AFAICT, there's not much difference between using cucumber-glue scope and instantiating member variables in step classes other than where the instantiation code resides.
For example, using cucumber-glue scope:
#Configuration
public class MyConfiguration {
#Bean
#Scope("cucumber-glue")
public MyContext myContext() {
return new MyContext();
}
}
#SpringBootTest
public class MySteps {
#Autowired
private MyContext myContext;
}
versus member variables:
#SpringBootTest
public class MySteps {
private final MyContext myContext = new MyContext();
}
Are there other differences I'm missing?
When you have more then one one definition file you'll want to share some information between them. You can do this by writing to the same component.
However all regular components are singleton scoped and survive between Scenarios. This makes them unsuitable for sharing test state. It might interfere with the next scenario. Fortunately cucumber-glue scoped components (including step definitions) are recycled between scenarios. This ensures your glue code will will always be fresh.
Related
I have a Repository interface that has two implementations. One reads data from a locally stored CSV file while the other reads from an Amazon Dynamo DB. I would like to be able to switch between which implementation I'm using based on an application property or custom build profile. I would normally use a Factory to retrieve the correct class at runtime, but I would like to do this with injection if possible.
I found a similar question using Spring boot but couldn't find an equivalent that would work in Quarkus Spring choose bean implementation at runtime
I also tried implementing a Configuration class similar to what is found in the docs here but again didn't have much luck. https://quarkus.io/guides/cdi-reference#default_beans
It feels like I'm missing something obvious so any pointers would be much appreciated.
Here is a simple example of my classes:
#ApplicationScoped
public class ExampleService {
#Inject
ExampleRepository repository;
public List<Data> retrieveData() {
return repository.retrieveData();
}
}
public interface ExampleRepository {
List<Data> retrieveData();
}
#ApplicationScoped
public class DynamoRepository implements ExampleRepository {
#Override
public List<Data> retrieveData() {
//Get Data from DynamoDb
}
}
#ApplicationScoped
public class CsvRepository implements ExampleRepository {
#Inject
CsvBeanHandler csvBeanHandler;
#Inject
LocalFileReader fileReader;
#Override
public List<Data> retrieveData() {
// Get data from CSV
}
}
I currently also have the following in my application.yml:
com:
example:
application:
storage-type: 'CSV' # OR AMAZON_DYNAMO_DB
It looks like they've added this directly to the documentation:
https://quarkus.io/guides/cdi-reference#declaratively-choose-beans-that-can-be-obtained-by-programmatic-lookup
I feel a bit guilty pasting this much, but it's the SO way.
I can add that it is NOT like a Guice 'binding'; BOTH classes will be instantiated, but only one will be injected. Also unlike Guice, you cannot inject the interface (or I did it wrong) - you have to do what's shown below, with Instance.
Personally I just use constructor injection and then drop the value of the Instance wrapper into a final field, so I'm not crying about the extra step. I do miss the power and explicit bindings possible with Modules ala Guice, but the simplicity here has its own value.
5.16. Declaratively Choose Beans That Can Be Obtained by Programmatic Lookup
It is sometimes useful to narrow down the set of beans that can be
obtained by programmatic lookup via javax.enterprise.inject.Instance.
Typically, a user needs to choose the appropriate implementation of an
interface based on a runtime configuration property.
Imagine that we have two beans implementing the interface
org.acme.Service. You can’t inject the org.acme.Service directly
unless your implementations declare a CDI qualifier. However, you can
inject the Instance instead, then iterate over all
implementations and choose the correct one manually. Alternatively,
you can use the #LookupIfProperty and #LookupUnlessProperty
annotations. #LookupIfProperty indicates that a bean should only be
obtained if a runtime configuration property matches the provided
value. #LookupUnlessProperty, on the other hand, indicates that a bean
should only be obtained if a runtime configuration property does not
match the provided value.
