having a class which internally generates error msg and using static function of android,util.Log.i(String, String) to log the error (it could be some other static function to recored the failure).
class Util {
public static void handleIntent(Intent intent, String Tag, String failMsg) {
...
if (true) { // for test
String s = failMsg; //getError(failCode);
Log.i(Tag, s);
}
...
}
}
and the test is to verify the error message is logged (using mockito-inline 3.8.0):
#Test
public void test_log() {
try (MockedStatic<Log> logMock = Mockito.mockStatic(Log.class)) {
Intent intent = getIntent();
// test
Util.handleIntent(intent, "theTag", "+++TEST1");
// verify
Mockito.verify(logMock, times(1)).i(eq(theTag), eq("+++TEST1")); //<== does not compile
Log.i(eq("+++TEST1"), eq(dataStr));
}
}
how to mock the android.util.Log and verify its static android.util.Log.i(String, String) has been called with the string?
(powermock is not the option. it was using powermock and after update the mockito to 3.8.0 and powermock to 2.0.9, it starts to get a lot errors, and was suggested to replace the powermock with mockito-inline.)
You would add a "logMock.when" instruction before you test's instruction.
this works:
try (MockedStatic<Log> logMock = Mockito.mockStatic(Log.class)) {
// test
Util.handleIntent(intent, "theTag", "+++TEST1");
logMock.verify(() -> Log.i(eq("theTag"), eq("+++TEST1"), times(1));
}
Related
I'm working with JUnit5 and their ParameterizedTest feature. How do I work with method references as part of the data source?
Example:
public enum Status {
APPROVE, DECLINE
}
#Mock
public MockService mockService;
// Normal Test
#Test
void testApprove() {
Mockito.doReturn(null)
.when(mockService)
.approveCall();
Mockito.verify(mockService).approveCall();
}
// Parameterized Test
Map<Status, Supplier<?>> mockMap = Map.ofEntries( // Java 9 method
Map.entry(APPROVE, mockService::approveCall),
Map.entry(DECLINE, mockService::declineCall)
);
#ParameterizedTest
#EnumSource(Status.class)
void test(Status status) {
Supplier<?> supplier = mockMap.get(status);
??
}
I want my second test to do the same thing as my first test, but also covering the DECLINE value. How do I parameterize the mock method reference?
I worked around it with a few functional/lambda tricks.
public class MyTest {
public enum Status {
APPROVE, DECLINE
}
#Mock
public MockService mockService;
// Parameterized Test
Map<Status, MockitoVerifier> mockMap = Map.ofEntries( // Java 9 method
Map.entry(Status.APPROVE, () -> Mockito.verify(mockService).approveCall()),
Map.entry(Status.DECLINE, () -> Mockito.verify(mockService).declineCall())
);
#ParameterizedTest
#EnumSource(Status.class)
void test(Status status) {
MockitoVerifier<?> verifier = mockMap.get(status);
verifier.verify();
}
#FunctionalInterface
interface MockitoVerifier<T> {
T verify();
}
}
I try to call a java function from my c++ code, but the app keeps 'crashing'.
At first, I start the c++ code through JNI call, which works without any problem. Then I let the function which is called executing the callback:
#include <jni.h>
extern "C"
JNIEXPORT jstring JNICALL
Java_net_example_folder_Service_startSomething(JNIEnv *env, jobject obj) {
invoke_class(env);
return env->NewStringUTF("The End.\n"); //works if I only use this line
}
Trying to follow http://www.inonit.com/cygwin/jni/invocationApi/c.html (and a lot of other guides/tips etc.), I use this to call the java function:
void invoke_class(JNIEnv* env) {
jclass helloWorldClass;
jmethodID mainMethod;
helloWorldClass = env->FindClass("Java/net/example/folder/helloWorldClass");
mainMethod = env->GetStaticMethodID(helloWorldClass, "helloWorld", "()V");
env->CallStaticVoidMethod(helloWorldClass, mainMethod);
}
To call the java code:
package net.example.folder;
import android.util.Log;
public class helloWorldClass {
public static void helloWorld() {
Log.e("helloWorldCLass", "Hello World!");
}
}
The c++ code is called by a background service. Here is the function of the Activity that starts it:
public void startService() {
Intent i = new Intent(this, Service.class);
startService(i);
}
And this is a part of the Service:
public class SimService extends IntentService {
...
