We Keep Coding

How to continue test after JUnit ExpectedException if thrown?

I have set up some JUnit (4.12) test with the ExpectedException feature, and I would like the test to continue after the expected exception. But I never see the log '3', as the execution seems to stop after the exception, event if catch?
Is this actually possible, and how?
#Rule
public ExpectedException exception = ExpectedException.none();
#Test
public void testUserAlreadyExists() throws Exception {
log.info("1");
// Create some users
userService.createUser("toto1");
userService.createUser("toto2");
userService.createUser("toto3");
Assert.assertTrue( userService.userExists("toto1") );
Assert.assertTrue( userService.userExists("toto2") );
Assert.assertTrue( userService.userExists("toto3") );
log.info("2");
// Try to create an existing user
exception.expect(AlreadyExistsException.class);
userService.createUser("toto1");
log.info("3");
}

You cannot do that, when the exception is thrown it's thrown for real, ExpectedException rule or not.
If you really want this kind of behaviour, you can go back to the "old school" pattern:
try {
userService.createUser("toto1");
Assert.fail("expecting some AlreadyExistsException here")
} catch (AlreadyExistsException e) {
// ignore
}
log.info("3");
But I wouldn't bother for some log.

This SO solution seems to do what you want to do: JUnit continue to assert things after expected exception
I myself was thinking something similar. To continue with the test, you would have to catch the exception yourself in the test. This solution shows an elegant way of doing that.
Note: If you make a rule to expect an exception (as you did), the test will return successful as soon as that exception is thrown.
Reference: http://junit.org/javadoc/latest/org/junit/rules/ExpectedException.html

If you don't want to add a lot of similar test methods for something that has many options to throw the expected exception and want to verify that it actually throws on all of the desired cases within a single unit-test instead, I'd suggest this (not pretty maybe) helpful schema:
#Test
public void testThatSomethingExpectedlyFails() {
for (int i = 1; i <= 3; i++) {
try {
switch (i) {
case 1: // smth here throws the exception when configuration #1;
case 2: // smth here throws the exception when configuration #2;
case 3: // smth here throws the exception when configuration #3;
}
} catch (ExceptionThatIsExpected expected) {
continue;
} catch (Exception unexpected) {
/* the test must fail when an unexpected exception is thrown */
fail("The test has failed due to an unexpected exception: " + unexpected.getMessage()); // or just re-throw this exception
}
/* the test must fail when a case completes without the expected exception */
fail("No expected exception occurred at case " + i);
}
}
The one could also iterate items (and even execute functions) of some preliminarily prepared list instead of switch-case with hard-coded integers.

First of all your test doesn't test one thing. It tests "userExists" and "createUser" under different conditions a.k.a. different scenarios. This is called an AssertionRoulette. You wouldn't need a hack to continue to log "3", if you would write tests, that fail fo the right reason.
If the tests fail for the right reason, you can see the scenario why it fails without doing all the logging stuff. The Junit-Runner does the logging for you already.
#Test
public void testUserExists_UserCreatedUserNotExistent_expectTrue()
{
// Create some users
userService.createUser("toto1");
// Assert That user exists
Assert.assertTrue( userService.userExists("toto1") );
}
#Test
public void testCreateUser_UserAlreadyCreated_expectAlreadyExistsExceptionIsThrown()
{
// Create some users
userService.createUser("toto1");
// Try to create an existing user
exception.expect(AlreadyExistsException.class);
userService.createUser("toto1");
}

Is having a return statement just to satisfy syntax bad practice?

Consider the following code:
public Object getClone(Cloneable a) throws TotallyFooException {
if (a == null) {
throw new TotallyFooException();
}
else {
try {
return a.clone();
} catch (CloneNotSupportedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
//cant be reached, in for syntax
return null;
}
The return null; is necessary since an exception may be caught, however in such a case since we already checked if it was null (and lets assume we know the class we are calling supports cloning) so we know the try statement will never fail.
Is it bad practice to put in the extra return statement at the end just to satisfy the syntax and avoid compile errors (with a comment explaining it will not be reached), or is there a better way to code something like this so that the extra return statement is unnecessary?

A clearer way without an extra return statement is as follows. I wouldn't catch CloneNotSupportedException either, but let it go to the caller.
if (a != null) {
try {
return a.clone();
} catch (CloneNotSupportedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
throw new TotallyFooException();
It's almost always possible to fiddle with the order to end up with a more straight-forward syntax than what you initially have.

