I have got a strange use case where spock mock is returning the correct value when I do not check for two calls on the mocked class in the 'then:' section, but it is returning 0 when I include two checks in the 'then:' section.
This is the mock:
mockDao.readCounter(_, _, _, _, _) >> dbValue
and here is the 'then:' section that fails:
1 * mockDao.readCounter(_, _, _, _, _)
// updateCounters is called with: sum = dbValue + value
1 * mockDao.updateCounter(namespace, date, key, min, shardID, dbValue + value)
In this case, instead of 'dbValue', '0' is returned. But if I comment out either of the two checks, then it passes. So, the following two cases pass:
//1 * mockDao.readCounter(_, _, _, _, _)
// updateCounters is called with: sum = dbValue + value
1 * mockDao.updateCounter(namespace, date, key, min, shardID, dbValue + value)
OR
1 * mockDao.readCounter(_, _, _, _, _)
// updateCounters is called with: sum = dbValue + value
//1 * mockDao.updateCounter(namespace, date, key, min, shardID, dbValue + value)
Here is the gradle section for spock:
// spock
testCompile "org.codehaus.groovy:groovy:2.4.7"
compile group: 'org.spockframework', name: 'spock-core', version: '1.0-groovy-2.4'
// !!! To get none-interface base mocking to work with Spock
compile group: 'cglib', name: 'cglib-nodep', version: '3.2.4'
This is expected and documented behavior. If you want to mock and stub on the same mock, you have to do it in one line like
1 * mockDao.readCounter(_, _, _, _, _) >> dbValue
Here the relevant section:
Combining Mocking and Stubbing
Mocking and stubbing go hand-in-hand:
1 * subscriber.receive("message1") >> "ok"
1 * subscriber.receive("message2") >> "fail"
When mocking and stubbing the same method call, they have to happen in the same interaction. In particular, the following Mockito-style splitting of stubbing and mocking into two separate statements will not work:
setup:
subscriber.receive("message1") >> "ok"
when:
publisher.send("message1")
then:
1 * subscriber.receive("message1")
As explained in Where to Declare Interactions, the receive call will first get matched against the interaction in the then: block. Since that interaction doesn’t specify a response, the default value for the method’s return type (null in this case) will be returned. (This is just another facet of Spock’s lenient approach to mocking.). Hence, the interaction in the setup: block will never get a chance to match.
NOTE | Mocking and stubbing of the same method call has to happen in the same interaction.
Related
i have this scheme in JMeter:
Get the balance value (GET) put in var mainBalance
Place a recharge (POST)
Verify resulted balance (GET) - put in var updatedBalance such as updatedBalance is mainBalance + 10$
All values must be type float.
Im stuck at the last step: I've put a BeanShell assertion but doesn't work. It think that i get the values in the wrong way and also i dont do the calculation as JMeter wants. I also tried with vars.get(String.valueOf("mainBalance"))
float a = new float(vars.get("mainBalance"));
float b = new float(vars.get("updatedBalance"));
if(b != (a + 10)) {
Failure = true;
}
This is the log error:
Assertion error: true
Assertion failure: false
Assertion failure message: org.apache.jorphan.util.JMeterException: Error invoking bsh method: eval In file: inline evaluation of: ``float a = new float("mainBalance"); float b = new float("updatedBalance"); if(b . . . '' Encountered "(" at line 1, column 20.
Don't use Float data type to represent money operations, go for at least BigDecimal instead
Don't use Beanshell as it might become a performance bottleneck, go for JSR223 Assertion instead.
The relevant code would be something like:
def a = new BigDecimal(vars.get('mainBalance'))
def b = new BigDecimal(vars.get('updatedBalance'))
if (b.compareTo(a.add(new BigDecimal('10'))) != 0) {
AssertionResult.setFailure(true)
}
More information: Scripting JMeter Assertions in Groovy - A Tutorial
I have a list of Futures and I want to get the first one completed with a certain condition.
Here is an example of a possible code:
val futureList: Future[List[T]] = l map (c => c.functionWithFuture())
val data = for {
c <- futureList
}yield c
data onSuccess {
case x => (x filter (d=> d.condition)).head
}
But it's not efficient, because I'll take only one element of the list, but computed all of them with a lot of latency.
I know firstCompletedOf but it's not what I'm searching.
(Sorry for my bad English.)
Try using a Promise and calling trySuccess on it as soon as a future that satisfies the condition completes. The first to call trySuccess will complete the future, the following ones will have no effect (as opposed to calling success, which can only be called once on a Promise).