#Override
protected void onHandleIntent(Intent intent) {
System.loadLibrary("native-lib");
startSomething();
}
}
That all works, but when I now change the function 'invoke_class' to:
void invoke_class(JNIEnv* env) {
jclass helloWorldClass;
jmethodID mainMethod;
helloWorldClass = env->FindClass("net/example/folder/helloWorldClass");
mainMethod = env->GetStaticMethodID(helloWorldClass, "helloWorld", "([Ljava/lang/String;)V");
env->CallStaticVoidMethod(helloWorldClass, mainMethod, env->NewStringUTF("some text"));
}
and of course the java part to:
package net.example.folder;
import android.util.Log;
public class helloWorldClass {
public static void helloWorld(String msg) {
Log.e("helloWorldCLass", msg);
}
}
With that, I'll get the earlier mentioned crash.
Why is that? How do I pass arguments correctly?
Symbol [ is used to represent arrays (as if you had String[] msg), remove that from your GetStaticMethodID method.
You can see more information about JNI Types and Data Structures here
Also as Michael said - you should check for java exceptions in your native code, because otherwise your app will crash. You can do it using Exception jni functions. For example:
jclass exClass = env->FindClass("some/random/class");
if (exClass == nullptr || env->ExceptionOccurred()) {
env->ExceptionClear();
// do smth in case of failure
}
I am trying to do some dependency injection for my tests using nUnit. I'm new to TDD and nUnit so it's possible I am missing something simple. So basically I've created a SetUp method for my interfaces. I originally was using a constructor but I read it's bad to do this when doing TDD so I now using a method.
When I run my test I construct an object and assign it to the interface and then I call a method using that interface. I want to test if it can parse a string decimal.
When I run my test it says test failed and the message is:Invalid signature for SetUp or TearDown method
See below for the actual code:
public class DonorTests
{
private IDonor _Donor;
private IValidateInput _ValidInput;
//DonorTests(IDonor donor, IValidateInput validInput)
//{
// _Donor = donor;
// _ValidInput = validInput;
//}
[SetUp]
void Setup(IDonor donor, IValidateInput validInput)
{
_Donor = donor;
_ValidInput = validInput;
}
[Test]
public void HandleStringNotDecimal()
{
_ValidInput = new ValidateInput();
Assert.IsTrue(_ValidInput.IsDecimal("3445.3450"));
}
}
My class that uses this interface
public class ValidateInput : IValidateInput
{
public decimal RoundTwoDecimalPlaces(decimal amount)
{
return Math.Round(amount);
}
public bool IsDecimal(string amount)
{
decimal ParsedDecimal;
return Decimal.TryParse(amount, out ParsedDecimal);
}
public decimal ConvertToString(string value)
{
decimal ParsedDecimal;
Decimal.TryParse(value, out ParsedDecimal);
return ParsedDecimal;
}
}
You're injecting dependencies using constructor injection previously, right? I think you will not be able to perform dependency injection using method decorated with SetUpAttribute because such method has to be parameterless. Also Setup method has to be public, see this SO thread.
How are we typically dealing with similar situations in our company is:
[TestFixture]
public class DonorTests
{
private IDonor _Donor;
private IValidateInput _ValidInput;
[SetUp]
public void Setup()
{
_Donor = new Donor();
_ValidInput = new ValidateInput();
}
[Test]
public void HandleStringNotDecimal()
{
Assert.IsTrue(_ValidInput.IsDecimal("3445.3450"));
}
}
Or if construction of ValidInput and Donor is cheap then we simply create new instance for each test, having special method for that purpose so when we decide to test another implementation of IValidateInput then it is enough to change it in one place only:
[TestFixture]
public class DonorTests
{
[Test]
public void HandleStringNotDecimal()
{
var validInput = CreateValidateInput();
Assert.IsTrue(validInput .IsDecimal("3445.3450"));
}
private static IValidateInput CreateValidateInput()
{
return new ValidateInput();
}
}
Besides the cause mentioned in the accepted answer, I have met the same error when leaving method as non-public (private or protected).
