I am new to unit testing, and would like to know how you would go about unit testing a procedure (in this case a procedure a function that "does something" rather than "return something".
I know that the general idea of testing a function that returns an answer is something like
assert(yourfunction(sample, inputs) == expected_answer);
but am wondering how this would work if something does not return or merely returns a status code.
You need to be able to test what it does. For example, does your procedure add something to a collection? Set a property? Create a file?
Whatever it is, presumably that change is visible somehow. You just need to work out how to check that effect. Of course, that can be easier said than done sometimes, which is why a functional approach is easier to test when it's suitable :) In particular, effects which modify external resources (the file system, databases etc) and effects which depend on external resources (ditto) are harder to test than those which only change things in a fairly "local" way.
In some cases, what a procedure does is call methods on other dependencies. In such cases, if you're using a dependency injection approach, you can pass in mocks of those dependencies, and use assertions or expectations to make sure that the correct methods are called on the dependencies, with the correct parameters.
For procedures, the "do something" usually involves API calls or other object manipulations.
For example, a procedure may write a row to a file. It uses File I/O API calls (or a File IO object) to do this "write a row".
What you want to do is create "mock" object to stand in for the File. The Mock object has just enough functionality to collect the test results and make them visible to an assertion. Don't overwrite your mock objects, it's a rat-hole of lost time.
In Python, we do things like this.
class MockFile( object ):
def __init__( self, aFileName, aMode ):
self.name= aFileName
self.mode= aMode
self.buffer= None
def write( self, aRow ):
self.buffer= str(aRow)
Now we can provide this mock file to our procedure instead of a real file. Ans we can make assertions about what happened.
class TestSomeProcedure( unittest.TestCase ):
def testWrite( self ):
mockFile= MockFile( "name", "w" )
theProcedureImTesting( args, args, args, mockFile )
self.assertEquals( "The Row It Was Supposed to Write\n", mockFile.buffer )
There are many different cases:
Case 1:
public class A
{
public void Foo()
{
Init();
}
protected virtual void Init()
{
Do something;
}
}
[TestFixture]
public class ATests
{
[Test]
public void Foo_test()
{
A aStub = new A_Stub();
aStub.Foo();
Assert.IsTrue(aStub.wasInit);
}
public class A_Stub : A
{
public bool wasInit;
protected override void Init()
{
wasInit = true;
}
}
}
Case 2:
When your method depends on another object instead executing a member that belong to the same class. In this case I would recommend to use a Mock framework. I personaly using Rhino.Mocks. You can follow this link to see Rhino.Mocks examples.
Related
I am new to Golang and have been exploring but not clear about mocking in unit tests. Can anyone explain following specific questions ?
Question1: For writing unit tests in Golang, why we need to have interfaces to mock methods, why not only struct ?
Question2: Why we inject the interface in struct(where we call external method)
With struct -
type GlobalData struct {}
var (
GlobalObj = GlobalData{}
)
func (g GlobalData) GetGlobalData(a string) string{
return a
}
With interface definition-
type GlobalInterface interface {
GetGlobalData(a string) string
}
type GlobalData struct {}
var (
GlobalObj = GlobalData{}
)
func (g GlobalData) GetGlobalData(a string) string{
return a
}
Thanks
Question 1: For writing unit tests in Golang, why we need to have interfaces to mock methods, why not only struct ?
Answer: Its not mandatory
Question 2: Why we inject the interface in struct(where we call external method)
Answer: Because, it helps you to replace the actual function call (that might trigger some out of scope actions as a part of unit test , such as database call, some API call etc) by injecting a MockStruct (which will be implementing the same interface that is there in the actual code). Polymorphism in simple words.
So, you create a MockStruct and define your own mockMethods to it. As polymorphism, your unit test pick MockStruct without complaining. Calling actual DB or http endpoints do not come under unit testing.
