Given I have JUnit tests written in Groovy:
class AssertTests {
#Test
void "explicit assert statement"() {
def value = 42
assert value == 100
}
#Test
void "no assert statement"() {
def value = 42
value == 100
}
}
When I execute them,
explicit assert statement test fails as expected thanks to assert statement.
no assert statement test passes and I would expect it to fail in a similar way how it's done when I use http://spockframework.org
How can I achieve implicit assert behavior for tests written in plain Groovy?
The answer is simple - you can't. Spock uses AST transformations to grab the code written in the then: part and transform it into the code that makes an equivalent of assertion (not the exact assert.)
To illustrate this, here is your test written in Spock:
import spock.lang.Specification
class TestSpec extends Specification {
def "should fail"() {
when:
def value = 42
then:
assert value == 100
}
}
And here is what its bytecode decompiled back to Java looks like:
//
// Source code recreated from a .class file by IntelliJ IDEA
// (powered by Fernflower decompiler)
//
import groovy.lang.GroovyObject;
import org.codehaus.groovy.runtime.ScriptBytecodeAdapter;
import org.codehaus.groovy.runtime.callsite.CallSite;
import org.spockframework.runtime.ErrorCollector;
import org.spockframework.runtime.SpockRuntime;
import org.spockframework.runtime.ValueRecorder;
import org.spockframework.runtime.model.BlockKind;
import org.spockframework.runtime.model.BlockMetadata;
import org.spockframework.runtime.model.FeatureMetadata;
import org.spockframework.runtime.model.SpecMetadata;
import spock.lang.Specification;
#SpecMetadata(
filename = "TestSpec.groovy",
line = 5
)
public class TestSpec extends Specification implements GroovyObject {
public TestSpec() {
CallSite[] var1 = $getCallSiteArray();
super();
}
#FeatureMetadata(
line = 7,
name = "should fail",
ordinal = 0,
blocks = {#BlockMetadata(
kind = BlockKind.WHEN,
texts = {}
), #BlockMetadata(
kind = BlockKind.THEN,
texts = {}
)},
parameterNames = {}
)
public void $spock_feature_0_0() {
CallSite[] var1 = $getCallSiteArray();
ErrorCollector $spock_errorCollector = (ErrorCollector)ScriptBytecodeAdapter.castToType(var1[0].callConstructor(ErrorCollector.class, false), ErrorCollector.class);
ValueRecorder $spock_valueRecorder = (ValueRecorder)ScriptBytecodeAdapter.castToType(var1[1].callConstructor(ValueRecorder.class), ValueRecorder.class);
Object var10000;
try {
Object value = 42;
try {
SpockRuntime.verifyCondition($spock_errorCollector, $spock_valueRecorder.reset(), "value == 100", Integer.valueOf(12), Integer.valueOf(16), (Object)null, $spock_valueRecorder.record($spock_valueRecorder.startRecordingValue(Integer.valueOf(2)), ScriptBytecodeAdapter.compareEqual($spock_valueRecorder.record($spock_valueRecorder.startRecordingValue(Integer.valueOf(0)), value), $spock_valueRecorder.record($spock_valueRecorder.startRecordingValue(Integer.valueOf(1)), 100))));
var10000 = null;
} catch (Throwable var14) {
SpockRuntime.conditionFailedWithException($spock_errorCollector, $spock_valueRecorder, "value == 100", Integer.valueOf(12), Integer.valueOf(16), (Object)null, var14);
var10000 = null;
} finally {
;
}
var1[2].call(var1[3].call(this.getSpecificationContext()));
} finally {
$spock_errorCollector.validateCollectedErrors();
var10000 = null;
}
}
}
If you look at the SpockRuntime class, you will find that verifyCondition method checks if the condition found in the then: or and: block evaluates to true:
public static void verifyCondition(#Nullable ErrorCollector errorCollector, #Nullable ValueRecorder recorder,
#Nullable String text, int line, int column, #Nullable Object message, #Nullable Object condition) {
if (!GroovyRuntimeUtil.isTruthy(condition)) {
final ConditionNotSatisfiedError conditionNotSatisfiedError = new ConditionNotSatisfiedError(
new Condition(getValues(recorder), text, TextPosition.create(line, column), messageToString(message), null, null));
errorCollector.collectOrThrow(conditionNotSatisfiedError);
}
}
You can't avoid explicit assert in JUnit tests. You can hide them in some helper method, but you still need to call them. Keep in mind, that JUnit runner requires that the test method returns void, so you can't capture the result of a test method. (Replace void with def, and you will see that JUnit does not run your test.)
