Quarkus unit tests exclude class - unit-testing

I am moving from Thorntail to Quarkus.
In my tests I used to create a #deployment method in which I put only what was needed by the tests. In particular I didn't put a Class having a #Startup annotation (because I didn't want to test that ...).
When I moved to QUARKUS, I suppress de #deployment static method, then when I launch the tests #Startup is ... started and a lot of bad things happen which prevent me from testing what I want to test (well, it crashes because it tries to connect to services which are not available).
So the question is : is there a way to exclude some package or class when lauching a test with quarkusTest ?

I finally created a class :
#ApplicationScoped
public class ApplicationLifeCycle {
private final Logger log = Logger.getLogger(getClass());
#Inject
Startup startup;
void onStart(#Observes StartupEvent ev) {
log.info("The application is starting with profile " + ProfileManager.getActiveProfile());
if (!ProfileManager.getActiveProfile().equalsIgnoreCase("test")) {
startup.getModel();
}
}
void onStop(#Observes ShutdownEvent ev) {
log.info("The application is stopping...");
startup.stopMQ();
}
}
A bit ugly isn't it ?
Is there a better way to do it ?

Quarkus adds a few capabilities to handle such scenarios regarding CDI, which can be found here: https://quarkus.io/guides/cdi-reference#enable_build_profile
For instance:
#ApplicationScoped
#UnlessBuildProfile("test")
class ConnectsToExternalService implements ExternalConnector {}
Will prevent CDI from injecting this implementation when the quarkus profile is "test", which quarkus sets when running a #QuarkusTest.
So if you inject "ExternalConnector" in a #QuarkusTest, you'll get an Unsatisfied dependency exception, which can be fixed with:
#ApplicationScoped
#IfBuildProfile("test") // not required if class is in "test" dir
class MockExternalService implements ExternalConnector {}
Using this approach you can prevent external connections but also mock them.

To top things off, one can now disable all StartupEvent and ShutdownEvent observers declared on application using a QuarkusTestProfile in combination with #TestProfile (See Quarkus Testing with Different Profiles). You have to return true in disableApplicationLifecycleObservers in that case.

Related

Mockito cannot mock/spy because final class [duplicate]

