I'm trying to write a unit test for a controller that uses simple-auth authentication in an ajax call. Assertion tests work great but the session property does not appear to be defined in the unit test module scope.
Example action in controller:
authenticate() {
let credentials = this.getProperties('identification', 'password');
this.get('session').authenticate('simple-auth-authenticator:token', credentials)
.then(() => {
this.transitionToRoute('index');
}, (error) => {
this.set('errorMessage', error.error);
});
}
Example test:
it('should not authenticate', function () {
let controller = this.subject();
controller.send('authenticate');
expect(controller.get('errorMessage')).to.equal("Invalid email/password combination");
});
Session is undefined error message:
TypeError: Cannot read property 'authenticate' of undefined
at authenticate (http://localhost:7357/assets/app.js:587:28)
at mixin.Mixin.create.send (http://localhost:7357/assets/vendor.js:37164:54)
at Context.<anonymous> (http://localhost:7357/assets/app.js:2002:18)
at Context.wrapper (http://localhost:7357/assets/test-support.js:1756:27)
at invoke (http://localhost:7357/assets/test-support.js:13772:21)
at Context.suite.on.context.it.context.specify.method (http://localhost:7357/assets/test-support.js:13837:13)
at Test.require.register.Runnable.run (http://localhost:7357/assets/test-support.js:7064:15)
at Runner.require.register.Runner.runTest (http://localhost:7357/assets/test-support.js:7493:10)
at http://localhost:7357/assets/test-support.js:7571:12
at next (http://localhost:7357/assets/test-support.js:7418:14)
In unit tests you don't have a running application so injections etc. that happen in initializers aren't run. The best way to make sure the session exists in the controller would be to stub it which would also make it easy to make sure it behaves as you want it to behave in your test.
The alternative would be to turn the unit test into an acceptance test - in that case you have an initialized app that the test runs with and the session will be available in the controller already.
Related
I'm trying to create units test for my stencil js component, in the compnentWillLoad() method it will do an HTTP request (using rxjs).when I'm run the test getting error ReferenceError: XMLHttpRequest is not defined.But when removing the HTTP request from the componentWillLoad() method test passed.
My test as below,
it('should render my component', async () => {
const page = await newSpecPage({
components: [MyComponent],
html: `<my-component></my-component>`,
});
expect(page.root).toEqualHtml(`<my-component></my-component>`);
});
I'm getting error ReferenceError: XMLHttpRequest is not defined
XMLHttpRequest is indeed not defined in the virtual DOM context that is created when you use newSpecPage.
The best solution for you is probably to write this as an E2E test instead, using newE2EPage, which is more suited for complete end-to-end testing because it runs in a real browser context where XMLHttpRequest will be available.
it('should render', async () => {
const page = await newE2EPage({ html: '<my-component></my-component>' });
const myComponent = page.find('my-component');
expect(myComponent).toHaveClass('hydrated');
});
"Spec Page" testing is rather meant for unit testing components that work stand-alone. If your goal is to actually unit-test your component and you just want to be able to instantiate your component but you don't actually need the request to succeed for testing, then you can also use the Build context from Stencil:
import { Build, ... } from '#stencil/core';
export class MyComponent {
componentWillLoad() {
if (!Build.isTesting) {
// make the request
}
}
// ...
}
I had similar troubles with Stencil, Jest and XMLHttpRequest.
First, make sure you call
new window.XMLHttpRequest()
instead of simply calling
new XMLHttpRequest()
This seems to be neccessary when using jsdom and may already resolve your issue.
It didn't resolve mine though, since I wanted to make sure there are no real API calls going on. So I tried to mock XMLHttpRequest. However, I ran into other issues while building the mock and finally decided to refactor my code to use Fetch API instead of XMLHttpRequest which seems to be better supported by Stencil.