It definitely can be reached. Note that you're only printing the stacktrace in the catch clause.
In the scenario where a != null and there will be an exception, the return null will be reached. You can remove that statement and replace it with throw new TotallyFooException();.
In general*, if null is a valid result of a method (i.e. the user expects it and it means something) then returning it as a signal for "data not found" or exception happened is not a good idea. Otherwise, I don't see any problem why you shouldn't return null.
Take for example the Scanner#ioException method:
Returns the IOException last thrown by this Scanner's underlying Readable. This method returns null if no such exception exists.
In this case, the returned value null has a clear meaning, when I use the method I can be sure that I got null only because there was no such exception and not because the method tried to do something and it failed.
*Note that sometimes you do want to return null even when the meaning is ambiguous. For example the HashMap#get:
A return value of null does not necessarily indicate that the map contains no mapping for the key; it's also possible that the map explicitly maps the key to null. The containsKey operation may be used to distinguish these two cases.
In this case null can indicate that the value null was found and returned, or that the hashmap doesn't contain the requested key.

Is it bad practice to put in the extra return statement at the end just to satisfy the syntax and avoid compile errors (with a comment explaining it will not be reached)
I think return null is bad practice for the terminus of an unreachable branch. It is better to throw a RuntimeException (AssertionError would also be acceptable) as to get to that line something has gone very wrong and the application is in an unknown state.
Most like this is (like above) because the developer has missed something (Objects can be none-null and un-cloneable).
I'd likely not use InternalError unless I'm very very sure that the code is unreachable (for example after a System.exit()) as it is more likely that I make a mistake than the VM.
I'd only use a custom exception (such as TotallyFooException) if getting to that "unreachable line" means the same thing as anywhere else you throw that exception.

You caught the CloneNotSupportedException which means your code can handle it. But after you catch it, you have literally no idea what to do when you reach the end of the function, which implies that you couldn't handle it. So you're right that it is a code smell in this case, and in my view means you should not have caught CloneNotSupportedException.

I would prefer to use Objects.requireNonNull() to check if the Parameter a is not null. So it's clear when you read the code that the parameter should not be null.
And to avoid checked Exceptions I would re throw the CloneNotSupportedException as a RuntimeException.
For both you could add nice text with the intention why this shouldn't happen or be the case.
public Object getClone(Object a) {
Objects.requireNonNull(a);
try {
return a.clone();
} catch (CloneNotSupportedException e) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException(e);
}
}

The examples above are valid and very Java. However, here's how I would address the OP's question on how to handle that return:
public Object getClone(Cloneable a) throws CloneNotSupportedException {
return a.clone();
}
There's no benefit for checking a to see if it is null. It's going to NPE. Printing a stack trace is also not helpful. The stack trace is the same regardless of where it is handled.
There is no benefit to junking up the code with unhelpful null tests and unhelpful exception handling. By removing the junk, the return issue is moot.
(Note that the OP included a bug in the exception handling; this is why the return was needed. The OP would not have gotten wrong the method I propose.)

In this sort of situation I would write
public Object getClone(SomeInterface a) throws TotallyFooException {
// Precondition: "a" should be null or should have a someMethod method that
// does not throw a SomeException.
if (a == null) {
throw new TotallyFooException() ; }
else {
try {
return a.someMethod(); }
catch (SomeException e) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException(e) ; } }
}
Interestingly you say that the "try statement will never fail", but you still took the trouble to write a statement e.printStackTrace(); that you claim will never be executed. Why?
Perhaps your belief is not that firmly held. That is good (in my opinion), since your belief is not based on the code you wrote, but rather on the expectation that your client will not violate the precondition. Better to program public methods defensively.
By the way, your code won't compile for me. You can't call a.clone() even if the type of a is Cloneable. At least Eclipse's compiler says so. Expression a.clone() gives error
The method clone() is undefined for the type Cloneable
What I would do for your specific case is
public Object getClone(PubliclyCloneable a) throws TotallyFooException {
if (a == null) {
throw new TotallyFooException(); }
else {
return a.clone(); }
}
Where PubliclyCloneable is defined by
interface PubliclyCloneable {
public Object clone() ;
}
Or, if you absolutely need the parameter type to be Cloneable, the following at least compiles.
public static Object getClone(Cloneable a) throws TotallyFooException {
// Precondition: "a" should be null or point to an object that can be cloned without
// throwing any checked exception.
if (a == null) {
throw new TotallyFooException(); }
else {
try {
return a.getClass().getMethod("clone").invoke(a) ; }
catch( IllegalAccessException e ) {
throw new AssertionError(null, e) ; }
catch( InvocationTargetException e ) {
Throwable t = e.getTargetException() ;
if( t instanceof Error ) {
// Unchecked exceptions are bubbled
throw (Error) t ; }
else if( t instanceof RuntimeException ) {
// Unchecked exceptions are bubbled
throw (RuntimeException) t ; }
else {
// Checked exceptions indicate a precondition violation.
throw new IllegalArgumentException(t) ; } }
catch( NoSuchMethodException e ) {
throw new AssertionError(null, e) ; } }
}

