I've just tried to write a simple test for Auth:
use Mockery as m;
...
public function testHomeWhenUserIsNotAuthenticatedThenRedirectToWelcome() {
$auth = m::mock('Illuminate\Auth\AuthManager');
$auth->shouldReceive('guest')->once()->andReturn(true);
$this->call('GET', '/');
$this->assertRedirectedToRoute('general.welcome');
}
public function testHomeWhenUserIsAuthenticatedThenRedirectToDashboard() {
$auth = m::mock('Illuminate\Auth\AuthManager');
$auth->shouldReceive('guest')->once()->andReturn(false);
$this->call('GET', '/');
$this->assertRedirectedToRoute('dashboard.overview');
}
This is the code:
public function getHome() {
if(Auth::guest()) {
return Redirect::route('general.welcome');
}
return Redirect::route('dashboard.overview');
}
When I run, I've got the following error:
EF.....
Time: 265 ms, Memory: 13.00Mb
There was 1 error:
1) PagesControllerTest::testHomeWhenUserIsNotAuthenticatedThenRedirectToWelcome
Mockery\Exception\InvalidCountException: Method guest() from Mockery_0_Illuminate_Auth_AuthManager should be called
exactly 1 times but called 0 times.
—
There was 1 failure:
1) PagesControllerTest::testHomeWhenUserIsAuthenticatedThenRedirectToDashboard
Failed asserting that two strings are equal.
--- Expected
+++ Actual
## ##
-'http://localhost/dashboard/overview'
+'http://localhost/welcome'
My questions are:
Two similar test cases but why the error output differs? First one the mock Auth::guest() is not called while the second one seems to be called.
On the second test case, why does it fail?
Is there any way to write better tests for my code above? Or even better code to test.
Above test cases, I use Mockery to mock the AuthManager, but if I use the facade Auth::shoudReceive()->once()->andReturn(), then it works eventually. Is there any different between Mockery and Auth::mock facade here?
Thanks.
You're actually mocking a new instance of the Illuminate\Auth\AuthManager and not accessing the Auth facade that is being utilized by your function getHome(). Ergo, your mock instance will never get called. (Standard disclaimer that none of the following code is tested.)
Try this:
public function testHomeWhenUserIsNotAuthenticatedThenRedirectToWelcome() {
Auth::shouldReceive('guest')->once()->andReturn(true);
$this->call('GET', '/');
$this->assertRedirectedToRoute('general.welcome');
}
public function testHomeWhenUserIsAuthenticatedThenRedirectToDashboard() {
Auth::shouldReceive('guest')->once()->andReturn(false);
$this->call('GET', '/');
$this->assertRedirectedToRoute('dashboard.overview');
}
If you check out Illuminate\Support\Facades\Facade, you'll see that it takes care of mocking for you. If you really wanted to do it the way that you were doing it (creating an instance of mock instance of Auth), you'd have to somehow inject it into the code under test. I believe that it could be done with something like this assuming that you extend from the TestCase class provided by laravel:
public function testHomeWhenUserIsNotAuthenticatedThenRedirectToWelcome() {
$this->app['auth'] = $auth = m::mock('Illuminate\Auth\AuthManager');
// above line will swap out the 'auth' facade with your facade.
$auth->shouldReceive('guest')->once()->andReturn(true);
$this->call('GET', '/');
$this->assertRedirectedToRoute('general.welcome');
}
Related
I want to run multiple test cases against the content of a whole set of files. I could use a data provider to load my files and use the same provider for all the tests like this:
class mytest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase {
public function contentProvider() {
return glob(__DIR__ . '/files/*');
}
/**
* #dataProvider contentProvider
*/
public function test1($file) {
$content = file_get_contents($file);
// assert something here
}
...
/**
* #dataProvider contentProvider
*/
public function test10($file) {
$content = file_get_contents($file);
// assert something here
}
}
Obviously that means if I have 10 test cases, each file is loaded 10 times.