Just for reference, I can point you to one of my github codebase where I wrote a small test case for a file. As you can see I mocked :
GuestCartHandler interface , that allowed me to not call the actual implementation
Mocked sql connection using "github.com/DATA-DOG/go-sqlmock" package. This helped me to avoid establishing actual db client (so, no dependency of database while unit testing)
Let me know if you get the idea conceptually or do you need some more clarification.
If you have methods on types in package user let's say, ex.
package user
type User struct {
name string
}
func (u *User) GetUserProfile() UserProfile{}
And now on import in catalog package :
package catalog
import user
func getUserCatalog(user user.User) []catalog {
user.GetUserProfile()
}
Now to test getUserCatalog method there are 2 ways:
1. var getUserProfileFunc = user.GetUserProfile
using this approach mock can be easily passed at test run time like:
getUserProfile = func() UserProfile {
return fakeUserProfile
}
this is the easiest way to test it.
Now there is another way using interface, in package user add an interface like
type UserInterface interface {
GetUserProfile() UserProfile
}
if User package is a library on which you don't have control then create your own interface, type and use this.
In this case testing in catalog package will become like:
because now methods will be invoked from UserInterface type not from UserType, hence while testing :
UserInterface = fakeUserStruct
and follow below steps
//1. define type of func to return
type typeGetUserProfile func() UserProfile
//2. create a var to return
var mockedGetUserProfile typeGetUserProfile
//3. create a type
type FakeUser struct{}
//4. implement method interface
func (user *FakeUserStruct) GetUserProfile() UserProfile{
return mockedGetUserProfile
}
now when running test :
mockerGetUserProfile = func() UserProfile {
return fakeUserProfile
}
There is mock library which helps in creating boilerplate code for mocking. Check this https://github.com/stretchr/testify
There are many other mock library, but I had used this one, this was really cool.
I hope this helps.
if not please let me know, i'll give some example code and push it to Github.
Also please check https://levelup.gitconnected.com/utilizing-the-power-of-interfaces-when-mocking-and-testing-external-apis-in-golang-1178b0db5a32
I have an extension method which is used to read a particular claim from the current ClaimsPrincipal. But I also need to check this value against a list of items which I have in the appsettings.json.
I had this working by using a ConfigurationBuilder() to read the appsettings directly in much the same way as the startup does, although instead of using
.SetBasePath(Directory.GetCurrentDirectory())
as I do in the startup, I was using
.SetBasePath(Path.GetDirectoryName(Assembly.GetEntryAssembly().Location))
Which although isn't pretty, works fine.
However, when the Unit tests are run none of the following get me to where the appsettings are
Directory.GetCurrentDirectory()
Path.GetDirectoryName(Assembly.GetEntryAssembly().Location)
Path.GetDirectoryName(Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().Location)
and I cannot see a way of getting the IHostingEnvironment or something similar into the extension method to read out the appsettings, or indeed to ditch the ConfigurationBuilder() and get at IOptions in the extension method, in such a way that the unit test and the running code will work correctly.
I assume there must be a way of doing this? Although I expect that I should simply not be trying at all and lift the check against the list of items into another class entirely...
Putting business logic that may ever require dependencies into static methods is not recommended. This makes it difficult to inject dependencies into them. Options are few:
Redesign the static method into a service so dependencies can be injected through the constructor. (Recommended)
public class Foo : IFoo
{
private readonly IOptions<FooOptions> optionsAccessor;
public Foo(IOptions<FooOptions> optionsAccessor)
{
this.optionsAccessor = optionsAccessor ??
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(optionsAccessor));
}
public void DoSomething()
{
var x = this.optionsAccessor;
// Same implementation as your static method
}
}
Inject the dependencies as parameters of the extension method.
public static void DoSomething(this object o, IOptions<FooOptions> optionsAccessor)
{
// Implementation
}
Redesign the static method to be a facade over an abstract factory like this example.
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 trying to create a unit test for a code similar to this:
foreach (string domainName in Directory.GetDirectories(server.Path))
{
HandleDomainDirectory(session, server, domainName);
}
The problem is that I'm using the System.IO.Directory class in my code.