Is having a return statement just to satisfy syntax bad practice?
As others have mentioned, in your case this does not actually apply.
To answer the question, though, Lint type programs sure haven't figured it out! I have seen two different ones fight it out over this in a switch statement.
switch (var)
{
case A:
break;
default:
return;
break; // Unreachable code. Coding standard violation?
}
One complained that not having the break was a coding standard violation. The other complained that having it was one because it was unreachable code.
I noticed this because two different programmers kept re-checking the code in with the break added then removed then added then removed, depending on which code analyzer they ran that day.
If you end up in this situation, pick one and comment the anomaly, which is the good form you showed yourself. That's the best and most important takeaway.

It isn't 'just to satisfy syntax'. It is a semantic requirement of the language that every code path leads to a return or a throw. This code doesn't comply. If the exception is caught a following return is required.
No 'bad practice' about it, or about satisfying the compiler in general.
In any case, whether syntax or semantic, you don't have any choice about it.

I would rewrite this to have the return at the end. Pseudocode:
if a == null throw ...
// else not needed, if this is reached, a is not null
Object b
try {
b = a.clone
}
catch ...
return b

No one mentioned this yet so here goes:
public static final Object ERROR_OBJECT = ...
//...
public Object getClone(Cloneable a) throws TotallyFooException {
Object ret;
if (a == null)
throw new TotallyFooException();
//no need for else here
try {
ret = a.clone();
} catch (CloneNotSupportedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
//something went wrong! ERROR_OBJECT could also be null
ret = ERROR_OBJECT;
}
return ret;
}
I dislike return inside try blocks for that very reason.

The return null; is necessary since an exception may be caught,
however in such a case since we already checked if it was null (and
lets assume we know the class we are calling supports cloning) so we
know the try statement will never fail.
If you know details about the inputs involved in a way where you know the try statement can never fail, what is the point of having it? Avoid the try if you know for sure things are always going to succeed (though it is rare that you can be absolutely sure for the whole lifetime of your codebase).
In any case, the compiler unfortunately isn't a mind reader. It sees the function and its inputs, and given the information it has, it needs that return statement at the bottom as you have it.
Is it bad practice to put in the extra return statement at the end
just to satisfy the syntax and avoid compile errors (with a comment
explaining it will not be reached), or is there a better way to code
something like this so that the extra return statement is unnecessary?
Quite the opposite, I'd suggest it's good practice to avoid any compiler warnings, e.g., even if that costs another line of code. Don't worry too much about line count here. Establish the reliability of the function through testing and then move on. Just pretending you could omit the return statement, imagine coming back to that code a year later and then try to decide if that return statement at the bottom is going to cause more confusion than some comment detailing the minutia of why it was omitted because of assumptions you can make about the input parameters. Most likely the return statement is going to be easier to deal with.
That said, specifically about this part:
try {
return a.clone();
} catch (CloneNotSupportedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
...
//cant be reached, in for syntax
return null;
I think there's something slightly odd with the exception-handling mindset here. You generally want to swallow exceptions at a site where you have something meaningful you can do in response.
You can think of try/catch as a transaction mechanism. try making these changes, if they fail and we branch into the catch block, do this (whatever is in the catch block) in response as part of the rollback and recovery process.
In this case, merely printing a stacktrace and then being forced to return null isn't exactly a transaction/recovery mindset. The code transfers the error-handling responsibility to all the code calling getClone to manually check for failures. You might prefer to catch the CloneNotSupportedException and translate it into another, more meaningful form of exception and throw that, but you don't want to simply swallow the exception and return a null in this case since this is not like a transaction-recovery site.
You'll end up leaking the responsibilities to the callers to manually check and deal with failure that way, when throwing an exception would avoid this.
It's like if you load a file, that's the high-level transaction. You might have a try/catch there. During the process of trying to load a file, you might clone objects. If there's a failure anywhere in this high-level operation (loading the file), you typically want to throw exceptions all the way back to this top-level transaction try/catch block so that you can gracefully recover from a failure in loading a file (whether it's due to an error in cloning or anything else). So we generally don't want to just swallow up an exception in some granular place like this and then return a null, e.g., since that would defeat a lot of the value and purpose of exceptions. Instead we want to propagate exceptions all the way back to a site where we can meaningfully deal with it.