I could adjust the data provider to load all files and return one big structure with all the contents. But since the provider is called separately for each test it would still mean each file is loaded 10 times and in addition it would load all files into memory at the same time.
I could of course condense the 10 tests into one test with 10 assertions, but then it would abort right after the first assertion fails and I really want a report of all things that are wrong with the file.
I know that data providers can also return an iterator. But phpunit seems to rerun the iterator separately for each test, still resulting in loading each file 10 times.
Is there a clever way to make phpunit run an iterator only once and pass the result to each test, before continuing?
Test dependencies
If some tests are dependents, you should use the #depends annotation to declare Test dependencies. The data returned by the dependency is used by the test declaring this dependency.
But, if a test declared as dependency failed, the dependent test is not executed.
Statically stored data
To share data between tests, it's common to setup fixtures statically.
You can use the same method with data providers:
<?php
use PHPUnit\Framework\TestCase;
class MyTest extends TestCase
{
private static $filesContent = NULL;
public function filesContentProvider()
{
if (self::$filesContent === NULL) {
$paths = glob(__DIR__ . '/files/*');
self::$filesContent = array_map(function($path) {
return [file_get_contents($path)];
}, $paths);
}
}
/**
* #dataProvider filesContentProvider
*/
public function test1($content)
{
$this->assertNotEmpty($content, 'File must not be empty.');
}
/**
* #dataProvider filesContentProvider
*/
public function test2($content)
{
$this->assertStringStartsWith('<?php', $content,
'File must start with the PHP start tag.');
}
}
As you can see, it's not supported out of the box. As the test class instance is destroyed after each test method execution, you have to store the initialized data in a class variable.
I want to use something like Cucumber JVM to drive performance tests written for Gatling.
Ideally the Cucumber features would somehow build a scenario dynamically - probably reusing predefined chain objects similar to the method described in the "Advanced Tutorial", e.g.
val scn = scenario("Scenario Name").exec(Search.search("foo"), Browse.browse, Edit.edit("foo", "bar")
I've looked at how the Maven plugin executes the scripts, and I've also seen mention of using an App trait but I can't find any documentation for the later and it strikes me that somebody else will have wanted to do this before...
Can anybody point (a Gatling noob) in the direction of some documentation or example code of how to achieve this?
EDIT 20150515
So to explain a little more:
I have created a trait which is intended to build up a sequence of, I think, ChainBuilders that are triggered by Cucumber steps:
trait GatlingDsl extends ScalaDsl with EN {
private val gatlingActions = new ArrayBuffer[GatlingBehaviour]
def withGatling(action: GatlingBehaviour): Unit = {
gatlingActions += action
}
}
A GatlingBehaviour would look something like:
object Google {
class Home extends GatlingBehaviour {
def execute: ChainBuilder =
exec(http("Google Home")
.get("/")
)
}
class Search extends GatlingBehaviour {...}
class FindResult extends GatlingBehaviour {...}
}
And inside the StepDef class:
class GoogleStepDefinitions extends GatlingDsl {
Given( """^the Google search page is displayed$""") { () =>
println("Loading www.google.com")
withGatling(Home())
}
When( """^I search for the term "(.*)"$""") { (searchTerm: String) =>
println("Searching for '" + searchTerm + "'...")
withGatling(Search(searchTerm))
}
Then( """^"(.*)" appears in the search results$""") { (expectedResult: String) =>
println("Found " + expectedResult)
withGatling(FindResult(expectedResult))
}
}
The idea being that I can then execute the whole sequence of actions via something like:
val scn = Scenario(cucumberScenario).exec(gatlingActions)
setup(scn.inject(atOnceUsers(1)).protocols(httpConf))
and then check the reports or catch an exception if the test fails, e.g. response time too long.
It seems that no matter how I use the 'exec' method it tries to instantly execute it there and then, not waiting for the scenario.
