We Keep Coding

Unit testing JAX-RS/Jersey servlet with Guice Injections

I have an application that uses Jersey/JAX-RS for web services (annotations, etc) and Guice to inject service implementations. I don't really like the way Guice works with servlets directly, I prefer the Jersey way, so I had to do a bit of fussing to get the service injections to work since Guice wouldn't be creating my servlet classes, and I didn't want to deal with the HK2-Guice bridge. I did this by creating a listener class (called Configuration) that sets up the injectors in static fields upon application startup and then manually effecting the injections in each servlet class by creating a parent class that all my servlets extend with a constructor that contains the following:
public MasterServlet() {
// in order for the Guice #Inject annotation to work, we have to create a constructor
// like this and call injectMembers(this) on all our injectors in it
Configuration.getMyServiceInjector().injectMembers(this);
Configuration.getDriverInjector().injectMembers(this);
}
I know it's kind of hacky, but this works just fine in my servlets. I can use the Guice #Inject annotations on my services and switch between named implementations and so on. The problem comes when I go to set up my unit tests. I'm using JerseyTest to do my tests, but running a test against my servlets results in a 500 error with Guice saying the following:
com.google.inject.ConfigurationException: Guice configuration errors:
1) No implementation for com.mycompany.MyService was bound.
while locating com.mycompany.MyService
for field at com.mycompany.servlet.TestGetServlet.service(TestGetServlet.java:21)
while locating com.mycompany.servlet.TestGetServlet
The test looks like this:
public class TestServletTest extends JerseyTest {
#Test
public void testServletFunctional() {
final String response = target("/testget").request().get(String.class);
assertEquals("get servlet functional", response);
}
#Before
public void setup() {
Configuration configuration = new Configuration();
configuration.contextInitialized(null);
}
#Override
protected Application configure() {
return new ResourceConfig(TestGetServlet.class);
}
}
You'll notice in the setup method I am manually creating my Configuration class since I can't rely on the test container (Grizzly) to create it (I get NullPointerExceptions without those two lines). More about this below.
And here's the servlet being tested:
#Path("/testget")
public class TestGetServlet extends MasterServlet {
#Inject
MyService service;
#GET
#Produces({"text/plain", MediaType.TEXT_PLAIN})
public String testGet() {
//service = Configuration.getServiceInjector().getInstance(MyService.class);
return "get servlet functional";
}
}
Notice the commented line in the testGet() method? If I do that instead and remove the #Inject annotation above, everything works fine, which indicates that Grizzly is not creating my servlets the way I expect.
I think what's happening is that Grizzly doesn't know about Guice. Everything seems to suggest that Grizzly isn't seeing the Configuration class, despite the fact that by putting it in my test's #Before method it seems to be at least available to the classes that use it (see: the commented line in the TestGetServlet class). I just don't know how to fix it.

I'm still trying to figure this out but in the meantime I switched from Guice to HK2, which took a bit of doing but I figured this might be helpful for anyone who runs into this problem in the future.
I consider this an answer because truthfully my attempt to bypass the Guice-HK2 bridge but still use Guice with Jersey might not have been the best idea.
Switching from Guice to HK2 takes a bit of doing and there's no comprehensive guide out there with all the answers. The dependencies are really fussy, for example. If you try to use Jersey 2.27 you may run into the famous
java.lang.IllegalStateException: InjectionManagerFactory not found
error. Jersey 2.27 is not backwards compatible with previous versions due to HK2 itself. I am still working on getting that all to work, but in the meantime I had to downgrade all my Jersey dependencies to 2.26-b06 to get HK2 working properly.
Jersey thankfully already implements a bunch of HK2 boilerplate, so all you need to get injection working is proper use of #Contract, #Service (see HK2 docs for those), and then two new classes that look like this:
public class MyHK2Binder extends AbstractBinder {
#Override
protected void configure() {
// my service here is a singleton, yours might not be, so just omit the call to in()
// also, the order here is switched from Guice! very subtle!
bind(MyServiceImpl.class).to(MyService.class).in(Singleton.class);
}
}
And this:
public class MyResourceConfig extends ResourceConfig {
public MyResourceConfig() {
register(new MyHK2Binder());
packages(true, "com.mycompany");
}
}
Simple enough, but this only works for the application itself. The test container knows nothing about it, so you have to redo the Binder and ResourceConfig yourself in your test class, like this:
public class TestServletTest extends JerseyTest {
#Test
public void testServletFunctional() {
final String response = target("/testget").request().get(String.class);
assertEquals("get servlet functional", response);
}
#Before
public void setup() {
}
#Override
protected Application configure() {
return new TestServletBinder(TestGetServlet.class);
}
public class TestServletBinder extends ResourceConfig {
public TestServletBinder(Class registeree) {
super(registeree);
register(new MyHK2Binder());
packages(true, "com.mycompany");
}
}
}
Having to do this is actually fine because you can switch out the Binder for a test binder instead, in which you've bound your service to a mocked service instead or something. I haven't done that here but that's easy enough to do: replace new MyHK2Binder() in the call to register() with one that does a binding like this instead:
bind(MyTestServiceImpl.class).to(MyService.class).in(Singleton.class);
And voila. Very nice. Obviously you could achieve a similar result with Named bindings, but this works great and might even be simpler and more clear.
Hope this helps someone save the hours I spent screwing around to get this working.

