The way my Google Home app is organizaed is a class containing all intent methods and then
at the bottom a line
exports.myapp = functions.https.onRequest(
(request, response) => new MyApp(request, response).run()
);
Since the functions in MyApp depend on request to get parameters from, I assume a unit test has to have a faked input request correct?
From the Actions On Google simulator, I've been able to get requests, but I'm not sure how to fake the response for the response parameter to `MyApp constructor, especially since the returning thing from Actions on Google seems to be after running my actual code.
All of the following would be helpful: generic code snippets, links to test files/cases, request/response constructor arguments, etc.
Thank you!
Related
Golang has these two similar libs http and httptest and they both have the NewRequest func.
Why do we even need the httptest.NewRequest if http.NewRequest does it all?
If I need to create a multipart/multiform request for my tests, which one do I need to use?
As indicated in the documentation, httptest.NewRequest "returns a new incoming server Request, suitable for passing to an http.Handler for testing", while http.NewRequest "returns a Request suitable for use with Client.Do or Transport.RoundTrip." So, if you're passing the request directly to the handler in a unit test, use httptest.NewRequest, and if you're executing a full round-trip using http.Client, use http.NewRequest.
I have a GET method for webAPI which returns say hundred Products list. What logic should one need to check to diagnose the test as pass or fail?
Should I check for count>0 or anything else?
Ideally I should not check for product count as it may change (count==100).
Check out these useful links on unit testing with async web requests:
https://codereview.stackexchange.com/questions/85321/unit-testing-http-requests
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh404088.aspx
https://codeutopia.net/blog/2015/01/30/how-to-unit-test-nodejs-http-requests/
http://www.jeremyg.net/entry/unit-testing-a-fetch-api-service-in-aurelia
http://lazamar.github.io/testing-http-requests-with-jasmine/
Why should I mock HTTP requests inside unit tests?
Suppose your client component has a variable count that it initialized to 0. Then you fire some web request, and it responds with data like this:
{
response: 500
}
where response can have any whole number value. Then count gets set to the value of response.
The basic gist of this unit test would be to mock the actual calling to the server (instead of making the api call and return the response, just return a hardcoded object). Then assert that the "count" variable is as you would expect it to be from this predefined response. You can then set up multiple cases (ie multiple tests) for each possible type of response that can be returned. Good luck!
Is there a way to inject providers when writing unit tests using Karma(Testacular) and Jasmine in angular?
Our team decided recently to use angularjs $log to write debugging details to the console. This way we can leverage the ability to disable the logging via the $logProvider.debugEnabled() method.
angular.module("App", ["prismLogin", "ui.bootstrap"])
.config(["$routeProvider", "$logProvider",
function ($routeProvider, $logProvider) {
$routeProvider
//routes here edited for brevity
//This is the offending line, it breaks several pre-existing tests
$logProvider.debugEnabled(true);
}]);
However after adding the $logProvider.debugEnabled(true); line several of our tests no longer execute successfully, failing with the following message:
TypeError: Object doesn't support property or method 'debugEnabled' from App
So my question again, is it possible to mock the $logProvider? Or should I provide my own configuration block for the test harness?
I attempted searching for a way to mock the app module with no luck. It seems to me that using the concrete app module instead of a mock is very brittle. I would like to avoid reworking tests associated with the app module every time a change is made in the app or run configuration blocks.
The tests that are failing are units of code with no relation to the $logProvider? I feel as if I a missing something here and making things much harder than they should be. How should one go about writing tests that are flexible and are not affected by other side effects introduced in your application?
It appears that this is a know issue with angular-mocks.
Until the issue is addressed , I was able to resolve the issue by adding the following method to the angular.mock.$LogProvider definition in angular-mocks.js at line 295.
this.debugEnabled = function(flag) {
return this;
};
In Summary
I need a way to deserialize an XML string into an object normally returned by a 3rd party webservice.
Using C#.
In Detail
I have code that consumes a 3rd party Service Reference (Web Service) - so the usual stuff: we pass in a Request object and it returns a Response object.
Regarding unit testing - I'm not interested in the inner workings of the Service Reference since this is a 3rd party service. I'm only interested in two things:
Does my code generate the correct Request object?
When the Service Reference returns it's response, do I process this response correctly?
Taking each in turn:
Does my code generate the correct Request object?
This I can do. If anyone's interested in this, what I do is to replace my service reference with a RhinoMocks Mock object. In my unit test I call the method on my Mock and then check the arguments passed in, comparing the actual Request object against the expected Request object.
When the Service Reference returns it's response, do I process this response correctly?
What I want to do here is to create a RhinoMocks Stub of my service reference, so that when it's called this stub returns a response object populated with my test data.
The problem that I face is that the response objects returned by this particular 3rd party service are extremely complex. If I were to attempt to create one by hard-coding all the property values by hand then this would probably take me the best part of a whole day.
However, what I can very easily do is to capture the XML serialized response from this service. I could then easily edit it's values and store this XML in one of my unit tests.
What I'm after is an easy way to then "deserialize" this "test" XML into a response object and use this to program the response from my Stub.
Any help would be much appreciated.
Thanks
Griff
Turns out that this is quite simple:
public static object Deserialize(string xml, Type toType)
{
using(Stream stream = new MemoryStream())
{
byte[] data = System.Text.Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes(xml);
stream.Write(data, 0, data.Length);
stream.Position = 0;
var s = new XmlSerializer(toType, "http://^your url^");
return s.Deserialize(stream);
}
}
Note that if you're using XML from a SOAP request, strip the SOAP envelop off first.
Griff
First up, where my knowledge is at:
Unit Tests are those which test a small piece of code (single methods, mostly).
