Assert arguments of stubbed methods with sinon - node.js

import ManagerDaoStub from '../salesforce/__test__/ManagerDaoStub';
import criticalMerchants from '../criticalMerchants';
describe('criticalMerchants Unit Tests', () => {
before(() => {
ManagerDaoStub.initStubs();
});
after(() => {
ManagerDaoStub.restoreStubs();
});
it('assert the arguments of stubbed method', (done)=>{
let load = criticalMerchants.createCases(MERCHANT, DEVICE_ID, KEY, {});
return done();
});
})
This is the test file written in node criticalMerchants.test.js. The method i want to test which is createCases uses a method in ManagerDao, which has been stubbed in ManagerDaoStub as below.
import ManagerDao from '../ManagerDao';
class ManagerDaoStub {
constructor() {
this.sandbox = sinon.sandbox.create();
}
initStubs(sandbox) {
this.sandbox = sandbox || this.sandbox;
this.restoreStubs();
this.initFindOpenCases();
}
restoreStubs() {
this.sandbox.restore();
}
initFindOpenCases() {
let findOpenCases = this.sandbox.stub(ManagerDao, "findOpenCases");
findOpenCases
.withArgs(DEVICE_ID, KEY, match.func)
.callsArgWith(2, new Error("Test error"));
}
}
I want to assert whether this stubbed method initFindOpenCases was called with the right arguments (DEVICE_ID,KEY,null). I used
sinon.assert.calledWith(ManagerDaoStub.initFindOpenCases, DEVICE_ID, KEY, null) and this gives the following error:
AssertError: initFindOpenCases() is not stubbed.
Can someone suggest a proper way to do this?

First off, if ManagerDao.initFindOpenCases is an instance method (I'm unsure since you haven't shared its definition), then you can't stub it on the constructor like you've done here:
let findOpenCases = this.sandbox.stub(ManagerDao, "findOpenCases")
You need to either create an instance first-- then stub it on that instance-- or stub it on the prototype itself like so:
let findOpenCases = this.sandbox.stub(ManagerDao.prototype, "findOpenCases");
Secondly, you're making the same mistake again in your assertion, combined with another:
sinon.assert.calledWith(ManagerDaoStub.initFindOpenCases, DEVICE_ID, KEY, null)
ManagerDaoStub is the constructor, and it does not have an initFindOpenCases property. Its prototype does, and thus its instances do as well. On top of that, ManagerDaoStub.prototype.initFindOpenCases is still not a stub. It's a method you're calling to create a stub, but it is not itself a stub. More plainly, you're getting ManagerDao mixed up with ManagerDaoStub.
Assuming you make example change above, you can make your assertion work like this:
sinon.assert.calledWith(ManagerDao.prototype.initFindOpenCases, DEVICE_ID, KEY, null)
However, this isn't all I would recommend changing. This latter mixup is arising largely because you're vastly over-complicating the setup code of your test. You don't need to make an entire class to stub one method of ManagerDao.
Instead, just replace your before and after calls with these:
beforeEach(() => {
// Create the stub on the prototype.
sinon.stub(ManagerDao.prototype, 'findOpenCases')
.withArgs(DEVICE_ID, KEY, sinon.match.func)
.callsArgWith(2, newError('Test Error'));
});
afterEach(() => {
// As of sinon 5.0.0, the sinon object *is* a sandbox, so you can
// easily restore every fake you've made like so:
sinon.restore();
});
Aside from that, I recommend looking deeply into the difference between properties on a constructor and properties on its prototype. That knowledge will make stuff like this much easier for you. Best place to start is probably here on MDN.

