvkCounter.get());
lengthWithCache.getLenghtPlusOne(stringToTest);
assertEquals(1, plusOneInvkCounter.get());
lengthWithCache.getLenghtPlusOne(stringToTest);
assertEquals(1, plusOneInvkCounter.get());
}
}
Parameterized testing is one of the best ways to vary your data set through a test, but it adds complexity to the test and can be difficult to maintain. It's useful to know about, but not always the right tool for the job.
As this was an interesting question, I decided to write the tests. In two different ways, one with mocking and the other without. (Personally, I prefer the version without mocking.) In either case, the original class is tested, with no modifications:
package example;
import mockit.*;
import org.junit.*;
import static org.junit.Assert.*;
public class LengthWithCacheMockedTest {
#Tested(availableDuringSetup = true) #Mocked LengthWithCache lengthWithCache;
#Before
public void recordComputedLengthPlusOneWhileFixingTheNumberOfAllowedInvocations() {
new Expectations() {{
lengthWithCache.determineLengthPlusOne(anyString); result = 6; times = 1;
}};
}
#Test
public void getLenghtPlusOneNotFromCacheWhenCalledTheFirstTime() {
int length = lengthWithCache.getLenghtPlusOne("apple");
assertEquals(6, length);
}
#Test
public void getLenghtPlusOneFromCacheWhenCalledAfterFirstTime() {
int length1 = lengthWithCache.getLenghtPlusOne("apple");
int length2 = lengthWithCache.getLenghtPlusOne("apple");
assertEquals(6, length1);
assertEquals(length1, length2);
}
}
package example;
import mockit.*;
import org.junit.*;
import static org.junit.Assert.*;
public class LengthWithCacheNotMockedTest {
#Tested LengthWithCache lengthWithCache;
#Test
public void getLenghtPlusOneNotFromCacheWhenCalledTheFirstTime() {
long t0 = System.currentTimeMillis(); // millisecond precision is enough here
int length = lengthWithCache.getLenghtPlusOne("apple");
long dt = System.currentTimeMillis() - t0;
assertEquals(6, length);
assertTrue(dt >= 100); // assume at least 100 millis to compute the expensive value
}
#Test
public void getLenghtPlusOneFromCacheWhenCalledAfterFirstTime() {
// First time: takes some time to compute.
int length1 = lengthWithCache.getLenghtPlusOne("apple");
// Second time: gets from cache, takes no time.
long t0 = System.nanoTime(); // max precision here
int length2 = lengthWithCache.getLenghtPlusOne("apple");
long dt = System.nanoTime() - t0;
assertEquals(6, length1);
assertEquals(length1, length2);
assertTrue(dt < 1000000); // 1000000 nanos = 1 millis
}
}
Just one detail: for the tests above to work, I added the following line inside the LengthWithCache#determineLengthPlusOne(String) method, in order to simulate the real-world scenario where the computation takes some time:
try { Thread.sleep(100); } catch (InterruptedException ignore) {}
Based on the proposal by krzyk here is my fully working solution:
The calculator itself:
public class LengthPlusOneCalculator {
public int calculateLengthPlusOne(String string) {
return string.length() + 1;
}
}
The separate caching mechanism:
public class LengthPlusOneCache {
private LengthPlusOneCalculator lengthPlusOneCalculator;
private java.util.Map<String, Integer> lengthPlusOneCache = new java.util.HashMap<String, Integer>();
public LengthPlusOneCache(LengthPlusOneCalculator lengthPlusOneCalculator) {
this.lengthPlusOneCalculator = lengthPlusOneCalculator;
}
public int calculateLenghtPlusOne(String string) {
Integer cachedStringLenghtPlusOne = lengthPlusOneCache.get(string);
if (cachedStringLenghtPlusOne != null) {
return cachedStringLenghtPlusOne;
}
int stringLenghtPlusOne = lengthPlusOneCalculator.calculateLengthPlusOne(string);
lengthPlusOneCache.put(string, new Integer(stringLenghtPlusOne));
return stringLenghtPlusOne;
}
}
The unit test for checking the LengthPlusOneCalculator:
import static org.junit.Assert.assertEquals;
import org.junit.Test;
public class LengthPlusOneCalculatorTest {
#Test
public void testCalculateLengthPlusOne() {
LengthPlusOneCalculator lengthPlusOneCalculator = new LengthPlusOneCalculator();
assertEquals(6, lengthPlusOneCalculator.calculateLengthPlusOne("apple"));
}
}
And finally, the unit test for LengthPlusOneCache, checking the number of invocations:
import static org.junit.Assert.assertEquals;
import static org.mockito.Mockito.*;
import org.junit.Test;
public class LengthPlusOneCacheTest {
#Test
public void testNumberOfInvocations() {
LengthPlusOneCalculator lengthPlusOneCalculatorMock = mock(LengthPlusOneCalculator.class);
when(lengthPlusOneCalculatorMock.calculateLengthPlusOne("apple")).thenReturn(6);
LengthPlusOneCache lengthPlusOneCache = new LengthPlusOneCache(lengthPlusOneCalculatorMock);
verify(lengthPlusOneCalculatorMock, times(0)).calculateLengthPlusOne("apple"); // verify that not called yet
assertEquals(6, lengthPlusOneCache.calculateLenghtPlusOne("apple"));
verify(lengthPlusOneCalculatorMock, times(1)).calculateLengthPlusOne("apple"); // verify that already called once
assertEquals(6, lengthPlusOneCache.calculateLenghtPlusOne("apple"));
verify(lengthPlusOneCalculatorMock, times(1)).calculateLengthPlusOne("apple"); // verify that not called again
}
}
We can safely do the mocking mechanism, as we are already convinced that the mocked class works properly, using its own unit tests.
