I have a Groovy test class MsgDispatcherTest extends GroovyTestCase.
Within this class there is the following test case:
#Test
void test_register()
{
def d = MsgDispatcher.instance // MsgDispatcher is a singelton
def cb1Called = 0
def cb1 = { cb1Called++; void }
d.registerCallback("msg1", cb1) // closure cb1 should be registered
}
And the interface of MsgDispatcher.registerCallback looks like this:
void registerCallback(String message, Closure callback)
{
assert callback && message
// ...
}
Now when I run this test case I get the following error message on the call to d.registerCallback("msg1", cb1):
groovy.lang.MissingPropertyException: No such property: msg1 for class: ecs.MsgDispatcherTest
Any ideas what I am missing here?
Ok, I found the problem. There was a bug in my registerCallback() method. The issue was that I have tried to access the callback parameter as map (callback[message]), which of course does not work.
That's ok, I understand why this is a problem. However, why is the Groovy compiler error message so cryptic? It was referring not to that problematic line within registerCallback(), but instead to the line where I call that function.
Related
I'm writing program to test my c++ function but I couldn't use mock function that has to return another object. I don't know how to resolve it.
So if somebody can help me.
Each time, I get this message on my result's tests:
GMOCK WARNING:
Uninteresting mock function call - returning default value.
Function call: getEventFree()
Returns: NULL
Mock function:
class MockXF : iXF
{
public:
MOCK_METHOD(Event *, getEventFree, (), (override));
};
Button function:
class Button
{
public:
init(*iXF theXF){ixf = theXF}
start(){ixf->getEventFree(); //Use the event ...}
private:
iXF* ixf;
};
Tests:
Event event;
MockXF mockxf;
// will create a segmentation fault which break the test
TEST_F(ButtonTest, Start)
{
Button button(&mockxf);
EXPECT_CALL(mockxf, getEventFree()).WillOnce(Return(&event));
button.start(); //This function called mockxf.getEventFree()
}
We are in process of writing Unit test cases using Spock, I am not able to understand the following code snippet in then section varifying the declaration,
then:
1 * service.fraudMigrationOnboardingService.onboard(_) >>
{merchantId -> successCallBack.call(response)}
what is the meaning of the above code.
Because your question is lacking detail, I have to speculate and make an educated guess about your test. :-/
So you have a service with a member or getter fraudMigrationOnboardingService.
fraudMigrationOnboardingService has a method onboard taking a single parameter.
Obviously fraudMigrationOnboardingService is a mock or spy, which is why you can check interactions like 1 * ... on it.
The developer who wrote this test and whom, as it seems, you are too shy to ask about its meaning or who has left your company, wanted something specific to happen when method onboard(_) is called (probably by service) during the test: a call-back method call. Thus she declared the method stub { merchantId -> successCallBack.call(response) } as a replacement for what onboard(_) would normally do in this case. In a spy it would execute the original method, in a mock it would no nothing at all. But obviously that is not the desired behaviour, maybe because the test relies on different behavious later on.
In general, I think a test which is hard to read should be refactored, but anyway, here I am replicating your situation:
package de.scrum_master.stackoverflow
import spock.lang.Specification
class DummyTest extends Specification {
static class Service {
FraudMigrationOnboardingService fraudMigrationOnboardingService
void doSomething(String name) {
println "Doing something"
fraudMigrationOnboardingService.onboard(name)
}
}
static class FraudMigrationOnboardingService {
void onboard(String name) {
println "On-boarding $name"
}
}
static class SuccessCallBack {
void call(int httpResponse) {
println "Callback HTTP response = $httpResponse"
}
}
def "Some service test"() {
given:
def onboardingService = Mock(FraudMigrationOnboardingService)
def service = new Service(fraudMigrationOnboardingService: onboardingService)
def successCallBack = new SuccessCallBack()
def response = 200
when:
service.doSomething("ACME Inc.")
then:
1 * service.fraudMigrationOnboardingService.onboard(_) >>
{ merchantId -> successCallBack.call(response) }
}
}
The console log says:
Doing something
Callback HTTP response = 200
If you would comment out >> { merchantId -> successCallBack.call(response) }, it would only print
Doing something
for a mock and if you also change the Mock(FraudMigrationOnboardingService) into a Spy(FraudMigrationOnboardingService) it would print
Doing something
On-boarding ACME Inc.
