I'm getting started unit testing my PHP application with PHPUnit. I understand that it's important for unit tests to run in isolation so you know where to look when a test fails. One thing I am struggling to understand is how to test subclasses in isolation from their parent. For example, most of my models extend a "base model" which has most of the features that a model should have.
<?php
class BaseModel
{
public function save($data) {
// write $data to the database
$dbAdapter->save($data);
}
}
class RegularModel extends BaseModel
{
public function save($data) {
// clean up $data before passing it to parent
if (isset($data['foo'])) {
unset($data['foo']);
$data['bar'] = 'foo';
}
parent::save($data);
}
}
# Unit Test
class RegularModelTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase
{
public function testSaveMethodCallsParent() {
$data = array('foo' => 'yes');
$model = new RegularModel();
$model->save($data);
// assert parent received data correctly
}
}
I'm not sure how to test my RegularModel without calling a bunch of unnecessary code. I'm also doing some autoloading so when it calls save on the parent, it will actually try to save to the test database. I'd rather mock this out since I don't care about whether or not it actually writes to the database when I'm testing my RegularModel only when I am testing my BaseModel. Or am I thinking about this all wrong? What do you recommend when it comes to testing situations like this?
Your best bet is to mock the $dbAdapter when testing RegularModel. While you are still executing the parent class's code, that code really is part of the RegularModel unit due to the is-a relationship.
The only way around it would be to provide a different implementation of BaseModel. You can either run these tests in a separate process or use Runkit to swap in the other implementation at runtime. Both of these have drawbacks--complexity, performance degredation, and instability--that come at too high a price in my view.
Subclasses are, by definition, tightly coupled to their superclasses so practically speaking there is no way to test a subclass in isolation.
However, if the superclass has an extensive test suite that passes then you normally can be confident that you can test the subclass by just covering the methods implemented in the subclass. The superclass test suite covers the superclass functionality.
Related
I am trying to write a Unit Tests to a legacy code using Mockito.
But I am not able to understand how do I mock it. Can some please help.
The real problem I am facing is actually I am not able to decide how to make a decision on what exactly is to be mocked? Below is the code. I have looked at numerous videos on YouTube and read many Mockito Tutorials but all of them seem to be guiding mostly about how to use the Mockito Framework.
The basic idea of what to Mock is still unclear. Please guide if you have a better source. I do understand that the code showed below does not really showcase the best coding practice.
public class DataFacade {
public boolean checkUserPresent(String userId){
return getSomeDao.checkUserPresent(userId);
}
private SomeDao getSomeDao() {
DataSource dataSource = MyDataSourceFactory.getMySQLDataSource();
SomeDao someDao = new SomeDao(dataSource);
}
}
Well, a Unittest, as the name implies, tests a unit. You should mock anything that isn't part of that unit, especially external dependencies. For example, a DAO is normally a good example for something that will be mocked in tests where the class under tests uses it, because otherwise you would really have actual data access in your test, making it slower and more prone to failure because of external reasons (for example, if your dao connects to a Datasource, that Datasource's target (for example, the database) may be down, failing your test even if the unit you wanted to test is actually perfectly fine). Mocking the DAO allows you to test things independently.
Of course, your code is bad. Why? You are creating everything in your method by calling some static factory method. I suggest instead using dependency injection to inject the DAO into your facade, for example...
public DataFacade(SomeDao someDao) {
this.someDao = someDao;
}
This way, when instantiating your DataFacade, you can give it a dao, which means, in your test you can give it a mock, for example...
#Test
public void testSomething() {
SomeDao someDaoMock = Mockito.mock(SomeDao.class);
DataFacade toTest = new DataFacade(someDaoMock);
...now you can prepare your mock to do something and then call the DataFace method
}
Dependency injection frameworks like Spring, Google Guice, etc. can make this even easier to manage, but the first step is to stop your classes from creating their own dependencies, but let the dependencies be given to them from the outside, which makes the whole thing a lot better.
You should "mock" the inner objects that you use in your methods.
For example if you write unit tests for DataFacade->checkUserPresent, you should mock the getSomeDao field.
You have a lot of ways to do it, but basically you can make getSomeDao to be public field, or get it from the constructor. In your test class, override this field with mocked object.
After you invoke DataFacade->checkUserPresent method, assert that checkUserPresent() is called.
