i have this class
#Value("${norsys.loadfile.directory}")
private String chemin;
#RequestMapping(value = "/{fileName:.+}", method = RequestMethod.GET)
#ResponseBody()
public void loadVideoFile(#PathVariable("fileName") String fileName,HttpServletResponse response) {
try {
response.setContentType("video/mp4");
Files.copy(Paths.get(chemin, fileName), response.getOutputStream());
response.flushBuffer();
} catch (java.io.FileNotFoundException e) {
response.setStatus(HttpStatus.NOT_FOUND.value());
} catch (Exception e) {
response.setStatus(HttpStatus.INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR.value());
}
}
I dont know how to apply a JUnit test to keep coverage high, I hope that you can give me an idea, thank you
In general you can use Mockito http://docs.mockito.googlecode.com/hg/org/mockito/Mockito.html to test classes which have heavyweight dependencies. Using a mock HttpServletResponse class you could verify that the status code is set appropriately for your failure/success cases.
You're going to run into some problems with the use of those static methods.
Instead of
Files.copy(Paths.get(chemin, fileName), response.getOutputStream());
You could use a non-static class, which you could then mock
class ResourceCopier {
public void copy(String dir, String file, OutputStream os) {
Files.copy(Paths.get(dir, file), os);
}
}
Your main class uses
private ResourceCopier resourceCopier;
public void loadVideoFile(....) {
resourceCopier.copy(chemin, fileName, response.getOutputStream());
}
And in your test class you create your primary object, create a Mock of ResourceCopier and HttpServletResponse and use #InjectMocks to inject them to your primary object.
You can then use Mockito's verify() method to make sure the right things have happened (like response.setStatus called with 404 code)
Related
I made an ExceptionMapper to catch and log all exceptions, like:
#Provider
public class CatchAllExceptionsMapper implements ExceptionMapper<Throwable> {
private static final Logger LOG = LoggerFactory.getLogger(CatchAllExceptionsMapper.class);
#Override
public Response toResponse(Throwable exception) {
LOG.error("Exception not catched!", exception);
return Response.serverError().build();
}
}
It catches the Exceptions my code throws, but if I send a Request with a JSON value that throws an IllegalStateException at my object's creation, this ExceptionMapper is ignored and I get a 400 Bad Request Response.
Funny thing is this Response is not the traditional Tomcat HTML formatted Response, its just plain text. It say just:
Cannot construct instance of `com.example.vo.AutoValue_Customer$Builder`, problem: First name is null or empty. at [Source: (org.glassfish.jersey.message.internal.ReaderInterceptorExecutor$UnCloseableInputStream); line: 14, column: 1]
I thought this might be something short-circuiting Jersey, but my #PreMatching ContainerRequestFilter is executed beforehand, so I really have no idea why the 400 Response is not the traditional HTML one from Tomcat.
Why is this happening? What can I do to catch this and return my own Response?
As stated by Paul Samsotha in the comments, JacksonFeature from the jersey-media-json-jackson package define some ExceptionMappers, like JsonMappingException and JsonParseException. The solution is to create our own, register them within the ResourceConfig and register JacksonFeature last, otherwise it won't work.
e.g.
#Provider
#Priority(1) // hack for overriding other implementations.
public class JsonMappingExceptionMapper implements ExceptionMapper<JsonMappingException> {
#Override
public Response toResponse(JsonMappingException exception) {
return Response.status(Status.BAD_REQUEST).build();
}
}
#Provider
#Priority(1) // hack for overriding other implementations.
public class JsonParseExceptionMapper implements ExceptionMapper<JsonParseException> {
#Override
public Response toResponse(JsonParseException exception) {
return Response.status(Status.BAD_REQUEST).build();
}
}
public class MyResourceConfig extends ResourceConfig {
public MyResourceConfig() {
register(CatchAllExceptionsMapper.class);
register(JsonMappingExceptionMapper.class);
register(JsonParseExceptionMapper.class);
register(JacksonFeature.class);
}
}
I want to perform same action for every class (just like #BeforeClass). I guess listeners can do things where you don't have to write code individually, but I did not find in each method/class but can be executed via a listener. Is there a way to execute my method before every class or just once before method of that class?
Check the beforeConfiguration() method in TestListenerAdapter.
#Override
public void beforeConfiguration(ITestResult tr) {
if(tr.getMethod().getMethodName().equals("methodNameForBeforeClass")) {
//...