Update: Maybe you still don't understand what the closure means, I am not sure. So I will explain it a bit more: As I said, it is just a stub for the onboard(String) method. The method parameter is mapped to merchantId but not used in the stubbed method. Instead the callback is triggered.
I am assigned to add unit test code coverage to a 15 years old legacy project which is not using IoC and 0 unit test. I am not allowed to refactor the code since it works perfect fine on production, management does not want other teams get involved for refactoring such as QA testing, etc.
Service class has a performService method has following code
public void performService(requestMessage, responseMessage) {
UserAccount userAccount = requestMessage.getUserAccount();
GroupAccount groupAccount = requestMessage.getGroupAccount();
Type type = requestMessage.getType();
StaticServiceCall.enroll(userAccount, groupAccount, type);
response.setStatus(Status.SUCCESS);
}
This StaticServiceCall.enroll method is calling remote service. My unit test is
#RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
#PrepareForTest(StaticServiceCall.class)
public class EnrollmentServiceTest {
#Test
public void testPerformService() {
mockStatic(StaticServiceCall.class);
doNothing().when(StaticServiceCall.enroll(any(UserAccount.class), any(GroupAccount.class), any(Type.class)));
service.performService(requestMessage, responseMessage);
assertEquals("Enrollment should be success, but not", Status.SUCCESS, response.getStatus);
}
Eclipse complains with The method when(T) in the type Stubber is not applicable for the arguments (void)
Eclipse stops complain if test code change to
mockStatic(StaticServiceCall.class);
doNothing().when(StaticServiceCall.class);
StaticServiceCall.enroll(any(UserAccount.class), any(GroupAccount.class), any(Type.class));
service.performService(requestMessage, responseMessage);
assertEquals("Enrollment should be success, but not", Status.SUCCESS, response.getStatus);
Test case failed with UnfinishedStubbingException. I am using powermock 1.6.6
There is a misconception on your end. You think that you need to say that doNothing() should do nothing.
That is not necessary! As these lines
#PrepareForTest(StaticServiceCall.class) ... and
mockStatic(StaticServiceCall.class);
are sufficient already.
You want to prevent the "real" content of that static method to run when the method is invoked during your test. And that is what mockStatic() is doing.
In other words: as soon as you use mockStatic() the complete implementation of the real class is wiped. You only need to use when/then/doReturn/doThrow in case you want to happen something else than nothing.
Meaning: just remove that whole doNothing() line!
#GhostCat - Thank you for your answer, it solved problem, my misconception is coming from this test case
#Test
public void testEnrollmentServiceSuccess() {
RequestMessage requestMessage = new RequestMessage();
requestMessage.setName("ENROLL");
ResponseMessage responseMessage = new ResponseMessage();
EnrollmentService mockService = mock(EnrollmentService.class);
mockService.performService(any(RequestMessage.class), any(ResponseMessage.class));
mockStatic(ClientManager.class);
when(ClientManager.isAuthenticated()).thenReturn(true);
ServiceImpl service = new ServiceImpl();
service.performService(requestMessage, responseMessage);
verify(mockService).performService(any(RequestMessage.class), any(ResponseMessage.class));
}
Here is the code snippet of ServiceImpl class based name of the request message calling different service class
public void performService(RequestMessage request, ResponseMessage response) {
try {
if (request == null) {
throw new InvalidRequestFormatException("null message");
}
if (!ClientManager.isAuthenticated()) {
throw new ServiceFailureException("not authenticated");
}
// main switch for known services
if ("ENROLL".equals(request.getName())) {
service = new EnrollmentService();
service.performService(request, response);
} else if ("VALIDATE".equals(request.getName())) {
...
