I've got a hibernate-based application which uses DBUnit for unit testing. We have an XML test database, which gets loaded up with dummy data in the setUp() of each test and deleted during the tearDown(). The problem is that I can no longer run the entire suite in an IDE (in this case, Intellij), because after about 300 tests, the heap memory gets all used up. The tests go from taking ~0.3 seconds to 30+ seconds to execute, until the JVM eventually gives up and dies.
When I run the test suite via ant's junit task, then it's no problem, nor is running the test suite for an individual class. However, I like being able to run the whole suite locally before I check in large refactoring changes to the codebase rather than breaking the build on the CI server.
I am running the test suite with -Xmx512m as my only argument to the JVM, which is the same amount I pass to ant when running the task on the CI server. My hibernate-test.cfg.xml looks like this:
<hibernate-configuration>
<session-factory>
<!-- Database connection settings -->
<property name="connection.driver_class">org.hsqldb.jdbcDriver</property>
<property name="connection.url">jdbc:hsqldb:mem:mydatabase</property>
<property name="connection.username">sa</property>
<property name="connection.password"/>
<!-- Other configuration properties -->
<property name="connection.pool_size">1</property>
<property name="jdbc.batch_size">20</property>
<property name="connection.autocommit">true</property>
<property name="dialect">org.hibernate.dialect.HSQLDialect</property>
<property name="current_session_context_class">thread</property>
<property name="cache.provider_class">org.hibernate.cache.HashtableCacheProvider</property>
<property name="bytecode.use_reflection_optimizer">false</property>
<property name="show_sql">true</property>
<property name="hibernate.hbm2ddl.auto">create-drop</property>
<!-- Mappings (omitted for brevity) -->
<mapping resource="hbm/blah.hbm.xml"/>
</session-factory>
</hibernate-configuration>
We have written a class for which all of the test classes extend from, which looks something like this:
package com.mycompany.test;
// imports omitted for brevity
public abstract class DBTestCase extends TestCase {
private final String XML_DATA_SET = "test/resources/mytestdata.xml";
private Session _session;
private Configuration _config;
public DBTestCase(String name) {
super(name);
}
#Override
protected void setUp() throws Exception {
super.setUp();
_config = new Configuration().configure();
SessionFactory sf = _config.buildSessionFactory();
// This is a singleton which is used the DAO's to acquire a session.
// The session must be manually set from the test's setup so that any
// calls to the singleton return this session factory, otherwise NPE
// will result, since the session factory is normally built during
// webapp initialization.
HibernateUtil.setSessionFactory(sf);
_session = sf.openSession();
_session.beginTransaction();
IDataSet dataSet = new FlatXmlDataSet(new File(XML_DATA_SET));
DatabaseOperation.CLEAN_INSERT.execute(getConnection(), dataSet);
}
protected void tearDown() throws Exception {
super.tearDown();
_session.close();
}
protected IDatabaseConnection getConnection() throws Exception {
ConnectionProvider connProvider = ConnectionProviderFactory
.newConnectionProvider(_config.getProperties());
Connection jdbcConnection = connProvider.getConnection();
DatabaseConnection dbConnection = new DatabaseConnection(jdbcConnection);
DatabaseConfig dbConfig = dbConnection.getConfig();
dbConfig.setProperty(DatabaseConfig.PROPERTY_DATATYPE_FACTORY, new HsqldbDataTypeFactory());
return dbConnection;
}
}
It is clear that some memory leak is going on here, but I'm not sure where. How might I go about diagnosing this?
You are using memory database here:
<property name="connection.driver_class">org.hsqldb.jdbcDriver</property>
<property name="connection.url">jdbc:hsqldb:mem:mydatabase</property>
That means everything in the database is in the memory. Either use on disk database with cached table, or make sure you drop everything after each test.
