I really hope I am just missing something simple, but I am reading the following: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/IandI/override.html .
I have two classes and one interface. Literally the "use case" shown in this Oracle documentation page. However, when I run a JUnit test - only the method in the superclass gets called and that method has the simple default that I don't want called:
The interface contains this method signature:
public interface RecordServiceInterface {
List<String> searchRecords(String id) throws ServiceException;
}
The superclass which implements the interface contains this method with a default - Eclipse IDE inserts this when it finds a missing method not implemented by the implementing class.
public class RecordService implements RecordServiceInterface {
public List<String> searchRecords(String id) throws ServiceException {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
return null;
}
}
At runtime, only the above is called as I step through the debugger... every time.
The subclass then extends the superclass and has the real implementation that one wants to override:
public class MyRecordService extends RecordService {
#Override
public List<String> searchRecords(String id) throws ServiceException {
List<String> myList = new ArrayList<String>();
// ...
return myList;
}
}
I must be completely missing the point of #Override. During execution, it repeatedly fails to ever get into the method with the #Override annotation.
All that the #Override annotation does is make the compiler generate an error if there is no corresponding method anywhere in the class inheritance that could be overridden. So it is meant to make sure that your overridden method actually overrides something.
If your method from MyRecordService is not called, but the one from the RecordService class, then I would guess that the wrong object is instanciated. So what you have in front of you is an object of type RecordService, not of type MyRecordService.
Since you have not provided that part of the code, this is just a guess, based on the fact that your inheritance looks fine.
#Override is a compile-time annotation and is used to verify that the annotated method actually overrides something from a superclass / interface. It does not influence runtime behavior.
Post the code for your test so we can get a clearer idea of what you're trying to do.
As you can see in #Override's javadoc, the retention policy of #Override is SOURCE. In other words: it used in compile time but does not make it to the generated binary code (class file).
In particular, the SOURCE retention policy is defined as:
Annotations are to be discarded by the compiler.
#Override is effectively just a way to catch typos when attempting to override a super class' or instance's method, as well as the occasional attempt to override final methods (by design not overridable).
The act of overriding enables a fall-thru approach to overriding method when given a choice of what to call.
For example:
RecordServiceInterface service = new RecordService();
RecordService service2 = new RecordService();
With both service and service2, the implementation from RecordService will be called. Now consider:
RecordServiceInterface service3 = new MyRecordService();
RecordService service4 = new MyRecordService();
MyRecordService service5 = new MyRecordService();
With service3, service4, and service5, the implementation from MyRecordService will be called.
Overriding does not replace methods for parent types unless it is part of the chain (e.g., all three of the instances created in the last block, 3 through 5). If the instance of your Object does is not the type (MyRecordService in this case), then the method is not overridden for that instance with its behavior. service and service2 will still call RecordService's implementation.
It may be more clear with another example:
public interface Runnable {
void run();
}
public class RunnableA implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() { System.out.println("A"); }
}
public class RunnableB extends RunnableA {
#Override
public void run() { System.out.println("B"); }
}
public class RunnableC implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() { System.out.println("C"); }
}
You can only have an instance of any one of them, so it will only output one line per call of instance.run(). It depends on the implementation of the instance, and not what exists on the classpath.
Related
I was wondering if it's frowned upon that when designing an framework to be used by others, a class has some function as default behavior and expects its customers to override it if necessary. An example would be something like the following:
public class RecordProcessor<T extends Record> {
// ...
public void process() {
// process record logic
}
}
Consumers of this library creates their concrete classes to process their own records of type T.
Now I want to add a function called preProcess() to offer the ability for the consumers to preprocess their records. It would then look something like this:
public class RecordProcessor<T extends Record> {
// ...
public void process() {
preprocess();
// process record logic
}
public void preProcess() {
// By default no preprocessing
}
}
I know I can make preProcess an abstract function, but I dont want to due to a couple reasons:
Not all customers need to preprocess their records
We have a pipeline structure that autodeploys pushed code, so making RecordProcessor an abstract class would immediately break our customers' applications.
