I'm trying to test my Kotlin code, which has Arrow-kt types, using Spock in Groovy. However, I'm not able to use Arrow-kt's additions such as Some. For example, I have a test as follows:
#Unroll
def "add returns #expected for queryRecord #queryRecord"() {
given:
def ip = "ip"
def rule = "rule"
when:
def result = unit.add(ip, rule)
then:
1 * dynamoDBMapperMock.load(ActionRecord.class, ip) >> queryRecord
result == expected
where:
queryRecord | expected
new ActionRecord() | None.INSTANCE
null | Some(new ActionInternal("ip"))
}
While the first data row succeeds with no problems, the second one fails with the following error:
groovy.lang.MissingMethodException: No signature of method: package.name.EventSpec.Some() is applicable for argument types: (package.name.ActionInternal) values: [ActionInternal(dropletIp=null)]
Possible solutions: Mock(), Spy(), Stub(), dump(), Mock(groovy.lang.Closure), Mock(java.lang.Class)
I've tried .some() as well, but not to avail. Apparently Groovy can't access Kotlin extensions, but Some is simply a data class[1], so I'm not sure why I cannot use it in Groovy.
Yes, you can use Arrow Datatypes in Groovy, the result is not as idiomatic as in Kotlin because the library heavily depends on extension functions and functions in the companion object
Example
import arrow.core.Option
import static arrow.core.OptionKt.getOrElse
static main(args){
println 'What is your name?'
def name = Option.#Companion.fromNullable(System.in.newReader().readLine())
.filterNot { it.isEmpty() }
.map { it.toUpperCase() }
println("Welcome ${getOrElse(name) { 'Anonymous' }}")
}
Output
'Welcome JOHN' (or 'Welcome Anonymous' if the provided name is null or empty)
As you can see, to be able to use getOrElse extension function, we need to import it as a static method
Hint
Do not use Some directly unless you are absolutely sure the value is not null, otherwise, you should rely on Option.fromNullable to safely lift the value to the Option context (i.e create Some or None depending if the value is null or not)
Related
I am trying to evaluate string as code in groovy and it is failing with groovy.lang.MissingMethodException exception even though method exists in the same script. As I understood groovy runs new instance every time it tries to evaluate the code, but is there any way to inject current script into Eval.me or GroovyShell().evaluate() so that it can find the method and runs it ?
Below is sample code snippet,
def justSayHello(){
return "hello"
}
def my_str = "justSayHello()"
//Eval.me(my_func_str)
new GroovyShell().evaluate(my_func_str)
Both Eval and GroovyShell().evaluate() are throwing below exception
Caught: groovy.lang.MissingMethodException: No signature of method: Script1.justSayHello() is applicable for argument types: () values: []
groovy.lang.MissingMethodException: No signature of method: Script1.justSayHello() is applicable for argument types: () values: []
at Script1.run(Script1.groovy:1)
at string_split.run(string_split.groovy:35)
The following code:
justSayHello = {
println "hello"
}
def my_str = "justSayHello()"
new GroovyShell(binding).evaluate(my_str)
prints out hello when run. Here we have changed justSayHello from a method (on an implicit class that you can not see but which the groovy compiler generates around your script) to a closure. Further we are not doing def justSayHello as that would be defining it as a field on the implicit surrounding class (again which you can't see, but it's there), but rather just defining the variable without any modifiers which puts it in the global binding of the script.
We then send in the binding to the GroovyShell so that it can find the variable.
Result:
─➤ groovy solution.groovy
hello
A more generic variant is to do something like this:
def justSayHello() {
println "hello"
}
def someOtherMethod() {
println "hello again"
}
def methods = this.class.declaredMethods.findResults { m ->
if (m.name.startsWith('$') || m.name in ['main', 'run']) return null
[m.name, this.&"${m.name}"]
}.collectEntries { it }
// just for debugging, print the methods
methods.each { k, v ->
println "method: $k"
}
def my_str = "justSayHello()"
new GroovyShell(new Binding(methods)).evaluate(my_str)
which prints:
─➤ groovy solution.groovy
method: justSayHello
method: someOtherMethod
hello
here we find all the declared methods in the implicit class generated by groovy, remove some stuff added by the groovy compiler (namely main, run and methods starting with a $) and then send the resulting map as the binding for the GroovyShell constructor.
