In a Node/Express server, we use a repository that needs to be unit-tested using Jest.
//Private things
let products;
function loadProducts() {
if (!products)
products = fetchProductsFromSomeDbOrServiceOrWhatever()
}
function saveProducts() {
persistPrivateProductsToADbOrServiceOrWhatever()
}
// Exported/public things
export function read() {
loadProducts();
return products;
}
export function add(product) {
loadProducts();
products.push(product);
saveProducts();
}
We want to unit test like this:
import { read, add } from './productRepo';
it('can read products', () => {
expect(read().length).toBe(5);
});
it('can add a product', () => {
const oldNum = read().length;
add({id:0, name:'test prod', moreProps});
expect(read().length).toBe(oldNum+1)
});
You get the idea. It's not a class so we can't mess with the prototype.
Problem: How do I mock the private products and/or loadProducts and/or saveProducts so that it isn't reading from the actual data source?
Presumably these private functions call out to other pieces of functionality you've written yourself or imported from libraries.
function loadProducts() {
if (!products)
products = fetchProductsFromSomeDbOrServiceOrWhatever()
}
function saveProducts() {
persistPrivateProductsToADbOrServiceOrWhatever()
}
Let's take fetchProductsFromSomeDbOrServiceOrWhatever as the example. One basic architectural consideration to make the code properly encapsulated and testable is to put this functionality in a separate module. So I would expect an import at the head of the file:
import fetchProductsFromSomeDbOrServiceOrWhatever from './fetchProductsFromSomeDbOrServiceOrWhatever'
So in this case just mock it in your test file:
jest.mock('./fetchProductsFromSomeDbOrServiceOrWhatever');
If the functionality is not extracted into a separate module this makes your code less testable; this on its own is a good reason to refactor.
Note: the other replies on this thread are correct when they say that private functions of classes should not be tested, but I think that is a slightly different issue from the one you are asking.
First, start initializing products to an empty array, else tests are doomed to fail because of the null value. Also change the null check
Then parametrize your loader and saver functions so your functions can be testable. Last write tests for you loader and saver functions outside of this repo function.
// assummed imports
fetchProductsFromSomeDbOrServiceOrWhatever=()=>{}
persistPrivateProductsToADbOrServiceOrWhatever=()=>{}
//Private things
let products=[];
function loadProducts(loader) {
loader=loader || fetchProductsFromSomeDbOrServiceOrWhatever
if (products.length==0)
products = loader()
}
function saveProducts(saver) {
saver=saver || persistPrivateProductsToADbOrServiceOrWhatever
saver()
}
// Exported/public things
export function read(loader) {
loadProducts(loader);
return products;
}
export function add(product,loader,saver) {
loadProducts(loader);
products.push(product);
saveProducts(saver);
}
both exported functions can now use fetch/persist functions either by importing or as arguments.
Now the remaining is the mocking loader and saver function. saver function does not change anything so it can be null or empty. but if you want to check if it is called inside, then you need to mock it.
import {jest} from '#jest/globals'
import { read, add } from './productRepo';
it('can read products', () => {
loader=jest.fn().mockReturnValue([{id:7},{id:42}])
expect(read(loader).length).toBe(2);
expect(loader).toBeCalledTimes(1)
});
it('can add a product', () => {
loader=jest.fn().mockReturnValue([{id:7},{id:42}])
saver=jest.fn()
const oldNum = read(loader).length;
add({id:0, name:'test prod'},loader,saver);
expect(read(loader).length).toBe(oldNum+1)
expect(loader).toBeCalledTimes(0)
expect(saver).toBeCalledTimes(1)
});
There is a "gotcha" here. Since productRepo is imported once, loader is called in the first test but will not be called again in the second test since the first has already changed the products. Thus subsequent tests must take this into account when using non-class packages.
you must not get access to private properties or methodes anyway.
instead you can provide setter and getter for your properties.
for methodes I believe you can break it into some private parts and some public parts. private parts for your actual data source and public parts that can be used in test either.
I suggest implementing an initialize method on productRepo.js.
export function init(data) {
products = data
}
Then, you can init products with mocked data.
Also, if you can't change the file, you could use the rewire library, which lets you access non-exported functions and variables.
Related
This is one of the more complex scenarios I've encountered yet. I have a function that I need to test, this function is nested in a complex puzzle of functions. I need to stub this function, and set a value inside the variable inside.
For reasons I'm not allowed to share here, the variable inside the publishEvent() method is undefined during test run, I need a way to set the value for this variable during test in order for me to test the if block of code in the function.
