We are using the aurelia component testing as defined here (with jest): https://aurelia.io/docs/testing/components#testing-a-custom-element
The component we are testing has a transient dependency. We are creating a mock for this dependency but when we run the tests using au jest, the real one always gets injected by the DI container and never the mock.
Here is the Transient service:
import { transient } from "aurelia-framework";
#transient()
export class ItemService {
constructor() {
}
getItems(): void {
console.log('real item service');
}
}
Here is the 'Mock' service (we have also tried using jest mocks but we get the same result):
import { transient } from "aurelia-dependency-injection";
#transient()
export class MockItemService{
getItems():void {
console.log('mock item service');
}
}
Here is the component under test:
import {ItemService} from "../services/item-service";
import { autoinject } from "aurelia-dependency-injection";
#autoinject()
export class TestElement {
constructor(private _itemService: ItemService) {
}
attached(): void {
this._itemService.getItems();
}
}
Here is the spec file:
import {TestElement} from "../../src/resources/elements/test-element";
import {ComponentTester, StageComponent} from "aurelia-testing";
import {ItemService} from "../../src/resources/services/item-service";
import {MockItemService} from "./mock-item-service";
import {bootstrap} from "aurelia-bootstrapper";
describe('test element', () => {
let testElement;
const path: string = '../../src/resources/elements/test-element';
beforeEach(() => {
testElement = StageComponent.withResources(path).inView(`<test-element></test-element>`);
testElement.bootstrap(aurelia => {
aurelia.use.standardConfiguration();
aurelia.container.registerTransient(ItemService, MockItemService);
});
});
afterEach(() => {
testElement.dispose();
});
it('should call mock item service', async() => {
await testElement.create(bootstrap);
expect(testElement).toBeTruthy();
})
});
But every-time the test is run, the console logs out the real service and not the mock. I have traced this to the aurelia-dependency-injection.js in the Container.prototype.get function. The issue seems to be around this section of code:
var registration = aureliaMetadata.metadata.get(aureliaMetadata.metadata.registration, key);
if (registration === undefined) {
return this.parent._get(key);
}
The registration object seems to be a bit odd, if it was undefined, the code would work as the correct dependency is registered on the parent and it would get the mock dependency. However, it is not undefined therefore it registers the real service in the DI container on this line:
return registration.registerResolver(this, key, key).get(this, key);
The registration object looks like this:
registration = TransientRegistration {_key = undefined}
Is this a bug in aurelia or is there something wrong with what I am doing?
Many Thanks
p.s. GitHub repo here to replicate the issue: https://github.com/Magrangs/aurelia-transient-dependency-issue
p.p.s Forked the DI container repo and added a quick fix which would fix my particular issue but not sure what the knock on effects would be. If a member of the aurelia team could check, that would be good:
https://github.com/Magrangs/dependency-injection/commit/56c7d96a496e76f330a1fc3f9c4d62700b9ed596
After talking to Rob Eisenberg on the issue there is a workaround for this problem. Firstly remove the #transient decorator on the class and then in your app start (usually main.ts) register the class there as a transient.
See the thread here:
https://github.com/Magrangs/dependency-injection/commit/56c7d96a496e76f330a1fc3f9c4d62700b9ed596
I have also updated the repo posted above: https://github.com/Magrangs/aurelia-transient-dependency-issue
to include the fix.
Hopefully this will help any other devs facing the same issue.
I've taken a ReactJS component (rendering the latest gist URL for a given user) from the React docs, and was wondering what is the best way to unit test such a component :
The goals are
Test in isolation (using mocked http calls)
Use our existing test setup (mocha)
Keep things simple
Verify that eventually, when the http call in the component success, the state change triggered a re-render, and an anchor element is rendered the proper url in it.
Here's the component I want to test:
import React from 'react'
import $ from 'jquery'
export default React.createClass({
getInitialState: function() {
return {
username: '',
lastGistUrl: ''
};
},
componentDidMount: function() {
fetch(this.props.source).then(function(response) {
return response.json()
}).then(function(json) {
this.setState({
username: json[0].owner.login,
lastGistUrl: json[0].html_url
});
}.bind(this)).catch(function(ex) {
console.log('parsing failed', ex)
})
},
render: function() {
return (
<div>
{this.state.username}'s last gist is
<a href={ this.state.lastGistUrl}>here</a>.
