effector throws error ".use argument should be a function" at getCurrent (node_modules/effector/effector/region.ts:27:5) on attach method while testing.
I'm trying integration testing with mocking of some initial state.
//babel config
module.exports = (api) => {
if (api.env('test')) {
config.plugins.push([
'module-resolver',
{
root: ['.'],
alias: {
effector-react: 'effector-react/scope',
},
},
]);
}
return config;
};
//store.ts
export const getUsersFx = attach({
effect: getUsersOriginalFx,
source: [$clientId],
mapParams: (_, [clientId]) => ({
clientId
}),
});
//component.tsx
import { render } from '#testing-library/react';
import { Provider } from 'effector-react/scope'
describe('TestableComponent', () => {
test('should increment counter after click', () => {
const scope = fork()
const rendered = render(
<Provider value={scope}>
<TestableComponent />
</Provider>
);
})
})
I think the reason is that Effector mocks Effect and under the hood uses .use for effect callback mock. But then it change it to null or undefined and Effector throws error that fn in .use(fn) must be function
Effector mocks getUsersFx => getUsersFx.use(mockFn <- it's undefined i think).
Effector version: 22
Looks like the reason is multiple passes of effector/babel-plugin which you using for tests - error with attach is similiar:
https://github.com/effector/effector/issues/601
Multiple passes of babel-plugin will be supported in the next minor release of effector - for now you can check your babel configuration for duplicated usage of effector/babel-plugin
Related
I'd like to change the implementation of a mocked dependency on a per single test basis by extending the default mock's behaviour and reverting it back to the original implementation when the next test executes.
More briefly, this is what I'm trying to achieve:
Mock dependency
Change/extend mock implementation in a single test
Revert back to original mock when next test executes
I'm currently using Jest v21. Here is what a typical test would look like:
// __mocks__/myModule.js
const myMockedModule = jest.genMockFromModule('../myModule');
myMockedModule.a = jest.fn(() => true);
myMockedModule.b = jest.fn(() => true);
export default myMockedModule;
// __tests__/myTest.js
import myMockedModule from '../myModule';
// Mock myModule
jest.mock('../myModule');
beforeEach(() => {
jest.clearAllMocks();
});
describe('MyTest', () => {
it('should test with default mock', () => {
myMockedModule.a(); // === true
myMockedModule.b(); // === true
});
it('should override myMockedModule.b mock result (and leave the other methods untouched)', () => {
// Extend change mock
myMockedModule.a(); // === true
myMockedModule.b(); // === 'overridden'
// Restore mock to original implementation with no side effects
});
it('should revert back to default myMockedModule mock', () => {
myMockedModule.a(); // === true
myMockedModule.b(); // === true
});
});
Here is what I've tried so far:
mockFn.mockImplementationOnce(fn)
it('should override myModule.b mock result (and leave the other methods untouched)', () => {
myMockedModule.b.mockImplementationOnce(() => 'overridden');
myModule.a(); // === true
myModule.b(); // === 'overridden'
});
Pros
Reverts back to original implementation after first call
Cons
It breaks if the test calls b multiple times
It doesn't revert to original implementation until b is not called (leaking out in the next test)
jest.doMock(moduleName, factory, options)
it('should override myModule.b mock result (and leave the other methods untouched)', () => {
jest.doMock('../myModule', () => {
return {
a: jest.fn(() => true,
b: jest.fn(() => 'overridden',
}
});
myModule.a(); // === true
myModule.b(); // === 'overridden'
});
Pros
Explicitly re-mocks on every test
Cons
Cannot define default mock implementation for all tests
Cannot extend default implementation forcing to re-declare each mocked method
Manual mocking with setter methods (as explained here)
// __mocks__/myModule.js
const myMockedModule = jest.genMockFromModule('../myModule');
let a = true;
let b = true;
myMockedModule.a = jest.fn(() => a);
myMockedModule.b = jest.fn(() => b);
myMockedModule.__setA = (value) => { a = value };
myMockedModule.__setB = (value) => { b = value };
myMockedModule.__reset = () => {
a = true;
b = true;
};
export default myMockedModule;
// __tests__/myTest.js
it('should override myModule.b mock result (and leave the other methods untouched)', () => {
myModule.__setB('overridden');
myModule.a(); // === true
myModule.b(); // === 'overridden'
myModule.__reset();
});
Pros
Full control over mocked results
Cons
Lot of boilerplate code
Hard to maintain on long term
jest.spyOn(object, methodName)
beforeEach(() => {
jest.clearAllMocks();
jest.restoreAllMocks();
});
// Mock myModule
jest.mock('../myModule');
it('should override myModule.b mock result (and leave the other methods untouched)', () => {
const spy = jest.spyOn(myMockedModule, 'b').mockImplementation(() => 'overridden');
myMockedModule.a(); // === true
myMockedModule.b(); // === 'overridden'
// How to get back to original mocked value?