Keep in mind that if no future in the list satisfies the condition, you will never have a result, i.e. the promise future will never complete.
import scala.concurrent.{ Await, Future, Promise }
import scala.concurrent.duration._
import scala.concurrent.ExecutionContext.Implicits.global
import scala.util.Random
def condition(x: Int) = x > 50
val futures = (1 to 10) map (x => Future {
// wait a random number of ms between 0 and 1000
Thread.sleep(Random.nextInt(1000))
// return a random number < 100
Random.nextInt(100)
})
val p = Promise[Int]()
// the first one that satisfies the condition completes the promise
futures foreach { _ filter condition foreach p.trySuccess }
val result = p.future
// Watch out: the promise could never be fulfilled if all the futures are <=50
println("The first completed future that satisfies x>50 is: " + Await.result(result, 10.seconds))
My version of RegEx is being greedy and now working as it suppose to. I need extract each message with timestamp and user who created it. Also if user has two or more consecutive messages it should go inside one match / block / group. How to solve it?
https://regex101.com/r/zD5bR6/1
val pattern = "((a\.b|c\.d)\n(.+\n)+)+?".r
for(m <- pattern.findAllIn(str).matchData; e <- m.subgroups) println(e)
UPDATE
ndn solution throws StackOverflowError when executed:
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.StackOverflowError
at java.util.regex.Pattern$GroupTail.match(Pattern.java:4708)
.......
Code:
val pattern = "(?:.+(?:\\Z|\\n))+?(?=\\Z|\\w\\.\\w)".r
val array = (pattern findAllIn str).toArray.reverse foreach{println _}
for(m <- pattern.findAllIn(str).matchData; e <- m.subgroups) println(e)
I don't think a regular expression is the right tool for this job. My solution below uses a (tail) recursive function to loop over the lines, keep the current username and create a Message for every timestamp / message pair.
import java.time.LocalTime
case class Message(user: String, timestamp: LocalTime, message: String)
val Timestamp = """\[(\d{2})\:(\d{2})\:(\d{2})\]""".r
def parseMessages(lines: List[String], usernames: Set[String]) = {
#scala.annotation.tailrec
def go(
lines: List[String], currentUser: Option[String], messages: List[Message]
): List[Message] = lines match {
// no more lines -> return parsed messages
case Nil => messages.reverse
// found a user -> keep as currentUser
case user :: tail if usernames.contains(user) =>
go(tail, Some(user), messages)
// timestamp and message on next line -> create a Message
case Timestamp(h, m, s) :: msg :: tail if currentUser.isDefined =>
val time = LocalTime.of(h.toInt, m.toInt, s.toInt)
val newMsg = Message(currentUser.get, time, msg)
go(tail, currentUser, newMsg :: messages)
// invalid line -> ignore
case _ =>
go(lines.tail, currentUser, messages)
}
go(lines, None, Nil)
}
Which we can use as :
val input = """
a.b
[10:12:03]
you can also get commands
[10:11:26]
from the console
[10:11:21]
can you check if has been resolved
[10:10:47]
ah, okay
c.d
[10:10:39]
anyways startsLevel is still 4
a.b
[10:09:25]
might be a dead end
[10:08:56]
that need to be started early as well
"""
val lines = input.split('\n').toList
val users = Set("a.b", "c.d")
parseMessages(lines, users).foreach(println)
// Message(a.b,10:12:03,you can also get commands)
// Message(a.b,10:11:26,from the console)
// Message(a.b,10:11:21,can you check if has been resolved)
// Message(a.b,10:10:47,ah, okay)
// Message(c.d,10:10:39,anyways startsLevel is still 4)
// Message(a.b,10:09:25,might be a dead end)
// Message(a.b,10:08:56,that need to be started early as well)
The idea is to take as little characters as possible that will be followed by a username or the end of the string:
(?:.+(?:\Z|\n))+?(?=\Z|\w\.\w)
See it in action
I've wrote the following spec
"An IP4 address" should "belong to just one class" in {
val addrs = for {
a <- Gen.choose(0, 255)
b <- Gen.choose(0, 255)
c <- Gen.choose(0, 255)
d <- Gen.choose(0, 255)
} yield s"$a.$b.$c.$d"
forAll (addrs) { ip4s =>
var c: Int = 0
if (IP4_ClassA.unapply(ip4s).isDefined) c = c + 1
if (IP4_ClassB.unapply(ip4s).isDefined) c = c + 1
if (IP4_ClassC.unapply(ip4s).isDefined) c = c + 1
if (IP4_ClassD.unapply(ip4s).isDefined) c = c + 1
if (IP4_ClassE.unapply(ip4s).isDefined) c = c + 1
c should be (1)
}
}
That is very clear in its scope.