You can easily mock fetch using jest
export function mockFetch(status, body, statusText?) {
// #ts-ignore
global.fetch = jest.fn(() =>
Promise.resolve({
status: status,
statusText: statusText,
text: () => Promise.resolve(JSON.stringify(body)),
json: () => Promise.resolve(body),
})
)
}
In unit tests for a service, I have been putting asserts inside of service stubs, which has come in rather handy.
unit-test.js
let fooServiceStub = Ember.Object.extend({
fooMethod(bar) {
this.assert.ok(bar, 'fooMethod called with bar');
}
});
...
test('blah', function(assert) {
assert.expect(1);
let stubFooService = fooServiceStub.create({ assert });
let fooService = this.subject({
fooService: stubFooService
});
fooService.fooMethod('data');
});
Is an assert inside of a stub service possible for an acceptance/integration test?
The issue that I am running into is that for acceptance/integration tests, the way the service is injected is different from unit tests.
acceptance-test.js
let fooServiceStub = Ember.Service.extend({
fooMethod(bar) {
return 'baz';
}
});
....
beforeEach: function () {
this.application.register('service:mockFooService', fooServiceStub);
this.application.inject('controller', 'fooService', 'service:mockFooService');
}
I have not found a way to pass in the 'assert' object into such a stub.
To me, this is desirable to do during an acceptance test. The service goes off and does stuff that would be rather complicated to mock in the acceptance test, and I don't want to re-test my service. I just want to confirm the expected service calls were triggered.
You can just do something like this in your test:
this.set('fooService.FooMethod', bar => assert.ok(bar, 'bla'));
I want to write a unit test that should check if an unauthenticated user can view the user list (which he shouldnt be able to).
My routes
Route::group(array('prefix' => 'admin'), function() {
Route::get('login', function() {
return View::make('auth.login');
});
Route::post('login', function() {
Auth::attempt( array('email' => Input::get('email'), 'password' => Input::get('password')) );
return Redirect::intended('admin');
});
Route::get('logout', 'AuthController#logout');
Route::group(array('before' => 'auth'), function() {
Route::get('/', function() {
return Redirect::to('admin/users');
});
Route::resource('users', 'UsersController');
});
});
My test
public function testUnauthenticatedUserIndexAccess() {
$response = $this->call('GET', 'admin/users');
$this->assertRedirectedTo('admin/login');
}
My filter
Route::filter('auth', function() {
if (Auth::guest()) return Redirect::guest('admin/login');
});
Result
Failed asserting that Illuminate\Http\Response Object (...) is an instance of class "Illuminate\Http\RedirectResponse".
If i log the $response from the test, it shows the full user list like if an admin was logged in during testing.
If i browse to admin/users using a browser without logging in I'm redirected to login like i should, so the auth filter is indeed working.
Questions
Is there something in Laravel that logs in the first user during testing for you by default? Or is Auth::guest() always false by default during testing?
If so, how do i become "logged out" during unit testing? I tried $this->be(null) but got an error saying the object passed must implement UserInterface.
Laravel filters are automatically disabled for unit tests; you need to enable them for a specific test case.
Route::enableFilters();
Or this if you're not keen on using the static facades
$this->app['router']->enableFilters();
Take a look in the unit testing documentation.
Your test should now return the correct object type allowing your test to pass.
I am pretty new at unit testing and AngularJS and I have some issue that I can't fix. One of my test is not working. I am trying to initiate a location.path() in my test by affecting a value, but in my controller, location.path() still have a undefined value.
Here is my controler:
angular.module('...')
.controller('SignUpCtrl', ['$location', function ($location) {
// Retrieve type of user
var userType = $location.path().substr(9);
if(userType == 'member'){
userType = 'user';
}
console.log($location.path());
console.log(userType);
$scope.uType = userType; ]);
And here is my test module:
describe('Controller: SignUpCtrl', function () {
// load the controller's module
beforeEach(module('...'));
var SignUpCtrl,
scope,
mockBackend,
environments,
location,
store;
beforeEach(inject(function ($controller, $rootScope, $httpBackend,$location,_Environments_) {
environments = _Environments_;
mockBackend = $httpBackend;
location = $location;
scope = $rootScope.$new();
SignUpCtrl = $controller('SignUpCtrl', {
$scope: scope,
$location: location
});
}));
it('should come from the right location', function(){
location.path('/sign-up/member');
expect(location.path()).toBe('/sign-up/member');
expect(scope.uType).toBe('user'); //Do not work
});
});
You're trying to use unit testing to do something that can only really be achieved using End-to-End (or E2E) testing. Unit testing in AngularJS is designed to test the javascript within a given module or sub-module (such as a service, factory, directive, etc). However, things like page navigation or browser location really need to be tested in an end-to-end testing environment.
