How can I use JUnit idiomatically to test that some code throws an exception?
While I can certainly do something like this:
#Test
public void testFooThrowsIndexOutOfBoundsException() {
boolean thrown = false;
try {
foo.doStuff();
} catch (IndexOutOfBoundsException e) {
thrown = true;
}
assertTrue(thrown);
}
I recall that there is an annotation or an Assert.xyz or something that is far less kludgy and far more in-the-spirit of JUnit for these sorts of situations.
It depends on the JUnit version and what assert libraries you use.
For JUnit5 and 4.13 see answer
If you use AssertJ or google-truth, see answer
The original answer for JUnit <= 4.12 was:
#Test(expected = IndexOutOfBoundsException.class)
public void testIndexOutOfBoundsException() {
ArrayList emptyList = new ArrayList();
Object o = emptyList.get(0);
}
Though answer has more options for JUnit <= 4.12.
Reference:
JUnit Test-FAQ
Edit: Now that JUnit 5 and JUnit 4.13 have been released, the best option would be to use Assertions.assertThrows() (for JUnit 5) and Assert.assertThrows() (for JUnit 4.13+). See my other answer for details.
If you haven't migrated to JUnit 5, but can use JUnit 4.7, you can use the ExpectedException Rule:
public class FooTest {
#Rule
public final ExpectedException exception = ExpectedException.none();
#Test
public void doStuffThrowsIndexOutOfBoundsException() {
Foo foo = new Foo();
exception.expect(IndexOutOfBoundsException.class);
foo.doStuff();
}
}
This is much better than #Test(expected=IndexOutOfBoundsException.class) because the test will fail if IndexOutOfBoundsException is thrown before foo.doStuff()
See this article for details.
Be careful using expected exception, because it only asserts that the method threw that exception, not a particular line of code in the test.
I tend to use this for testing parameter validation, because such methods are usually very simple, but more complex tests might better be served with:
try {
methodThatShouldThrow();
fail( "My method didn't throw when I expected it to" );
} catch (MyException expectedException) {
}
Apply judgement.
in junit, there are four ways to test exception.
junit5.x
for junit5.x, you can use assertThrows as following
#Test
public void testFooThrowsIndexOutOfBoundsException() {
Throwable exception = assertThrows(IndexOutOfBoundsException.class, () -> foo.doStuff());
assertEquals("expected messages", exception.getMessage());
}
junit4.x
for junit4.x, use the optional 'expected' attribute of Test annonation
#Test(expected = IndexOutOfBoundsException.class)
public void testFooThrowsIndexOutOfBoundsException() {
foo.doStuff();
}
for junit4.x, use the ExpectedException rule
public class XxxTest {
#Rule
public ExpectedException thrown = ExpectedException.none();
#Test
public void testFooThrowsIndexOutOfBoundsException() {
thrown.expect(IndexOutOfBoundsException.class)
//you can test the exception message like
thrown.expectMessage("expected messages");
foo.doStuff();
}
}
you also can use the classic try/catch way widely used under junit 3 framework
#Test
public void testFooThrowsIndexOutOfBoundsException() {
try {
foo.doStuff();
fail("expected exception was not occured.");
} catch(IndexOutOfBoundsException e) {
//if execution reaches here,
//it indicates this exception was occured.
//so we need not handle it.
}
}
so
if you like junit 5, then you should like the 1st one
the 2nd way is used when you only want test the type of exception
the first and last two are used when you want test exception message further
if you use junit 3, then the 4th one is preferred
for more info, you can read this document and junit5 user guide for details.
As answered before, there are many ways of dealing with exceptions in JUnit. But with Java 8 there is another one: using Lambda Expressions. With Lambda Expressions we can achieve a syntax like this:
#Test
public void verifiesTypeAndMessage() {
assertThrown(new DummyService()::someMethod)
.isInstanceOf(RuntimeException.class)
.hasMessage("Runtime exception occurred")
.hasMessageStartingWith("Runtime")
.hasMessageEndingWith("occurred")
.hasMessageContaining("exception")
.hasNoCause();
}
assertThrown accepts a functional interface, whose instances can be created with lambda expressions, method references, or constructor references. assertThrown accepting that interface will expect and be ready to handle an exception.
This is relatively simple yet powerful technique.
Have a look at this blog post describing this technique: http://blog.codeleak.pl/2014/07/junit-testing-exception-with-java-8-and-lambda-expressions.html
The source code can be found here: https://github.com/kolorobot/unit-testing-demo/tree/master/src/test/java/com/github/kolorobot/exceptions/java8
Disclosure: I am the author of the blog and the project.
tl;dr
post-JDK8 : Use AssertJ or custom lambdas to assert exceptional behaviour.
pre-JDK8 : I will recommend the old good try-catch block. (Don't forget to add a fail() assertion before the catch block)
Regardless of Junit 4 or JUnit 5.
the long story
It is possible to write yourself a do it yourself try-catch block or use the JUnit tools (#Test(expected = ...) or the #Rule ExpectedException JUnit rule feature).