#LookupIfProperty Example
interface Service {
String name();
}
#LookupIfProperty(name = "service.foo.enabled", stringValue = "true")
#ApplicationScoped
class ServiceFoo implements Service {
public String name() {
return "foo";
}
}
#ApplicationScoped
class ServiceBar implements Service {
public String name() {
return "bar";
}
}
#ApplicationScoped
class Client {
#Inject
Instance<Service> service;
void printServiceName() {
// This will print "bar" if the property "service.foo.enabled" is NOT set to "true"
// If "service.foo.enabled" is set to "true" then service.get() would result in an AmbiguousResolutionException
System.out.println(service.get().name());
}
}
If your request is to bind at startup time the right implementation based on a configuration property, I suppose your problem may be resolved used #Produces annotation:
public class ExampleRepositoryFactory {
#Config("storage-type")
String storageType;
#Produces
public ExampleRepository dynamoInstance() {
return storageType == "CSV" ? new CsvRepository() : new DynamoRepository();
}
}
When mocking a service injected into a controller, a service method should return a mocked object, something like that:
public class EmptyInterventionServiceMock implements InterventionService {
#Override
public Intervention findByInvoiceNumber(String invoiceNumber, String language) {
return mockedIntervention(invoiceNumber, language);
}
protected Intervention mockedIntervention(String invoiceNumber, String language) {
return mock(Intervention.class);
}
}
Is it possible to mock some values to be return by the above mocked object (Intervention) to test fi they should be present in the generated JSON template ?
For example, depending on if Intervention has spare parts, services, states (all of them are just collections of other objects), etc. If so, JSON should contain the corresponding keys: services: [{....}], states: [{}], etc.
It would be nice to get the mocked object in the test and stub its return values. The only way I see to achieve that for the moment is to create a separate Mock service class and inject it in a test class as follows:
public class InterventionsControllerSpec extends ControllerSpec {
#Before
public void before() {
Injector injector = injector().bind(InterventionService.class).to(BaseInterventionServiceMock.class).create();
}
Where BaseInterventionServiceMock just extends EmptyInterventionServiceMock and stubs some methods return values by overriding its mockedIntervention method:
public class BaseInterventionServiceMock extends EmptyInterventionServiceMock {
#Override
protected Intervention mockedIntervention(String invoiceNumber, String language) {
Intervention intervention = mock(Intervention.class);
when(intervention.getString("ITV_DOCUMENT_NUMBER")).thenReturn("123");
when(intervention.getString("ITV_INVOICE")).thenReturn(invoiceNumber);
...
etc.
As it is far from ideal, I wonder if there is a DRYer way to do that ?
Thank you.
You are not missing anything. Your assumptions are correct. Creating a mock subclass of a service is how we do the testing. If you want a more elegant way, you can submit a proposal for consideration: https://github.com/javalite/activeweb/issues for consideration.
I am trying to inject the IApplicationConfigurationSection implementation into this MVC5 Controller, so that I can have access to some of the information (various strings) from my web.config custom section in all of my views:
public class BaseController : Controller
{
public IApplicationConfigurationSection AppConfig { get; set; }
public BaseController()
{
ViewBag.AppConfig = AppConfig; // AppConfig is always null
}
}
I want to use setter injection so I don't have to clutter up my derived Controller constructors with parameters that they don't really care about.
Note: If there is a better way to inject base class dependencies, please let me know. I admit I may not be on the right track here.
