The method which I wanted to test looks like:
public void method1(String str) {
ParmaObjectRequest request = new ParmaObjectRequest(str);
this.instanceVar.save(request);
}
I wanted to test if this.instanceVar.save is called with an ParmaObjectRequest object with str value using jmockit.
The test case I have written looks like below and I am able to test that my method is called 1 times but not the parameter inside it.
#Test
public void testMethod1() {
new Expectations() {
{
this.instanceVar.save((ParmaObjectRequest) any);
times = 1;
}
};
testObject.method1("dummyString");
}
But I also wanted to test that this.instanceVar.save is called with object containing "dummyString".
In the Expectations block, change "this.instanceVar" to "testObject.instanceVar"
Related
I have created below JUnit5 parameterized test with ArgumentsSource for loading arguments for the test:
public class DemoModelValidationTest {
public ParamsProvider paramsProvider;
public DemoModelValidationTest () {
try {
paramsProvider = new ParamsProvider();
}
catch (Exception iaex) {
}
}
#ParameterizedTest
#ArgumentsSource(ParamsProvider.class)
void testAllConfigurations(int configIndex, String a) throws Exception {
paramsProvider.executeSimulation(configIndex);
}
}
and the ParamsProvider class looks like below:
public class ParamsProvider implements ArgumentsProvider {
public static final String modelPath = System.getProperty("user.dir") + File.separator + "demoModels";
YAMLDeserializer deserializedYAML;
MetaModelToValidationModel converter;
ValidationRunner runner;
List<Configuration> configurationList;
List<Arguments> listOfArguments;
public ParamsProvider() throws Exception {
configurationList = new ArrayList<>();
listOfArguments = new LinkedList<>();
deserializedYAML = new YAMLDeserializer(modelPath);
deserializedYAML.load();
converter = new MetaModelToValidationModel(deserializedYAML);
runner = converter.convert();
configurationList = runner.getConfigurations();
for (int i = 0; i < configurationList.size(); i++) {
listOfArguments.add(Arguments.of(i, configurationList.get(i).getName()));
}
}
public void executeSimulation(int configListIndex) throws Exception {
final Configuration config = runner.getConfigurations().get(configListIndex);
runner.run(config);
runner.getReporter().consolePrintReport();
}
#Override
public Stream<? extends Arguments> provideArguments(ExtensionContext context) {
return listOfArguments.stream().map(Arguments::of);
// return Stream.of(Arguments.of(0, "Actuator Power"), Arguments.of(1, "Error Logging"));
}}
In the provideArguments() method, the commented out code is working fine, but the first line of code
listOfArguments.stream().map(Arguments::of)
is returning the following error:
org.junit.platform.commons.PreconditionViolationException: Configuration error: You must configure at least one set of arguments for this #ParameterizedTest
I am not sure whether I am having a casting problem for the stream in provideArguments() method, but I guess it somehow cannot map the elements of listOfArguments to the stream, which can finally take the form like below:
Stream.of(Arguments.of(0, "Actuator Power"), Arguments.of(1, "Error Logging"))
Am I missing a proper stream mapping of listOfArguments?
provideArguments(…) is called before your test is invoked.
Your ParamsProvider class is instantiated by JUnit. Whatever you’re doing in desiralizeAndCreateValidationRunnerInstance should be done in the ParamsProvider constructor.
Also you’re already wrapping the values fro deserialised configurations to Arguments and you’re double wrapping them in providesArguments.
Do this:
#Override
public Stream<? extends Arguments> provideArguments(ExtensionContext context) {
return listOfArguments.stream();
}}
A custom object that takes a parameter of (DocumentSnapShot documentsnapShot). also is an inner object from Firebase that retrieves a snapshot and set the values to my custom model also have its argument (DocumentSnapShot documentsnapShot). However, I wish to get the data from Firebase and pass it to my custom argument because mine takes multiple data not only Firebase. And it's not possible to iterate Firestore without an override.
