Is it possible to add a class constant to a mock using PHPUnit?
Here an example:
class SomeTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase {
public function setUp() {
$mock = $this->getMock( 'SomeClass' );
// Here I'd like to add a constant to $mock; something like
// $mock::FOOBAR;
}
}
Does any of you know how can I get this behavious to work?
Thx!
This question has been around a while with no answers, but I ran into this same problem. This does not appear to be possible; however, there's at least one dirty work-around:
In your test file
<?php
class SomeClass {
const FOOBAR = 'foobar';
}
class SomeTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase {
public function setUp() {
$mock = $this->getMock( 'SomeClass' );
}
}
// tests
?>
Then, you use your mocked object for mocked functionality, and you use the class constant the same way you would have originally. For example:
// Call a method on mocked object
// (would need to add this method to your mock, of course)
$mock->doSomething();
// Use the constant
$fooBar = SomeClass::FOOBAR;
This is dirty, so I'm sure things could get pretty messed up if you're using some sort of autoloading that tries to load the actual SomeClass class, but this will work "fine" if you're not loading the original SomeClass.
I'm definitely interested to hear other solutions as well as get some feedback on just how dirty this really is.
Related
Imagine I have the following class.
class SomeClass {
public function shortcutMethod($arg1) {
return $this->method($arg1, 'something');
}
public function method($arg1, $arg2) {
// some stuff
}
}
So the shortcutMethod is a shortcut to the other method. Let us say I want to write a test that given and $arg1 the shortcutMethod will correctly call method with the correct arguments.
So far I think I figured I need to mock the class to expect a call to method with some arguments and then call shortcutMethod on the mock object like so (note I am using Mockery).
$mock = m::mock("SomeClass");
$mock = $mock->shouldReceive('method')->times(1)->withArgs([
'foo',
'something'
]);
$mock->shortcutMethod('foo');
This results in an exception like so shortcutMethod() does not exist on this mock object.
Did I misunderstand the usage for mocking? I understand it makes more sense for objects that are dependency injected into the class, but what in this scenario? How would you go about it? And perhabs more importantly, is this sort of testing useless, and if so, why?
You should use mocking to mock out the dependencies of the class under test, not the class under test itself. After all, you are trying to test the real behavior of your class.
Your example is a little basic. How you would test such a class would depend on what your method function does. If it returns a value that is in turn returned by shortCutMethod then I would say that your should just be asserting the output of shortCutMethod. Any dependencies within the method function should be mocked (methods belonging to other classes). I'm not that familiar with mockery, but I've given a tweaked version of your example a go.
class SomeClass {
private $dependency;
public function __construct($mockedObject) {
$this->dependency = $mockedObject;
}
public function shortcutMethod($arg1) {
return $this->method($arg1, 'something');
}
public function method($arg1, $arg2) {
return $this->dependency->mockedMethod($arg1, $arg2);
}
}
$mock = m::mock("mockedClass");
$mock->shouldReceive('mockedMethod')->times(1)->withArgs([
'foo',
'something'
])->andReturn('returnedValue');
$testCase = new SomeClass($mock);
$this->assertEquals(
'returnedValue',
$testCase->shortcutMethod('foo')
);
Having said that, it is possible to partially mock your class under test so that you can test the real behavior of the shortCutMethod function but mock out the method function to assert that it is called with the expected arguments. Have a look at partial mocks.
http://docs.mockery.io/en/latest/reference/partial_mocks.html
PHPUnit has setup and tearDown events that run, respectively, before and after each test within a test case. In my specific scenario, I also want to run something like a testCaseSetup and testCaseTearDown. Is that possible?
Current solution looks like this:
<?php
class MyTestCase extends \PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase
{
public function __construct($name = NULL, array $data = array(), $dataName = '')
{
// My test case setup logic
parent::__construct($name, $data, $dataName);
}
public function __destruct()
{
// My test case tear down logic
}
}
But it seems far from optimal for the following reasons:
I have to redeclare PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase construct and redirect any arguments. IF PHPUnit constructor is changed on a version update, my test case will stop.
Probably PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase was not declared to be used like this.
I would like to know if there are better solutions. Any ideas?
Yes, there are special methods for that purpose: setUpBeforeClass and tearDownAfterClass.
class TemplateMethodsTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase
{
public static function setUpBeforeClass()
{
// do sth before the first test
}
public static function tearDownAfterClass()
{
// do sth after the last test
}
I'm following the accepted answer in this question but I'm getting a NullReferenceException.
What I need is having a partial mock stub a property (both getter and setter) to behave like a stub (as a simple automatic property). Currently I am able to stub the getter but not the setter.
Is this possible?
EDIT: this is a simple example, I hope it helps explaining my problem.
public class SomeClass
{
public virtual string SomeProperty
{
get{ return SomeMethodDependingOnDBOrAspSession(); }
set{ SomeMethodDependingOnDBOrAspSession(value); } // I want to avoid calling this setter implementation
}
}
var partialMock = MockRepository.GeneratePartialMock<SomeClass>();
partialMock.Stub(p => p.SomeProperty); // I want SomeProperty to behave as an automatic property
When using a PartialMock you can get auto-implemented property like behavior by using PropertyBehavior feature of Rhino Mocks. Given the class in your question, the following nunit test passes for me.
[Test]
public void TestPartialMock()
{
var someClass = MockRepository.GeneratePartialMock<SomeClass>();
someClass.Stub(x => x.SomeProperty).PropertyBehavior();
string val = "yo!";
Assert.DoesNotThrow(() => someClass.SomeProperty = val);
Assert.AreEqual(val, someClass.SomeProperty);
}
If you don't need a PartialMock you could use a Stub which has property behavior by default. You'd simply replace the first two lines of the test with:
var someClass = MockRepository.GenerateStub<SomeClass>();
Hi I'm new to Mocking.