If you want to explore the world of compile-time metaprogramming in Groovy, you could experiment with writing your own AST transformations. Maybe there is a way to find boolean expression(s) and inject assert in front of it, but I can't guarantee you that it will work. If you look for an out-of-the-box solution for implicit asserts in Groovy JUnit tests, there is no such one.
Related
In Groovy When I write the below code in a groovy script.
class Emp {
public String getId() {
return "12345";
}
}
def coercedInstance = [
getId: {
"99999"
}
] as Emp
println new Emp().getId()
println coercedInstance .getId()
Using the as Operator here, am I creating a sub class of the actual Emp class at runtime and providing the method body at run time?
I have seen other stack overflow articles and i have learnt that Groovy uses DefaultGroovyMethods.java & DefaultTypeTransformation.java to do the coercion. But could not figure out if it was subclassing or not.
Yes, an as operator creates an object which type is a subclass of the target class. Using DefaultGroovyMethods.asType(Map map, Class clazz) generates (in a memory) a proxy class that extends given base class.
class Emp {
public String getId() {
return "12345";
}
}
def coercedInstance = [
getId: {
"99999"
}
] as Emp
assert (coercedInstance instanceof Emp)
assert (coercedInstance.class != Emp)
assert (Emp.isAssignableFrom(coercedInstance.class))
println coercedInstance.dump() // <Emp1_groovyProxy#229c6181 $closures$delegate$map=[getId:coercion$_run_closure1#7bd4937b]>
What happens in your case specifically is the following:
The asType method goes to line 11816 to execute ProxyGenerator.INSTANCE.instantiateAggregateFromBaseClass(map, clazz);
In the next step, ProxyGeneratorAdapter object gets created.
In the last step, adapter.proxy(map,constructorArgs) gets called to return a newly generated class that is a proxy of the base class.
I have the following code:
import groovy.transform.ToString
#ToString(includeNames = true)
class Simple {
String creditPoints
}
Simple simple = new Simple()
simple.with {
creditPoints : "288"
}
println simple
Clearly, I made a mistake here with creditPoints : "288". It should have been creditPoints = "288".
I expected Groovy to fail at the runtime saying that I made a mistake and I should have used creditPoints = "288"but clearly it did not.
Since it did not fail then what did Groovy do with the closure I created?
From the Groovy compiler perspective, there is no mistake in your closure code. The compiler sees creditPoints : "288" as labeled statement which is a legal construction in the Groovy programming language. As the documentation says, label statement does not add anything to the resulting bytecode, but it can be used for instance by AST transformations (Spock Framework uses it heavily).
It becomes more clear and easy to understand if you format code more accurately to the label statement use case, e.g
class Simple {
String creditPoints
static void main(String[] args) {
Simple simple = new Simple()
simple.with {
creditPoints:
"288"
}
println simple
}
}
(NOTE: I put your script inside the main method body to show you its bytecode representation in the next section.)
Now when we know how compiler sees this construction, let's take a look and see what does the final bytecode look like. To do this we will decompile the .class file (I use IntelliJ IDEA for that - you simply open .class file in IDEA and it decompiles it for you):
//
// Source code recreated from a .class file by IntelliJ IDEA
// (powered by Fernflower decompiler)
//
import groovy.lang.Closure;
import groovy.lang.GroovyObject;
import groovy.lang.MetaClass;
import groovy.transform.ToString;
import org.codehaus.groovy.runtime.DefaultGroovyMethods;
import org.codehaus.groovy.runtime.GeneratedClosure;
import org.codehaus.groovy.runtime.InvokerHelper;
#ToString
public class Simple implements GroovyObject {
private String creditPoints;
public Simple() {
MetaClass var1 = this.$getStaticMetaClass();
this.metaClass = var1;
}
public static void main(String... args) {
Simple simple = new Simple();
class _main_closure1 extends Closure implements GeneratedClosure {
public _main_closure1(Object _outerInstance, Object _thisObject) {
super(_outerInstance, _thisObject);
}
public Object doCall(Object it) {
return "288";
}
public Object call(Object args) {
return this.doCall(args);
}
public Object call() {
return this.doCall((Object)null);
}
public Object doCall() {
return this.doCall((Object)null);
}
}
DefaultGroovyMethods.with(simple, new _main_closure1(Simple.class, Simple.class));
DefaultGroovyMethods.println(Simple.class, simple);
Object var10000 = null;
}
public String toString() {
StringBuilder _result = new StringBuilder();
Boolean $toStringFirst = Boolean.TRUE;
_result.append("Simple(");
if ($toStringFirst == null ? false : $toStringFirst) {
Boolean var3 = Boolean.FALSE;
} else {
_result.append(", ");
}
if (this.getCreditPoints() == this) {
_result.append("(this)");
} else {
_result.append(InvokerHelper.toString(this.getCreditPoints()));
}
_result.append(")");
return _result.toString();
}
public String getCreditPoints() {
return this.creditPoints;
}
public void setCreditPoints(String var1) {
this.creditPoints = var1;
}
}
As you can see, your closure used with the with method is represented as an inner _main_closure1 class. This class extends Closure class, and it implements GeneratedClosure interface. The body of the closure is encapsulated in public Object doCall(Object it) method. This method only returns "288" string, which is expected - the last statement of the closure becomes a return statement by default. There is no label statement in the generated bytecode, which is also expected as labels get stripped at the CANONICALIZATION Groovy compiler phase.