Is making preProcess do nothing in the parent class and let child classes override it considered bad practice? If not, what should the best way be to let customers know that they now have the power to preprocess the records? Through java docs?
One approach is to mark the public method as final (but this might also break existing apps) and allow protected hook methods to be overridden. For example:
public class RecordProcessor<T extends Record> {
// ...
public final void process() {
doPreProcess();
doProcess();
doPostProcess();
}
protected void doPreProcess() {
// By default no preprocessing
return;
}
protected void doProcess() {
// some default implementation
}
protected void doPostProcess() {
// By default no postprocessing
return;
}
}
Having some documentation should make it natural for other developers to recognize the optional extension methods.
I don't see anything wrong with having a hook method which does nothing. However, it should contain a return statement so static analysis tools won't complain.
UPDATE: in order to avoid breaking existing apps, if possible mark the existing method as deprecated and introduce a new method. For example:
public class RecordProcessor<T extends Record> {
// ...
public final void execute() {
doPreProcess();
doProcess();
doPostProcess();
}
#Deprecated - use execute() method instead.
public void process() {
doProcess();
}
protected void doPreProcess() {
// By default no preprocessing
return;
}
protected void doProcess() {
// some default implementation
}
protected void doPostProcess() {
// By default no postprocessing
return;
}
}
Prefer composition over inheritance. If you want your clients to add custom pre processing then do it by delegating to a separate objects.
public interface RecordPreProcessor<T extends Record>{
public void process(T record);
}
public class RecordProcessor<T extends Record> {
private RecordPreProcessor<T> recordPreProcessor = null;
public void setRecordPreProcessor(RecordPreProcessor<T> recordPreProcessor) {
this.recordPreProcessor = recordPreProcessor;
}
public void process() {
if (recordPreProcessor != null) recordPreProcessor.process(record);
// process record logic
}
}
No, overriding is not discouraged in Java.
The language allows overriding.
The language makes all methods overridable by default.
The Java class library includes examples of the same pattern.
Your approach is one reasonable way to allow subclasses to extend the behavior of their parent class. There are alternatives, such as passing a behavior as an object. However, there is no one true way.
One way you could improve your code is to mark preProcess() as protected. It's an implementation detail of the class. You don't want just anyone holding a RecordProcessor to decide they can call preProcess() by itself, right?
public class RecordProcessor<T extends Record> {
...
protected void preProcess() {
^^^^^^^^^
// By default no preprocessing
}
}
Another way to improve this is to consider whether you intend anyone to create an instance of the superclass RecordProcessor. If you don't, make the class abstract, to prevent that. The class name can express that, if you like, or your coding guidelines call for it.
public abstract class AbstractRecordProcessor<T extends Record> {
^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
...
protected void preProcess() {
// By default no preprocessing
}
}
One common way to document such methods is with the phrase "The default implementation does nothing. Subclasses may override this method ...". For example, below is the documentation for java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.done(). You can find more examples by searching for the first sentence of that phrase online.
public class FutureTask<V> implements RunnableFuture<V> {
...
/**
* Protected method invoked when this task transitions to state
* {#code isDone} (whether normally or via cancellation). The
* default implementation does nothing. Subclasses may override
* this method to invoke completion callbacks or perform
* bookkeeping. Note that you can query status inside the
* implementation of this method to determine whether this task
* has been cancelled.
*/
protected void done() { }
}
What I ended up doing- which I also thought was pretty good, inspired by #tsolakp, was simply creating a child class to RecordProcessor, called something like PreprocessRecordProcessor. This has no way of interfering existing code because nothing existing was touched. The class would something like this:
public class PreprocessRecordProcessor<T extends Record> extends RecordProcessor<T> {
// ...
public void process() {
preProcess();
super.process();
}
protected abstract void preProcess();
}
And if customers of this library would like to add their own logic they can simply extend this class and they'd be forced to provide pre-processing logic (as supposed to having the option to provide, which may result in unexpected results if they forgot to.)