In my Global.asax I load my StructureMap configurations:
private static IContainer _container;
protected void Application_Start()
{
_container = new Container();
StructureMapConfig.Configure(_container, () => Container ?? _container);
// redacted other registrations
}
My StructureMapConfig class loads my registries:
public class StructureMapConfig
{
public static void Configure(IContainer container, Func<IContainer> func)
{
DependencyResolver.SetResolver(new StructureMapDependencyResolver(func));
container.Configure(cfg =>
{
cfg.AddRegistries(new Registry[]
{
new MvcRegistry(),
// other registries redacted
});
});
}
}
My MvcRegistry provides the mapping for StructureMap:
public class MvcRegistry : Registry
{
public MvcRegistry()
{
For<BundleCollection>().Use(BundleTable.Bundles);
For<RouteCollection>().Use(RouteTable.Routes);
For<IPrincipal>().Use(() => HttpContext.Current.User);
For<IIdentity>().Use(() => HttpContext.Current.User.Identity);
For<ICurrentUser>().Use<CurrentUser>();
For<HttpSessionStateBase>()
.Use(() => new HttpSessionStateWrapper(HttpContext.Current.Session));
For<HttpContextBase>()
.Use(() => new HttpContextWrapper(HttpContext.Current));
For<HttpServerUtilityBase>()
.Use(() => new HttpServerUtilityWrapper(HttpContext.Current.Server));
For<IApplicationConfigurationSection>()
.Use(GetConfig());
Policies.SetAllProperties(p => p.OfType<IApplicationConfigurationSection>());
}
private IApplicationConfigurationSection GetConfig()
{
var config = ConfigurationManager.GetSection("application") as ApplicationConfigurationSection;
return config; // this always returns a valid instance
}
}
I have also "thrown my hands up" and tried using the [SetterProperty] attribute on the BaseController - that technique failed as well.
Despite my best efforts to find a solution, the AppConfig property in my controller's constructor is always null. I thought that
`Policies.SetAllProperties(p => p.OfType<IApplicationConfigurationSection>());`
would do the trick, but it didn't.
I have found that if I discard setter injection and go with constructor injection, it works as advertised. I'd still like to know where I'm going wrong, but I'd like to stress that I'm not a StructureMap guru - there may be a better way to avoid having to constructor-inject my base class dependencies. If you know how I should be doing this but am not, please share.
While constructor injection in this scenario appears to be the better solution to the stated problem as it follows The Explicit Dependencies Principle
Methods and classes should explicitly require (typically through method parameters or constructor parameters) any collaborating objects they need in order to function correctly.
The mention of only needing to access the AppConfig in your views leads me to think that this is more of an XY problem and a cross cutting concern.
It appears that the controllers themselves have no need to use the dependency so stands to reason that there is no need to be injecting them into the controller explicitly just so that the dependency is available to the View.
Consider using an action filter that can resolve the dependency and make it available to the View via the same ViewBag as the request goes through the pipeline.
public class AccessesAppConfigAttribute : ActionFilterAttribute {
public override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext filterContext) {
var resolver = DependencyResolver.Current;
var appConfig = (IApplicationConfigurationSection)resolver.GetService(typeof(IApplicationConfigurationSection));
filterContext.Controller.ViewBag.AppConfig = appConfig;
}
}
This now makes the required information available to the views with out tight coupling of the controllers that may have a use for it. Removing the need to inject the dependency into derived classes.
Either via adorning Controller/Action with the filter attribute
[AccessesAppConfig] //available to all its actions
public class HomeController : Controller {
//[AccessesAppConfig] //Use directly if want to isolate to single action/view
public ActionResult Index() {
//...
return View();
}
}
or globally for all requests.
public class FilterConfig {
public static void RegisterGlobalFilters(GlobalFilterCollection filters) {
filters.Add(new AccessesAppConfigAttribute());
}
}
At this point it really does not matter which IoC container is used. Once the dependency resolver has been configured, Views should have access to the required information in the ViewBag
I wanted to implement the factory pattern with CDI. Here we have the business case example:
A client provides a string representing a type. Depending on this type the factory returns an implementation of an interface.
I know that there are a lot of questions flying around concerning factory pattern and CDI. The difference I have here is that I resolve the implementation returned by the factory based on a runtime parameter.
I was thinking of using a producer method but then I can not think of how to inject the resolved implementation into the bean where the implementation is needed since this is a runtime parameter which is not necessarily known at contruction time.
So I thought of the pretty straight forward way of using the Instance class.