But these ways are not so elegant and don't mix well readability wise with other tools. Moreover, JUnit tooling does have some pitfalls.
The try-catch block you have to write the block around the tested behavior and write the assertion in the catch block, that may be fine but many find that this style interrupts the reading flow of a test. Also, you need to write an Assert.fail at the end of the try block. Otherwise, the test may miss one side of the assertions; PMD, findbugs or Sonar will spot such issues.
The #Test(expected = ...) feature is interesting as you can write less code and then writing this test is supposedly less prone to coding errors. But this approach is lacking in some areas.
If the test needs to check additional things on the exception like the cause or the message (good exception messages are really important, having a precise exception type may not be enough).
Also as the expectation is placed around in the method, depending on how the tested code is written then the wrong part of the test code can throw the exception, leading to false-positive test and I'm not sure that PMD, findbugs or Sonar will give hints on such code.
#Test(expected = WantedException.class)
public void call2_should_throw_a_WantedException__not_call1() {
// init tested
tested.call1(); // may throw a WantedException
// call to be actually tested
tested.call2(); // the call that is supposed to raise an exception
}
The ExpectedException rule is also an attempt to fix the previous caveats, but it feels a bit awkward to use as it uses an expectation style, EasyMock users know very well this style. It might be convenient for some, but if you follow Behaviour Driven Development (BDD) or Arrange Act Assert (AAA) principles the ExpectedException rule won't fit in those writing style. Aside from that it may suffer from the same issue as the #Test way, depending on where you place the expectation.
#Rule ExpectedException thrown = ExpectedException.none()
#Test
public void call2_should_throw_a_WantedException__not_call1() {
// expectations
thrown.expect(WantedException.class);
thrown.expectMessage("boom");
// init tested
tested.call1(); // may throw a WantedException
// call to be actually tested
tested.call2(); // the call that is supposed to raise an exception
}
Even the expected exception is placed before the test statement, it breaks your reading flow if the tests follow BDD or AAA.
Also, see this comment issue on JUnit of the author of ExpectedException. JUnit 4.13-beta-2 even deprecates this mechanism:
Pull request #1519: Deprecate ExpectedException
The method Assert.assertThrows provides a nicer way for verifying exceptions. In addition, the use of ExpectedException is error-prone when used with other rules like TestWatcher because the order of rules is important in that case.
So these above options have all their load of caveats, and clearly not immune to coder errors.
There's a project I became aware of after creating this answer that looks promising, it's catch-exception.
As the description of the project says, it let a coder write in a fluent line of code catching the exception and offer this exception for the latter assertion. And you can use any assertion library like Hamcrest or AssertJ.
A rapid example taken from the home page :
// given: an empty list
List myList = new ArrayList();
// when: we try to get the first element of the list
when(myList).get(1);
// then: we expect an IndexOutOfBoundsException
then(caughtException())
.isInstanceOf(IndexOutOfBoundsException.class)
.hasMessage("Index: 1, Size: 0")
.hasNoCause();
As you can see the code is really straightforward, you catch the exception on a specific line, the then API is an alias that will use AssertJ APIs (similar to using assertThat(ex).hasNoCause()...). At some point the project relied on FEST-Assert the ancestor of AssertJ. EDIT: It seems the project is brewing a Java 8 Lambdas support.
Currently, this library has two shortcomings :
At the time of this writing, it is noteworthy to say this library is based on Mockito 1.x as it creates a mock of the tested object behind the scene. As Mockito is still not updated this library cannot work with final classes or final methods. And even if it was based on Mockito 2 in the current version, this would require to declare a global mock maker (inline-mock-maker), something that may not what you want, as this mock maker has different drawbacks that the regular mock maker.
It requires yet another test dependency.
These issues won't apply once the library supports lambdas. However, the functionality will be duplicated by the AssertJ toolset.
Taking all into account if you don't want to use the catch-exception tool, I will recommend the old good way of the try-catch block, at least up to the JDK7. And for JDK 8 users you might prefer to use AssertJ as it offers may more than just asserting exceptions.
With the JDK8, lambdas enter the test scene, and they have proved to be an interesting way to assert exceptional behaviour. AssertJ has been updated to provide a nice fluent API to assert exceptional behaviour.
