I am having a controller method which accepts FormCollection as a parameter.
the controller method then builds the model using UpdateModel(Model, new[] { P1, P2 });
I would like to unit test the above method. I am populating the formcollection with P1 and P2 values but the model is not build correctly when called from unit testing.
Has anyone faced similar issue?
The UpdateModel method looks in the Request object when populating the model and it completely ignores this FormCollection you are passing. So you will need to mock the request and add the values to this object. But thats lots of work that isn't worth the efforts and I would recommend you a better way: instead of using FormCollection as action parameter and then calling UpdateModel inside your action use a strongly typed action parameter:
public ActionResult Foo(SomeViewModel model)
{
// The model binder will automatically call UpdateModel and populate
// the model from the request so that you don't need to manually
// do all this stuff
...
}
and in the unit test simply pass the desired model when invoking the controller action.
Related
All the examples of jest and jest-fetch-mock I have come across use functions that perform an API query and return a payload directly from the function call.
In my case, I have a different setup. I have a class that has a property called 'data'. In the class there is a method called "get" which pulls data using fetch API and stores it in the data property. When the method is called, it simply returns true or false based on promise resolve or reject.
I am trying to figure out how to write unit tests for this in this case. My function doesn't return the data fetched; only a boolean value.
So if I use jestSpyOn to mock the class method, how would I set the data property, and then retrieve the result?
In my code, I do something like this (NOT in testing, but in the actual app):
contactStore = new ContactListStore();
// 'all' is a sample param passed
contactStore.get('all').then(res => {
if(res){
...perform action
}
});
As you can see the res argument is only boolean, and if true, then contactStore.data will contain the information retrieved from the server.
So to run a unit test on it, I need to call a mock get, and set a mock data property.
Any ideas how this would be done?
In your mock method, you just need return true.
I have a component that expects a model property that is an ember data object (originally created from the route model)
I've tried this in the integration test but the store is undefined
test('it renders', function (assert) {
this.inject.service('store')
let model = this.get('store').createRecord('post');
this.set('model', model);
this.render(hbs`{{post-item-form model = model}}`);
assert.equal(this.$().text().trim(), 'Post your thoughts');
// Template block usage:
this.render(hbs`
{{#post-item-form}}
template block text
{{/post-item-form}}
`);
// assert.equal(this.$().text().trim(), 'template block text');
});
I would prefer to create a pure json object instead of creating a record through the usage of store in a component integration testing; because the component itself knows nothing about the store and you can just pass pure json object instead of a model instance to the component and it should still work. With this mindset, I would only deal with store in acceptance tests.
If you still would like to go the way you have mentioned; I believe you need to retrieve the store as follows:
var store = Ember.getOwner(this).lookup("service:store");
Since; auto run loops are disabled in testing mode by default; it is most likely that you will get an assertion error indicating that there is no run loop available when you run the following code let model = store.createRecord('post'); this means you need to wrap it in a within a run loop like Ember.run(()=>model = store.createRecord('post'));. I did not give a try to what I wrote; but I guess this should work.
Yet again; why do you need to create the record through store in an integration test? If you really like to use store; then an acceptance test should be better; since store will be up and running and you will not need to retrieve it through lookup. I hope this helps.
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'm starting with TDD and Laravel. Specifically, I'm starting with routes. I defined some and I defined it badly, so excited as I was with the "new" concept of TDD I wanted to write some test for them.
The idea was to test the routes and only the routes, in isolation, as everything I've readed about TDD recomends. I know I can do a $this->call->('METHOD','something') and test response is OK or whatever, but I would like to know that the right method of the right controller is called.
So, I thought that I could mock the controller. This was my first attempt:
public function test_this_route_work_as_expected_mocking_the_controller()
{
//Create the mock
$drawController = \Mockery::mock('App\Http\Controllers\DrawController');
$drawController->shouldReceive('show')->once();
// Bind instance of my controller to the mock
App::instance('App\Http\Controllers\DrawController', $drawController);
$response = $this->call('GET','/draw/1');
// To see what fails. .env debugging is on
print($response);
}
The route is Route::resource('draw', 'DrawController');, I know it's ok. But method show is not called. In the response it can be seen: "Method Mockery_0_App_Http_Controllers_DrawController::getAfterFilters() does not exist on this mock object". So I tried to:
$drawController->getAfterFilters()->willReturn(array());
But I get:
BadMethodCallException: Method Mockery_0_App_Http_Controllers_DrawController::getAfterFilters() does not exist on this mock object
After some testing, I was able to arrive to this solution:
public function test_this_route_work_as_expected_mocking_the_controller_workaround()
{
//Create the mock
$drawController = \Mockery::mock('App\Http\Controllers\DrawController');
// These are the methods I would like to 'stub' in this mock
$drawController->shouldReceive('getAfterFilters')->atMost(1000)->andReturn(array());
$drawController->shouldReceive('getBeforeFilters')->atMost(1000)->andReturn(array());
$drawController->shouldReceive('getMiddleware')->atMost(1000)->andReturn(array());
// This is where the corresponding method is called. I can assume all is OK if we arrive here with
// the right method name:
// public function callAction($method, $parameters)
$drawController->shouldReceive('callAction')->once()->with('show',Mockery::any());
// Bind instance of my controller to the mock
App::instance('App\Http\Controllers\DrawController', $drawController);
//Act
$response = $this->call('GET','/draw/1');
}
But I would like to change the shouldReceives for willReturns: the atMost(1000) are hurting my eyes. So the questions I have are:
1) Is there a cleaner way to test ONLY the routes in Laravel 5? I mean, the ideal scenario will be one in which the controller doesn't exist but, if the route is ok, the test pases
2) Is it possible to "MockStub" the controllers? What's the better way to do it?
