I implement a handler which extends SimpleChannelHandler, and overrides some methods such as channelConnected, messageReceived. However, I am wondering how to unit test it？
I searched about "netty unit test" and found one article which said considering CodecEmbedder, but I am still not sure how to begin. Do you have any example or advice on how to unit test Netty code?
Thanks a lot.
In Netty, there are different ways to test your networking stack.
Testing ChannelHandlers
You can use Netty's EmbeddedChannel to mock a netty connection for testing, an example of this would be:
#Test
public void nettyTest() {
EmbeddedChannel channel = new EmbeddedChannel(new StringDecoder(StandardCharsets.UTF_8));
channel.writeInbound(Unpooled.wrappedBuffer(new byte[]{(byte)0xE2,(byte)0x98,(byte)0xA2}));
String myObject = channel.readInbound();
// Perform checks on your object
assertEquals("☢", myObject);
}
This test above tests for StringDecoder ability to decode unicode correct (example from this bug posted by me)
You can also test the encoder direction using EmbeddedChannel, for this you should use writeOutBound and readInbound.
More Examples:
DelimiterBasedFrameDecoderTest.java:
#Test
public void testIncompleteLinesStrippedDelimiters() {
EmbeddedChannel ch = new EmbeddedChannel(new DelimiterBasedFrameDecoder(8192, true,
Delimiters.lineDelimiter()));
ch.writeInbound(Unpooled.copiedBuffer("Test", Charset.defaultCharset()));
assertNull(ch.readInbound());
ch.writeInbound(Unpooled.copiedBuffer("Line\r\ng\r\n", Charset.defaultCharset()));
assertEquals("TestLine", releaseLater((ByteBuf) ch.readInbound()).toString(Charset.defaultCharset()));
assertEquals("g", releaseLater((ByteBuf) ch.readInbound()).toString(Charset.defaultCharset()));
assertNull(ch.readInbound());
ch.finish();
}
More examples on github.
ByteBuf
To test if you use your bytebufs, you can set a JVM parameter that checks for leaked ByteBuf, for this, you should add -Dio.netty.leakDetectionLevel=PARANOID to the startup parameters, or call the method ResourceLeakDetector.setLevel(PARANOID).
Related
I got off from writing basic unit tests using JUnit for simple methods that adds two numbers. I can verify the result by using the assert* family of function calls. Now I want to unit test a Spring Boot controller.
Here is the example of the unit test class -
public class MyJunitTest {
private MockMvc mockMvc;
#Mock
private MyService service;
#InjectMocks
private MyController controller;
#Before
public void init() {
MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this);
}
#Test
public void unitTestGetAssessmentDetails() {
when(service.getTest(Someobject.class)).thenReturn(customObjectWithValues);
Results results = controller.getCall(someRequestObject);
assertEquals(results, someOtherObjectPrefilledWithValues);
}
}
My question is, if I know the values set in customObjectWithValues, then someOtherObjectPrefilledWithValues is also set by me, then assertEquals will always give a pass to the test, right? It's essentially testing if 1==1 kind of test. So what is the point of doing these unit tests? I know that the service object should not connect to the actual DB, and hence we are mocking it. So what is the point of doing these tests? Am I missing the bigger picture here as to how to view unit tests?
P.S. - Please feel free to remove this question if it violates the rules of this forum.
Your test verifies that getCall returns the expected results;
this is a black box test.
Since you are writing a unit test,
this is only sufficient to "pretend" to perform a unit test.
This technique is common in firms that conflate code quality with
unit test code coverage.
A better technique is to identify the steps that will be taken by the controller class and to verify that each was executed (perhaps in the correct order, as well).
I will assume that MyController.getCall looks something like this:
#Autowired
private MyService myService;
public BlammyReturnValueType getCall(final BlammyRequestType request)
{
final BlammyReturnValueType returnValue;
returnValue = myService.someServiceMethod(request);
return returnValue;
}
In this case,
I would add the following to the unitTestGetAssessmentDetails test method:
... The current stuff including the assert.
Mockito.verify(service, times(1)).someServiceMethod(customObjectWithValues);
This will confirm that the service method was called exactly one time,
which is correct in this example.
Ok so, unit testing is more about testing the logic written in your function/controller/service. Now, your function might be very simple or it might be very complex. For ex, your function might be taking and UserId in request, connect to database, gets the data and return it and since you are mocking the database connection, you might feel like if you are passing the mocked object as database response, you will obviously get the same response, so what's the point of testing. It might seem correct to not test at all in this case. But let me give you another example, say you have a very complex function, which takes some UserId, gets the whole year data of users banking history, cumulates it and calculates the amount user earned for this year. Now, think how complex this function is. Now since you have mocked the DB connection you will pass in some data, a lot of computation goes on inside and gives the user an amount earned as Interest on saving. Now, for a given mocked data, you know the answer should come as some X amount. Now, over the time, someone made a mistake (maybe subtracted something which was needed to be added). Now, when you run the test. This test will fail and you know something is wrong with logic. Not here you are not directly expecting the output to be equal to your mocked data, some computation has been done over the data, so to verify after each change that function logic is correct, you need to write a unit test to verify it. Now if you see here, your are not testing 1==1 but something different. This is why people write unit tests, to check their logic inside a unit of code.
