JUnit5 - how to pass input collection to ParameterizedTest - junit5

I'm trying to translate a ParameterizedTest from JUnit4 to JUnit5 (sadly I'm not particularly skilled in testing).
In JUnit4 I have the following class:
#RunWith(Parameterized.class)
public class AssertionTestCase {
private final TestInput testInput;
public AssertionTestCase(TestInput testInput) {
this.testInput = testInput;
}
#Parameterized.Parameters
public static Collection<Object[]> data() {
return AssertionTestCaseDataProvider.createDataCase();
}
#Test(timeout = 15 * 60 * 1000L)
public void testDailyAssertion() {
LOG.info("Testing input {}/{}", testInput.getTestCase(), testInput.getTestName());
//assert stuffs
}
}
in the AssertionTestCaseDataProvider class I have a simple method generating a collection of Object[]:
class AssertionTestCaseDataProvider {
static Collection<Object[]> createDataCase() {
final List<TestInput> testInputs = new ArrayList<>();
//create and populate testInputs
return testInputs.stream()
.map(testInput -> new Object[]{testInput})
.collect(Collectors.toList());
}
}
I've been trying to translate it using JUnit5 and obtained this:
class AssertionTestCase {
private final TestInput testInput;
public AssertionTestCase(TestInput testInput) {
this.testInput = testInput;
}
public static Collection<Object[]> data() {
return AssertionTestCaseDataProvider.createDataCase();
}
#ParameterizedTest
#MethodSource("data")
void testDailyAssertion() {
LOG.info("Testing input {}/{}", testInput.getTestCase(), testInput.getTestName());
// assert stuffs
}
}
I did not apply any change to the AssertionTestCaseDataProvider class.
Nevertheless, I'm getting the following error:
No ParameterResolver registered for parameter [com.xxx.xx.xxx.xxx.testinput.TestInput arg0] in constructor [public `com.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.AssertionTestCase(com.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.testinput.TestInput)]. org.junit.jupiter.api.extension.ParameterResolutionException: No ParameterResolver registered for parameter [com.xxx.xx.xxx.xxx.testinput.TestInput arg0] in constructor [public com.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.AssertionTestCase(com.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.testinput.TestInput)].`
I understand I'm probably not applying correctly JUnit5 when initializing the input collection for the test. Am I missing some annotations?
I've also tried to use #ArgumentSource instead of #MethodSource and implementing Argument for AssertionTestCaseDataProvider, with the same failing results.

It works in a bit another way in Junit5.
Test Method should have parameters, and provider method should return a Stream.
static Stream<Arguments> data(){
return Stream.of(
Arguments.of("a", 1),
Arguments.of("d", 2)
);
}
#ParameterizedTest
#MethodSource("data")
void testDailyAssertion(String a, int b) {
Assertions.assertAll(
() -> Assertions.assertEquals("a", a),
() -> Assertions.assertEquals(1, b)
);
}
In your case you can just return a Stream<TestInput>:
static Stream<TestInput> createDataCase() {
final List<TestInput> testInputs = new ArrayList<>();
//create and populate testInputs
return testInputs.stream();
}
and then in your testMethod:
#ParameterizedTest
#MethodSource("createDataCase")
void testDailyAssertion(TestInput testInput) {
{your assertions}
}