Autowired implementation based on profile Spring Boot

I am developing a REST API with Spring Boot.The problem it's that I have one interface and two implementations and I want to test only with the mock implementation.
Interface CRMService
#Service
CRMServiceImpl
#Service
CRMServiceMock
Implementations: the first one is the real integration with the backend and the second is a mock for testing purposes, what's the best approach? Integration test or test based on the active profile ? If I need to autowire a service based on profile what's the best practice?

While I'm sure there's exceptions, generally it shouldn't be integration or unit tests (often involves mocks), but both; see testing pyramid concept.
Integration tests: just use the real service. If it calls out to other live services, then consider injecting the URLs as Spring Boot properties which point to mock servers in the test environment (Node.js or something easy and quick).
Unit tests: Consider using a test-framework like Mockito. Using this you can write your tests with mocks approximately like so:
private CRMServiceImpl mockService = mock(CRMServiceImpl.class);
#Test
public void someTest() {
when(mockService.someMethod(any(String.class), eq(5))).thenReturn("Hello from mock object.")
}
The above example roughly translates to "when some class invokes 'someMethod(String, int)' on your service, return the String specified".
This way allows you to still use mocks where necessary, but avoids having to maintain entire mock implementation profiles and avoids the problem of what to auto-wire.
Finally, if you need a full separate implementation, consider not auto-wiring services! Instead, use #Bean annotations in your configuration class and inject it via constructors into the classes that need it. Something like so:
#Configuration
public class ApplicationConfiguration {
#Value{$"service.crm.inmem"} // Injected property
private boolean inMem;
#Bean
CRMService getCRMService() {
if (inMem) {
return new CRMServiceMock();
}
return new CRMServiceImpl();
}
#Bean
OtherService getOtherService() {
// Inject CRMService interface into constructor instead of auto-wiring in OtherService.class
return new OtherService(getCRMService());
}
}
An example of when you could use ^^ would be if you wanted to switch between an in-memory store, and a real database-connection layer.
Personally I'd suggest doing dependency injection like the above example even when there aren't multiple implementations since as a project grows, if an auto-wired property fails it can be difficult to track down exactly why. Additionally explicitly showing where dependencies come from can help with organizing your application and visualizing your application hierarchy.

Using a Class with a #Required Field in Unit Test with Mockito

I'm trying to unit test a class; for the sake of brevity we'll call it Apple. It has a #Required setter that takes an AppleManager bean. AppleManager itself has a #Required setter than takes an AppleStorageClient bean. I am mocking AppleManager and injecting it into Apple, but I also need to use the real AppleManager class to retrieve data using methods from its AppleStorageClient object. How can I achieve this with Spring/Mockito?
Test:
public class AppleTest {
#InjectMocks
private Apple apple;
#Mock
private AppleManager appleManager;
?????
private AppleManager realAppleManager;
//I tried = new AppleManager() here but the object is null...
//ostensibly because Spring doesn't know I want to use the bean
//also tried #Autowired to no avail
#Before
public void doBeforeStuff() {
MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this);
}
...
}
Source:
public class Apple {
private AppleManager appleManager;
#Required
public void setAppleManager(AppleManager appleManager) {
this.appleManager = appleManager;
}
....
}
&
public class AppleManager {
private AppleStorageClient appleStorageClient;
#Required
public void setAppleStorageClient() {
this.appleStorageClient = appleStorageClient;
}
...
}

