I'm trying to create a IntelliJ plugin (mostly for learning purposes). My aim is that by pressing a keyboard shortcut the plugin will generate a corresponding PHP unit test method stub in the test file.
So let's say Db.php is open, the upon pressing Ctrl+Shift+U the plugin will create a unit test stub in DbTest.php.
So far I've figured out how to get the method name at cursor and how to locate the corresponding Unit test file (i.e. Db => DbTest) as PsiFile.
PsiFile[] search = FilenameIndex.getFilesByName(project, testFileName, scope); //scope is the test directory
PsiFile testFile = search[0];
What I cannot figure out is how to insert the generated new method stub this in testFile and then save the changes?
P.S. I see there exists a createMethodFromText function but how do I get the PsiClass from PsiFile? Also how do I save the changes?
There're just a few simple steps.
Find PhpClass you want to insert a new method in. As you already have PsiFile you can either traverse a tree manually or use PhpElementVisitor.
1.1. To travers a tree manually you can use PsiTreeUtil#findChildOfType method. In your case you'll need to find GroupStatement first, then the class you need.
1.2. Invoke PsiElement#accept method (PsiFile is an instance of PsiElement) provided with PhpElementVisitor with overridden #visitPhpGroupStatement and #visitPhpClass methods.
Use PhpPsiElementFactory#createMethod to create the new method from text. Note that this class isn't a part of the public API, so theoretically it can be easily changed/moved/removed/whatever in the future.
Use PsiElement#add (PhpClass is also an instance of PsiElement) to insert the method into the class.
That's all. You don't need to explicitly save the changes.
Here is what worked for me in the end. Thanks everyone for the help
for (int i = 0; i < found.getTextLength(); i++) {
PsiElement ele = found.findElementAt(i);
PhpClass phpClass = PsiTreeUtil.getParentOfType(ele, PhpClass.class);
if (phpClass != null) {
Method methodExists = findMethod(phpClass, methodName);
if (methodExists == null) {
new WriteCommandAction.Simple(phpClass.getProject(), phpClass.getContainingFile()) {
#Override
protected void run() throws Throwable {
PsiElement brace = phpClass.getLastChild();
if (brace != null) {
Method method = PhpPsiElementFactory.createMethod(phpClass.getProject(), "public function " + methodName + "() {\n\n}");
CodeStyleManager styleManager = CodeStyleManager.getInstance(getProject());
styleManager.reformat(method);
PsiElement newMethod = phpClass.addBefore(method, brace);
PsiNavigateUtil.navigate(newMethod);
}
}
}.execute();
} else {
PsiNavigateUtil.navigate(methodExists);
}
break;
}
}
Related
I am very new to unit tests and recently started learning it from various online resources.
But still it confuses me when I need to implement it in my code.
For the given image which I have attached here, could anyone of you suggest me how should I start or where to start?
This is Azure function which I will be creating unit test for, framework/library I would prefer is Xunit and moq.
As mentioned in a comment, a good place to start when unit testing is looking at your code and identifying the different "paths" it can take and what the result of that path will be.
if (inventoryRequest != null)
{
// path 1
await _inventoryService.ProcessRequest(inventoryRequest);
_logger.LogInformation("HBSI Inventory Queue trigger function processed.");
}
else
{
// path 2
_logger.LogInformation("Unable to process HBSI Rate plan Queue.");
}
In your code, because of your if statement, there are 2 possible paths which will end in 2 different results = 2 unit tests.
Now you can start creating your unit tests but first you need to find out what you need to set up to be able to trigger your code.
private readonly ILogger _logger;
private readonly IInventoryService _inventoryService;
public InventoryServiceBusFunction(ILogger logger, IInventoryService inventoryService)
{
_logger = logger;
_inventoryService = inventoryService;
}
You have some dependencies being passed into your constructor with interfaces - great, this means we can mock them. We want to mock dependencies in unit tests because we want to control their behaviour for the tests. Also, mocking the dependencies negates any "real" behaviour the dependency might be performing i.e. database operations, API calls etc.
Using Moq we can mock the objects like so:
public class InventoryServiceBusFunctionTests
{
private readonly Mock<ILogger> _mockLogger = new Mock<ILogger>();
private readonly Mock<IInventoryService> _mockInventoryService = new Mock<IInventoryService>();
...
We will use these mocks later to make verifications on behaviour we expect to happen.
Next, we need to create an instance of the actual class we want to test.
// using a constructor in the test class will run this code before each test
public InventoryServiceBusFunctionTests()
{
// pass the mocked objects to initialize class
_inventoryServiceBusFunction = new InventoryServiceBusFunction(_mockLogger.Object, _mockInventoryService.Object);
}
Now that we have an instance of the InventoryServiceBusFunction class, we can use any of the public properties/methods in our tests.