Related

Jest mocking private members

In a Node/Express server, we use a repository that needs to be unit-tested using Jest.
//Private things
let products;
function loadProducts() {
if (!products)
products = fetchProductsFromSomeDbOrServiceOrWhatever()
}
function saveProducts() {
persistPrivateProductsToADbOrServiceOrWhatever()
}
// Exported/public things
export function read() {
loadProducts();
return products;
}
export function add(product) {
loadProducts();
products.push(product);
saveProducts();
}
We want to unit test like this:
import { read, add } from './productRepo';
it('can read products', () => {
expect(read().length).toBe(5);
});
it('can add a product', () => {
const oldNum = read().length;
add({id:0, name:'test prod', moreProps});
expect(read().length).toBe(oldNum+1)
});
You get the idea. It's not a class so we can't mess with the prototype.
Problem: How do I mock the private products and/or loadProducts and/or saveProducts so that it isn't reading from the actual data source?
Presumably these private functions call out to other pieces of functionality you've written yourself or imported from libraries.
function loadProducts() {
if (!products)
products = fetchProductsFromSomeDbOrServiceOrWhatever()
}
function saveProducts() {
persistPrivateProductsToADbOrServiceOrWhatever()
}
Let's take fetchProductsFromSomeDbOrServiceOrWhatever as the example. One basic architectural consideration to make the code properly encapsulated and testable is to put this functionality in a separate module. So I would expect an import at the head of the file:
import fetchProductsFromSomeDbOrServiceOrWhatever from './fetchProductsFromSomeDbOrServiceOrWhatever'
So in this case just mock it in your test file:
jest.mock('./fetchProductsFromSomeDbOrServiceOrWhatever');
If the functionality is not extracted into a separate module this makes your code less testable; this on its own is a good reason to refactor.
Note: the other replies on this thread are correct when they say that private functions of classes should not be tested, but I think that is a slightly different issue from the one you are asking.
First, start initializing products to an empty array, else tests are doomed to fail because of the null value. Also change the null check
Then parametrize your loader and saver functions so your functions can be testable. Last write tests for you loader and saver functions outside of this repo function.
// assummed imports
fetchProductsFromSomeDbOrServiceOrWhatever=()=>{}
persistPrivateProductsToADbOrServiceOrWhatever=()=>{}
//Private things
let products=[];
function loadProducts(loader) {
loader=loader || fetchProductsFromSomeDbOrServiceOrWhatever
if (products.length==0)
products = loader()
}
function saveProducts(saver) {
saver=saver || persistPrivateProductsToADbOrServiceOrWhatever
saver()
}
// Exported/public things
export function read(loader) {
loadProducts(loader);
return products;
}
export function add(product,loader,saver) {
loadProducts(loader);
products.push(product);
saveProducts(saver);
}
both exported functions can now use fetch/persist functions either by importing or as arguments.
Now the remaining is the mocking loader and saver function. saver function does not change anything so it can be null or empty. but if you want to check if it is called inside, then you need to mock it.
import {jest} from '#jest/globals'
import { read, add } from './productRepo';
it('can read products', () => {
loader=jest.fn().mockReturnValue([{id:7},{id:42}])
expect(read(loader).length).toBe(2);
expect(loader).toBeCalledTimes(1)
});
it('can add a product', () => {
loader=jest.fn().mockReturnValue([{id:7},{id:42}])
saver=jest.fn()
const oldNum = read(loader).length;
add({id:0, name:'test prod'},loader,saver);
expect(read(loader).length).toBe(oldNum+1)
expect(loader).toBeCalledTimes(0)
expect(saver).toBeCalledTimes(1)
});
There is a "gotcha" here. Since productRepo is imported once, loader is called in the first test but will not be called again in the second test since the first has already changed the products. Thus subsequent tests must take this into account when using non-class packages.
you must not get access to private properties or methodes anyway.
instead you can provide setter and getter for your properties.
for methodes I believe you can break it into some private parts and some public parts. private parts for your actual data source and public parts that can be used in test either.
I suggest implementing an initialize method on productRepo.js.
export function init(data) {
products = data
}
Then, you can init products with mocked data.
Also, if you can't change the file, you could use the rewire library, which lets you access non-exported functions and variables.