Thank you very much.
I've finally got it. You need a partial mock. It can be done as simple as this (the trick is including an "array" of methods to mock to Mockery::mock):
public function test_this_route_work_as_expected_mocking_partially_the_controller()
{
//Create the mock
$drawController = \Mockery::mock('App\Http\Controllers\DrawController[show]');
$drawController->shouldReceive('show')->once();
// Bind instance of my controller to the mock
App::instance('App\Http\Controllers\DrawController', $drawController);
//Act
$this->call('GET','/draw/1');
}
And, if you create a partial mock of all controllers in setup() method, all route tests can be grouped in a single (or a couple) of TestCases
I'm trying to unit test a controller that stuffs data into a ViewData. All our views require similar data (Customer info which is derived from the url). So instead of putting the call into every single controller method, the original developers chose to put this ViewData stuffing into the OnActionExecuting event.
Of course, when you invoke the controller's action from a unit test, OnActionExecuting doesn't fire. (Thanks MVC Team!)
So I tried creating a custom view engine and having it stuff the customer data into the controllerContext when the view is requested. This works fine in a browser, but my viewEngine is ignored when I run this test. No amount of ViewEngines.Add(new funkyViewEngine) has any effect.
[TestMethod()]
public void LoginTest()
{
ViewEngines.Engines.Clear();
ViewEngines.Engines.Add(new FunkyViewEngine());
UserController target = new UserController();
target.SetStructureMap(); <--sets us to use the test repo
target.ControllerContext.HttpContext = MVCHelpers.FakeHttpContext("https://customersubdomain.ourdomain.com"); <--moq magic
var actual = target.Login();
Assert.IsTrue(actual.GetType().IsAssignableFrom(typeof(System.Web.Mvc.ViewResult)));
var vr = actual as ViewResult;
Assert.IsTrue(vr.ViewData.Community() != null); <--"Community" should be set by viewengine
Assert.IsTrue(vr.ViewData.Community().Subdomain == "customersubdomain.ourdomain");
Assert.IsTrue(vr.ViewData.Community().CanRegister);
}
Is there any hope here? How do I either 1) create a method that gets called on controller execution BOTH in the browser and the unit framework or 2) get the unit framework to invoke my view engine.
Sorry for your frustration. The reason why you are seeing OnActionExecuting not being called when you directly call your action method from the unit test is because that's not how things work in MVC.
The request gets executed via a "pipeline", which as far as this area is concerned consists of the ControllerActionInvoker. This class is responsible for:
Finding the action method
Invoking action filters' OnActionExecuting method (note: your controller class is also an action filter)
Calling the action method itself
Invoking the action filters' OnActionExecuted method
Handling the result (e.g. finding the view and rendering it)
In your unit test you are directly invoking step 3. and skipping all the other steps. In a unit test, it is your responsibility to call any setup code required for your action to work.
However, this does not mean you should now write unit tests that use the ControllerActionInvoker to execute the entire pipeline. We (the MVC team) have already verified that all the pieces work together.
Instead, you should test your specific application code. In this case, you might consider having the following unit tests:
A test that verifies that given some Url calling OnActionExecuting on your controller puts the right Customer object into ViewData
A test that verifies that given some Customer object present in ViewData your action method returns the appropriate result
My last point is that you should keep the functionality in OnActionExecuting. A custom view engine is definetely the wrong place for it.
Not an answer you're probably looking for, but I'm using a custom MvcHandler to achieve the same goal (getting customer from URL in multi-tenant app). ViewEngine doesn't sound like a good place for this kind of logic to me...
My custom handler looks more or less like this:
public class AccountMvcHandler : MvcHandler
{
public Account Account { get; private set; }
protected override IAsyncResult BeginProcessRequest(HttpContext httpContext, AsyncCallback callback, object state)
{
return base.BeginProcessRequest(httpContext, callback, state);
}
protected override IAsyncResult BeginProcessRequest(HttpContextBase httpContext, AsyncCallback callback, object state)
{
string accountName = this.RequestContext.RouteData.GetRequiredString("account");
Account = ServiceFactory.GetService<ISecurityService>().GetAccount(accountName);
return base.BeginProcessRequest(httpContext, callback, state);
}
}