J-16 SDiZ's answer got me working in the right direction, but I thought I would provide a bit more detailed information as to how I was able to solve this. The root of the problem was indeed that the database kept being stored in memory, but the solution was to inherit from DBUnit's DBTestCase class, not try to roll my own by inheriting from the JUnit TestCase. My test case base class now looks something like this:
public class MyTestCase extends DBTestCase {
private static Configuration _config = null;
public MyTestCase(String name) {
super(name);
if(_config == null) {
_config = new Configuration().configure();
SessionFactory sf = _config.buildSessionFactory();
HibernateUtil.setSessionFactory(sf);
}
System.setProperty(PropertiesBasedJdbcDatabaseTester.DBUNIT_DRIVER_CLASS, "org.hsqldb.jdbcDriver");
System.setProperty(PropertiesBasedJdbcDatabaseTester.DBUNIT_CONNECTION_URL, "jdbc:hsqldb:mem:mydbname");
System.setProperty(PropertiesBasedJdbcDatabaseTester.DBUNIT_USERNAME, "sa");
System.setProperty(PropertiesBasedJdbcDatabaseTester.DBUNIT_PASSWORD, "");
}
#Override
protected IDataSet getDataSet() throws Exception {
return new FlatXmlDataSet(new FileReader(MY_XML_DATA_FILE_NAME), false, true, false);
}
#Override
protected void setUpDatabaseConfig(DatabaseConfig config) {
config.setProperty(DatabaseConfig.PROPERTY_DATATYPE_FACTORY, new HsqldbDataTypeFactory());
}
This class works quite well, and my test suite runs have gone down from several minutes to a mere 30 seconds.
Related
I am curious if there is an easier way to mock the dependencies inside a component that uses AOP.
For example I have a component that uses CRUD methods to persist changes to the database. For audit logging I figured I could use AOP so I didn't have to put my logging calls inside of the methods. The issue that I am running into is during unit testing when I want to mock the database and session storage used inside the object that provides the AOP. The only way I have been able to figure out how to fake the database and session is to create a new mock component file that extends the original and then overrides the init method. Using this method is not very flexible as I have to create several extra files for a simple unit test. Below is some of the test code:
This is the bean that gets created with the di/1 bean factory:
//customerBean.cfc
component accessors="true" extends="models.abstracts.AbstractModel" displayname="Customer" {
property name="ID" type="numeric" default="0";
property name="Name" type="string" length="100" default="<Unknown>" logEvents="update";
property name="Type" type="string" default="Homeowner" logEvents="update";
property name="Status" type="string" default="Active" logEvents="update";
public any function init(customerDAO) {
variables.DAO = arguments.customerDAO;
}
}
Here is the component that the customerBean extends:
//abstractModel.cfc
component accessors="true" {
public any function doCreate(required struct data) {
setID(save());
return getID();
}
}
This is the AOP component that has two dependencies that need to be mocked:
//customerLogger.cfc
component accessors="true" {
property name="tableToLogTo" default="CustomerLogs" setter="false";
public any function init(LoggerServiceDAO, scopeStorage) {
variables.loggerServiceDAO = arguments.loggerServiceDAO;
variables.scopeStorage = arguments.scopeStorage;
}
public any function after(targetBean, methodName, args, result) {
variables.loggerServiceDAO.insertLog(method=arguments.methodName, user=variables.scopeStorage.get('session.user.id'));
}
}
Here is the code I use to get the CustomerBean:
bf = new framework.aop(
folders="/models,/system,/tests/Mocks", config={transients=["entity", "process", "transients", "report", "forms"],transientPattern="Bean$"}
);
bf.intercept('CustomerBean', 'CustomerLoggerMock', 'doCreate');
customerBean = bf.getBean('CustomerBean', {customerDAO: customerDAOMock});
Ideally what I would like to do is use Testbox to mock the two objects and use the nice built in verification methods. Is this possible or am I stuck creating all of these mock files?
I have a Camel Unit Test and I want to get access to the header values that are set on the Exchange on the first point in the route.
Route example :
<route id="VCM001_incoming">
<from uri="file:{{InLocation}}"/>
<convertBodyTo type="java.lang.String"/>
<setHeader headerName="FileNameWithoutExtension">
<simple>${file:onlyname.noext}</simple>
</setHeader>
<to uri="direct:splitFile"/>
</route>
Java code where it's used :
public List<String> createList(Exchange exchange) {
String fileName = (String) exchange.getIn().getHeader("FileNameWithoutExtension");
So all good to this point.
Now in my test I want to find out what header value is "FileNameWithoutExtension".