Hope this helps.
Usually we have 3 layers which are Controller, Service, Repository (DAO if you prefer). I usually do not test controllers because I do not put any logic in them, I just define the endpoint and call the service. The service is what I heavily unit test so you would inject the mocks into your service. Then you would mock your Repository so it wouldn't try to connect to a database.
#InjectMocks
private MyService service;
#Mock
private MyRepository myrepo
#Test
public void unitTestGetAssessmentDetails() {
when(myrepo.find(someInt)).thenReturn(customObjectWithValues);
Results results = service.serviceMethod(someRequestObject);
assertEquals(results, someOtherObjectPrefilledWithValues);
}
Since controllers are supposed to have no logic they shouldn't need unit test because as you correctly say it's a 1==1 test. But they would be tested by integration tests
I am trying to test an http server functionality and this is the first time I get exposed to the notions of mocks, stubs and fakes. I'm reading this book that it says mocking is describing the state of a complex object at a certain moment, like a snapshot, and testing the object as it is actually the real one. right? I understand this. what I don't understand is what is the point of writing unit tests and assertions of certain cases that we fully describe in the mock object. If we set the expectations of arguments and return values on the mocking object, and we test for those exact values, the test will always pass. Please correct me. I know I am missing something here.
Mocks, Stubs or anything similar serves as a substitute for the actual implementation.
The idea of mocks is basically to test a piece of code in a isolated environment, substituting the dependencies for a fake implementation. For example, in Java, suppose we want to test the PersonService#save method:
class PersonService {
PersonDAO personDAO;
// Set when the person was created and then save to DB
public void save(Person person) {
person.setCreationDate(new Date());
personDAO.save(person);
}
}
A good aproach is creating a unit test like this:
class PersonServiceTest {
// Class under test
PersonService personService;
// Mock
PersonDAO personDAOMock;
// Mocking the dependencies of personService.
// In this case, we mock the PersonDAO. Doing this
// we don't need the DB to test the code.
// We assume that personDAO will give us an expected result
// for each test.
public void setup() {
personService.setPersonDao(personDAOMock)
}
// This test will guarantee that the creationDate is defined
public void saveShouldDefineTheCreationDate() {
// Given a person
Person person = new Person();
person.setCreationDate(null);
// When the save method is called
personService.save(person);
// Then the creation date should be present
assert person.getCreationDate() != null;
}
}
In another words, you should use mock to substitute dependencies of your code to an "actor" that can be configured to return an expected result or assert some behaviours.
When people say "test only one thing". Does that mean that test one feature at a time or one scenario at a time?
method() {
//setup data
def data = new Data()
//send external webservice call
def success = service.webserviceCall(data)
//persist
if (success) {
data.save()
}
}
Based on the example, do we test by feature of the method:
testA() //test if service.webserviceCall is called properly, so assert if called once with the right parameter
testB() //test if service.webserviceCall succeeds, assert that it should save the data
testC() //test if service.webserviceCall fails, assert that it should not save the data
By scenario:
testA() //test if service.webserviceCall succeeds, so assert if service is called once with the right parameter, and assert that the data should be saved
testB() //test if service.webserviceCall fails, so again assert if service is called once with the right parameter, then assert that it should not save the data
I'm not sure if this is a subjective topic, but I'm trying to do the by feature approach. I got the idea from Roy Osherove's blogs, but I'm not sure if I understood it correct.
It was mentioned there that it would be easier to isolate the errors, but I'm not sure if its overkill. Complex methods will tend to have lots of tests.
(Please excuse my wording on the by feature/scenario, I'm not sure how to word them)
You are right in that this is a subjective topic.
Think about how you want this method to behave, not just on how it's currently implemented. Otherwise your tests will just mirror the production code and will break everytime the implementation changes.
Based on the limited context provided, I'd write the following (separate) tests:
Is the webservice command called with the expected data?
If the command returns successfully, is the data saved? Don't overspecify the arguments provided to your webservice call here, as the previous test covers this.
If it's important that the data is not saved when the command returns a failure, I'd write a third test for this. If it's not important, I wouldn't even bother.
You might have heard the adage "one assert per test". This is good advice in general because a test stops executing as soon as a single assert fails. All asserts further down are not executed. By splitting up the asserts in multiple tests you will receive more feedback when something goes wrong. When tests go red, you know exactly all the asserts that fail and don't have to run through the -fix assertion failure, run tests, fix next assertion failure, repeat- cycle.