</div>
);
}
});
And here is my first attempt at testing it:
import TestUtils from 'react-addons-test-utils'
import React from 'react'
import { expect } from 'chai'
import { findDOMNode } from 'react-dom'
import UserGist from '../assets/js/components/UserGistWithFetch'
import nock from 'nock'
describe('UserGistWithFetch', () => {
it('Displays the correct url', (done) => {
nock.disableNetConnect();
nock('https://api.github.com')
.get('/users/octocat/gists')
.reply(200, [{owner:"octocat",html_url:"https://gist.github.com/6cad326836d38bd3a7ae"}])
const gist = TestUtils.renderIntoDocument(<UserGist source="https://api.github.com/users/octocat/gists"/>)
let a = TestUtils.scryRenderedDOMComponentsWithTag(gist, 'a')[0]
expect(a.getAttribute('href')).to.be.equal("https://gist.github.com/6cad326836d38bd3a7ae")
done()
})
})
This test obviously fails, as the component is initially rendered before the mock callback is executed, not rendering the anchor correctly.
The test fails before the mocked http call returns, and the component doesn't get a chance to re-render.
From what I understand, Mocha provides ways to do async testing (using the done() function), but I can't find a hook in my test to put this.
What tools / frameworks would I need to accomplish that ?
I am using Mocha, Chai, Karma, Sinon, Webpack for Unit tests.
I followed this link to configure my testing environment for React-Redux Code.
How to implement testing + code coverage on React with Karma, Babel, and Webpack
I can successfully test my action and reducers javascript code, but when it comes to testing my components it always throw some error.
import React from 'react';
import TestUtils from 'react/lib/ReactTestUtils'; //I like using the Test Utils, but you can just use the DOM API instead.
import chai from 'chai';
// import sinon from 'sinon';
import spies from 'chai-spies';
chai.use(spies);
let should = chai.should()
, expect = chai.expect;
import { PhoneVerification } from '../PhoneVerification';
let fakeStore = {
'isFetching': false,
'usernameSettings': {
'errors': {},
'username': 'sahil',
'isEditable': false
},
'emailSettings': {
'email': 'test#test.com',
'isEmailVerified': false,
'isEditable': false
},
'passwordSettings': {
'errors': {},
'password': 'showsomestarz',
'isEditable': false
},
'phoneSettings': {
'isEditable': false,
'errors': {},
'otp': null,
'isOTPSent': false,
'isOTPReSent': false,
'isShowMissedCallNumber': false,
'isShowMissedCallVerificationLink': false,
'missedCallNumber': null,
'timeLeftToVerify': null,
'_verifiedNumber': null,
'timers': [],
'phone': '',
'isPhoneVerified': false
}
}
function setup () {
console.log(PhoneVerification);
// PhoneVerification.componentDidMount = chai.spy();
let output = TestUtils.renderIntoDocument(<PhoneVerification {...fakeStore}/>);
return {
output
}
}
describe('PhoneVerificationComponent', () => {
it('should render properly', (done) => {
const { output } = setup();
expect(PhoneVerification.prototype.componentDidMount).to.have.been.called;
done();
})
});
This following error comes up with above code.
FAILED TESTS:
PhoneVerificationComponent
✖ should render properly
Chrome 48.0.2564 (Mac OS X 10.11.3)
Error: Invariant Violation: Element type is invalid: expected a string (for built-in components) or a class/function (for composite components) but got: undefined.
Tried switching from sinon spies to chai-spies.
How should I unit test my React-Redux Connected Components(Smart Components)?
A prettier way to do this, is to export both your plain component, and the component wrapped in connect. The named export would be the component, the default is the wrapped component:
export class Sample extends Component {
render() {
let { verification } = this.props;
return (
<h3>This is my awesome component.</h3>
);
}
}
const select = (state) => {
return {
verification: state.verification
}
}
export default connect(select)(Sample);
In this way you can import normally in your app, but when it comes to testing you can import your named export using import { Sample } from 'component'.