Related

JUnit 5 Parameterized test #ArgumentsSource parameters not loading

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();
}}

PHPUnit testing a protected static method that uses pdo

I am very new to TDD. I am using phpunit 7.4x-dev. I have the following abstract class that I am trying to develop unit tests for.
use PDO;
abstract class Model {
protected static function getDB() {
static $db = null;
if ($db === null) {
$db = new PDO(ConfigDatabase::DSN, ConfigDatabase::USER, ConfigDatabase::PASSWORD);
$db->setAttribute(PDO::ATTR_ERRMODE, PDO::ERRMODE_EXCEPTION);
}
return $db;
}
}
I have created the following test to get around the need to deal with the static protected method. And it works if I provide "ConfigureDatabase" class.
use PHPUnit\Framework\TestCase;
class ModelTest extends TestCase {
function newMockClass(){
$stub = new class() extends Model{
function getStaticMethod($methodName){
return self::$methodName();
}
};
return $stub;
}
public function testDatabaseExists() {
$stub = $this->newMockClass();
$db = $stub->getStaticMethod('getDB');
$this->assertInstanceOf(PDO::class,$db);
}
}
Since I do not want my tests to rely on any actual database, How would I fake the calls to PDO.
Following Dormilich suggestion I developed a database interface, just in case I decide later I do not want to use PDO.
interface CRUDImp {
function __construct($datbaseBridgeLikePDO);
...
}
Next I wrote my tests for the constructor. I used setup to make sure I was starting with a fresh mock of \PDO.
class PDOWrapperTest extends TestCase {
private $pdoMock;
private $db;
function setup() {
$this->pdoMock = $this->createMock('\PDO');
$this->db = new PDOWrapper($this->pdoMock);
}
public function testWrapperExists() {
$this->pdoMock->method('getAttribute')->willReturn(\PDO::ERRMODE_EXCEPTION);
$db = new PDOWrapper($this->pdoMock);
$x = $db instanceof CRUDImp;
$this->assertTrue($x);
}
/**
* #expectedException \Exception
*/
public function testNonPDOPassedToConstructor() {
$mock = $this->createMock('\Exception');
$x = new PDOWrapper($mock);
}
...
}
Since PHP is loosely typed I check to make sure that the class passed to the constructor was an instance of \PDO. I implemented the concrete class as follows
class PDOWrapper implements CRUDImp {
private $pdo;
private $dataOutputType = \PDO::FETCH_ASSOC;
public function __construct($pdo) {
if (!($pdo instanceof \PDO)) {
throw new \Exception("PDOWrapper must be passed instance of \PDO");
}
$attr_Errmode = $pdo->getAttribute(\PDO::ATTR_ERRMODE);
if ($attr_Errmode !== \PDO::ERRMODE_EXCEPTION) {
$pdo->setAttribute(\PDO::ATTR_ERRMODE, \PDO::ERRMODE_EXCEPTION);
}
$this->pdo = $pdo;
}
...
}
Now that I have an independent database wrapper the original Model tests are at the moment trivial and no longer needed. The abstract class Model was modified as follows:
abstract class Model {
protected $database=null;
function __construct(CRUDWrapper $database) {
$this->database = $database;
}
...
}
So for those not familiar with dependency injection I found the following links helpful:
http://php-di.org/doc/understanding-di.html
https://codeinphp.github.io/post/dependency-injection-in-php/
https://designpatternsphp.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Structural/DependencyInjection/README.html
Hope this shortens someone's work.

Customized parameter logging when using aspect oriented programing

All the examples I've seen that use aspect oriented programming for logging either log just class, method name and duration, and if they log parameters and return values they simply use ToString(). I need to have more control over what is logged. For example I want to skip passwords, or in some cases log all properties of an object but in other cases just the id property.
Any suggestions? I looked at AspectJ in Java and Unity interception in C# and could not find a solution.
You could try introducing parameter annotations to augment your parameters with some attributes. One of those attributes could signal to skip logging the parameter, another one could be used to specify a converter class for the string representation.
With the following annotations:
#Documented
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
#Target(ElementType.METHOD)
public #interface Log {
}
#Documented
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
#Target(ElementType.PARAMETER)
public #interface SkipLogging {
}
#Documented
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
#Target(ElementType.PARAMETER)
public #interface ToStringWith {
Class<? extends Function<?, String>> value();
}
the aspect could look like this:
import java.lang.reflect.Parameter;
import java.util.function.Function;
import java.util.stream.Collectors;
import java.util.stream.IntStream;
import org.aspectj.lang.reflect.MethodSignature;
import org.slf4j.Logger;
import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory;
public aspect LoggingAspect {
private final static Logger logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(LoggingAspect.class);
pointcut loggableMethod(): execution(#Log * *..*.*(..));
before(): loggableMethod() {
MethodSignature signature = (MethodSignature) thisJoinPoint.getSignature();
Parameter[] parameters = signature.getMethod()
.getParameters();
String message = IntStream.range(0, parameters.length)
.filter(i -> this.isLoggable(parameters[i]))
.<String>mapToObj(i -> toString(parameters[i], thisJoinPoint.getArgs()[i]))
.collect(Collectors.joining(", ",
"method execution " + signature.getName() + "(", ")"));
Logger methodLogger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(
thisJoinPointStaticPart.getSignature().getDeclaringType());
methodLogger.debug(message);
}
private boolean isLoggable(Parameter parameter) {
return parameter.getAnnotation(SkipLogging.class) == null;
}
private String toString(Parameter parameter, Object value) {
ToStringWith toStringWith = parameter.getAnnotation(ToStringWith.class);
if (toStringWith != null) {
Class<? extends Function<?, String>> converterClass =
toStringWith.value();
try {
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
Function<Object, String> converter = (Function<Object, String>)
converterClass.newInstance();
String str = converter.apply(value);
return String.format("%s='%s'", parameter.getName(), str);
} catch (Exception e) {
logger.error("Couldn't instantiate toString converter for logging "
+ converterClass.getName(), e);
return String.format("%s=<error converting to string>",
parameter.getName());
}
} else {
return String.format("%s='%s'", parameter.getName(), String.valueOf(value));
}
}
}
Test code:
public static class SomethingToStringConverter implements Function<Something, String> {
#Override
public String apply(Something something) {
return "Something nice";
}
}
#Log
public void test(
#ToStringWith(SomethingToStringConverter.class) Something something,
String string,
#SkipLogging Class<?> cls,
Object object) {
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
// execution of this method should log the following message:
// method execution test(something='Something nice', string='some string', object='null')
test(new Something(), "some string", Object.class, null);
}
I used Java 8 Streams API in my answer for it's compactness, you could convert the code to normal Java code if you don't use Java 8 features or need better efficiency. It's just to give you an idea.