And a sample test with AssertJ :
#Test
public void test_exception_approach_1() {
...
assertThatExceptionOfType(IOException.class)
.isThrownBy(() -> someBadIOOperation())
.withMessage("boom!");
}
#Test
public void test_exception_approach_2() {
...
assertThatThrownBy(() -> someBadIOOperation())
.isInstanceOf(Exception.class)
.hasMessageContaining("boom");
}
#Test
public void test_exception_approach_3() {
...
// when
Throwable thrown = catchThrowable(() -> someBadIOOperation());
// then
assertThat(thrown).isInstanceOf(Exception.class)
.hasMessageContaining("boom");
}
With a near-complete rewrite of JUnit 5, assertions have been improved a bit, they may prove interesting as an out of the box way to assert properly exception. But really the assertion API is still a bit poor, there's nothing outside assertThrows.
#Test
#DisplayName("throws EmptyStackException when peeked")
void throwsExceptionWhenPeeked() {
Throwable t = assertThrows(EmptyStackException.class, () -> stack.peek());
Assertions.assertEquals("...", t.getMessage());
}
As you noticed assertEquals is still returning void, and as such doesn't allow chaining assertions like AssertJ.
Also if you remember name clash with Matcher or Assert, be prepared to meet the same clash with Assertions.
I'd like to conclude that today (2017-03-03) AssertJ's ease of use, discoverable API, the rapid pace of development and as a de facto test dependency is the best solution with JDK8 regardless of the test framework (JUnit or not), prior JDKs should instead rely on try-catch blocks even if they feel clunky.
This answer has been copied from another question that don't have the same visibility, I am the same author.
Now that JUnit 5 and JUnit 4.13 have been released, the best option would be to use Assertions.assertThrows() (for JUnit 5) and Assert.assertThrows() (for JUnit 4.13). See
the JUnit 5 User Guide.
Here is an example that verifies an exception is thrown, and uses Truth to make assertions on the exception message:
public class FooTest {
#Test
public void doStuffThrowsIndexOutOfBoundsException() {
Foo foo = new Foo();
IndexOutOfBoundsException e = assertThrows(
IndexOutOfBoundsException.class, foo::doStuff);
assertThat(e).hasMessageThat().contains("woops!");
}
}
The advantages over the approaches in the other answers are:
Built into JUnit
You get a useful exception message if the code in the lambda doesn't throw an exception, and a stacktrace if it throws a different exception
Concise
Allows your tests to follow Arrange-Act-Assert
You can precisely indicate what code you are expecting to throw the exception
You don't need to list the expected exception in the throws clause
You can use the assertion framework of your choice to make assertions about the caught exception
Update: JUnit5 has an improvement for exceptions testing: assertThrows.
The following example is from: Junit 5 User Guide
import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertThrows;
#Test
void exceptionTesting() {
IllegalArgumentException exception = assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("a message");
});
assertEquals("a message", exception.getMessage());
}
Original answer using JUnit 4.
There are several ways to test that an exception is thrown. I have also discussed the below options in my post How to write great unit tests with JUnit
Set the expected parameter #Test(expected = FileNotFoundException.class).
#Test(expected = FileNotFoundException.class)
public void testReadFile() {
myClass.readFile("test.txt");
}
Using try catch
public void testReadFile() {
try {
myClass.readFile("test.txt");
fail("Expected a FileNotFoundException to be thrown");
} catch (FileNotFoundException e) {
assertThat(e.getMessage(), is("The file test.txt does not exist!"));
}
}
Testing with ExpectedException Rule.
#Rule
public ExpectedException thrown = ExpectedException.none();
#Test
public void testReadFile() throws FileNotFoundException {
thrown.expect(FileNotFoundException.class);
thrown.expectMessage(startsWith("The file test.txt"));
myClass.readFile("test.txt");
}
You could read more about exceptions testing in JUnit4 wiki for Exception testing and bad.robot - Expecting Exceptions JUnit Rule.
How about this: catch a very general exception, make sure it makes it out of the catch block, then assert that the class of the exception is what you expect it to be. This assert will fail if a) the exception is of the wrong type (eg. if you got a Null Pointer instead) and b) the exception wasn't ever thrown.
public void testFooThrowsIndexOutOfBoundsException() {
Throwable e = null;
try {
foo.doStuff();
} catch (Throwable ex) {
e = ex;
}
assertTrue(e instanceof IndexOutOfBoundsException);
}
Using an AssertJ assertion, which can be used alongside JUnit:
import static org.assertj.core.api.Assertions.*;
#Test
public void testFooThrowsIndexOutOfBoundsException() {
Foo foo = new Foo();
assertThatThrownBy(() -> foo.doStuff())
.isInstanceOf(IndexOutOfBoundsException.class);
}
It's better than #Test(expected=IndexOutOfBoundsException.class) because it guarantees the expected line in the test threw the exception and lets you check more details about the exception, such as message, easier:
assertThatThrownBy(() ->
{
throw new Exception("boom!");
})
.isInstanceOf(Exception.class)
.hasMessageContaining("boom");
Maven/Gradle instructions here.
