I'm testing a controller that needs a Autowired Service.
I read in many place (example Mockito: How to test my Service with mocking?) I need to do it like this
#RunWith(JUnitPlatform.class)
public class AdminControllerTest {
#Mock
private AdminService service;
#InjectMocks
private AdminController adminController;
#Test
public void registerUser() {
Boolean resultReal = adminController.registerUser();
assertTrue(resultReal);
}
}
But it's fail and I see is because the adminController is null
Instead, if I create the controller like this
AdminController adminController = new AdminController();
It works, but then I can inject the mock.
Maybe I'm forgotten something
Per the documentation for InjectMocks:
MockitoAnnotations.openMocks(this) method has to be called to initialize annotated objects. In above example, openMocks() is called in #Before (JUnit4) method of test's base class. For JUnit3 openMocks() can go to setup() method of a base class. Instead you can also put openMocks() in your JUnit runner (#RunWith) or use the built-in MockitoJUnitRunner.
Thus, either:
call openMocks(this) somewhere before the test is run or
Use #RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class) on the class
Related
I'd like to write a little stub for a service class. The reason is, that I don't want to push the secret API keys that the service class needs to the CI and I don't want the service class in the CI to run against the external service anyways.
However, the service class is non-abstract and has a private constructor.
When I try to create my stub class like:
open class FirebaseMock: FirebaseMessaging {
// implemented functions go here
}
it says
This type has a constructor, and thus must be initialized here
If I try to initialize it like:
open class FirebaseMock: FirebaseMessaging() {
// implemented functions go here
}
it goes
Cannot access '<init>': it is private in 'FirebaseMessaging'
Which is true:
private FirebaseMessaging(Builder builder) {
...
All I want to do is make my stub class formally a subclass of FirebaseMessaging to use it as placeholder, that mocks the FirebaseMessaging-Functionality when the API keys are not present.
How can I just implement a non-abstract, non-interface class, that has a private constructor nonetheless.
My current solution is a wrapper, which works but is not as nice.
Mockito etc. does not seem like a good solution, since this is still in the productive code.
I was able to implement a non-static setup method with #BeforeAll annotation.
It seems to be working correctly as only gets call once.
I am bit confuse as the documentation for #BeforeAll says the method has to be static. Please explain.
#TestMethodOrder(OrderAnnotation.class)
#SpringJUnitWebConfig(locations = { "classpath:service.xml" })
#TestInstance(Lifecycle.PER_CLASS)
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
#Target(ElementType.TYPE)
#Documented
#Inherited
public class MyTest
{
#BeforeAll
public void setup() throws Exception {...}
}
You simply need to annotate your test class (that contains the #BeforeAll method) with the snippet below and you'll be good to go.
#TestInstance(Lifecycle.PER_CLASS)
If you want use non-static #BeforeAll and #AfterAll methods you should change test instance lifecycle to per_class.
Look there: 2.10. Test Instance Lifecycle
I have configured my .net-core 2.1 service with a database-context in the start-up method.
services.AddDbContext<DatabaseContext>(options => options.UseSqlServer(Configuration.GetConnectionString(nameof(DatabaseContext))));
Now i could do the following to get my database-context in my controller:
var context = serviceProvider.GetService<DatabaseContext>();
This works very well. But how could i access the Database-Context in a normal class something like this sould be done:
public class MyAccessClass{
public MyAccessClass(){
//Access the ServiceProvider or get the Database-Context class anywhere else
}
}
I don't want to pass the database-context object through the constructor or to initialize the DatbaseContext Class again.
Thanks for your help.
You should take your dependencies through the constructor, preferrably an interface, e.g. IDatabaseContext, but code sample below based on your code. If you add MyAccessClass as a service, e.g. services.AddTransient<MyAccessClass>(), and then use dependency injection in your controller, the database context would be automatically injected in the constructor by the default IoC container in ASP.NET Core.
You shouldn't have it rely on IServiceProvider, the reasoning is that your class wants to make no assumption of implementations, it just needs the database context. Having it rely on IServiceProvider would assume this context, and any possible future dependencies, comes from the IoC in ASP.NET Core which may not be the case (what if you just want to release this as a class library later on?). It would make the MyAccessClass class hard to test and use outside of a controller.
You say in your comment:
"...or get the Database-Context class anywhere else"
That anywhere else is completely flexible by simply accepting the context into the constructor since your class doesn't know where anywhere else is but whatever is creating your class does know!
