Could not find explanation about the "just run", what does it mean when stub a function with it?
Will it make the mock object to call its real function, or make the function run a stub which does nothing?
Is there sample for showing some real use case?
#Test
fun `mocking functions that return Unit`() {
val SingletonObject = mockkObject<SingletonObject>()
every { SingletonObject.functionReturnNothing() } just Runs. // ???
SingletonObject.otherMemberFunction(). //which internally calls functionReturnNothing()
//...
}
with or without this every { SingletonObject.functionReturnNothing() } just Runs stub, the test is doing same.
Copy of the answer from #Raibaz:
just runs is used for methods returning Unit (i.e., not returning a value) on strict mocks.
If you create a mock that is not relaxed and invoke a method on it
that has not being stubbed with an every block, MockK will throw an exception.
To stub a method returning Unit, you can do
every { myObject.myMethod() } just runs
No, it doesn't (like mockito's .thenCallRealMethod()) :)
It "just runs", meaning it does not do anything.
To run the real method you can use:
every { ... } answers { callOriginal() }
Related
Here's a simplified version of what I want to test with Mockito:
class UnderTest {
fun doSomething() {
foo.doAnything()
}
}
class Foo {
fun doAnything(bar: Bar = Bar())
}
class TestUnderTest {
#Mock
var underTest: UnderTest
#Test
fun testDoSomething() {
underTest.doSomething() // Causes NPE
}
}
UnderTest is being tested. Its dependencies, like foo, are mocked. However, when my tests call UnderTest.doSomething(), it crashes. doSomething() calls Foo.doAnything(), letting it fill in the null parameter with the default - and the code that runs in that default parameter initialization is outside of the control of my test, as it's inside the static, synthetic method created for the byte code.
Is there a magical Mockito solution to get around this very situation? If so, I would love to hear it. Otherwise, I believe the options I have are:
To use PowerMock or Mockk to be able to mock things Mockito can't
To change Foo to have two doAnything() methods; one would have zero parameters, would call Bar() and pass it to the other.
To change Foo.doAnything() to accept a nullable parameter, then to have the body of the function call Bar() and use it.
mockk 1.9.3
In the test noticed if did static mock in previous test, the next test will be using same mock.
Thought to do a reset at #After, but not sure which one to use clearAllMocks or unmockkAll.
in https://mockk.io/
unmockkAll unmocks object, static and constructor mocks
clearAllMocks clears regular, object, static and constructor mocks
but not clear what are the difference by unmocks and clears.
e.g.
#Test
fun test_1() {
mockkStatic(TextUtils::class)
every { TextUtils.isEmpty(param } returns true
//test
doSomeThingUsingTextUtils()
// verify
... ...
}
#Test
fun test_2() {
// in this test it does not want the mocked stub behavior
}
What it should use, clear or 'unmock`?
For me, understanding the difference between Clearing and Unmocking was sufficient.
clear - deletes internal state of objects associated with mock
resulting in empty object
unmock - re-assigns transformation of
classes back to original state prior to mock
(Source)
PS: I understand the confusion! I had it as well!
Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.
I am currently trying to test my Exposed Kotlin code. I have a table that follows the form
object Foo: Table() {
*parameters*
}
and a method that looks something like
fun addNewFoo(){
Foo.insert { ... }
}
I'm testing addNewFoo and I want to verify the insert occurred, ideally using something like
verify { FooSpy.insert { ... } }
How do I mock the Foo table to be a spy so I can verify the call occurred, or what other approach should I take to verify this method being called?
You can first mock your singleton Foo class using mockkObject() and then verify. Here is the code:
mockkObject(Foo) // mock the object
addNewFoo() // call function that we're testing
verify { Foo.insert(any()) } // verify
There is discussion of ways to go about it: https://github.com/JetBrains/Exposed/issues/317
There seems to be no real intended way for testing but making small test tables in a test data base is the closest you can get.
From what I understand gmock (and I'm new to it) EXPECT_CALL allows for specifying how a method will behave when it's called (in this case I'm mostly interested in what it will return). But I could just as well define the method explicitly with its body. Example:
class Factory
{
int createSomething();
};
class MockFactory : public Factory
{
MOCK_METHOD0(createSomething, int());
};
int main()
{
...
int something(5);
MockFactory mockFactory;
EXPECT_CALL(mockFactory, createSomething()).WillRepeatedly(Return(something));
...
}
vs
class MockFactory : public Factory
{
int createSomething()
{
return 5;
}
};
Now, if createSomething were to behave differently (return different things) in different scenarios then obviously I should use EXPECT_CALL. But if it's going to always return the same thing wouldn't it be better to just explicitly define the method's body? (Note that other methods in the mocked class might still use EXPECT_CALL.)
When you define a method you miss all the flexibility that mocking that method can give you in the tests.
If you need to assert in a test that createSomething gets called, you can only do it if you have mocked it, not if you have a standard method definition. Not in this case, but in case of methods taking parameters, it's even better to have a mock.
If you need to set up a default action that your method should perform, even when you don't set any expectations on it, do so using ON_CALL macro in the SetUp member function of a TestFixture.
I thought I've understood Spock interactions but I have to admin that I'm still missing some pieces of the picture.
Alright, here my problem: I have a method in a Grails service which performs some operations, including a call to a void method of the same service class. Here's the code:
class myService {
void myStuff(def myObj, params) {
// do my stuff
anotherMethod(myObj)
//do my stuff again
}
void anotherMethod(myObj) {
// do other stuff
}
}
I want to be sure that myStuff method calls anotherMethod, to test and document the correct behaviour.
So, here's the test in my Spock Specification class:
void 'test myStuff method'() {
given: 'my object and some params'
// doesn't really matter what I'm doing here
MyObject myObj = new MyObject()
params = [title: 'my object']
when: 'we call myStuff()'
service.myStuff(myObj, params)
then: 'anotherMethod() is called exactly one times'
1 * service.anotherMethod(myObj)
}
}
The error I get is:
Too few invocations for:
1 * service.anotherMethod(myObj) (0 invocations)
What do you think? What's wrong?
As always, thanks in advance.
You are asking for a very special, and generally discouraged, form of mock called partial mocking where methods on the class under test are mocked. Spock supports this since 0.7, but you'll have to create a Spy() rather than a Mock(). Also note that you cannot mock private methods. For more information on spies, see the reference documentation.