BDD Style Solution: JUnit 4 + Catch Exception + AssertJ
import static com.googlecode.catchexception.apis.BDDCatchException.*;
#Test
public void testFooThrowsIndexOutOfBoundsException() {
when(() -> foo.doStuff());
then(caughtException()).isInstanceOf(IndexOutOfBoundsException.class);
}
Dependencies
eu.codearte.catch-exception:catch-exception:2.0
To solve the same problem I did set up a small project:
http://code.google.com/p/catch-exception/
Using this little helper you would write
verifyException(foo, IndexOutOfBoundsException.class).doStuff();
This is less verbose than the ExpectedException rule of JUnit 4.7.
In comparison to the solution provided by skaffman, you can specify in which line of code you expect the exception. I hope this helps.
You can also do this:
#Test
public void testFooThrowsIndexOutOfBoundsException() {
try {
foo.doStuff();
assert false;
} catch (IndexOutOfBoundsException e) {
assert true;
}
}
IMHO, the best way to check for exceptions in JUnit is the try/catch/fail/assert pattern:
// this try block should be as small as possible,
// as you want to make sure you only catch exceptions from your code
try {
sut.doThing();
fail(); // fail if this does not throw any exception
} catch(MyException e) { // only catch the exception you expect,
// otherwise you may catch an exception for a dependency unexpectedly
// a strong assertion on the message,
// in case the exception comes from anywhere an unexpected line of code,
// especially important if your checking IllegalArgumentExceptions
assertEquals("the message I get", e.getMessage());
}
The assertTrue might be a bit strong for some people, so assertThat(e.getMessage(), containsString("the message"); might be preferable.
JUnit 5 Solution
import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertThrows;
#Test
void testFooThrowsIndexOutOfBoundsException() {
IndexOutOfBoundsException exception = expectThrows(IndexOutOfBoundsException.class, foo::doStuff);
assertEquals("some message", exception.getMessage());
}
More Infos about JUnit 5 on http://junit.org/junit5/docs/current/user-guide/#writing-tests-assertions
The most flexible and elegant answer for Junit 4 I found in the Mkyong blog. It has the flexibility of the try/catch using the #Rule annotation. I like this approach because you can read specific attributes of a customized exception.
package com.mkyong;
import com.mkyong.examples.CustomerService;
import com.mkyong.examples.exception.NameNotFoundException;
import org.junit.Rule;
import org.junit.Test;
import org.junit.rules.ExpectedException;
import static org.hamcrest.CoreMatchers.containsString;
import static org.hamcrest.CoreMatchers.is;
import static org.hamcrest.Matchers.hasProperty;
public class Exception3Test {
#Rule
public ExpectedException thrown = ExpectedException.none();
#Test
public void testNameNotFoundException() throws NameNotFoundException {
//test specific type of exception
thrown.expect(NameNotFoundException.class);
//test message
thrown.expectMessage(is("Name is empty!"));
//test detail
thrown.expect(hasProperty("errCode")); //make sure getters n setters are defined.
thrown.expect(hasProperty("errCode", is(666)));
CustomerService cust = new CustomerService();
cust.findByName("");
}
}
I tried many of the methods here, but they were either complicated or didn't quite meet my requirements. In fact, one can write a helper method quite simply:
public class ExceptionAssertions {
public static void assertException(BlastContainer blastContainer ) {
boolean caughtException = false;
try {
blastContainer.test();
} catch( Exception e ) {
caughtException = true;
}
if( !caughtException ) {
throw new AssertionFailedError("exception expected to be thrown, but was not");
}
}
public static interface BlastContainer {
public void test() throws Exception;
}
}
Use it like this:
assertException(new BlastContainer() {
#Override
public void test() throws Exception {
doSomethingThatShouldExceptHere();
}
});
Zero dependencies: no need for mockito, no need powermock; and works just fine with final classes.
JUnit has built-in support for this, with an "expected" attribute.
Java 8 solution
If you would like a solution which:
Utilizes Java 8 lambdas
Does not depend on any JUnit magic
Allows you to check for multiple exceptions within a single test method
Checks for an exception being thrown by a specific set of lines within your test method instead of any unknown line in the entire test method
Yields the actual exception object that was thrown so that you can further examine it
Here is a utility function that I wrote:
public final <T extends Throwable> T expectException( Class<T> exceptionClass, Runnable runnable )
{
try
{
runnable.run();
}
catch( Throwable throwable )
{
if( throwable instanceof AssertionError && throwable.getCause() != null )
throwable = throwable.getCause(); //allows testing for "assert x != null : new IllegalArgumentException();"
assert exceptionClass.isInstance( throwable ) : throwable; //exception of the wrong kind was thrown.
assert throwable.getClass() == exceptionClass : throwable; //exception thrown was a subclass, but not the exact class, expected.