[Fact]
public async Task GivenInventoryRequest_WhenFunctionRuns_ThenInventoryServiceProcessesRequest()
{
Now, remembering the paths from earlier, we can start to create the test cases. We can take the first path and create a [Fact] for it. You want to give your test case a meaningful name. I usually use the style of Given_When_Then to describe what is expected to happen.
Next, I usually add 3 comment sections to my test case:
// arrange
// act
// assert
This allows me to clearly see which parts of the test are doing what.
// act
await _inventoryServiceBusFunction.Run(inventoryRequest);
Next, I would fill in the \\ act section because this will tell me (via Intellisense) what I need to arrange. e.g. above, when hovering my mouse over the Run method, I can see that I need to pass an instance of InventoryRequest.
// arrange
var inventoryRequest = new InventoryRequest
{
Name = "abc123",
Quantity = 2,
Tags = new List<string>
{
"foo"
}
};
In the \\ arrange section, initialize an instance of the InventoryRequest class and set the properties. This can be any data as we aren't really interested in the data itself but more what happens when the code runs.
if (inventoryRequest != null)
{
// path 1
await _inventoryService.ProcessRequest(inventoryRequest);
_logger.LogInformation("HBSI Inventory Queue trigger function processed.");
}
Lastly, the \\ assert section. Here, we want to make assertions on what we expect to happen given the set up of the test. So given the InventoryRequest is not null, we expect the if to evaluate to true and we expect the _inventoryService.ProcessRequest(inventoryRequest) method to be executed.
// assert
_mockInventoryService
.Verify(x => x.ProcessRequest(It.Is<InventoryRequest>(ir => ir.Name == inventoryRequest.Name
&& ir.Quantity == inventoryRequest.Quantity
&& ir.Tags.Contains(inventoryRequest.Tags[0]))));
In Moq, we can use the .Verify() method on the mock object to assert that the method was called. We can use the It.Is<T> syntax to make assertions on the data that is passed to the method.
Here is the full test case for path 1:
[Fact]
public async Task GivenInventoryRequest_WhenFunctionRuns_ThenInventoryServiceProcessesRequest()
{
// arrange
var inventoryRequest = new InventoryRequest
{
Name = "abc123",
Quantity = 2,
Tags = new List<string>
{
"foo"
}
};
// act
await _inventoryServiceBusFunction.Run(inventoryRequest);
// assert
_mockInventoryService
.Verify(x => x.ProcessRequest(It.Is<InventoryRequest>(ir => ir.Name == inventoryRequest.Name
&& ir.Quantity == inventoryRequest.Quantity
&& ir.Tags.Contains(inventoryRequest.Tags[0]))));
}
Then for path 2, you are setting up the test so that the else condition is executed.
[Fact]
public async Task GivenInventoryRequestIsNull_WhenFunctionRuns_ThenInventoryServiceDoesNotProcessRequest()
{
// arrange
InventoryRequest inventoryRequest = null;
// act
await _inventoryServiceBusFunction.Run(inventoryRequest);
// assert
_mockInventoryService
.Verify(x => x.ProcessRequest(It.IsAny<InventoryRequest>()), Times.Never);
}
Note - in the \\ assert here, I am asserting that the await _inventoryService.ProcessRequest(inventoryRequest) method is never called. This is because you want the test to fail in this scenario as the method should only be executed in the if condition. You may also choose to verify that the logger method is called with the correct message.
As per my understanding, keyword driven framework is, we create a keyword for each action we do and write the test cases in excel using those keywords.
For example, opening browser, entering username, password, clicking on login button etc we create a keyword for each action and create a method for each of these keywords and store all these methods in a class like actionmethods() etc.
We use java reflection class to call these methods.
If we have less no. of methods that should be ok. I am working on a small project where I got like 200 keywords. So I have to write 200 methods here. Should I store all these methods in one class?
What if I have 1000 keywords (for a big project)?
If I create separate files grouping keyword methods based on the pages, it is becoming very complicated. Can someone please explain if we use only one class to hold all the methods?
Thank you.
Maintain the keyword methods as separate class for each page like we do in page object pattern.
While calling the keyword, we can specify the class name as well along with method name. For e.g., LoginPage.login
For e.g., if you are maintaining the page class under package com.myproject.test.pages You can change the reflection code for invoking as,
public Object invokeKeywordMethod(String keywordName)
throws InvocationTargetException, IllegalAccessException, InstantiationException {
String[] keywords = keywordName.split("\\.");
if (keywords.length == 1)
throw new Error("Invalid keyword: " + keywordName + ". The keyword must be as ClassName.methodName");
String className = keywords[0];
String methodName = keywords[1];
Class<?> pageClass = getPageClass(className);
Method method;
try {
method = getPageClass("").getDeclaredMethod(methodName);
} catch (NoSuchMethodException e) {
throw new Error("The keyword method '" + methodName + "' is not found in the class");
}
return method.invoke(pageClass.newInstance());
}
private Class<?> getPageClass(String className) {
Class<?> pageClass = null;
try {
pageClass = Class.forName("com.myproject.test.pages." + className);
} catch (ClassNotFoundException e) {
throw new Error(className + " not found in package 'com.myproject.test.pages' ");
}
return pageClass;
}
So I have an application with a ton of migrations made by Entity framework.
