Mocking an 3rd party library using fakeit - c++

I am writing my own library/class that makes use of a 3rd party library. I want to write tests for my own class, and mock the 3rd party library. In one of the tests, I want to make sure that when a function on my class is being called, another function in the 3rd party library is also begin called as well. I though the FakeIt library would be a good idea to test this.
This is a sample of my testing code:
#include "MyTest.h"
#include "fakeit.hpp"
using namespace fakeit;
int main() {
MyTest dt;
Mock<ExternLib> mock;
Fake(Method(mock, someFunc));
ExternLib& el = mock.get();
dt.begin();
Verify(Method(mock, someFunc));
return 0;
}
When this is run though, it throws a fakeit::SequenceVerificationException with
Expected pattern: mock.someFunc( Any arguments )
Expected matches: at least 1
Actual matches : 0
Actual sequence : total of 0 actual invocations.
So clearly, the mock didn't work and it's method wasn't called. Any idea how I can mock this class and verify that its method is being called?
MyTest.cpp just is just a simple test and will be my full library/class:
#include "MyTest.h"
MyTest::MyTest() {
_manager = new ExternLib();
}
void MyTest::begin() {
result = _manager->someFunc();
}
and it's header file:
#pragma once
#include "Externlib.h"
class MyTest {
public:
MyTest();
virtual void begin();
int result = 3;
private:
ExternLib *_manager;
};
ExternLib is a mock version of the 3rd party library. My implementation implements the bare necessities of the real interface, and the functions don't actually do anything. The implementation is actually basically just there to satisfy the #include Externlib.h statements.
This is my Externlib.cpp:
#include "Externlib.h"
ExternLib:: ExternLib() {}
int ExternLib::someFunc() {
return 5;
}
and the header file:
#pragma once
class ExternLib {
public:
ExternLib();
virtual int someFunc();
};

To explain the fakeit::SequenceVerificationException:
With the line Mock<ExternLib> mock; you create a new instance of ExternLib, which does never get called by MyTest (because MyTest creates it's own instance of ExternLib).
To test invokation, you could either
expose the ExternLib instance stored in _manager to your test by making it public or add an accessor, and then spy on it (Mock<ExternLib> mock(MyTest._manager); or similar)
swap the ExternLib instance stored in MyTest::_manager with your ExternLib Mock instance.
But this means exposing your Subject Under Test's inner workings for the sake of being testable, which may not be desired.

I have never used fake it before however, it might be working when you pass mock.get() to MyTest after you make MyTest injectable.
class MyTest {
public:
MyTest(ExternaLib* lib) : _manager(lib) {}
}

Related

Mock class object as parameter of function

I am using junit and mokito to write unit test of my java program.
public MyClass {
private ClassA a;
public void process(ClassB b) {
if(b.method()) a = ClassA.builder().build();
}
}
Now I have write a MockClassA and MockClassB. But I don't know how to :
Pass a MockClassB instantiation to process function
How to verify whether private variable a is set successfully
Can anybody help?
You can use something like:
#Test
public void shouldDoSomething() {
// given
ClassB mock = Mockito.mock(ClassB.class);
Mockito.when(mock.method()).thenReturn(true);
MyClass classUnderTest = new MyClass();
// when
classUnderTest.process(mock);
// then
// Insert assertions
}
However, if your field is private you are unable to test it properly. You should provide a getter for this field if you want to make some assertions against it.
But remember that internal representation of MyClass should not be tested, only the behavior of it so maybe you want to try different approach