#SuppressWarnings( "unchecked" )
T result = (T)throwable;
return result;
}
assert false; //expected exception was not thrown.
return null; //to keep the compiler happy.
}
(taken from my blog)
Use it as follows:
#Test
public void testMyFunction()
{
RuntimeException e = expectException( RuntimeException.class, () ->
{
myFunction();
} );
assert e.getMessage().equals( "I haz fail!" );
}
public void myFunction()
{
throw new RuntimeException( "I haz fail!" );
}
In my case I always get RuntimeException from db, but messages differ. And exception need to be handled respectively. Here is how I tested it:
#Test
public void testThrowsExceptionWhenWrongSku() {
// Given
String articleSimpleSku = "999-999";
int amountOfTransactions = 1;
Exception exception = null;
// When
try {
createNInboundTransactionsForSku(amountOfTransactions, articleSimpleSku);
} catch (RuntimeException e) {
exception = e;
}
// Then
shouldValidateThrowsExceptionWithMessage(exception, MESSAGE_NON_EXISTENT_SKU);
}
private void shouldValidateThrowsExceptionWithMessage(final Exception e, final String message) {
assertNotNull(e);
assertTrue(e.getMessage().contains(message));
}
Just make a Matcher that can be turned off and on, like this:
public class ExceptionMatcher extends BaseMatcher<Throwable> {
private boolean active = true;
private Class<? extends Throwable> throwable;
public ExceptionMatcher(Class<? extends Throwable> throwable) {
this.throwable = throwable;
}
public void on() {
this.active = true;
}
public void off() {
this.active = false;
}
#Override
public boolean matches(Object object) {
return active && throwable.isAssignableFrom(object.getClass());
}
#Override
public void describeTo(Description description) {
description.appendText("not the covered exception type");
}
}
To use it:
add public ExpectedException exception = ExpectedException.none();,
then:
ExceptionMatcher exMatch = new ExceptionMatcher(MyException.class);
exception.expect(exMatch);
someObject.somethingThatThrowsMyException();
exMatch.off();
In JUnit 4 or later you can test the exceptions as follows
#Rule
public ExpectedException exceptions = ExpectedException.none();
this provides a lot of features which can be used to improve our JUnit tests. If you see the below example I am testing 3 things on the exception.
The Type of exception thrown
The exception Message
The cause of the exception
public class MyTest {
#Rule
public ExpectedException exceptions = ExpectedException.none();
ClassUnderTest classUnderTest;
#Before
public void setUp() throws Exception {
classUnderTest = new ClassUnderTest();
}
#Test
public void testAppleisSweetAndRed() throws Exception {
exceptions.expect(Exception.class);
exceptions.expectMessage("this is the exception message");
exceptions.expectCause(Matchers.<Throwable>equalTo(exceptionCause));
classUnderTest.methodUnderTest("param1", "param2");
}
}
We can use an assertion fail after the method that must return an exception:
try{
methodThatThrowMyException();
Assert.fail("MyException is not thrown !");
} catch (final Exception exception) {
// Verify if the thrown exception is instance of MyException, otherwise throws an assert failure
assertTrue(exception instanceof MyException, "An exception other than MyException is thrown !");
// In case of verifying the error message
MyException myException = (MyException) exception;
assertEquals("EXPECTED ERROR MESSAGE", myException.getMessage());
}
Additionally to what NamShubWriter has said, make sure that:
The ExpectedException instance is public (Related Question)
The ExpectedException isn't instantiated in say, the #Before method. This post clearly explains all the intricacies of JUnit's order of execution.
Do not do this:
#Rule
public ExpectedException expectedException;
#Before
public void setup()
{
expectedException = ExpectedException.none();
}
Finally, this blog post clearly illustrates how to assert that a certain exception is thrown.
Junit4 solution with Java8 is to use this function:
public Throwable assertThrows(Class<? extends Throwable> expectedException, java.util.concurrent.Callable<?> funky) {
try {
funky.call();
} catch (Throwable e) {
if (expectedException.isInstance(e)) {
return e;
}
throw new AssertionError(
String.format("Expected [%s] to be thrown, but was [%s]", expectedException, e));
}
throw new AssertionError(
String.format("Expected [%s] to be thrown, but nothing was thrown.", expectedException));
}
Usage is then:
assertThrows(ValidationException.class,
() -> finalObject.checkSomething(null));
Note that the only limitation is to use a final object reference in lambda expression.
