I have the following question regarding testing in Vue 2 with Jest.
Let's say I have a custom class
export class CustomDebouncer extends Debouncer{
public triggerUpdate(): void {
timeout(() => {
}, timeOut)
}
}
export class ClassA {
private _debouncer: CustomDebouncer;
}
How do I, in this case, replace the debouncer property in ClassA with a stub (and possibly als for all the rest of the classes that use the CustomDebouncer class in any way)?
export class CustomDebouncerStub {
triggerUpdate(): void {
console.log('stub update called')
}
}
I tried the explanation on https://jestjs.io/docs/es6-class-mocks but I can't seem to figure out how to work this out. I tried to mock with CustomDebouncer.prototype.triggerUpdate = jest.mock.fn() but I don't have access to this then.
Anybody got any pointers for me in this issue? Thanks!
I'm working on a bundle and i need to load a doctrine resolve_target_entities from a configuration parameter.
This article should be my solution, the fact is that using the bundle it seems not to load the "compiler pass class".
This is my bundle class
class PersonalBundle extends Bundle
{
public function build(ContainerBuilder $container){
parent::build($container);
$container->addCompilerPass(new ResolveTargetEntitiesPass());
}
}
This is the ResolveTargetEntitiesPass class
class ResolveTargetEntitiesPass implements CompilerPassInterface
{
/**
* {#inheritdoc}
*/
public function process(ContainerBuilder $container)
{
// Gets the custom entity defined by the user (or the default one)
$customEntityClass = $container->getParameter('personal.custom_class');
// Skip the resolve_target_entities part if user has not defined a different entity
if (DefaultClassInterface::DEFAULT_ENTITY_CLASS == $customEntityClass) {
return;
}
// Throws exception if the class isn't found
if (!class_exists($customEntityClass)) {
throw new ClassNotFoundException(sprintf("Can't find class %s ", $customEntityClass));
}
// Get the doctrine ResolveTargetEntityListener
$def = $container->findDefinition('doctrine.orm.listeners.resolve_target_entity');
// Adds the resolve_target_enitity parameter
$def->addMethodCall('addResolveTargetEntity', array(
DefaultClassInterface::DEFAULT_ENTITY_CLASS, $customEntityClass, array()
));
// This was added due this problem
// https://stackoverflow.com/a/46656413/7070573
if (version_compare(Version::VERSION, '2.5.0-DEV') < 0 && !$def->hasTag('doctrine.event_listener')) {
$def->addTag('doctrine.event_listener', array('event' => 'loadClassMetadata'));
} elseif (!$def->hasTag('doctrine.event_subscriber')) {
$def->addTag('doctrine.event_subscriber');
}
}
}
When i use the class it raises this error
Expected value of type "PersonalBundle\Entity\DefaultClass"
for association field "PersonalBundle\Entity\Group#$defaultClass", got
"App\Entity\CustomClass" instead.
As i said it seems not to load the ResolveTargetEntitiesPass...
Thanks
So i solved the problem changing the priority of the compiler pass.
I've tried to move the bundle on top in config/bundle.php and it started working, then following this https://symfony.com/blog/new-in-symfony-3-2-compiler-passes-improvements i've left the default type but increased the priority (from 0, default, to 1).
I'm not sure which service has been "downgraded" so if anyone has an idea it's welcome.
<?php
// ...
use Symfony\Component\DependencyInjection\Compiler\PassConfig;
class PersonalBundle extends Bundle
{
public function build(ContainerBuilder $container){
parent::build($container);
$container->addCompilerPass(new ResolveTargetEntitiesPass(), PassConfig::TYPE_BEFORE_OPTIMIZATION, 1);
}
}
When I tried to do unit testing for private methods in a Class getting error as private methods are only accessible inside the class. Here I added sample snippet for my class and mocha test. Kindly provide me solution to implement unit test for private methods.