How to generalize a JMockit test using Spring autowiring

So I would like to use a generic test for a few different Dao methods. Inside the Dao, I implemented the save functionality to be Entity independent, so I figured it would be best to make the tests Entity independent as well. Currently I have the following for one of my jmockit tests that is autowired with spring.
#Injectable
public EntityManager em;
#Tested
SyncClaimDao syncClaimDao = new SyncClaimDaoImpl();
#Before
public void setUp() {
Deencapsulation.setField(syncClaimDao, "em", em);
}
private void testSaveEntity (Class T) {
// Existing claim happy path
new Expectations() {
{
em.contains(any); result = true;
em.merge(any);
}
};
if (T.isInstance(SyncClaimEntity.class)) {
Assert.assertTrue(syncClaimDao.saveClaim(new SyncClaimEntity()));
} else if (...) {...}
}
#Test
public void testSaveClaim() {
testSaveEntity(SyncClaimEntity.class);
}
SyncClaimDaoImpl
#Override
public boolean saveClaim(SyncClaimEntity claim) {
return saveEntity(claim);
}
private boolean saveEntity(Object entity) {
boolean isPersisted = false;
try {
isPersisted = em.contains(entity);
if (isPersisted) {
em.merge(entity);
} else {
em.persist(entity);
em.flush();
isPersisted = true;
}
logger.debug("Persisting " + entity.getClass().getSimpleName() + ": " + entity.toString());
}
catch (NullPointerException ex) {
...
}
catch (IllegalArgumentException ex) {
...
}
return isPersisted;
}
When I run the tests I am seeing the following errors:
mockit.internal.MissingInvocation: Missing invocation of:
javax.persistence.EntityManager#contains(Object)
with arguments: any Object
on mock instance: javax.persistence.$Impl_EntityManager#44022631
at at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
... 4 more
Caused by: Missing invocation
at [redacted].dal.dao.SyncClaimDaoImplTest$1.<init>(SyncClaimDaoImplTest.java:48)
at [redacted].dal.dao.SyncClaimDaoImplTest.testSaveEntity(SyncClaimDaoImplTest.java:46)
at [redacted].dal.dao.SyncClaimDaoImplTest.testSaveClaim(SyncClaimDaoImplTest.java:67)
... 10 more
Now if I just move the Expectations block into the #Test method like so:
#Test
public void testSaveClaim() {
new Expectations() {
{
em.contains(any); result = true;
em.merge(any);
}
};
Assert.assertTrue(syncClaimDao.saveClaim(new SyncClaimEntity()));
I get a successful test run as should be. I'm thinking that the spring autowiring for the Test method is not properly scoping my Expectations. That's why I'm seeing the missing invocation errors.
Does anyone have any ideas on how to generalize my Expectations so I can create simpler tests for generalized methods?
I see the mistake now: T.isInstance(SyncClaimEntity.class). The Class#isInstance(Object) method is supposed to be called with an instance of the class, not with the class itself; so, it's always returning false because SyncClaimEntity.class is obviously not an instance of SyncClaimEntity.

Cast route parameter in Nancy is always null

I have a Nancy module which uses a function which expects as parameters a string (a captured pattern from a route) and a method group. When trying to pass the parameter directly it will not compile as I "cannot use a method group as an argument to a dynamically dispatched operation".
I have created a second route which attempts to cast the dynamic to a string, but this always returns null.
using System;
using Nancy;
public class MyModule : NancyModule
{
public MyModule()
{
//Get["/path/{Name}/action"] = parameters =>
// {
// return MyMethod(parameters.Name, methodToBeCalled); // this does not compile
// };
Get["/path/{Name}/anotherAction"] = parameters =>
{
return MyMethod(parameters.Name as string, anotherMethodToBeCalled);
};
}
public Response MyMethod(string name, Func<int> doSomething)
{
doSomething();
return Response.AsText(string.Format("Hello {0}", name));
}
public int methodToBeCalled()
{
return -1;
}
public int anotherMethodToBeCalled()
{
return 1;
}
}
Tested with the following class in a separate project:
using System;
using Nancy;
using Nancy.Testing;
using NUnit.Framework;
[TestFixture]
public class MyModuleTest
{
Browser browser;
[SetUp]
public void SetUp()
{
browser = new Browser(with =>
{
with.Module<MyModule>();
with.EnableAutoRegistration();
});
}
[Test]
public void Can_Get_View()
{
// When
var result = browser.Get("/path/foobar/anotherAction", with => with.HttpRequest());
// Then
Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.OK, result.StatusCode);
Assert.AreEqual("Hello foobar", result.Body.AsString()); //fails as parameters.Name is always null when cast to a string
}
}
You can find the whole test over on github
I've had similar issues when using 'as' so I tend to use explicitly cast it:
return MyMethod((string)parameters.Name, anotherMethodToBeCalled);
Also I think there was a bug raised with the casing on parameters, but I think it's better to keep them lowercase:
Get["/path/{name}/anotherAction"]
(string)parameters.name
Your code works for me with upper case and lowercase, using the explicit cast.