I try to understand more about how Geb and Spock work internally to understand what is really happening in my tests.
I found that GebSpec which I extend to write my tests has a field Browser _browser.
I also found that GebSpec has a method getBrowser() which returns _browser, so _browser can be accessed over getBrowser() and get_browser(). But the interesting part is that while debugging in intelliJ expanding an instance of GebSpec shows no field _browser but only a field $spock_sharedField__browser.
A little example:
Debugging my Class: The instance of GebSpec has a field spock_sharedField__browser but no field _browser
How do they manage to hide the _browser field from me in the debugger and why do they do it?
Recall a field Browser _browser is declared in GebSpec and a field $spock_sharedField__browser is not.
There also is no method get$spock_sharedField__browser() but I still can access and manipulate $spock_sharedField__browser.
I tried to do it myself:
I wrote a class TestClass that declares _browser exactly analog to GebSpec, but if I debug here the field _browser is shown normally as one would expect
Can someone explain me what is going on?
Why hide _browser?
What is $spock_sharedField__browser good for?
UPDATE: I think the following code describes summarizes it pretty good:
import geb.spock.GebSpec
class GebHomeSpec extends GebSpec{
def "test Geb homepage"(){
when:
['get$spock_sharedField__browser', 'getBrowser', 'get_browser'].each {
try {
println this."${it}"()
} catch (MissingFieldException e) {
println e
}
}
['$spock_sharedField__browser', 'browser', '_browser'].each {
try {
println this.getMetaClass().getAttribute(this, it)
} catch (MissingFieldException e){
println e
}
}
then:
true
}
}
The result on the console is:
null
geb.Browser#352ff4da
geb.Browser#352ff4da
null
groovy.lang.MissingFieldException: No such field: browser for class: GebHomeSpec
groovy.lang.MissingFieldException: No such field: _browser for class: GebHomeSpec
My interpretation, considering the answer of kriegaex, is that in the Compilation during the Spock transformation the field $spock_sharedField__browser is declared and the field _browser is removed. The field browser never existed. But there are still getters for browser and _browser. I wonder where there get their data from (in this case geb.Browser#352ff4da) as none of the field exists anymore as the exceptions show. At least it matches with the debugging information (c.f. first picture/link) that shows the field $spock_sharedField__browser but neither a field _browser nor a field browser.
Finally I noticed (and I dont really know how to explain that) the getters for _browser and browser are outside of the class no longer available (see below). I thought the concept of private is not implemented in groovy and making getters private makes no sense to me anyways.
import geb.spock.GebSpec
class Main {
static void main(String[] args) {
GebSpec gebSpec = new GebSpec()
['get$spock_sharedField__browser', 'getBrowser', 'get_browser'].each {
try {
println gebSpec."${it}"()
} catch (MissingFieldException e) {
println e
}
}
['$spock_sharedField__browser', 'browser', '_browser'].each {
try {
println gebSpec.getMetaClass().getAttribute(gebSpec, it)
} catch (MissingFieldException e){
println e
}
}
}
}
This leads to
null
groovy.lang.MissingFieldException: No such field: $spock_sharedField__browser for class: org.codehaus.groovy.runtime.NullObject
groovy.lang.MissingFieldException: No such field: $spock_sharedField__browser for class: org.codehaus.groovy.runtime.NullObject
null
groovy.lang.MissingFieldException: No such field: browser for class: geb.spock.GebSpec
groovy.lang.MissingFieldException: No such field: _browser for class: geb.spock.GebSpec
All in all I find this rather confusing and I wonder what this is good for. Why introduce $spock_sharedField__browser and remove _browser?