I have a final class, something like this:
public final class RainOnTrees{
public void startRain(){
// some code here
}
}
I am using this class in some other class like this:
public class Seasons{
RainOnTrees rain = new RainOnTrees();
public void findSeasonAndRain(){
rain.startRain();
}
}
and in my JUnit test class for Seasons.java I want to mock the RainOnTrees class. How can I do this with Mockito?
Mocking final/static classes/methods is possible with Mockito v2 only.
add this in your gradle file:
testImplementation 'org.mockito:mockito-inline:2.13.0'
This is not possible with Mockito v1, from the Mockito FAQ:
What are the limitations of Mockito
Needs java 1.5+
Cannot mock final classes
...
Mockito 2 now supports final classes and methods!
But for now that's an "incubating" feature. It requires some steps to activate it which are described in What's New in Mockito 2:
Mocking of final classes and methods is an incubating, opt-in feature. It uses a combination of Java agent instrumentation and subclassing in order to enable mockability of these types. As this works differently to our current mechanism and this one has different limitations and as we want to gather experience and user feedback, this feature had to be explicitly activated to be available ; it can be done via the mockito extension mechanism by creating the file src/test/resources/mockito-extensions/org.mockito.plugins.MockMaker containing a single line:
mock-maker-inline
After you created this file, Mockito will automatically use this new engine and one can do :
final class FinalClass {
final String finalMethod() { return "something"; }
}
FinalClass concrete = new FinalClass();
FinalClass mock = mock(FinalClass.class);
given(mock.finalMethod()).willReturn("not anymore");
assertThat(mock.finalMethod()).isNotEqualTo(concrete.finalMethod());
In subsequent milestones, the team will bring a programmatic way of using this feature. We will identify and provide support for all unmockable scenarios. Stay tuned and please let us know what you think of this feature!
add this in your build file:
if using gradle: build.gradle
testImplementation 'org.mockito:mockito-inline:2.13.0'
if using maven: pom.xml
<dependency>
<groupId>org.mockito</groupId>
<artifactId>mockito-inline</artifactId>
<version>2.13.0</version>
<scope>test</scope>
</dependency>
this is a configuration to make mockito work with final classes
If you faced the Could not initialize inline Byte Buddy mock maker. (This mock maker is not supported on Android.)
Add the Byte Buddy dependency to your build.gradle file:
testImplementation 'net.bytebuddy:byte-buddy-agent:1.10.19'
src: https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/net.bytebuddy/byte-buddy
You cannot mock a final class with Mockito, as you can't do it by yourself.
What I do, is to create a non-final class to wrap the final class and use as delegate. An example of this is TwitterFactory class, and this is my mockable class:
public class TwitterFactory {
private final twitter4j.TwitterFactory factory;
public TwitterFactory() {
factory = new twitter4j.TwitterFactory();
}
public Twitter getInstance(User user) {
return factory.getInstance(accessToken(user));
}
private AccessToken accessToken(User user) {
return new AccessToken(user.getAccessToken(), user.getAccessTokenSecret());
}
public Twitter getInstance() {
return factory.getInstance();
}
}
The disadvantage is that there is a lot of boilerplate code; the advantage is that you can add some methods that may relate to your application business (like the getInstance that is taking a user instead of an accessToken, in the above case).
In your case I would create a non-final RainOnTrees class that delegate to the final class. Or, if you can make it non-final, it would be better.
In Mockito 3 and more I have the same problem and fixed it as from this link
Mock Final Classes and Methods with Mockito
as follow
Before Mockito can be used for mocking final classes and methods, it needs to be > configured.
We need to add a text file to the project's src/test/resources/mockito-extensions directory named org.mockito.plugins.MockMaker and add a single line of text:
mock-maker-inline
Mockito checks the extensions directory for configuration files when it is loaded. This file enables the mocking of final methods and classes.
Use Powermock. This link shows, how to do it: https://github.com/jayway/powermock/wiki/MockFinal
Just to follow up. Please add this line to your gradle file:
testCompile group: 'org.mockito', name: 'mockito-inline', version: '2.8.9'
I have tried various version of mockito-core and mockito-all. Neither of them work.
I had the same problem. Since the class I was trying to mock was a simple class, I simply created an instance of it and returned that.
I guess you made it final because you want to prevent other classes from extending RainOnTrees. As Effective Java suggests (item 15), there's another way to keep a class close for extension without making it final:
Remove the final keyword;
Make its constructor private. No class will be able to extend it because it won't be able to call the super constructor;
Create a static factory method to instantiate your class.
// No more final keyword here.
public class RainOnTrees {
public static RainOnTrees newInstance() {
return new RainOnTrees();
}
private RainOnTrees() {
// Private constructor.
}
public void startRain() {
// some code here
}
}
By using this strategy, you'll be able to use Mockito and keep your class closed for extension with little boilerplate code.