}
}
Try configuration related methods in TestListenerAdapter:
class TestNGListener extends TestListenerAdapter {
#Override
public void beforeConfiguration(ITestResult tr) {
super.beforeConfiguration(tr);
logger.info("=========== Configuration method '{}' started ===========", tr.getMethod().getMethodName());
}
#Override
public void onConfigurationSuccess(ITestResult tr) {
super.onConfigurationSuccess(tr);
logger.info("=========== Configuration method '{}' finished ===========", tr.getMethod().getMethodName());
}
#Override
public void onConfigurationFailure(ITestResult tr) {
super.onConfigurationFailure(tr);
logger.error("!!!!!!!!!!! Configuration method '{}' failed !!!!!!!!!!!", tr.getMethod().getMethodName());
}
}
Extend TestListenerAdapter and override onTestStart(ITestResult result) method. This will help you to run something everytime a test starts
Can anyone advise if it is possible to use an expectations/verifications to test that private methods are being called the-right-number-of-times/right-parameters.
The Class under test has been Mocked-Up - with one private method overridden.
Am Testing a public method which calls into a number of private methods.
I wish to know if it is possible to verify the calls to other private methods which will be called when the public method is being executed ?
Some idea of the code/class under test;
public class UnderTest {
public void methodPublic(arg 1){
.....
methodPrivate1(var1);
....
methodPrivate2(var2);
}
private void methodPrivate1(var1){
//do stuff
}
private void methodPrivate2(var1){
//do stuff
}
}
In my test case
#Test
public void stateBasedTestMethod()
{
UnderTest underTest;
new MockUp<UnderTest>() {
#Mock(invocations = 1)
private void methodPrivate2(var1) {
//do nothing in the mocked case
}
};
underTest = new UnderTest();
underTest.methodPublic(arg1);
new Verifications() {{
// Is there a way to test that methodPrivate1 has been called-once/with-expected-arguments
}};
}
Edited in response to the answer from Rogério.
I am using jmockit 1.12
and the Verifications is FAILING as the method using the provided solution is invoking the method twice as I thought from the JMockit documentation.
Failure Trace;
mockit.internal.UnexpectedInvocation: Expected exactly 1 invocation(s) of MyHelperTest$1#method3..., but was invoked 2 time(s)
Included is the full code I am using for this.
As described above - my goal is to mock one of the private methods to do nothing.
And ensure that I can verify that the other private method is called only once.
Thanks in advance and hopefully will get a better understanding if this is possible with Jmockit.
Test Code.
public class MyHelperTest {
#Test
public void testHelper(#Mocked final MyDependent myDependent) {
final MyHelper myHelper;
new MockUp<MyHelper>() {
#Mock(invocations = 1)
private void method3(MyDependent myTable) {
System.out.println("In Mocked Method");
//do nothing in the mocked case
}
};
myHelper = new MyHelper();
myHelper.method1(myDependent);
new Verifications() {{
invoke(myHelper, "method2", myDependent); times = 1;
}};
}
}
Class under test.
public class MyHelper {
public void method1(MyDependent myDependent){
method2(myDependent);
}
private void method2(MyDependent myDependent) {
myDependent.setValue(1);
method3(myDependent);
}
private void method3(MyDependent myDependent) {
myDependent.setValue(2);
}
}
Dependent Class
public class MyDependent {
private int value;
public int getValue() {
return value;
}
public void setValue(int value) {
this.value = value;
}
}
It's possible, though not recommended to mock private methods.
Using the Expectations API:
#Tested #Mocked MyHelper myHelper;
#Test
public void testHelper(#Mocked final MyDependent myDependent)
{
new NonStrictExpectations() {{ invoke(myHelper, "method3", myDependent); }};
myHelper.method1(myDependent);
new Verifications() {{ invoke(myHelper, "method2", myDependent); times = 1; }};
}
... where the invoke(...) method is statically imported from class mockit.Deencapsulation.
I noticed that if a method you want to verify is not mocked, when the static block in an Expectations or Verifications instance is executed that the code calls the method that you are trying to mark as expected or verify.
This might explain the extra invocation that you are seeing.
One suggestion: if you are already mocking the class with MockUp (and thus creating an anonymous subclass) so you can override the private method, why not change the access of the overridden private method to protected or public? Then you can create an expectation or verification on it.
You could also provide a public field "public int counter=0;" and have your overridden method increment the counter. Then you can use an assert on it after the test is complete.
I am looking at AspectJ to see if perhaps we can use it in our test suite.
We have a rather large third party Java communications library hardwired to use its own classes (which do not implement any interfaces) which in turn mean that we need a physical backend present and correctly configured to be able to run tests.
