These are my first steps in testing in general so I don't know how to deal with it.
On production I use REST adapter - Fixtures while developing.
For example having this User model:
Sks.User = DS.Model.extend
name: DS.attr("string")
email: DS.attr("string")
gravatar: Ember.computed(->
email = #get("email") || ""
"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/" + MD5(email)
).property("email")
firstName: Ember.computed(->
fName = #get('name').split(' ')[0]
).property("name")
lastName: Ember.computed(->
lName = #get('name').split(' ')[1]
).property("name")
how can I test it using TDD/BDD with Jasmine? I suppose that I should test the logic: first name, last name and gravatar but how can I translate it into Jasmine? I've read a lot about testing recently but theory you know is different than practice and I just hit the wall. :(
Should I simulate server to get a JSON or should I use fixtures?
I think for unit testing the models, you shouldn't deal with server (or even simulating the server) at all -- that is left up to the adapter. The unit tests for models would be for things like the computed properties (gravatar, firstname, lastname in this case) and other logic (life cycle callbacks, actions, etc). You can test those fairly straightforward -- they're mostly isolated from the server. Something like this:
describe "gravatar property", ->
it "should append the md5 of the email to the gravatar path", ->
user = Sks.User.createRecord name: "my name", email: "abc#def.com"
expect(user.get('gravatar')).toBe "http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/#{MD5(user.get('email')}"
If you're using Ember-Data's RESTAdapter, you can assume that it's well tested (though you might want to write higher level integration tests to show that your models are getting loaded correctly with adapter data). If you're writing your own adapter, you should have a separate unit test for that.
What parts of the application to load
For unit tests, you really only need to load the main namespace (e.g. Sks = Ember.Application.create(...)) and the model definition (e.g. Sks.User = DS.Model.extend(...)) and its dependencies. Everything else can be stubbed by passing in mocks / stubs when you're creating your model (see: What is dependency injection?)
I've had some issues before with Ember's router autoloading in the test environment; you might want to disable the router (although this is only a problem if you're loading everything for your test -- I'm using jasminerice so all the javascript assets are compiled by the Rails server and the tests run in the browser) -- I think in the new Router you can use deferReadiness: http://emberjs.com/api/classes/Ember.Application.html#method_deferReadiness. Previously I was setting autoinit: false.
Related
I was brought in on the "back-end" of a project and asked to help write tests for an app. I am very new to Ember and need just a little help getting started. We are trying to provide unit test for the routes, so we can have a bit more molecular scope over the app, instead of acceptance test. I have looked at some tutorials and went through every possible scenario that I could think of. I just need a bit of jumpstart.
Here is the part of the route.js for this route.
down stream of this parent route, we have another nested route that shows a list of contacts and when a user clicks on a show button it calls "model" and returns that variable "rec" for the template and the url
export default Route.extend(ScrollTo, {
flashMessages: service(),
model: function(params) {
let rec= this.store.peekRecord('contact', params.contact_id);
return rec;
},
actions: {
saveContact: function() {
let model = this.currentRouteModel();
model
.save()
.then(() => {
//this.refresh();
//this.setModelHash();
this.flashMessages
.success(`Saved Contact: ${model.get('title')}`);
//this.transitionTo('contacts');
});
}
Here is pre-generated code for the test. I really haven't made any modifications, because I really didn't know where to start.
This app doesn't have a back-end, it's design is to take in information and provide a iso file based on whatever standard the user wants.
I am sure I need to provide some mock data for the test and send that to the method, but again I am not sure what Qunit parts I use.
import { module, test } from 'qunit';
import { setupTest } from 'ember-qunit';
module('Unit | Route | contact/show', function(hooks) {
setupTest(hooks)
test('it exists', function(assert) {
var route = this.owner.lookup('route:contact/show');
assert.ok(route, 'contact.show route works');
});
});
I struggled with this as well when I first moved to frontend testing. With a few years experience I'm confident in saying you shouldn't unit test the route objects in this way. Instead the testing of an ember app should focus on two types of tests.
What ember calls integration tests (but are actually closer to UI unit tests)
Acceptance tests
Integration tests on components allow you to get into the smaller details and edge cases and they can be super valuable.
What I think you want in this case is actually an acceptance test.
If your testing experience is at all like mine it will feel like you're testing too many things at first, but these types of tests where the browser actually loads the entire application have the most value in hunting down bugs and are the most maintainable over time.