We want to get a script for all the migrations at once and using the -Script tag does work fine.
However...it does not add GO statements in the SQL giving us problems like Alter view should be the first statement in a batch file...
I have been searching around and manually adding Sql("GO"); help with this problem but only for the entire script. When I use the package console manager again it returns an exception.
System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException (0x80131904): Could not find stored procedure 'GO'.
Is there a way to add these GO tags only when using the -Script tag?
If not, what is a good approach for this?
Note: we have also tried having multiple files but since we have so many migrations, this is near impossible to maintain every time.
If you are trying to alter your view using Sql("Alter View dbo.Foos As etc"), then you can avoid the should be the first statement in a batch file error without adding GO statements by putting the sql inside an EXEC command:
Sql("EXEC('Alter View dbo.Foos As etc')")
In order to change the SQL Generated by entity framework migrations you can create a new SqlServerMigrationSqlGenerator
We have done this to add a GO statement before and after the migration history:
public class MigrationScriptBuilder: SqlServerMigrationSqlGenerator
{
protected override void Generate(System.Data.Entity.Migrations.Model.InsertHistoryOperation insertHistoryOperation)
{
Statement("GO");
base.Generate(insertHistoryOperation);
Statement("GO");
}
}
then add in the Configuration constructor (in the Migrations folder of the project where you DbContext is) so that it uses this new sql generator:
[...]
internal sealed class Configuration : DbMigrationsConfiguration<PMA.Dal.PmaContext>
{
public Configuration()
{
SetSqlGenerator("System.Data.SqlClient", new MigrationScriptBuilder());
AutomaticMigrationsEnabled = false;
}
[...]
So now when you generate a script using the -Script tag, you can see that the insert into [__MigrationHistory] is surrounded by GO
Alternatively in your implementation of SqlServerMigrationSqlGenerator you can override any part of the script generation, the InsertHistoryOperation was suitable for us.
Turn out the concept exist deep in the SqlServerMigrationSqlGenerator as an optional argument for Statement(sql, batchTerminator). Here is something based on Skyp idea. It works both in -script mode or not. The GOs are for different operations than for Skyp only because our needs are a little different. You then need to register this class in the Configuration as per Skyp instructions.
public class MigrationScriptBuilder : SqlServerMigrationSqlGenerator
{
private string Marker = Guid.NewGuid().ToString(); //To cheat on the check null or empty of the base generator
protected override void Generate(AlterProcedureOperation alterProcedureOperation)
{
SqlGo();
base.Generate(alterProcedureOperation);
SqlGo();
}
protected override void Generate(CreateProcedureOperation createProcedureOperation)
{
SqlGo();
base.Generate(createProcedureOperation);
SqlGo();
}
protected override void Generate(SqlOperation sqlOperation)
{
SqlGo();
base.Generate(sqlOperation);
}
private void SqlGo()
{
Statement(Marker, batchTerminator: "GO");
}
public override IEnumerable<MigrationStatement> Generate(IEnumerable<MigrationOperation> migrationOperations, string providerManifestToken)
{
var result = new List<MigrationStatement>();
var statements = base.Generate(migrationOperations, providerManifestToken);
bool pendingBatchTerminator = false;
foreach (var item in statements)
{
if(item.Sql == Marker && item.BatchTerminator == "GO")
{
pendingBatchTerminator = true;
}
else
{
if(pendingBatchTerminator)
{
item.BatchTerminator = "GO";
pendingBatchTerminator = false;
}
result.Add(item);
}
}
return result;
}
}
The easiest way is to add /**/ before the GO statement.
Just replace the current statement with a .Replace("GO", "");
Problem
I am facing a problem using dynamically created list of items when Add method is called on dynamicvariable. Consider following code.