Although the test passed,real implementation in EnrollmentService got called and exceptions thrown due to barebone RequestMessage object, then I googled out doNothing, thanks again for your clarification
I have problem unit testing method inside closure called by call_user_func() example :
public function trans($lang, $callback)
{
$this->sitepress->switch_lang($lang);
call_user_func($callback);
}
on controller :
public function sendMail()
{
$foo = $baz = 'something';
$mail = $this->mailer;
$this->helper->trans_c('en', function() use($foo, $baz, $mail) {
$mail->send('Subject', $foo, $baz);
});
}
test case :
public function testSomething()
{
$helperMock = Mockery::mock('Acme\Helper');
$helperMock->shouldReceive('trans_c')->once(); // passed
$mailMock = Mockery::mock('Acme\Mail');
$mailMock->shouldReceive('send')->once(); // got should be called 1 times instead 0
$act = new SendMailController($helperMock, $mailMock);
$act->sendMail();
}
how can I ensure that ->send() method is called inside closure trans_c()
I tried with
$helperMock->shouldReceive('trans_c')->with('en', function() use($mailMock) {
$mailMock->shouldReceive('send');
});
no luck. :(
well it works fine with passing Mockery::type('Closure') in the second param of trans_c, but I really need to ensure that method send from mailer class is called.
A mocked class does not execute the real code by default. If you mock the helper it will check that the calls are being made but won't execute the anonymous function.
With mockery, you can configure the expectation so that the real method will be executed: passthru();
Try this:
$helperMock = Mockery::mock('Acme\Helper');
$helperMock
->shouldReceive('trans_c')
->once()
->passthru()
;
This is explained in the docs.
EDIT
Maybe you don't really need to mock the helper. If you mock the Mail class and expect the send method to be called once, just let the real helper do it.
Im testing with PHPUnit and my test fails on a function. But i don't know why.
The function i want to mock:
public function subscribe($email)
{
$message = new SubscribeMessage();
$message->setEmailaddress($email);
$message->setLocale(Locale::getDefault());
$this->getAmqpProducer()->publish($message, 'newsletter-subscribe');
return true;
}
and my Unit test:
public function testSubscribeSendsAmqpMessage()
{
$email = 'email#email.nl';
$locale = 'nl';
$this->amqpProducerMock
->shouldReceive('publish')
->once()
->with(
\Mockery::on(
function ($message, $routingkey) use (&$publishedMessage) {
$publishedMessage = $message;
return $routingkey == 'newsletter-subscribe';
}
)
);
$this->service->subscribe($email, $locale);
}
but the test says:
Mockery\Exception\NoMatchingExpectationException : No matching handler found for AcsiRabbitMq\Producer\Producer::publish(AcsiNewsletter\RabbitMq\Message\SubscribeMessage, "newsletter-subscribe"). Either the method was unexpected or its arguments matched no expected argument list for this method
How can i fix my Unit test? Or how can i refactor my test?
You Mock the subscribe, not the internal publish. When you run the test and call ->subscribe, it will attempt to execute the code in the class. Therefore, it will try to run the subscribe() method, which you appear to have a strange reference to your Mock.
Normally, your test will mock the subscribe, so you can return a value for the assert test, which is hard coded.
You appear to have tried to mock the GetAmqpProducer() object that is in your regular code. You need to either be able to pass the mock object to be used into your class, or to be able to assign it.
Simplified Example:
class Email
{
private $MsgObject;
// Constructor Injection
public __construct(SubscribeMessage $MessageObject)
{
$this->MsgObject = $MessageObject;
...
}
// Setter Injection
public function SetSubscribeMessage(Subscribe $MessageObject)
{
$this->MsgObject = $MessageObject;
}
public function setEmailaddress($email)
{
$this->MsgObject->emailAddress = $email;
...
}
public function setLocale($Locale)
{
$this->MsgObject->Locale = $Locale;
...
}
...
}
Your class sample above has too many internal objects and dependencies to be tested as such, since the test will actually call these. You would use Dependency Injection to pass the objects with known state, and have them return properly.
Please note, I am not showing how to do this in Mockery, as I do not use it, but this simple example should help you understand what I am trying to express.
So a simple test might look like:
public function testSubscribeMessage()
{
$email = 'email#email.nl';
$this->Mock(
->shouldReceive('setEmailAddress')
->once()
->will_return($email)
);
$SubscribeMessage = new SubscribeMessage($this->Mock);
$SetEmail = $SubscribeMessage->setEmailAddress($email);
$this->assertEquals($email, $SetEmail);
}