#Test(groups = { "init" })
public correctVM() {}
#Test(groups = { "init" })
public serverStartedOk() {}
#Test(dependsOnGroups = { "init.* })
public method1() {}
// Above TestNG code
in method1, for the dependsOnGroups regular expression is used. Is it mandatory to use regEx or is it okay to give "init" as all groups are having name as init.
Only if you use the regex will TestNG know that you are not giving an absolute group name but you are indicating a pattern.
So going by your example you would need to mention
#Test(dependsOnGroups = { "init.* })
public method1() {
//code goes here.
}
for TestNG to basically pick up any groups whose names begin with init
Related
I may use case the class under test has many cases so it is divided into a structure of inner classes. I want to write parameterized test cases to reduce boiler plate and code duplication.
For this I wanted to go with the approach of method source.
Class under test
class UnderTest
{
testThisMethod(a:String,b:String?){
// Do something
externalInterface.call(a?:b)
}
}
Test Case structure
internal class A() {
private val externalService = mockk<ExternalService>
private val test: UnderTest(externalService)
// Some general tests
//---Position Outter
inner class A {
//--- Position A
inner class B {
//--- Position C
#ParameterizedTest
#MethodSource("provideArguments")
fun `with arguments external service create object`(
argument1: String,
argument2: String,
expected: String
) {
// Some code
verify {
externalService.call(expected)
//some more verification
}
}
}
}
}
To provide the argument provider method I tried placing it at positions and got following errors
Position outer: initialization error :Could not find factory method in class
Position A,B: compilation error: companion not allowed here
How can this be achieved?
Try using #TestInstance(TestInstance.Lifecycle.PER_CLASS)
internal class A() {
private val externalService = mockk
private val test: UnderTest(externalService)
// Some general tests
//---Position Outter
inner class A {
//--- Position A
#TestInstance(TestInstance.Lifecycle.PER_CLASS)
inner class B {
//--- Position C
#ParameterizedTest
#MethodSource("provideArguments")
fun `with arguments external service create object`(
argument1: String,
argument2: String,
expected: String
) {
// Some code
verify {
externalService.call(expected)
//some more verification
}
}
}
}
}
Check here for more details
I am trying to test my AkkaHTTP routes (written in Kotlin) using akka-http-testkit. The tests in our project use Spek and I would like to keep it this way.
The Route TestKit tutorial gives a Java example:
public class TestkitExampleTest extends JUnitRouteTest {
TestRoute appRoute = testRoute(new MyAppService().createRoute())
#Test
public void testCalculatorAdd() {
// test happy path
appRoute.run(HttpRequest.GET("/calculator/add?x=4.2&y=2.3"))
.assertStatusCode(200)
.assertEntity("x + y = 6.5")
// test responses to potential errors
appRoute.run(HttpRequest.GET("/calculator/add?x=3.2"))
.assertStatusCode(StatusCodes.NOT_FOUND) // 404
.assertEntity("Request is missing required query parameter 'y'")
// test responses to potential errors
appRoute.run(HttpRequest.GET("/calculator/add?x=3.2&y=three"))
.assertStatusCode(StatusCodes.BAD_REQUEST)
.assertEntity("The query parameter 'y' was malformed:\n" +
"'three' is not a valid 64-bit floating point value")
}
}
The setup uses the testRoute function, which means the test class must extend JUnitRouteTest.
Attempting to translate to a Kotlin Spek test I got this:
class TestKitExampleTest : JUnitRouteTest(), Spek({
describe("My routes") {
val appRoute = testRoute(MyAppService().createRoute())
it("calculator add") {
// test happy path
appRoute.run(HttpRequest.GET("/calculator/add?x=4.2&y=2.3"))
.assertStatusCode(200)
.assertEntity("x + y = 6.5")
//...rest omitted
}
}
})
which does not compile as the class is attempting to inherit two classes. I converted it to the following instead:
class TestKitExampleTest : Spek({
describe("My routes") {
val appRoute = testRoute(MyAppService().createRoute())
it("calculator add") {
// test happy path
appRoute.run(HttpRequest.GET("/calculator/add?x=4.2&y=2.3"))
.assertStatusCode(200)
.assertEntity("x + y = 6.5")
//...rest omitted
}
}
}) {
companion object : JUnitRouteTest()
}
which encouters the runtime error java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unknown factory null
at akka.http.impl.util.package$.actorSystem(package.scala:34).
Is there a way to use Akka's route testkit with Spek? Or is there another way to test these routes?
As #raniejade mentioned above, answered on Github. JUnitRouteTest bootstraps Akka with a rule, but Spek's LifeCycleListener can do the same thing.