How to stub an inner function and set a variable value

This is one of the more complex scenarios I've encountered yet. I have a function that I need to test, this function is nested in a complex puzzle of functions. I need to stub this function, and set a value inside the variable inside.
For reasons I'm not allowed to share here, the variable inside the publishEvent() method is undefined during test run, I need a way to set the value for this variable during test in order for me to test the if block of code in the function.
I summarized the whole file because I can't share the code here due to NDA, sorry if the question is not detailed enough. Maybe using sinon I can directly set the value for this variable in the publishEvent function.
function emitEvent() {
async function publishEvent() {
const variable = library.fetchData()
if (variable) {
// do something
}
}
return Promise.resolve(publishEvent())
.then(() => { })
.catch(() => null);
}
function requestSuscription() {
return getAllSubscriptions()
.then((results) => {
return Promise.map(results, () => emitEvent())
})
}
function getAllSubscriptions() {
return new Promise()
}
function requestOtherSubscription() {
console.log('other thing requested')
}
module.exports = { requestSuscription, requestOtherSubscription }
I know I can stub the requestSuscription, requestOtherSubscription functions and it works, but how can I stub the publishEvent and set the variable value?
You need a way of controlling what library.fetchData() outputs. Either you need a way of injecting a substitute for that library (easiest option) or you need to employ a link seam (environment dependant, requires extra lib) - substituting the library with a fake one at the module loading level.
You can check out this SO answer to a nearly identical question for details.

sinon stub namespaced function

I'm having some issues using sinon stubs and it may stem from how I'm implementing namespacing on the module that I'm looking to stub. Methods directly defined on the prototype are stubbed as I would expect.
...my module.js
const Constructor = require('./constructor') //...just exports a singleton
/* Need to namespace some of my functions and retain the `this` context */
Object.defineProperty(Constructor.prototype, 'es', {
get: function() {
return {
method: require('./implementations/doesSomething.js').bind(this)
}
}
});
module.exports = Constructor;
/* ...testFile.js */
const Constructor = require('./constructor');
const instance = new Constructor();
const sinon = require('sinon');
sinon.stub(instance.es, 'method', function() {
return 'hijacked original method'
});
As mentioned on the Sinon issue tracker, the problem here is that using a plain Object.defineProperty(obj, 'prop') call does something else than plainly creating it using assignment (obj['prop'] = ...).
Generally, if you try defining your property without Object.defineProperty it will be stubbable, but using defineProperty (without creating a special configuration) will make it impossible to stub the property. The reason is simply that the default values for writeable and configurable are false! You cannot delete them or change them. And if you can't do that, then Sinon won't help you. So, generally, you need to add writeable: true, configurable: true in your property definition.
Now there was one more thing I forgot to answer originally:
You are not trying to wrap a function on Constructor.prototype.es.method - what you are trying to wrap is the function on the object returned by the getter on the property for es. That will never work. Why? Simply because the returned object is never the same. You are creating a new object around method each time. If you really need to replace/stub the method property, you actually need to replace the entire Constructor.prototype.es property instead. If you need this namespacing, you can vastly simplify this, and also enable stubbing, like this:
Constructor.prototype.es = {};
Object.defineProperty(Constructor.prototype.es, 'method', {
get: function() {
return someFunction.bind(this);
},
writeable: true,
configurable:true
}
An expanded, fully working example (Gist for download):
// constructor.js
const someFunction = function(){
return this.value;
}
function Constructor(){ };
Constructor.prototype.es = { value : 100 };
Object.defineProperty(Constructor.prototype.es, 'method', {
get: function() {
return someFunction.bind(this);
},
writeable: true,
configurable:true
});
// test.js
const instance = new Constructor();
console.log(instance.es.method()) // => 100
// using this won't work:
// sinon.stub(instance.__proto__.es, 'method').returns(42);
// because the getter is returning a _new_ function each time
// therefore you need to attack the actual getter function:
const stub = sinon.stub(instance.__proto__.es, 'method').value(()=>42);
console.log(instance.es.method()) // => 42
stub.get(()=>()=>84);
console.log(instance.es.method()) // => 84
stub.restore();
console.log(instance.es.method()) // => 100
// the above is working on the prototype, can't we do this on the instance?
// yes, we can, but remember that the `es` object is shared, so we
// can avoid modifying it by shadowing it further down the prototype
instance.es = { method: sinon.stub().returns(256) };
console.log(instance.es.method()) // => 256
delete instance.es
console.log(instance.es.method()) // => 100
<script src="https://unpkg.com/sinon#2.3.5/pkg/sinon.js"></script>

