I am trying to run some google tests, and I have quite a lot of code to repeat in each test fixture, so I want to make the code as brief as possible, and I would like to use the SetUp method of the child class of Testing::test parent class, but the TEST_F fixtures do not recognize the variables from SetUp
This is the simplest example I can come up with:
class FooTest: public testing::Test
{
protected:
virtual void SetUp() // using void SetUp() override does not help
{
int FooVar = 911;
}
virtual void TearDown()
{
}
};
TEST_F(FooTest, SampleTest)
{
// FooTest::SetUp(); // This does not help as well
EXPECT_EQ(911, FooVar);
}
When I try to compile this code it shows an error that FooVar was not declared in this scope. How can I fix it?
Thank you very much for any help.
FooVar is a local variable inside the SetUp method. If you want to use it in the test fixtures, it needs to be a class member:
class FooTest: public testing::Test
{
protected:
int FooVar;
virtual void SetUp() override
{
this.FooVar = 911;
}
};
In this example, if you are only setting integral types, should just make them const member variables.
Related
I have a test fixture in my tests so I don't have to instantiate objects of my class repeatedly, but I'm not sure how to use mocks with it. To put it simply, this is how the class is defined:
class Class1 {
public:
Class1(std::shared_ptr<Class2> class_two);
void doThisThing() { doThatThing(); }
}
class Class2 {
public:
Class2(Class3* class3_ptr);
int doThatThing();
}
(class 1 is constructed using a shared pointer to class 2. Class 2 is constructed with a pointer to class 3. Class 1 calls on a function "doThisThing" which calls Class 2's function doThatThing.)
I need to create a mock for doThatThing() (and the rest of Class2's functions), but can't figure out how to pass the mock object to Class 1. Here is what I have so far in my testing code:
class TestClass1 : public ::testing::Test {
TestClass1(){
//Construct instance of Class1 and store as member variable
std::shared_ptr<Class3> class_three = std::make_shared<Class3>();
std::shared_ptr<Class2> class_two = std::make_shared<Class2>((Class3*)class_three.get());
class_one = new Class1(class_two);
};
Class1* class_one;
}
MockClass2 : public Class2 {
MOCK_METHOD0(doThatThing, int());
}
TEST_F(TestClass1, doThatThingTest){
MockClass2 mockObj;
**THIS IS WHERE I'M STUCK. How do I get that mockObj into my TestClass1 Fixture? As of now, it is calling the actual function, not the mock***
class_one->doThatThing();
EXPECT_CALL(mockObj, doThatThing());
}
I had to abstract and simplify the actual code, so I hope the above makes sense.
Assuming that your MockClass2 works, you should try something like the following:
Here you should override the functions SetUp that is called right before every call of a test function to prepare your test data. And override TearDown that is called after every call of a test function to clean up test data.
struct TestClass1 : public ::testing::Test
{
void SetUp() override
{
class_two_mock = std::make_shared<MockClass2>();
class_one = std::make_unique<Class1>(class_two_mock);
}
void TearDown() override
{
class_one.reset();
class_two_mock.reset();
}
std::shared_ptr<MockClass2> class_two_mock
std::unique_ptr<Class1> class_one;
};
In the test function you must declare your expectations before something is executed.
TEST_F(TestClass1, doThatThingTest)
{
EXPECT_CALL(*class_two_mock, doThatThing());
class_one->doThatThing();
}
You may need an interface for Class2. The code here is not tested.
Let's say I have a dagger 2 module as follows,
#Module
interface Creator {
MyClass create();
}
and I am using it to create an instance of MyClass
class Instantiator {
void doSomething(){
MyClass clazz = DaggerCreator.create().create();
// do things with clazz
}
}
It seems to me that I cannot effectively test the doSomething method in Instantiator because I cannot provide a mock for MyClass.
Am I wrong? If not are we supposed to use Dagger instantiation sparingly?
