I am creating another test module for an application service which is using different DbContext.
Is there any way to bypass permission checking for the application service in Unit Test?
I've tried
Configuration.ReplaceService<IPermissionChecker, NullPermissionChecker>(DependencyLifeStyle.Transient);
in Test Module PreInitialize() but it is still checking the permissions.
Please help! Thank you!
services.AddAbpIdentity replaces IPermissionChecker again. You can use AddPermissionChecker<NullPermissionChecker> extension method after services.AddAbpIdentity.
For AspNet Zero, it's inside IdentityRegistrar class. Example (add the last line):
services.AddAbpIdentity<Tenant, User, Role>(options =>
{
...
})
...
.AddPermissionChecker<NullPermissionChecker>();
Notice that: You probably want to make this conditional and apply only for unit tests.
Related
In aspnet boilerplate, a LocalIocManager property was available for unit tests to allow to replace a service and then get the instance we wanted to test with only the dependencies required by the test mocked up by NSubstitute.
In abp.io, I cant find this attribute anymore or a replacement procedure. How can I replace it?
In https://docs.abp.io/en/abp/latest/Testing#example-testing-a-domain-service-1, we can see an example with a fakeRepo, but it is injected "by hand". Doing so can be done when there are few dependencies, but become problematic when there are more.
Found a solution:
I need to override AfterAddApplication so I have access to IServiceCollection.
protected override void AfterAddApplication(IServiceCollection services)
{
base.AfterAddApplication(services);
var fakeRepo = Substitute.For<IMyRepository>();
fakeRepo.GetList().Returns(Task.FromResult(new List<Guid>()));
services.Replace(ServiceDescriptor.Transient(typeof(IMyRepository), _ => fakeRepo));
}
However, this will force me to use the same substitute for all my tests. I can't have different instances for each tests.
I got DataFixtures set up, that I can load via console into my test database.
$ php bin/console doctrine:fixtures:load --env=test -n
> purging database
> loading App\DataFixtures\PropertyFixtures
> loading App\DataFixtures\UserFixtures
> loading App\DataFixtures\UserPropertyFixtures
works like a chram
But I am lost how to load these fixtures automatically with my service unit tests, without having to run the command manually before testing. There has to be another way!
What I found so far is descriptions for testing with older versions of symfony or for testing Controllers. Who wants to test Controllers anyway, if you can avoid it?
The Liip\FunctionalTestBundle also seems to work only for WebTestCases at least I have seen no way to extend or replace the usual KernelTestCase.
So is there any way I can maybe run the command with the setUp() method of my test class?
Any link to a tutorial for symfony 4? Any example for a service? I cannot imagine, that I am the only person with that problem.
I got a solution and although it is not full of beauty and style here it is. More elegant alternatives are appreciated.
I extended my Kernel class found in Kernel.php with a class called AppKernel.
To activate it for tests and only those I changed my phpunit.xml file:
<php>
<ini name="error_reporting" value="-1" />
<env name="KERNEL_CLASS" value="App\AppKernel" />
So now only for tests this class is loaded.
In the AppKernel Class I extended the boot method as follows:
public function boot()
{
parent::boot();
$this->importDataFixtures();
}
/**
* Loads the tests data for DataFixtures when we start phpUnit.
*/
protected function importDataFixtures()
{
system('php /var/www/octopus/bin/console doctrine:fixtures:load --env=test -n');
}
So of course the call of the import via system is ugly, but it works. If somebody has a better idea, please let my know.