Another workaround, which may apply in some cases, is to create an interface that is implemented by that final class, change the code to use the interface instead of the concrete class and then mock the interface. This lets you separate the contract (interface) from the implementation (final class). Of course, if what you want is really to bind to the final class, this will not apply.
Time saver for people who are facing the same issue (Mockito + Final Class) on Android + Kotlin. As in Kotlin classes are final by default. I found a solution in one of Google Android samples with Architecture component. Solution picked from here : https://github.com/googlesamples/android-architecture-components/blob/master/GithubBrowserSample
Create following annotations :
/**
* This annotation allows us to open some classes for mocking purposes while they are final in
* release builds.
*/
#Target(AnnotationTarget.ANNOTATION_CLASS)
annotation class OpenClass
/**
* Annotate a class with [OpenForTesting] if you want it to be extendable in debug builds.
*/
#OpenClass
#Target(AnnotationTarget.CLASS)
annotation class OpenForTesting
Modify your gradle file. Take example from here : https://github.com/googlesamples/android-architecture-components/blob/master/GithubBrowserSample/app/build.gradle
apply plugin: 'kotlin-allopen'
allOpen {
// allows mocking for classes w/o directly opening them for release builds
annotation 'com.android.example.github.testing.OpenClass'
}
Now you can annotate any class to make it open for testing :
#OpenForTesting
class RepoRepository
Actually there is one way, which I use for spying. It would work for you only if two preconditions are satisfied:
You use some kind of DI to inject an instance of final class
Final class implements an interface
Please recall Item 16 from Effective Java. You may create a wrapper (not final) and forward all call to the instance of final class:
public final class RainOnTrees implement IRainOnTrees {
#Override public void startRain() { // some code here }
}
public class RainOnTreesWrapper implement IRainOnTrees {
private IRainOnTrees delegate;
public RainOnTreesWrapper(IRainOnTrees delegate) {this.delegate = delegate;}
#Override public void startRain() { delegate.startRain(); }
}
Now not only can you mock your final class but also spy on it:
public class Seasons{
RainOnTrees rain;
public Seasons(IRainOnTrees rain) { this.rain = rain; };
public void findSeasonAndRain(){
rain.startRain();
}
}
IRainOnTrees rain = spy(new RainOnTreesWrapper(new RainOnTrees()) // or mock(IRainOnTrees.class)
doNothing().when(rain).startRain();
new Seasons(rain).findSeasonAndRain();
Give this a try:
Mockito.mock(SomeMockableType.class,AdditionalAnswers.delegatesTo(someInstanceThatIsNotMockableOrSpyable));
It worked for me. "SomeMockableType.class" is the parent class of what you want to mock or spy, and someInstanceThatIsNotMockableOrSpyable is the actual class that you want to mock or spy.
For more details have a look here
This can be done if you are using Mockito2, with the new incubating feature which supports mocking of final classes & methods.
Key points to note:
1. Create a simple file with the name “org.mockito.plugins.MockMaker” and place it in a folder named “mockito-extensions”. This folder should be made available on the classpath.
2. The content of the file created above should be a single line as given below:
mock-maker-inline
The above two steps are required in order to activate the mockito extension mechanism and use this opt-in feature.
Sample classes are as follows:-
FinalClass.java
public final class FinalClass {
public final String hello(){
System.out.println("Final class says Hello!!!");
return "0";
}
}
Foo.java
public class Foo {
public String executeFinal(FinalClass finalClass){
return finalClass.hello();
}
}
FooTest.java
public class FooTest {
#Test
public void testFinalClass(){
// Instantiate the class under test.
Foo foo = new Foo();
// Instantiate the external dependency
FinalClass realFinalClass = new FinalClass();
// Create mock object for the final class.
FinalClass mockedFinalClass = mock(FinalClass.class);
// Provide stub for mocked object.
when(mockedFinalClass.hello()).thenReturn("1");
// assert
assertEquals("0", foo.executeFinal(realFinalClass));
assertEquals("1", foo.executeFinal(mockedFinalClass));
}
}
Hope it helps.
Complete article present here mocking-the-unmockable.
Yes same problem here, we cannot mock a final class with Mockito. To be accurate, Mockito cannot mock/spy following:
final classes
anonymous classes
primitive types
But using a wrapper class seems to me a big price to pay, so get PowerMockito instead.
I think you need think more in principle. Instead you final class use his interface and mock interface instead.
For this:
public class RainOnTrees{
fun startRain():Observable<Boolean>{
// some code here
}
}
add
interface iRainOnTrees{
public void startRain():Observable<Boolean>
}
and mock you interface:
#Before
fun setUp() {
rainService= Mockito.mock(iRainOnTrees::class.java)
`when`(rainService.startRain()).thenReturn(
just(true).delay(3, TimeUnit.SECONDS)
)
}
Please look at JMockit. It has extensive documentation with a lot of examples. Here you have an example solution of your problem (to simplify I've added constructor to Seasons to inject mocked RainOnTrees instance):
package jmockitexample;
import mockit.Mocked;
import mockit.Verifications;
import mockit.integration.junit4.JMockit;
import org.junit.Test;