NUnit most probably relies on reflection and does not deal with non-public methods, so special methods (i.e. decorated with NUnit specific attributes) must be public.
Does anyone have idea about writing unit test case for ATG using Mockito? I came across following discussions while goggling -
Automated unit tests for ATG development and
Using PowerMock to obtain the ATG Nucleus in testing results in NPE
But need a help in setting up Nucleus and other dependencies (DAS, DPS, DSS etc.) and a sample test class for droplet using Mockito.
We are using ATG Dust where we have to set all the dependencies. I am wondering if we can replace ATG Dust completely with Mockito. Here is the example how we are writing the test cases -
A Base class for setting Nucleus -
package com.ebiz.market.support;
import java.io.File;
import java.util.Arrays;
import atg.nucleus.NucleusTestUtils;
import atg.test.AtgDustCase;
import atg.test.util.FileUtil;
public class BaseTestCase extends AtgDustCase {
public atg.nucleus.Nucleus mNucleus = null;
private final String ATGHOME="C://ATG/ATG9.4//home";
private final String ATGHOMEPROPERTY = "atg.dynamo.home";
protected void setUp() throws Exception {
super.setUp();
String dynamoHome = System.getProperty(ATGHOMEPROPERTY);
if(dynamoHome == null)
System.setProperty(ATGHOMEPROPERTY, ATGHOME);
File configpath = NucleusTestUtils.getConfigpath(this.getClass(), this.getClass().getName(), true);
FileUtil.copyDirectory("src/test/resources/config/test/", configpath.getAbsolutePath(), Arrays.asList(new String [] {".svn"}));
copyConfigurationFiles(new String[]{"config"}, configpath.getAbsolutePath(), ".svn");
}
public File getConfigPath() {
return NucleusTestUtils.getConfigpath(this.getClass(), this.getClass().getName(), true);
}
}
Writing the test case by extending the base class -
public class BizDropletTest extends BaseTestCase {
private BizDroplet bizDroplet;
#Before
public void setUp() throws Exception {
super.setUp();
mNucleus = NucleusTestUtils.startNucleusWithModules(new String[] { "DSS", "DPS", "DAFEAR" }, this.getClass(),
this.getClass().getName(), "com/ebiz/market/support/droplet/BizDroplet");
autoSuggestDroplet = (AutoSuggestDroplet) mNucleus.resolveName("com/ebiz/market/support/droplet/BizDroplet");
try {
bizDroplet.doStartService();
} catch (ServiceException e) {
fail(e.getMessage());
}
}
/**
Other methods
*/
}
So, how Mockito can handle these? Again, for me the target is to replace ATG Dust with Mockito completely because ATG Dust take lot of time in running tests due to huge dependencies.
Thanks.
Using Mockito you don't setup Nucleus or other dependencies (unless you need it). You simply mock the objects that you need to use.