I have been trying to configure offline unit tests for polymer web components that use the latest release of Firebase distributed database. Some of my tests are passing, but others—that look nigh identical to passing ones—are not running properly.
I have set up a project on github that demonstrates my configuration, and I'll provide some more commentary below.
Sample:
https://github.com/doctor-g/wct-firebase-demo
In that project, there are two suites of tests that work fine. The simplest is offline-test, which doesn't use web components at all. It simply shows that it's possible to use the firebase database's offline mode to run some unit tests. The heart of this trick is the in the suiteSetup method shown below—a trick I picked up from nfarina's work on firebase-server.
suiteSetup(function() {
app = firebase.initializeApp({
apiKey: 'fake',
authDomain: 'fake',
databaseURL: 'https://fakeserver.firebaseio.com',
storageBucket: 'fake'
});
db = app.database();
db.goOffline();
});
All the tests in offline-test pass.
The next suite is wct-firebase-demo-app_test.html, which test the eponymous web component. This suite contains a series of unit tests that are set up like offline-test and that pass. Following the idea of dependency injection, the wct-firebase-demo-app component has a database attribute into which is passed the firebase database reference, and this is used to make all the firebase calls. Here's an example from the suite:
test('offline set string from web component attribute', function(done) {
element.database = db;
element.database.ref('foo').set('bar');
element.database.ref('foo').once('value', function(snapshot) {
assert.equal(snapshot.val(), 'bar');
done();
});
});
I have some very simple methods in the component as well, in my attempt to triangulate toward the broken pieces I'll talk about in a moment. Suffice it to say that this test passes:
test('offline push string from web component function', function(done) {
element.database = db;
let resultRef = element.pushIt('foo', 'bar');
element.database.ref('foo').once('value', function(snapshot) {
assert.equal(snapshot.val()[resultRef.key], 'bar');
done();
});
});
and is backed by this implementation in wct-firebase-demo-app:
pushIt: function(at, value) {
return this.database.ref(at).push(value);
},
Once again, these all pass. Now we get to the real quandary. There's a suite of tests for another element, x-element, which has a method pushData:
pushData: function(at, data) {
this.database.ref(at).push(data);
}
The test for this method is the only test in its suite:
test('pushData has an effect', function(done) {
element.database = db;
element.pushData('foo', 'xyz');
db.ref('foo').once('value', function(snapshot) {
expect(snapshot.val()).not.to.be.empty;
done();
});
});
This test does not pass. While this test is running, the console comes up with an error message:
Your API key is invalid, please check you have copied it correctly.
By setting some breakpoints and walking through the execution, it seems to me that this error comes up after the call to once but before the callback is triggered. Note, again, this doesn't happen with the same test structure described above that's in wct-firebase-demo-app.
That's where I'm stuck. Why do offline-test and wct-firebase-demo-app_test suites work fine, but I get this API key error in x-element_test? The only other clue I have is that if I copy in a valid API key into my initializeApp configuration, then I get a test timeout instead.
UPDATE:
Here is a (patched-together) image of my console log when running the tests.:
To illustrate the issue brought up by tony19 below, here's the console log with just pushData has an effect in x-element_test commented out:
The offline-test results are apparently false positives. If you check the Chrome console, offline-test actually throws the same error:
The error doesn't affect the test results most likely because the API key validation occurs asynchronously after the test has already completed. If you could somehow hook into that validation, you'd be able to to catch the error in your tests.
Commenting out all tests except for offline firebase is ok shows the error still occurring, which points to suiteSetup(). Narrowing the problem down further by commenting 2 of the 3 function calls in the setup, we'll see the error is caused by the call to firebase.initializeApp() (and not necessarily related to once() as you had suspected).
One workaround to consider is wrapping the Firebase library in a class/interface, and mocking that for unit tests.
Given Ember reached 1.0.0 recently, I wanted to start using it with tests. I'm using Yeoman 1.0 with Karma. I want to unit test models but I'm finding it very difficult to accomplish isolation.
The example I have now is:
describe("Expense", function() {
return it("has a computed property called `explained`", function() {
var expense = App.Expense.create({
name: "My first expense",
value: 34
});
return expect(expense.get("explained")).to.equal("My first expense -- 34");
});
});
As of 1.0.0, I get the following error:
Error: You should not call `create` on a model. Instead, call
`store.createRecord` with the attributes you would like to set.
