I am trying to write a test for Webflux Reactive websocket, the test is ok when the assertions fails, but when it is supposed to pass the test keeps running and nothing happens.
Here is the test in simplified version.
webSocketClient.execute(getUrl("/websocket"),
session -> {
return session.receive().map(WebSocketMessage::getPayloadAsText)
.doOnNext(it->assertEquals("test", it)).then();
}
).block(Duration.ofSeconds(2));
Tried placing the assertions in different places such as .map, .doOnNext(),.handle() but nothing changes.
If anybody can help, i would greatly appreciate it.
Thanks
Related
Has someone worked on unit testing ag-grid components in Angular 2?
For me, this.gridOptions.api remains undefined when the test cases run.
Sorry to be a little late to the party but I was looking for an answer to this just a couple of days ago so wanted to leave an answer for anyone else that ends up here. As mentioned by Minh above, the modern equivalent of $digest does need to be run in order for ag-grid api's to be available.
This is because after the onGridReady() has run you have access to the api's via the parameter, looking like so. This is run automatically when a component with a grid is initialising. Providing it is defined in the grid (gridReady)="onGridReady($event)"
public onGridReady(params)
{
this.gridOptions = params;
}
This now means you could access this.gridOptions.api and it would be defined, you need to re-create this in your test by running detectChanges(). Here is how I got it working for my project.
fixture = TestBed.createComponent(TestComponent);
component = fixture.componentInstance;
fixture.detectChanges(); // This will ensure the onGridReady(); is called
This should inturn result in .api being defined when running tests. This was Angular 6.
Occasionally the test may have to perform an await or a tick:
it('should test the grid', fakeAsync( async () => {
// also try tick(ms) if a lot of data is being tested
// try to keep test rows as short as possible
// this line seems essential at times for onGridReady to be processed.
await fixture.whenStable();
// perform your expects...after the await
}));
If you are using ag-grid enterprise make sure to include in your test file import 'ag-grid-enterprise'; otherwise you will see console errors and gridReady will never be called:
Row Model "Server Side" not found. Please ensure the ag-Grid Enterprise Module #ag-grid-enterprise/server-side-row-model is registered.';
It remains undefined because the event onGridReady is not invoked yet. Im not sure about Angular 2 because im using angularjs and have to do $digest in order to invoke onGridReady.
I have been trying to configure offline unit tests for polymer web components that use the latest release of Firebase distributed database. Some of my tests are passing, but others—that look nigh identical to passing ones—are not running properly.
I have set up a project on github that demonstrates my configuration, and I'll provide some more commentary below.
Sample:
https://github.com/doctor-g/wct-firebase-demo
In that project, there are two suites of tests that work fine. The simplest is offline-test, which doesn't use web components at all. It simply shows that it's possible to use the firebase database's offline mode to run some unit tests. The heart of this trick is the in the suiteSetup method shown below—a trick I picked up from nfarina's work on firebase-server.
suiteSetup(function() {
app = firebase.initializeApp({
apiKey: 'fake',
authDomain: 'fake',
databaseURL: 'https://fakeserver.firebaseio.com',
storageBucket: 'fake'
});
db = app.database();
db.goOffline();
});
All the tests in offline-test pass.
The next suite is wct-firebase-demo-app_test.html, which test the eponymous web component. This suite contains a series of unit tests that are set up like offline-test and that pass. Following the idea of dependency injection, the wct-firebase-demo-app component has a database attribute into which is passed the firebase database reference, and this is used to make all the firebase calls. Here's an example from the suite:
test('offline set string from web component attribute', function(done) {
element.database = db;
element.database.ref('foo').set('bar');
element.database.ref('foo').once('value', function(snapshot) {
assert.equal(snapshot.val(), 'bar');
done();
});
});
I have some very simple methods in the component as well, in my attempt to triangulate toward the broken pieces I'll talk about in a moment. Suffice it to say that this test passes:
test('offline push string from web component function', function(done) {
element.database = db;
let resultRef = element.pushIt('foo', 'bar');
element.database.ref('foo').once('value', function(snapshot) {
assert.equal(snapshot.val()[resultRef.key], 'bar');
done();
});
});
and is backed by this implementation in wct-firebase-demo-app:
pushIt: function(at, value) {
return this.database.ref(at).push(value);
},
Once again, these all pass. Now we get to the real quandary. There's a suite of tests for another element, x-element, which has a method pushData:
pushData: function(at, data) {
this.database.ref(at).push(data);
}
The test for this method is the only test in its suite:
test('pushData has an effect', function(done) {
element.database = db;
element.pushData('foo', 'xyz');
db.ref('foo').once('value', function(snapshot) {
expect(snapshot.val()).not.to.be.empty;
done();
});
});
This test does not pass. While this test is running, the console comes up with an error message:
Your API key is invalid, please check you have copied it correctly.
By setting some breakpoints and walking through the execution, it seems to me that this error comes up after the call to once but before the callback is triggered. Note, again, this doesn't happen with the same test structure described above that's in wct-firebase-demo-app.
That's where I'm stuck. Why do offline-test and wct-firebase-demo-app_test suites work fine, but I get this API key error in x-element_test? The only other clue I have is that if I copy in a valid API key into my initializeApp configuration, then I get a test timeout instead.
UPDATE:
Here is a (patched-together) image of my console log when running the tests.:
To illustrate the issue brought up by tony19 below, here's the console log with just pushData has an effect in x-element_test commented out:
The offline-test results are apparently false positives. If you check the Chrome console, offline-test actually throws the same error:
The error doesn't affect the test results most likely because the API key validation occurs asynchronously after the test has already completed. If you could somehow hook into that validation, you'd be able to to catch the error in your tests.