Here's the code:
public UserSettings getUserSettings(DocumentSnapshot documentSnapshot){
Log.d(TAG, "getUserSettings: retrieving user account settings from firestore");
DocumentReference mSettings = mFirebaseFirestore.collection("user_account_settings").document(userID);
mSettings.get().addOnSuccessListener(new OnSuccessListener<DocumentSnapshot>() {
#Override
public void onSuccess(DocumentSnapshot documentSnapshot) {
UserAccountSettings settings = documentSnapshot.toObject(UserAccountSettings.class);
settings.setDisplay_name(documentSnapshot.getString("display_name"));
settings.setUsername(documentSnapshot.getString("username"));
settings.setWebsite(documentSnapshot.getString("website"));
settings.setProfile_photo(documentSnapshot.getString("profile_photo"));
settings.setPosts(documentSnapshot.getLong("posts"));
settings.setFollowers(documentSnapshot.getLong("followers"));
settings.setFollowing(documentSnapshot.getLong("following"));
}
});
}
You cannot return something now that hasn't been loaded yet. Firestore loads data asynchronously, since it may take some time for this. Depending on your connection speed and the state, it may take from a few hundred milliseconds to a few seconds before that data is available. If you want to pass settings object to another method, just call that method inside onSuccess() method and pass that object as an argument. So a quick fix would be this:
#Override
public void onSuccess(DocumentSnapshot documentSnapshot) {
UserAccountSettings settings = documentSnapshot.toObject(UserAccountSettings.class);
yourMethod(settings);
}
One more thing to mention is that you don't need to set the those values to object that already have them. You are already getting the data from the database as an object.
So remember, onSuccess() method has an asynchronous behaviour, which means that is called even before you are getting the data from your database. If you want to use the settings object outside that method, you need to create your own callback. To achieve this, first you need to create an interface like this:
public interface MyCallback {
void onCallback(UserAccountSettings settings);
}
Then you need to create a method that is actually getting the data from the database. This method should look like this:
public void readData(MyCallback myCallback) {
DocumentReference mSettings = mFirebaseFirestore.collection("user_account_settings").document(userID);
mSettings.get().addOnSuccessListener(new OnSuccessListener<DocumentSnapshot>() {
#Override
public void onSuccess(DocumentSnapshot documentSnapshot) {
UserAccountSettings settings = documentSnapshot.toObject(UserAccountSettings.class);
myCallback.onCallback(settings);
}
});
}
In the end just simply call readData() method and pass an instance of the MyCallback interface as an argument wherever you need it like this:
readData(new MyCallback() {
#Override
public void onCallback(UserAccountSettings settings) {
Log.d("TAG", settings.getDisplay_name());
}
});
This is the only way in which you can use that object of UserAccountSettings class outside onSuccess() method. For more informations, you can take also a look at this video.
Use LiveData as return type and observe the changes of it's value to execute desired operation.
private MutableLiveData<UserAccountSettings> userSettingsMutableLiveData = new MutableLiveData<>();
public MutableLiveData<UserAccountSettings> getUserSettings(DocumentSnapshot documentSnapshot){
DocumentReference mSettings = mFirebaseFirestore.collection("user_account_settings").document(userID);
mSettings.get().addOnSuccessListener(new OnSuccessListener<DocumentSnapshot>() {
#Override
public void onSuccess(DocumentSnapshot documentSnapshot) {
UserAccountSettings settings = documentSnapshot.toObject(UserAccountSettings.class);
settings.setDisplay_name(documentSnapshot.getString("display_name"));
settings.setUsername(documentSnapshot.getString("username"));
settings.setWebsite(documentSnapshot.getString("website"));
settings.setProfile_photo(documentSnapshot.getString("profile_photo"));
settings.setPosts(documentSnapshot.getLong("posts"));
settings.setFollowers(documentSnapshot.getLong("followers"));
settings.setFollowing(documentSnapshot.getLong("following"));
userSettingsMutableLiveData.setValue(settings);
}
});
return userSettingsMutableLiveData;
}
Then from your Activity/Fragment observe the LiveData and inside onChanged do your desired operation.
getUserSettings().observe(this, new Observer<UserAccountSettings>() {
#Override
public void onChanged(UserAccountSettings userAccountSettings) {
//here, do whatever you want on `userAccountSettings`
}
});
I am trying to mock a method call which goes something like this:
rapContext.getSysInfo().get(key)
The getSysInfo() method returns a ConcurrentHashMap.
Here is what I have done:
Class ABCTest {
#Cascading RapContext context;
#Test
doTest() {
new Expectations() {
{
rapContext.getSysInfo().get(anyString);
result = new UserPrefCtxObject();
}
}
}
With this I get a NullPointerException on rapContext.getSysInfo(). Call to getSysInfo() returns null. If I call any other method which does not return a collection, for instance rapContext.getDomain() everything working fine.
I am not sure what I am missing.
Thanks
The code example is not complete however you are likely running into some issue associated with accidentally mocking Map. If a Map (or any part of the Collection framework) is mocked then a lot of things will break. I could not reproduce your problem as any attempt to mock RapContext using #Cascading resulted in a stack over flow.
You could partially mock RapContext instead and then either return a real or mocked Map. When I run into similar issues I generally get around them using either #Injectable to only mock an instance of a class or using partial mocks.