How should I access store in order to create a model instance? More ideally, how can I simply spawn models like this without even resorting to the store, is that viable? There's no point in spawning an entire app just to test a model, IMO.
Thank you.
Here is the minimum code that I've used so far for unit testing models.
var container, store, expense;
container = new Ember.Container();
container.register('store:main', DS.Store.extend());
container.register('model:expense', App.Expense);
store = container.lookup('store:main');
Ember.run( function() {
expense = store.createRecord('expense', {
name: "My first expense",
value: 34
});
});
Based on the code of the store and the way models are tested inside Ember Data, I don't think that you can reduce the setup of the test.
According to #sly7_7's commentary, looking for the store inside the app via App.__container__.lookup('store:main') works.
You should use this.get('store').createRecord('expense')
It looks like you're using Ember-Data 1.0.0 beta, which changed the way things work. You should take a look at the migration.md file in the ember-data project.
(Sorry I should have read your question a bit better - I'm having the same issue at the moment and the suggested container solution doesn't work for me - causing browsers to crash) :(
I'm about to delve into test in the PHP world and I have some questions. I have a controller which handles a loan application. The bulk of the work is then delegated to a ProcessLoanApplication class.
ApplyController
class ApplyController extends Controller
{
public function indexAction(Request $request)
{
$form = $this->createForm(new LoanApplication());
if($request->getMethod() == 'POST') {
$form->bind($request);
if($form->isValid()) {
$session = $this->getRequest()->getSession();
$loan_app_processor = new Tasks\ProcessLoanApplication($form, $session);
$loan_app_processor->process();
return $this->redirect($this->generateUrl('apply_thanks'));
}
}
Tasks\ProcessLoanApplication
class ProcessLoanApplication
{
private $_QuickBaseModels;
private $_session;
private $_app; // submitted form data
private $_existingApp = false; // holds existing application in QB, if it exists
public function __construct(Form $form, Session $session)
{
$this->_app = $form->getNormData();
$this->_session = $session;
// save the form data to a session
$session->set('application', $this->_app);
// create the quickbase table models objects
$this->_QuickBaseModels['GenFnHome\Application'] = new GenFnHome\Application();
$this->_QuickBaseModels['GenFnHome\SSN'] = new GenFnHome\SSN();
}
public function process()
{
$this->_existingApp = $this->_getExistingApplication();
$app_status = $this->_existingApp[GenFnHome\SSN::LogInApplicationStatus];
if(!$this->_existingApp || ($this->_existingApp && ($app_status !== 'PENDING' && $app_status !== 'OPEN' && $app_status !== 'EXPIRED')))
return $this->_saveNewLoanApplication();
if($app_status == 'EXPIRED') $this->_reOpenApplication();
}
There's a lot going on here, so I will outline it first:
User makes a requests for the application
Application form is validated
If valid, process loan application
Check if the user already has an app, if so - do X, if not Y
The application is persisted in an 'online database' (QuickBase) that my application communicates with via XML over HTTP (in other words, there is no real db)
My questions to the community:
What should be tested here? I know it is largely up to me, but perhaps the community can recommend some baseline tests that should def be written. Should I be testing the controller, the processor class, and the QuickBase class?
Should my tests be independent of one another - meaning, I should test each component individually, rather than have one massive testApplication that does everything the indexAction does and just looks for the expected sessions vars that get set?
Finally, how does one test API calls (request / response) without actually making real request (I'm using PHPUnit).
Anything else I should know?
Thanks!
What should be tested here? I know it is largely up to me, but perhaps the community can recommend some baseline tests that should def be written. Should I be testing the controller, the processor class, and the QuickBase class?
I recommend to test every class you build. If you are using Test Driven Development, the test declares what you are building, no test no code.
Should my tests be independent of one another - meaning, I should test each component individually, rather than have one massive testApplication that does everything the indexAction does and just looks for the expected sessions vars that get set?
Every Unit test should be isolated and should only test the Class that you are testing. You should use Mock object (use the PHPunit mock library or other 3th party libraries as Mockery) if one object dependences on another object.
Finally, how does one test API calls (request / response) without actually making real request (I'm using PHPUnit).