Commenting out all tests except for offline firebase is ok shows the error still occurring, which points to suiteSetup(). Narrowing the problem down further by commenting 2 of the 3 function calls in the setup, we'll see the error is caused by the call to firebase.initializeApp() (and not necessarily related to once() as you had suspected).
One workaround to consider is wrapping the Firebase library in a class/interface, and mocking that for unit tests.
How do we unit test logic in Promises.task?
task{service.method()}
I want to validate invocation of the service method inside the task.
Is this possible? If yes, how?
I read in the documentation that in unit testing async processes, one can use this:
Promises.promiseFactory = new SynchronousPromiseFactory()
Tried adding it in my setup, but still does not work.
The long way
I've been struggling with this for a moment too.
I tried those:
grails unit test + Thread
Verify Spock mock with specified timeout
Also tried the same solution from the docs as you:
Promises.promiseFactory = new SynchronousPromiseFactory()
All went with no luck.
The solution
So I ended up with meta classing.
In the test's setup method, I mocked the Promise.task closure, so it runs the closure in the current thread, not in a new one:
def setup() {
Promises.metaClass.static.task = { Closure c -> c() }
// ...more stuff if needed...
}
Thanks to that, I can test the code as it wouldn't use multi threading.
Even I'm far from being 100% happy with this, I couldn't get anything better so far.
In recent versions of Grails (3.2.3 for instance), there is no need to mock, metaClass or use a Promise factory. I found out the promises in unit tests get executed synchronously. Found no doc for that, I empirically added a sleep inside a promise and noticed the test waited for the pause to complete.
For integration tests and functional tests, that's another story: you have to change the promise provider, for instance in BootStrap.groovy:
if (Environment.current == Environment.TEST) {
Promises.promiseFactory = new SynchronousPromiseFactory()
}
Like Marcin suggested, the metaClass option is not satisfactory. Also bear in mind that previous (or future) versions of Grails are likely to work differently.
If you are stuck with Grails 2 like dinosaurs such as me, then you can just copy the classes SynchronousPromiseFactory and SynchronousPromise from Grails 3 to your project and then the following works:
Promises.promiseFactory = new Grails3SynchronousPromiseFactory()
(Class names are prefixed with Grails3 to make the hack more obvious)
I'd simply mock/override the Promises.task method to invoke the provided closure directly.
I have what I think are standard functional tests set up for the intern and I can get them to pass consistently in several browsers. I'm still evaluating if it makes sense to use the intern for a project so I'm trying to see what happens when tests fail, and currently if I make one test fail, it always seems to cause all the tests in the suite to fail.
My tests look a bit like :
registerSuite({name : 'demo',
'thing that works' : function () {
return this.remote.get('http://foo.com')
.waitForCondition("typeof globalThing !== 'undefined'", 5000)
.elementById('bigRedButton')
.clickElement()
.end()
.eval('jsObj.isTrue()')
.then(function(result){
assert.isTrue(result);
})
.end(); // not sure if this necessary...
},
'other thing that works': function() {
// more of the same
}
});
I'm going to try and debug to figure out this for myself, but I was just wondering if anyone knows if this is expected behaviour (1 test failure causes whole test suite to fail, and report that all tests in suite have failed), or whether its more likely that my set up is wrong and I have bad interactions between the promises or something?
Any help would be awesome, and happy to provide any more info if helpful :)
Thanks!
I ran into the exact same issue a few weeks ago and created a ticket on github for the issue: https://github.com/theintern/intern/issues/46.
It's tagged 'needs-triage' at the moment, I've no idea of what it means.
I've been trying to write some initial NUnit unit tests for MonoRail, having got some basics working already. However, while I've managed to check whether a Flash["message"] value has been set by a controller action, the BaseControllerTest class doesn't seem to store the output for a view at all, so whether I call RenderView or the action itself, nothing gets added to the Response.OutputContent data.
I've also tried calling InPlaceRenderView to try to get it to write to a StringWriter, and the StringWriter also seems to get nothing back - the StringBuilder that returns is also empty.
I'm creating a new controller instance, then calling
PrepareController(controller,"","home","index");
So far it just seems like the BaseControllerTest is causing any output to get abandoned. Am I missing something? Should this work? I'm not 100% sure, because while I'm also running these unit tests in MonoDevelop on Linux, although MonoRails is working OK there.
While I haven't got an ideal method for testing Views, this is possibly less important when ViewComponents can be tested adequately. To test views within the site itself, I can use Selenium. While in theory that can be made part of an NUnit test suite, that didn't run successfully under MonoDevelop in my tests (failing to start the connection to Selenium RC consistently, despite the RC interactive session working fine). However, the Selenium tests can be run as a set from Firefox, which is not too bad - unit testing with NUnit, then Integration/System testing scripting using a Selenium suite, and that setup will work in a Linux/MonoDevelop setup.
As for testing the underlying elements, you can check for redirections and check the flash value set or the like, so that's all fine, and for testing ViewComponents the part-mocked rendering does return the rendered output in an accessible form, so they've proved much easier to test in NUnit (with a base test class of BaseViewComponentTest) as follows:
[Test]
public void TestMenuComponentRendersOK()
{
var mc = new MenuComponent();
PrepareViewComponent(mc);
var dict = new System.Collections.Specialized.ListDictionary();
dict.Add("data",getSampleMenuData());
dict.Add("Name","testmenu");
// other additional parameters
mc.RenderComponent(mc,dict);
Assert.IsTrue(this.Output.Contains(""),"List items should have been added");
}