#Produce(uri = "file:{{InLocation}}")
private ProducerTemplate inputEndpoint;
#EndpointInject(uri = "mock:output1")
private MockEndpoint outputEndpointRPR;
#Test
public void testCamelRoute() throws Exception {
context.addRoutes(new RouteBuilder() {
#Override
public void configure() throws Exception {
from("file:{{OutLocation}}").to(outputEndpoint);
}
inputEndpoint.sendBody("test-message");
Object[] expectedBodies = new Object[]{"Success: filename=xxx"};
// At this point I need the header 'FileNameWithoutExtension' to setup the correct 'expectedBodies'
outputEndpoint.expectedBodiesReceivedInAnyOrder(expectedBodies);
assertMockEndpointsSatisfied();
}
}
Know this is very late, for camel 2.15.2 you can use the following
outputEndpoint.expectedHeaderReceived("header", "value");
You could get it quite easily using:
outputEndpoint.getExchanges().get(0).getIn().getHeader("FileNameWithoutExtension");
Look in the mock endpoint. There should store in memory each received exchange so you can do something like:
outputEndpointRPR.getExchanges().get(0).getIn().getHeader("FileNameWithoutExtension");
See http://camel.apache.org/mock.html
Another alternative to verify a header is by doing:
outputEndpoint.expectedMessagecount(1);
outputEndpoint.message(0).header("header").isEqualTo("value");
inputEndpoint.sendBody(body);
outputEndpoint.assertIsSatisfied();
Note: you should do this in the setup of your test! Putting the endpoint at the bottom will lead to false positives of your test.
I have code piece sending jms messages via Spring JMSTemplate. For testing the the method i use Mockito.
My code looks like following.... publishDialogueServiceMessage()->
brokerUrl = jmsQueueProperties.getProperty(MessageRouterConstants.JMS_QUEUE_URL);
LOG.info("The broker url is : {}", brokerUrl);
jmsTemplate.send(jmsQueueProperties.getProperty(MessageRouterConstants.QUEUE), new MessageCreator() {
#Override
public Message createMessage(Session session) throws JMSException {
ObjectMessage obj = session.createObjectMessage(serviceResponse);
messageSent = true;
return obj;
}
});
In above code to i set boolean variable true, to check that if the message is sent
My Test looks following,
#Before
public void setUp() throws Exception {
connectionFactory = Mockito.spy(new ActiveMQConnectionFactory(
"vm://localhost?broker.persistent=false"));
conn = connectionFactory.createConnection();
conn.start();
}
#After
public void cleanUp() throws Exception{
conn.stop();
}
#Test
public void testPublishDialogueServiceMessage()
{
ServiceResponse response = Mockito.mock(
ServiceResponse.class, Mockito.withSettings()
.serializable());
JmsTemplate mockTemplate = Mockito.mock(JmsTemplate.class);
java.util.Properties p = Mockito.mock(java.util.Properties.class);
Mockito.when(p.getProperty(MessageRouterConstants.QUEUE))
.thenReturn("outbound.request.queue");
mockTemplate.setConnectionFactory(connectionFactory);
mockTemplate.setDeliveryPersistent(true);
mockTemplate.setSessionAcknowledgeMode(2);
mockTemplate.setSessionTransacted(true);
ReflectionTestUtils.setField(publisher, "jmsQueueProperties", p);
ReflectionTestUtils.setField(publisher, "jmsTemplate", mockTemplate);
// test
publisher.publishDialogueServiceMessage(response);
ArgumentCaptor<MessageCreator> msgCreator = ArgumentCaptor.forClass(MessageCreator.class);
Mockito.verify(p, Mockito.times(2))
.getProperty(Mockito.anyString());
Mockito.verify(mockTemplate, Mockito.times(1)).send(
Mockito.anyString(), Mockito.any(MessageCreator.class));
//MessageCreator msgCrt = Mockito.spy(msgCreator.getValue());
//Assert.notNull(msgCrt);
Assert.isTrue(publisher.isMessageSent());
}
In test i facing an interesting problem as publisher.isMessageSent() always returns me FALSE indicating that send message seems not executed(?). but Mockito.verify(mockTemplate, Mockito.times(1)).send(Mockito.anyString(), Mockito.any(MessageCreator.class)); goes fine.
I am wondering what is the cause that my messageSent variable not setting. Can anyone shed some light what I might be doing wrong.