Class Name: Notification.ts
class Notification {
constructor() {}
public validateTempalte() {
return true;
}
private replacePlaceholder() {
return true;
}
}
Unit Test:
import {Notification} from 'Notification';
import * as chai from "chai";
describe("Notification", function(){
describe('#validateTempalte - Validate template', function() {
it('it should return success', function() {
const result = new Notification()
chai.expect(result.validateTempalte()).to.be.equal(true);
});
});
describe('#replacePlaceholder - Replace Placeholder', function() {
it('it should return success', function() {
const result = new Notification()
// As expected getting error "Private is only accessible within class"
chai.expect(result.replacePlaceholder()).to.be.equal(true);
});
});
});
As a workaround, currently, I am changing access specifier of function replacePlaceholder to public. But I don't think its a valid approach.
A possible solution to omit Typescript checks is to access the property dynamically (Not telling wether its good).
myClass['privateProp'] or for methods: myClass['privateMethod']()
Technically, in current versions of TypeScript private methods are only compile-time checked to be private - so you can call them.
class Example {
public publicMethod() {
return 'public';
}
private privateMethod() {
return 'private';
}
}
const example = new Example();
console.log(example.publicMethod()); // 'public'
console.log(example.privateMethod()); // 'private'
I mention this only because you asked how to do it, and that is how you could do it.
Correct Answer
However, that private method must be called by some other method... otherwise it isn't called at all. If you test the behaviour of that other method, you will cover the private method in the context it is used.
If you specifically test private methods, your tests will become tightly coupled to the implementation details (i.e. a good test wouldn't need to be changed if you refactored the implementation).
Disclaimer
If you still test it at the private method level, the compiler might in the future change and make the test fail (i.e. if the compiler made the method "properly" private, or if a future version of ECMAScript added visibility keywords, etc).
In my case, I use the prototype of the object to get access to a private method. It works well and TS does not swear.
For example:
class Example {
private privateMethod() {}
}
describe() {
it('test', () => {
const example = new Example();
const exampleProto = Object.getPrototypeOf(example);
exampleProto.privateMethod();
})
}
If you use a static method then use exampleProto.constructor.privateMethod();.
In HolgerJeromin's comment, the comment issue has a succinct solution that still uses the property syntax.
The solution is to type cast your object / class to any.
Examples:
(<any>myClass).privateMethod();
const value = (<any>myClass).privateValue;
(myClass as any).privateMethod();
const value = (myClass as any).privateValue;
This method satisfies the compiler as well as the VSCode syntax highlighting.
Here are some of my notes from the issue that talks about this
Accessing via a string is more common, although I don't see why it might be more typesafe.
These features are done deliberately, therefore they are helping more than hindering.
There is probably a way to disable this type of feature so people don't copy and paste this code into production. "noImplicitAny": true, might help in the tsconfig.json
Extract out the private function into a separate/stand alone function, but don't export it externally.
This is somewhat semantically correct, since after all — a private function is private and should not be accessed by anyone except the class itself.
My subjective solution: you could define a new testing-only interface that extends the original one by adding the private methods as (implicitly public) interface methods. Then, you cast the instantiated object to this new test type. This satisfies both tsc and VS code type checking. Your example with my solution:
interface INotification {
validateTemplate(): boolean,
}
class Notification implements INotification {
constructor() {}
public validateTemplate() {
return true;
}
private replacePlaceholder() {
return true;
}
}
Testing:
import {Notification} from 'Notification';
import * as chai from "chai";
interface INotificationTest extends INotification {
replacePlaceholder(): boolean;
}
describe("Notification", function(){
describe('#validateTemplate - Validate template', function() {
it('it should return success', function() {
const result = new Notification() as INotificationTest;
chai.expect(result.validateTemplate()).to.be.equal(true);
});
});
describe('#replacePlaceholder - Replace Placeholder', function() {
it('it should return success', function() {
const result = new Notification() as INotificationTest;
// Works!
chai.expect(result.replacePlaceholder()).to.be.equal(true);
});
});
});
Advantages:
tsc and vs code do not complain
IntelliSense (or any other autocomplete) works
simple (subjectively)
If you don't want to define the original interface (INotification), you could just fully define the test one (INotificationTest) instead of extending and cast it in the same manner.