});
Cons
I can't revert mockImplementation back to the original mocked return value, therefore affecting the next tests
Use mockFn.mockImplementation(fn).
import { funcToMock } from './somewhere';
jest.mock('./somewhere');
beforeEach(() => {
funcToMock.mockImplementation(() => { /* default implementation */ });
// (funcToMock as jest.Mock)... in TS
});
test('case that needs a different implementation of funcToMock', () => {
funcToMock.mockImplementation(() => { /* implementation specific to this test */ });
// (funcToMock as jest.Mock)... in TS
// ...
});
A nice pattern for writing tests is to create a setup factory function that returns the data you need for testing the current module.
Below is some sample code following your second example although allows the provision of default and override values in a reusable way.
const spyReturns = returnValue => jest.fn(() => returnValue);
describe("scenario", () => {
beforeEach(() => {
jest.resetModules();
});
const setup = (mockOverrides) => {
const mockedFunctions = {
a: spyReturns(true),
b: spyReturns(true),
...mockOverrides
}
jest.doMock('../myModule', () => mockedFunctions)
return {
mockedModule: require('../myModule')
}
}
it("should return true for module a", () => {
const { mockedModule } = setup();
expect(mockedModule.a()).toEqual(true)
});
it("should return override for module a", () => {
const EXPECTED_VALUE = "override"
const { mockedModule } = setup({ a: spyReturns(EXPECTED_VALUE)});
expect(mockedModule.a()).toEqual(EXPECTED_VALUE)
});
});
It's important to say that you must reset modules that have been cached using jest.resetModules(). This can be done in beforeEach or a similar teardown function.
See jest object documentation for more info: https://jestjs.io/docs/jest-object.
Little late to the party, but if someone else is having issues with this.
We use TypeScript, ES6 and babel for react-native development.
We usually mock external NPM modules in the root __mocks__ directory.
I wanted to override a specific function of a module in the Auth class of aws-amplify for a specific test.
import { Auth } from 'aws-amplify';
import GetJwtToken from './GetJwtToken';
...
it('When idToken should return "123"', async () => {
const spy = jest.spyOn(Auth, 'currentSession').mockImplementation(() => ({
getIdToken: () => ({
getJwtToken: () => '123',
}),
}));
const result = await GetJwtToken();
expect(result).toBe('123');
spy.mockRestore();
});
Gist:
https://gist.github.com/thomashagstrom/e5bffe6c3e3acec592201b6892226af2
Tutorial:
https://medium.com/p/b4ac52a005d#19c5
When mocking a single method (when it's required to leave the rest of a class/module implementation intact) I discovered the following approach to be helpful to reset any implementation tweaks from individual tests.
I found this approach to be the concisest one, with no need to jest.mock something at the beginning of the file etc. You need just the code you see below to mock MyClass.methodName. Another advantage is that by default spyOn keeps the original method implementation but also saves all the stats (# of calls, arguments, results etc.) to test against, and keeping the default implementation is a must in some cases. So you have the flexibility to keep the default implementation or to change it with a simple addition of .mockImplementation as mentioned in the code below.