Stub/mock process.platform sinon

I am working with process.platform and want to stub that string value to fake different OSes.
(this object is generated out of my reach, and I need to test against different values it can take on)
Is it possible to stub/fake this value?
I have tried the following without any luck:
stub = sinon.stub(process, "platform").returns("something")
I get the error TypeError: Attempted to wrap string property platform as function
The same thing happens if I try to use a mock like this:
mock = sinon.mock(process);
mock.expects("platform").returns("something");
You don't need Sinon to accomplish what you need. Although the process.platform process is not writable, it is configurable. So, you can temporarily redefine it and simply restore it when you're done testing.
Here's how I would do it:
var assert = require('assert');
describe('changing process.platform', function() {
before(function() {
// save original process.platform
this.originalPlatform = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(process, 'platform');
// redefine process.platform
Object.defineProperty(process, 'platform', {
value: 'any-platform'
});
});
after(function() {
// restore original process.platfork
Object.defineProperty(process, 'platform', this.originalPlatform);
});
it('should have any-platform', function() {
assert.equal(process.platform, 'any-platform');
});
});
sinon's stub supports a "value" function to set the new value for a stub now:
sinon.stub(process, 'platform').value('ANOTHER_OS');
...
sinon.restore() // when you finish the mocking
For details please check from https://sinonjs.org/releases/latest/stubs/

Unit testing unavailable global function (couchapp, mocha)

I'm trying to unit test a CouchDB design doc (written using couchapp.js), example:
var ddoc = {
_id: '_design/example',
views: {
example: {
map: function(doc) {
emit(doc.owner.id, contact);
}
}
}
}
module.exports = contacts
I can then require this file into a mocha test very easily.
The problem is CouchDB exposes a few global functions that the map functions use ("emit" function above) which are unavailable outside of CouchDB (i.e. in these unit tests).
I attempted to declare a global function in each test, for example:
var ddoc = require('../example.js')
describe('views', function() {
describe('example', function() {
it('should return the id and same doc', function() {
var doc = {
owner: {
id: 'a123456789'
}
}
// Globally-scoped mocks of unavailable couchdb 'emit' function
emit = function(id, doc) {
assert.equal(contact.owner.id, id);
assert.equal(contact, doc);
}
ddoc.views.example.map(doc);
})
})
})
But Mocha fails with complaints of global leak.
All of this together started to "smells wrong", so wondering if there's better/simpler approach via any libraries, even outside of Mocha?
Basically I'd like to make mock implementations available per test which I can call asserts from.
Any ideas?
I'd use sinon to stub and spy the tests. http://sinonjs.org/ and https://github.com/domenic/sinon-chai
Globals are well, undesirable but hard to eliminate. I'm doing some jQuery related testing right now and have to use --globals window,document,navigator,jQuery,$ at the end of my mocha command line so... yeah.
You aren't testing CouchDb's emit, so you should stub it since a) you assume that it works and b) you know what it will return
global.emit = sinon.stub().returns(42);
// run your tests etc
// assert that the emit was called
This part of the sinon docs might be helpful:
it("makes a GET request for todo items", function () {
sinon.stub(jQuery, "ajax");
getTodos(42, sinon.spy());
assert(jQuery.ajax.calledWithMatch({ url: "/todo/42/items" }));
});
Hope that helps.

Resources