Normally this is built into a build system; this example can be complied and run from command line as follows (files junit-4.10.jar and mockito-all-1.9.5.jar have to be copied to the working directory):
javac -cp .;junit-4.10.jar;mockito-all-1.9.5.jar *.java
java -cp .;junit-4.10.jar org.junit.runner.JUnitCore LengthPlusOneCalculatorTest
java -cp .;junit-4.10.jar;mockito-all-1.9.5.jar org.junit.runner.JUnitCore LengthPlusOneCacheTest
However, I'm still not fully satisfied with this approach. My issues are the following:
Function calculateLengthPlusOne is mocked. I would prefer such a solution where a mocking or whatever framework just calculates the number of invocations, but the original code runs. (Somehow mentioned by davidhxxx, however I do not find also that a perfect one.)
The code became a bit over-complicated. This is not the way one would create normally. Therefore this approach is not adequate if the original code is not of our fully control. This could be a constraint in reality.
Normally I would make function calculateLengthPlusOne static. This approach does not work in such a case. (But maybe my Mockito knowledge is weak.)
If some could address any of these issues, I would really appreciate it!
Assume I want to test code like this:
class ClassToTest
// UsedClass1 contains a method UsedClass2 thisMethod() {}
UsedClass1 foo;
void aMethod()
{
int max = new Random().nextInt(100);
for(i = 0; i < max; i++)
{
foo.thisMethod().thatMethod();
}
}
}
If I have a test like this:
ClassToTest test;
UsedClass1 uc1;
UsedClass2 uc2;
#Test
public void thingToTest() {
test = new ClassToTest();
uc1 = mock(UsedClass1.class);
uc2 = mock(UsedClass2.class);
when(uc1.thisMethod()).thenReturn(uc2);
when(uc2.thatMethod()).thenReturn(true);
test.aMethod();
// I would like to do this
verifyEquals(callsTo(uc1.thisMethod()), callsTo(uc2.thatMethod()));
}
How can I get the number of calls to uc1.thisMethod() and uc2.thatMethod() so I can check they were both called the same number of times?
You can do something like this:
YourService serviceMock = Mockito.mock(YourService.class);
// code using YourService
// details of all invocations including methods and arguments
Collection<Invocation> invocations = Mockito.mockingDetails(serviceMock).getInvocations();
// just a number of calls of any mock's methods
int numberOfCalls = invocations.size();
If you want only the invocations of certain method/param combination you, you can do so with
int specificMethodCall = Mockito.mockingDetails(serviceMock.myMethod(myParam)).getInvocations()
You could stub your methods, and increment a counter, like this:
final AtomicInteger countCall1 = new AtomicInteger();
Mockito.doAnswer(new Answer<UsedClass2>() {
#Override
public UsedClass2 answer(InvocationOnMock invocation) throws Throwable {
countCall1.incrementAndGet();
return uc2;
}
}).when(uc1).thisMethod();
If you know the number of times a method is suppoed to be called you can use the times() method of Mockito
//for example if had to be called 3 times
verify(uc1, times(3)).thisMethod();
verify(uc2, times(3)).thatMethod();
However, I now see that you call the method a random number of times, so this probably isn't the best answer unless you stub out the random number generator to always return an expected value.
You can use a custom VerificationMode to count the invocations, here you go:
public class InvocationCounter {
public static <T> T countInvocations(T mock, AtomicInteger count) {
return Mockito.verify(mock, new Counter(count));
}
private InvocationCounter(){}
private static class Counter implements VerificationInOrderMode, VerificationMode {
private final AtomicInteger count;
private Counter(AtomicInteger count) {
this.count = count;
}
public void verify(VerificationData data) {
count.set(data.getAllInvocations().size());
}
public void verifyInOrder(VerificationDataInOrder data) {
count.set(data.getAllInvocations().size());
}
#Override
public VerificationMode description(String description) {
return VerificationModeFactory.description(this, description);
}
}
}
And then use it like this (works also with void return types):
#Mock
private Function<String, Integer> callable;
AtomicInteger count= new AtomicInteger(); //here is the actual invocation count stored
countInvocations(callable,count).apply( anyString());
assertThat(count.get(),is(2));