The code is in Typescript with comments highlighting the difference for JS (the difference is in one line, to be precise). Tested with Jest 26.6.
describe('test set', () => {
let mockedFn: jest.SpyInstance<void>; // void is the return value of the mocked function, change as necessary
// For plain JS use just: let mockedFn;
beforeEach(() => {
mockedFn = jest.spyOn(MyClass.prototype, 'methodName');
// Use the following instead if you need not to just spy but also to replace the default method implementation:
// mockedFn = jest.spyOn(MyClass.prototype, 'methodName').mockImplementation(() => {/*custom implementation*/});
});
afterEach(() => {
// Reset to the original method implementation (non-mocked) and clear all the mock data
mockedFn.mockRestore();
});
it('does first thing', () => {
/* Test with the default mock implementation */
});
it('does second thing', () => {
mockedFn.mockImplementation(() => {/*custom implementation just for this test*/});
/* Test utilising this custom mock implementation. It is reset after the test. */
});
it('does third thing', () => {
/* Another test with the default mock implementation */
});
});
I did not manage to define the mock inside the test itself so I discover that I could mock several results for the same service mock like this :
jest.mock("#/services/ApiService", () => {
return {
apiService: {
get: jest.fn()
.mockResolvedValueOnce({response: {value:"Value", label:"Test"}})
.mockResolvedValueOnce(null),
}
};
});
I hope it'll help someone :)
It's a very cool way I've discovered on this blog https://mikeborozdin.com/post/changing-jest-mocks-between-tests/
import { sayHello } from './say-hello';
import * as config from './config';
jest.mock('./config', () => ({
__esModule: true,
CAPITALIZE: null
}));
describe('say-hello', () => {
test('Capitalizes name if config requires that', () => {
config.CAPITALIZE = true;
expect(sayHello('john')).toBe('Hi, John');
});
test('does not capitalize name if config does not require that', () => {
config.CAPITALIZE = false;
expect(sayHello('john')).toBe('Hi, john');
});
});
Below test is passing but I get the following warning twice and I don't know why. Could someone help me to figure it out?
console.error
Warning: You called act(async () => ...) without await. This could lead to unexpected testing behaviour, interleaving multiple act calls and mixing their scopes. You should - await act(async () => ...);
at printWarning (../../node_modules/react-test-renderer/cjs/react-test-renderer.development.js:120:30)
at error (../../node_modules/react-test-renderer/cjs/react-test-renderer.development.js:92:5)
at ../../node_modules/react-test-renderer/cjs/react-test-renderer.development.js:14953:13
at tryCallOne (../../node_modules/react-native/node_modules/promise/lib/core.js:37:12)
at ../../node_modules/react-native/node_modules/promise/lib/core.js:123:15
at flush (../../node_modules/asap/raw.js:50:29)
import { fireEvent } from '#testing-library/react-native'
import { renderScreen } from 'test/render'
describe('screens/home', () => {
it('should render and redirect to the EventScreen', async () => {
const {
getByA11yLabel,
findByA11yLabel,
findAllByA11yLabel,
toJSON
} = renderScreen('Main')
expect(toJSON()).toMatchSnapshot('Default render')
const title = 'New event'
const titleInput = getByA11yLabel('event.title')
// Change title - sync fn
fireEvent.changeText(titleInput, title)
// Create button should be visible
const createButton = await findByA11yLabel('event.create')
expect(titleInput.props.value).toBe(title)
expect(createButton).toBeTruthy()
expect(toJSON()).toMatchSnapshot('Change title')
// Create event - async fn
fireEvent.press(createButton)
// The app should be redirected to the EventScreen
const titleInputs = await findAllByA11yLabel('event.title')
const upsertButton = await findByA11yLabel('event.upsert')
expect(toJSON()).toMatchSnapshot('Create event')
expect(titleInputs).toHaveLength(2)
expect(titleInputs[0].props.value).toBe('') // #MainScreen
expect(titleInputs[1].props.value).toBe(title) // #EventScreen
expect(upsertButton).toBeTruthy()
})
})
As far as I know, there is no need to wrap fireEvent with an act- link
findBy* also are automatically wrapped with act - link
Related issue in GitHub is still open
Dependencies:
react: 16.13.1
expo: 39.0.4
jest: 26.6.3
ts-jest: 26.4.4
jest-expo: 39.0.0
#testing-library/jest-native: 3.4.3
#testing-library/react: 11.2.2
#testing-library/react-native: 7.1.0
react-test-renderer: 16.13.1
typescript: 4.1.2
If you've exhausted all other debugging efforts and are pretty sure your code is written correctly, it may be related to react-native/jest-preset replacing global.Promise with a mock (see issue).
