In jest there is a method called .toHaveBeenNthCalledWith which you can pass the nth call and check if that call was with specific params.
Now I want to check the same in jasmine (in angular unit tests), what is the the way in jasmine?
You can use Spy#calls argsFor(index).
const mySpy = spyOn(myObject, 'methodName');
// do some stuff
expect(myObject.methodName).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(expectedNumberOfInvocations);
const arguments = mySpy.calls.argsFor(nthInvocation);
// check arguments
Related
I am new to unit testing , I want to check whether a function has called using sinnon . I have a function as below.
function average(a,b){
return (a+b)/2;
}
I try to check with the sinon.spy() method. But I could not understand where I should use sinon.spy() to check whether this function has called or not. Any kind of help would be appreciated.
var spy = sinon.spy(average);
var result = spy(5,3);
expect(spy.called).to.be.true;
expect(result).to.equal(4);
this test will give 1 passes and 0 failures.
I want to unit test a controller method that returns an EssentialAction. I pass a FakeRequest to it, and get back a Iteratee[Array[Byte], Result].
It looks like the test helpers contentAsString, contentType and status do not accept this result type.
Is there an implicit conversion I am missing? Is there an example somewhere of controllers being unit tested without bringing up an entire FakeApplication?
An essential action is a RequestHeader => Iteratee[Indata, Result], you can apply it to FakeRequest since it implements RequestHeader. To actually execute the iteratee you either stuff it with data or just tell it right away that there is no more indata. For both those cases you get a Future[Result] back which you need to wait for in the tests.
So, for a simple GET with no request body (using the play test helper await method) you could do it like this:
val iteratee = controllers.SomeController.action()(FakeRequest())
val result: Result = await(iteratee.run)
If you want to do requests with request bodies you will have to do some more stuff to be able to feed the request body to the iteratee and also take care of encoding data your indata correctly.
In Play 2.3, PlaySpecification includes a couple of helper methods. In order to handle EssentialActions, you'd use call. The resulting future is handled by other more specific helpers.
class MySpec extends PlaySpecification {
...
val result1: Result = call(controllers.SomeController.action(), FakeRequest(...))
status(of = result1) must equalTo (OK)
...
val result2 = call(controllers.SomeController.action(), RequestHeader(...), "Body")
status(of = result2) must equalTo (BAD_REQUEST)
}
In one of my unit tests, I am having some difficulty getting a mocked method to executed. I have the following test code:
void testExample() {
def mockICFService = new MockFor(ICFService)
...
//Mock the methods
controller.metaClass.icfList = { def person ->
println "icfList"
return [new IC(conceptId:'12345')]
}
mockICFService.demand.getAllIC(1..1) { def id, def withHist, def appId ->
println "mocking service"
return new Person()
}
...
def model = controller.detail()
}
Inside of detail in my controller class I create a Person via the ICFService's getAllIC(). This part works correctly. Later in the function, however, there is a call to icfList (which is defined in the controller). Through println's I have determined that the call is still being made, although it is returning an empty array. I believe that this is because the array is populated based on data in the servletContext, but in Unit Testing there is no access to that (hence my trying to mock it out).
Does anyone know how to force the test to use the mocked version of controller.icfList instead of calling the actual method in controller?
When I try your code, what blows up for me is the mocked service, and the part that works properly is the mocked-out icfList() method. The opposite of your observation, interestingly. For what it's worth, here's what I did:
First replace new MockFor() class instantiation with the mockFor() method. Then you need to inject the mock service into the controller.
def mockICFService = mockFor(ICFService)
controller.iCFService = mockICFService.createMock()
By doing the above, only the mocked versions of icfList() and getAllIC() get called, so you are not using the servletContext at all. Check out the Grails testing documentation for more info.
I have some often-used helper methods for unit tests put into a seperate file. The idea is to, for example, allow my XYZTests.groovy to call TestHelper.getUserObject() in order to get a fully initialized instance of User.
Now the problem is, that there's a springSecurityService.encodePassword(pw) being called in the User's beforeInsert() which always fails as there's no mock for springSecurityService in TestHelper.groovy.
java.lang.NullPointerException: Cannot invoke method encodePassword() on null object
In User.groovy:
def beforeInsert() {
// ...
password = springSecurityService.encodePassword(pw)
// ...
}
Note: I would like to avoid any mocking in TestHelper.groovy in order to use it's methods in integration tests too.