The problem with the accepted answer is that we are exporting something unnecessarily just to be able to test it. And exporting a class just to test it is not a good idea in my opinion.
Here is a neater solution without the need of exporting anything but the connected component:
If you are using jest, you can mock connect method to return three things:
mapStateToProps
mapDispatchToProps
ReactComponent
Doing so is pretty simple. There are 2 ways: Inline mocks or global mocks.
1. Using inline mock
Add the following snippet before the test's describe function.
jest.mock('react-redux', () => {
return {
connect: (mapStateToProps, mapDispatchToProps) => (ReactComponent) => ({
mapStateToProps,
mapDispatchToProps,
ReactComponent
}),
Provider: ({ children }) => children
}
})
2. Using file mock
Create a file __mocks__/react-redux.js in the root (where package.json is located)
Add the following snippet in the file.
module.exports = {
connect: (mapStateToProps, mapDispatchToProps) => (ReactComponent) => ({
mapStateToProps,
mapDispatchToProps,
ReactComponent,
}),
Provider: ({children}) => children
};
After mocking, you would be able to access all the above three using Container.mapStateToProps,Container.mapDispatchToProps and Container.ReactComponent.
Container can be imported by simply doing
import Container from '<path>/<fileName>.container.js'
Hope it helps.
Note that if you use file mock. The mocked file will be used globally for all the test cases(unless you do jest.unmock('react-redux')) before the test case.
Edit: I have written a detailed blog explaining the above in detail:
http://rahulgaba.com/front-end/2018/10/19/unit-testing-redux-containers-the-better-way-using-jest.html
You can test your connected component and I think you should do so. You may want to test the unconnected component first, but I suggest that you will not have complete test coverage without also testing the connected component.
Below is an untested extract of what I do with Redux and Enzyme. The central idea is to use Provider to connect the state in test to the connected component in test.
import { Provider } from 'react-redux';
import configureMockStore from 'redux-mock-store';
import SongForm from '../SongForm'; // import the CONNECTED component
// Use the same middlewares you use with Redux's applyMiddleware
const mockStore = configureMockStore([ /* middlewares */ ]);
// Setup the entire state, not just the part Redux passes to the connected component.
const mockStoreInitialized = mockStore({
songs: {
songsList: {
songs: {
songTags: { /* ... */ }
}
}
}
});
const nullFcn1 = () => null;
const nullFcn2 = () => null;
const nullFcn3 = () => null;
const wrapper = mount( // enzyme
<Provider store={store}>
<SongForm
screen="add"
disabled={false}
handleFormSubmit={nullFcn1}
handleModifySong={nullFcn2}
handleDeleteSong={nullFcn3}
/>
</Provider>
);
const formPropsFromReduxForm = wrapper.find(SongForm).props(); // enzyme
expect(
formPropsFromReduxForm
).to.be.deep.equal({
screen: 'add',
songTags: initialSongTags,
disabled: false,
handleFormSubmit: nullFcn1,
handleModifySong: nullFcn2,
handleDeleteSong: nullFcn3,
});
===== ../SongForm.js
import React from 'react';
import { connect } from 'react-redux';
const SongForm = (/* object */ props) /* ReactNode */ => {
/* ... */
return (
<form onSubmit={handleSubmit(handleFormSubmit)}>
....
</form>
};
const mapStateToProps = (/* object */ state) /* object */ => ({
songTags: state.songs.songTags
});
const mapDispatchToProps = () /* object..function */ => ({ /* ... */ });
export default connect(mapStateToProps, mapDispatchToProps)(SongForm)
You may want to create a store with pure Redux. redux-mock-store is just a light-weight version of it meant for testing.
You may want to use react-addons-test-utils instead of airbnb's Enzyme.
