Spock - How to work with repeated interactions - unit-testing

For few test cases I'm trying to follow a DRY principle, where only the interactions are different with same test case conditions. I'm not able to find a way to implement multiple methods in the interaction { } block.
As mentioned in http://spockframework.org/spock/docs/1.3/interaction_based_testing.html#_explicit_interaction_blocks, I'm using interaction { } in the then: block like below:
Java Code:
// legacy code (still running on EJB 1.0 framework, and no dependency injection involved)
// can't alter java code base
public voidGetData() {
DataService ds = new DataService();
ds = ds.findByOffset(5);
Long len = ds.getOffset() // happy path scenario; missing a null check
// other code
}
// other varieties of same code:
public voidGetData2() {
ItemEJB tmpItem = new ItemEJB();
ItemEJB item = tmpItem.findByOffset(5);
if(null != item) {
Long len = item.getOffset();
// other code
}
}
public voidGetData3() {
ItemEJB item = new ItemEJB().findByOffset(5);
if(null != item) {
Long len = item.getOffset();
// other code
}
}
Spock Test:
def "test scene1"() {
given: "a task"
// other code ommitted
DataService mockObj = Mock(DataService)
when: "take action"
// code omitted
then: "action response"
interaction {
verifyNoDataScenario() // How to add verifyErrorScenario() interaction to the list?
}
}
private verifyDataScenario() {
1 * mockObj.findByOffset(5) >> mockObj // the findByOffset() returns an object, so mapped to same mock instance
1 * mockObj.getOffset() >> 200
}
private verifyErrorScenario() {
1 * mockObj.findByOffset(5) >> null // the findByOffset() returns null
0 * mockObj.getOffset() >> 200 // this won't be executed, and should ie expected to throw NPE
}
The interaction closure doesn't accept more than one method call. I'm not sure if it's design limitation. I believe more can be done in the closure than just mentioning the method name. I also tried interpolating the mockObj as a variable and use data pipe / data table, but since it's referring the same mock instance, it's not working. I'll post that as a separate question.
I ended up repeating the test case twice just to invoke different interaction methods. Down the line I see more scenarios, and wanted to avoid copy & paste approach. Appreciate any pointers to achieve this.
Update:
Modified shared java code as the earlier DataService name was confusing.
As there's no DI involved, and I didn't find a way to mock method variables, so I mock them using PowerMockito, e.g. PowerMockito.whenNew(DataService.class).withNoArguments().thenReturn(mockObj)

Your application code looks very strange. Is the programming style in your legacy application really that bad? First a DataService object is created with a no-arguments constructor, just to be overwritten in the next step by calling a method on that instance which again returns a DataService object. What kind of programmer creates code like that? Or did you just make up some pseudo code which does not have much in common with your real application? Please explain.
As for your test code, it also does not make sense because you instantiate DataService mockObj as a local variable in your feature method (test method), which means that in your helper method mockObj cannot be accessed. So either you need to pass the object as a parameter to the helper methods or you need to make it a field in your test class.
Last, but not least, your local mock object is never injected into the class under test because, as I said in the first paragraph, the DataService object in getData() is also a local variable. Unless your application code is compeletely fake, there is no way to inject the mock because getData() does not have any method parameter and the DataService object is not a field which could be set via setter method or constructor. Thus, you can create as many mocks as you want, the application will never have any knowledge of them. So your stubbing findByOffset(long offset) (why don't you show the code of that method?) has no effect whatsoever.
Bottom line: Please provide an example reflecting the structure of your real code, both application and test code. The snippets you provide do not make any sense, unfortunately. I am trying to help, but like this I cannot.
Update:
In my comments I mentioned refactoring your legacy code for testability by adding a constructor, setter method or an overloaded getData method with an additional parameter. Here is an example of what I mean:
Dummy helper class:
package de.scrum_master.stackoverflow.q58470315;
public class DataService {
private long offset;
public DataService(long offset) {
this.offset = offset;
}
public DataService() {}
public DataService findByOffset(long offset) {
return new DataService(offset);
}
public long getOffset() {
return offset;
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return "DataService{" +
"offset=" + offset +
'}';
}
}
Subject under test:
Let me add a private DataService member with a setter in order to make the object injectable. I am also adding a check if the ds member has been injected or not. If not, the code will behave like before in production and create a new object by itself.
package de.scrum_master.stackoverflow.q58470315;
public class ToBeTestedWithInteractions {
private DataService ds;
public void setDataService(DataService ds) {
this.ds = ds;
}
// legacy code; can't alter
public void getData() {
if (ds == null)
ds = new DataService();
ds = ds.findByOffset(5);
Long len = ds.getOffset();
}
}
Spock test:
Now let us test both the normal and the error scenario. Actually I think you should break it down into two smaller feature methods, but as you seem to wish to test everything (IMO too much) in one method, you can also do that via two distinct pairs of when-then blocks. You do not need to explicitly declare any interaction blocks in order to do so.
package de.scrum_master.stackoverflow.q58470315
import spock.lang.Specification
class RepeatedInteractionsTest extends Specification {
def "test scene1"() {
given: "subject under test with injected mock"
ToBeTestedWithInteractions subjectUnderTest = new ToBeTestedWithInteractions()
DataService dataService = Mock()
subjectUnderTest.dataService = dataService
when: "getting data"
subjectUnderTest.getData()
then: "no error, normal return values"
noExceptionThrown()
1 * dataService.findByOffset(5) >> dataService
1 * dataService.getOffset() >> 200
when: "getting data"
subjectUnderTest.getData()
then: "NPE, only first method called"
thrown NullPointerException
1 * dataService.findByOffset(5) >> null
0 * dataService.getOffset()
}
}
Please also note that testing for exceptions thrown or not thrown adds value to the test, the interaction testing just checks internal legacy code behaviour, which has little to no value.