For exmaple if you have this class:
public class StudentsStore
{
private DbReader _db;
public StudentsStore(DbReader db)
{
_db = db;
}
public bool HasStudents()
{
var studentsCount = _db.GetStudentsCount();
if (studentsCount > 0)
return true;
else
return false;
}
}
And in your test method:
var mockedDb = mock(DbReader.class);
when(mockedDb.GetStudentsCount()).thenReturn(1);
var store = new StudentsSture(mockedDb);
assertEquals(true,store.HasStudents());
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.
I'm mocking my repository correctly, but in cases like show() it either returns null so the view ends up crashing the test because of calling property on null object.
I'm guessing I'm supposed to mock the eloquent model returned but I find 2 issues:
What's the point of implementing repository pattern if I'm gonna end up mocking eloquent model anyway
How do you mock them correctly? The code below gives me an error.
$this->mockRepository->shouldReceive('find')
->once()
->with(1)
->andReturn(Mockery::mock('MyNamespace\MyModel)
// The view may call $book->title, so I'm guessing I have to mock
// that call and it's returned value, but this doesn't work as it says
// 'Undefined property: Mockery\CompositeExpectation::$title'
->shouldReceive('getAttribute')
->andReturn('')
);
Edit:
I'm trying to test the controller's actions as in:
$this->call('GET', 'books/1'); // will call Controller#show(1)
The thing is, at the end of the controller, it returns a view:
$book = Repo::find(1);
return view('books.show', compact('book'));
So, the the test case also runs view method and if no $book is mocked, it is null and crashes
So you're trying to unit test your controller to make sure that the right methods are called with the expected arguments. The controller-method fetches a model from the repo and passes it to the view. So we have to make sure that
the find()-method is called on the repo
the repo returns a model
the returned model is passed to the view
But first things first:
What's the point of implementing repository pattern if I'm gonna end up mocking eloquent model anyway?
It has many purposes besides (testable) consisten data access rules through different sources, (testable) centralized cache strategies, etc. In this case, you're not testing the repository and you actually don't even care what's returned, you're just interested that certain methods are called. So in combination with the concept of dependency injection you now have a powerful tool: You can just switch the actual instance of the repo with the mock.
So let's say your controller looks like this:
class BookController extends Controller {
protected $repo;
public function __construct(MyNamespace\BookRepository $repo)
{
$this->repo = $repo;
}
public function show()
{
$book = $this->repo->find(1);
return View::make('books.show', compact('book'));
}
}
So now, within your test you just mock the repo and bind it to the container:
public function testShowBook()
{
// no need to mock this, just make sure you pass something
// to the view that is (or acts like) a book
$book = new MyNamespace\Book;
$bookRepoMock = Mockery::mock('MyNamespace\BookRepository');
// make sure the repo is queried with 1
// and you want it to return the book instanciated above
$bookRepoMock->shouldReceive('find')
->once()
->with(1)
->andReturn($book);
// bind your mock to the container, so whenever an instance of
// MyNamespace\BookRepository is needed (like in your controller),
// the mock will be loaded.
$this->app->instance('MyNamespace\BookRepository', $bookRepoMock);
// now trigger the controller method
$response = $this->call('GET', 'books/1');
$this->assertEquals(200, $response->getStatusCode());
// check if the controller passed what was returned from the repo
// to the view
$this->assertViewHas('book', $book);
}
//EDIT in response to the comment:
Now, in the first line of your testShowBook() you instantiate a new Book, which I am assuming is a subclass of Eloquent\Model. Wouldn't that invalidate the whole deal of inversion of control[...]? since if you change ORM, you'd still have to change Book so that it wouldn't be class of Model
Well... yes and no. Yes, I've instantiated the model-class in the test directly, but model in this context doesn't necessarily mean instance of Eloquent\Model but more like the model in model-view-controller. Eloquent is only the ORM and has a class named Model that you inherit from, but the model-class as itself is just an entity of the business logic. It could extend Eloquent, it could extend Doctrine, or it could extend nothing at all.
In the end it's just a class that holds the data that you pull e.g. from a database, from an architecture point of view it is not aware of any ORM, it just contains data. A Book might have an author attribute, maybe even a getAuthor() method, but it doesn't really make sense for a book to have a save() or find() method. But it does if you're using Eloquent. And it's ok, because it's convenient, and in small project there's nothing wrong with accessing it directly. But it's the repository's (or the controller's) job to deal with a specific ORM, not the model's. The actual model is sort of the outcome of an ORM-interaction.