In general it looks like something is 'uncomplete' here. I'll explain why.
Technically If you're using spring - it doesn't sound like a unit test to me anymore, probably integration test or something.
Unit tests are in general should be really-really fast and starting up spring won't let them pass fast enough (think about having thousands of unit tests in your project each of them running spring on startup - it will take them ages to complete).
But let's say its only about definitions. When you're using spring testing framework with JUnit, someone has to start and maintain a spring context to do all the Dependency Injection magic and apply it to the test case.
In Junit implementation a special Runner (a JUnit abstraction) is required:
#RunWith(SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.class)
#ContextConfiguration({ "classpath:my-test-context.xml" }) // or use Java Config
This doesn't appear in the question though.
So now Spring will create a context and will attempt to inject beans. And we have effectively reduced our issue to the issue of having two implementations of the interface and asking spring to inject implementation by interface so that two different implementations will be injected. There are 2 solutions I can see here:
Create a Mock outside spring - you probably won't specify your expectations in spring anyway. Maintain only a "real apple manager" in spring
Maintain both in spring but in your test case use a #Qualifier annotation
Now what I would like to emphasize is that if you maintain real apple manager that contacts "apple store" (probably a database, with driver support, transaction management and so forth) you'll have to create a test context so that it will be able to connect to that database, and if the apple manager internally injects its dependencies via spring, then these beans are also have to be specified.
So that if in future you'll change something in the underlying store (say, add a dependency in a driver to another spring bean, this test context will automatically become broken). Just be aware of this and inject beans wisely.

Spring Data: Service layer unit testing

In my project I'm having trouble doing unit testing. One issue is that just doing an integration test is much faster to write and also tests that the components actually work together. Unit testing novel "algorithms" or so seems much easier. Unit Testing service classes it just feels wrong and useless.
I'm using mockito to mock spring data repository (and hence DB access). The thing is if i tell the mocked repository to return entity A on method call getById it will obviously return that and the service will return it too. Yes, the service does some extra stuff, but very minor things, like load lazy collections (from hibernate). Obviously I don't have any lazy collections (proxies) in a unit test.
Example:
#Test
public void testGetById() {
System.out.println("getById");
TestCompound expResult = new TestCompound(id, "Test Compound", "9999-99-9", null, null, null);
TestCompoundRepository mockedRepository = mock(TestCompoundRepository.class);
when(mockedRepository.findOne(id)).thenReturn(expResult);
ReflectionTestUtils.setField(testCompoundService, "testCompoundRepository",
mockedRepository, TestCompoundRepository.class);
TestCompound result = testCompoundService.getById(id);
assertEquals(expResult, result);
}
hooray, the rest succeeds. What a surprise! Not really no.
Can some one explain to me what I'm doing wrong? Or else what the point of such a test is? I mean I tell to return expResult and then it is returned. Wow. What a surprise! Feels like I'm testing if mockito works and not my Service.
EDIT:
The only benefit I see if some were stupid error happens like leaving an unwanted line there that sets return value to null or something similar stupid. Such cases would be caught by the unit test. Still the "reward-effort" ratio seems bad?

Question might be a bit old but I will put an answer in case someone stumbles across.
I'm using Mockito and JUnit.
AccountRepository is a plain spring data repository extending JPARepository.
Account is a plain JPA entity.
To test your services and mock Spring Data repositories, you need something like below.
package foo.bar.service.impl;
import foo.bar.data.entity.Account;
import foo.bar.data.repository.AccountRepository;
import foo.bar.service.AccountService;
import org.junit.Assert;
import org.junit.Test;
import org.junit.runner.RunWith;
import org.mockito.InjectMocks;
import org.mockito.Mock;
import org.mockito.Mockito;
import org.mockito.runners.MockitoJUnitRunner;
#RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
public class AccountServiceImplTest {
#Mock
private static AccountRepository accountRepository;
#InjectMocks
private static AccountService accountService = new AccountServiceImpl();
private Account account;
#Test
public void testFindAccount() {
Integer accountId = new Integer(1);
account = new Account();
account.setId(accountId);
account.setName("Account name");
account.setCode("Accont code");
account.setDescription("Account description");
Mockito.when(accountRepository.findOne(accountId)).thenReturn(account);
Account retrivedAccount = accountService.findAccount(accountId);
Assert.assertEquals(account, retrivedAccount);
}
}