The solution to the problem, in this case, is to override/patch the jest preset to first save the original global Promise, apply the react-native/jest-preset and then restore the original Promise (overwriting the mocked version). This allowed me to use await in the tests that were unrelated to rendering without triggering the dreaded
console.error
Warning: You called act(async () => ...) without await. This could lead to unexpected testing behaviour, interleaving multiple act calls and mixing their scopes. You should - await act(async () => ...);
This snippet shows one way to perform this patch: https://github.com/sbalay/without_await/commit/64a76486f31bdc41f5c240d28263285683755938
I was facing the same problem. For my case I was using useEffect in my component. And while test it prompted me to wrap the rendering inside an act() call. Once I did that i.e. act(async () => ...) my initial problem was solved but I was getting the above mentioned error (Warning: You called act(async () => ...) without await.). I had to use await act(async () => ...) in my test to fix that. Though I am still not sure why it was required.
For reference I am adding a complete example component and corresponding test using await act(async () => ...);
LocationComponent.tsx
/** #jsx jsx */
import { jsx } from 'theme-ui';
import { FunctionComponent, useEffect, useState } from 'react';
type Coordinate = {
latitude: number;
longitude: number;
};
const LocationComponent: FunctionComponent<any> = () => {
const [coordinate, setCoordinate] = useState<Coordinate>();
const [sharedLocation, setSharedLocation] = useState<boolean>();
useEffect(() => {
let mounted = true;
if (!coordinate && navigator) {
navigator.geolocation.getCurrentPosition(function (position) {
setCoordinate({
latitude: position.coords.latitude,
longitude: position.coords.longitude,
});
});
navigator.permissions
.query({ name: 'geolocation' })
.then(function (result) {
if (mounted) setSharedLocation(result.state === 'granted');
});
}
return () => (mounted = false);
});
return (
<>
<div>Location shared:{sharedLocation ? 'Yes' : 'No'}</div>
<div>Latitude:{coordinate?.latitude}</div>
<div>Longitude:{coordinate?.longitude}</div>
</>
);
};
export default LocationComponent;
LocationComponent.spec.tsx
import React from 'react';
import { render, waitFor } from '#testing-library/react';
import { act } from 'react-dom/test-utils';
import LocationComponent from '../../../../../src/components/scheduler/location/LocationComponent';
const TEST_COORDS = {
latitude: 41.8817089,
longitude: -87.643301,
};
global.navigator.permissions = {
query: jest
.fn()
.mockImplementationOnce(() => Promise.resolve({ state: 'granted' })),
};
global.navigator.geolocation = {
getCurrentPosition: jest.fn().mockImplementationOnce((success) =>
Promise.resolve(
success({
coords: TEST_COORDS,
})
)
),
};
describe("Location Component when location share is 'granted'", () => {
it('should display current location details', async () => {
await act(async () => {
const { getByText } = render(<LocationComponent />);
/*expect(
await waitFor(() => getByText('Location shared:Yes'))
).toBeInTheDocument();*/
expect(
await waitFor(() => getByText('Latitude:41.8817089'))
).toBeInTheDocument();
expect(
await waitFor(() => getByText('Longitude:-87.643301'))
).toBeInTheDocument();
});
});
});
I try to test my web services, hosted in my Next.js app and I have an error with not found Next.js configuration.