You can use the Symfony's WebTestCase that provides easy methods to imitate a browser request, learn more about that in the documentation. We call that Functional Testing.
This is usually the stage after Unit Testing. In Unit Testing you will test each individual class (it's a good practice to unit test your controller) and after that you write your Functional Tests which combines everything and tests if it works like expected.
for Controllers you should use functional tests (http://symfony.com/doc/2.0/book/testing.html#functional-tests). With them you can emulate browser and user's actions like submiting form and checking validation, database changes, http status codes and so on.
You should not forget to unit test ProcessLoanApplication.
I dont realy know why you pass form object to ProcessLoanApplication anyway. You should pass entity - it has normdata already.
I've not seen anything in this area I would recommend to a client. If you've used Spring PortletMVC, how did you test it?
It's easy to test under the level of portlet code, and relatively easy to test on the client side through HtmlUnit, Selenium and the like, but I haven't seen anything that is a "Gray Box" test in the spirit of JSFUnit (which looks to me to be the way forward).
Apache's Pluto driver could theoretically be used to bootstrap a test harness. Has anyone tried this?
Any stub or data provider approaches?
Any approach to address two-phase processing concerns?
I don't know anything about portlets but here it goes.
There's portletUnit.
portletUnit is a testing framework
used to test JSR-168 portlets outside
portlet container just as servletUnit
is used to test servlets outside a
servlet container. The projected is
architected to map the functionally of
servletUnit onto portlets with
servletUnit itself providing the
foundation for portletUnit.
Some more related info could be found on his Project PortletUnit blog, including PortletUnit and Spring Portlet: Checking form validation errors.
When testing with portletUnit, it is
not obvious how to check if there were
any form errors. Fortunately, using
the render listener feature of
PortletRunner, there is a simple way
to check for validator errors.
There's also a blog article written by Nils-Helge Garli Hegvik in 2007 titled Testing Portlets with Jetty, Pluto and JWebUnit.
Remembering an excellent article from
Johannes Brodwall's blog about
integration testing with Jetty and
JWebUnit, I wanted to extend his
approach to use the embedded
jetty-pluto setup I have created. This
turned out to be to be quite easy.
Finally, Spring Framework documentation 10.2 Unit testing.
The
org.springframework.mock.web.portlet
package contains a set of Portlet API
mock objects, targeted at usage with
Spring's Portlet MVC framework.
[...] The org.springframework.test.web
package contains ModelAndViewAssert,
which can be used in combination with
any testing framework (e.g., JUnit 4+,
TestNG, etc.) for unit tests dealing
with Spring MVC ModelAndView objects.
[...] To test your Spring MVC Controllers, use
ModelAndViewAssert combined with
MockHttpServletRequest,
MockHttpSession, etc. from the
org.springframework.mock.web package.
Here's a related article written by John Ferguson Smart titled
Unit testing your Spring-MVC applications.
One of the great things about this
framework is how testable it is. In
Spring-MVC, any custom validators (for
field and form validation) and
property editors (for converting text
fields to specific Java types) are
dead-easy to test - you can just test
them as if they where isolated POJOs.
Spring-MVC also comes with a full set
of mock objects that you can use (with
a bit of practice) to test your
controllers to your heart's content.
For example, you can use classes like
MockHttpServletRequest and
MockHttpServletResponse to simulate
your HTTP request and response
objects. This is also made easier by
the fact that Controllers can be
instanciated as normal Java classes.
For example, imagine you are testing a
controller class for a page that
updates a client details record. You
could do this very simply as follows:
public class UpdateClientTest {
//
// Prepare your request
//
request.setMethod("POST");
request.setParameter("id", "100");
request.setParameter("firstName", "Jane");
request.setParameter("lastName", "Doe");
//
// Invoke the controller
//
controller = new ChoosePeriodController();
ModelAndView mav = controller.handleRequest(request, response);
//
// Inject any service objects you need
//
controller.setClientService(clientService);
...
//
// Inspect the results
//
assert mav != null;
assertEquals("displayClient",mav.getViewName());
Client client = (Client) mav.getModel().get("client");
assertEquals("Jane",client.getFirstName());
assertEquals("Doe",client.getLastName());
...
}
...
Checkout spring-test-portlet-mvc (https://github.com/markusf/spring-test-portlet-mvc), which exposes the features of MockMvc to the Portal context and lets you integration test your Spring Portlets easily.