Is there a way i can find out during runtime if a module is mocked via jest?
Since mocked modules get required normally and therefore the code gets executed (as seen here: jest module executed even when mocked
We need this because we have checks on top of each file to fail early when a mandatory environment variable is not set, which causes our tests to fail even if the module is mocked.
if (!process.env.SOME_ENV) {
throw new Error(`Mandatory environment variable 'SOME_ENV' not set`)
}
We are looking for something like this:
if (!process.env.SOME_ENV && utils.isNotMocked(this)) {
throw new Error(`Mandatory environment variable 'SOME_ENV' not set`)
}
where utils.isNotMocked(this) is the magic function which checks if the module is currently mocked.
As #jonrsharpe mentioned, it is typically not desirable that software can distinguish whether it is under test or not. This means, you will probably not find the feature you are hoping for in any mocking framework. Moreover, there may be more fundamental problems to provide such a feature, because you might have mixed test scenarios where for some test cases an object of the mocked class is used, and for other test cases an object of the original class is used.
Since you are using the early exit mechanism as a general pattern in your code, as you describe: What about creating a library function for this check - which then again can be doubled during testing such that in that case the function does not throw?
Related
I have some really messy non-strict-compliant legacy code on javascript, running just fine on NodeJs 12, and I'm trying to abstract it away and test the overlaying, new layers of code using Jest/Mocks.
But when I try to run the tests I receive the following error:
Test suite failed to run
SyntaxError: /legacy-path/messy_legacy_code.js: Legacy octal literals are not allowed in strict mode (557:66)
at Parser._raise (node_modules/#babel/parser/src/parser/error.js:60:45)
I'm trying to mock it away first thing on my test code, but still get this error. It seems that Jest is trying to parse it with Babel; it really won't find any compliant code there... It just runs on Node, nothing else.
I already tried mocking the legacy code itself and also tried making a container to "abstract" it away and mocking the container. But it seems Jest still tries to read every bit of noncompliant code behind it.
My modern.test.js code looks like this:
jest.mock('../../../../legacy-path/messy-container')
const { ModernLayer } = require('../../../../modern-path/modern-module');
Any ideas on how I cant completely block Jest from trying to read this noncompliant code and just mock it away?
jest.mock('...') performs auto-mock, unless a mock from __mocks__ is used. It tries to process module exports and fails on syntax error.
The module should be manually mocked instead:
jest.mock('../../../../legacy-path/messy-container', () => ({ ModernLayer: ... }));
I'm reading the mocking capability of minitest.
require "minitest/autorun"
mock = MiniTest::Mock.new
mock.expect(:use_any_string, true, [String])
mock.use_any_string("foo")
## mock.use_any_string(1)
## MockExpectationError: mocked method :use_any_string called with unexpected arguments [1]
## I do not understand the purpose for this
mock.verify
So I do not understand the purpose of using mock.verify since the trying to pass any another type(to use_any_string) other than String result in mock expectation error.
So why should one use assert mock.verify then?
You are right, you cannot set anything else to the configured mock, but if your mock is not called at all, then you can find out with mock.verify. So if your method under test should call the mocked method, you should verify that it was called at all.
You are correct, mock.expect(:use_any_string, true, [String]) will cause the test to fail if the expected call is not made on the mock.
However using mock.verify depends on how you compose your test. In your example you are explicitly calling the method you are testing with mock.use_any_string("foo") so there is no need to also call mock.verify.
You could get into a scenario where you are not making this call explicitly, or are expecting the mock to have had calls made at a certain time. These scenarios would take advantage of mock.verify calls.
(Another note, minitest has recently introduced assert_mock which can be used instead of mock.verify)
In Jest there are functions like tobeCalled or toBeCalledWith to check if a particular function is called.
Is there any way to check that a function is not called?
Just use not.
expect(mockFn).not.toHaveBeenCalled()
See the jest documentation
not did not work for me, throwing a Invalid Chai property: toHaveBeenCalled
But using toHaveBeenCalledTimes with zero does the trick:
expect(mock).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(0)
Recent versions of Jest (22.x and onwards) collect quite decent statistics of mock functions calls, just check out their docs.