Google Mock for NonVirtual and Private Functions

I'm attempting to write Mocks for Private / Non Virtual / Static functions and come across a way to do the same.
Here is how it looks like..
Lets assume that I have a class A which needs to be mocked and used inside class UsingA. The definition of both classes looks like
class A
{
friend class UsingA;
int privateFn() {}
public:
int nonVirtual() {}
};
// The UsingA class
class UsingA {
A &a1;
public:
UsingA(A & _a1) : a1(_a1) {}
int CallFn() {
return a1.nonVirtual();
}
int CallFn2() {
return a1.privateFn();
}
};
I know that Mocks are meant for generating the behavior of the class and while creating Mocks, we need to derive from the original class.
However, to Mock the behavior I decided not to derive from the original class, instead comment the class A and generate a Mock class with the same Name i.e class A.
Here is how my mock class looks like
// Original class A is commented / header file removed
class A {
public:
MOCK_METHOD0(nonVirtual, int());
MOCK_METHOD0(privateFn, int());
};
And my tests are usual mock tests
TEST(MyMockTest, NonVirtualTest) {
A mstat;
UsingA ua(mstat);
EXPECT_CALL(mstat, nonVirtual())
.Times(1)
.WillOnce(Return(100));
int retVal = ua.CallFn();
EXPECT_EQ(retVal,100);
}
TEST(MyMockTest, PrivateTest) {
A mstat;
UsingA ua(mstat);
EXPECT_CALL(mstat, privateFn())
.Times(1)
.WillOnce(Return(100));
int retVal = ua.CallFn2();
EXPECT_EQ(retVal,100);
}
And everything works fine and I'm able to test UsingA by this mock.
Question is.
This looks easier and serves the purpose, still I haven't seen this kind of examples while browsing for google mock examples. Is there anything that would go wrong if I do this?
Honestly, I didn't find any.
NOTE: Folks, I'm using friend for demonstration only. My actual use case is totally different. Thanks
The wrong is that you are not testing real code, because of that:
comment the class A
generate a Mock class with the same name
These operations alter the code under test.
An example what can go wrong:
Change return type: long nonVirtual in Mock - previously was int
Test that on, let say, nonVirtual() == 0xFF'FFFF'FFFF (which is bigger than INTMAX) some action is being done
Forget to change in real A - so real UsingA have branch that is tested but never reachable in real code
An example code:
class A {
public:
MOCK_METHOD0(nonVirtual, long()); // change
MOCK_METHOD0(privateFn, int());
};
void UsingA::processA()
{
if (a.nonVirtual() > VERY_BIG_NUMBER)
{
throw runtime_error("oops");
}
}
TEST_F(UsingATest, throwOnVeryBigNumber)
{
EXPECT_CALL(aMock, nonVirtual()).WillOnce(Return(VERY_BIG_NUMBER + 1));
ASSERT_THROW(objectUndertTest.processA());
}
But real A did not change - so we test non reachable code in UsingA class:
class A {
public:
int nonVirtual(); // not changed
...
};
The best solution is (in order):
To test in isolation you have to isolate classes - so to use dependency injection (virtual functions etc, base interfaces, etc...) - this is sometimes called London School of TDD
Test both classes A and UsingA w/o any stubbing - test them together in one testcase - thus you test real code - this is called Detroit Shool of TDD
Separate by template code with good restriction on interface - this approach is most similar to yours:
Regarding 3 - you might use something like this:
template <class T = A>
class UsingA {
T &a1;
public:
UsingA(T & _a1) : a1(_a1) {}
long CallFn() {
using ANonVirtualResult = std::invoke_result_t<&T::nonVirtual>;
static_assert(std::is_same<long, ANonVirtualResult>::value);
return a1.nonVirtual();
}
...
};
And in test:
class UsingATest : public ::testing::Test
{
protected:
StrictMock<AMock> aMock;
using ClassUnderTest = UsingA<AMock>;
ClassUnderTest objectUnderTest{aMock};
};
TEST_F(UsingATest, useNonVirtual)
{
const auto VALUE = 123456;
EXPECT_CALL(aMock, nonVirtual()).WillOnce(Return(VALUE));
ASSERT_EQ(VALUE, objectUnderTest.CallFn());
}
You might note that some assumption about A might be tested during compilation as static_assert or via some SFINAE technics (more complicated).
Actually, there are examples with template code in googlemock as workaround for mocking classes w/o virtual functions.
We use your type of using mocks inside a few of our test projects to check callbacks on a larger class that we pass along using dependency injection. In our case, the methods are declared virtual.
In your case, they are not. Your mock implementation would hide the original implementation - if there was any. So I don't think there's an issue here.

Google mock: Mocking parent class?