Here is the basic implementation :
// the interface. Instances of this class are returned from the factory
public interface Product {
}
// one implementation may be returned by the factory
#ProductType("default")
public class DefaultProduct implements Product {
}
// another implementation may be returned by the factory
#ProductType("myProduct")
public class MyProduct implements Product {
}
// the qualifier annotation
#Qualifier
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
#Target({ElementType.FIELD, ElementType.TYPE})
public #interface ProductType {
String value();
}
// the Annotation implementation to select
// the correct implementation in the factory
public class ProductTypeLiteral extends AnnotationLiteral<ProductType>
implements ProductType {
private String type;
public ProductTypeLiteral(String type) {
this.type = type;
}
#Override
public String value() {
return type;
}
}
// the factory itself. It is annotated with #Singleton because the
// factory is only needed once
#Singleton
public class Factory {
#Inject
#Any
private Instance<Product> products;
public Product getProduct(String type) {
ProductTypeLiteral literal = new ProductTypeLiteral(type);
Instance<Product> typeProducts = products.select(literal);
return typeProducts.get();
}
}
In my opinion using Instance is very sophisticated.
But this has one major drawback:
Everytime you cal the Instance.get() method you retrieve a new Instance of Product. This may be fine but the Instance instance keeps a reference of the returned instance internally. So as long as the Factory lives and each time the Instance.get() is called the more instances of Product will exist in the memory and never get garbage collected because a reference is still hold in Instance.
I thought of not making the Factory a singleton but that just shifts the problem and does not solve it. And of course it is against the factory pattern.
Another solution I tried was to iterate through the Instance instead of selecting an implementation with the help of the annotation:
#Singleton
public class Factory {
#Inject
#Any
private Instance<Product> products;
public Product getProduct(String type) {
Product product = null;
for(Product eachProduct : products) {
ProductType productType = eachProduct.getClass().
getAnnotation(ProductType.class)
if(productType.value().equals(type) {
product = eachProduct;
break;
}
}
return product;
}
}
Basically this is working. Now each time depending on the given type I retrieve the same instance of Product. That way the memory is not consumed.
But I don't like it to iterate over a collection when I have the possibility to resolve the correct implementations more elegantly.
Do you have any ideas which may solve the problem? Otherwise I may have to keep the iteration solution.
Herein lies your problem. Instance keeps reference to instances you obtain from it using get() because it is responsible for reclaiming them when they go out of scope (i.e. when the injected Instance goes out of scope. But because you made your factory a singleton, it will never go out of scope. So, make your factory a short-lived scope, like #RequestScoped or even #Dependent, that way all the returned instances will be reclaimed properly.
Maybe it can help you:
Create qualifiers:
#Qualifier
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
#Target({ElementType.METHOD, ElementType.FIELD, ElementType.PARAMETER, ElementType.TYPE})
public #interface MyProduct{
}
#Qualifier
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
#Target({ElementType.METHOD, ElementType.FIELD, ElementType.PARAMETER, ElementType.TYPE})
public #interface DefaultProduct{
}
In Factory class:
#Singleton
public class Factory {
public Product getProduct(#MyProduct MyProduct product, #DefaultProduct DefaultProduct defaultProduct) {
//What you wanna do
}
}
I have a collection of Processor beans in my application along with a factory for creating them.
public abstract class Processor {
public Processor(String config) { .... }
public abstract void process() throws Exception;
}
public class Processor1 extends Processor {
public Processor1(String config) { super(config);..}
public void process() {....}
}
public Processor newProcessor(String impl, String config) {
// use reflection to create processor
}
Can I use CDI to replace the factory class/method? And instead use a #Produces?
I tried using the following to iterate or select the instance I wanted. But Weld tells me that allProcessorInstances.isUnsatisfied() == true. I had to create default no-args ctor in order for Weld to find my Processor subclasses.
#Inject #Any Instance<Processor> allProcessorInstances;
Is there any way to tell the CDI container to use the constructor I want it to use? Or am I thinking about this problem the wrong way?
To use the constructor you'd need to annotate it with #Inject, however, every param on the constructor must itself be a bean or something in the CDI scopes.
Using a producer method and having that take an InjectionPoint as a param, then having your configuration be part of an annotation would work.