Usually I was ending up writing test cases for a Domain by writing them for constraints and any custom methods(created by us in application) as we know we shouldn't test obvious.
But the time we started using coverage plugin, we found that our domains line of code is not fully covered which was due to gorm hooks(onInsert, beforeUpdate) that we never wrote test cases for.
Is there a way we can test these. One possible way that seems obvious but not suitable is to call another method(containing all code which was earlier in hooks) within these hooks and test that method only and be carefree for hooks.
Any solutions...
Edit
Sample code in domain that I want to unit-test:
class TestDomain{
String activationDate
def beforeInsert() {
this.activationDate = (this.activationDate) ?: new Date()//first login date would come here though
encodePassword()
}
}
How can I unit-test beforeInsert or I would end up writing integration test case?
Perhaps a unit test like:
import grails.test.mixin.TestFor
#TestFor(TestDomain)
class TestDomainSpec extends Specification {
def "test beforeSave"() {
given:
mockForConstraintsTests(TestDomain)
when:
def testDomain = new TestDomain().save(flush:true)
then:
testDomain.activationDate != null
}
}
Related
I am new in Grails, I want to write unit tests for services using Spock. However I have the following issue.
import grails.transaction.Transactional
#Transactional
class BService {
boolean createB(){
return true
}
...
}
For this class I wrote the following test:
class BServiceTest extends Specification {
def "test createB"(){
given:
def service = new BService()
when:
def boolean temp
temp = service.createB()
then:
temp == true
}
}
The error I am getting when I run this test is the following:
java.lang.IllegalStateException: No transactionManager was specified. Using #Transactional or #Rollback requires a valid configured transaction manager. If you are running in a unit test ensure the test has been properly configured and that you run the test suite not an individual test method.
and it shows in GrailsTransactionTemplate.groovy:60
I would really appreciatie if anyone can give me a hint.
Add a #TestFor(BService) annotation to your unit test and use the instance of the service that it automatically provides. See http://grails.github.io/grails-doc/3.0.x/guide/testing.html for more information on testing.
Thank you ataylor for your reply. However I did a mistake, so I am now ansewring my own question.
First of all, the name conversion is wrong. When I create a service in grails there is automatically set a unit-test for this, so in that case I would have:
#TestFor(BService)
class BServiceSpec extends Specification {
def setup() {
User u = new User(1)
u.save()
}
def cleanup() {
}
def "test something"(){
}
}
In this case when I write a unit test, it runs.
The test that I had before was a functional test where I could not pass objects from the domain, so I had an error of the transactional manager.
As the title states, is it possible to have a unit test for a controller, and mock a tag lib?
As it stands, I have a User controller. Many of the actions use the
g.message(code: 'something.something')
call to set a message on the page.
#TestFor(UserController)
#Mock(User)
#TestMixin(GroovyPageUnitTestMixin)
class UserControllerSpec extends Specification
{
UserService userServiceMock = Mock(UserService)
def setup()
{
controller.userService = userServiceMock
}
def cleanup()
{
}
void "test manageDevice"()
{
given:
def g = mockTagLib(FormTagLib)
when:
controller.manageDevice()
then:
model.pageTitle == 'message.device'
}
With that code I'm trying to hit the controller action but because of the g.message, it's failing with an error saying that it can't set a value to null. Pretty much because it doesn't see the "g.message"
I'm a little unsure if my unit test needs written differently, or if I'm just missing something.
Any help would be great!
EDIT:
Some updates using messageSource:
void "test manageDevice"()
{
given:
messageSource.addMessage 'user.devices', request.locale, 'Manage Devices'
when:
controller.manageDevices()
then:
assertEquals model.pageTitle == 'user.devices', controller.flash.message
}
It seems to still be complaining because it doesn't have context of the "g" namespace on the controller. I'll note as well, I don't have context of 'addMessage' from messageSource. Not sure why, it should be there.
In the same controller, and many others, the only taglib we use in the controller scope is 'g' for the 'g.message' set in each action. The only other call that's being done, is one using the 'g' for a call like 'g.fixRedisIssue'
You can make a unit test for a controller with a mocked TagLib by including the necessary TagLib classes in the value of the grails.test.mixin.Mock annotation on the Spec class. For example, if you have the following TagLib:
(based on code in Grails documentation)
package org.grails.samples
class SimpleTagLib {
static namespace = 'g'
def hello = { attrs, body ->
out << "Hello ${attrs.name ?: 'World'}"
}
}
And you have the following controller:
package org.grails.samples
class SimpleController {
def flashHello() {
flash.message = g.hello()
}
}
You could test it with the following specification:
package org.grails.samples
import grails.test.mixin.Mock
import grails.test.mixin.TestFor
import spock.lang.Specification
#TestFor(SimpleController)
#Mock(SimpleTagLib)
class SimpleControllerSpec extends Specification {
void 'test flashHello'() {
when:
controller.flashHello()
then:
flash.message == 'Hello World'
}
}
If you have multiple classes to mock, you can specify them in an array argument to #Mock. So you can add any necessary tag libraries to UserControllerSpec by changing #Mock(User) to something like #Mock([User, FormTagLib, YourFixRedisIssueTagLib]). However, I'd be surprised if you actually did need to add FormTagLib because in my Grails testing it seems to be included by default.