The test passes successfully but when I force it to fail (for example by commenting out one of the if statements) then ScalaCheck correctly reports the error but the message doesn't mention correctly the actual value used to evaluate the proposition. More specifically I get:
[info] An IP4 address
[info] - should belong to just one class *** FAILED ***
[info] TestFailedException was thrown during property evaluation.
[info] Message: 0 was not equal to 1
[info] Location: (NetSpec.scala:105)
[info] Occurred when passed generated values (
[info] arg0 = "" // 4 shrinks
[info] )
where you can see arg0 = "" // 4 shrinks doesn't show the value.
I've tried to add even a simple println statement to review the cases but the output appears to be trimmed. I get something like this
192.168.0.1
189.168.
189.
1
SOLUTION
import org.scalacheck.Prop.forAllNoShrink
import org.scalatest.prop.Checkers.check
"An IP4 address" should "belong to just one class" in {
val addrs = for {
a <- Gen.choose(0, 255)
b <- Gen.choose(0, 255)
c <- Gen.choose(0, 255)
d <- Gen.choose(0, 255)
} yield s"$a.$b.$c.$d"
check {
forAllNoShrink(addrs) { ip4s =>
var c: Int = 0
if (IP4.ClassA.unapply(ip4s).isDefined) c = c + 1
if (IP4.ClassB.unapply(ip4s).isDefined) c = c + 1
if (IP4.ClassC.unapply(ip4s).isDefined) c = c + 1
if (IP4.ClassD.unapply(ip4s).isDefined) c = c + 1
if (IP4.ClassE.unapply(ip4s).isDefined) c = c + 1
c == (1)
}
}
}
This is caused by ScalaCheck's test case simplification feature. ScalaCheck just sees that your generator produces a string value. Whenever it finds a value that makes your property false, it tries to simplify that value. In your case, it simplifies it four times until it ends up with an empty string, that still makes your property false.
So this is expected, although confusing, behavior. But you can improve the situation in three different ways.
You can select another data structure to represent your IP addresses. This will make ScalaCheck able to simplify your test cases in a more intelligent way. For example, use the following generator:
val addrs = Gen.listOfN(4, Gen.choose(0,255))
Now ScalaCheck knows that your generator only produces lists of length 4, and that it only contains numbers between 0 and 255. The test case simplification process will take this into account and not create any values that couldn't have been produced by the generator from start. You can do the conversion to string inside your property instead.
A second method is to add a filter directly to your generator, which tells ScalaCheck how an IP address string should look like. This filter is used during test case simplification. Define a function that checks for valid strings and attach it to your existing generator this way:
def validIP(ip: String): Boolean = ...
val validAddrs = addrs.suchThat(validIP)
forAll(validAddrs) { ... }
The third method is to simply disable the test case simplification feature altogether by using forAllNoShrink instead of forAll:
Prop.forAllNoShrink(addrs) { ... }
I should also mention that the two first methods require ScalaCheck version >= 1.11.0 to function properly.
UPDATE:
The listOfN list length is actually not respected by the shrinker any more, due to https://github.com/rickynils/scalacheck/issues/89. Hopefully this can be fixed in a future version of ScalaCheck.
I am facing a major issue with my design at this juncture. My method is trying to accomplish the follows:
Insert the passed in object into the database.
Get the autoincremented id from the insert and use it to call webservice1 along with the object.
Get the result from webservice1 and call webservice2 with the original object and some response from webservice1.
Combine the results from webservice1 and 2 and write it into the database.
Get the resulting autoincremented id from the last insert and call webservice3 with the original object that would eventually result into the success or failure of the operation.
I want to design this in a flexible manner since the requirements are in a flux and I do not want to keep on modifying my logic based on any changing. I do realize some amount of change is inevitable but I would like to minimize the damage and respect the open-closed principle.