If you use IntelliJ IDEA, you can just decompile the GebSpec class and will see something like this (this is what the Groovy compiler really produced when it compiled the library class):
public class GebSpec extends Specification implements GroovyObject {
// ...
#Shared
#FieldMetadata(
line = 29,
name = "_browser",
ordinal = 2
)
protected volatile Browser $spock_sharedField__browser;
// ...
public Browser createBrowser() {
CallSite[] var1 = $getCallSiteArray();
return !__$stMC && !BytecodeInterface8.disabledStandardMetaClass() ? (Browser)ScriptBytecodeAdapter.castToType(var1[8].callConstructor(Browser.class, this.createConf()), Browser.class) : (Browser)ScriptBytecodeAdapter.castToType(var1[6].callConstructor(Browser.class, var1[7].callCurrent(this)), Browser.class);
}
public Browser getBrowser() {
CallSite[] var1 = $getCallSiteArray();
if (BytecodeInterface8.isOrigZ() && !__$stMC && !BytecodeInterface8.disabledStandardMetaClass()) {
if (ScriptBytecodeAdapter.compareEqual(var1[11].callGroovyObjectGetProperty(this), (Object)null)) {
Browser var3 = this.createBrowser();
ScriptBytecodeAdapter.setGroovyObjectProperty(var3, GebSpec.class, this, (String)"_browser");
}
} else if (ScriptBytecodeAdapter.compareEqual(var1[9].callGroovyObjectGetProperty(this), (Object)null)) {
Object var2 = var1[10].callCurrent(this);
ScriptBytecodeAdapter.setGroovyObjectProperty((Browser)ScriptBytecodeAdapter.castToType(var2, Browser.class), GebSpec.class, this, (String)"_browser");
}
return (Browser)ScriptBytecodeAdapter.castToType(var1[12].callGroovyObjectGetProperty(this), Browser.class);
}
// ...
public Browser get$spock_sharedField__browser() {
return this.$spock_sharedField__browser;
}
public void set$spock_sharedField__browser(Browser var1) {
this.$spock_sharedField__browser = var1;
}
}
I think you have dived deep enough already to understand without further explanation.
Update: I forgot to mention: Your test class does not inherit GebSpec (which again inherits from Specification, i.e. the code will not be transformed by Spock/Geb because it has the wrong base class. If you do this, though:
package de.scrum_master.stackoverflow
import geb.spock.GebSpec
import spock.lang.Shared
class FooIT extends GebSpec {
#Shared
def myField
def test() {
expect:
true
}
}
Then the decompiled code will be:
package de.scrum_master.stackoverflow;
import geb.spock.GebSpec;
import org.codehaus.groovy.runtime.ScriptBytecodeAdapter;
import org.codehaus.groovy.runtime.callsite.CallSite;
import org.spockframework.runtime.ErrorCollector;
import org.spockframework.runtime.SpockRuntime;
import org.spockframework.runtime.ValueRecorder;
import org.spockframework.runtime.model.BlockKind;
import org.spockframework.runtime.model.BlockMetadata;
import org.spockframework.runtime.model.FeatureMetadata;
import org.spockframework.runtime.model.FieldMetadata;
import org.spockframework.runtime.model.SpecMetadata;
import spock.lang.Shared;
#SpecMetadata(
filename = "FooIT.groovy",
line = 6
)
public class FooIT extends GebSpec {
#Shared
#FieldMetadata(
line = 7,
name = "myField",
ordinal = 0
)
protected volatile Object $spock_sharedField_myField;
public FooIT() {
CallSite[] var1 = $getCallSiteArray();
}
#FeatureMetadata(
line = 10,
name = "test",
ordinal = 0,
blocks = {#BlockMetadata(
kind = BlockKind.EXPECT,
texts = {}
)},
parameterNames = {}
)
public void $spock_feature_1_0() {
CallSite[] var1 = $getCallSiteArray();
ErrorCollector $spock_errorCollector = (ErrorCollector)ScriptBytecodeAdapter.castToType(var1[2].callConstructor(ErrorCollector.class, false), ErrorCollector.class);
ValueRecorder $spock_valueRecorder = (ValueRecorder)ScriptBytecodeAdapter.castToType(var1[3].callConstructor(ValueRecorder.class), ValueRecorder.class);
Object var10000;
try {
try {
SpockRuntime.verifyCondition($spock_errorCollector, $spock_valueRecorder.reset(), "true", Integer.valueOf(12), Integer.valueOf(5), (Object)null, $spock_valueRecorder.record($spock_valueRecorder.startRecordingValue(Integer.valueOf(0)), true));
var10000 = null;
} catch (Throwable var13) {
SpockRuntime.conditionFailedWithException($spock_errorCollector, $spock_valueRecorder, "true", Integer.valueOf(12), Integer.valueOf(5), (Object)null, var13);
var10000 = null;
} finally {
;
}
var1[4].call(var1[5].call(this.getSpecificationContext()));
} finally {
$spock_errorCollector.validateCollectedErrors();
var10000 = null;
}
}
public Object get$spock_sharedField_myField() {
return this.$spock_sharedField_myField;
}
public void set$spock_sharedField_myField(Object var1) {
this.$spock_sharedField_myField = var1;
}
}
Update 2:
As for your additional questions, I can only speculate about the answers, I am sure users like #erdi (Geb maintainer), #Szymon Stepniak, #Leonard Brünings (who seem to be Groovy cracks, which I am not) could say more about it, but OTOH this is not a discussion forum and the questions are not particularly well suited for SO. Anyway, I edited the question tags to include "groovy" so as to maybe raise their attention.