Consider a simple class ProductUrlDroplet that retrieves a product from the repository and then outputs a url based on this. The service method would look something like this:
public void service(DynamoHttpServletRequest pRequest, DynamoHttpServletResponse pResponse) throws ServletException, IOException {
Object product = pRequest.getObjectParameter(PRODUCT_ID);
RepositoryItem productItem = (RepositoryItem) product;
String generatedUrl = generateProductUrl(pRequest, productItem.getRepositoryId());
pRequest.setParameter(PRODUCT_URL_ID, generatedUrl);
pRequest.serviceParameter(OPARAM_OUTPUT, pRequest, pResponse);
}
private String generateProductUrl(DynamoHttpServletRequest request, String productId) {
HttpServletRequest originatingRequest = (HttpServletRequest) request.resolveName("/OriginatingRequest");
String contextroot = originatingRequest.getContextPath();
return contextroot + "/browse/product.jsp?productId=" + productId;
}
A simple test class for this will then be:
public class ProductUrlDropletTest {
#InjectMocks private ProductUrlDroplet testObj;
#Mock private DynamoHttpServletRequest requestMock;
#Mock private DynamoHttpServletResponse responseMock;
#Mock private RepositoryItem productRepositoryItemMock;
#BeforeMethod(groups = { "unit" })
public void setup() throws Exception {
testObj = new ProductUrlDroplet();
MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this);
Mockito.when(productRepositoryItemMock.getRepositoryId()).thenReturn("50302372");
}
#Test(groups = { "unit" })
public void testProductURL() throws Exception {
Mockito.when(requestMock.getObjectParameter(ProductUrlDroplet.PRODUCT_ID)).thenReturn(productRepositoryItemMock);
testObj.service(requestMock, responseMock);
ArgumentCaptor<String> argumentProductURL = ArgumentCaptor.forClass(String.class);
Mockito.verify(requestMock).setParameter(Matchers.eq(ProductUrlDroplet.PRODUCT_URL_ID), argumentProductURL.capture());
Assert.assertTrue(argumentProductURL.getValue().equals("/browse/product.jsp?productId=50302372"));
}
}
The key components are that you need to initialise the class you want to test (testObj). You then simply construct the response for each of the input parameters of the objects you are going to use (in this case productRepositoryItemMock represents the RepositoryItem and productRepositoryItemMock.getRepositoryId() returns a String that you can then test against later).
You will also notice that this test only validates the service method and not the individual methods. How you do it is up to you but generally I've been focused on testing my service and handleXXX methods in the formhandlers and droplets.
Testing the XXXManager, XXXUtil and XXXService classes will all have their own tests and should be 'mocked' into the droplets and formhandlers. For these I would write tests for each method though.
PowerMockito only really comes into the picture when you need to mock static methods and classes and the documentation does enough to explain that.
I have some code that put simply, sets an object to a state of PROCESSING, does some stuff, then sets it to SUCCESS. I want to verify that the PROCESSING save is done with the correct values.
The problem is when the verify() tests are performed, .equals() is called on the object as it is at the end of the test, rather than halfway through.
For example the code:
public void process(Thing thing) {
thing.setValue(17);
thing.setStatus(Status.PROCESSING);
dao.save(thing);
doSomeMajorProcessing(thing);
thing.setStatus(Status.SUCCESS);
dao.save(thing);
}
I want to test:
public void test() {
Thing actual = new Thing();
processor.process(actual);
Thing expected = new Thing();
expected.setValue(17);
expected.setStatus(Status.PROCESSING);
verify(dao).save(expected);
// ....
expected.setStatus(Status.SUCCESS);
verify(dao).save(expected);
}
On the first verify, actual.getStatus() is Status.SUCCESS, as Mockito just keeps a reference to the object and can only test it's value at the end.
I have considered that if a when(...) where involved then .equals() would be called at the correct time and the result would only happen if Thing was what I wanted it to be. However, in this case .save() returns nothing.
How can I verify that the object is put into the correct states?
Ok, I found a solution, but it's pretty horrible. Verify is no good to me because it runs too late, and stubbing is hard because the method returns a void.
But what I can do is stub and throw an exception if anything but the expected is called, while validating that something is called:
public void test() {
Thing actual = new Thing();
Thing expected = new Thing();
expected.setValue(17);
expected.setStatus(Status.PROCESSING);
doThrow(new RuntimeException("save called with wrong object"))
.when(dao).saveOne(not(expected));
processor.process(actual);
verify(dao).saveOne(any(Thing.class));
// ....
expected.setStatus(Status.SUCCESS);
verify(dao).saveTwo(expected);
}
private <T> T not(final T p) {
return argThat(new ArgumentMatcher<T>() {
#Override
public boolean matches(Object arg) {
return !arg.equals(p);
}
});
}
This infers that expected is called. Only drawback is that it'll be difficult to verify the method twice, but luckily in my case both DAO calls are to different methods, so I can verify them separately.