You are correct in saying that it is hard to test use of a Component injector, since this is a static method. But harder than what? Here is the same method using instantiation:
class Instantiator {
void doSomething(){
MyClass clazz = new MyClass();
// do things with clazz
}
}
still hard to test, right?
The point is to use as few Component (injectors) as possible and to pass in dependencies in the constructor for your objects. Dagger 2 makes resolving the dependencies in the constructor easy. This thereby makes testing easy since you can pass in mock object in a constructor.
Let's refactor the code you wrote to be testable. Assume that MyClass contains a single method, fireLazers() that you want to test is being invoked inside Instantiator's doSomething() method:
public class DoerOfSomething {
private final MyClass myClass;
#Inject
public DoerOfSomething(MyClass myClazz) {
this.myClass = myClazz;
}
public void doSomething() {
myClass.fireLazers();
}
}
Now you can write a test like this using a mock object:
public void DoerOfSomethingTest {
//mocks
MyClass mockMyClass;
//system under test
DoerOfSomething doerOfSomething;
#Before
public void setUp() {
mockMyClass = Mockito.mock(MyClass.class);
}
#Test
public void whenDoSomething_thenInteractsWithMyClass() {
//arrange
doerOfSomething = new DoerOfSomething(mockMyClass);
//act
doerOfSomething.doSomething();
//assert
verify(mockMyClass).fireLazers();
}
}
Of course, you will now need to inject DoerOfSomething into the top level class where you are injecting, but now you can be certain that the object you are injecting is functioning as expected because it is testable. Your code for using Dagger looks a bit unusual but I'll use your idioms for the sake of parity between the question and the answer.
class Instantiator {
private final DoerOfSomething doerOfSomething;
Instantiator() {
doerOfSomething = DaggerCreator.create().create();
}
void doSomething() {
doerOfSomething.doSomething();
}
}
I have another gtest where I do the following and it works fine:
TEST(TEST1, TestName)
{
ClassName env;
const String original = env(Con::WorkingDir);
Con c = env;
}
However, I want this to be set for another gtest class and hold throughout the entire test fixture. However, I'm getting this error message:
Call of an object of class type without appropriate operator or
conversion functions to pointer-to-function type.
I'm looking at initialize gtest, and I'm not sure what I'm missing for this. It could be use of static variables I'm not familiar with. I don't want ClassName to be static, though.
What am I doing wrong with this?
//this is intended to setup env to use in teardown.
class TestEnvironment : public ::testing::Environment {
public:
static String getEn() {
ClassName env;
static const String sString = env(Con::WorkingDir); //env has the error message here
return sString;
}
}
class UnitTest : public ::testing::Test
{
public:
virtual void SetUp() {
//
}
virtual void TearDown() {
//set env back to initial value
getEn();
//process env info;
}
class UnitTest : public ::testing::Test { //can't use Environment here because of name conflict in our code, although that was used by static const variable setup in example link.
public:
String orig;
}
class UnitTest : public ::testing::Test
{
public:
virtual void SetUp() {
orig = code;
}
virtual void TearDown() {
//process orig;
}
It turned out that even though our code was looking for a const string, we don't have to save it as const.
With Google test I want to specify a Test fixture for use in different test cases.
The fixture shall allocate and deallocate objects of the class TheClass and its data management class TheClassData, where the data management class requires the name of a datafile.
For the different tests, the file name should vary.
I defined the following Fixture:
class TheClassTest : public ::testing::Test {
protected:
TheClassTest(std::string filename) : datafile(filename) {}
virtual ~TheClassTest() {}
virtual void SetUp() {
data = new TheClassData(datafile);
tc = new TheClass(data);
}
virtual void TearDown() {
delete tc;
delete data;
}
std::string datafile;
TheClassData* data;
TheClass* tc;
};
Now, different tests should use the fixture with different file names.
Imagine this as setting up a test environment.