As some further advice, some of the code you posted doesn't make any sense. Specifically:
assertEquals model.pageTitle == 'user.devices', controller.flash.message
Decide specifically what you want to test for and focus on writing the simplest code possible for that.
Also, based on your description of what's happening, I think that you're getting thrown off because your IDE is not properly integrated with Grails to see the g context.
Instead of returning the message text to the view from the controller, why not return the message code instead? For example, if you have something like this in your view:
<p>${flash.message}</p>
You can replace it with this:
<p><g:message code="${flash.code}" /></p>
And then set the code in the controller:
flash.code = "user.devices"
Then you'll be able to test the controller methods painlessly :)
I'm using Grails 2.4.1 and having trouble understanding how to properly test a unique constraint on a domain class.
My domain class looks like:
class Person {
String name
static constraints = {
name( unique: true, blank: false )
}
}
and my test:
#TestFor(Person)
#TestMixin(GrailsUnitTestMixin)
class PersonSpec extends Specification {
void "name should be unique"() {
given:
mockForConstraintsTests Person
when:
def one = new Person( name: 'john' )
then:
one.save()
when:
def two = new Person( name: 'john' )
then:
! two.validate()
two.errors.hasFieldErrors( 'name' )
}
The second instance is validating despite apparently violating the unique constraint. Can someone please explain what's going on here and how I should best correct it?
Thanks!
--john
I do not think it is the best approach to test the constraints by triggering them. Generally we want to test that our code is working and not that Grails is validating the constraints.
Why test the framework (i.e. Grails)? Hopefully the Grails people have done that already :-)
(yes, there are situations were it makes sense to check the framework, but I don't think this is one).
So the only thing to test is that we have placed the correct constraints on the domain class:
#TestFor(Person)
class PersonSpec extends Specification {
void "name should have unique/blank constraints"() {
expect:
Person.constraints.name.getAppliedConstraint('unique').parameter
! Person.constraints.name.getAppliedConstraint('blank').blank
}
}
If it is worth writing that test is another question...
This is exactly kind of mistake I used to do as a beginner. Testing grails stuff whether it is working as expected or not. Testing framework related stuff not a good idea. It means then testing all constraints, predefined methods and even save(), update() etc. So it would mean testing grails framework again rather than developing your application.
Testing should generally consists of testing your business logic related stuff.
I use the Grails Spring Security Plugin for my project and now want to unit test my code. I have the following code in my controller:
def index() {
redirect action: 'show', params: [id: springSecurityService.currentUser.id]
}
My Test Class has the following code:
void testIndex() {
controller.index()
assert "/user/list" == response.redirectedUrl
}
This test fails:
| Running 8 unit tests... 1 of 8
| Failure: testIndex(xxx.UserControllerTests)
| java.lang.NullPointerException: Cannot get property 'currentUser' on null object
at xxx.UserController.index(UserController.groovy:12)
at xxx.UserControllerTests.testIndex(UserControllerTests.groovy:19)
How can I authenticate a spring security user in a test case? How would you write the unit test?
You have to use functional tests for security. Unit tests use mocking but don't have plugins available, or a real request. Spring Security is implemented with a filter chain, so you need a real running server. If you use mocks, you're just testing the mocking.
For something this simple I wouldn't bother with complicated mocks, a straightforward
controller.springSecurityService = [currentUser:[id:1]]
would be sufficient.
It appears that your reference to springSecurityService is null. As long as you have a field in your controller named springSecurityService, it should be injected. Are you using it as a local variable only in your index method and did not declare it as a field?
My UserController is as follows:
class UserController {
/**
* Dependency injection for the springSecurityService.
*/
def springSecurityService
....
}
UPDATE
Based on your comments to this answer, you did declare a springSecurityService field in your controller. I took my working application and tried a test that mirrors yours with my controller method:
#TestFor(UserController)
class UserControllerTests {
void testSomething() {
controller.register()
}
}
I got a NullPointerException as well. From Burt's answer, (I did not know this), I think the springSecurityService instance is null in the contexts of the Unit Test execution.
The test class below verifies that a simple HttpService gets content from a given URL. Both the implementations shown make the test pass, though one is clearly wrong because it constructs the URL with an incorrect argument.
To avoid this and correctly specify the behaviour I want, I'd like to verify that in the use block of the test case, I construct one (and only one) instance of the URL class, and that the url argument to the constructor is correct. A Groovy enhancement seems like it would let me add the statement
mockURLContext.demand.URL { assertEquals "http://www.foo.com", url }
but what can I do without that Groovy enhancement?
