I want to write Java code that dynamically creates multiple TestNG test suite from a directory full of files. Each file corresponds to a test suite that contains tests based upon the contents of the file. The key being that I need to do specific setup and tear down for each suite.
I know that I can use the Factory annotation to dynamically build a test from a single file. For example:
public class TestFactory {
#Factory
public Object[] createTestFromFile() throws Exception {
ArrayList<MyTest> tests = new ArrayList<MyTest>();
BufferedReader reader = new BufferedReader(new FileReader("test1.txt"));
String testData;
while ((testData = reader.readLine()) != null) {
tests.add(new MyTest(testData));
}
return tests.toArray();
}
}
public class MyTest {
private String testData;
public MyTest(String testData) {
this.testData = testData;
}
#Test
public void runTest() {
assertTrue(testData.equals(testData));
}
}
But how do I read multiple files and create a separate test suite for each file, each with a different suite specific setup/teardown?
Probably this can help : Running TestNG programmatically You can create dynamic suites using the XMLSuite class, probably set your file name as a parameter in the suite and your setup/teardown as listeners.
Related
I been trying to figure out how i can unit test service and so far have got nowhere.
I am using xUnit and NSubstitute (as advised by friends), below is the simple test that i want to run (which fails currently).
public class UnitTest1
{
private readonly RallyService _rallyService;
public UnitTest1(RallyService rallyService)
{
_rallyService= rallyService;
}
[Fact]
public void Test1()
{
var result = _rallyService.GetAllRallies();
Assert.Equal(2, result.Count());
}
}
My rally service class makes a simple call to the db to get all Rally entites and returns those:
public class RallyService : IRallyService
{
private readonly RallyDbContext _context;
public RallyService(RallyDbContext context)
{
_context = context;
}
public IEnumerable<Rally> GetAllRallies()
{
return _context.Rallies;
}
}
Any guidance would be appreciated.
Since you use .NET Core, I assume you also use Entity Framework Core. While it was possible to mock most of the operations in the previous EF version, however the EF Core suggests to use in-memory database for unit testing. I.e. you don't need to mock RallyDbContext, hence NSubstitute is not needed for this particular test. You would need NSubstitute to mock the service when testing a controller or application using the service.
Below is your Test1 written using in-memory database.
public class UnitTest1
{
private readonly DbContextOptions<RallyDbContext> _options;
public UnitTest1()
{
// Use GUID for in-memory DB names to prevent any possible name conflicts
_options = new DbContextOptionsBuilder<RallyDbContext>()
.UseInMemoryDatabase(Guid.NewGuid().ToString())
.Options;
}
[Fact]
public async Task Test1()
{
using (var context = new RallyDbContext(_options))
{
//Given 2 records in database
await context.AddRangeAsync(new Rally { Name = "rally1" }, new Rally { Name = "rally2" });
await context.SaveChangesAsync();
}
using (var context = new RallyDbContext(_options))
{
//When retrieve all rally records from the database
var service = new RallyService(context);
var rallies = service.GetAllRallies();
//Then records count should be 2
Assert.Equal(2, rallies.Count());
}
}
}
A working test application with this unit test is in my GitHub for your reference. I used SQL Express in the actual app.
I don't think it is standard to have a unit test constructor with a parameter. The unit test runner will new up this class, and unless you are using something that will auto-inject that parameter I think the test will fail to run.
Here is a standard fixture layout:
public class SampleFixture {
[Fact]
public void SampleShouldWork() {
// Arrange stuff we need for the test. This may involved configuring
// some dependencies, and also creating the subject we are testing.
var realOrSubstitutedDependency = new FakeDependency();
realOrSubstitutedDependency.WorkingItemCount = 42;
var subject = new Subject(realOrSubstitutedDependency);
// Act: perform the operation we are testing
var result = subject.DoWork();
// Assert: check the subject's operation worked as expected
Assert.Equal(42, result);
}
[Fact]
public void AnotherTest() { /* ... */ }
}
If you need a common setup between tests, you can use a parameterless constructor and do common initialisation there.
In terms of the specific class you are trying to test, you need to make sure your RallyDbContext is in a known state to repeatably and reliably test. You may want to look up answers specific to testing Entity Framework for more information.
Having some issues wrapping my head around class instantiation and TestDriven.Net(v4.0.3478) or XUnit(v2.2.0), RhinoMocks(v3.6.1), and structuremap.automocking(v4.0.0.315).
Given this code:
public class Tests1
{
[Fact]
public void passing_test()
{
var mocker = new RhinoAutoMocker<Subject>();
mocker.Get<IData>().Stub(x => x.Strings).Return(new List<string> {""});
var result = mocker.ClassUnderTest.GetStrings();
result.Count().ShouldEqual(1);
}
}
public class Tests2
{
[Fact]
public void passing_test()
{
var mocker = new RhinoAutoMocker<Subject>();
mocker.Get<IData>().Stub(x => x.Strings).Return(new List<string> {""});
var result = mocker.ClassUnderTest.GetStrings();
result.Count().ShouldEqual(1);
}
}
public class Subject
{
private readonly IData _data;
public Subject(IData data)
{
_data = data;
}
public IEnumerable<string> GetStrings()
{
return _data.Strings;
}
}
public interface IData
{
IEnumerable<string> Strings { get; set; }
}
All tests run fine when I right click -> Run Test(s) on specific test method or a specific class definition.
