I have an application with the server code running on Node.js and using Dojo. I have a config module defined like:
define([
'dojo/node!nconf',
'dojo/_base/config'
], function (nconf, dojoConfig) {
nconf.argv().file({
file: dojoConfig.baseDir + '/config.json'
});
console.log('-- file name:', dojoConfig.baseDir + '/config.json');
console.log('-- context:', nconf.get('context'));
// ... logic here ...
return nconf.get(nconf.get('context'));
});
To be able to unit test this module, I've written two mocks: one for the nconf native module and one for dojoConfig. Here is the test:
define([
'require',
'intern!object',
'intern/chai!assert'
], function (require, registerSuite, assert) {
registerSuite({
name: 'config utility',
'load default settings': function () {
require.undef('dojo/node!nconf');
require.undef('dojo/_base/config');
require({ map: {
'*': {
'dojo/node!nconf': 'server/utils/tests/nconfMock',
'dojo/_base/config': 'server/utils/tests/dojoConfigMock'
}
}});
require(['../config', './nconfMock'], this.async(1000).callback(
function (config, nconfMock) {
assert.isNotNull(config);
assert.isNotNull(nconf);
// assert.deepEqual(config, nconfMock.contextSettings.test);
}
));
}
});
});
I can see that my mock of dojoConfig is correctly loaded, but not the mock of the nconf module. During a webcast on Intern, Dylan mentioned that the mapping does not consider the plugin, that there's the way to force dojo/node module to load this nconfMock. Would you mind to give me more details?
Obviously, this is verbose, so if this continues to be a common request, we’ll probably do something to make it simpler in the future.
Important note: Without mapping dojo/node to intern/node_modules/dojo/node, the loading of my initial config module as defined above fails in the Intern environment. The mapping is done in the intern.js file. The reported error is:
Error: node plugin failed to load because environment is not Node.js
at d:/git/fco2/src/libs/dojo/node.js:3:9
at execModule (d:\git\fco2\node_modules\intern\node_modules\dojo\dojo.js:512:54)
at d:\git\fco2\node_modules\intern\node_modules\dojo\dojo.js:579:7
at guardCheckComplete (d:\git\fco2\node_modules\intern\node_modules\dojo\dojo.js:563:4)
at checkComplete (d:\git\fco2\node_modules\intern\node_modules\dojo\dojo.js:571:27)
at onLoadCallback (d:\git\fco2\node_modules\intern\node_modules\dojo\dojo.js:653:7)
at d:\git\fco2\node_modules\intern\node_modules\dojo\dojo.js:758:5
at fs.js:266:14
at Object.oncomplete (fs.js:107:15)
Solution: As suggested by Colin Snover below, I now use Mockery. I also do NOT use the contextual require, only the default one. Here is a (simplified) solution working with the version 1.9.3 of the Dojo toolkit.
define([
'intern!object',
'intern/chai!assert',
'intern/node_modules/dojo/node!mockery',
'./nconfMock'
], function (registerSuite, assert, mockery, nconfMock) {
registerSuite({
name: 'config utility',
teardown: function () {
mockery.disable();
mockery.deregisterAll();
require({ map: { '*': { 'dojo/_base/config': 'dojo/_base/config' } } });
require.undef('dojo/_base/config');
require.undef('server/utils/config');
},
'load default settings': function () {
mockery.enable();
mockery.registerMock('nconf', nconfMock);
require({ map: { '*': { 'dojo/_base/config': 'server/utils/tests/dojoConfigMock' } } });
require.undef('dojo/_base/config');
require.undef('server/utils/config');
require(
['server/utils/config'],
this.async(1000).callback(function (config) {
assert.isNotNull(config);
assert.deepEqual(config, nconfMock.contextSettings.test);
})
);
}
});
});
Thanks, Dom
In order to mock a Node.js dependency, you will probably want to simply use one of the various available projects for mocking Node.js modules. Mockery is a good choice since it’s stand-alone.