Update: Replaced "mock" with "stub" in the title, as I'm only interested in checking the state not necessarily the detail of the interactions. Groovy has a StubFor mechanism that I haven't used, so I'll leave my code as is, but I think you could just replace MockFor with StubFor throughout.
import grails.test.*
import groovy.mock.interceptor.MockFor
class HttpServiceTests extends GrailsUnitTestCase {
void testGetsContentForURL() {
def content = [text : "<html><body>Hello, world</body></html>"]
def mockURLContext = new MockFor(URL.class)
mockURLContext.demand.getContent { content }
mockURLContext.use {
def httpService = new HttpService()
assertEquals content.text, httpService.getContentFor("http://www.foo.com")
}
}
}
// This is the intended implementation.
class HttpService {
def getContentFor(url) {
new URL(url).content.text
}
}
// This intentionally wrong implementation also passes the test!
class HttpService {
def getContentFor(url) {
new URL("http://www.wrongurl.com").content.text
}
}
What does mocking the URL get you? It makes the test difficult to write. You won't be able to react to feedback the mock objects give you about the design of the API of the URL class, because it's not under your control. And if you don't precisely fake the behaviour of the URL and what it exposes about the HTTP protocol, the test will not be reliable.
You want to test that your "HttpService" object actually loads the data correctly from a given URL, copes with different content type encodings correctly, handles different classes of HTTP status code appropriately, and so forth. When I need to test this kind object -- one that merely wraps some underlying technical infrastructure -- I write a real integration test that verifies that the object really does use the underlying technology correctly.
For HTTP I write a test that creates an HTTP server, plugs a servlet into the server that will return some canned data, passed the URL of the servlet to the object to make it load the data, check that the loaded result is the same as the canned data used to initialise the servlet, and stop the server in the fixture tear-down. I use Jetty or the simple HTTP server that is bundled with JDK 6.
I'd only use mock objects to test the behaviour of objects that talk to the interface(s) of that object I've integration tested.
Putting on my "Programming in the Small" and "Unit test 100%" hat, you could consider this as a single method that does too many things. You could refactor the HttpService to:
class HttpService {
def newURLFrom(urlString) {
new URL(urlString)
}
def getContentText(url) {
url.content.text
}
def getContentFor(urlString) {
getContentText(newURLFrom(urlString))
}
}
This would give you a few more options for testing, as well as split out the factory aspect from the property manipulation. The testing options are bit more mundane then:
class HttpServiceTests extends GroovyTestCase {
def urlString = "http://stackoverflow.com"
def fauxHtml = "<html><body>Hello, world</body></html>";
def fauxURL = [content : [text : fauxHtml]]
void testMakesURLs() {
assertEquals(urlString,
new HTTPService().newURLFrom(urlString).toExternalForm())
}
void testCanDeriveContentText() {
assertEquals(fauxHtml, new HTTPService().getContentText(fauxURL));
}
// Going a bit overboard to test the line combining the two methods
void testGetsContentForURL() {
def service = new HTTPService()
def emc = new ExpandoMetaClass( service.class, false )
emc.newURLFrom = { input -> assertEquals(urlString, input); return fauxURL }
emc.initialize()
service.metaClass = emc
assertEquals(fauxHtml, service.getContentFor(urlString))
}
}
I think that this makes all the assertions that you want, but at the cost of sacrificing test readability in the last case.
I would agree with Nat about this making more sense as an integration test. (You are integrating with Java's URL library on some level.) But assuming that this example simplifies some complex logic, you could use the metaclass to override the instances class effictvely partially mocking the instance.
It's tough to mock out JDK classes that are declared final... Your problem, as you reference through the enhancement, is that there is no way to create a URL other than calling the constructor.
I try to separate the creation of these kinds of objects from the rest of my code; I'd create a factory to separate the creation the URLs. This should be simple enough to not warrant a test. Others take a typical wrapper/decorator approach. Or you may be able to apply the adapter pattern to translate to domain objects that you write.
Here is a similar answer to a surprisingly similar problem: Mocking a URL in Java
I think this demonstrates something that a lot of people learn after doing more testing: the code we write to make things more testable is meant to isolate what we desire to test from what we can safely say is already tested somewhere else. It's a fundamental assumption we have to make in order to do unit testing. It can also provide a decent example of why good unit tests aren't necessarily about 100% code coverage. They have to be economical, too.
Hope this helps.
What exactly are you expecting to have fail? It is not readily apparent what you are trying to test with that code. By Mocking URL.getContent you are telling Groovy to always return the variable content when URL.getContent() is invoked. Are you wishing to make the return value of URL.getContent() conditional based upon the URL string? If that is the case, the following accomplishes that:
import grails.test.*
import groovy.mock.interceptor.MockFor
class HttpServiceTests extends GrailsUnitTestCase {
def connectionUrl
void testGetsContentForURL() {
// put the desired "correct" URL as the key in the next line
def content = ["http://www.foo.com" : "<html><body>Hello, world</body></html>"]
def mockURLContext = new MockFor(URL.class)
mockURLContext.demand.getContent { [text : content[this.connectionUrl]] }
mockURLContext.use {
def httpService = new HttpService()
this.connectionUrl = "http://www.wrongurl.com"
assertEquals content.text, httpService.getContentFor(this.connectionUrl)
}
}
}