Here is an approach that will let you mock getSysInfo:
public class RapContextTest {
#Injectable ConcurrentHashMap<String, Object> mockedMap;
#Test
public void testContext() {
RapContext context = new RapContext();
new MockUp<RapContext>(){
#Mock
public ConcurrentHashMap getSysInfo(){
return mockedMap;
}
};
new NonStrictExpectations() {
{
mockedMap.get(anyString);
result = "Success";
}
};
Object value = context.getSysInfo().get("test");
System.out.println(value);
}
}
The following TestNG (6.3) test case generates the error "Invalid context for the recording of expectations"
#Listeners({ Initializer.class })
public final class ClassUnderTestTest {
private ClassUnderTest cut;
#SuppressWarnings("unused")
#BeforeMethod
private void initialise() {
cut = new ClassUnderTest();
}
#Test
public void doSomething() {
new Expectations() {
MockedClass tmc;
{
tmc.doMethod("Hello"); result = "Hello";
}
};
String result = cut.doSomething();
assertEquals(result, "Hello");
}
}
The class under test is below.
public class ClassUnderTest {
MockedClass service = new MockedClass();
MockedInterface ifce = new MockedInterfaceImpl();
public String doSomething() {
return (String) service.doMethod("Hello");
}
public String doSomethingElse() {
return (String) ifce.testMethod("Hello again");
}
}
I am making the assumption that because I am using the #Listeners annotation that I do not require the javaagent command line argument. This assumption may be wrong....
Can anyone point out what I have missed?
The JMockit-TestNG Initializer must run once for the whole test run, so using #Listeners on individual test classes won't work.
Instead, simply upgrade to JMockit 0.999.11, which works transparently with TestNG 6.2+, without any need to specify a listener or the -javaagent parameter (unless running on JDK 1.5).
I'm trying to test if the method I want to test calls some external (mock) object properly.
Here is the sample code:
using System;
using Rhino.Mocks;
using NUnit.Framework;
namespace RhinoTests
{
public abstract class BaseWorker
{
public abstract int DoWork(string data);
}
public class MyClass
{
private BaseWorker worker;
public BaseWorker Worker
{
get { return this.worker; }
}
public MyClass(BaseWorker worker)
{
this.worker = worker;
}
public int MethodToTest(string data)
{
return this.Worker.DoWork(data);
}
}
[TestFixture]
public class RhinoTest
{
[Test]
public void TestMyMethod()
{
BaseWorker mock = MockRepository.GenerateMock<BaseWorker>();
MyClass myClass = new MyClass(mock);
string testData = "SomeData";
int expResponse = 10;
//I want to verify, that the method forwards the input to the worker
//and returns the result of the call
Expect.Call(mock.DoWork(testData)).Return(expResponse);
mock.GetMockRepository().ReplayAll();
int realResp = myClass.MethodToTest(testData);
Assert.AreEqual(expResponse, realResp);
}
}
}
When I run this test, I get:
TestCase 'RhinoTests.RhinoTest.TestMyMethod'
failed: System.InvalidOperationException : Invalid call, the last call has been used or no call has been made (make sure that you are calling a virtual (C#) / Overridable (VB) method).
at Rhino.Mocks.LastCall.GetOptions[T]()
at Rhino.Mocks.Expect.Call[T](T ignored)
RhinoTest.cs(48,0): at RhinoTests.RhinoTest.TestMyMethod()
The exception is thrown on the Expect.Call line, before any invocation is made.
How do I approach this - i.e. how to check if the method under test properly forwards the call?
This is .Net 2.0 project (I can no change this for now), so no "x =>" syntax :(
I have to admit, I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but using Rhino.Mocks 3.6 and the newer syntax, it works fine for me:
[Test]
public void TestMyMethod()
{
MockRepository mocks = new MockRepository();
BaseWorker mock = mocks.StrictMock<BaseWorker>();
MyClass myClass = new MyClass(mock);
string testData = "SomeData";
int expResponse = 10;
using (mocks.Record())
{
//I want to verify, that the method forwards the input to the worker
//and returns the result of the call
Expect.Call(mock.DoWork(testData)).Return(expResponse);
}
using (mocks.Playback())
{
int realResp = myClass.MethodToTest(testData);
Assert.AreEqual(expResponse, realResp);
}
}
It doesn't have anything to do with the Rhino.Mocks version. With the old syntax, I get the same error as you're getting. I didn't spot any obvious errors in your code, but then again, I'm used to this using syntax.
Edit: removed the var keyword, since you're using .NET 2.0.