So in the terminology you propose, my approach would also be to write a test per feature of the method.
Sidenote: you construct your data object in the method itself and call the save method of that object. How do you sense that the data is saved in your tests?
I understand it like this:
"unit test one thing" == "unit test one behavior"
(After all, it is the behavior that the client wants!)
I would suggest that you approach your testing "one feature at a time". I agree with you where you quoted that with this approach it is "easier to isolate the errors". Roy Osherove really does know what he is talking about especially when it comes to TDD.
In my experience I like to focus on the behaviors that I am trying to test (and I am not particularly referring to BDD here). Essentially I would test each behavior that I am expecting from this code. You said that you are mocking out the dependencies (webservice, and data storage) so I would still class this as a unit test with the following expected behaviors:
a call to this method will result in a particular call to a web service
a successful web service call will result in the data being saved
an unsuccessful web service call will result in the data not being saved
Having tests for these three behaviors will help you isolate any issues with the code immediately.
Your tests should also have no dependency on the actual code written to achieve the behavior. For example, if my implementation called some decorator internal to my class which in turn called the webservice correctly then that should be no concern of my test. My test should only be concerned with the external dependencies and public interface of the class itself.
If I exposed internal methods of my class (or implementation details, such as the decorator mentioned above) for the purposes of testing its particular implementation then I have created brittle tests that will fail when the implementation changes.
In summary, I would recommend that your tests should lock down the behavior of a class and isolate failures to identify the 'unit of behavior' that is failing.
A unit test in general is a test that is done without a call to database or file system or even to that effect doesnot call a webservice either. The idea of a unit test is that if you did not have any internet connection you should be able to unit test. So having said that , if a method calls a webservice or calls a database, then you basically are expected to mock the responses from an external system. You should be testing that unit of work only. As mentioned above by prgmtc on how you should be asserting one assert per method is the way to go.
Second, if you are calling a real webservice or database etc, then consider calling those test as integrated or integration test depending upon what you are trying to test.
In my opinion to get the most out of TDD you want to be doing test first development. Have a look at uncle Bobs 3 Rules of TDD.
If you follow these rules strictly, you end up writing tests that generally only have a single assert statements. In reality you will often find you end up with a number of assert statements that act as a single logical assert as it often helps with the understanding of the unit test itself.
Here is an example
[Test]
public void ValidateBankAccount_GivenInvalidAccountType_ShouldReturnValidationFailure()
{
//---------------Set up test pack-------------------
const string validBankAccount = "99999999999";
const string validBranchCode = "222222";
const string invalidAccountType = "99";
const string invalidAccoutTypeResult = "3";
var bankAccountValidation = Substitute.For<IBankAccountValidation>();
bankAccountValidation.ValidateBankAccount(validBankAccount, validBranchCode, invalidAccountType)
.Returns(invalidAccoutTypeResult);
var service = new BankAccountCheckingService(bankAccountValidation);
//---------------Assert Precondition----------------
//---------------Execute Test ----------------------
var result = service.ValidateBankAccount(validBankAccount, validBranchCode, invalidAccountType);
//---------------Test Result -----------------------
Assert.IsFalse(result.IsValid);
Assert.AreEqual("Invalid account type", result.Message);
}
And the ValidationResult class that is returned from the service
public interface IValidationResult
{
bool IsValid { get; }
string Message { get; }
}
public class ValidationResult : IValidationResult
{
public static IValidationResult Success()
{
return new ValidationResult(true,"");
}
public static IValidationResult Failure(string message)
{
return new ValidationResult(false, message);
}
public ValidationResult(bool isValid, string message)
{
Message = message;
IsValid = isValid;
}
public bool IsValid { get; private set; }
public string Message { get; private set; }
}
Note I would have unit tests the ValidationResult class itself, but in the test above I feel it gives more clarity to include both Asserts.
I know this is a basic question but due to lack of my knowledge I couldn't start writing test for my application. So here I am trying to learn and understand what to test and how to test based on my application scenario.
Class MyController {
MyService service = new MyService();
List<String> myList = service.generateSomeList(keyVal);
model.add("myList", myList);
}
Class MyService {
ThirdPatryService extService = new ThirdPatryService ();
MyDao dao = new MyDao();
public List<String> generateSomeList(Long key) {
List<String> resultList = dao.fetchMyList(key);
extService.processData(resultList); //using 3rd party service to process result. It doesn't return anything.
return formattedList(resultList);
}
private List<String> formattedList(List<String> listToProcess) {
//do some formatting
}
}
Class MyDao {
List<String> fetchMyList(key) {
//Use DB connection to run sql and return result
}
}
I want to do both unit testing and integration testing. So some of my questions are:
Do I have to do unit testing for MyDao? I don't think so since I can test query result by testing service level.