Simple, you have a mock for the jmsTemplate (your mockTemplate). When a method is invoked on a mock it doesn't do anything other than record the call to the mock. So the mock doesn't know that it should attempt to invoke the msgCreator.
Looking at your test I see some obvious issues that suggest a lack of knowledge of Mockito. Why are you setting all of those fields on mockTemplate? It is a mock, it will not use those fields anyway. This also suggests that you don't need the code in your #Before and #After.
If you REALLY want your test to send a message via JMS (and thereby invoke the message createor) you should use a spy on JmsTemplate instead of a mock. However, I would highly discourage this as your test will be dependent on an external system and you would in effect be testing JsmTemplate. The fact that your mock gets invoked properly is sufficient. The only additional thing I think you need to do is to invoke the message creator being passed to the mock to verify that it creates the message correctly.
I'm trying to use for the first time TestNG with #Factory and for me doesn't work, I'll say you why.
I have a class called Extend in which I have some tests, "launch site", "login", "check if the useris in his own dashboard" and so on and I wanted that for all datas passed from the factory the order of theese test are always the same "launch site">>"login">>"check user is in his dashboard">>"logout" ok? So I have the following extend.xml file and classes:
<suite name="ExtendFactory" group-by-instances="true">
<test name="Factory" preserve-order="true" group-by-instances="true">
<classes>
<class name="net.whaooo.ExtendFactory">
<methods>
<include name="launchSite"></include>
<include name="loginTest" />
<include name="userIsInHisOwnDashboardTest" />
<include name="logoutTest" />
</methods>
</class>
</classes>
</test>
</suite>
Extend class:
public class Extend extends BaseTest{
protected static FirefoxDriver driver;
private String a_driver;
private String password;
public Extend(String a_driver, String pwd){
this.a_driver = a_driver;
this.password = pwd;
}
#BeforeTest
public void stDriver() {
DesiredCapabilities caps = DesiredCapabilities.firefox(); caps.setCapability(CapabilityType.ForSeleniumServer.ENSURING_CLEAN_SESSION, true);
driver = new FirefoxDriver(caps);
driver.manage().timeouts().implicitlyWait(30, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
}
#AfterTest
public void stopDriver() {
driver.close();
}
#Test
public void launch() {
launchSite(driver);
}
#Test (description = "Enter a valid login as driver")
public void loginTest() {
login(driver, a_driver, password);
}
#Test (description = "Check the driver is in his own dashboard")
public void userIsInHisOwnDashboardTest(){
userIsInHisOwnDashboardTest(driver, a_driver, password);
}
#Test(description="logout")
public void logout(){
logoutTest(driver);
}
}
Semplified Factory:
public class ExtendFactory {
#Factory
public Object[] createInstances() {
Object[] result = new Object[2];
result[0] = new Extend("test1#test.com","tester");
result[1] = new Extend("test2#test.com","tester");
return result;
}
}
But my problem is that the order in which the tests are launched doesn't follow the one specified in the xml file even if I insert the clause preserve-order="true" group-by-instances="true", I tryed also with order-by-instances="true". Can anyone help me?
I see many issues... first of all #Factory with group-by-instance="true" messes up whole test (it executes just one instance and only non-dependent methods).
#Factory works without group-by-instance but it executes all non-dependent methods first irrespective of number of instances. Eg.. Class A {#Test public void a() {} #Test(dependsOnMethod="a") public void b() {}}... along with #Factory that returns two instances.. then the execution is ref1.a, ref2.a, ref1.b, ref2.b. this has serious issue.. say class A uses large amount of memory then sure it will run out before executing all.
ps: not sure if it is eclipse issue. I am using testng 6.8.1
ps2: seems like testng intends for regression.. but it is still not there.. nor its regression (#Factory) is supported by its own classes (like #Listeners who will read only #Parameters.. but #Factory cannot set same) or by third party.
I think what you need to use is dependsOnMethods in your testcases, coz the flow that you mention, if the first method doesn't execute, there is no point in executing the second testcase. i.e. if "launch site" fails, there's no need to execute "login". This would also ensure order of execution. Check out Dependent Methods
I've been using the
#Test(dependsOnMethods = "TestName")
Where "TestName" is the prerequisite test to run. So for your login test, it should have the following annotation:
#Test(dependsOnMethods = "launchSite")
I'm running 9 tests in a row, and since adding the dependsOnMethods, all have ran in order with no issue
Thank you for your answer, I ended up to use a #Factory specifing "order-by-instances="true"" and than in the dynamic object I insert the dependencies!