Why introduce $spock_sharedField__browser and remove _browser?
I think it is just the result of Spock's way of transforming the #Shared annotation into a member variable with named so as to very unlikely collide with any existing member names. You also see this happening in the decompiled version of my own Spock/Geb specification.
But there are still getters for browser and _browser.
Of course there is a getter for browser, as in the Geb DLS you usually don't look behind the scenes but just use the syntactic sugar browser to access the browser instance. This Groovy-ism will call getBrowser(), as you probably know. This particular getter is declared explicitly in the GebSpec class in order to make the member conveniently accessible (you also see some lazy browser instantiation logic here):
Browser getBrowser() {
if (_browser == null) {
_browser = createBrowser()
}
_browser
}
I wonder where there get their data from (in this case geb.Browser#352ff4da) as none of the field exists anymore as the exceptions show.
I do not know enough about Groovy's dynamic language features to answer that, but you can see the actual mechanics in my decompiled code snippets.
Accessing Spock-specific class members from outside a running specification obviously does not work and probably is not meant to be. But if you run this test, it works just fine:
package de.scrum_master.stackoverflow
import geb.spock.GebSpec
import spock.lang.Shared
class FooIT extends GebSpec {
#Shared
def myField = "foo"
def test() {
given:
println browser
println myField
expect:
true
}
}
Console log:
geb.Browser#1722011b
foo
ok - tried looking /reading and not sure i have an answer to this.
I have a Utility class which wraps a static ConcurrentLinkedQueue internally.
The utility class itself adds some static methods - i dont expect to call new to create an instance of the Utility.
I want to intercept the getProperty calls the utility class - and implement these internally in the class definition
I can achieve this by adding the following to the utility classes metaclass, before i use it
UnitOfMeasure.metaClass.static.propertyMissing = {name -> println "accessed prop called $name"}
println UnitOfMeasure.'Each'
however what i want to do is declare the interception in the class definition itself. i tried this in the class definition - but it never seems to get called
static def propertyMissing (receiver, String propName) {
println "prop $propName, saught"
}
i also tried
static def getProperty (String prop) { println "accessed $prop"}
but this isnt called either.
So other than adding to metaClass in my code/script before i use, how can declare the in the utility class that want to capture property accesses
the actual class i have looks like this at present
class UnitOfMeasure {
static ConcurrentLinkedQueue UoMList = new ConcurrentLinkedQueue(["Each", "Per Month", "Days", "Months", "Years", "Hours", "Minutes", "Seconds" ])
String uom
UnitOfMeasure () {
if (!UoMList.contains(this) )
UoMList << this
}
static list () {
UoMList.toArray()
}
static getAt (index) {
def value = null
if (index in 0..(UoMList.size() -1))
value = UoMList[index]
else if (index instanceof String) {
Closure matchClosure = {it.toUpperCase().contains(index.toUpperCase())}
def position = UoMList.findIndexOf (matchClosure)
if (position != -1)
value = UoMList[position]
}
value
}
static def propertyMissing (receiver, String propName) {
println "prop $propName, saught"
}
//expects either a String or your own closure, with String will do case insensitive find
static find (match) {
Closure matchClosure
if (match instanceof Closure)
matchClosure = match
if (match instanceof String) {
matchClosure = {it.toUpperCase().contains(match.toUpperCase())}
}
def inlist = UoMList.find (matchClosure)
}
static findWithIndex (match) {
Closure matchClosure
if (match instanceof Closure)
matchClosure = match
else if (match instanceof String) {
matchClosure = {it.toUpperCase().contains(match.toUpperCase())}
}
def position = UoMList.findIndexOf (matchClosure)
position != -1 ? [UoMList[position], position] : ["Not In List", -1]
}
}
i'd appreciate the secret of doing this for a static utility class rather than instance level property interception, and doing it in class declaration - not by adding to metaClass before i make the calls.