My web service are regular one, stored in the pages/api directory.
My API test fetches a constant ATTACKS_ENDPOINT thanks to this file:
/pages/api/tests/api.spec.js
import { ATTACKS_ENDPOINT } from "../config"
...
describe("endpoints", () => {
beforeAll(buildOptionsFetch)
it("should return all attacks for attacks endpoint", async () => {
const response = await fetch(API_URL + ATTACKS_ENDPOINT, headers)
config.js
import getConfig from "next/config"
const { publicRuntimeConfig } = getConfig()
export const API_URL = publicRuntimeConfig.API_URL
My next.config.js is present and is used properly by the app when started.
When the test is run, this error is thrown
TypeError: Cannot destructure property `publicRuntimeConfig` of 'undefined' or 'null'.
1 | import getConfig from "next/config"
2 |
> 3 | const { publicRuntimeConfig } = getConfig()
I looked for solutions and I found this issue which talks about _manually initialise__ next app.
How to do that, given that I don't test React component but API web service ?
I solved this problem by creating a jest.setup.js file and adding this line of code
First add jest.setup.js to jest.config.js file
// jest.config.js
module.exports = {
// Your config
setupFilesAfterEnv: ['<rootDir>/jest.setup.js'],
};
AND then
// jest.setup.js
jest.mock('next/config', () => () => ({
publicRuntimeConfig: {
YOUR_PUBLIC_VARIABLE: 'value-of-env' // Change this line and copy your env
}
}))
OR
// jest.setup.js
import { setConfig } from 'next/config'
import config from './next.config'
// Make sure you can use "publicRuntimeConfig" within tests.
setConfig(config)
The problem I faced with testing with Jest was that next was not being initialized as expected. My solution was to mock the next module... You can try this:
/** #jest-environment node */
jest.mock('next');
import next from 'next';
next.mockReturnValue({
prepare: () => Promise.resolve(),
getRequestHandler: () => (req, res) => res.status(200),
getConfig: () => ({
publicRuntimeConfig: {} /* This is where you import the mock values */
})
});
Read about manual mocks here: https://jestjs.io/docs/en/manual-mocks
In my case, I had to:
Create a jest.setup.js file and
setConfig({
...config,
publicRuntimeConfig: {
BASE_PATH: '/',
SOME_KEY: 'your_value',
},
serverRuntimeConfig: {
YOUR_KEY: 'your_value',
},
});
Then add this in your jest.config.js file:
setupFilesAfterEnv: ['<rootDir>/jest.setup.js'],
I'm mocking expo and the Permissions module, but when calling Permissions.AskAsync Permissions is undefined.
Problem looks like this question. Using Jest to mock named imports
Used the provided answer, but did not work.
I have mocked the axios, which works. Doing the same for the expo module does not work.
The function I want to test:
checkPermission = async () => {
const {statusCamera} = await Permissions.askAsync(Permissions.CAMERA);
// console.log(statusCamera);
this.setState({cameraPermission: statusCamera});
const {statusCameraRoll} = await Permissions.askAsync(Permissions.CAMERA_ROLL);
this.setState({cameraRollPermission: statusCameraRoll});
};
The test:
describe("Test the Permission function", () => {
it('should return rejected permission.', async function () {
const wrapper = shallow(<Photo2/>);
const instance = wrapper.instance();
await instance.checkPermission();
expect(instance.state("cameraPermission")).toBeFalsy();
});
});
The mock I use for expo:
jest.mock('expo', ()=>({
Permissions: {
askAsync: jest.fn()
}
}))
and tried
(In file mocks/expo.js)
export default {
Permissions: {
askAsync: jest.fn(() => {
return "SOMETHING"
})
}
}
and tried
(In file mocks/expo.js)
jest.mock('expo', ()=>({
Permissions: {
askAsync: jest.fn()
}
}));
Error: "TypeError: Cannot read property 'askAsync' of undefined"
This error occures on line where Permissions.askAsyc is called. So Permissions is undefined. (Also checked it with console.log(Permissions)
I expected the instance.state("cameraPermission") to be falsy, but it crashes before it comes to that line.