Related

Meaning of closure in then clause in spock

We are in process of writing Unit test cases using Spock, I am not able to understand the following code snippet in then section varifying the declaration,
then:
1 * service.fraudMigrationOnboardingService.onboard(_) >>
{merchantId -> successCallBack.call(response)}
what is the meaning of the above code.
Because your question is lacking detail, I have to speculate and make an educated guess about your test. :-/
So you have a service with a member or getter fraudMigrationOnboardingService.
fraudMigrationOnboardingService has a method onboard taking a single parameter.
Obviously fraudMigrationOnboardingService is a mock or spy, which is why you can check interactions like 1 * ... on it.
The developer who wrote this test and whom, as it seems, you are too shy to ask about its meaning or who has left your company, wanted something specific to happen when method onboard(_) is called (probably by service) during the test: a call-back method call. Thus she declared the method stub { merchantId -> successCallBack.call(response) } as a replacement for what onboard(_) would normally do in this case. In a spy it would execute the original method, in a mock it would no nothing at all. But obviously that is not the desired behaviour, maybe because the test relies on different behavious later on.
In general, I think a test which is hard to read should be refactored, but anyway, here I am replicating your situation:
package de.scrum_master.stackoverflow
import spock.lang.Specification
class DummyTest extends Specification {
static class Service {
FraudMigrationOnboardingService fraudMigrationOnboardingService
void doSomething(String name) {
println "Doing something"
fraudMigrationOnboardingService.onboard(name)
}
}
static class FraudMigrationOnboardingService {
void onboard(String name) {
println "On-boarding $name"
}
}
static class SuccessCallBack {
void call(int httpResponse) {
println "Callback HTTP response = $httpResponse"
}
}
def "Some service test"() {
given:
def onboardingService = Mock(FraudMigrationOnboardingService)
def service = new Service(fraudMigrationOnboardingService: onboardingService)
def successCallBack = new SuccessCallBack()
def response = 200
when:
service.doSomething("ACME Inc.")
then:
1 * service.fraudMigrationOnboardingService.onboard(_) >>
{ merchantId -> successCallBack.call(response) }
}
}
The console log says:
Doing something
Callback HTTP response = 200
If you would comment out >> { merchantId -> successCallBack.call(response) }, it would only print
Doing something
for a mock and if you also change the Mock(FraudMigrationOnboardingService) into a Spy(FraudMigrationOnboardingService) it would print
Doing something
On-boarding ACME Inc.
Update: Maybe you still don't understand what the closure means, I am not sure. So I will explain it a bit more: As I said, it is just a stub for the onboard(String) method. The method parameter is mapped to merchantId but not used in the stubbed method. Instead the callback is triggered.