Also I don't know if this is the best approach to take, we'd like to build some reusable blocks for our Gatling tests that can be constructed via Cucumber's Given/When/Then style. Is there a better or already existing approach?
Sadly, it's not currently feasible to have Gatling directly start a Simulation instance.
Not that's it's not technically feasible, but you're just the first person to try to do this.
Currently, Gatling is usually in charge of compiling and can only be passed the name of the class to load, not an instance itself.
You can maybe start by forking io.gatling.app.Gatling and io.gatling.core.runner.Runner, and then provide a PR to support this new behavior. The former is the main entry point, and the latter the one can instanciate and run the simulation.
I recently ran into a similar situation, and did not want to fork gatling. And while this solved my immediate problem, it only partially solves what you are trying to do, but hopefully someone else will find this useful.
There is an alternative. Gatling is written in Java and Scala so you can call Gatling.main directly and pass it the arguments you need to run the Gatling Simulation you want. The problem is, the main explicitly calls System.exit so you have to also use a custom security manager to prevent it from actually exiting.
You need to know two things:
the class (with the full package) of the Simulation you want to run
example: com.package.your.Simulation1
the path where the binaries are compiled.
The code to run a Simulation:
protected void fire(String gatlingGun, String binaries){
SecurityManager sm = System.getSecurityManager();
System.setSecurityManager(new GatlingSecurityManager());
String[] args = {"--simulation", gatlingGun,
"--results-folder", "gatling-results",
"--binaries-folder", binaries};
try {
io.gatling.app.Gatling.main(args);
}catch(SecurityException se){
LOG.debug("gatling test finished.");
}
System.setSecurityManager(sm);
}
The simple security manager i used:
public class GatlingSecurityManager extends SecurityManager {
#Override
public void checkExit(int status){
throw new SecurityException("Tried to exit.");
}
#Override
public void checkPermission(Permission perm) {
return;
}
}
The problem is then getting the information you want out of the simulation after it has been run.
I have a SetUp method that checks GetParam() value. Something like:
void Tests::SetUp() {
if (GetParam().data == x) {
do_something;
}
}
However, some of my tests are P_TESTs, and some are F_TESTs. The F_TESTs do not have a parameter, so I get a segmentation fault when SetUp is called for these tests, as GetParam().data cannot be read!
Is there a way to check that the test has a parameter from inside of the SetUp method?
Thanks.
I'm attempting to test a typical controller flow for user login. There are extended relations, as with most login systems, and the Grails documentation is completely useless. It doesn't have a single example that is actually real-world relevant for typical usage and is a feature complete example.
my test looks like this:
#TestFor(UserController)
class UserControllerTests extends GroovyTestCase {
void testLogin() {
params.login = [email: "test1#example.com", password: "123"]
controller.login()
assert "/user/main" == response.redirectUrl
}
}
The controller does:
def login() {
if (!params.login) {
return
}
println("Email " + params.login.email)
Person p = Person.findByEmail(params?.login?.email)
...
}
which fails with:
groovy.lang.MissingMethodException: No signature of method: immigration.Person.methodMissing() is applicable for argument types: () values: []
The correct data is shown in the println, but the method fails to be called.
The test suite cannot use mocks overall because there are database triggers that get called, the result of which will need to be tested.
The bizarre thing is that if I call the method directly in the test, it works, but calling it in the controller doesn't.
For an update: I regenerated the test directly from the grails command, and it added the #Test annotation:
#TestFor(UserController)
class UserControllerTests extends GroovyTestCase {
#Test
void testLogin() {
params.login = [email: "test1#example.com", password: "123"]
Person.findByEmail(params.login.email)
controller.login()
}
}
This works if I run it with
grail test-app -integration UserController
though the result isn't populated correctly - the response is empty, flash.message is null even though it should have a value, redirectedUrl is null, content body is empty, and so is view.