My initial take was as follows:
def complexOperation(someObject:T) =
dbService.insertIntoDb(someObject) match {
case Left(e:Exception) => Left(e)
case Right(id:Int) => webService.callWebService1(id,someObject) match {
case Left(e:Exception) => Left(e)
case Right(r:SomeResponse1) => webService.callWebservice2(r,someObject) match {
case Left(e:Exception) => webService.rollbackService1();Left(e)
case Right(context:ResponseContext) => dbService.insertContextIntoDb(context) match {
case Left(e:Exception) => Left(e)
case Right(id:Int) => webService.callWebservice3(id,someObject) match {
case Left(e:Exception) => webService.rollbackService3();Left(e)
case Right(r:Response) => Right(r)
}
}
}
}
As you can see, this is a tangled mess. I can neither unit test it, nor extend it nor very easily debug it if things spiral out of control. This code serves its purpose but it will be great to get some ideas on how I should refactor it to make the lives of the people who inherit my code a little more easier.
Thanks
Have a look at scala.util.Try. It's available in Scala 2.10, which may or may not be available to you as an option, but the idea of it is perfect for your scenario.
What you have in your code example is what I like calling the "pyramid" of nesting. The best solution to this is to use flat-mapping wherever you can. But obviously that's an issue when you have stuff like Either[Exception, Result] at every step. That's where Try comes in. Try[T] is essentially a replacement for Either[Exception, T], and it comes with all of the flatMap-ing goodness that you need.
Assuming you can either change the return type of those webService calls, or provide some implicit conversion from Either[Exception, Result] to Try[Result], your code block would become something more like...
for {
id <- dbService.insertIntoDb(someObject)
r <- webService.callWebService1(id,someObject)
context <- webService.callWebservice2(r,someObject)
id2 <- dbService.insertContextIntoDb(context)
response <- webService.callWebservice3(id,someObject).recoverWith {
case e: Exception => webService.rollbackService3(); Failure(e)
}
} yield response
Lift has a similar mechanism in net.liftweb.common.Box. It's like Option, but with a container for Exceptions too.
edit: It looks like you can use the left or right method of an Either, and it will let you use flatMap-ing almost exactly the way I described with Try. The only difference is that the end result is an Either[Exception, Result] instead of a Try[Result]. Check out LeftProjection for details/examples.
You can use for comprehension to reduce the noise in the code.
#Dylan had the right idea above. Let me see if I can help translate what you want to do into idiomatic Scala 2.9.1 code.
This version doesn't attempt any rollbacks:
// 1: No rollbacks, just returns the first exception in Left
def complexOperation1(someObject:T): Either[Exception, Response] = {
for {
id <- dbService.insertIntoDb(someObject).right
r <- webService.callWebService1(id, someObject).right
context <- webService.callWebservice2(idResp, someObject).right
id2 <- dbService.insertContextIntoDb(context).right
response <- webService.callWebservice3(id,someObject).right
} yield response
}
Now, let's try to do the rollbacks exactly as you had them above:
// 2: Rolls back all web services and returns first exception in Left
def complexOperation1(someObject:T): Either[Exception, Response] = {
for {
id <- dbService.insertIntoDb(someObject).right
r <- webService.callWebService1(id, someObject).right
context <- webService.callWebservice2(idResp, someObject).left.map { e =>
webService.rollbackService1()
e
}.right
id2 <- dbService.insertContextIntoDb(context).right
response <- webService.callWebservice3(id,someObject).left.map { e =>
webService.rollbackService3()
e
}.right
} yield response
}
If you define a function which does the effect (the rollback) on the left, it get's a little cleaner and easier to test, for example:
// 3: Factor out the side-effect of doing the follbacks on Left
def rollbackIfLeft[T](f: => Either[Exception, T], r: => Unit): Either[Exception, T] = {
val result = f
result.left.foreach(_ => r) // do the rollback if any exception occured
result
}
def complexOperation1(someObject:T): Either[Exception, Response] = {
for {
id <- dbService.insertIntoDb(someObject).right
r <- webService.callWebService1(id, someObject).right
context <- rollbackIfLeft(webService.callWebservice2(idResp, someObject),
webService.rollbackService1()).right
id2 <- dbService.insertContextIntoDb(context).right
response <- rollbackIfLeft(webService.callWebservice3(id,someObject),
webService.rollbackService3()).right
} yield response
}
You can try out rollbackIfLeft in the scala REPL to get a sense of it:
scala> rollbackIfLeft(Right(42), println("hey"))
res28: Either[Exception,Int] = Right(42)
scala> rollbackIfLeft(Left(new RuntimeException), println("ERROR!"))
ERROR!
res29: Either[Exception,Nothing] = Left(java.lang.RuntimeException)
Hope this helps!