Using depends in the TestClass file is not a solution as the functions which are not dependent on any other functions are still been executed randomly.
I need to execute the Test Cases in the order which i have mentioned. This can be achieved using "preserve-order" when executed using TestNG but it fails when grouping is used in TestNG.
If anyone can help in this concern, please revert.
I'm developing a Java application with lots of complex Hibernate criteria queries. I would like to test these criteria to make sure they are selecting the right, and only the right, objects. One approach to this, of course, is to set up an in-memory database (e.g. HSQL) and, in each test, make a round trip to that database using the criteria and then assert that the query results match my expectations.
But I'm looking for a simpler solution, since Hibernate criteria are just a special kind of logical predicates about Java objects. Thus they could, in theory, be tested without accessing any database at all. For example, assuming that there is a entity called Cat:
class Cat {
Cat(String name, Integer age){
this.name = name;
this.age = age;
}
...
}
I would like to do something like this, to create criteria queries:
InMemoryCriteria criteria = InMemoryCriteria.forClass(Cat.class)
.add(Restrictions.like("name", "Fritz%"))
.add(Restrictions.or(
Restrictions.eq("age", new Integer(0)),
Restrictions.isNull("age")))
assertTrue(criteria.apply(new Cat("Foo", 0)))
assertTrue(criteria.apply(new Cat("Fritz Lang", 12)))
assertFalse(criteria.apply(new Cat("Foo", 12)))
The criteria could be used in production code like this:
criteria.getExecutableCriteria(session); //similar to DetachedCriteria
Is there any Java library that makes this kind of test possible?
You could use a mocking framework like Mockito to mock all relevant Hibernate classes and define expected behavior of these mocks.
Sounds like a lot of code, but since the Hibernate Criteria API is a fluent interface, all methods of Criteria return a new instance Criteria. So defining the mock behavior which is common to all tests is simple.
Here is an example using Mockito
#Mock
private SessionFactory sessionFactory;
#Mock
Session session;
#Mock
Criteria criteria;
CatDao serviceUnderTest;
#Before
public void before()
{
reset(sessionFactory, session, criteria);
when(sessionFactory.getCurrentSession()).thenReturn(session);
when(session.createCriteria(Cat.class)).thenReturn(criteria);
when(criteria.setFetchMode(anyString(), (FetchMode) anyObject())).thenReturn(criteria);
when(criteria.setFirstResult(anyInt())).thenReturn(criteria);
when(criteria.setMaxResults(anyInt())).thenReturn(criteria);
when(criteria.createAlias(anyString(), anyString())).thenReturn(criteria);
when(criteria.add((Criterion) anyObject())).thenReturn(criteria);
serviceUnderTest = new CatDao(sessionFactory);
}
All methods of the Criteria mock return the mock again.
In a concrete test you would then use a ArgumentCaptor and verify statements to investigate what happened to the mocked Criteria.
#Test
public void testGetCatByName()
{
ArgumentCaptor<Criterion> captor = ArgumentCaptor.forClass(Criterion.class);
serviceUnderTest.getCatByName("Tom");
// ensure a call to criteria.add and record the argument the method call had
verify(criteria).add(captor.capture());
Criterion criterion = captor.getValue();
Criterion expectation = Restrictions.eq("name", "Tom");
// toString() because two instances seem never two be equal
assertEquals(expectation.toString(), criterion.toString());
}
The problem I see with this kind of unitests is that they impose a lot of expectations about the class under test. If you think of serviceUnderTest
as a blackbox, you can't know how it retrieves the cat object by name. It could also use a LIKE criterion or even 'IN' instead of =, further it could use the
Example criterion. Or it could execute a native SQL query.
I think, you must do an integration test here with H2 or other in-memory database. As you said, if you only use mocks, you can see how object interacts with each other, but you never know what result list you get.
I am on the same page, not with Restriction or so, but with JPA 2.0 CriteriaQuery and CriteriaBuilder. I build complex predicates in my persistence layer, and at last, I find it becomes inevitable to test with data in db, as no one knows what would be the final query in SQL. And I decide that in this part of the system, an integration is needed, so I went for it.