In spite of that, even if I try to call a mockFor() anywhere in the TestHelper.groovy, I get an MME:
No signature of method: static myproject.TestHelper.mockFor() is applicable for argument types: (java.lang.Class, java.lang.Boolean) values: [class grails.plugins.springsecurity.SpringSecurityService, true]
groovy.lang.MissingMethodException: No signature of method: static myproject.TestHelper.mockFor() is applicable for argument types: (java.lang.Class, java.lang.Boolean) values: [class grails.plugins.springsecurity.SpringSecurityService, true]
at myproject.TestHelper.mockSpringSecurityService(TestHelper.groovy:59)
at myproject.TestHelper$mockSpringSecurityService.callStatic(Unknown Source)
at myproject.TestHelper.getUserObject(TestHelper.groovy:47)
at myproject.TestHelper$getUserObject.call(Unknown Source)
at myproject.UserTests.setUp(UserTests.groovy:26)
Note: I currently mock the springSecurityService.encodePassword like this:
// in UserTests.groovy
protected void setUp() {
// mockDomain(...) and such here
def u = TestHelper.getUserObject("Pummel")
u.springSecurityService = mockSpringSecurityService()
assert u.save()
}
private mockSpringSecurityService() {
def ssService = mockFor(SpringSecurityService,true)
ssService.metaClass.encodePassword() { password ->
"08a2d3c63bf9fc88276d97a9e8df5f841fd772724ad10f119f7e516f228b74c6"
}
ssService
}
Any ideas on how I may be able to use the helper class while leaving all mocking in the unit tests only?
Where would I best place the TestHelper.groovy file for using it in integration AND unit tests?
Note that everything is working perfectly fine when I move all helpers into UserTests.groovy directly!
The solution to this is to refrain from calling any user.save() in the TestHelper.groovy.
This makes sense, as for many (unit) tests a persisted (saved) instance is unnecessary anyways.
On the other hand many cases actually require an unsaved intance. (In order to test certain effects of the .save() itself, for example)
A working example for integration tests would be:
def user = TestHelper.getUserObject()
user.save()
For a unit tests:
def user = TestHelper.getUserObject()
user.springSecurityService = new SpringSecurityService() // or the described mock accordingly
user.save()
This keeps any mocks out of TestHelper.groovy
In your TestHelper you can use Groovy ExpandoMetaClass metaClass.static to slap a mock closure for encodePassword on SpringSecurityService:
SpringSecurityService.metaClass.'static'.encodePassword = {'08a2d3c63bf9fc88276d97a9e8df5f841fd772724ad10f119f7e516f228b74c6'}
I would stick this class in a test package under src/groovy
If I have a method that calls itself under a certain condition, is it possible to write a test to verify the behavior? I'd love to see an example, I don't care about the mock framework or language. I'm using RhinoMocks in C# so I'm curious if it is a missing feature of the framework, or if I'm misunderstanding something fundamental, or if it is just an impossibility.
a method that calls itself under a certain condition, is it possible to write a test to verify the behavior?
Yes. However, if you need to test recursion you better separate the entry point into the recursion and the recursion step for testing purposes.
Anyway, here is the example how to test it if you cannot do that. You don't really need any mocking:
// Class under test
public class Factorial
{
public virtual int Calculate(int number)
{
if (number < 2)
return 1
return Calculate(number-1) * number;
}
}
// The helper class to test the recursion
public class FactorialTester : Factorial
{
public int NumberOfCalls { get; set; }
public override int Calculate(int number)
{
NumberOfCalls++;
return base.Calculate(number)
}
}
// Testing
[Test]
public void IsCalledAtLeastOnce()
{
var tester = new FactorialTester();
tester.Calculate(1);
Assert.GreaterOrEqual(1, tester.NumberOfCalls );
}
[Test]
public void IsCalled3TimesForNumber3()
{
var tester = new FactorialTester();
tester.Calculate(3);
Assert.AreEqual(3, tester.NumberOfCalls );
}
Assuming you want to do something like get the filename from a complete path, for example:
c:/windows/awesome/lol.cs -> lol.cs
c:/windows/awesome/yeah/lol.cs -> lol.cs
lol.cs -> lol.cs
and you have:
public getFilename(String original) {
var stripped = original;
while(hasSlashes(stripped)) {
stripped = stripped.substringAfterFirstSlash();
}
return stripped;
}
and you want to write:
public getFilename(String original) {
if(hasSlashes(original)) {
return getFilename(original.substringAfterFirstSlash());
}
return original;
}
Recursion here is an implementation detail and should not be tested for. You really want to be able to switch between the two implementations and verify that they produce the same result: both produce lol.cs for the three examples above.