I suspect there might be a more elegant way of accomplishing this, so any groovy gurus - feel free to correct me here.
For an explanation of the implicit enclosing class for a groovy script, see for example this stackoverflow answer.
I would like to have different returning results - depending on the given mocked parameter of a method. Please consider the following code snippet to follow my intention
class ExampleSpec extends Specification {
def "should return second value of list of return values"() {
given:
Person personBob = Mock()
Person personJackson = Mock()
PersonHelper stubbedPerson = Stub()
stubbedPerson.getNameOfBrother(personBob) >> "Billy Bob";
stubbedPerson.getNameOfBrother(personJackson) >> "Tommy Jackson";
when:
String actual = stubbedPerson.getNameOfBrother(personBob)
String actual2 = stubbedPerson.getNameOfBrother(personJackson)
then:
actual == "Billy Bob" // true
actual2 == "Tommy Jackson" // false "Billy Bob"
}
}
The test fails because the second call for var actual2 still return Billy Bob rather than Tommy Jackson. I know there is a way to return different values by call order but I would like to make it dependend on given mocks.
Using normal values - no Mock/Stub Proxies - as parameter values does actually work. I assume that the Spock engine can not differ between two mocks. But I am unsure about this, because the proxies do have IDs as instance fields.
For the record - stubbing with mock objects works. I've added simple Person and PersonHelper classes to your example and the test passes:
import spock.lang.Specification
class ExampleSpec extends Specification {
def "should return second value of list of return values"() {
given:
Person personBob = Mock()
Person personJackson = Mock()
PersonHelper stubbedPerson = Stub()
stubbedPerson.getNameOfBrother(personBob) >> "Billy Bob";
stubbedPerson.getNameOfBrother(personJackson) >> "Tommy Jackson";
when:
String actual = stubbedPerson.getNameOfBrother(personBob)
String actual2 = stubbedPerson.getNameOfBrother(personJackson)
then:
actual == "Billy Bob" // true
actual2 == "Tommy Jackson" // false "Billy Bob"
}
static class Person {
String name
}
static class PersonHelper {
String getNameOfBrother(Person person) {
return null
}
}
}
I have checked it with spock-core:1.1-groovy-2.4, spock-core:1.0-groovy-2.4 and even spock-core:0.7-groovy-2.0. All worked.
But what is even more important - such test does not make any sense. You don't test your code at all. You only test if mocking framework mocks correctly. This test could make some sense if you use Spock mocks in your production code, but this is not a valid assumption.
What may go wrong?
Think for a second about this test. According to your when: block you are trying to test if PersonHelper.getNameOfBrother(Person person) returns a valid name of a brother for two different objects. Now let's assume that this is the only test of a PersonHelper class in your project. Imagine what happens if suddenly implementation of getNameOfBrother method starts throwing NullPointerException for some random reason. Ask yourself - does your unit test protects you from such situation? Nope. Your test always passes, because you are stubbing the method you are testing. If you test a real implementation instead and you pass a real Person object then you will get notified about NullPointerException in the test. Otherwise you will see it when you deploy your code and some user's action calls this method and it fails.
In Groovy, if I have:
def say(msg = 'Hello', name = 'world') {
"$msg $name!"
}
And then call:
say() // Hello world!
say("hi") // Hi world!
say(null) // null world!
Why is the last one getting interpreted literally as null and not applying the default value? Doesn't this defeat the purpose of default method argument values? I do get that passing null is different from not passing anything w/r/t argument length.
My problem here is that if I now have a method that takes a collection as an argument:
def items(Set<String> items = []) {
new HashSet<>(items)
}
This will throw a NullPointerException if I call items(null) but work fine if I just say items(). In order for this to work right, I have to change the line to be new HashSet<>(items ?: []) which, again, seems to defeat the entire purpose of having default method argument values.
What am I missing here?