I'm trying to mock a service within a functional test, which is used by another service:
$client = static::createClient();
$stub = $this->createMock(MailService::class);
$stub->method('sendMailToUser')->willReturn(9);
$client->getContainer()->set('belka.auth_bundle.mail_service', $stub);
// the *real* test should start here
if I try to put a die command inside the original sendMailToUser, what I get is the code stop running, although I tried to mock it by returning 9. What's wrong with it? The service I'm testing has the following declaration, then I guessed the injected service was the one wrote above:
belka.auth_bundle.user_handler:
class: Belka\AuthBundle\Handler\UserHandler
arguments:
- '#belka.auth_bundle.user_repository'
- '#belka.auth_bundle.mail_service'
calls:
- [setRequest, ["#request_stack"]]
- [setSettings, ["#belka.auth_bundle.setting_handler"]]
- [setBodyJsonHandler, ["#belka.container_support_bundle.body_json_handler"]]
- [setQuantityHandler, ["#belka.container_support_bundle.quantityhandler"]]
I trust Symfony to create services correctly, and so I won't usually get services to then test within them (I do have a smoke-test that tries to create almost every service though).
So, if you are trying to get a 'belka.auth_bundle.user_handler', I would manually create the Belka\AuthBundle\Handler\UserHandler instance, with your mock as one of the arguments.
For services that are required deeper within the services, there aren't easy ways to mock them (or to get the mock into place), but you can use the service container environments to override them.
For example, I have a service that tests if a Request has come from a bot - but while running functional tests I replace it entirely with a service that always says 'not a bot', by overriding my 'app.bot_detect.detector' service in /config/services_test.yml
# set the default bot detector to a simple fake, always return false
app.bot_detect.detector:
class: App\Services\BotDetectorNeverBot
In the main config/services.yml, the class would really perform the check, but the method in the test environment's BotDetectorNeverBot class always says false.
In the same way, you could override belka.auth_bundle.mail_service in services_test.yml (or config_test.yml) to not send email, and store something instead. You just have to make sure you are including '*_test.yml' files appropriately.
I am running the latest version of Codeception on a WAMP platform - My acceptance is very basic however works fine (see below):
$I = new WebGuy($scenario);
$I->wantTo('Log in to the website');
$I->amOnPage('/auth/login');
$I->fillField('identity','admin#admin.com');
$I->fillField('password','password');
$I->click('Login');
In a nutshell - it checks the page is 'auth/login' fills out 2 form fields and clicks the login button. This works without any problems.
Here is my identical functional test:
$I = new TestGuy($scenario);
$I->wantTo('perform actions and see result');
$I->amOnPage('/auth/login');
$I->fillField('identity','admin#admin.com');
$I->fillField('password','password');
$I->click('Login');
When I run this from the command line I get the following error (not the full error but enough to understand the problem):
1) Couldn't <-[35;1mperform actions and see result<-
[0m in <-[37;1LoginCept.php<-[0m <-41;37mRuntimeException:
Call to undefined method TestGuy::amOnPage<-[0m.......
My Acceptance suite has 'PhpBrowser' & 'WebHelper' modules enabled, the Functional suite has 'FileSystem' & 'TestHelper' enabled (within the acceptance.suite.yml & functional.suite.yml files)
Obviously the amOnPage() function is the problem - however I am led to believe amOnPage() should work in acceptance and functional test? Or I am wrong - also - can someone explain what the numbers mean e.g '<-[35;1m' that appear
UPDATE: I tried adding the 'WebHelper' module to the functional.suite.yml but I do not see the amOnPage() being auto-generated in the TestGuy.php file - any ideas?
My config files are below:
WebGuy
class_name: WebGuy
modules:
enabled:
- PhpBrowser
- WebHelper
config:
PhpBrowser:
url: 'http://v3.localhost/'
TestGuy
class_name: TestGuy
modules:
enabled: [Filesystem, TestHelper, WebHelper]
Well, this is so, because of TestGuy don't have those methods. All of those methods are in the PhpBrowser, Selenium2 modules or other that inherits from Codeception Mink implementation. So you need to add PhpBrowser in your functional suite in modules section, and then run codecept build command.
Also note that it is better to use Selenium2 module for acceptance test and PhpBrowser for functional tests. The main idea is that acceptance(Selenium2) tests must cover those part of your application, that can not be covered by functional (PhpBrowser) tests, for example some js-interactions.
About '<-[35;1m' start script codecept run --no-colors to remove '<-[35;1m' from console output
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;
};