One of the reasons I like testing my Spring Data repositories is to test that I have defined my JPA mappings correctly. I do not use a mocking framework for these tests, I use the Spring Test framework which actually bootstraps the container allowing me to autowire the actual repository into the Junit test so that I may execute tests against it.
I agree with your thoughts that mocking the repository is pretty useless. Since your using Spring I would suggest leveraging the Spring Test framework to perform real tests against your repositories, which can be executed against an embedded database such as H2 in a more unit test based fashion or your actual database implementation such as Oracle or MySql, to conduct more of an integration test. (Execute these against a copy of a development database) These tests will reveal fallacies in your JPA mappings and other items such as improper cascades setup in the database.
Here is an example of one of my tests on GitHub. Notice how the framework actually autowires the repository into the test. The repository also contains an example of how to configure the Spring Test framework, which I have also demonstrated in this blog post.
In conclusion, I do not believe you will receive any of the benefits of testing a repository that I have discussed from using a mock of the repository.
One additional note I wanted to add, is that mocks are not really intended for use in the actual class under test. Their use is for providing required dependencies to a class under test.

You can use this library: https://github.com/agileapes/spring-data-mock
This will mock your repository for you, while allowing you to implement custom functionality for any method as well as your native query methods.

You exactly right. It is clear unit test. And it will never fail (so, it is useless) I think you need at integration test to test real JPA repository with real database (H2 in memory for example) (as I always do).
And it is better to test your services (theirs interfaces). If after some time you will change your storage (to Mongo for example) - you will be able to use your service tests to ensure all works as before.
After some time you will be suprised how many DB\JPA-related problems (constraints, optimistic locks, lazy-loading, duplicate id, some hibernate issues and so on) you find.
Also, try to develop via tests - not just write test after implementation. Instead before creation of new method in service - create test for it, implement service method and only after just recheck it in real application. At least it is much faster to start test than a server.
So, do not create tests to have a lot of them. Find how they may help you.
Usage of mocks for repositories is not good idea. Test how your services work together with Hibernate\JPA\Database. Most part of problems is located beetwen layers.

You can mock the repository and inject it to the service, this is the way; but, if you just instantiate the service with #Mock of repositories, it would be better, if you define the repositories as private final fields in the service and use a constructor of all repositories. That way, if you add another repository to the service, the test will fail and you have to change it, which is the purpose.
Imagine this service:
class OrderService {
private final UserRepository userRepos;
public OrderService(UserRepository userRepos) {
this.userRepos = userRepos;
}
...
}
And this test:
class OrderServiceTests {
#Mock
private UserRepository userRepos;
private OrderService service;
private OrderServiceTests() {
this.service = new OrderService(this.userRepos);
}
}
Now, if we add another dependency to the service:
class OrderService {
private final UserRepository userRepos;
private final AddressRepository addRepos;
public OrderService(UserRepository userRepos, AddressRepository addRepos) {
this.userRepos = userRepos;
this.addRepos = addRepos;
...
}
The previous test will fail because the constructor has changed. If you use #InjectMocks this will not happen; the injection happens behind the curtain and we are not clear what happens; this may not be desirable.
Another thing is, I don't agree that integration test will cover all the cases that unit tests will cover; it may but not always the case. Even the controller can be unit-tested with mocks; after all the tests are meant to cover all the code we have written, so they must be fine-grained; imagine when we follow TTD and we only complete the controller and services level: how we proceed without controller unit testing?

Assuming that we have the below Service class
#Service
public class EmployeeServiceImpl implements EmployeeService {
#Autowired
private EmployeeRepository employeeRepository;
#Override
public Employee getEmployeeByName(String name) {
return employeeRepository.findByName(name);
}
}
Test class:
#RunWith(SpringRunner.class)
public class EmployeeServiceImplIntegrationTest {
#TestConfiguration
static class EmployeeServiceImplTestContextConfiguration {
#Bean
public EmployeeService employeeService() {
return new EmployeeServiceImpl();
}
}
#Autowired
private EmployeeService employeeService;
#MockBean
private EmployeeRepository employeeRepository;
// write test cases here
}
To check the Service class, we need to have an instance of Service class created and available as a #Bean so that we can #Autowire it in our test class. This configuration is achieved by using the #TestConfiguration annotation.
During component scanning, we might find components or configurations created only for specific tests accidentally get picked up everywhere. To help prevent that, Spring Boot provides #TestConfiguration annotation that can be used on classes in src/test/java to indicate that they should not be picked up by scanning.
Another interesting thing here is the use of #MockBean. It creates a Mock for the EmployeeRepository which can be used to bypass the call to the actual EmployeeRepository:
#Before
public void setUp() {
Employee alex = new Employee("alex");
Mockito.when(employeeRepository.findByName(alex.getName()))
.thenReturn(alex);
}
After the setup, we can easily test our service like:
#Test
public void whenValidName_thenEmployeeShouldBeFound() {
String name = "alex";
Employee found = employeeService.getEmployeeByName(name);
assertThat(found.getName())isEqualTo(name);
}
For more in depth knowledge check:
https://www.baeldung.com/spring-boot-testing