Tests fail when I right click on project, folder containing tests or the namespace definition of the class above.
The errors are NullReferenceException, when doing asserts, it seems to be the stub's data. It's random, sometimes Tests1.passing_test fails, sometimes Tests2.passing_test fails. Never both.
Thinking it has to with RhinoAutoMocker and/or the MockRepository not being reset between test fixtures?
UPDATE: simplified the code to show the problem, also given code is complete, using NUnit [Test] instead of XUnit [Fact] attributes works, everything behaves as normal.
In your example, you have two separate test classes.
By default, xUnit v2 will run these tests in parallel.
I have experienced the same issue, but in my case using the static MockRepository.GenerateMock.
The static class being used across the parallel tests results in exceptions.
The seeming randomness of the test failures depends on which tests run first.
There are two alternatives I can see.
1. Tests in a single class - not really workable
2. Use the XUnit Collection attribute to place all tests classes in the same collection - this worked for me.
see: http://xunit.github.io/docs/running-tests-in-parallel.html
Another alternative is to turn off parallelism for xUnit using the following attribute in your test assembly
[assembly: CollectionBehavior(DisableTestParallelization = true)]
I am a Dagger newbie.
TL;DR:
If an Android Service has any fields injected into it using Dagger, then in order to actually perform the injection, I need to have an instance of that Service.
In Robolectric tests, this corresponds to MyService service = Robolectric.buildService(MyService.class).get(). And then, objectGraph.inject(service);
However, rest of the code that actually starts MyService still uses context.startService(context, MyService.class);.
Question: What is the idiomatic way in Dagger to address this mismatch?
Let's say I have a Service as follows:
public class MyService {
#Inject Parser parser;
#Override
public int onStartCommand(Intent intent, int flags, int startId) {
String data = intent.getStringExtra("data_to_be_parsed");
parser.parse(data);
}
}
Elsewhere in my code, I have an ApiClient class that does this:
public class ApiClient{
public static void parseInBackground(Context context, String data){
//This service does not have its fields injected
context.startService(new Intent(context, MyService.class).putExtra("data_to_be_parsed", data));
}
}
That parseInBackground method will be called from an Activity in response to user interaction.
Now, I'm following TDD and hence, I haven't yet written the Application Module for this. Here's the test module:
#Module(injects = MyService.class)
public class TestModule {
#Provides #Singleton Parser provideParser(){
return new MockParser();
}
}
And finally, the test case:
#RunWith(Robolectric.class)
public class ApiTest {
#Test
public void parseInBackground_ParsesCorrectly(){
//This service has its fields injected
MyService service = Robolectric.buildService(MyService.class).get();
ObjectGraph.create(new TestModule()).inject(service);
ApiClient.parseInBackground(Robolectric.application, "<user><name>droid</name></user>");
//Asserts here
}
}
As you can see, in the test, I retrieve an instance of the service and then inject the MockParser into it. However, the ApiClient class directly starts the service using an Intent. I don't have a chance to perform the injection.
I am aware that I can have MyService perform an injection on itself:
public void onCreate(){
ObjectGraph.create(new TestModule()).inject(this);
}
But then, I am hardcoding the TestModule here.
Is there an existing idiom in Dagger to set up dependencies for such situations?
It's the wrong way to hardcode your modules either in tests or in services. Better approach is to perform creation via your custom Application object which in turn will hold singleton ObjectGraph object. For example:
// in MyService class
#Override public void onCreate() {
super.onCreate();
MyApp.from(context).inject(this);
}
// in MyApp class
public static MyApp from(Context context) {
return (MyApp) context.getApplicationContext();
}
//...
private ObjectGraph objectGraph;
#Override public void onCreate() {
// Perform Injection
objectGraph = ObjectGraph.create(getModules());
objectGraph.inject(this);
}
public void inject(Object object) {
objectGraph.inject(object);
}
protected Object[] getModules() {
// return concrete modules based on build type or any other conditions.
}
Alternatively, you can refactor last method out into separate class and make different implementations for different flavors or build types. Also you may want to set overrides=true in your TestModule's annotation.
As i just started Mockito, I have below method that i want to test. In my YouTubeChannelImporter.java file there are both methods : readJsonFromUrl(String url) and readAll(rd)
public JSONObject readJsonFromUrl(String url) throws IOException,
JSONException {
InputStream is = new URL(url).openStream();
try {
BufferedReader rd = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(is,
Charset.forName("UTF-8")));
String jsonText = readAll(rd);
JSONObject json = new JSONObject(jsonText);
return json;
} finally {
is.close();
}
}
I started with some rough idea.Below is the sample test case.