The calls property shows you the number of calls, the arguments passed to the mock, the result returned out of it and whatnot. You can access it directly, as a property of mock (e.g. in a way how #Christian Bonzelet suggested in his answer):
// The function was called exactly once
expect(someMockFunction.mock.calls.length).toBe(1);
// The first arg of the first call to the function was 'first arg'
expect(someMockFunction.mock.calls[0][0]).toBe('first arg');
// The second arg of the first call to the function was 'second arg'
expect(someMockFunction.mock.calls[0][1]).toBe('second arg');
I personally prefer this way as it gives you more flexibility and keeps code cleaner in case if you test for different inputs that produce a different number of calls.
However, you can also use shorthand aliases for Jest's expect since recently (spy matchers aliases PR). I guess .toHaveBeenCalledTimes would suit fine here:
test('drinkEach drinks each drink', () => {
const drink = jest.fn();
drinkEach(drink, ['lemon', 'octopus']);
expect(drink).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(2); // or check for 0 if needed
});
In rare cases, you might even want to consider writing your own fixture that'd do the counting. It could be useful if you're heavy on conditioning or working with state, for example.
Hope this helps!
Please follow the documentation from jest:
https://jestjs.io/docs/en/mock-functions#mock-property
All mock functions have this special .mock property, which is where data about how the function has been called and what the function returned is kept. The .mock property also tracks the value of this for each call, so it is possible to inspect this as well: [...]
These mock members are very useful in tests to assert how these functions get called, instantiated, or what they returned:
// The function was called exactly once
expect(someMockFunction.mock.calls.length).toBe(1);
Or...
// The function was not called
expect(someMockFunction.mock.calls.length).toBe(0);
Wanted but not invoked: However, there were other interactions with this mock:
This is a mockito error you would catch when trying to verify the invocation on an object on specific method, but what happens is you have interacted with other method of that object but not the one mentioned.
If you have an object named CustomerService and say it has two methods named saveCustomer() and verifyExistingCustomer(),
and your mockito looks something like verify(customerService, atleast(1)).verifyExistingCustomer(customer), but in your actual service you called the saveCustomer() at least one.
Any idea how to resolve this ?
From what you are describing, it looks like you are telling your mocks that you are expecting verifyExistingCustomer() to be called but you are not actually calling it.
You should probably look at your test design, specifically ensuring that you can (via mocking) isolate your tests to test each method individually.
If there is something in your code that decides whether to call saveCustomer() or verifyExistingCustomer() then you should try to mock the data that the code inspects so that you can test each individually.
For example if your code looked like this:
if (customer.getId() == 0) {
saveCustomer(customer);
} else {
verifyExistingCustomer(customer);
}
Then you could have two separate tests that you could isolate by setting a zero value and non-zero value for the id in customer.
If you'd like to share your code I could probably give you a better example.
In my attempt to mock an object in Groovy using the mock.interceptor package:
def mock = new MockFor(TheClass);
mock.demand.theMethod{ "return" }
mock.use {
def underTest = new TheClass()
println underTest.theMethod()
}
The problem I have is when creating TheClass() in the use{ block, it uses the actual constructor which, in this circumstance, I'd rather it not use. How can I create an instance of this class so I can test the method I do care about, theMethod, without needing to use the constructor?
Using EasyMock/CE, mocks can be made without using the constructor, but am curious how to achieve that in Groovy.
I recently saw a presentation by the author of GMock and it has some hooks to allow "constructor" mocking which I think is what you are after.
e.g.
def mockFile = mock(File, constructor('/a/path/file.txt'))
This library differs from that "built in" to groovy, however it looked very well written, with some thought put into the kinds of things you want to mock and more importantly the error messages you would get when tests should fail.
I think this is what you are after. I would say use constructor mocking with care - it could be a smell that you should inject a Factory object, but for some things it looked to work well.
You can use the interceptConstruction flag when calling MockFor, see
MockFor.