Your example is not ideal to illustrate your question as stated in the last paragraph:
Is it bad practice to put in the extra return statement at the end
just to satisfy the syntax and avoid compile errors (with a comment
explaining it will not be reached), or is there a better way to code
something like this so that the extra return statement is unnecessary?
A better example would be the implementation of clone itself:
public class A implements Cloneable {
public Object clone() {
try {
return super.clone() ;
} catch (CloneNotSupportedException e) {
throw new InternalError(e) ; // vm bug.
}
}
}
Here the catch clause should never be entered. Still the syntax either requires to throw something or return a value. Since returning something does not make sense, an InternalError is used to indicate a severe VM condition.

How to ignore Exceptions in Java

I have the following code:
TestClass test=new TestClass();
test.setSomething1(0); //could, but probably won't throw Exception
test.setSomething2(0); //could, but probably won't throw Exception
I would like to execute: test.setSomething2(0); even if test.setSomething(0) (the line above it) throws an exception. Is there a way to do this OTHER than:
try{
test.setSomething1(0);
}catch(Exception e){
//ignore
}
try{
test.setSomething2(0);
}catch(Exception e){
//ignore
}
I have a lot of test.setSomething's in a row and all of them could throw Exceptions. If they do, I just want to skip that line and move to the next one.
For clarification, I don't care if it throws an Exception, and I can't edit the source code of the code which throws this exception.
THIS IS A CASE WHERE I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE EXCEPTIONS (please don't use universally quantified statements like "you should never ignore Exceptions"). I am setting the values of some Object. When I present the values to a user, I do null checks anyway, so it doesn't actually matter if any of the lines of code execute.

try {
// Your code...
} catch (Exception ignore) { }
Use the word ignore after the Exception keyword.

There is no way to fundamentally ignore a thrown exception. The best that you can do is minimize the boilerplate you need to wrap the exception-throwing code in.
If you are on Java 8, you can use this:
public static void ignoringExc(RunnableExc r) {
try { r.run(); } catch (Exception e) { }
}
#FunctionalInterface public interface RunnableExc { void run() throws Exception; }
Then, and implying static imports, your code becomes
ignoringExc(() -> test.setSomething1(0));
ignoringExc(() -> test.setSomething2(0));

IntelliJ Idea IDE suggests to rename a variable to ignored
when it isn't used.
This is my sample code.
try {
messageText = rs.getString("msg");
errorCode = rs.getInt("error_code");
} catch (SQLException ignored) { }

Unfortunately no, there isn't, and this is by intention. When used correctly, exceptions should not be ignored as they indicate that something didn't work and that you probably shouldn't continue down your normal execution path. Completely ignoring exceptions is an example of the 'Sweep it under the rug' anti-pattern, which is why the language doesn't support doing so easily.
Perhaps you should look at why TestClass.setSomething is throwing exceptions. Is whatever you're trying to 'test' really going to be valid if a bunch of setter methods didn't work correctly?

You can't ignore exception in Java. If a method declares being able to throw something this is because something important can't be done, and the error can't be corrected by the method designer. So if you really wan't to simplify your life encapsulate the method call in some other method like this :
class MyExceptionFreeClass {
public static void setSomething1(TestClass t,int v) {
try {
t.setSomething1(v);
} catch (Exception e) {}
public static void setSomething2(TestClass t,int v) {
try {
t.setSomething2(v);
} catch (Exception e) {}
}
and call it when you need it:
TestClass test=new TestClass();
MyExceptionFreeClass.setSomething1(test,0);
MyExceptionFreeClass.setSomething2(test,0);

You should not ignore Exceptions. You should handle them. If you want to make your test code simple, then add the try-catch block into your functions. The greatest way to ignore exceptions is to prevent them by proper coding.

I know this is old, but I do think there are occasions when you want to ignore an exception. Consider you have a string that contains a delimited set of parts to be parsed. But, this string can sometimes contain say, 6 or 7 or 8 parts. I don't feel that checking the len each time in order to establish an element exists in the array is as straight forward as simply catching the exception and going on. For example, I have a string delimited by '/' character that I want to break apart:
public String processLine(String inLine) {
partsArray = inLine.split("/");
//For brevity, imagine lines here that initialize
//String elems[0-7] = "";
//Now, parts array may contains 6, 7, or 8 elements
//But if less than 8, will throw the exception
try {
elem0 = partsArray[0];
elem1 = partsArray[1];
elem2 = partsArray[2];
elem3 = partsArray[3];
elem4 = partsArray[4];
elem5 = partsArray[5];
elem6 = partsArray[6];
elem7 = partsArray[7];
catch (ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException ignored) { }
//Just to complete the example, we'll append all the values
//and any values that didn't have parts will still be
//the value we initialized it to, in this case a space.
sb.append(elem0).append(elem1).append(elem2)...append(elem7);
//and return our string of 6, 7, or 8 parts
//And YES, obviously, this is returning pretty much
//the same string, minus the delimiter.
//You would likely do things to those elem values
//and then return the string in a more formatted way.
//But was just to put out an example where
//you really might want to ignore the exception
return sb.toString();
}