Integration Tests are those which test the interaction between multiple areas of code (which hopefully already have their own Unit Tests). Sometimes, parts of the code under test requires other code to act in a particular way. This is where Mocks & Stubs come in. So, we mock/stub out a part of the code to perform very specifically. This allows our Integration Test to run predictably without side effects.
All tests should be able to be run stand-alone without data sharing. If data sharing is necessary, this is a sign the system isn't decoupled enough.
Next up, the situation I am facing:
When interacting with an external API (specifically, a RESTful API that will modify live data with a POST request), I understand we can (should?) mock out the interaction with that API (more eloquently stated in this answer) for an Integration Test. I also understand we can Unit Test the individual components of interacting with that API (constructing the request, parsing the result, throwing errors, etc). What I don't get is how to actually go about this.
So, finally: My question(s).
How do I test my interaction with an external API that has side effects?
A perfect example is Google's Content API for shopping. To be able to perform the task at hand, it requires a decent amount of prep work, then performing the actual request, then analysing the return value. Some of this is without any 'sandbox' environment.
The code to do this generally has quite a few layers of abstraction, something like:
<?php
class Request
{
public function setUrl(..){ /* ... */ }
public function setData(..){ /* ... */ }
public function setHeaders(..){ /* ... */ }
public function execute(..){
// Do some CURL request or some-such
}
public function wasSuccessful(){
// some test to see if the CURL request was successful
}
}
class GoogleAPIRequest
{
private $request;
abstract protected function getUrl();
abstract protected function getData();
public function __construct() {
$this->request = new Request();
$this->request->setUrl($this->getUrl());
$this->request->setData($this->getData());
$this->request->setHeaders($this->getHeaders());
}
public function doRequest() {
$this->request->execute();
}
public function wasSuccessful() {
return ($this->request->wasSuccessful() && $this->parseResult());
}
private function parseResult() {
// return false when result can't be parsed
}
protected function getHeaders() {
// return some GoogleAPI specific headers
}
}
class CreateSubAccountRequest extends GoogleAPIRequest
{
private $dataObject;
public function __construct($dataObject) {
parent::__construct();
$this->dataObject = $dataObject;
}
protected function getUrl() {
return "http://...";
}
protected function getData() {
return $this->dataObject->getSomeValue();
}
}
class aTest
{
public function testTheRequest() {
$dataObject = getSomeDataObject(..);
$request = new CreateSubAccountRequest($dataObject);
$request->doRequest();
$this->assertTrue($request->wasSuccessful());
}
}
?>
Note: This is a PHP5 / PHPUnit example
Given that testTheRequest is the method called by the test suite, the example will execute a live request.
Now, this live request will (hopefully, provided everything went well) do a POST request that has the side effect of altering live data.
Is this acceptable? What alternatives do I have? I can't see a way to mock out the Request object for the test. And even if I did, it would mean setting up results / entry points for every possible code path that Google's API accepts (which in this case would have to be found by trial and error), but would allow me the use of fixtures.
A further extension is when certain requests rely on certain data being Live already. Using the Google Content API as an example again, to add a Data Feed to a Sub Account, the Sub Account must already exist.
One approach I can think of is the following steps;
In testCreateAccount
Create a sub-account
Assert the sub-account was created
Delete the sub-account
Have testCreateDataFeed depend on testCreateAccount not having any errors
In testCreateDataFeed, create a new account
Create the data feed
Assert the data feed was created
Delete the data feed
Delete the sub-account
This then raises the further question; how do I test the deletion of accounts / data feeds? testCreateDataFeed feels dirty to me - What if creating the data feed fails? The test fails, therefore the sub-account is never deleted... I can't test deletion without creation, so do I write another test (testDeleteAccount) that relies on testCreateAccount before creating then deleting an account of its own (since data shouldn't be shared between tests).
In Summary
How do I test interacting with an external API that effects live data?
How can I mock / stub objects in an Integration test when they're hidden behind layers of abstraction?
What do I do when a test fails and the live data is left in an inconsistent state?
How in code do I actually go about doing all this?
Related:
How can mocking external services improve unit tests?
Writing unit tests for a REST-ful API
This is more an additional answer to the one already given:
Looking through your code, the class GoogleAPIRequest has a hard-encoded dependency of class Request. This prevents you from testing it independently from the request class, so you can't mock the request.
You need to make the request injectable, so you can change it to a mock while testing. That done, no real API HTTP requests are send, the live data is not changed and you can test much quicker.
I've recently had to update a library because the api it connects to was updated.
My knowledge isn't enough to explain in detail, but i learnt a great deal from looking at the code. https://github.com/gridiron-guru/FantasyDataAPI
You can submit a request as you would normally to the api and then save that response as a json file, you can then use that as a mock.
Have a look at the tests in this library which connects to an api using Guzzle.
It mocks responses from the api, there's a good deal of information in the docs on how the testing works it might give you an idea of how to go about it.
but basically you do a manual call to the api along with any parameters you need, and save the response as a json file.
When you write your test for the api call, send along the same parameters and get it to load in the mock rather than using the live api, you can then test the data in the mock you created contains the expected values.
My Updated version of the api in question can be found here.
Updated Repo
One of the ways to test out external APIs is as you mentioned, by creating a mock and working against that with the behavior hard coded as you have understood it.
Sometimes people refer to this type of testing as "contract based" testing, where you can write tests against the API based on the behavior you have observed and coded against, and when those tests start failing, the "contract is broken". If they are simple REST based tests using dummy data you can also provide them to the external provider to run so they can discover where/when they might be changing the API enough that it should be a new version or produce a warning about not being backwards compatible.
Ref: https://www.thoughtworks.com/radar/techniques/consumer-driven-contract-testing