In Groovy, default parameters generates overloaded methods. Thus, this:
def items(Set<String> items = []) {
new HashSet<>(items)
}
Will generate these two methods (I used javap to get these values):
public java.lang.Object items(java.util.Set<java.lang.String>);
public java.lang.Object items();
So when you call items(null) you are, in fact, passing some value, and items(Set) method will be used.
You can also refer to this question about default parameters.
I'm wondering what is the best way to retrieve nested properties in Groovy, taking a given Object and arbitrary "property" String. I would like to something like this:
someGroovyObject.getProperty("property1.property2")
I've had a hard time finding an example of others wanting to do this, so maybe I'm not understanding some basic Groovy concept. It seems like there must be some elegant way to do this.
As reference, there is a feature in Wicket that is exactly what I'm looking for, called the PropertyResolver:
http://wicket.apache.org/apidocs/1.4/org/apache/wicket/util/lang/PropertyResolver.html
Any hints would be appreciated!
I don't know if Groovy has a built-in way to do this, but here are 2 solutions. Run this code in the Groovy Console to test it.
def getProperty(object, String property) {
property.tokenize('.').inject object, {obj, prop ->
obj[prop]
}
}
// Define some classes to use in the test
class Name {
String first
String second
}
class Person {
Name name
}
// Create an object to use in the test
Person person = new Person(name: new Name(first: 'Joe', second: 'Bloggs'))
// Run the test
assert 'Joe' == getProperty(person, 'name.first')
/////////////////////////////////////////
// Alternative Implementation
/////////////////////////////////////////
def evalProperty(object, String property) {
Eval.x(object, 'x.' + property)
}
// Test the alternative implementation
assert 'Bloggs' == evalProperty(person, 'name.second')
Groovy Beans let you access fields directly. You do not have to define getter/setter methods. They get generated for you. Whenever you access a bean property the getter/setter method is called internally. You can bypass this behavior by using the .# operator. See the following example:
class Person {
String name
Address address
List<Account> accounts = []
}
class Address {
String street
Integer zip
}
class Account {
String bankName
Long balance
}
def person = new Person(name: 'Richardson Heights', address: new Address(street: 'Baker Street', zip: 22222))
person.accounts << new Account(bankName: 'BOA', balance: 450)
person.accounts << new Account(bankName: 'CitiBank', balance: 300)
If you are not dealing with collections you can simply just call the field you want to access.
assert 'Richardson Heights' == person.name
assert 'Baker Street' == person.address.street
assert 22222 == person.address.zip
If you want to access a field within a collection you have to select the element:
assert 'BOA' == person.accounts[0].bankName
assert 300 == person.accounts[1].balance
You can also use propertyMissing. This is what you might call Groovy's built-in method.
Declare this in your class:
def propertyMissing(String name) {
if (name.contains(".")) {
def (String propertyname, String subproperty) = name.tokenize(".")
if (this.hasProperty(propertyname) && this."$propertyname".hasProperty(subproperty)) {
return this."$propertyname"."$subproperty"
}
}
}
Then refer to your properties as desired:
def properties = "property1.property2"
assert someGroovyObject."$properties" == someValue
This is automatically recursive, and you don't have to explicitly call a method. This is only a getter, but you can define a second version with parameters to make a setter as well.
The downside is that, as far as I can tell, you can only define one version of propertyMissing, so you have to decide if dynamic path navigation is what you want to use it for.
See
https://stackoverflow.com/a/15632027/2015517
It uses ${} syntax that can be used as part of GString
I need to mock a static method. I'm using the EMC approach described at Mocking static methods using groovy. Like this
TestDaemon.metaClass.'static'.newDownloadManager = {downloadManager}
The method newDownloadManager has no parameters and for some reason it is not replaced. The original code is called. In debug mode I can see that the closure that I define has a parameter. May be that's the reason? How can I define a closure without parameters? Or how can I mock a static method with no parameters?
Meta class changes aren't visible to Java code. Groovy can't help you to mock a static method that gets called from Java code. You will have to use something like JMockit instead (or refactor the code under test).
A closure written like that has an implicit parameter. Write the closure with { -> } syntax. Example:
x = { println "foo" }
y = { -> println "foo" }
assert x.parameterTypes as List == [Object]
assert y.parameterTypes as List == []