Since it looks like you’re using dojo/node and not the one from Intern, in your case, you’d do it like this:
define([
'intern!object', 'dojo/node!mockery', 'dojo/Deferred', 'require'
], function (registerSuite, mockery, Deferred, require) {
var moduleUsingMock;
registerSuite({
setup: function () {
var dfd = new Deferred();
mockery.enable();
mockery.registerMock('module-to-mock', mockObject);
require([ 'module-using-mock' ], function (value) {
moduleUsingMock = value;
dfd.resolve();
});
return dfd.promise;
},
teardown: function () {
mockery.disable();
},
'some test': function () {
moduleUsingMock.whatever();
// ...
}
});
});
Related
I've set up CodeceptJS for a project and use it to test various end-to-end scenarios.
Now I want to extend the tests-suite to also run unit-tests to verify functionality of custom JS functions.
For example: I have a global object App that has a version attribute. As a first test, I want to confirm that App.version is present and has a value.
My first attempt is a test.js file with the following code:
Feature('Unit Tests');
Scenario('Test App presence', ({ I }) => {
I.amOnPage('/');
I.executeScript(function() {return App.version})
.then(function(value) { I.say(value) } );
});
Problems with this code
The major issue: How can I assert that the App.version is present?
My script can display the value but does not fail if it's missing
My code is very complex for such a simple test.
I'm sure there's a cleaner/faster way to perform that test, right?
Here is a solution that works for me:
Read data from the browser:
I created a custom helper via npx codecept gh and named it BrowserAccess.
The helper function getBrowserData uses this.helpers['Puppeteer'].page.evaluate() to run and return custom code from the browser scope. Documentation for .evaluate()
Custom assertions:
Install the codeceptjs-assert package, e.g. npm i codeceptjs-assert
Add the AssertWrapper-helper to the codecept-config file. This enables checks like I.assert(a, b)
Full Code
codecept.conf.js
exports.config = {
helpers: {
AssertWrapper: {
require: "codeceptjs-assert"
},
BrowserAccess: {
require: './browseraccess_helper.js'
},
...
},
...
}
browseraccess_helper.js
const Helper = require('#codeceptjs/helper');
class BrowserAccess extends Helper {
async getBrowserData(symbolName) {
const currentPage = this.helpers['Puppeteer'].page;
let res;
try {
res = await currentPage.evaluate((evalVar) => {
let res;
try {
res = eval(evalVar);
} catch (e) {
}
return Promise.resolve(res);
}, symbolName);
} catch (err) {
res = null;
}
return res;
}
}
jsapp_test.js (the test is now async)
Feature('Unit Tests');
Scenario('Test App presence', async ({ I }) => {
I.amOnPage('/');
const version = await I.getBrowserData('App.version');
I.assertOk(version);
});
I am working with "Smart Table" and will be using their example plugin where a checkbox selects a row in a table: http://lorenzofox3.github.io/smart-table-website/#section-custom
I am writing a unit test for this directive, code below, this is failing. Has anyone written a unit test for this code or could help direct me as to where I am going wrong and if I am actually testing the correct logic?
Directive:
myApp.directive('csSelect', function () {
return {
require: '^stTable',
template: '',
scope: {
row: '=csSelect'
},
link: function (scope, element, attr, ctrl) {
element.bind('change', function (evt) {
scope.$apply(function () {
ctrl.select(scope.row, 'multiple');
});
});
scope.$watch('row.isSelected', function (newValue, oldValue) {
if (newValue === true) {
element.parent().addClass('st-selected');
} else {
element.parent().removeClass('st-selected');
}
});
}
};
});
Unit test:
describe('csSelect',function(){
var scope, element, attr, ctrl;
beforeEach(module('myApp.selectorresult'));
beforeEach(inject(function($rootScope, $compile) {
elm = angular.element(
'<td cs-select="row" class="ng-isolate-scope">' +
'<input type="checkbox">' +
'</td>');
scope = $rootScope;
$compile(elm)(scope);
scope.$digest();
}));
it('should create selectable input',function(){
console.log(elm.find('input'));
var checkbox = elm.find('input');
expect(checkbox.length).toBe(1);
});
});
You need to mock out the stTableController with $controllerProvider before you set up beforeEach(inject...