Adding the code:
class SpekRouteBootstrapper: LifecycleListener, JUnitRouteTest() {
override fun beforeExecuteTest(test: TestScope) {
systemResource().before()
}
override fun afterExecuteTest(test: TestScope) {
systemResource().after()
}
}
allowed me to do this on the test class:
class TestKitExampleTest: Spek({
val bootstrapper = SpekRouteBootstrapper()
registerListener(bootstrapper)
describe("My routes") {
val appRoute by memoized {
bootstrapper.testRoute(MyAppService().createRoute())
}
it("calculator add") {
// test happy path
appRoute.run(HttpRequest.GET("/calculator/add?x=4.2&y=2.3"))
.assertStatusCode(200)
.assertEntity("x + y = 6.5")
}
}
})
I am looking for specialized singleton implementation, probably I might be using wrong terminology and hence looking for expert suggestion. Here is my scenario:
There is common code which can be called by ComponentA or ComponentB. I need to push telemetry data from the common code. Telemetry needs to have information that whether this common code get called by ComponentA or ComponentB.
So common code will have just this line of code:
telemetry.pushData(this._area, data);
where this._area tells the telemetry data is getting pushed for which component
I need to push telemetry data from multiple places so it would be good if object got created once and used through out the code lifetime
One option I can think of passing component context to the common code which in mind doesn't look right, hence looking for suggestion what kind of pattern one should use in this case?
This is what I am thinking
// Telemetry.ts file present in shared code
export class Telemetry extends Singleton {
public constructor() {
super();
}
public static instance(): Telemetry {
return super.instance<Telemetry>(Telemetry);
}
public publishEvent(data): void {
if (!this.area) {
throw new Error("Error: Initialize telemetry class with right area");
}
pushtelemetryData(this.area, data);
}
public area: string;
}
// Create Telemetry object from component A
Telemetry.instance().area = "ComponentA";
// Shared code will call telemetry publishEvent
Telemetry.instance().publishEvent(data);
Thanks
It's not a good pattern to use in TypeScript where you would generally inject dependencies.
If you must absolutely do it then you can do it by faking it somewhat:
namespace Telemetry {
var instance : SingletonSomething;
export function push(data: Any) : void {
if (instance == null) {
instance = new SingletonSomething();
}
instance.push(data);
}
class SingletonSomething() { ... }
}
and then you could call
Telemetry.push(data);
You can imitate the singleton pattern in typescript easily:
class Telemetry {
private static instance: Telemetry;
public static getInstance(): Telemetry {
if (Telemetry.instance == null) {
Telemetry.instance = new Telemetry();
}
return Telemetry.instance;
}
...
}
If you have your code in some sort of closure (module, namespace, etc) then you can replace the static member with:
let telemetryInstance: Telemetry;
export class Telemetry {
public static getInstance(): Telemetry {
if (telemetryInstance == null) {
telemetryInstance = new Telemetry();
}
return telemetryInstance;
}
...
}
But then you can also replace the static method with:
let telemetryInstance: Telemetry;
export function getTelemetryInstance(): Telemetry {
if (telemetryInstance == null) {
telemetryInstance = new Telemetry();
}
return telemetryInstance;
}
export class Telemetry {
...
}
At this point, in case you are using some sort of closure, you might ask yourself if you really need the class at all?
If you use this as a module:
// telemetry.ts
export interface TelemetryData {
...
}
export function pushData(data: TelemetryData): void {
...
}
Then you get exactly what you're looking for, and this is more of the "javascript way" of doing it.
Edit
In the telemetry module there's no need to know the users of it.
If the Telemetry.pushData function needs to have information about the object that called it then define an interface for it:
// telemetry.ts
export interface TelemetryData {
...
}
export interface TelemetryComponent {
name: string;
...
}
export function pushData(data: TelemetryData, component: TelemetryComponent): void {
...
}
Then in the other modules, where you use it:
// someModule.ts
import * as Telemetry from "./telemetry";
class MyComponent implement Telemetry.TelemetryComponent {
// can also be a simple string property
public get name() {
return "MyComponent";
}
fn() {
...
Telemetry.pushData({ ... }, this);
}
}
2nd Edit
Because you are using a module system, your module files are enough to make singletons, there's no need for a class to achieve that.
You can do this:
// telemetry.ts
let area: string;
export interface TelemetryData {
...
}
export function setArea(usedArea: string) {
area = usedArea;
}
export function pushData(data: TelemetryData): void {
...
}
Then:
Telemetry.setArea("ComponentA");
...
Telemetry.publishEvent(data);
The telemetry module will be created only once per page, so you can treat the entire module as a singleton.
Export only the functions that are needed.
I have a question about typescript properties: Is it possible to get the setter and getter of a typescript property or to declare a function argument to be of a property of X type?
The reason is to get some sort of "reference" to a variable which is not possible in plain JS without writing getter/setter wrappers or access the variable via parent object itself (obj["varname"]).