#Test
public void readJsonFromUrl() throws IOException, JSONException {
String urlTest="http://google.com/api";
YouTubeChannelImporter mockYoutube = mock(YouTubeChannelImporter.class);
YouTubeChannelImporter tubeChannelImporter =new YouTubeChannelImporter();
// URL url=new URL(urlTest);
// InputStream inputStream = mock(InputStream.class);
// when(url.openStream()).thenReturn(inputStream);
BufferedReader rd=mock(BufferedReader.class);
when(mockYoutube.readAll(rd)).thenReturn("{\"kind\":\"you\"}");
String jsonText="{\"kind\":\"you\"}";
JSONObject object=new JSONObject(jsonText);
assertEquals("{\"kind\":\"you\"}",tubeChannelImporter.readJsonFromUrl(urlTest).toString());
}
My issue is when i will test the function readJsonFromUrl(String url) then readAll(rd) should not execute. Rather mock should be in action here. I am aware this issue is because tubeChannelImporter.readJsonFromUrl(urlTest).toString() . Looking for any other way to achieve my goal.
Thanks
You're mocking one instance of your class, and then executing another - as you noticed, this does not achieve the intended result.
I think the easiest way of testing your method is with spying ("partial mocking"). With this technique, you'll have an actual instance of your class with only a single method, readAll mocked out:
#Test
public void readJsonFromUrl() throws IOException, JSONException {
// Set up the spied instance:
YouTubeChannelImporter tubeChannelImporter = spy(new YouTubeChannelImporter());
doReturn("{\"kind\":\"you\"}").when(tubeChannelImporter).readAll(any(Reader.class));
// Test the execution
String urlTest="http://google.com/api";
String jsonText="{\"kind\":\"you\"}";
JSONObject object=new JSONObject(jsonText);
assertEquals("{\"kind\":\"you\"}",tubeChannelImporter.readJsonFromUrl(urlTest).toString());
}
Personally, for a test like this where you have to read a file and there's not much else going on, I would read an actual file rather than mock out a BufferedReader. Then you just have to Assert on the JSONObject output from the call to readJsonFromUrl().
Your problems stem from trying to test against the private method readAll(). Try to test only your public methods in your tests (e.g. readJsonFromUrl()) and you'll find you have to jump through less hoops in your test code.
If your class already implements an Interface, then just write tests against the Interface.
If you find that you have a lot of private methods, perhaps your class is responsible for doing too much work, so factor methods out into their own class(es). Then you can test them in isolation.
If you have a maven project, the place to put your test files, to read from, is in /src/test/resources
I've got the following code and I need help to write a unit test for it. I'm using Moq library.
Here's the deal. I have a business class with a dependency to a repository (interface), so I can use it to save my entities to the database. My entity is basically a list of strings. The method AddAndSave, from MyBusinessClass, grab the value it receives as a parameters, put it into the list and call Save method from IRepository. Then, I clear the list of my entity. The code below show this example (I've made it simple so I can explain it here).
There's a unit test, too.
using System.Collections.Generic;
using Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting;
using Moq;
namespace TestesGerais
{
public class MyEntity
{
public MyEntity()
{
MyList = new List<string>();
}
public List<string> MyList { get; set; }
}
public interface IRepository
{
void Save(MyEntity entity);
}
public class MyBusinessClass
{
public IRepository Repository { get; set; }
private MyEntity _entity = new MyEntity();
public void AddAndSave(string info)
{
_entity.MyList.Add(info);
Repository.Save(_entity);
_entity.MyList.Clear(); // for some reason I need to clear it
}
}
[TestClass]
public class UnitTest10
{
[TestMethod]
public void TestMethod1()
{
var mock = new Mock<IRepository>();
MyBusinessClass b = new MyBusinessClass() { Repository = mock.Object };
b.AddAndSave("xpto");
mock.Verify(m => m.Save(It.Is<MyEntity>(x => x.MyList[0] == "xpto")), Times.Exactly(1));
}
}
}
My unit-test check if the IRepository's Save method was called with its parameter (an entity) having one element in the list, and having the value "xpto" in this element.
When I run this test, it turns red with the error message "Test method TestesGerais.UnitTest10.TestMethod1 threw exception:
System.ArgumentOutOfRangeException: Index was out of range. Must be non-negative and less than the size of the collection.
Parameter name: index".
Ok, this is caused by the list that has been cleaned. If I comment the line "_entity.MyList.Clear();", everything goes well.
My question is: how can I test this without commenting the "Clear" line in my business class, and making sure that my repository's method is called passing the specific value (entity with one element with value "xpto")?
Thanks
I've changed my unit test using the Callback feature of Moq. This way, I can setup the mock so when AddAndSave is called, the parameter it receives is saved into a variable from my unit test, and I can assert it later.
[TestMethod]
public void TestMethod1()
{
var mock = new Mock<IRepository>();
string result = string.Empty;
mock.Setup(m => m.Save(It.IsAny<MyEntity>())).Callback((MyEntity e) => { result = e.MyList[0]; });
MyBusinessClass b = new MyBusinessClass() { Repository = mock.Object };
b.AddAndSave("xpto");
Assert.AreEqual(result, "xpto");
}
You could split your method up a bit. "AddAndSave" isn't all it does. You could then just test the behaviour of the adding and saving bit in isolation.