The question: How can I specify the filename from a test, i.e. how to call a non-default constructor of a fixture?
I found things like ::testing::TestWithParam<T> and TEST_P, which doesn't help, as I don't want to run one test with different values, but different tests with one fixture.
As suggested by another user, you cannot achieve what you want
by instantiating a fixture using a non-default constructor. However,
there are other ways. Simply overload the SetUp function and
call that version explicitly in the tests:
class TheClassTest : public ::testing::Test {
protected:
TheClassTest() {}
virtual ~TheClassTest() {}
void SetUp(const std::string &filename) {
data = new TheClassData(filename);
tc = new TheClass(data);
}
virtual void TearDown() {
delete tc;
delete data;
}
TheClassData* data;
TheClass* tc;
};
Now in the test simply use this overload to set up filename:
TEST_F(TheClassTest, MyTestCaseName)
{
SetUp("my_filename_for_this_test_case");
...
}
The parameterless TearDown will automatically clean up when
the test is complete.
Use the current class as a base class for your fixtures:
class TheClassTestBase : public ::testing::Test {
protected:
TheClassTestBase(std::string filename) : datafile(filename) {}
...
};
For every specific filename - use derived fixture:
class TheClassTestForFooTxt : public TheClassTestBase {
protected:
TheClassTestForFooTxt() : TheClassTestBase ("foo.txt") {}
};
However this is extra step needed for every set of parameters - so you can try to use templates or macros to get it done with less effort. Like:
template <typename ClassTestTag>
struct ClassTestParams
{
static std::string filename;
};
template<typename ClassTestTag>
class TheClassTest : public TheClassTestBase {
protected:
TheClassTest() : TheClassTestBase (ClassTestParams<ClassTestTag>::filename) {}
};
Then - for every set of parameters - do that:
class FooTxtTag {};
template <> std::string ClassTestParams<FooTxtTag>::value = "foo.txt";
using TheClassTestForFooTxt = TheClassTest<FooTxtTag>;
TEST_F(TheClassTestForFooTxt, xxxx) {}
However - in your specific case - I would also try GoogleTest:type-parameterized-tests.
Another great way to deal with this is to just extend your fixture and in the extended class supply a new default constructor which calls through to the old one with the arguments you require. For example:
struct MySpecializedTestFixture : public GenericTestFixture
{
MySpecializedTestFixture() : GenericTestFixture("a thing", "another thing") {}
};
TEST_F(MySpecializedTestFixture, FancyTest)
{
// Use the thing environment and make some assertions.
}
If you overload the SetUp method as suggested here, and you want to ensure that you remember to use the overloaded SetUp, you can use an assertion in the TearDown method.
class my_fixture : public ::testing::Test
{
protected:
bool SETUP_HIT_FLAG = false;
void SetUp(double parameter)
{
...
SETUP_HIT_FLAG = true;
}
void TearDown() override
{
assert(SETUP_HIT_FLAG && "You forgot to call SetUp with your parameter!");
}
};
Another way using templates:
template<int N>
class Fixture : public ::testing::Test { ... }
using FixtureForTest = Fixture<1000>;
TEST_F(FixtureForTest, test) { ... }
For this specific case, I feel it is much easier to get rid of the test fixture altogether. The SetUp function can instead be replaced with a helper function that instantiates the class with the required file name. This permits the use of TEST instead of TEST_P or TEST_F. Now each test case is a standalone test which creates its own test class instances with the helper function or directly in the body of the test case.
For example:
using namespace testing;
TEST(FooClassTest, testCase1)
{
FooClass fooInstance("File_name_for_testCase1.txt");
/* The test case body*/
delete fooInstance;
}
There probably is a fairly simple and straight-forward answer for this, but for some reason I can't see it.
I need to restrict calling methods from a class only to some methods implemented by derived classes of some interface.