Since expo change the packages to be import * as Permissions from 'expo-permissions';
You just need to create "mocks/expo-permissions.js" and have it has:
export const getAsync = jest.fn(permissions => Promise.resolve());
export const askAsync = jest.fn(permissions => Promise.resolve());
teerryn's answer is correct and is a good start. To add some more details:
Unless you've configured different roots for Jest, you should place your mock file in __mocks__/expo-permissions.js where __mocks__ is a directory at the same level as your node_modules folder. See Jest docs on mocking node modules.
The permissions argument being passed in will be undefined due to the way we're mocking the module, so you'll need to mock the permission types you want to use. Just need something simple like export const CAMERA_ROLL = 'camera_roll';
If you want to respond differently based on the permission type passed in (for example, allow Permissions.CAMERA but deny Permissions.CAMERA_ROLL and all other types), you can mock the implementation of the askAsync function. For example, your __mocks__/expo-permissions.js file would look like this:
export const CAMERA = 'camera';
export const CAMERA_ROLL = 'camera_roll';
export const askAsync = jest.fn().mockImplementation((permissionType) => {
const responseData = permissionType === CAMERA ? { status: 'granted' } : { status: 'undetermined' }; // you could also pass `denied` instead of `undetermined`
return Promise.resolve(responseData);
});
The problem is that you are handling async tests incorrectly (your checkPermission() function is async). There are several ways you can tell jest that you want to test an async function. Here are a few ways.
Here is a quick solution to your problem:
...
import { Permissions } from 'expo';
...
jest.mock('expo', () => ({
Permissions: {
askAsync: jest.fn(),
}
}));
...
describe("Test the Permission function", () => {
it('should return rejected permission.', () => {
Permissions.askAsync.mockImplementation( permission => { return {status: 'granted'}; } ); // if you want to add some sort of custom functionality
const wrapper = shallow(<Photo2/>);
const instance = wrapper.instance();
return instance.checkPermission().then(data => {
expect(instance.state("cameraPermission")).toBeFalsy();
});
});
});
In my React-Native application i wanna write some unit tests for my Native Libraries.
dataStorage.js
import RNDataStorage, {ACCESSIBLE} from "react-native-data-storage";
const dataStorage = {
setData: function (key, value) {
return RNDataStorage.set(key, value, {accessible: ACCESSIBLE.ALWAYS_THIS_DEVICE_ONLY})
.then(res => {
console.log(res);
return true;
})
},
}
export default dataStorage;
dataStorage.test.js
import dataStorage from '../../src/services/dataStorage'
jest.mock('react-native-data-storage', () => {
return {
RNDataStorage: {
set: jest.fn(),
}
};
});
it('Should return Access & RefreshToken', function () {
dataStorage.setData('John', 'Test');
});
When i run this setup i receive the error: TypeError: Cannot read property 'set' of undefined.
What is the correct way to mocks some modules? Thanks for any help
The module you are mocking is an ES6 module with a default export and a named export.
Mocking it like this should get your test running:
jest.mock('react-native-data-storage', () => {
return {
__esModule: true,
default: {
set: jest.fn(() => Promise.resolve('the response'))
},
ACCESSIBLE: {
ALWAYS_THIS_DEVICE_ONLY: true
}
};
});
Answer based on this post