Assume I have a base class:
class Command {
public:
virtual int8_t Execute();
};
with a definition in the base class cpp.
Additionally, I have a child class:
class SpecificCommand: public Command {
public:
int8_t Execute();
};
With the definition:
int8_t SpecificCommand::Execute() {
doSomeStuff();
Command::Execute();
}
How do I mock Command::Execute() but using a SpecificCommand object for tests?
Maybe something like that:
class SpecificCommandMock : public SpecificCommand
{
public:
MOCK_METHOD0(ExecuteMockedMethod, void());
int8_t Execute() override
{
doSomeStuff()
ExecuteMockedMethod();
}
}
Of course you should use SpecificCommandMock in unit tests and set EXPECT_CALL for ExecuteMockedMethod when class under test is expected to call Execute().
In addition I suppose that something could be wrong in design of the application if you have to do such things.
This should not be possible in the way you are expecting. I.e. gtest cannot just replace the part of your code and instead of:
int8_t SpecificCommand::Execute() {
doSomeStuff();
Command::Execute();
}
execute something like:
int8_t SpecificCommand::Execute() {
doSomeStuff();
}
You operate with macroses mainly which are just wrap your code with some other. So the language limitation still in there.
Some options (which don't affect your Command implementation):
if doSomeStuff is a public - override the Execute() with mock class as proposed by trivelt or do it like official docs suggests with ON_CALL declaration in mock constructor
write DummyCommand.cpp which do nothing and by compilation option build it instead of original one. In cmake it's if-else + add_library/add_executable manipulations.
write mock to the library which uses "network access that can not be tested" and link it instead of original one by compilation option. (if-else + target_link_library or even include manipulations in the cmake)
write mock for the network communication backend (web_server, etc)

Mocking a method using Mockito

Does mocking a method using mockito ensures that mocked method will never be called? I have Main class which contains some code i want to write unit tests for and i have one unit test class MainTest which contains unit tests for Main class.
eg:
Source Class:
package abc;
public class Main {
public int check1() {
int num = 10;
num = modify(num);
return num;
}
public int modify(int num) {
if (num % 10 == 0) return num / 10;
return -1;
}
}
Junit Test (using mockito)
package abc;
import junit.framework.Assert;
import org.junit.BeforeClass;
import org.junit.Test;
import org.mockito.Mockito;
public class MainTest {
private static Main main;
#BeforeClass
public static void setUp() {
main = Mockito.mock(Main.class);
Mockito.when(main.modify(10)).thenReturn(5);
}
#Test
public void testCheck1() {
Test1 main1 = new Main();
int num = main.check1();
Assert.assertEquals(5, num);
}
}
This test is failing. Why?
EDITED
Because you didn't provide a behavior for check1(). ALL methods get mocked, so without you providing a behavior, check1() returns a default value for the return type of int, which is 0. Furthermore, check1() since it is mocked does not even get to call modify().
If you are trying to test a class, you never mock the Class Under Test. On rare occasion, you might have to Spy a class under test. Rather, you mock collaborators only.
I am guessing your example was a contrived one (I hope). But if you are writing and testing a class where you think you want to modify some internal method's behavior, I see two likely probabilities:
You may need to refactor the functionality of the method you want to mock-out into a collaborator class. Then it makes sense to go ahead and mock that behavior as a collaborator.
You may also may need to modify the API so that you can pass in what is going to change. In your case, check1() hard-codes the value it passes to modify(), which is why you are trying to mock modify(). If instead that value were a parameter to check1() or a settable field in class Main, then there wouldn't even be a need to use a mock at all.
The Problem with your Test is, that you do not use your newly created main1 object.
If you want to change the behaviour of your systen under test (SUT) you would normally do something like this:
#Test
public void testCheck1() {
Test1 main1 = new Main(){
public int modify(int num) {
return 5; // hard coded return value
}
};
int num = main1.check1();
Assert.assertEquals(5, num);
}
This creates a subclass of Main with a new implementation of the modify-method.
This is an important technique for replacing hard-to-test methods in your SUT. You would normally use it to avoid expensive remote calls or similar.
It is of course possible to use a Mockito spy like this:
#Test
public void testCheck1() {
Test1 main1 = spy(new Main());
stub(main1.modify(10)).toReturn(5);
int num = main1.check1();
Assert.assertEquals(5, num);
}
Though i am late,it might be useful to some one. Just to add to #VivaceVivo answer: when using spies please consider doReturn|Answer|Throw() family of methods for stubbing. Sometimes it's impossible or impractical to use when(Object) for stubbing spies. more info here

How to use Rhino Mock to mock a local function calling?