Those who write empty catch blocks shall burn in the Hell for the eternity.
Or worse, they will be forced to debug the damn rubbish they wrote forever and ever.
That said, one thing you might want to do is writing exception handling in a less verbose way. The NoException library is very good at that.

Is there a way to dis/enable assertions inline?

Can you tell me if there's a way to dis- and enable junit.framework.Assert commands inline to ignore them?
Code example just to show what i mean:
junitOff(); // first method I need help with
assertTrue(false); //would normally cause an AssertionError
junitOn(); // second method I need help with
System.out.println("Broke through asserTrue without Error")
I know it would be possible to use try/catch but that's not what I'm looking for because I can not go on with execution in the line after the assert...

I don't see any way to do this. Looking at the junit code you see:
static public void assertTrue(String message, boolean condition) {
if (!condition)
fail(message);
}
And fail() is:
static public void fail(String message) {
throw new AssertionError(message == null ? "" : message);
}
I see no ways to turn on a switch or otherwise disable it from throwing an AssertionError.
For the record, if you are talking about the assert Java primitive then that can be disabled but only at compile-time with the -ea switch.

What is the best practice for checking exceptions in JUnit?

I am trying my hand at writing test cases. From what I have read, my tests should fail from the start and I should strive to make tests pass. However, I find myself writing tests checking boundaries and the exceptions they should cause:
#Test(expected=NegativeArraySizeException.class)
public void testWorldMapIntInt() {
WorldMap w = new WorldMap(-1, -1);
}
#Test(expected=IndexOutOfBoundsException.class)
public void testGetnIntnInt() {
WorldMap w = new WorldMap(10,10);
Object o = w.get(-1, -1);
}
However, this test passes by default because Java will throw the exception anyway. Is there a better way to handle these kinds of expected exceptions, possibly a way that fails by default-- forcing me to strive to handle these cases?

I agree that the style you present is not so good. The problem is that it doesn't check where in the method the exception is thrown, so it's possible to get false negatives.
We usually write tests for exceptions like this:
public void testWorldMapIntInt() {
try {
WorldMap w = new WorldMap(-1, -1);
Assert.fail("should have thrown IndexOutOfBoundsException");
}
catch (IndexOutOfBoundsException e) {}
}

Expected behaviour for WorldMap is to throw an exception if (-1, -1) passed into it
Initially it doesn't do that, so your test will fail as it does not see expected exception.
You implement the code for WorldMap correctly, including throwing exception when (-1, -1) passed in.
You rerun your test, it passes.
Sound like good TDD to me!

That seems like a fair test to write. WorldMap is no standard Java class. Presumably it's your own class. Therefore the test wouldn't be passing if you hadn't already written some code. This test will force you to throw (or propagate) an appropriate exception from your class. That sounds like a good test to me, which you should write before implementing the behavior.

I personally look for mistakes like that in the WorldMap constructor and throw an IllegalArgumentException, that way you can provide a better error message, such as what the value passed in was and what the expected range is.
As for having that test fail by default, I cannot think of a reasonable way of doing that if you are going to have it actually do something (if you are writing the tests first then it should fail because the constructor won't have any code).

Agree with accepted answer, try-fail-catch idiom, although ugly and cluttering the test, is much better than #Test(expcted=...) as it might report false positives.
A while back I implemented very simple JUnit rule to deal with exception testing in both safe and readable manner:
public class DefaultFooServiceTest {
#UnderTest
private FooService fooService = new DefaultFooService();
#Rule
public ExceptionAssert exception = new ExceptionAssert();
#Test
public void shouldThrowNpeWhenNullName() throws Exception {
//given
String name = null;
//when
fooService.echo(name);
//then
exception.expect(NullPointerException.class);
}
#Test
public void shouldThrowIllegalArgumentWhenNameJohn() throws Exception {
//given
String name = "John";
//when
fooService.echo(name);
//then
exception.expect(IllegalArgumentException.class)
.expectMessage("Name: 'John' is not allowed");
}
}
See blog post and source.