This solution allows to continue test assertions instead of expecting thowable at method level using #Test(expected = IndexOutOfBoundsException.class) solution.
I recomend library assertj-core to handle exception in junit test
In java 8, like this:
//given
//when
Throwable throwable = catchThrowable(() -> anyService.anyMethod(object));
//then
AnyException anyException = (AnyException) throwable;
assertThat(anyException.getMessage()).isEqualTo("........");
assertThat(exception.getCode()).isEqualTo(".......);
JUnit framework has assertThrows() method:
ArithmeticException exception = assertThrows(ArithmeticException.class, () ->
calculator.divide(1, 0));
assertEquals("/ by zero", exception.getMessage());
for JUnit 5 it's in org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions class;
for JUnit 4.13 it's in org.junit.Assert class;
for earlier versions of JUnit 4: just add reference on org.junit.jupiter:junit-jupiter-api to your project and you'll get perfectly well working version from JUnit 5.
Take for example, you want to write Junit for below mentioned code fragment
public int divideByZeroDemo(int a,int b){
return a/b;
}
public void exceptionWithMessage(String [] arr){
throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException("Array is out of bound");
}
The above code is to test for some unknown exception that may occur and the below one is to assert some exception with custom message.
#Rule
public ExpectedException exception=ExpectedException.none();
private Demo demo;
#Before
public void setup(){
demo=new Demo();
}
#Test(expected=ArithmeticException.class)
public void testIfItThrowsAnyException() {
demo.divideByZeroDemo(5, 0);
}
#Test
public void testExceptionWithMessage(){
exception.expectMessage("Array is out of bound");
exception.expect(ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException.class);
demo.exceptionWithMessage(new String[]{"This","is","a","demo"});
}
With Java 8 you can create a method taking a code to check and expected exception as parameters:
private void expectException(Runnable r, Class<?> clazz) {
try {
r.run();
fail("Expected: " + clazz.getSimpleName() + " but not thrown");
} catch (Exception e) {
if (!clazz.isInstance(e)) fail("Expected: " + clazz.getSimpleName() + " but " + e.getClass().getSimpleName() + " found", e);
}
}
and then inside your test:
expectException(() -> list.sublist(0, 2).get(2), IndexOutOfBoundsException.class);
Benefits:
not relying on any library
localised check - more precise and allows to have multiple assertions like this within one test if needed
easy to use
#Test(expectedException=IndexOutOfBoundsException.class)
public void testFooThrowsIndexOutOfBoundsException() throws Exception {
doThrow(IndexOutOfBoundsException.class).when(foo).doStuff();
try {
foo.doStuff();
} catch (IndexOutOfBoundsException e) {
assertEquals(IndexOutOfBoundsException .class, ex.getCause().getClass());
throw e;
}
}
Here is another way to check method thrown correct exception or not.
I have a code segment like shown below. Each line of code throw same exception. However, in practice, when first line throws an exception, testFoo finishes its job and does not continue, as expected. But, I want a bit more different thing; since they are throwing same exception, I want to continue and check these three lines w.r.t the exception which they all throw. If they throw, test should be continue.
How can I test these three line w.r.t same exception?
#test
void testFoo(){
assertNull( /*errorMessage*/, ClassFoo.foo(null)); // foo will throw `AssertionError` due to null parameter
assertNull( /*errorMessage*/, ClassBar.bar(null)); // foo will throw `AssertionError` due to null parameter
assertNull( /*errorMessage*/, ClassGbr.gbr(null)); // foo will throw `AssertionError` due to null parameter
}
Just catch the exception yourself:
#Test
void testFoo() {
boolean fooHasThrownException = false;
boolean barHasThrownException = false;
boolean gbrHasThrownException = false;
try {
ClassFoo.foo(null);
fail();
} catch (AssertionError e) {
fooHasThrownException = true;
}
try {
ClassBar.bar(null);
fail();
} catch (AssertionError e) {
barHasThrownException = true;
}
try {
ClassGbr.gbr(null);
fail();
} catch (AssertionError e) {
gbrHasThrownException = true;
}
assertThat(true, equalTo(fooHasThrownException),
equalTo(barHasThrownException),
equalTo(gbrHasThrownException));
}
Note that your assertNull() is redundant. If a method throws an exception, it will not return anything.
On the side, this is a very weird scenario to be testing. If a method throws an exception, it just seems more logical to stop any further processing, if those processes down the line are going to also throw exceptions anyway.
I have tried to implement precondition for each parameters to a method with Java built-in Assert.assertTrue...
This is not built into java, this is from junit: void junit.framework.Assert.assertTrue(...). You are confusing Java Assertions with Junit assertions.