If I remove the #TestFor annotation, it doesn't work even in the slightest. It fails telling me that 'params' doesn't exist.
In another test, I have two methods. The first method runs, finds Person.findAllByEmail(), then the second method runs and can't find Person.findAllByEmail and crashes with a similar error - method missing.
In another weird update - it looks like the response object is sending back a redirect, but to the application baseUrl, not to the user controller at all.
Integration tests shouldn't use #TestFor. You need to create an instance of the controller in your test, and set params in that:
class UserControllerTests extends GroovyTestCase {
void testLogin() {
def controller = new UserController()
controller.params.login = [email:'test1#example.com', password:'123']
controller.login()
assert "/user/main" == controller.response.redirectedUrl
}
}
Details are in the user guide.
The TestFor annotation is used only in unit tests, since this mocks the structure. In the integration tests you have access of the full Grails environment, so there's no need for this mocks. So just remove the annotation and should work.
class UserControllerTests extends GroovyTestCase {
...
}
I currently have a test which tests the presenter I have in the MVP model. On my presenter I have a property which will call into my View, which in my test is mocked out. In the Initialization of my test, after I set my View on the Presenter to be the mocked View, I set my property on the Presenter which will call this method.
In my test I do not have an Expect.Call for the method I invoke, yet when I run I get this Rhino mock exception:
Rhino.Mocks.Exceptions.ExpectationViolationException: IView.MethodToInvoke(); Expected #1, Actual #0..
From what I understand with Rhino mocks, as long as I am invoking on the Mock outside the expecting block it should not be recording this. I would imagine the test to pass. Is there a reason it is not passing?
Below is some code to show my setup.
public class Presenter
{
public IView View;
public Presenter(IView view)
{
View = view
}
private int _property;
public int Property
get { return _property;}
set
{
_property = value;
View.MethodToInvoke();
}
}
... Test Code Below ...
[TestInitialize]
public void Initilize()
{
_mocks = new MockRepository();
_view = _mocks.StrictMock<IView>();
_presenter = new Presenter(_view);
_presenter.Property = 1;
}
[TestMethod]
public void Test()
{
Rhino.Mocks.With.Mocks(_mocks).Expecting(delegate
{
}).Verify(delegate
{
_presenter.SomeOtherMethod();
});
}
Why in the world would you want to test the same thing each time a test is run?
If you want to test that a specific thing happens, you should check that in a single test.
The pattern you are using now implies that you need to
- set up prerequisites for testing
- do behavior
- check that behavior is correct
and then repeat that several times in one test
You need to start testing one thing for each test, and that help make the tests clearer, and make it easier to use the AAA syntax.
There's several things to discuss here, but it certainly would be clearer if you did it something like:
[TestMethod]
ShouldCallInvokedMethodWhenSettingProperty()
{
var viewMock = MockRepository.GenerateMock<IView>()
var presenter = new Presenter(viewMock);
presenter.Property = 1;
viewMock.AssertWasCalled(view => view.InvokedMethod());
}
Read up more on Rhino Mocks 3.5 syntax here: http://ayende.com/Wiki/Rhino+Mocks+3.5.ashx
What exactly are you trying to test in the Test method?
You should try to avoid using strict mocks.
I suggest using the Rhino's AAA syntax (Arrange, Act, Assert).
The problem lied with me not understanding the record/verify that is going on with Strict mocks. In order to fix the issue I was having this is how I changed my TestInitilize function. This basicaly does a quick test on my intial state I'm setting up for all my tests.
[TestInitialize]
public void Initilize()
{
_mocks = new MockRepository();
_view = _mocks.StrictMock<IView>();
_presenter = new Presenter(_view);
Expect.Call(delegate { _presenter.View.InvokedMethod(); });
_mocks.ReplayAll();
_mocks.VerifyAll();
_mocks.BackToRecordAll();
_presenter.Property = 1;
}