doNothing method does not work with void static method

I am assigned to add unit test code coverage to a 15 years old legacy project which is not using IoC and 0 unit test. I am not allowed to refactor the code since it works perfect fine on production, management does not want other teams get involved for refactoring such as QA testing, etc.
Service class has a performService method has following code
public void performService(requestMessage, responseMessage) {
UserAccount userAccount = requestMessage.getUserAccount();
GroupAccount groupAccount = requestMessage.getGroupAccount();
Type type = requestMessage.getType();
StaticServiceCall.enroll(userAccount, groupAccount, type);
response.setStatus(Status.SUCCESS);
}
This StaticServiceCall.enroll method is calling remote service. My unit test is
#RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
#PrepareForTest(StaticServiceCall.class)
public class EnrollmentServiceTest {
#Test
public void testPerformService() {
mockStatic(StaticServiceCall.class);
doNothing().when(StaticServiceCall.enroll(any(UserAccount.class), any(GroupAccount.class), any(Type.class)));
service.performService(requestMessage, responseMessage);
assertEquals("Enrollment should be success, but not", Status.SUCCESS, response.getStatus);
}
Eclipse complains with The method when(T) in the type Stubber is not applicable for the arguments (void)
Eclipse stops complain if test code change to
mockStatic(StaticServiceCall.class);
doNothing().when(StaticServiceCall.class);
StaticServiceCall.enroll(any(UserAccount.class), any(GroupAccount.class), any(Type.class));
service.performService(requestMessage, responseMessage);
assertEquals("Enrollment should be success, but not", Status.SUCCESS, response.getStatus);
Test case failed with UnfinishedStubbingException. I am using powermock 1.6.6
There is a misconception on your end. You think that you need to say that doNothing() should do nothing.
That is not necessary! As these lines
#PrepareForTest(StaticServiceCall.class) ... and
mockStatic(StaticServiceCall.class);
are sufficient already.
You want to prevent the "real" content of that static method to run when the method is invoked during your test. And that is what mockStatic() is doing.
In other words: as soon as you use mockStatic() the complete implementation of the real class is wiped. You only need to use when/then/doReturn/doThrow in case you want to happen something else than nothing.
Meaning: just remove that whole doNothing() line!
#GhostCat - Thank you for your answer, it solved problem, my misconception is coming from this test case
#Test
public void testEnrollmentServiceSuccess() {
RequestMessage requestMessage = new RequestMessage();
requestMessage.setName("ENROLL");
ResponseMessage responseMessage = new ResponseMessage();
EnrollmentService mockService = mock(EnrollmentService.class);
mockService.performService(any(RequestMessage.class), any(ResponseMessage.class));
mockStatic(ClientManager.class);
when(ClientManager.isAuthenticated()).thenReturn(true);
ServiceImpl service = new ServiceImpl();
service.performService(requestMessage, responseMessage);
verify(mockService).performService(any(RequestMessage.class), any(ResponseMessage.class));
}
Here is the code snippet of ServiceImpl class based name of the request message calling different service class
public void performService(RequestMessage request, ResponseMessage response) {
try {
if (request == null) {
throw new InvalidRequestFormatException("null message");
}
if (!ClientManager.isAuthenticated()) {
throw new ServiceFailureException("not authenticated");
}
// main switch for known services
if ("ENROLL".equals(request.getName())) {
service = new EnrollmentService();
service.performService(request, response);
} else if ("VALIDATE".equals(request.getName())) {
...
Although the test passed,real implementation in EnrollmentService got called and exceptions thrown due to barebone RequestMessage object, then I googled out doNothing, thanks again for your clarification