Say I have
class A{
public:
static void foo();
};
class myInterface{
public:
virtual void onlyCallFooFromHere() = 0;
}
class myImplementation : public myInterface{
public:
virtual void onlyCallFooFromHere()
{
A::foo(); //this should work
}
void otherFoo()
{
A::foo(); //i want to get a compilation error here
}
}
So I should be able to call A::foo only from the method onlyCallFooFromHere()
Is there a way to achieve this? I'm open to any suggestions, including changing the class design.
EDIT:
So... I feel there's a need to further explain the issue. I have a utility class which interacts with a database (mainly updates records) - class A.
In my interface (which represents a basic database objects) I have the virtual function updateRecord() from which I call methods from the db utility class. I want to enforce updating the database only in the updateRecord() function of all extending classes and nowhere else. I don't believe this to be a bad design choice, even if not possible. However, if indeed not possible, I would appreciate a different solution.
Change the class design - what you want is impossible.
I am unsure of what you are trying to achieve with so little details and I am unable to comment further.
[Disclaimer: this solution will stop Murphy, not Macchiavelli.]
How about:
class DatabaseQueryInterface {
public:
~virtual DatabseQueryInterface() = 0;
virtual Query compileQuery() const = 0; // or whatever
virtual ResultSet runQuery(const Query&) const = 0; // etc
};
class DatabaseUpdateInterface : public DatabaseQueryInterface {
public:
virtual Update compileUpdate() const = 0; // whatever
};
class DatabaseObject {
public:
virtual ~DatabaseObject() = 0;
protected:
virtual void queryRecord(const DatabaseQueryInterface& interface) = 0;
virtual void updateRecord(const DatabaseUpdateInterface& interface) = 0;
};
class SomeConcreteDatabaseObject : public DatabaseObject {
protected:
virtual void updateRecord(const DatabaseUpdateInterface& interface) {
// gets to use interface->compileUpdate()
}
virtual void queryRecord(const DatabaseQueryInterface& interface) {
// only gets query methods, no updates
}
};
So the basic idea is that your DatabaseObject base class squirrels away a private Query object and a private Update object and when it comes time to call the protected members of the subclass it hands off the Update interface to the updateRecord() method, and the Query interface to the queryRecord() method.
That way the natural thing for the subclasses is to use the object they are passed to talk to the database. Of course they can always resort to dirty tricks to store away a passed-in Update object and try to use it later from a query method, but frankly if they go to such lengths, they're on their own.
You could split your project into different TUs:
// A.h
class A
{
public:
static void foo();
};
// My.h
class myInterface
{
public:
virtual void onlyCallFooFromHere() = 0;
}
class myImplementation : public myInterface
{
public:
virtual void onlyCallFooFromHere();
void otherFoo();
};
// My-with-A.cpp
#include "My.h"
#include "A.h"
void myImplementation::onlyCallFooFromHere() { /* use A */ }
// My-without-A.cpp
#include "My.h"
void myImplementation::otherFoo() { /* no A here */ }
You probably know this, but with inheritance, you can have public, protected, and private member access.
If a member is private in the base class, the derived cannot access it, while if that same member is protected, then the derived class can access it (while it still isn't public, so you're maintaining encapsulation).
There's no way to stop specific functions from being able to see whats available in their scope though (which is what you're asking), but you can design your base class so that the derived classes can only access specific elements of it.
This could be useful because class B could inherit from class A as protected (thus getting its protected members) while class C could inherit from the same class A as public (thus not getting access to its protected members). This will let you get some form of call availability difference at least -- between classes though, not between functions in the same class.
This could work.
class myInterface;
class A {
private:
friend class myInterface;
static void foo();
};
class myInterface {
public:
virtual void onlyCallFooFromHere() {callFoo();}
protected:
void callFoo() {A::foo();}
};
Though at this point I think I'd just make A::foo a static of myInterface. The concerns aren't really separate anymore.
class myInterface {
protected:
static void foo();
};
Is there a reason foo is in A?