What can be the possible test cases for service level? I can think of test result from db and test formatting function. Any other test that I missed?
While testing generateSomeList() method is that OK to create dummy String list and test it against result? Like code below Am I creating list myself and testing myself. IS this proper/correct way to write test?
#Test
public void generateSomeListTest() {
//Step 1: Create dummy string list e.g. dummyList =["test1", "test2", "test3"]
//Step 2: when(mydao.fetchMyList(anyLong()).thenReturn(dummyList);
//Step 4: result=service.generateSomelist(123L);
//Step 5: assertEquals(result[i], dummyList[i]);
}
I don't think I have to test third party service but I think I have to make sure it is being called. Is this correct? If yes how can I do that with Mockito?
How to make sure thirdparty service has really done the processing of my data. Since its return type is void how can I do test it really done its job e.g like send email
Do I have to write test for controller or I can just write integration test.
I really appreciate if you could answer these question to understand the testing part for the application.
Thanks.
They're not really unit tests, but yes, you should test your DAOs. One of the main points in using DAOs is precisely that they're relatively easy to test (you store some test data in the database, then call a DAO method which executes a query, and check that the method returns what it should return), and that they make the service layer easy to test by mocking the DAOs. You should definitely not use the real DAOs when testing the services. Ue mock DAOs. That willmake the service tests much simpler, and much much faster.
Testing the results from DB is the job of the DAO test. The service test should use a mock DAO that returns hard-coded results, and checks that the service foes what it should do with these hard-coded results (formatting, in this case)
Yes, it's fine.
Usually, it's sufficient to stub the dependencies. Verifying that they have been called is often redundant. In that case, it could be a good idea since the third party service doesn't return anything. But that's a code smell. Why doesn't it return something? See the method verify() in Mockito. It's the very first point in the Mockito documentation: http://docs.mockito.googlecode.com/hg/latest/org/mockito/Mockito.html#1
The third party service is supposed to have been tested separately and thus be reliable. So you're supposed to assume that it does what its documentation says it does. The test for A which uses B is not supposed to test B. Only A. The test of B tests B.
A unit test is usually simpler to write and faster to execute. It's also easier to test corner cases with unit tests. Integration tests should be more coarse-grained.
Just a note: what your code severely lacks as is is dependency injection. That's what will make your code testable. It's very hard to test as is because the controller creates its service, which creates its DAO. Instead, the controller should be injected with the service, and the service should be injected with the DAO. That's what allows injecting a mock DAO in the service to test the service in isolation, and to inject a mock service into the controller to test the controller in isolation.
I am just getting involved in Moq and unit testing, so forgive me if this seems obvious (a quick search through SO didn't show me anything like this).
I have an interface with the following proposed member:
void AddFeed(Feed feed);
That I would like to write a unit test for this functionality. The test class has a Moq Repository declared as follows:
static IFeedRepository MockFeedsRepository(params Feed[] feeds)
{
var mockFeedsRepository = new Moq.Mock<IFeedRepository>();
mockFeedsRepository.Expect(x => x.Feeds).Returns((feeds.AsQueryable));
return mockFeedsRepository.Object;
}
How should the mock repository declaration be modified to include this new desired behavior or should I create a different Moq (and just how would that be done).
My assumption is that after creating the mock, deriving the unit test will be much easier but hints are greatly appreciated.
Many thanks,
KevDog
I'm also assuming that you would use the AddFeed method like this
Feed myNewFeed = new Feed();
feedRepository.Add(myNewFeed);
and that you're not using it like this (which is poor design)
IFeedRepository feedRepository = new FeedRepository();
Feed myNewFeed = new Feed(feedRepository);
...
myNewFeed.Save();
I'm going to guess that you would want to then have a test something like this:
[Test]
public void TheTest()
{
IFeedRepository repository = MockFeedsRepository({feed1, feed2, feed3});
Feed newFeed = new Feed();
repository.Add(newFeed);
Assert.AreEqual(4,repository.Count());
}
If that's the case then the test isn't actually testing anything other than your implementation of a mock in-memory repository. Is that what you really need to be doing?
I'd suggest that what you want to be doing is testing the L2Sql implementation of the repository instead, or testing how classes interact with the IFeedRepository interface.
And if you want to test the usage of the IFeedRepository interface then just do something simple like
[Test]
public void TheTest()
{
IFeedRepository repository = Moq.Mock<IFeedRepository>();
Feed newFeed = new Feed();
repository.Expect(r => r.Add(newFeed)); //no return as it's a void method
//repository.Expect(r => r.Add(newFeed)).Throws(new ApplicationException()); --Test handing of exceptions
//Code to hit the .Add() method
//Assert the Add method was called.
}
For tips on asserting if a method was called, see Using Moq to determine if a method is called
I hope that helps