I have a class:
public class Car
{
public virtual void Register() {
...
Warrant();
}
public virtual void Warrant() {
...
}
}
I was wanting to test that Register calls Warrant. Using RhinoMocks I came up with:
[Test]
public void RhinoCarTest() {
var mocks = new Rhino.Mocks.MockRepository();
var car = mocks.PartialMock<Car>();
mocks.ReplayAll();
car.Stub(x => x.Warrant());
car.Register();
car.AssertWasCalled(x => x.Warrant());
}
I'm not even sure if this is correct but it seemed to do the job. I was wanting to do the same thing in Moq. I couldn't seem to find a partial Moq.
What I came up with was:
[Test]
public void MoqCarTest() {
var car = new Mock<Car>();
car.Setup(x => x.Warrant());
car.Object.Register();
car.Verify(x => x.Warrant());
}
This doesn't even work though. Can someone point me in the right direction?
Partial classes in Rhino.Mocks will call the base class methods unless you set up a Mock and/or stub. By default, Moq will only call base class methods if you create the mock to specifically do that. Here's an example that will work for your example:
var car = new Mock<Car> {CallBase = true};
car.Object.Register();
car.Verify(c => c.Warrant(), Times.Once());
However, I would try and avoid this approach (verifying that a specific method was called). Instead, your test should simply ensure that the correct "work" was done after calling the method. How that work gets done is a private implementation of the method.
If you write tests that ensure certain methods are called, your tests can become more brittle over time -- especially as you refactor for performance or other issues.
Here is my situation:
I want to test on the "HasSomething()" function, which is in the following class:
public class Something
{
private object _thing;
public virtual bool HasSomething()
{
if (HasSomething(_thing))
return true;
return false;
}
public virtual bool HasSomething(object thing)
{
....some algo here to check on the object...
return true;
}
}
So, i write my test to be like this:
public void HasSomethingTest1()
{
MockRepository mocks = new MockRepository();
Something target = mocks.DynamicMock(typeof(Something)) as Something;
Expect.Call(target.HasSomething(new Object())).IgnoreArguments().Return(true);
bool expected = true;
bool actual;
actual = target.HasSomething();
Assert.AreEqual(expected, actual);
}
Is my test written correctly?
Please help me as i can't even get the result as expected. the "HasSomething(object)" just can't be mock in that way. it did not return me 'true' as being set in expectation.
Thanks.
In response to OP's 'answer': Your main problem is that RhinoMocks does not mock members of classes - instead it creates mock classes and we can then set expectations and canned responses for its members (i.e. Properties and Functions). If you attempt to test a member function of a mock/stub class, you run the risk of testing the mocking framework rather than your implementation.
For the particular scenario of the logical path being dependent on the return value of a local (usually private) function, you really need an external dependency (another object) which would affect the return value that you require from that local function. For your code snippet above, I would write the test as follows:
[Test]
public void TestHasSomething()
{
// here I am assuming that _thing is being injected in via the constructor
// you could also do it via a property setter or a function
var sut = new Something(new object());
Assert.IsTrue(sut.HasSomething);
}
i.e. no mocking required.
This is one point of misunderstanding that I often had in the past with regards to mocking; we mock the behaviour of a dependency of the system under test (SUT). Something like: the SUT calls several methods of the dependency and the mocking process provides canned responses (rather than going to the database, etc) to guide the way the logic flows.
A simple example would be as follows (note that I have used RhinoMocks AAA syntax for this test. As an aside, I notice that the syntax that you are using in your code sample is using the Record-Replay paradigm, except that it isn't using Record and Replay! That would probably cause problems as well):
public class SUT
{
Dependency _depend
public SUT (Dependency depend)
{
_depend = depend;
}
...
public int MethodUnderTest()
{
if (_depend.IsReady)
return 1;
else
return -1;
}
}
...
[Test]
public void TestSUT_MethodUnderTest()
{
var dependency = MockRepository.GenerateMock<Dependency>();
dependency.Stub(d => d.IsReady).Return(true);
var sut = new SUT(dependency);
Assert.AreEqual(1, sut.MethodUnderTest());
}
And so the problem that you have is that you are attempting to test the behaviour of a mocked object. Which means that you aren't actually testing your class at all!
In a case like this, your test double should be a derived version of class Something. Then you override the method HasSomething(object) and ensure that HasSomething() calls your one.
If I understand correctly, you are actually interested in testing the method HasDynamicFlow (not depicted in your example above) without concerning yourself with the algorithm for HasSomething.
Preet is right in that you could simply subclass Something and override the behavior of HasSomething to short-circuit the algorithm, but that would require creating some additional test-dummy code which Rhino is efficient at eliminating.
Consider using a Partial Mock Stub instead of a Dynamic Mock. A stub is less strict and is ideal for working with Properties. Methods however require some extra effort.
[Test]
public void CanStubMethod()
{
Foo foo = MockRepository.GenerateStub<Foo>();
foo.Expect(f => f.HasDynamicFlow()).CallOriginalMethod(OriginalCallOptions.NoExpectation);
foo.Expect(f => f.HasSomething()).CallOriginalMethod(OriginalCallOptions.NoExpectation);
foo.Expect(f => f.HasSomething(null)).IgnoreArguments().Return(true);
Assert.IsTrue(foo.HasDynamicFlow());
}
EDIT: added code example and switched Partial Mock to Stub