I have a scenario in which I have to mock a method in parent class. The method is invoked from the method under test. I have not been able to mock the function using jMockit.
My super class is method is as follows
public abstract class SuperClass {
protected void emailRecipients(List<String> recipients) {
// Email recipients code. I want to mock this function.
}
}
My subclass is as follows
public class MyClass extends SuperClass {
public void methodUnderTest(HttpServletRequest request) {
// Some code here.
List<String> recipients = new ArrayList<>();
recipients.add("foo#example.com");
recipients.add("bar#example.com");
// This needs to be mocked.
this.emailRecipients(recipients);
}
}
I have tried using partial mocks using jMockit's tutorial, but it has not worked for me. My test method is given below.
UPDATE: I implemented Rogerio's suggestion as follows. The implementation still calls the real method. When I debug the instance of mocked class in Eclipse, this is what I see com.project.web.mvc.$Subclass_superClass#6b38c54e
#Test
public void testMethodUnderTest(#Mocked final SuperClass superClass) throws Exception {
final MyClass myClass = new MyClass();
new Expectations(myClass) {{
// .. Other expectations here
superClass.emailRecipients((List<String>) any);
}};
MockHttpServletRequest req = new MockHttpServletRequest();
myClass.methodUnderTest(req);
}
The issue is that when I try to mock the invocation of emailRecipients, it always tries to call the actual function. I am using Java 7, jMockit v1.35, and Maven 3x for our builds.
UPDATE The code is legacy code. As a result, we can't update it. We can not use PowerMock as it is not among the libraries that have been approved by the company. We can use either jMockit or Mockito or a combination of both.
The fact that you want to mock the method from parent class shows that your approach fails the Separation of Concerns/Single responsibility Pattern (SoC/SRP).
The use of PowerMock as suggested by Rajiv Kapoor is possible but this (as any use of PowerMock) would be a surrender to bad design.
You can solve your design problem by applying the Favor Composition over Inheritance principle (FCoI).
To do so you'd change your (most likely) abstract super class into a "normal" class. You'd create an interface that declares all the public and abstract methods in your super class. Your child class would no longer extend the parent class but implement the interface. It would get an instance of the former parent class as dependency and call it's methods providing common behavior as needed.
This dependency can easily mocked without the need of PowerMock.
UPDATE The code is legacy code. As a result, we can't update it.
In that case you are outruled.
The code you have is not unittestable because it is written in an untestable way. Your only chance is to write module and/or acceptance tests (without the use of a mocking framework) covering each and every execution path through your code.
This test will be expensive to create and slow but they will gurad your when refactoring the code to something testable (== changable) later.
see below example
P.S. use Mockito.any(HttpServletRequest.class)instead of Mockito.any(ArrayList.class) for your code
Super Class
public abstract class SuperClass {
protected void emailRecipients(List<String> recipients) {
System.out.println("Emailed!");
}
}
MyClass
public class MyClass extends SuperClass {
public void methodUnderTest() {
// Some code here.
ArrayList<String> recipients = new ArrayList<>();
recipients.add("foo#example.com");
recipients.add("bar#example.com");
// This needs to be mocked.
this.emailRecipients(recipients);
}
}
Test Class
public class TestCase {
MyClass myClass = Mockito.mock(MyClass.class, Mockito.CALLS_REAL_METHODS);
#Before
public void prepare() {
PowerMockito.doNothing().when(myClass).emailRecipients(Mockito.any(ArrayList.class));
/*PowerMockito.doAnswer(new Answer<Void>() {
#Override
public Void answer(InvocationOnMock invocation) throws Throwable {
System.out.println("Custom code");
return null;
}
}).when(myClass).emailRecipients(Mockito.any(ArrayList.class));*/
}
#Test
public void testMethodUnderTest() throws Exception {
myClass.methodUnderTest();
}
}
If you don't want the code in emailRecipients to execute then use doNothing()
else use doAnswer to execute some other code
I have a method which adds Objects to an static list like this:
#PostConstruct
protected void registerToTransactionList() {
TransactionValidator.registerTransactionList(this);
}
registerTransactionList method just adds "this" to the static list, this method is in BalanceTransactionValidator class which extends TransactionValidator (owner of static list),the problem is all subclasses of BalanceTransactionValidator class are added to static list either,and if I override registerToTransactionList method in them like this:
#Override
#PostConstruct
protected void registerToTransactionList() {
}
It doesn't add subclasses but doesn't add BalanceTransactionValidator either. Can anybody help me on this? Please notice sublasses are overriding this method by default.