I am looking at our options for removing this restriction. A possibility would be to create a subclass of the troublesome classes and then ask AspectJ to simply replace "new X" with "new OurSubclassOfX" when loading the third party library, but I am new to AspectJ and from my brief skimming of the documentation this is not a typical use case.
Can AspectJ do this? What would the configuration snippet be?
Yes, this is possible. Let us assume you have a hard-wired class, possibly fetching something from a database, and want to mock it via an aspect:
package de.scrum_master.aop.app;
public class HardWired {
private int id;
private String name;
public HardWired(int id, String name) {
this.id = id;
this.name = name;
}
public void doSomething() {
System.out.println("Fetching values from database");
}
public int getSomething() {
return 11;
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return "HardWired [id=" + id + ", name=" + name + "]";
}
}
Then there is a little driver application using that very class (not an interface):
package de.scrum_master.aop.app;
public class Application {
public static void main(String[] args) {
HardWired hw = new HardWired(999, "My object");
System.out.println(hw);
hw.doSomething();
System.out.println(hw.getSomething());
}
}
The output is as follows:
HardWired [id=999, name=My object]
Fetching values from database
11
Now you define your derived mock class which should replace the original for testing purposes:
package de.scrum_master.aop.mock;
import de.scrum_master.aop.app.HardWired;
public class HardWiredMock extends HardWired {
public HardWiredMock(int id, String name) {
super(id, name);
}
#Override
public void doSomething() {
System.out.println("Mocking database values");
}
#Override
public int getSomething() {
return 22;
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return "Mocked: " + super.toString();
}
}
And finally you define an aspect with a simple pointcut and advice to replace the original value during each constructor call:
package de.scrum_master.aop.aspect;
import de.scrum_master.aop.app.HardWired;
import de.scrum_master.aop.mock.HardWiredMock;
public aspect MockInjector {
HardWired around(int p1, String p2) : call(HardWired.new(int, String)) && args(p1, p2) {
return new HardWiredMock(p1, p2);
}
}
The output changes as desired:
Mocked: HardWired [id=999, name=My object]
Mocking database values
22
You do that once per class and constructor and are fine. In order to generalise the approach you would need joinpoint properties and, depending on how far you want to go, maybe reflection, but this here is pretty straightforward. Enjoy!
New poster here, hope I don't brake any rules :)
I am using PrivateModule in google-guice in order to have multiple DataSource's for the same environment. But I am having a hard time getting MethodInterceptor's to work inside the private modules.
Below is a simple test case that explains the "problem".
A simple service class would be:
interface Service {
String go();
}
class ServiceImpl implements Service {
#Override #Transactional
public String go() {
return "Test Case...";
}
}
The MyModule class would be:
class MyModule extends AbstractModule {
#Override
protected void configure() {
install(new PrivateModule() {
#Override
protected void configure() {
bind(Service.class).to(ServiceImpl.class);
bindInterceptor(
Matchers.any(),
Matchers.annotatedWith(Transactional.class),
new MethodInterceptor() {
#Override
public Object invoke(MethodInvocation i)
throws Throwable {
System.out.println("Intercepting: "
+ i.getMethod().getName());
return i.proceed();
}
});
expose(Service.class);
}
});
}
}
And the final test case:
public class TestCase {
#Inject Service service;
public TestCase() {
Guice.createInjector(new MyModule()).injectMembers(this);
}
public String go() {
return service.go();
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
TestCase t = new TestCase();
System.out.println(t.go());
}
}
You would expect the output to be:
Intercepting: go
Test Case...
But it doesn't happen, the interceptor is not used, ant only Test Case... is output.
If I bind/expose the ServiceImpl instead of the interface then it works.
Thanks in advance,
Regards,
LL
Well... I figured it out shortly after I posted the question :)
The problem is that you also need to expose() the ServiceImpl class.
So the bind/expose would be.
bind(ServiceImpl.class); // ServiceImpl annotated with #Singleton
bind(Service.class).to(ServiceImpl.class);
expose(ServiceImpl.class);
expose(Service.class);
Regards,
LL
You need to explicitly bind ServiceImpl in the private module. The problem with your existing code is that it inherits the binding for ServiceImpl from the parent module. From the PrivateModule docs,
Private modules are implemented using parent injectors. When it can satisfy their dependencies, just-in-time bindings will be created in the root environment. Such bindings are shared among all environments in the tree.
Adding this line should fix the problem:
bind(ServiceImpl.class);