Here is my situation:
I want to test on the "HasSomething()" function, which is in the following class:
public class Something
{
private object _thing;
public virtual bool HasSomething()
{
if (HasSomething(_thing))
return true;
return false;
}
public virtual bool HasSomething(object thing)
{
....some algo here to check on the object...
return true;
}
}
So, i write my test to be like this:
public void HasSomethingTest1()
{
MockRepository mocks = new MockRepository();
Something target = mocks.DynamicMock(typeof(Something)) as Something;
Expect.Call(target.HasSomething(new Object())).IgnoreArguments().Return(true);
bool expected = true;
bool actual;
actual = target.HasSomething();
Assert.AreEqual(expected, actual);
}
Is my test written correctly?
Please help me as i can't even get the result as expected. the "HasSomething(object)" just can't be mock in that way. it did not return me 'true' as being set in expectation.
Thanks.
In response to OP's 'answer': Your main problem is that RhinoMocks does not mock members of classes - instead it creates mock classes and we can then set expectations and canned responses for its members (i.e. Properties and Functions). If you attempt to test a member function of a mock/stub class, you run the risk of testing the mocking framework rather than your implementation.
For the particular scenario of the logical path being dependent on the return value of a local (usually private) function, you really need an external dependency (another object) which would affect the return value that you require from that local function. For your code snippet above, I would write the test as follows:
[Test]
public void TestHasSomething()
{
// here I am assuming that _thing is being injected in via the constructor
// you could also do it via a property setter or a function
var sut = new Something(new object());
Assert.IsTrue(sut.HasSomething);
}
i.e. no mocking required.
This is one point of misunderstanding that I often had in the past with regards to mocking; we mock the behaviour of a dependency of the system under test (SUT). Something like: the SUT calls several methods of the dependency and the mocking process provides canned responses (rather than going to the database, etc) to guide the way the logic flows.
A simple example would be as follows (note that I have used RhinoMocks AAA syntax for this test. As an aside, I notice that the syntax that you are using in your code sample is using the Record-Replay paradigm, except that it isn't using Record and Replay! That would probably cause problems as well):
public class SUT
{
Dependency _depend
public SUT (Dependency depend)
{
_depend = depend;
}
...
public int MethodUnderTest()
{
if (_depend.IsReady)
return 1;
else
return -1;
}
}
...
[Test]
public void TestSUT_MethodUnderTest()
{
var dependency = MockRepository.GenerateMock<Dependency>();
dependency.Stub(d => d.IsReady).Return(true);
var sut = new SUT(dependency);
Assert.AreEqual(1, sut.MethodUnderTest());
}
And so the problem that you have is that you are attempting to test the behaviour of a mocked object. Which means that you aren't actually testing your class at all!
In a case like this, your test double should be a derived version of class Something. Then you override the method HasSomething(object) and ensure that HasSomething() calls your one.
If I understand correctly, you are actually interested in testing the method HasDynamicFlow (not depicted in your example above) without concerning yourself with the algorithm for HasSomething.
Preet is right in that you could simply subclass Something and override the behavior of HasSomething to short-circuit the algorithm, but that would require creating some additional test-dummy code which Rhino is efficient at eliminating.
Consider using a Partial Mock Stub instead of a Dynamic Mock. A stub is less strict and is ideal for working with Properties. Methods however require some extra effort.
[Test]
public void CanStubMethod()
{
Foo foo = MockRepository.GenerateStub<Foo>();
foo.Expect(f => f.HasDynamicFlow()).CallOriginalMethod(OriginalCallOptions.NoExpectation);
foo.Expect(f => f.HasSomething()).CallOriginalMethod(OriginalCallOptions.NoExpectation);
foo.Expect(f => f.HasSomething(null)).IgnoreArguments().Return(true);
Assert.IsTrue(foo.HasDynamicFlow());
}
EDIT: added code example and switched Partial Mock to Stub