I use airbnb's chai-enzyme to have React-aware expect options. It was not needed in this example.
redux-mock-store is an awesome tool to test redux connected components in react
const containerElement = shallow((<Provider store={store}><ContainerElement /></Provider>));
Create fake store and mount the component
You may refer to this article Testing redux store connected React Components using Jest and Enzyme | TDD | REACT | REACT NATIVE
Try creating 2 files, one with component itself, being not aware of any store or anything (PhoneVerification-component.js). Then second one (PhoneVerification.js), which you will use in your application and which only returns the first component subscribed to store via connect function, something like
import PhoneVerificationComponent from './PhoneVerification-component.js'
import {connect} from 'react-redux'
...
export default connect(mapStateToProps, mapDispatchToProps)(PhoneVerificationComponent)
Then you can test your "dumb" component by requiring PhoneVerification-component.js in your test and providing it with necessary mocked props. There is no point of testing already tested (connect decorator, mapStateToProps, mapDispatchToProps etc...)
I'm testing the following React component:
import React from 'react'
import AppBar from 'material-ui/lib/app-bar'
class NavBar extends React.Component {
render () {
return (
<div>
<AppBar
title='My NavBar Title'
/>
</div>
)
}
}
export default NavBar
It's composed of a material-ui AppBar component. Using Tape and Enzyme, I want to simulate a click on the AppBar's IconButton:
import NavBar from './NavBar'
import React from 'react'
import test from 'tape'
import { /* I don't know if it's `shallow` or `mount` */ } from 'enzyme'
test('NavBar component test', (assert) => {
test('simulating a click on the icon button', (assert) =>
// How do I do this?
// The following results in error:
// const wrapper = shallow(<NavBar />)
// wrapper.find('AppBar').find('IconButton').simulate('click')
assert.end()
})
assert.end()
})
How can I do it properly?
Obs: I'm searching for IconButton because, according to the React Dev Tools tab, that's the name of the rendered icon button component.
You should use mount for testing components below the top level of the component.
I found a way to test whether the function is called, not using the .simulate('event'), just invoke the method directly.
const wrapper = shallow(<NavBar />)
//use sinon.spy( object, method) to spy the method, instead of sinon.spy(func)
const spy = Sinon.spy(wrapper.renderer._instance._instance, 'click')
//inovke
wrapper.renderer._instance._instance.click()
expect(spy.called).to.be.true
You could find the method inside the .renderer._instance or its children _instance objects (depending on how deep the element is) and then use sinon.spy to spy this method.
I don't like this way, but this is the only way I know how to spy a method till now.
I am attempting to write unit tests using Jasmine and Sion but I am struggling to find the equivalent of the following when using RequireJs to load modules:
sinon.stub(window, "MyItemView");
When using RequireJs, I am unable to stub this way as MyItemView is not attached to the window.
The following is an example of when I need stub the MyItemView:
var MyView = Backbone.View.extend({
el: '#myElement',
initialize : function() {
var that = this;
this.collection.fetch({
success : function() {
that.render();
}
});
},
render : function() {
this.collection.each(this.renderItem);
}
renderItem: function(model){
var myItemView = new MyItemView({model: model});
$('#myElement').append(myItemView.render().el);
},
...
Now, using Jasmine I can test that the innerHtml contains the expected HTML:
it('View should contain correct Html', function(){
var collectionFetchStub = sinon.stub(this.myCollection, 'fetch').yieldsTo('success', this.myCollection);
this.view = new MyView({collection: this.myCollection});
expect(this.view.el.innerHTML).toContain('<li> 1 : test </li>');
// Remove Stubs
collectionFetchStub.restore();
});
However, this test has a dependency on the rendering of MyItemView, which is not ideal for a unit test. What is the best solution to this problem? I am quite a novice to javascript and a solution to this seems complex.
Take a look at this SO on how to stub dependencies with requireJS. There are some solutions. Like testrJs, squireJs or my own little solution. The main idea is to override the requireJs dependency with your spy/stub/mock so you can test only the module.
So in your case you could to stub MyItemView like this:
var el = $("<div>test</div>")
var MyItemView = sinon.stub().returns({render: sinon.stub().returns(el)})
Then you have to inject the MyItemView stub into your require context and you can test the test div was appended to $('#myElement'). This is not ideal, cause all of the DOM stuff but it will work. A better way would be not to render something outside your backbone view. Cause then you can inject a mocked el into the view and just test that the append method of your mock was called.