IEnumerable<dynamic> plugins = (IEnumerable<dynamic>)field.GetValue(instance);
if (plugins == null)
continue;
dynamic filteredPlugins = null;
foreach (var plugin in plugins)
{
if (filteredPlugins == null)
filteredPlugins = Activator
.CreateInstance(typeof(List<>)
.MakeGenericType(plugin.GetType()));
if (/* this condition does not matter*/)
//filteredPlugins.Add(plugin);
filteredPlugins.GetType().GetMethod("Add")
.Invoke(filteredPlugins, new object[] { plugin });
}
And now, the commented line filteredPlugins.Add(plugin) will throw System.Reflection.TargetInvocationException with the message 'object' does not contain a definition for 'Add' when plugin is of type
System.ComponentModel.Composition.ExportServices.DisposableLazy<IPlugin,IMetadata>
but it works completely perfect when pluginis of type
System.Lazy<IPlugin, IMetadata>
When the reflection is used to call Add method on the instance filteredPlugins instance as is done on the next line - everything works fine for any type.
My question is WHY is not Add method found in case of DisposableLazy type.
Background
This code is part of the method that I use in OnImportsSatisfied() method. I am using two kinds of import - which differs only in RequiredCreationPolicy - on has CreationPolicy.NonShared and the other default value of CreationPolicy.Any.
[ImportMany(RequiredCreationPolicy = CreationPolicy.NonShared)]
private IEnumerable<Lazy<IPlugin, IMetadata>> plugins = null;
For CreationPolicy.NonShared fields the underlaying type in the plugins is DisposableLazy and for CreationPolicy.Any the underlaying type in the plugins is Lazy.
Edit: As asked in the answer - I am using dynamic variable because IPlugin interface can change everytime this method is called and they do not have to have anything in common.
Edit2: I just found similar question C# dynamic type gotcha, so this can be probably closed as duplicite.
Because System.ComponentModel.Composition.ExportServices.DisposableLazy is a private class, the runtime binder is having trouble believing you have permission to use type, where reflection doesn't care.
Which begs the question why are you using dynamics at all in this case. Since DisposableLazy<IPlugin,IMetadata> public interface is it's subclass Lazy<IPlugin, IMetadata> & IDisposable, shouldn't you just be using a List<Lazy<IPlugin, IMetadata>> for either case?
var plugins = (IEnumerable<Lazy<IPlugin, IMetadata>>)field.GetValue(instance);
if (plugins == null)
continue;
var filteredPlugins = new List<Lazy<IPlugin, IMetadata>>();
foreach (var plugin in plugins)
{
if (/* this condition does not matter*/)
filteredPlugins.Add(plugin);
}
}
I'm looking to write a test for a function that just returns a value - that's it. I'm not sure how you could do that. I'm under the impression you have to use system.assert or something. New to SFDC, but have programmed in many other languages. Here's some sample code:
static String getBrowserName()
{
String userAgent = ApexPages.currentPage().getHeaders().get('User-Agent');
if (userAgent.contains('iPhone'))
return 'iPhone-Safari';
if (userAgent.contains('Salesforce'))
return 'Salesforce';
if (userAgent.contains('BlackBerry'))
return 'BlackBerry';
if (userAgent.contains('Firefox'))
return 'Firefox';
if (userAgent.contains('Safari'))
return 'Safari';
if (userAgent.contains('internet explorer'))
return 'ie';
return 'other';
}
How can you obtain 100% test coverage for that?
While Salesforce's lack of a mocking framework is infuriating because of the hoops you have to jump through when testing things like page controllers, it's important to think about what you want to test here. Assuming that what you specifically want to test is that given the user agent strings your code returns the appropriate string, then I think something like the following should work:
static String getBrowserName(string userAgentStringToTest)
{
PageReference pageRef = getPageReference(userAgentStringToTest);
String userAgent = getUserAgent(pageRef);
...
}
PageReference getPageReference(string userAgentStringToTest)
{
if(userAgentStringToTest.Length == 0)
{
return ApexPages.currentPage();
}
else
{
PageReference pageRef = new PageReference('someURL');
pageRef.getHeaders().put('User-Agent', userAgentStringToTest);
return pageRef;
}
}
String getUserAgent(PageReference pageRef)
{
pageRef.getHeaders().get('User-Agent');
}
You would then call the getBrowserName method with the empty string in your production code and with the string you want to test in your test code.
There are a few different flavours to this of course - you could overload the methods and have a parameterless method for the main code and a parameterized method for testing. It's not ideal, but I don't know of another way to do it on the force.com platform currently.
EDIT: Just for completeness, I'm adding sample tests to clarify things. My example showed how to refactor the production code to make it testable, but did not give an example of how to write a test like the OP asked for.
Your tests would look something like this:
static testMethod void checkIPhoneBrowser()
{
String actualBrowserName = getBrowserName('string containing iPhone somewhere');
String expectedBrowserName = 'iPhone-Safari';
System.assertEquals(expectedBrowserName , actualBrowserName );
}
static testMethod void checkIEBrowser()
{
String actualBrowserName = getBrowserName('string containing internet explorer somewhere');
String expectedBrowserName = 'ie';
System.assertEquals(expectedBrowserName , actualBrowserName );
}
...