make the method private to block the visibility
private void registerToTransactionList() {
}
or make the method final to block it from been override
protected final void registerToTransactionList() {
}
There are two ways of achieving that:
Keep your method as it is; but then you have to actively check for the type of your objects before externally calling that method
Change your whole logic and make that method private
It won't help to make the method final as suggested in one of the comments - your problem is not that subclasses are overwriting that method; in essence, you have a design problem: you wish that subclasses should not invoke that method at all.
So, the only real option that makes sense here is "2.". You see, by having public method on a class that you want to be extended you are implicitly saying: it is perfectly fine to call that method; on any object that is instance of the base class (or child class!).
And in your case, that is not true: you actually do not want that the code behind this method runs for child classes. Then you shouldn't put that method in the list of public/protected methods of your base class!
Finally: you might want to step back and do some reading about good OO design. Class hierarchies do not fall from the sky: you willfully design them for a certain purpose. In other words: there is more to inheritance than just putting some "A extends B" on your class declaration. You have to understand each and every method on your B class; and how your child classes should deal with them!
EDIT: after some more thinking, I guess you are doing things "the wrong way", like:
class BaseClass {
public final void doRegistration() {
BaseClass toRegister = getObjectForRegistration();
if (toRegister != null) { ... register toRegister ...
}
protected BaseClass getObjectForRegistration() {
return null;
}
With that code, you could then put
protected BaseClass getObjectForRegistration() {
if (this instanceof ClassThatShouldBeRegistered) {
return this;
}
return null;
}
into that one class that wants to be registered. Probably there could be even nicer ways of doing so; but after some thinking I don't see how we could avoid the instanceof. But the above code should work; and it only requires specific code only in your base class and in that one class that wants to register something.
I am currently reading "Thinking in Java 4th edition". In the Chapter "Interface" and the sub-chapter "Interfaces and factories", it states the following
An interface is intended to be a gateway to multiple implementations,
and a typical way to produce objects that fit the interface is the
Factory Method design pattern. Instead of calling a constructor
directly, you call a creation method on a factory object which
produces an implementation of the interface—this way, in theory, your
code is completely isolated from the implementation of the interface,
thus making it possible to transparently swap one implementation for
another. Here’s a demonstration showing the structure of the Factory
Method:
(for easy reference, the example codes quoted after my question)
My question is that why don't we just make the "serviceConsumer" method to be like
public static void serviceConsumer(Service s) {
s.method1();
s.method2();
}
In this case, the code depends on the interface "Service" but not the implementation. (It can also "swap" transparently, isn't it?). So, I don't really get to the point of using "factory" here and what it states at start.
-----------------------------below quoted from "Thinking in Java"------------------------------
//: interfaces/Factories.java
import static net.mindview.util.Print.*;
interface Service {
void method1();
void method2();
}
interface ServiceFactory {
Service getService();
}
class Implementation1 implements Service {
Implementation1() {} // Package access
public void method1() {
print("Implementation1 method1");
}
public void method2() {
print("Implementation1 method2");
}
}
class Implementation1Factory implements ServiceFactory {
public Service getService() {
return new Implementation1();
}
}
class Implementation2 implements Service {
Implementation2() {} // Package access
public void method1() {
print("Implementation2 method1");
}
public void method2() {
print("Implementation2 method2");
}
}
class Implementation2Factory implements ServiceFactory {
public Service getService() {
return new Implementation2();
}
}
public class Factories {
public static void serviceConsumer(ServiceFactory fact) {
Service s = fact.getService();
s.method1();
s.method2();
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
serviceConsumer(new Implementation1Factory());
// Implementations are completely interchangeable:
serviceConsumer(new Implementation2Factory());
}
}
/* Output:
Implementation1 method1
Implementation1 method2
Implementation2 method1
Implementation2 method2
*/ //:~
Well nothing prevents you from writing such method, the quoted statement is about creation of the object itself.