Check out the test spec for the pagination directive (https://github.com/lorenzofox3/Smart-Table/blob/master/test/spec/stPagination.spec.js), which also requires 'stTable'. It's a good example of how to provide the 'stTableController' with the functions you need from it.
For anyone still having this issue. I hope this helps.
I was struggling with this for ages. I tried mocking the stTableController, I tried adding the vendor files to the karma.conf.js files among other things but could not get any tests to pass.
It seemed that when I removed the require: '^stTable' the tests would pass no problem, but with it in, all tests would fail. I couldn't remove this as this would break my code.
So what I finally found was that all I had to do was add st-table to my element in the spec.js file.
So if my element was
var element = angular.element('<my-component></my-component');
I had to make it
var element = angular.element('<my-component st-table></my-component>');
After that, all tests were passing.
I'm trying to setup Karma to test an angular app that I'm building. I've already setup testing around my services and controllers but am finding directives somewhat more complicated to test.
The directive:
angular.module('Directives',[])
.directive('tooltip', function factory(){
return {
link: {
post: function(scope, $element, instanceAttrs, controller){
$element.parent().append('<span class="tooltip-wrapper"><aside class="tooltip-container"></aside></span>');
var $tooltipWrapper = $element.next()
, $tooltip = angular.element($tooltipWrapper.children()[0]);
if(instanceAttrs.icon){
$tooltipWrapper.addClass('help icon standalone');
$element = $tooltipWrapper;
}
if(instanceAttrs.position){
$tooltip.addClass('tooltip-position-' + instanceAttrs.position);
} else {
$tooltip.addClass('tooltip-position-bottom-center');
}
if(instanceAttrs.position === 'right'){
$tooltipWrapper.addClass('tooltip-wrapper-right');
}
if(typeof instanceAttrs.message === 'undefined'){
$tooltip.html(instanceAttrs.$$element[0].childNodes[0].data);
$element.parent().children('tooltip').remove();
}
else {
$tooltip.html(instanceAttrs.message);
}
$tooltip.hide(); // <--- this is where the error gets thrown
$element.on('mouseover', goTooltip);
function goTooltip(){
$tooltip.show();
$element.on('mouseleave', killTooltip);
$element.off('mouseover');
}
function killTooltip(){
$tooltip.hide();
$element.off('mouseleave');
$element.on('mouseover', goTooltip);
}
}
},
scope: false,
replace: false,
restrict:'EA'
};
});
The test:
describe("The tooltip", function(){
var elm
, scope;
beforeEach(module("RPMDirectives"));
beforeEach(inject(function($rootScope, $compile){
elm = angular.element(
'<div>' +
'<a></a>' +
'<tooltip icon="true" position="bottom-center-left">bar</tooltip>' +
'</div>' );
scope = $rootScope;
$compile(elm)(scope);
scope.$digest();
}));
it('should do something', inject(function($compile, $rootScope){
expect(elm.find('aside')).toBe('bar');
}))
});
When I run the test it says that Object [object Object] ($tooltip, indicated by the comment in the directive) has no method hide. The directive works fine when I use it in my browser, and jqlite definitely has a hide method, so I'm at a loss. I'm sure I could get it to work by including jquery in the testing environment, but I'd rather not do that as I'm in the process of removing jquery in favor of Angular in our production app, and proving that scenario here is critical.
Thanks to moral apeman above. It turns out that I was looking at the wrong version of the angular docs and hide is no longer a method of angular.element. Nothing wrong with Jasmine or Karma and testing Angular is still a dream.
This may be a duplicate but I have looked at a lot of other questions here and they usually miss what I am looking for in some way. They mostly talk about a service they created themselves. That I can do and have done. I am trying to override what angular is injecting with my mock. I thought it would be the same but for some reason when I step through the code it is always the angular $cookieStore and not my mock.