Looking for testable design in described case

I have a system, which gets lists of objects from external system in some ABC-format, converts it to internal representation and passes to external service:
class ABCService() {
public ABCService(ExtService extService) {
this.extService = extService;
}
public void do(ABCData [] abcObjs) throws NoDataException {
if (abcObjs.length == 0) {
throw NoDataException();
} else {
List<Data> objs = new ArrayList<>();
for (ABCData abcObj : abcObjs) {
Data obj = Parser.parse(abcObj); // static call
objs.add(obj);
}
extService.do(objs);
}
}
}
When it comes to testing ABCService, we can test two things:
If no data is passed to "do", service throws an exception;
If some data is passed to "do", service should call extService and pass exactly the same number of objects, it has received from test caller.
But, though Parser factory is also tested, there is no guarantee, that output "objs" array is somehow connected to input abcObjs (e.g. method has created list with the predefined length, but method "forgets" to populate the list).
I my opinion those two test cases don't fully cover method's workflow leaving some of it dangerously untested.
How to modify ABCService design to increase it's testability?
The major testing difficulty in this code is that you have two collaborators and one of them is static.
If you can convert your Parser to a non-static (or perhaps wrap it in a non-static) and inject that as you do the extService, you could test that the parser is called the right number of times with the right arguments. Stubbing in the return values from the parser, you could also verify that your extService is called with the appropriately transformed objects instead of just the correct number of objects.
The problem you encountered is trying to handle two tasks in one function. The function do can be logically separated into two different member functions, so that you can use unittest for each of them.
By using refactoring, you can extract out the parsing and populating logic into another member function.
class ABCService() {
public void do(ABCData [] abcObjs) throws NoDataException {
extService.do(populateList(abcObjs));
}
List<Data> popuateList(ABCData[] abcObjs) {
if (abcObjs.length == 0) {
throw NoDataException();
} else {
List<Data> objs = new ArrayList<>();
for (ABCData abcObj : abcObjs) {
Data obj = Parser.parse(abcObj); // static call
objs.add(obj);
return objs;
}
}
}
while your current unittest can still remain for the "do" function, and additionally, you can add a unittest case for "populateList" function to ensure it generate correct data list

Should I add features in a class just to make it testable?

I am still trying to get the hang of unit testing, I have a simple question. Today I wanted to write a test for a very simple function. This function was doing just this:
void OnSomething()
{
increment++;
if (increment == 20)
SaveIt();
}
I said, this function could be testable. I could write a test that calls it 20 times and then verifies that SaveIt has been called.
Then my doubt arose. How can I test that SaveIt has been called? My first answer was to add a boolean, but then I thought: is it correct to add class features just to make it testable?
Please advise. Thank you.
I would suggest having SaveIt return a success or failure result, this just makes it easier to test overall. You could do something as simple as having it return a bool, or you could create a generic result class that contains the ability to set messages as well, if you ever need to report whether it passed or failed.
A simple example example
public class Result
{
public bool IsSuccess;
public List<string> Messages;
}
In the unit test you're trying to test only the OnSomething behavior though -- what happens inside "SaveIt" should not be tested. So ideally you'd want SaveIt() to occur in another class so you can mock its response.
I use Moq for this purpose. Moq is free, you can get it here: http://code.google.com/p/moq/
my method would then become
Result OnSomething()
{
Result result=null;
increment++;
if(increment == 20)
{
result = saver.SaveIt();
}
return result;
}
Your class constructor would take an object that implements ISaver interface (defining SaveIt() method) (ideally injected by a DI framework but you could generate it manually if you had to).
Now in your unit test you would create a mock version of ISaver and tell it what to return when it gets called:
Mock<ISaver> mock = new Mock<ISaver>();
mock.Setup(x=> x.SaveIt()).Returns(new Result{IsSuccess=true});
You'd instantiate your class passing mock.Object in the constructor ISaver parameter.
ex.
MyClass myClass = new MyClass(mock.Object);
//(assuming it didn't have other parameters)
Then, you could Assert whether result is null or not -- if it never got called, it would be null because the setup you did above would never trigger.
(in nunit)
Result result = myClass.OnSomething();
Assert.IsNotNull(result);
If you really didn't want OnSomething() to return a result, or it couldn't because it's an event, then I would have OnSomething() call a method to do the work for you:
void OnSomething()
{
Result result = DoTheWork();
}
Result DoTheWork()
{
Result result=null;
increment++;
if(increment == 20)
{
result = saver.SaveIt();
}
return result;
}
And then run your unit test on DoTheWork() instead of OnSomething().
Definitely not! Production code should not depend on tests at all, but the tests should verify the correct behaviour of the actual code. This can be achieved by several methods, such as IOC, and using mocks. You can take a look at some existing frameworks which simplify your life a lot:
http://code.google.com/p/mockito/
http://code.google.com/p/jmockit/
http://www.easymock.org/

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