Example of DI in ASP.NET Core
Take context as a dependency through constructor
public class MyAccessClass{
private readonly DatabaseContext databaseContext;
public MyAccessClass(DatabaseContext databaseContext) {
this.databaseContext = databaseContext;
}
}
Add as service
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
services.AddTransient<MyAccessClass>();
}
Inject into a controller
public class MyController : Controller
{
private readonly MyAccessClass myAccessClass;
//Happily injected through DI
public MyController(MyAccessClass myAccessClass)
{
this.myAccessClass = myAccessClass;
}
}
Or inject straight into an action
public class MyController : Controller
{
public MyController()
{
}
public IActionResult MyAction([FromServices] MyAccessClass myAccessClass)
{
}
}
I have a code like this:
public class MyTest extends TestCase {
private MyObject mObject1;
private MyObject mObject2;
...
#Override
public void setUp() throws Exception {
super.setUp();
}
public void testSomething() {
mObject1 = new MyObject();
mObject2 = new MyObject();
}
public void testSomething2() {
// Here I can't access the previously created objects mObject1 and
// mObject2, because they are again null.
// Why is that, if *my* setUp() method doesn't touch them?
}
My guess is that JUnit instantiates the class again every time. Can someone please explain me the workflow?
Thanks.
JUnit will instantiate the class (MyTest) once per test and then execute the methods
setUp()
testXXX()
tearDown()
until it runs all the methods that start with test and don't receive any parameters. So in your example, Junit will instantiate MyTest twice. You can read more about this in the JUnit documentation.
Bear in mind that this is the old way of writing tests. From Junit 4 (I think) the preferred way is to use annotations. You can check the annotations documentation here.
As a side note, NUnit, reuses the instance of the test, so in the same scenario, it would only instantiate MyTest once.
JUnit will instantiate this class once per test method, so only once in the code above, but try it again with two test methods and you will see it instantiated twice. If you want to save some state in fields without having to use statics, take a look at TestNG, which reuses the same instance for all test methods.
I've started playing with Wicket and I've chosen Guice as dependency injection framework. Now I'm trying to learn how to write a unit test for a WebPage object.
I googled a bit and I've found this post but it mentioned AtUnit so I decided to give it a try.
My WebPage class looks like this
public class MyWebPage extends WebPage
{
#Inject MyService service;
public MyWebPage()
{
//here I build my components and use injected object.
service.get(id);
....
}
}
I created mock to replace any production MyServiceImpl with it and I guess that Guice in hand with AtUnit should inject it.
Now the problems are:
AtUnit expects that I mark target object with #Unit - that is all right as I can pass already created object to WicketTester
#Unit MyWebPage page = new MyWebPage();
wicketTester.startPage(page);
but usually I would call startPage with class name.
I think AtUnit expects as well that a target object is market with #Inject so AtUnit can create and manage it - but I get an org.apache.wicket.WicketRuntimeException: There is no application attached to current thread main. Can I instruct AtUnit to use application from wicketTester?
Because I don't use #Inject at MyWebPage (I think) all object that should be injected by Guice are null (in my example the service reference is null)
I really can't find anything about AtUnit inside Wicket environment. Am I doing something wrong, am I missing something?
I don't know AtUnit but I use wicket with guice and TestNG. I imagine that AtUnit should work the same way. The important point is the creation of the web application with the use of guice.
Here how I bind all this stuff together for my tests.
I have an abstract base class for all my tests:
public abstract class TesterWicket<T extends Component> {
#BeforeClass
public void buildMockedTester() {
System.out.println("TesterWww.buildMockedTester");
injector = Guice.createInjector(buildModules());
CoachWebApplicationFactory instance =
injector.getInstance(CoachWebApplicationFactory.class);
WebApplication application = instance.buildWebApplication();
tester = new WicketTester(application);
}
protected abstract List<Module> buildModules();
The initialization is done for every test class. The subclass defines the necessary modules for the test in the buildModules method.
In my IWebApplicationFactory I add the GuiceComponentInjector. That way, after all component instantiation, the fields annotated with #Inject are filled by Guice:
public class CoachWebApplicationFactory implements IWebApplicationFactory {
private static Logger LOG = LoggerFactory.getLogger(CoachWebApplicationFactory.class);
private final Injector injector;
#Inject
public CoachWebApplicationFactory(Injector injector) {
this.injector = injector;
}
public WebApplication createApplication(WicketFilter filter) {
WebApplication app = injector.getInstance(WebApplication.class);
Application.set(app);
app.addComponentInstantiationListener(new GuiceComponentInjector(app, injector));
return app;
}
}