import org.junit.runner.RunWith;
#RunWith(JMockit.class)
public class SeasonsTest {
#Test
public void shouldStartRain(#Mocked final RainOnTrees rain) {
Seasons seasons = new Seasons(rain);
seasons.findSeasonAndRain();
new Verifications() {{
rain.startRain();
}};
}
public final class RainOnTrees {
public void startRain() {
// some code here
}
}
public class Seasons {
private final RainOnTrees rain;
public Seasons(RainOnTrees rain) {
this.rain = rain;
}
public void findSeasonAndRain() {
rain.startRain();
}
}
}
Solutions provided by RC and Luigi R. Viggiano together is possibly the best idea.
Although Mockito cannot, by design, mock final classes, the delegation approach is possible. This has its advantages:
You are not forced to change your class to non-final if that is what your API intends in the first place (final classes have their benefits).
You are testing the possibility of a decoration around your API.
In your test case, you deliberately forward the calls to the system under test. Hence, by design, your decoration does not do anything.
Hence you test can also demonstrate that the user can only decorate the API instead of extending it.
On a more subjective note:
I prefer keeping the frameworks to a minimum, which is why JUnit and Mockito are usually sufficient for me. In fact, restricting this way sometimes forces me to refactor for good as well.
If you trying to run unit-test under the test folder, the top solution is fine. Just follow it adding an extension.
But if you want to run it with android related class like context or activity which is under androidtest folder, the answer is for you.
Add these dependencies for run mockito successfully :
testImplementation 'org.mockito:mockito-core:2.24.5'
testImplementation "org.mockito:mockito-inline:2.24.5"
Mocking final classes is not supported for mockito-android as per this GitHub issue. You should use Mockk instead for this.
For both unit test and ui test, you can use Mockk with no problem.
If you need to use Mockito in an instrumented test in Android (i. e. running in an Android device), you cannot use mockito-inline. There is a special mockito-android version which doesn't solve the "final class" problem either. The only solution which seems to work is the Dexmaker library. The only limitation is that it works only in Android P (Android 9, API 28) and higher. It can be imported as follows:
androidTestImplementation "com.linkedin.dexmaker:dexmaker-mockito-inline:2.28.1"
Beware that there is also a "dexmaker-mockito" version which doesn't work for final classes either. Make sure you import "dexmaker-mockito-inline".
As others have stated, this won't work out of the box with Mockito. I would suggest using reflection to set the specific fields on the object that is being used by the code under test. If you find yourself doing this a lot, you can wrap this functionality in a library.
As an aside, if you are the one marking classes final, stop doing that. I ran across this question because I am working with an API where everything was marked final to prevent my legitimate need for extension (mocking), and I wish that the developer had not assumed that I would never need to extend the class.
For us, it was because we excluded mockito-inline from koin-test. One gradle module actually needed this and for reason only failed on release builds (debug builds in the IDE worked) :-P
For final class add below to mock and call static or non static.
1- add this in class level
#SuppressStatucInitializationFor(value ={class name with package})
2- PowerMockito.mockStatic(classname.class) will mock class
3- then use your when statement to return mock object when calling method of this class.
Enjoy
I was able to overcome this message:
org.mockito.exceptions.base.MockitoException:
Cannot mock/spy class org.slf4j.impl.Log4jLoggerAdapter
Mockito cannot mock/spy because :
final or anonymous class
from this: log = spy(log);
By using this instead:
log = mock(Logger.class);
Then it works.
I guess that "default" logger adapter is an instance of a final class so I couldn't "spy" it, but I could mock the whole thing. Go figure...
This may mean that you could substitute it for some other "non final" instance if you have that handy, as well. Or a simplified version, etc. FWIW...
I am writing the steps I followed after various unsuccessful attempts to mock final/private classes and their methods in Java 11, which finally worked for me.
Create a file named org.mockito.plugins.MockMaker inside
your test/resources/mockito-extensions folder. Please create
mockito-extensions folder if not present already.
Add a single line mock-maker-inline as the content of the above org.mockito.plugins.MockMaker file
Add
#RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
#PowerMockIgnore({"javax.management.*", "jdk.internal.reflect.*", "com.sun.org.apache.xerces.*", "javax.xml.*", "org.xml.*", "org.w3c.*"})
#PrepareForTest(Utility.class)
annotations at the class level.
Setup process in the test class
#Before
public void setup () {
MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this);
Mockito.mockStatic(ClassToBeMocked.class);
}
Use Mockito.when(..).thenReturn(..) for assertions
In case of multiple test cases, add the below code
#After
public void after() {
Mockito.framework().clearInlineMocks();
}
The mockito version which I am using: 3.9.0
Java version: 11
Didn't try final, but for private, using reflection remove the modifier worked ! have checked further, it doesn't work for final.