In this case, the code depends on the interface "Service" but not the implementation
In both cases the code depends on the interface, the difference is, that in your implementation the Service is created outside the method serviceConsumer
Maybe it will be clearer if you see a real use of Factory Method. The TIJ example is without any context.
My favorite example is Collection.iterator(), where Collection is the ServiceFactory and Iterator is the Service. You can see the calls in the serviceConsumer() but think of the following:
Collection c = new ArrayList(); // ArrayList is a Factory for its iterator
Iterator i = c.iterator(); // getService()
if (i.hasNext()) { ...}
If serviceConsumer were a method to print the collection (instead of something without context), you could see how passing an ServiceFactory (ArrayList) is better than passing the Service (Iterator). There is more encapsulation using that (the details of the Service are hidden in the method).
Here are some UML diagrams to help understand the similarities:
Factory method pattern
TIJ Example
Collection.iterator()
Note: The pink classes are actually anonymous classes that implement the Iterator interface type that corresponds to the Collection. They're not normally classes a client will instantiate any other way (hidden).
I would like to check, from an instance method of a non-final class, whether the constructors and initializers of that class and its chain of subclasses for the specific instance have already completed.
In the following example, I have a class Abstract, which can be used to implement an interface which allows listeners to be added (which, for simplicity, are just Runnable instances here) and which provides a method signalEvent() which calls all attached listeners.
abstract class Abstract {
protected final void signalEvent() {
// Check that constructs have run and call listeners.
}
public final void addListener(Runnable runnable) {
...
}
}
class Concrete extends Abstract {
Concrete() {
// Should not call signalEvent() here.
}
void somethingHappened() {
// May call signalEvent() here.
}
}
Now it is possible to call signalEvent() from within the subclass constructor, but there is no way that a listener has already been added by that time and the event would just be lost. In our code-base, once in a while, someone adds such a call and I would like to be able to catch such calls as early as possible (using an assert statement or similar).
Is it possible to check whether an instance method is being called, directly or indirectly, from the subclass constructor or initializer of the current instance or, alternatively, is it possible to check whether all constructors for an instance have been completed?
In short, there is no elegant Java mechanism that allows you to do that, but you may consider using a factory pattern. Instead of creating instances directly using new keyword, you could create a factory class, that takes care of creating the actual instance and invokes an additional "post-create" method, that lets the instance know it's been completely created.
If you're using some dependency injection like spring, you get that out of the box, but if not, a solution could look something like this:
interface PostConstruct { // the classes need to implement that
void postConstruct();
}
public class InstanceFactory {
public <T extends PostConstruct> T create(Class<T> clazz, Object... params) {
T instance = //create using reflection
instance.postConstruct();
return instance;
}
}
A solution to the problem to see if a method or code is being called from a constructor. The code below will print true and false respectivly but would be slow and not pretty at all.
I still believe it is not the right solution for the problem above. As Codbender said, better to check if a listener has been added or set a status variable which would be faster
Edit - fixed the issue that Codebender mentioned and also made sure to check back in the stack trace incase of being called a couple of methods deep
public class TestClass extends TestAbstract {
public TestClass() throws Exception {
submethod();
}
public void submethod() throws Exception {
System.out.println(isInConstructor());
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
System.out.println(new TestClass().isInConstructor());
}
}
public class TestAbstract {
public boolean isInConstructor() throws Exception {
StackTraceElement[] elements = Thread.currentThread().getStackTrace();
for (StackTraceElement element : elements) {
if (element.getMethodName().equals("<init>") &&
TestAbstract.class.isAssignableFrom(Class.forName(element.getClassName()))) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
}