Disadvantages:
Added boilerplate
Need to have both of the interfaces updated and in sync
Potentially introducing bugs by explicitly casting as a non original type.
I leave it up to you to decide whether this is worth it or no. In my case, the positives outweigh the negatives. I have tested this with jest, but I assume that mocha.js is no different here.
Edit: but generally I would agree with Fenton's answer
// module.ts
private async privateMethod = () => "private method executed"
public async testPrivateMethods(...args) {
if (process.env.NODE_ENV === 'development') {
return this.privateMethod(...args);
}
}
Now we can reach our private method to test. In jest file:
// module.spec.js
describe('Module', () => {
let service: Module = new Module();
it('private method should be defined', () => {
expect(service.testPrivateMethods).toBeDefined();
});
}
You need to set your enviroment variable name of NODE_ENV must be development.
// .env
NODE_ENV="development"
The fun thing is that it's just a typescript error (not javascript), so you can fix it with
// #ts-expect-error
and everything works fine.
I consider it as a legitimate solution, as the goal was to suppress typescript in this particular case.
Since private methods are not accessible outside class, you can have another public method which calls replacePlaceholder() in Notification class and then test the public method.
I would like to start using Doctrine 2 for a new project but I noticed that doctrine now allows to define repositories: http://mackstar.com/blog/2010/10/04/using-repositories-doctrine-2
I'm not sure how to structure my project now because isn't one of the purposes of using repositories that you can switch to another ORM when needed.
So if you use Doctrine repositories, this possibility is gone.
Or should I define my own repositories and in those repositories make use of calls to the doctrine repository? That seems a bit odd...
Just to follow up on the comments, this is the base repository class that I use.
namespace Cerad\Bundle\CoreBundle\Doctrine;
use Doctrine\ORM\EntityRepository as BaseRepository;
class EntityRepository extends BaseRepository implements ApplicationRepository
{
// Create main entity
public function createEntity($params = array())
{
$entityName = $this->getEntityName();
return new $entityName($params);
}
// Allow null for id
public function find($id)
{
return $id ? parent::find($id) : null;
}
/* ==========================================================
* Persistence
*/
public function persist($entity) { return $this->getEntityManager()->persist($entity); }
public function remove($entity) { return $this->getEntityManager()->remove($entity); }
public function flush() { return $this->getEntityManager()->flush(); }
public function clear() { return $this->getEntityManager()->clear(); }
}
Having the ability to support multiple repository types is actually quite useful. I'll often implement InMemory repositories which work off of yaml files for initial development and testing.
I want to make some action (php script) before all actions in my frontend app and then pass a result from that script to actions in variable - so I can get variable value from all actions. Where should I declare sth like this?
If the filter solution dont feet your needs, you can also create a base action class with a preExecute function:
// app/frontend/lib/baseActions.class.php
class baseActions extends sfActions
{
public function preExecute()
{
$this->myVar = .... // define your vars...
}
}
Then your module actions class extends your baseActions class:
// app/frontend/modules/myModule/actions/actions.class.php
class myModuleActions extends baseActions
{
public function executeIndex(sfWebRequest $request)
{
// var $this->myVar is available in any action and in your template
...
}
}
if you have to use the preExecute function in your module class action, remember to call parent::preExecute() in it.
What kind of information ?
I would recommend you to use filters.
In your apps/frontend/config/filters.yml:
rendering: ~
myfilter:
class: myCustomFilter
Create the file lib/filter/myCustomFilter.php:
<?php
class myCustomFilter extends sfFilter
{
public function execute ($filterChain)
{
if ($this->isFirstCall())
{
// do what ever you want here.
$config = Doctrine_Core::getTable('Config')->findAll();
sfConfig::set('my_config', $config);
}
$filterChain->execute();
}
}
And then, every where, you can retrieve your data:
sfConfig::get('my_config');