unable to launch spring-data-rest unit test, RepositoryRestResource not available for #Autowire

I'm porting an app across from JDBC / REST to spring-data-rest and my one and only unit test with fails with the error
NoSuchBeanDefinitionException:
No qualifying bean of type 'com.xxx.repository.ForecastRepository' available
The app was retro-fitted with spring-boot just previously, and now I'm trying to put a new layer in place with spring-data-rest on top of spring-data-jpa.
I'm attempting to work out the correct Java-config according to
Custom Test Slice with Spring Boot 1.4
but I had to deviate from the idiomatic approach because
the #WebMvcTest annotation doesn't suppress the security module which causes the test to fail
the #MockMvcAutoConfiguration fails due to missing dependencies unless I specify #SpringBootTest(webEnvironment = SpringBootTest.WebEnvironment.MOCK) (see here)
#WebMvcTest and #SpringBootTest are mutually exclusive since they both specify #BootstrapWith and can't run together
So this is the closest I've got but Spring can't locate my #RepositoryRestResource repository:
Repository
#RepositoryRestResource(collectionResourceRel = "forecasts", path = "forecasts")
public interface ForecastRepository extends CrudRepository<ForecastExEncoded,
Long> {
JUnit Test
#RunWith(SpringRunner.class)
#SpringBootTest(webEnvironment = SpringBootTest.WebEnvironment.MOCK,
classes = {TestRestConfiguration.class})
public class ForecastRestTests {
#Autowired
private MockMvc mockMvc;
#Autowired
private ForecastRepository forecastRepository;
#Before
public void deleteAllBeforeTests() throws Exception {
forecastRepository.deleteAll();
}
#Test
public void shouldReturnRepositoryIndex() throws Exception {
mockMvc.perform(get("/")).andDo(print()).andExpect(status().isOk()).andExpect(
jsonPath("$._links.forecasts").exists());
}
}
Configuration
#OverrideAutoConfiguration(enabled = false)
#ImportAutoConfiguration(value = {
RepositoryRestMvcAutoConfiguration.class,
HttpMessageConvertersAutoConfiguration.class,
WebMvcAutoConfiguration.class,
MockMvcAutoConfiguration.class,
MockMvcSecurityAutoConfiguration.class
})
#Import({PropertySpringConfig.class})
public class TestRestConfiguration {}
Also tried...
I tried to configure the unit test with just #WebMvcTest and this #ComponentScan below from How to exclude AutoConfiguration from Spring Boot), in an attempt to simplify it all, however the excludeFilters had no effect.
#ComponentScan(
basePackages="com.xxx",
excludeFilters = {
#ComponentScan.Filter(type = ASSIGNABLE_TYPE,
value = {
SpringBootWebApplication.class,
JpaDataConfiguration.class,
SecurityConfig.class
})
})
I've set Spring's logging to trace because all I can do at this point is try to find clues as to what is happening from log output. So far though without any luck.
I can see in the logging that RepositoryRestConfiguration is loading, but obviously it isn't fed with the right info and I am unable to work out how that is done, after googling and pouring over the Spring docs and API. I think I must have read every relevant question here on SO .
Update 2016-11-16 10:00
One thing I see in the logs which concerns me is this:
Performing dependency injection for test context [DefaultTestContext#2b4a2ec7 [snip...]
classes = '{class com.xxx.TestRestConfiguration,
class com.xxx.TestRestConfiguration}',
i.e. the context lists the configuration class twice. I specified the config class (once only) on the #SpringBootTest#classes annotation. But if I leave off the #classes from the annotation, Spring Boot finds and pulls in all the config via the #SpringBootApplication class.
So is that a hint that I am specifying the configuration in the wrong place? How else would I do it?
After way too much time, I settled on this approach.
Custom Test Slice with Spring Boot 1.4 looked promising but I couldn't get anywhere with it.
While going over and over
Accessing JPA Data with REST
I realised I had to include the JPA setup because spring-data-rest is using them directly - no chance to mock them or run unit tests without an embedded database.
At least not as far as I understand it. Maybe it is possible to mock them and have spring-data-rest run on the mocks against test data, but I think spring-data-rest and spring-data are probably too tightly coupled.
So integration testing it must be.
In the Spring source code provided with the articles above
gs-accessing-data-rest/ApplicationTests.java
the logging shows Spring Boot pulling in the whole configuration for the application context.
So that my SpringBootApplication class is avoided and the security module isn't loaded up, I set up my tests like this:
#RunWith(SpringRunner.class)
#SpringBootTest
#ContextConfiguration(classes = {
JpaDataConfiguration.class,
TestJpaConfiguration.class,
TestRestConfiguration.class,
PropertySpringConfig.class})
public class ForecastRestTests {
#SuppressWarnings("SpringJavaAutowiringInspection")
#Autowired
private MockMvc mockMvc;
#Autowired
private ForecastRepository forecastRepository;
#Before
public void deleteAllBeforeTests() throws Exception {
forecastRepository.deleteAll();
}
#Test
public void shouldReturnRepositoryIndex() throws Exception {
mockMvc.perform(get("/")).andDo(print()).andExpect(status().isOk()).andExpect(
jsonPath("$._links.forecasts").exists());
}
}
with these configuration classes:
#Configuration
#EnableJpaRepositories(basePackages = {"com.bp.gis.tardis.repository"})
#EntityScan(basePackages = {"com.bp.gis.tardis.type"})
public class JpaDataConfiguration {
and
#Configuration
#OverrideAutoConfiguration(enabled = false)
#ImportAutoConfiguration(value = {
CacheAutoConfiguration.class,
JpaRepositoriesAutoConfiguration.class,
DataSourceAutoConfiguration.class,
DataSourceTransactionManagerAutoConfiguration.class,
HibernateJpaAutoConfiguration.class,
TransactionAutoConfiguration.class,
TestDatabaseAutoConfiguration.class,
TestEntityManagerAutoConfiguration.class })
public class TestJpaConfiguration {}
and
#Configuration
#OverrideAutoConfiguration(enabled = false)
#ImportAutoConfiguration(value = {
RepositoryRestMvcAutoConfiguration.class,
HttpMessageConvertersAutoConfiguration.class,
WebMvcAutoConfiguration.class,
MockMvcAutoConfiguration.class,
MockMvcSecurityAutoConfiguration.class
})
public class TestRestConfiguration {}
so the TL;DR summary is: use #ContextConfiguration to specify the configuration files that specify #OverrideAutoConfiguration and #ImportAutoConfiguration