That being said, because you are recursing by name, rather than saying thisMethod.again() etc., in Ruby you can alias the original method to a new name, redefine the method with the old name, invoke the new name and check whether you end up in the newly defined method.
def blah
puts "in blah"
blah
end
alias blah2 blah
def blah
puts "new blah"
end
blah2
You're misunderstanding the purpose of mock objects. Mocks (in the Mockist sense) are used to test behavioral interactions with dependencies of the system under test.
So, for instance, you might have something like this:
interface IMailOrder
{
void OrderExplosives();
}
class Coyote
{
public Coyote(IMailOrder mailOrder) {}
public void CatchDinner() {}
}
Coyote depends on IMailOrder. In production code, an instance of Coyote would be passed an instance of Acme, which implements IMailOrder. (This might be done through manual Dependency Injection or via a DI framework.)
You want to test method CatchDinner and verify that it calls OrderExplosives. To do so, you:
Create a mock object that implements IMailOrder and create an instance of Coyote (the system under test) by passing the mock object to its constructor. (Arrange)
Call CatchDinner. (Act)
Ask the mock object to verify that a given expectation (OrderExplosives called) was met. (Assert)
When you setup the expectations on the mock object may depend on your mocking (isolation) framework.
If the class or method you're testing has no external dependencies, you don't need (or want) to use mock objects for that set of tests. It doesn't matter if the method is recursive or not.
You generally want to test boundary conditions, so you might test a call that should not be recursive, a call with a single recursive call, and a deeply-recursive call. (miaubiz has a good point about recursion being an implementation detail, though.)
EDIT: By "call" in the last paragraph I meant a call with parameters or object state that would trigger a given recursion depth. I'd also recommend reading The Art of Unit Testing.
EDIT 2: Example test code using Moq:
var mockMailOrder = new Mock<IMailOrder>();
var wily = new Coyote(mockMailOrder.Object);
wily.CatchDinner();
mockMailOrder.Verify(x => x.OrderExplosives());
There isn't anything to monitor stack depth/number of (recursive) function calls in any mocking framework I'm aware of. However, unit testing that the proper mocked pre-conditions provide the correct outputs should be the same as mocking a non-recursive function.
Infinite recursion that leads to a stack overflow you'll have to debug separately, but unit tests and mocks have never gotten rid of that need in the first place.
Here's my 'peasant' approach (in Python, tested, see the comments for the rationale)
Note that implementation detail "exposure" is out of question here, since what you are testing is the underlying architecture which happens to be utilized by the "top-level" code. So, testing it is legitimate and well-behaved (I also hope, it's what you have in mind).
The code (the main idea is to go from a single but "untestable" recursive function to an equivalent pair of recursively dependent (and thus testable) functions):
def factorial(n):
"""Everyone knows this functions contract:)
Internally designed to use 'factorial_impl' (hence recursion)."""
return factorial_impl(n, factorial_impl)
def factorial_impl(n, fct=factorial):
"""This function's contract is
to return 'n*fct(n-1)' for n > 1, or '1' otherwise.
'fct' must be a function both taking and returning 'int'"""
return n*fct(n - 1) if n > 1 else 1
The test:
import unittest
class TestFactorial(unittest.TestCase):
def test_impl(self):
"""Test the 'factorial_impl' function,
'wiring' it to a specially constructed 'fct'"""
def fct(n):
"""To be 'injected'
as a 'factorial_impl''s 'fct' parameter"""
# Use a simple number, which will 'show' itself
# in the 'factorial_impl' return value.
return 100
# Here we must get '1'.
self.assertEqual(factorial_impl(1, fct), 1)
# Here we must get 'n*100', note the ease of testing:)
self.assertEqual(factorial_impl(2, fct), 2*100)
self.assertEqual(factorial_impl(3, fct), 3*100)
def test(self):
"""Test the 'factorial' function"""
self.assertEqual(factorial(1), 1)
self.assertEqual(factorial(2), 2)
self.assertEqual(factorial(3), 6)
The output:
Finding files...
['...py'] ... done
Importing test modules ... done.
Test the 'factorial' function ... ok
Test the 'factorial_impl' function, ... ok
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ran 2 tests in 0.000s
OK