So yes, it might be a little confusing that the model seems so tightly bound to the ORM in Laravel, but, again, it's very convenient and perfectly fine for most projects. In fact, you won't even notice it unless you're using it directly in your application code (e.g. Book::where(...)->get();) and then decide to switch from Eloquent to something like Doctrine - this would obviously break your application. But if this is all encapsulated behind a repository, the rest of your application won't even notice when you switch between databases or even ORMs.
So, you're working with repositories, so only the eloquent-implementation of the repository should actually be aware that Book also extends Eloquent\Model and that it can call a save() method on it. The point is that it doesn't (=shouldn't) matter if Book extends Model or not, it should still be instantiable anywhere in your application, because within your business logic it's just a Book, i.e. a Plain Old PHP Object with some attributes and methods describing a book and not the strategies how to find or persist the object. That's what repositories are for.
But yes, the absolute clean way is to have a BookInterface and then bind it to a specific implementation. So it could all look like this:
Interfaces:
interface BookInterface
{
/**
* Get the ISBN.
*
* #return string
*/
public function getISBN();
}
interface BookRepositoryInterface()
{
/**
* Find a book by the given Id.
*
* #return null|BookInterface
*/
public function find($id);
}
Concrete implementations:
class Book extends Model implements BookInterface
{
public function getISBN()
{
return $this->isbn;
}
}
class EloquentBookRepository implements BookRepositoryInterface
{
protected $book;
public function __construct(Model $book)
{
$this->book = $book;
}
public function find($id)
{
return $this->book->find($id);
}
}
And then bind the interfaces to the desired implementations:
App::bind('BookInterface', function()
{
return new Book;
});
App::bind('BookRepositoryInterface', function()
{
return new EloquentBookRepository(new Book);
});
It doesn't matter if Book extends Model or anything else, as long as it implements the BookInterface, it is a Book. That's why I bravely instantiated a new Book in the test. Because it doesn't matter if you change the ORM, it only matters if you have several implementations of the BookInterface, but that's not very likely (sensible?), I guess. But just to play it safe, now that it's bound to the IoC-Container, you can instantiate it like this in the test:
$book = $this->app->make('BookInterface');
which will return an instance of whatever implementation of Book you're currently using.
So, for better testability
Code to interfaces rather than concrete classes
Use Laravel's IoC-Container to bind interfaces to concrete implementations (including mocks)
Use dependency injection
I hope that makes sense.
I have a Carpenter class that does it's work using a Lathe and a Wood object.
class Carpenter
{
function Work()
{
$tool = new Lathe();
$material = new Wood();
$tool->Apply($material);
}
}
Lathe depends on an interface called Material, so I can easily unit test Lathe by giving it a fake Material in my unit test. Wood doesn't depend on anything, so it can also be easily tested.
interface Material {
// Various methods...
}
interface Tool {
function Apply(Material $m);
}
class Wood implements Material {
// Implementations of Material methods
}
class Lathe {
function Apply(Material $m) {
// Do processing
}
}
However, Carpenter depends on the concrete classes Lathe and Wood because it has to create instances of them. That means that as it currently stands, I cannot unit test the Work() method without inadvertantly bringing Lathe and Wood under test.
How should I change my design to unit test Carpenter?
There's a couple of different directions you can take here:
Use Constructor Injection and simply inject the tool and the material instances into the carpenter.
If injecting instances doesn't work for some reason (perhaps because you need to create new instances for every invocation of the Work method), you can inject Abstract Factories instead.
You can also use the Factory Method approach described by ctford, but that requires you to also create test-specific overrides to be able to unit test, and while that's a completely valid thing to do, it's just more work and in many cases the other alternatives are better and more flexible.
The key is to seperate object creation from object use in Carpenter.
class Carpenter
{
function getTool() {
return new Lathe();
}
function getMaterial() {
return new Wood();
}
function Work()
{
$tool = getTool();
$material = getMaterial();
$tool->Apply($material);
}
}
That way you can override the getTool() and getMaterial() methods in a TestCarpenter class and inject your own Material and Tool fakes.
The getTool() and getMaterial() methods can also be unit tested seperately.
Michael Feathers would call the getTool() and getMaterial() methods "seams", because they are points where fakes can be inserted without changing the surrounding code.
