I am trying to use a Java Delegate Expression (Similar to TaskListener's Expression where you can pass a TaskDelegate to the expression context).
In a nutshell - am trying to accomplish what taskListener allows to pass in a TaskDelegate using the expression ${myDelegate.doSomething(task)} which works fine for TaskListener!
However Im trying to do the same using the Delegate's expression. I understand we can do this which works ${myDelegate.doSomething()} (without any Runtime Engine's params) but I need the Runtime from which we can get the ProcessRuntimeExecution etc! I don't want to use the Java Delegate's execute method since I am reusing this Delegate for a User Task's TaskListener methods.
${myDelegate.doSomething(WHAT DO I PASS HERE TO GET Camunda Runtime?)}
public class MyDelegate implements JavaDelegate {
public void doSomething( CAMUNDA RUNTIME? ) {
// Get the ProcessEngine etc
}
}
You are looking for the DelegateExcecution.
Related
I have a class (class A) to which I define an extension function (A.extension()) inside a companion object of another class (class B) for a matter of organization.
On my tests I need:
To use a real class A instance .
To mock A.extension().
To use a mock instance of class B.
Using MockK-library I am not being able to mock that extension function successfully.
I've tried:
mockkObject(B.Companion) {
every { any<A>().extension() } returns whatIneed
}
result: Tries to run the unmocked version of the extension function.
mockkStatic(path.to.B.CompanionKt)
every { any<A>().extension() } returns whatIneed
Result: It does not find the Companion Object.
mockkStatic(A::extension) {
every { any<A>().extension() } returns whatIneed
}
Result: Compile error -> 'extension' is a member and an extension at the same time. References to such elements are not allowed.
Am I missing something regarding how to mock this ?
Am I doing something wrong in terms of code structuring that prevents this mocking to be possible?
Any help is appreciated.
This seems to be an impossible thing. I have tried this severally and it does not work.
I was looking at the documentation at: https://pub.dartlang.org/packages/mockito and was trying to understand it more. It seems that in the examples, the function stubs were accepting strings, but was kind of confused as to how I was going to implement my Mocked Services.
I was curious how I would do it. The services I have is pretty simple and straight forward.
class Group{}
class GroupService {}
class MockGroupService extends Mock implements GroupService {}
final mockProviders = [new Provider(MockGroupService, useExisting: GroupService];
So you can see I am using Angular dart.
I was creating a sample group in my Test file.
group("service tests", (){
MockGroupService _mock;
testBed.addProviders([mockProviders]);
setUp(() async {
fixture = await testBed.create();
_mock = new MockGroupService();
//This is where I was going to create some stubbs for the methods
when(_mock.add()).thenReturn((){
return null; //return the object.
});
//create additional when statements for edit, delete, etc.
});
});
So what i was thinking is that there would be an argument passed into add (or 2).... how would I properly code that in the when statement, and how do those 2 arguments reflect in the then statement?
Essentially, I was wanting to do a test with a complex class.. and pass it into add. Then it would just process it accordingly and return it.
Do i pass into the arguments something akin to: (using pseudocode)
when(_mock.add(argThat(hasType(Group)))).thenReturn((Group arg)=> arg);
or something similar? hasType isnt function, so im not 100% sure how to approach this design. Ideally, Im trying create the Group in the test, and then pass it into the add function accordingly. It just seems that the examples were showing Strings.
Yes mockito allows objects to be passed you can see examples in the test.
It is a bit hard to follow but you can see here that it uses deep equality to check if arguments are equal if no matchers are specified.
The second part of your question is a bit more complex. If you want to use the values that were passed into your mock as part of your response then you need to use thenAnswer. It provides you with an Invocation of what was just called. From that object you can get and return any arguments that were used in the method call.
So for your add example if you know what is being passing in and have complete access to it I would write:
Group a = new Group();
when(_mock.add(a)).thenReturn(a);
If the Group object is being created by something else I would write:
when(_mock.add(argThat(new isInstanceOf<Group>()))
.thenAnswer((invocation)=>invocation.positionalArguments[0]);
Or if you don't really care about checking for the type. Depending on what checks you are using for your test the type might already be checked for you.
when(_mock.add(any)).thenAnswer(
(invocation)=>invocation.positionalArguments[0]);
Or if you are using Dart 2.0:
when(_mock.add(typed(any))).thenAnswer(
(invocation)=>invocation.positionalArguments[0]);
I am trying to test an Eclipse plug-in with a E4 style view. I have created a test class inside a JUnit plug-in Test run configuration. But I'm struggling to even open the view. The old e3 way was to use the following snippet to open views:
PlatformUI.getWorkbench().getActiveWorkbenchWindow()
.getActivePage().showView("some view id")
In e4, we can use a EPartService (documentation) instead. However, I'm not sure how to access it. Trying to inject it does not work. This is what I have tried:
public class MyTest {
#Inject EPartService partService;
#Test
public void testOne() {
// partService is still null here...