I summarized the whole file because I can't share the code here due to NDA, sorry if the question is not detailed enough. Maybe using sinon I can directly set the value for this variable in the publishEvent function.
function emitEvent() {
async function publishEvent() {
const variable = library.fetchData()
if (variable) {
// do something
}
}
return Promise.resolve(publishEvent())
.then(() => { })
.catch(() => null);
}
function requestSuscription() {
return getAllSubscriptions()
.then((results) => {
return Promise.map(results, () => emitEvent())
})
}
function getAllSubscriptions() {
return new Promise()
}
function requestOtherSubscription() {
console.log('other thing requested')
}
module.exports = { requestSuscription, requestOtherSubscription }
I know I can stub the requestSuscription, requestOtherSubscription functions and it works, but how can I stub the publishEvent and set the variable value?
You need a way of controlling what library.fetchData() outputs. Either you need a way of injecting a substitute for that library (easiest option) or you need to employ a link seam (environment dependant, requires extra lib) - substituting the library with a fake one at the module loading level.
You can check out this SO answer to a nearly identical question for details.
I am running Jest and am trying to log the start and end timestamp for each of my tests. I am trying to stick my timestamp logging inside the beforeEach() and afterEach() blocks. How would I log the name of my Jest test within the beforeEach() and afterEach() block?
Also, is there a more global way of logging test name and timestamp before and after all the tests without using beforeEach() and afterEach()?
You can access the name of the current test in jest like this:
expect.getState().currentTestName
This method also works inside beforeEach / afterEach
The only downside is that it will also contain the name of your current describe section. (which may be fine depending on what you are trying to do.
Also it does not give you the timing information that you asked for.
The information on currently running test is unavailable in beforeEach. Similarly to Jasmine, suite object is available in Jest as this context in describe function, it's possible to patch spec definitions to expose needed data. A more trivial way would be to define custom wrapper function for global it that intercepts test name.
Custom reporter is a better way to do this. Reporter interface is self-documented, necessary data is available in testResult.
Performance measurements are already available:
module.exports = class TimeReporter {
onTestResult(test, testResult, aggregatedResult) {
for (let { title, duration } of testResult.testResults)
console.log(`test '${title}': ${duration} ms`);
}
}
Can be used like:
reporters: ['default', "<rootDir>/time-reporter.js"]
As it was noted, there are beforeAll and afterAll, they run once per describe test group.
You can set up a test environment and either log times directly or write the name and timing info into a global variable that is only available inside the tests in question:
./tests/testEnvironment.js
const NodeEnvironment = require('jest-environment-node');
class TestEnvironment extends NodeEnvironment {
constructor(config, context) {
super(config, context);
}
async setup() {
await super.setup();
}
async teardown() {
await super.teardown();
}
async handleTestEvent(event, state) {
if (event.name === 'test_start') {
// Log things when the test starts
} else if (event.name === 'test_done') {
console.log(event.test.name);
console.log(event.test.startedAt);
console.log(event.test.duration);
this.global.someVar = 'set up vars that are available as globals inside the tests';
}
}
}
module.exports = TestEnvironment;
For each test suite the following comment is needed to use this environment:
/**
* #jest-environment ./tests/testEnvironment
*/
Also see https://jestjs.io/docs/configuration#testenvironment-string
import ManagerDaoStub from '../salesforce/__test__/ManagerDaoStub';
import criticalMerchants from '../criticalMerchants';
describe('criticalMerchants Unit Tests', () => {
before(() => {
ManagerDaoStub.initStubs();
});
after(() => {
ManagerDaoStub.restoreStubs();
});
it('assert the arguments of stubbed method', (done)=>{
let load = criticalMerchants.createCases(MERCHANT, DEVICE_ID, KEY, {});
return done();
});
})
This is the test file written in node criticalMerchants.test.js. The method i want to test which is createCases uses a method in ManagerDao, which has been stubbed in ManagerDaoStub as below.
import ManagerDao from '../ManagerDao';
class ManagerDaoStub {
constructor() {
this.sandbox = sinon.sandbox.create();
}
initStubs(sandbox) {
this.sandbox = sandbox || this.sandbox;
this.restoreStubs();
this.initFindOpenCases();
}
restoreStubs() {
this.sandbox.restore();
}
initFindOpenCases() {
let findOpenCases = this.sandbox.stub(ManagerDao, "findOpenCases");
findOpenCases
.withArgs(DEVICE_ID, KEY, match.func)
.callsArgWith(2, new Error("Test error"));
}
}
I want to assert whether this stubbed method initFindOpenCases was called with the right arguments (DEVICE_ID,KEY,null). I used
sinon.assert.calledWith(ManagerDaoStub.initFindOpenCases, DEVICE_ID, KEY, null) and this gives the following error:
AssertError: initFindOpenCases() is not stubbed.
Can someone suggest a proper way to do this?