Why not just mock the Thing itself and verify that? eg:
public class ProcessorTest {
#Mock
private Dao mockDao;
#InjectMocks
private Processor processor;
#BeforeMethod
public void beforeMethod() {
initMocks(this);
}
public void test() {
Thing mockThing = Mockito.mock(Thing.class);
processor.process(thing);
verify(mockThing).setStatus(Status.PROCESSING);
verify(mockThing).setValue(17);
verify(mockDao).save(mockThing);
verify(mockThing).setStatus(Status.SUCCESS);
}
If you want to explicitly test the order in which these things happen, use an InOrder object:
public void inOrderTest() {
Thing mockThing = Mockito.mock(Thing.class);
InOrder inOrder = Mockito.inOrder(mockThing, mockDao);
processor.process(mockThing);
inorder.verify(mockThing).setStatus(Status.PROCESSING);
inorder.verify(mockThing).setValue(17);
inorder.verify(mockDao).save(mockThing);
inorder.verify(mockThing).setStatus(Status.SUCCESS);
inorder.verify(mockDao).save(mockThing);
}
Mockito has a problem verifying mutable objects. There is an open issue about this (http://code.google.com/p/mockito/issues/detail?id=126)
Maybe you should switch to EasyMock. They use a record/playback pattern and do the verification at the time of the call in contrary to Mockito, where the verification happens after the call.
This Mockito version of the test has the mentioned problem:
#Test
public void testMockito() {
Processor processor = new Processor();
Dao dao = Mockito.mock(Dao.class);
processor.setDao(dao);
Thing actual = new Thing();
actual.setValue(17);
processor.process(actual);
Thing expected1 = new Thing();
expected1.setValue(17);
expected1.setStatus(Status.PROCESSING);
verify(dao).save(expected1);
Thing expected2 = new Thing();
expected2.setValue(19);
expected2.setStatus(Status.SUCCESS);
verify(dao).save(expected2);
}
This EasyMock version works fine:
#Test
public void testEasymock() {
Processor processor = new Processor();
Dao dao = EasyMock.createStrictMock(Dao.class);
processor.setDao(dao);
Thing expected1 = new Thing();
expected1.setValue(17);
expected1.setStatus(Status.PROCESSING);
dao.save(expected1);
Thing expected2 = new Thing();
expected2.setValue(19);
expected2.setStatus(Status.SUCCESS);
dao.save(expected2);
EasyMock.replay(dao);
Thing actual = new Thing();
actual.setValue(17);
processor.process(actual);
EasyMock.verify(dao);
}
In my example doSomeMajorProcessing sets value to 19.
private void doSomeMajorProcessing(Thing thing) {
thing.setValue(19);
}
After reviewing https://code.google.com/archive/p/mockito/issues/126
I was able to get my version of this working (Java 15, Mockito 3.6.28):
// ========= CODE ==========
public void process(Thing thing) {
thing.setValue(17);
thing.setStatus(Status.PROCESSING);
dao.save(thing);
doSomeMajorProcessing(thing);
thing.setStatus(Status.SUCCESS);
dao.save(thing);
}
// ========= TEST ==========
// ++++++ NOTE - put this at class level
private final Dao dao = mock(Dao.class, withSettings().defaultAnswer(new ClonesArguments()));
public void test() {
Thing actual = new Thing();
processor.process(actual);
ArgumentCaptor<Thing> captor = ArgumentCaptor.for(Thing.class);
verify(dao, times(2)).save(captor.capture());
List<Things> savedCalls = captor.getAllValues();
assertEquals(Status.PROCESSING, savedCalls.get(0).getStatus());
assertEquals(Status.SUCCESS, savedCalls.get(1).getStatus());
}
Using argThat with a hamcrest Matcher should do the trick. The Matcher would match its passed thing if the thing has the PROCESSING status:
public class ProcessingMatcher extends BaseMatcher<Thing> {
#Override
public boolean matches(Object item) {
if (item instanceof Thing) {
return ((Thing) item).getStatus() == Status.PROCESSING;
}
return false;
}
#Override
public void describeTo(Description description) {
description.appendText(" has the PROCESSING status");
}
}
And then in your test, use the following code :
public class MyTest {
public void test() {
//...
mockDao.save(argThat(hasTheProcessingStatus()));
}
static ProcessingMatcher hasTheProcessingStatus() {
return new ProcessingMatcher();
}
}