I've also tried adding the #PostConstruct annotation to the test method, with no luck. Shouldn't this work, since it is running as a JUnit plug-in test, which I assume has an Eclipse context with a part service ready?
According to this article, it should also be possible to create a Display class and an associated Shell, which can be passed to the view's createPartControl method. I have tried this in the test method as well:
Display display = Display.getCurrent();
Shell shell = new Shell(display);
IEclipseContext context = EclipseContextFactory.create();
IPartService partService = mock(IPartService.class);
context.set(IPartService.class, partService);
context.set(Composite.class, shell);
view = ContextInjectionFactory.make(InspView.class, context);
shell.open();
I need the IPartService (not to be confused with the EPartService...) because the view needs it. This actually works. But, as you can see, I need to mock an IPartService and hand it to the Eclipse context. This does not give me what I want. Instead, I want an Eclipse context with all the services instantiated. Is this possible? Which approach is the most correct? Using Display+Shell, or EPartService?
Thanks!
UPDATE:
It is possible to open the part using the following:
EPartService partService =
PlatformUI.getWorkbench().getService(EPartService.class);
partService.showPart(VIEW_ID, PartState.ACTIVATE);
Is that a good approach?
I'm trying to override the +initialize method of a class using ASOC, but I cannot find a way to override a class method. Is it even possible?
Not to let any confusion possible about the language I'm talking about, here's some code:
script FLAppDelegate
property parent: class "NSObject"
-- -- Class Methods -- --
-- Insert code here
end script
I've done some tests, and as far as I can tell, weird as it is, methods defined using AppleScriptObjC are both class and instance methods.
Let's say I have an AppleScriptObjC file:
script iTunesController
property parent: class "NSObject"
on playpause()
tell application id "com.apple.iTunes" to playpause
end playpause
end script
In an Objective-C method, both:
- (void)callASOC
{
iTunesControllerInstance = [NSClassFromString(#"iTunesController") new];
[iTunesControllerInstance playpause];
[iTunesControllerInstance release];
}
and
- (void)callASOC
{
[NSClassFromString(#"iTunesController") playpause];
}
will call the playpause handler in the AppleScriptObjC file. The latter formulation will generate a warning a compile time, but works.
I was not able to find any documentation confirming or refuting this.
Thanks to #Friziab who reminded me of the NSClassFromString
So I could call a AppleScriptObjC method in my AppDelegate.applescript from another class (script) (NSView subclass)
I don't use AppleScriptObjC so there may be a proper way of doing it but this worked
current application's NSClassFromString("AppDelegate")'s popWindow()
I've got a PresenterFactory that creates Presenter classes based on a Role parameter. Specifically, the Role parameter is an external class which I cannot control (IE 3rd party.)
My factory looks something like this:
public class PresenterFactory {
public Presenter CreatePresenter(Role role, ...) {
if (role.IsUserA("Manager")) {
return new ManagerPresenter(...)
}
if (role.IsUserA("Employee")) {
return new EmployeePresenter(...)
}
}
}
I'm stuck on how to write the unit test for this since creating the Role object forces a database access. I thought that I could Mock this object. My test looked like this:
public void TestPresenterFactory()
{
var mockRole = new Mock<Role>();
mockRole .Setup(role=> role.IsUserA("Manager"))
.Returns(true)
.AtMostOnce();
PresenterFactory.CreatePresenter(mockRole.Object, ...);
mockUserInfo.VerifyAll();
}
However I receive an ArguementException:
Invalid setup on a non-overridable member: role=> role.IsUserA("Manager")
I'm not sure where to go and sure could use some course correction. What am I doing wrong?
You can create a wrapper object for Role that has all the same methods and properties, but is mockable, and the default implementation simply returns the underlying Role's implementation.
Then your tests can use the wrapper Role to set up the desired behaviour.
This is often a way to get around concrete classes that really need mocking.
What you want to mock is the creation of a Role object, then pass that mock object into your CreatePresenter method. On the mock you would set whatever properties required to determine what kind of user it is. If you still have dependencies on the database at this point, then you might look at refactoring your Role object.
Consider using a mocking framework that does not impose artificial constraints (such as requirements for methods to be virtual, for classes to not be sealed, etc) on how your code must be written to be mockable. The only example of such that I'm aware of in .NET context is TypeMock.
In Java when using EasyMock extensions you would be able to mock "real" objects and methods, most likely there's equivalent or alternative mock framework that you can use for your purpose