For example (with some working code and other parts speculative):
//A sample class with a property
class DataClass<T> {
private T val;
public get value(): T {
return this.val;
}
public set value(value: T) {
this.val = value;
}
}
//Different ways of modifing a member "by reference"
class ModifyRef {
public static void DoSomethingByGetterAndSetter(getter: () => string, setter: (val: string) => void) {
var oldValue = getter();
setter("new value by DoSomethingByGetterAndSetter");
}
public static void DoSomethingByObject(obj: Object, name: string) {
var oldValue = obj[name];
obj[name] = "new value by DoSomethingByObject";
}
//Is something like this possible?
public static void DoSomethingByProperty(somePropery: property<string>) {
var oldVlaue = someProperty;
someProperty = "new value by DoSomethingByProperty";
}
}
var inst = new DataClass<string>();
//Calling the DoSomethingByProperty if possible
ModifyRef.DoSomethingByProperty(inst.value);
//Or if not is something like this possible
ModifyRef.DoSomethingByGetterAndSetter(inst.value.get, inst.value.set);
The simplest way to do this would be to provide methods, rather than a property:
//A sample class with a property
class DataClass<T> {
private val: T;
public getValue(): T {
return this.val;
}
public setValue(value: T) {
this.val = value;
}
}
class ModifyRef {
public static DoSomethingByGetterAndSetter(getter: () => string, setter: (val: string) => void) {
var oldValue = getter();
setter("new value by DoSomethingByGetterAndSetter");
}
}
var inst = new DataClass<string>();
//Or if not is something like this possible
ModifyRef.DoSomethingByGetterAndSetter(inst.getValue, inst.setValue);
I've long found it very surprising that languages with properties don't include a convenient way to make a reference to a property, and have daydreamed about having this feature in C#. It ought to work on local variables as well.
A popular pattern for this kind of first-class or reified property is a single function that can be called in two ways:
no arguments: returns current value.
one argument: sets value, returns undefined.
Or in TypeScript terms:
interface Property<T> {
(): T;
(newVal: T): void;
}
The methods of jQuery objects often work like this. An example of this pattern in modelling pure data is in Knockout, in which such properties also support change subscriptions, and there's a rather elegant pattern for defining computed properties that automatically recompute when their dependencies change.
I have this abstract class:
public abstract class Accessor<T extends Id, U extends Value>
{
public U find(T id)
{
// let's say
return getHelper().find(id);
}
}
And an implementation:
public FooAccessor extends Accessor<FooId,Foo>
{
public Helper getHelper
{
// ...
return helper;
}
}
And I would like to mock the calls to FooAccessor.find.
This:
#MockClass(realClass=FooAccessor.class)
static class MockedFooAccessor
{
public Foo find (FooId id)
{
return new Foo("mocked!");
}
}
will fail with this error:
java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Matching real methods not found for the following mocks of MockedFooAccessor:
Foo find (FooId)
and I understand why... but I don't see how else I could do it.
Note: yes, I could mock the getHelper method, and get what I want; but this is more a question to learn about JMockit and this particular case.
The only way around this I have found is to use fields
#Test
public void testMyFooMethodThatCallsFooFind(){
MyChildFooClass childFooClass = new ChildFooClass();
String expectedFooValue = "FakeFooValue";
new NonStrictExpectations(){{
setField(childFooClass, "fieldYouStoreYourFindResultIn", expectedFooValue);
}};
childFooClass.doSomethingThatCallsFind();
// if your method is protected or private you use Deencapsulation class
// instead of calling it directly like above
Deencapsulation.invoke(childFooClass, "nameOfFindMethod", argsIfNeededForFind);
// then to get it back out since you used a field you use Deencapsulation again to pull out the field
String actualFoo = Deencapsulation.getField(childFooClass, "nameOfFieldToRunAssertionsAgainst");
assertEquals(expectedFooValue ,actualFoo);
}
childFooClass doesn't need to be mocked nor do you need to mock the parent.
Without more knowledge of your specific case this strategy has been the best way for me to leverage jMockit Deencapsulation makes so many things possilbe to test without sacrificing visibility. I know this doesn't answer the direct question but I felt you should get something out of it. Feel free to downvote and chastise me community.
Honestly, I do not find it in any way different from mocking regular classes. One way to go is to tell JMockit to mock only the find method and use Expectations block to provide alternate implementation. Like this:
abstract class Base<T, U> {
public U find(T id) {
return null;
}
}
class Concrete extends Base<Integer, String> {
public String work() {
return find(1);
}
}
#RunWith(JMockit.class)
public class TestClass {
#Mocked(methods = "find")
private Concrete concrete;
#Test
public void doTest() {
new NonStrictExpectations() {{
concrete.find((Integer) withNotNull());
result = "Blah";
}}
assertEquals("Blah", concrete.work());
}
}
Hope it helps.