just so you can see the actual class, and script that calls - i've attached these below
my script thats calling the class looks like this
println UnitOfMeasure.list()
def (uom, position) = UnitOfMeasure.findWithIndex ("Day")
println "$uom at postition $position"
// works UnitOfMeasure.metaClass.static.propertyMissing = {name -> println "accessed prop called $name"}
println UnitOfMeasure[4]
println UnitOfMeasure.'Per'
which errors like this
[Each, Per Month, Days, Months, Years, Hours, Minutes, Seconds]
Days at postition 2
Years
Caught: groovy.lang.MissingPropertyException: No such property: Per for class: com.softwood.portfolio.UnitOfMeasure
Possible solutions: uom
groovy.lang.MissingPropertyException: No such property: Per for class: com.softwood.portfolio.UnitOfMeasure
Possible solutions: uom
at com.softwood.scripts.UoMTest.run(UoMTest.groovy:12)
Static version of propertyMissing method is called $static_propertyMissing:
static def $static_propertyMissing(String name) {
// do something
}
This method gets invoked by MetaClassImpl at line 1002:
protected static final String STATIC_METHOD_MISSING = "$static_methodMissing";
protected static final String STATIC_PROPERTY_MISSING = "$static_propertyMissing";
// ...
protected Object invokeStaticMissingProperty(Object instance, String propertyName, Object optionalValue, boolean isGetter) {
MetaClass mc = instance instanceof Class ? registry.getMetaClass((Class) instance) : this;
if (isGetter) {
MetaMethod propertyMissing = mc.getMetaMethod(STATIC_PROPERTY_MISSING, GETTER_MISSING_ARGS);
if (propertyMissing != null) {
return propertyMissing.invoke(instance, new Object[]{propertyName});
}
} else {
// .....
}
// ....
}
Example:
class Hello {
static def $static_propertyMissing(String name) {
println "Hello, $name!"
}
}
Hello.World
Output:
Hello, World!
I am writing unit test using Spock for groovy-2.0 , and using gradle to run. If I write following the test pass.
import spock.lang.Specification
class MyTest extends Specification {
def "test if myMethod returns true"() {
expect:
Result == true;
where:
Result = new DSLValidator().myMethod()
}
}
myMethod() is a simple method in DSLValidator class, that simply returns true.
But if I write a setup() function and create the object in setup(), my test fails: Gradel says: FAILED: java.lang.NullPointerException: Cannot invoke method myMethod() on null object
Following is what it looks like with setup(),
import spock.lang.Specification
class MyTest extends Specification {
def obj
def setup(){
obj = new DSLValidator()
}
def "test if myMethod returns true"() {
expect:
Result == true;
where:
Result = obj.myMethod()
}
}
Can somebody help?
Here is the solution I got to the problem:
import spock.lang.Specification
class DSLValidatorTest extends Specification {
def validator
def setup() {
validator = new DSLValidator()
}
def "test if DSL is valid"() {
expect:
true == validator.isValid()
}
}
In Spock objects stored into instance fields are not shared between feature methods. Instead, every feature method gets its own object.
If you need to share an object between feature methods, declare a #Shared field.
class MyTest extends Specification {
#Shared obj = new DSLValidator()
def "test if myMethod returns true"() {
expect:
Result == true
where:
Result = obj.myMethod()
}
}
class MyTest extends Specification {
#Shared obj
def setupSpec() {
obj = new DSLValidator()
}
def "test if myMethod returns true"() {
expect:
Result == true
where:
Result = obj.myMethod()
}
}
There are 2 fixture methods for setting up the environment:
def setup() {} // run before every feature method
def setupSpec() {} // run before the first feature method
I don't understand why the second example with setupSpec() works and fails with setup() because in documentation says otherwise:
Note: The setupSpec() and cleanupSpec() methods may not reference
instance fields.