Grails Domain Class Unit Test, issue with Constraint setup - java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: Could not initialize

My grails unit test for domain class is throwing this exception:
| java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: Could not initialize class com.pkg.common.Configuration
at com.pkg.DomainClass$__clinit__closure1.doCall(DomainClass.groovy:10)
at org.grails.datastore.mapping.config.groovy.MappingConfigurationBuilder.evaluate(MappingConfigurationBuilder.groovy:72)
at org.grails.datastore.mapping.config.AbstractGormMappingFactory.createMappedForm(AbstractGormMappingFactory.java:51)
at org.grails.datastore.mapping.keyvalue.mapping.config.GormKeyValueMappingFactory.createMappedForm(GormKeyValueMappingFactory.java:37)
at org.grails.datastore.mapping.keyvalue.mapping.config.GormKeyValueMappingFactory.createMappedForm(GormKeyValueMappingFactory.java:27)
at org.grails.datastore.mapping.keyvalue.mapping.config.KeyValuePersistentEntity.<init>(KeyValuePersistentEntity.java:33)
at org.grails.datastore.mapping.keyvalue.mapping.config.KeyValueMappingContext.createPersistentEntity(KeyValueMappingContext.java:89)
at org.grails.datastore.mapping.model.AbstractMappingContext.addPersistentEntityInternal(AbstractMappingContext.java:159)
at org.grails.datastore.mapping.model.AbstractMappingContext.addPersistentEntity(AbstractMappingContext.java:152)
at grails.test.mixin.domain.DomainClassUnitTestMixin.mockDomain(DomainClassUnitTestMixin.groovy:133)
at grails.test.mixin.domain.DomainClassUnitTestMixin.mockDomain(DomainClassUnitTestMixin.groovy:129)
Following is my stripped down Domain class :
package com.pkg
import com.pkg.common.Configuration
class DomainClass {
String subject
static constraints = {
subject(maxSize: 100, nullable: false, blank: false, matches: Configuration.ALLOWED_TEXT_CHARS)
}
}
My com.pkg.common.Configuration class is just a Singleton with static properties :
package com.pkg.common
import grails.util.Holders
class Configuration{
final public static String ALLOWED_TEXT_CHARS = "${Holders.grailsApplication.metadata["allowed.text.chars"]}"
}
"allowed.text.chars" is a RegEx defined in application.properties :
allowed.text.chars=[a-zA-Z0-9\\p{L}\\p{Digit}_"` $ \\-'_&;\:#()/\\.,!\\?%*|<>]+
Now, why this much pain just to set up a constraint ? Well, I need to keep all text fields across my 15+ domains, consistent in terms of characters they accept. Since this is business driven requirement, I need to keep it configurable, so that we can remove/add any new chars at any time, without the risk of touching too many domain classes for the sake of integrity. In addition to that, I want to use the available regex in other Service classes as well.
Now, this implementation works well in run-app, production & test-app integration:
Only problem is with Unit tests cases. What I can understand is, that such dependencies, Grails won't be able to inject automatically, in a unit-test env.
Can we mock & add Configuration class using metaClass manipulation ? I have tried but failed.(read: I am not aware how mocking for Static classes work and how to add them to metaClass)
Or, if there's another way to implement such kind of concept ?
Many Thnx
To avoid repeating the constraint across multiple domain classes, you could use either a shared constraint or a global constraint.
If you use a global constraint, then to enable you to access the regex from a service class, store the regex in a separate config param.
Config.groovy
allowed.text.chars='bigLongRegex'
grails.gorm.default.constraints = {
subject matches: allowed.text.chars
}
Service Class
class MyService {
GrailsApplication grailsApplication
void something() {
String regex = grailsApplication.config.allowed.text.chars
}
}
If you want to write a unit test that tests the domain class' constraint remember to add the #Mock annotation, e.g.
#Mock([DomainClass])
class DomainClassTests {
void testConstraint() {
// test code goes here
}
}