First off, if ManagerDao.initFindOpenCases is an instance method (I'm unsure since you haven't shared its definition), then you can't stub it on the constructor like you've done here:
let findOpenCases = this.sandbox.stub(ManagerDao, "findOpenCases")
You need to either create an instance first-- then stub it on that instance-- or stub it on the prototype itself like so:
let findOpenCases = this.sandbox.stub(ManagerDao.prototype, "findOpenCases");
Secondly, you're making the same mistake again in your assertion, combined with another:
sinon.assert.calledWith(ManagerDaoStub.initFindOpenCases, DEVICE_ID, KEY, null)
ManagerDaoStub is the constructor, and it does not have an initFindOpenCases property. Its prototype does, and thus its instances do as well. On top of that, ManagerDaoStub.prototype.initFindOpenCases is still not a stub. It's a method you're calling to create a stub, but it is not itself a stub. More plainly, you're getting ManagerDao mixed up with ManagerDaoStub.
Assuming you make example change above, you can make your assertion work like this:
sinon.assert.calledWith(ManagerDao.prototype.initFindOpenCases, DEVICE_ID, KEY, null)
However, this isn't all I would recommend changing. This latter mixup is arising largely because you're vastly over-complicating the setup code of your test. You don't need to make an entire class to stub one method of ManagerDao.
Instead, just replace your before and after calls with these:
beforeEach(() => {
// Create the stub on the prototype.
sinon.stub(ManagerDao.prototype, 'findOpenCases')
.withArgs(DEVICE_ID, KEY, sinon.match.func)
.callsArgWith(2, newError('Test Error'));
});
afterEach(() => {
// As of sinon 5.0.0, the sinon object *is* a sandbox, so you can
// easily restore every fake you've made like so:
sinon.restore();
});
Aside from that, I recommend looking deeply into the difference between properties on a constructor and properties on its prototype. That knowledge will make stuff like this much easier for you. Best place to start is probably here on MDN.
I am using Microsoft's tslint-microsoft-contrib tslint configuration and I am really happy with it. However there is one rule which warns me about my code. I don't understand the rule description text or how I could solve this more elegant.
[tslint] Backbone get() called outside of owning model:
this.client.get('locations') (no-backbone-get-set-outside-model)
Code:
import * as Redis from 'ioredis';
import config from './config';
export class RedisWrapper {
private client: Redis.Redis
constructor(redisUrl: string) {
this.client = new Redis(redisUrl)
}
public async getLocations(): ILocation[] {
const locationsResponse: string = await this.client.get('locations')
}
}
In this line the tslint warning pops up: const locationsResponse: string = await this.client.get('locations')
The question:
Originally I faced this issue at a different place in my project and I thought I was supposed to write wrapper methods with typedefs, but I wasn't able to make tslint happy with that either. Can someone enlighten me what this rule means and how I could solve it?
I will quote HamletDRC (from the Microsoft team) who explained the rule itself very well:
The point of the no-backbone-get-set-outside-model rule is to make
sure that you don't invoke dynamically dispatched methods that the
compiler cannot enforce correctness on. For example, the compiler will
not complain if you type route.params.get('id'),
route.params.get('ID'), route.params.get('Id') but only one of those
invocations will actually work at runtime. The design advice is to
define a statically typed "getId(): number" method on the RouteParams
object so the compiler can enforce these calls. So, in my opinion the
rule actually has found an issue in your code that you should fix (but
see my second point :) )
Source: https://github.com/Microsoft/tslint-microsoft-contrib/issues/123
In this specific case one could extend the Redis class like this:
export class RedisWrapper extends Redis {
public async getLocations(): Promise<ILocation[]> {
const response: string = await this.get('locations');
if (response == null || response.length === 0) { return []; }
return <ILocation[]>JSON.parse(response);
}
}
I have two .js files: root.js and external.js
root.js
import myExternalFunction from 'external.js'
class Parent {
constructor(){}
parentFunction = () => {
console.log('I was called from an external function using "this."')
}
}
external.js
export default myExternalFunction = () => {
this.parentFunction()
}
Currently I receive an error about it not being a function, or no access to 'this'.
How do I import external functions that want to use the 'this' scope from which they are being called?
How do I import external functions that want to use the 'this' scope from which they are being called?
It doesn't have anything to do with how you export/import the function.
There are two things you need to consider:
functions that want to receive their this value dynamically must not be arrow functions, so use
export default function myExternalFunction() {
this.parentFunction()
}
as usual, the function must be invoked in the right way to get the expected this value. There's no magic that passes the current this value in the scope of the call to the called function. You'll have to do something like
import myExternalFunction from 'external.js'
class Parent {
constructor(){
this.method = myExternalFunction;
this.parentFunction = () => {
console.log('I was called from an external function using "this."')
}
}
}
const example = new Parent;
example.method() // an invocation as a method
myExternalFunction.call(example); // explicit using `call`