I have very limited experience with jasmine and angularjs. I come from a C# background. I usually write unit tests moq (mocking framework for C#). I am use to seeing something like this
[TestClass]
public PageControllerTests
{
private Mock<ICookieStore> mockCookieStore;
private PageController controller;
[TestInitialize]
public void SetUp()
{
mockCookieStore = new Mock<ICookieStore>();
controller = new PageController(mockCookieStore.Object);
}
[TestMethod]
public void GetsCarsFromCookieStore()
{
// Arrange
mockCookieStore.Setup(cs => cs.Get("cars"))
.Return(0);
// Act
controller.SomeMethod();
// Assert
mockCookieStore.VerifyAll();
}
}
I want mock the $cookieStore service which I use in one of my controllers.
app.controller('PageController', ['$scope', '$cookieStore', function($scope, $cookieStore) {
$scope.cars = $cookieStore.get('cars');
if($scope.cars == 0) {
// Do other logic here
.
}
$scope.foo = function() {
.
.
}
}]);
I want to make sure that the $cookieStore.get method is invoked with a 'garage' argument. I also want to be able to control what it gives back. I want it to give back 0 and then my controller must do some other logic.
Here is my test.
describe('Controller: PageController', function () {
var controller,
scope,
cookieStoreSpy;
beforeEach(function () {
cookieStoreSpy = jasmine.createSpyObj('CookieStore', ['get']);
cookieStoreSpy.get.andReturn(function(key) {
switch (key) {
case 'cars':
return 0;
case 'bikes':
return 1;
case 'garage':
return { cars: 0, bikes: 1 };
}
});
module(function($provide) {
$provide.value('$cookieStore', cookieStoreSpy);
});
module('App');
});
beforeEach(inject(function(_$httpBackend_, $rootScope, $controller) {
scope = $rootScope.$new();
controller = $controller;
}));
it('Gets car from cookie', function () {
controller('PageController', { $scope: scope });
expect(cookieStoreSpy.get).toHaveBeenCalledWith('cars');
});
});
This is a solution for the discussion we had in my previous answer.
In my controller I'm using $location.path and $location.search. So to overwrite the $location with my mock I did:
locationMock = jasmine.createSpyObj('location', ['path', 'search']);
locationMock.location = "";
locationMock.path.andCallFake(function(path) {
console.log("### Using location set");
if (typeof path != "undefined") {
console.log("### Setting location: " + path);
this.location = path;
}
return this.location;
});
locationMock.search.andCallFake(function(query) {
console.log("### Using location search mock");
if (typeof query != "undefined") {
console.log("### Setting search location: " + JSON.stringify(query));
this.location = JSON.stringify(query);
}
return this.location;
});
module(function($provide) {
$provide.value('$location', locationMock);
});
I didn't have to inject anything in the $controller. It just worked. Look at the logs:
LOG: '### Using location set'
LOG: '### Setting location: /test'
LOG: '### Using location search mock'
LOG: '### Setting search location: {"limit":"50","q":"ani","tags":[1,2],"category_id":5}'
If you want to check the arguments, spy on the method
// declare the cookieStoreMock globally
var cookieStoreMock;
beforeEach(function() {
cookieStoreMock = {};
cookieStoreMock.get = jasmine.createSpy("cookieStore.get() spy").andCallFake(function(key) {
switch (key) {
case 'cars':
return 0;
case 'bikes':
return 1;
case 'garage':
return {
cars: 0,
bikes: 1
};
}
});
module(function($provide) {
$provide.value('cookieStore', cookieStoreMock);
});
});
And then to test the argument do
expect(searchServiceMock.search).toHaveBeenCalledWith('cars');
Here is an example https://github.com/lucassus/angular-seed/blob/81d820d06e1d00d3bae34b456c0655baa79e51f2/test/unit/controllers/products/index_ctrl_spec.coffee#L3 it's coffeescript code with mocha + sinon.js but the idea is the same.
Basically with the following code snippet you could load a module and substitute its services:
beforeEach(module("myModule", function($provide) {
var stub = xxx; //... create a stub here
$provide.value("myService", stub);
}));
Later in the spec you could inject this stubbed service and do assertions:
it("does something magical", inject(function(myService) {
subject.foo();
expect(myService).toHaveBeenCalledWith("bar");
}));
More details and tips about mocking and testing you could find in this excellent blog post: http://www.yearofmoo.com/2013/09/advanced-testing-and-debugging-in-angularjs.html
Why mock cookieStore when you may use it directly without modification? The code below is a partial unit test for a controller which uses $cookieStore to put and get cookies. If your controller has a method known as "setACookie" that uses $cookieStore.put('cookieName', cookieValue) ... then the test should be able to read the value that was set.