How can I create a testing method that won't be dependent on any folder I have on my hard disk.
In other words, How can I fake the response of "Directory.GetDirectories(server.Path)"?
(Please note, I do control the "server" object in my class, therefore i can give any path i want)
Thanks.
Rather than calling Directory.GetDirectories(server.Path) directly, you could create an interface like IDirectoryResolver with a single method that takes a path string and returns the list of directories. The class containing your code above would then need a property or field of type IDirectoryResolver, which can be injected through the constructor or a setter.
For your production code, you would then create a new class that implements the IDirectoryResolver interface. This class could use the Directory.GetDirectories method in its implementation of the interface method.
For unit testing, you could create a MockDirectoryResolver class which implements IDirectoryResolver (or use a mocking library to create a mock instance for the interface). The mock implementation can do whatever you need it to do.
You would inject a wrapper class.
public class DirectoryFetcher
{
public virtual List<string> GetDirectoriesIn(string directory)
{
return Directory.GetDirectories(directory);
}
}
And then inject that:
foreach(string directory in _directoryFetcher.GetDirectoriesIn(server.Path))
{
// Whatever
}
You can then Mock that guy at the injection point (this example uses Moq, and constructor injection):
Mock<DirectoryFetcher> mockFetcher = new Mock<DirectoryFetcher>();
mockFetcher.Setup(x => x.GetDirectoriesIn("SomeDirectory")).Returns(new List<string>
{
"SampleDirectory1",
"SampleDirectory2"
});
MyObjectToTest testObj = new MyObjectToTest(mockFetcher.Object);
// Do Test
When communicating with the outside world, such as file system, databases, web services etc. , you should always consider using wrapper classes like the others before me suggested. Testability is one major argument, but an even bigger one is: The out side world changes, and you have no control over it. Folders move, user rights changes, new disk drives appears and old ones are removed. You only want to care about stuff like that in one place. Hence, the wrapper -- let's call it DirectoryResolver like Andy White suggested ealier.
So, wrap your file system calls, extract an interface, and inject that interface where you need to communicate with the file system.
The best solution I've found was to use Moles. The code is very specific, and must do very specific thing. Wrapping it with wrapper class will be redundant. The only reason I needed wrapper class is in order to write tests. Moles allows me to write the tests without any wrapper class :)
I am interested in the best way to write unit tests for a class whose public API involves some kind of a flow, for example:
public class PaginatedWriter {
public void AppendLine(string line) { ... }
public IEnumerable<string> GetPages() { ... }
public int LinesPerPage { get; private set; }
}
This class paginates text lines into the given number of lines per page. In order to test this class, we may have something like:
public void AppendLine_EmptyLine_AddsEmptyLine() { ... }
public void AppendLine_NonemptyLine_AddsLine() { ... }
public void GetPages_ReturnsPages() {
writer.AppendLine("abc");
writer.AppendLine("def");
var output = writer.GetPages();
...
}
Now, my question is: is it OK to make calls to AppendLine() in the last test method, even though we are testing the GetPages() method?
I know one solution in such situations is to make AppendLine() virtual and override it but the problem is that AppendLine() manipulates internal state which I don't think should be the business of the unit test.
The way I see it is that tests usually follow a pattern like 'setup - operate - check - teardown'.
I concentrate most of the common setup and teardown in the respective functions.
But for test specific setup and teardown it is part of the test method.
I see nothing wrong with preparing the state of the Object Under Test using method calls of that object. In OOP I would not try to decouple the state from the operations since the paradigm goes to great lengths to unify them and if possible even hide the state. In my view the unit under test is the Class - state and methods.
I do make visual distinction in the code by separating the setup block from the operate block and the verify block with an empty line.
Yes, I'd say that's absolutely fine.
Test in whatever way you find practical. I find there's rather too much dogma around testing exactly one thing in each test method. That's a lovely ideal, but sometimes it's just not nearly as practical as slightly less pure alternatives.