I was wondering whether the object to test should be a field and thus set up during a SetUp method (ie. JUnit, nUnit, MS Test, …).
Consider the following examples (this is C♯ with MsTest, but the idea should be similar for any other language and testing framework):
public class SomeStuff
{
public string Value { get; private set; }
public SomeStuff(string value)
{
this.Value = value;
}
}
[TestClass]
public class SomeStuffTestWithSetUp
{
private string value;
private SomeStuff someStuff;
[TestInitialize]
public void MyTestInitialize()
{
this.value = Guid.NewGuid().ToString();
this.someStuff = new SomeStuff(this.value);
}
[TestCleanup]
public void MyTestCleanup()
{
this.someStuff = null;
this.value = string.Empty;
}
[TestMethod]
public void TestGetValue()
{
Assert.AreEqual(this.value, this.someStuff.Value);
}
}
[TestClass]
public class SomeStuffTestWithoutSetup
{
[TestMethod]
public void TestGetValue()
{
string value = Guid.NewGuid().ToString();
SomeStuff someStuff = new SomeStuff(value);
Assert.AreEqual(value, someStuff.Value);
}
}
Of course, with just one test method, the first example is much too long, but with more test methods, this could be safe quite some redundant code.
What are the pros and cons of each approach? Are there any “Best Practices”?
It's a slippery slope once you start initializing fields & generally setting up the context of your test within the test method itself. This leads to large test methods and really really unmanageable fixtures that don't explain themselves very well.
Instead, you should look at the BDD style naming & test organization. Make one fixture per context, rather than one fixture per system-under-test. Then your [setup] truly does setup the context, and your tests can be simple one-liner asserts.
It's much easier to read when you see a test output that does this:
OrderFulfillmentServiceTests.cs
with_an_order_from_a_new_customer
it should check their credit from the credit service
it should give no discount
with valid credit check
it should decrement inventory
it should ship the goods
with a customer in texas or california
it should add appropriate sales tax
with an order from a gold customer
it should NOT check credit
it should get expedited shipping added for free
Our tests are now really good documentation for our system. Each "with_an..." is a test fixture, and the items below it are tests. Within those, you setup the context (the state of the world as the class name describes) and then the test does the simple assert that verifies what the method name says it does.
The second approach is much more readable, and much easier to visually trace.
However, the first approach means less repetition.
What I've found is that I tend to use the SetUp to create objects (especially for things with a number of dependencies), and then set the values used in the test itself. From experience, this provides about the right amount of code-reuse versus readability/traceability.
From talking with Kent Beck about the design of jUnit I know that Test Classes were a way to share setup between Tests, so using the common initialization was the intent. However, along with that, that means splitting tests that require different setup into separate test classes that have revealing names.
Personally, I use Setup and Teardown methods for two distinct reasons, although I assume that others will have different reasons.
Use Setup and Teardown methods when there is common initiation logic that is used by all tests and a single instance of the object(s) created in the Setup are designed to be reused.
Use Setup and Teardown methods when the time it takes for creating and destroying any object(s) created takes enough time to slow down the unit testing process when repeated in each TestMethod.
To give you an idea of how often I run accross these scenarios, in a project that I am working on now, only two of my test classes (out of about eighty) have an explicit need for Setup and Teardown methods, both times it was to satisfy my second reason due to the 10 second max I have enabled for each test execution.
I also prefer the readability of having the object(s) created and destroyed within the TestMethod, although it is not a breaking or selling point for me.
The approach I take is somewhere in the middle - I use TearDown and SetUp to create a test "sandbox" directory (and delete it when done), as well as to initialize some test member variables with some default values that will be used to test the classes. I then set up some "helper methods" - One is generally called InstantiateClass() I use that to call with the default parameters (if any) which I can override as necessary in each explicit test.
[Test]
public void TestSomething()
{
_myVar = "value";
InstantiateClass();
RunTheClass();
Assert.IsTrue(this, that);
}
In practice, I find set up methods make it hard to reason about a test that is failing and have to scroll to somewhere near the top of the file (which can be very large) to figure out what collaborator has broken (not easy with mocking) and there is no clickable reference to navigate in your IDE. In short, you lose spatial locality.
Static helper methods reveal the collaborators more explicitly, and you avoid fields which unnecessarily widen the scope of variables.