Because of that, your $location object won't have all the normal methods (like path, url, etc). The $location object ends up simply being a "mock" of the actual $location object that you'd get in your module. So, you just need to move your test case for it('should come from the right location', function(){ ... }) to an end-to-end test and then continue on with your other module-specific unit tests. After you do that, you can simplify the $controller by only grabbing the $scope variable, as in the following:
scope = $rootScope.new();
SignUpCtrl = $controller('SignUpCtrl', {$scope: scope});
The guide for E2E testing can be found at this link. It walks you through how to write good E2E tests. There is a really great framework available for doing angular E2E tests called Protractor. The info for that is at this link. Protractor will soon (in 1.2) replace Karma as a better way to handle E2E testing.
I'm attempting to unit test controller code inside a module that takes other modules as dependencies, but haven't been able to figure out how to mock them properly.
I'm using the Jasmine Framework and running my tests with Karma (Testacular).
Module Code
var app = angular.module('events', ['af.widgets', 'angular-table']);
app.controller('eventsCtrl', function([dependencies]){
$scope.events = [];
...
});
Spec Code
describe('events module', function(){
var $scope,
ctrl;
beforeEach(function(){
angular.mock.module('af.widgets', []);
angular.mock.module('angular-table', []);
module('events', ['af.widgets', 'angular-table']);
});
beforeEach(inject(function($rootScope, $controller){
$scope = $rootScope.new();
ctrl = $controller('NameCtrl', {
$scope: $scope,
});
}));
it('should have an empty events array', function(){
expect($scope.events).toBe([]);
})
});
The error I'm getting is Karma is "no module af.widgets", so obviously I'm not mocking the module dependencies right. Any hints?
If you want to mock a module that declare one or more services I have used this code:
beforeEach(function(){
module('moduleToMock');
module(function ($provide) {
$provide.value('yourService', serviceMock);
});
});
This is useful if the service you want to mock is also a service that you want to unit test (in another jasmine describe).
The solution proposed by fscof is fine but you cannot create a unit test for the angular-table module.
Here's what I figured out:
I wasn't loading any 'angular-table' modules in my karma.conf.js file, hence the error. This was intentional at first as I wanted to test the 'events' module without the actual table module.
I was able to easily mock the 'angular-table' module by creating a new file in my test folder called 'mocks/angular-table.js' and added the following code:
/mocks/angular-table.js
'use-strict';
angular.module('angular-table', []);
I added this file to my karma.conf.js file, along with the real 'events' module I wanted to test:
karma.conf.js
...
files = [
JASMINE,
JASMINE_ADAPTER,
'scripts/libs/angular.js',
'scripts/libs/angular-mocks.js',
'scripts/events.js', // this is the real module.
'scripts/mocks/*.js', //loads all custom mocks.
'scripts/specs/*.spec.js' // loads my spec file.
]
...
Finally in my spec file, I was able to add both modules by calling them separately in a beforeEach block:
specs/events.spec.js
beforeEach(function(){
module('angular-table');
module('events');
});
I got the idea to structure my files in this way from this post
I recently released ngImprovedTesting that should make mock testing in AngularJS way easier.
In your case just use the following in your Jasmine test:
beforeEach(ModuleBuilder.forModule('events').serviceWithMocks('eventsCtrl').build());
For more information about ngImprovedTesting check out its introductory blog post: http://blog.jdriven.com/2014/07/ng-improved-testing-mock-testing-for-angularjs-made-easy/