describe('My controller', function() {
var $cookieStore;
describe('MySpecificController', function() {
beforeEach(inject(function(_$httpBackend_, $controller, _$cookieStore_) {
$cookieStore = _$cookieStore_;
// [...] unrelated to cookieStore
}));
it('should be able to reference cookies now', function () {
scope.setACookie();
expect($cookieStore.get('myCookieName')).toBe('setToSomething');
});
});
I need to test my own angular provider, and I need to test it in both config and run phase to check that config methods work and that the instantiated provider is indeed configured with the correct parameters.
When I ask dependancy injection for the provider, it can't find the APIResourceFactoryProvider, only the APIResourceFactory, and I haven't found any examples of this on the repositories I've looked trough so far.
It's actually a lot simpler than it would at first seem to test a provider in AngularJS:
describe('Testing a provider', function() {
var provider;
beforeEach(module('plunker', function( myServiceProvider ) {
provider = myServiceProvider;
}));
it('should return true on method call', inject(function () {
expect( provider.method() ).toBeTruthy();
}));
});
```
The proof is in the Plunker: http://plnkr.co/edit/UkltiSG8sW7ICb9YBZSH
Just in case you'd like to have a minification-proof version of your provider, things become slightly more complicated.
Here is the provider code:
angular
.module('core.services')
.provider('storageService', [function () {
function isLocalStorageEnabled(window) {
return true;
}
this.$get = ['$window', 'chromeStorageService', 'html5StorageService',
function($window, chromeStorageService, html5StorageService) {
return isLocalStorageEnabled($window) ? html5StorageService : chromeStorageService;
}];
}]);
The test case:
describe('Storage.Provider', function() {
var chrome = {engine: 'chrome'};
var html5 = {engine: 'html5'};
var storageService, provider;
beforeEach(module('core.services'));
beforeEach(function () {
module(function (storageServiceProvider) {
provider = storageServiceProvider;
});
});
beforeEach(angular.mock.module(function($provide) {
$provide.value('html5StorageService', html5);
$provide.value('chromeStorageService', chrome);
}));
// the trick is here
beforeEach(inject(function($injector) {
storageService = $injector.invoke(provider.$get);
}));
it('should return Html5 storage service being run in a usual browser', function () {
expect(storageService).toBe(html5);
});
});
In this case $get is an array and you can't just call it as a usual function providing dependencies as arguments. The solution is to use $injector.invoke().
That's strange that most tutorials and samples miss this detail.
here is a little helper that properly encapsulates fetching providers, hence securing isolation between individual tests:
/**
* #description request a provider by name.
* IMPORTANT NOTE:
* 1) this function must be called before any calls to 'inject',
* because it itself calls 'module'.
* 2) the returned function must be called after any calls to 'module',
* because it itself calls 'inject'.
* #param {string} moduleName
* #param {string} providerName
* #returns {function} that returns the requested provider by calling 'inject'
* usage examples:
it('fetches a Provider in a "module" step and an "inject" step',
function() {
// 'module' step, no calls to 'inject' before this
var getProvider =
providerGetter('module.containing.provider', 'RequestedProvider');
// 'inject' step, no calls to 'module' after this
var requestedProvider = getProvider();
// done!
expect(requestedProvider.$get).toBeDefined();
});
*
it('also fetches a Provider in a single step', function() {
var requestedProvider =
providerGetter('module.containing.provider', 'RequestedProvider')();
expect(requestedProvider.$get).toBeDefined();
});
*/
function providerGetter(moduleName, providerName) {
var provider;
module(moduleName,
[providerName, function(Provider) { provider = Provider; }]);
return function() { inject(); return provider; }; // inject calls the above
}
the process of fetching the provider is fully encapsulated: no need for closure variables that compromise isolation between tests.
the process can be split in two steps, a 'module' step and an 'inject' step, which can be appropriately grouped with other calls to 'module' and 'inject' within a unit test.
if splitting is not required, retrieving a provider can simply be done in a single command!