Best way to interact with EJBs in Java EE

I have a moderate sized Java EE 6 project that uses several EJBs, including one which sole purpose is managing database calls through JPA. My question is what is the best way to add a new class that does some random bit of functionality and then calls the database access EJB to persist the data from this class.
Does this new class have to be an EJB if it needs access to annotations and injections? Does it have to be an EJB if it has to be deployed with the rest of the project?
I was told that if you want to add a new logic class to the project it either has to be an EJB or you can remotely integrate it using JNDI to access EJB elements and create some kind of client interface. Right now my new class is just a POJO but it's not able to access the EJB functionality.
What should I do in general?
EDIT: Please note my question IS NOT about database access. That's just an example I'm using. My guestion is more broad. I want to know how to access EJB methods from other classes I create. From one EJB to another you can simply inject the other EJB since they're both container managed. But say I create another class in the same package as the EJBs how might How can I access those methods? Is it possbile? What is the best practices here.
Right now I have a class that is taking twitter feed data from a URL it then parses the JSON and returns a string of the top 10 entries. I want to call my EJB that manages database access and pass that string to its corresponding method but I cannot do that because my class is not also an EJB.

EJBs are generally used to implement services of any kind. They integrate really well with JPA so are often used for DB access, but that's not their only usage.
What EJBs are typically not suited for is modeling data. I.e. they should be the verbs in your application, not the nouns. The following is thus wrong:
#Stateless
#Entity
public class CreditCard { // silly, don't do this!
#Id
Long id; + getters/setters
Data expiration date; + getters/setters
}
The following is better, it's a service that when your application starts up fetches some quote data from somewhere:
#Singleton
#Startup
public class QuoteFetcher {
private List<Quote> quotes; // + getter
#PostConstruct
public fetchQuote()
quotes = SomeUrlBuilder.someUrl().getQuotes();
}
}
The following is the obligatory DAO example:
#Stateless
public class JPAInvoiceDAO implements InvoiceDAO {
#PersistenceContext
private EntityManager entityManager;
public Invoice getById(Long invoiceId) {
return entityManager.find(invoiceId, Invoice.class);
}
// More DAO methods
}
The following shows how declarative security is used, and how a bean looks up something that has been externally mapped into its private context (ENC):
#Stateless
public class TokenFetcher
#Resource
private SessionContext sessionContext;
#RolesAllowed("SYSTEM")
public Token getToken() {
return (Token) sessionContext.lookup("token");
}
}
The second part of the question seems to be how to use these beans in your code. There are basically four methods:
Injection in managed beans
Bootstrapping via JNDI
Automatically called at startup
Automatically via a timer
Injection is the easiest way, but only managed beans are injection candidates (basically meaning the Java EE framework creates the bean, and you don't use new() to instantiate it).
E.g. Injection:
#ManagedBean
public class InvoiceBacking {
private Long invoiceId; // + getter/setter
private Invoice invoice; // + getter
#EJB
private InvoiceDAO invoiceDAO;
#PostConstruct
public void init() {
invoice = invoiceDAO.getById(invoiceId);
}
}
(also see Communication in JSF 2.0#Processing GET request parameters)
Bootstrapping via JNDI:
public class SomeQuartzJob implements Job {
public void execute(JobExecutionContext jobExecutionContext) throws JobExecutionException {
InvoiceDAO invoiceDAO = (InvoiceDAO) new InitialContext().lookup("java:global/myApp/myEJB/InvoiceDAO");
List<Invoice> openInvoices = invoiceDAO.getAllByOpenStatus();
// verbose exception handling and closing JNDI context omitted for brevity
}
}
The #Singleton bean showed earlier was an example of how the Java EE framework calls your code itself at startup. For the automatic timer you would use the #Schedule annotation on a bean's method.