Junit assertions should be used in your unit tests. They look like Assert.assertEquals(result, "expected result"); They are intended to test the validity of the methods under test in your unit tests.
Java assertions should be used when verifying assumptions. They look like assert param!=null:"param should not be null!"; They are part of the java language and can be turned on and off at compile time. They are intended to double check assumptions in your code and to produce zero overhead when turned off.
Programming with assertions is a great thing. Using Junit assertions outside of unit tests is dubious.
My interpretation of this question is that you are expecting an AssertFailedError in your unit test and this is meant to be part of this test. If that is the case, you can use the following junit method structure:
#Test(expected = AssertFailedError.class)
public void testFoo() throws AssertFailedError
{
assertNotNull(null);
}
You can use this when you are testing a block of code that you know will throw an exception.
This is what I have:
#Test
public testSendMessageToStub() {
// under the hood sends message
// if exception occurrs
// it will be catched and message will be put on retry
object.sendMessage();
}
Is there any way to mark test as failed if exception has occurred but was handled in catch block in the sendMessage() method?
Thanks
EDIT: It seems like I was too fixated on these legacy tests and how they were used, that totally missed the fact of sendMessage returning a response with a status code (!!!). So now I just assert status codes, can expand these tests into more detailed scenarios and spin them on jenkins. I would like to avoid to answer how these tests were checked previously. The thought to check for status codes came to me after reading Plux's answer. Thanks!
Exactly what you are looking for is not possible with JUnit as far as I know.
If you really would want to test this, you could store some information about the exception in the catch-block where it is handled in the sendMessage() method.
A better option, in my opinion, could be to test the output or state of the object. If the state/output is exactly the same as when an exception doesn't occur, then whats the point of testing it? Do you have an overly broad catch-block?
EDIT: To AdityaTS, I dont have enough reputation to comment on a post, but my comment: you have not supplied all the code, so I can not say for sure, but my guess is that its the Logger.getLogger IN the catch-block that casts the ClassNotFoundException. (Either that or loadConnectionInfo()) see http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/lang/ClassNotFoundException.html
You cannot do this without modifying sendMessage method. If for example you catch the exception there but choose to ignore it and just return some value, code outside of the method doesn't know it. You can get around this by refactoring the code of object: move the code that handles the exception to a separate method, called e.g. handleException. Then, in your test you can create a subclass where handleException will execute the original handleException from superclass, but additionally set some flag which you will be able to read in your test and in this way tell that the exception was thrown. However, if you cannot modify the code for object's class, I'm afraid you're out of luck.
So you expect the exception to propagate out of the sendMessage() method, right?
This is another way to write a test that verifies an exception you expect will be thrown.
#Test (expected = MyExpectedException.class)
public testSendMessageToStub() {
// under the hood sends message
// if exception occurrs
// it will be catched and message will be put on retry
object.sendMessage();
}
And it's usually best to be as specific as possible (e.g. MyExpectedException.class over Exception.class)
The exception generated in the sendMessage() class will be available in the test method. Add a try catch block around the sendMessage() method like this
#Test
public testSendMessageToStub() {
try
{
object.sendMehssage();
}
catch(Excpetion e) //Use more specific exception type if you know
{
fail(e.getMessage());
}
}
I have tried this in my code. It worked for me. Let me know.
public DBConnectionInfo connectionInit()
{
loadConnectionInfo();
try
{
Class.forName(dbObject.getDriver());
} catch (Exception e)
{
Logger lgr = Logger.getLogger(PostgreLocationManager.class.getName());
lgr.log(Level.SEVERE, e.getMessage(), e);
}
try
{
dbObject.setConnection(DriverManager.getConnection(dbObject.getDatabaseURL(), dbObject.getUserName(),
dbObject.getPassword()));
} catch (Exception e)
{
Logger lgr = Logger.getLogger(PostgreLocationManager.class.getName());
lgr.log(Level.SEVERE, e.getMessage(), e);
}
return dbObject;
}
The test case for the above class.
#Test
public void testDriverFailure()
{
when(dbModelObject.getDriver()).thenReturn("driver");
when(dbModelObject.getDatabaseURL()).thenReturn("jdbc:postgresql://127.0.0.1:5432/testdb");
when(dbModelObject.getUserName()).thenReturn("postgres");
when(dbModelObject.getPassword()).thenReturn("postgres");
try
{
dbConnector.connectionInit();
} catch (Exception e)
{
assertTrue(e instanceof ClassNotFoundException);
}
verify(dbModelObject).getDriver();
}
I am thinking about how to write tests for my project. At the moment, tests structure is like this:
RealClass
{
method1;
method2;
...
}
and exactly same test class structure:
TestClass {
testMethod1;
testMethod2;
...
}
But, I do not like it, because I am putting too much test cases in one test method...