Grails integration tests with multiple services

What is the best practice to test a Grails Service which depends on another Service?
The default mixin TestFor correctly inject the service under test, for eg:
#TestFor(TopService)
class TopServiceTests {
#Test
void testMethod() {
service.method()
}
}
but if my instance of TopService (service) relies on another Service, like InnerService:
class TopService {
def innerService
}
innerService will not be available, dependency injection doesn't seem to fill this variable. How should I proceed?
Integration tests should not use the #TestFor annotation, they should extend GroovyTestCase. The test annotations are only for unit tests (and will have bad behavior when used in integration tests, especially the #Mock annotations). You're seeing one of those bad behaviors now.
If you extend GroovyTestCase you can then just have
def topService
At the top of your test and it'll get injected with all of it's dependencies injected.
For a unit test case, you'd just want to add new instances of associated services to your service in a setUp method. Just like:
#TestFor(TopService)
class TopServiceTests {
#Before public void setUp() {
service.otherService = new OtherService()
}
...
I have a CustomerRegistrationServiceTest and my CustomerRegistrationService depends on the PasswordService.
my CustomerRegistrationService just autowires it like normal:
class CustomerRegistrationService {
def passwordService
In my CustomerRegistrationServiceTest I have:
#TestFor(CustomerRegistrationService)
#Mock(Customer)
class CustomerRegistrationServiceTests extends GrailsUnitTestMixin {
void setUp() {
mockService(PasswordService)
}
So when I test the CustomerRegistrationService, it is able to access the PasswordService

How to cleanly unit test a custom ValueResolver ResolveCore(...) method

I'm trying to unit test a custom ValueResolver (Automapper) but am running into problems because the method it forces me to override is not exposed directly in the custom object we must create. I override the protected method "ResolveCore" but the only public method exposed is "Resolve" which expects a complex "ResolutionResult" automapper object as it's input. In the vein of true unit testing I want to test this object / method in isolation to anything else and don't really want to go the route of firing up automapper with mappings to do this test. Likewise it's not possible to Mock "ResolutionResult" and it seems a very complex object to setup for each test (again requiring creation / association of other Automapper objects).
The only (less than ideal) solution I can come up with (and have seen suggested when Googling for a solution) is to stub a public method inside the class that exposes the protected overriden method. If we must go down this route then so be it, but has anyone else got a better solution that tests the method call in isolation doesn't require a modification of the object we are trying to test?
Example code:
public class CustomResolver : ValueResolver<Supplier, string>
{
protected override string ResolveCore(Custom source)
{
return string.Format("{0} {1}", source.Name, source.Descripton);
}
public string UnitTestStub(Custom source)
{
return ResolveCore(source);
}
}
I wouldn't place a public stub in your class. Instead, I'd just create a simple subclass in my unit test assembly that exposes the call I wanted to test:
public class TestCustomResolver : CustomResolver
{
public string TestResolveCore(Custom source)
{
return this.ResolveCore(source);
}
}
Some of this depends on the unit testing framework you're using too. For example, you could use the InternalsVisibleTo() attribute to expose your internals to your unit tests. However, I would lean towards a simple subclass in your unit tests.