At last it is not very hard to build such a test. You need H2 dependency, a persistence.xml like this:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- For H2 database integration tests. -->
<!-- For each int test, define unique name PU in this file and include SQL files in different paths. -->
<persistence version="2.0"
xmlns="http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/persistence" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xsi:schemaLocation="http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/persistence http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/persistence/persistence_2_0.xsd">
<persistence-unit name="test-item-history-service-bean" transaction-type="RESOURCE_LOCAL">
<provider>org.hibernate.ejb.HibernatePersistence</provider> <!-- mind here: must be this! cannot be JPA provider! -->
<class>com.data.company.Company</class>
<class>com.data.company.ItemHistory</class>
<exclude-unlisted-classes>true</exclude-unlisted-classes>
<properties>
<property name="javax.persistence.jdbc.url"
value="jdbc:h2:mem:test;DB_CLOSE_DELAY=-1;MODE=Oracle;INIT=RUNSCRIPT FROM 'src/test/resources/db/item-history/create.sql'\;RUNSCRIPT FROM 'src/test/resources/db/item-history/populate.sql'"/>
<property name="javax.persistence.jdbc.driver" value="org.h2.Driver"/>
<property name="hibernate.dialect" value="org.hibernate.dialect.H2Dialect"/>
<property name="hibernate.id.new_generator_mappings" value="true"/>
<property name="hibernate.hbm2ddl.auto" value="update"/> <!-- mind here! Can only be "update"! "create-drop" will prevent data insertion! -->
<property name="hibernate.format_sql" value="true"/>
<property name="hibernate.show_sql" value="true"/>
<property name="hibernate.default_schema" value="main"/>
</properties>
</persistence-unit>
</persistence>
(Mind very carefully the comment in the XML above, it took me a week to finally solve them)
Note about the provider: see here: How to configure JPA for testing in Maven
And in the two sql files, you CREATE TABLE ... and INSERT INTO .... Insert whatever you like, as the data is part of the test.
And, a test like this:
/**
* Integration tests with in-memory H2 DB. Created because:
* - In-memory DB are relatively cheap to create and destroy, so these tests are quick
* - When using {#link javax.persistence.criteria.CriteriaQuery}, we inevitably introduce complex perdicates'
* construction into persistence layer, which is a drawback of it, but we cannot trade it with repetitive queries
* per id, which is a performance issue, so we need to find a way to test it
* - JBehave tests are for the user story flows, here we only want to check with the complex queries, certain
* records are returned; performance can be verified in UAM.
*/
#RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
public class ItemHistoryPersistenceServiceBeanDBIntegrationTest {
private static EntityManagerFactory factory;
private EntityManager realEntityManager;
private ItemHistoryPersistenceServiceBean serviceBean;
private Query<String> inputQuery;
#BeforeClass
public static void prepare() {
factory = Persistence.createEntityManagerFactory("test-item-history-service-bean");
}
#Before
public void setup() {
realEntityManager = factory.createEntityManager();
EntityManager spy = spy(realEntityManager);
serviceBean = new ItemHistoryPersistenceServiceBean();
try {
// inject the real entity manager, instead of using mocks
Field entityManagerField = serviceBean.getClass().getDeclaredField("entityManager");
entityManagerField.setAccessible(true);
entityManagerField.set(serviceBean, spy);
} catch (NoSuchFieldException | IllegalAccessException e) {
throw new AssertionError("should not reach here");
}
inputQuery = new Query<>();
inputQuery.setObjectId("itemId");
}
#After
public void teardown() {
realEntityManager.close();
}
#Test
public void findByIdAndToken_shouldReturnRecordsMatchingOnlyTokenFilter() {
try {
// when
List<ItemHistory> actual = serviceBean.findByIdAndToken(inputQuery);
// then
assertEquals(2, actual.size());
assertThat(actual.get(0).getItemPackageName(), anyOf(is("orgId 3.88"), is("orgId 3.99.3")));
assertThat(actual.get(1).getItemPackageName(), anyOf(is("orgId 3.88"), is("orgId 3.99.3")));
} catch (DataLookupException e) {
throw new AssertionError("should not reach here");
}
}
}