May be I should use structure like this:
TestClass {
testMethod1Opt1;
testMethod1Opt2;
...
testMethod2Opt1;
...}
How are you writing Unit tests?
Example of my test code: (Very simple test)
public void testIsAppUser() {
// My (Artem`s Zinnatullin) uId
final long artemZinnatullinUId = 172672179;
try {
assertTrue(usersApi.isAppUser(artemZinnatullinUId));
} catch (Exception e) {
fail(e.getMessage());
}
// Pavel`s Durov uId
final long durovUId = 1;
try {
assertFalse(usersApi.isAppUser(durovUId));
} catch (Exception e) {
fail(e.getMessage());
}
// By default uId == current user`s (who has authorized) uId
try {
assertTrue(usersApi.isAppUser(null));
} catch (Exception e) {
fail(e.getMessage());
}
}
What I am thinking about:
public void testIsAppUser1() {
// My (Artem`s Zinnatullin) uId
final long artemZinnatullinUId = 172672179;
try {
assertTrue(usersApi.isAppUser(artemZinnatullinUId));
} catch (Exception e) {
fail(e.getMessage());
}
}
public void testIsAppUser2() {
// Pavel`s Durov uId
final long durovUId = 1;
try {
assertFalse(usersApi.isAppUser(durovUId));
} catch (Exception e) {
fail(e.getMessage());
}
}
public void testIsAppUser3() {
// By default uId == current user`s (who has authorized) uId
try {
assertTrue(usersApi.isAppUser(null));
} catch (Exception e) {
fail(e.getMessage());
}
}
Give me advice please.
Comments:
Instead of try{} catch(){ fail() } just add throws Exception to the test method. JUnit will automatically fail the test for you and preserve the stack trace. This will make bug fixing much easier.
Create small test methods. That creates a name problem: How to come up with lots of good names? The solution here is to name the test after what it logically tests, not which methods it calls.
If you want to see what methods are called, use a code coverage tool like JaCoCo.
So the first test should be called testIsArtemsZinnatullinAppUser(). As a guideline: Whenever you feel like you need a comment to explain what a test does, the test name is wrong. Use whatever you'd write in the comment to create a test name.
The reason why you should have smaller tests is that JUnit stops for the first problem. So if you have 20 tests in one test case and the 3rd fails, 17 tests won't run. But these 17 tests could contain valuable information helping to figure out what is wrong.
If they all succeed, then this is probably a specific problem. If many tests fail, the problem must be in shared code.
Your second way of structuring the tests is a lot better. That way each test method covers a different way for the method to break, so you won't have the case where you fix one bug in a method, then have the test fail a little further down (so that one error prevents you from seeing others). It is a lot more important that the test methods be small and sharply-focused than that the test methods map to the methods of the object being tested.
Also, don't catch exceptions, JUnit will do that for you. Add throws Exception to the signature of each of your test methods. If you want to check that an exception is really thrown, then you can catch it in a test, like:
try {
objectUnderTest.doSomethingThatShouldThrowFooException();
fail("should've thrown an exception before getting here");
}
catch (FooException fooEx) {
// yay. my test passed
}
, but the boilerplate of:
} catch (Exception e) {
fail(e.getMessage());
}
is unnecessary.
I won't repeat what's in the other responses. But just adding this:
Avoid duplication of code construct in your test classes.
Don't hesitate to write explicit failure messages.
Here is something to illustrate what I mean:
public void testIsAppUser1() {
// My (Artem`s Zinnatullin) uId
assertAppUser(172672179,true,"artemZinnatullinUId");
}
public void testIsAppUser2() {
// Pavel`s Durov uId
assertAppUser(1,false,"Pavel`s Durov");
}
public void testIsAppUser3() {
// By default uId == current user`s (who has authorized) uId
assertAppUser(null,true,"current user");
}
private void assertAppUser(Long id, boolean isExpectedAppUser, String userName){
boolean isAppUser = usersApi.isAppUser(id);
if(isExpectedAppUser){
assertTrue("User with id:"+id+"and named:"+userName+" must be an appUser" ,isAppUser);
}else{
assertFalse("User with id:"+id+"and named:"+userName+" cannot be an appUser" ,isAppUser);
}
}
}
Only throw when you have an error that might happen because of an 'exception' don't necassarily throw because you can. The following assumes you are creating your own testing enviorment.
I don't know what your assert methods look like but really they should be the ones throwing if anything. You also don't need a try catch to throw an exception you can do the following:
throw new Exception("msg"); // Or another type of Exception
So implementation:
public void AssertEqual(Object obj1, Object obj2) throws Exception
{
if (!obj1.equals(obj2))
throw new Exception("Objects are not equal");
}