How does work Sinon.JS fake.yields? - node.js

I just started investigation of Sinon.JS and after some research I stuck with the following two methods and do not know how exactly they are working:
sinon.fake.yields(callback[, value1, ..., valueN]);
and
sinon.fake.yieldsAsync(callback[, value1, ..., valueN]);
It would be great if somebody explain (or even show some example) how they work and when should I use them. One more important question what is the difference between fake, stub and mock in common?
Thanks in advance!

The Sinon docs explain that yields() returns a fake that "expects the last argument to be a callback and will invoke it with the given arguments".
yieldsAsync() does the same thing but invokes the callback asynchronously.
Looking at the Sinon source code makes it clear exactly what this means:
Calling sinon.fake.yields(...) records the arguments passed and returns a function.
When the returned function is invoked it ignores all of its own arguments except the last one which it assumes is a callback. It then invokes that callback with the arguments it recorded from when it was created with yields():
import * as sinon from 'sinon';
const fake = sinon.fake.yields('arguments', 'passed', 'to', 'yields');
const callback = (...args) => {
console.log(args);
}
// logs the following to the console:
// [ 'arguments', 'passed', 'to', 'yields' ]
fake('every argument', 'except the last', 'is ignored', callback);
yieldsAsync() does exactly the same thing except that it invokes the callback asynchronously.
In Sinon, a spy "is a function that records arguments, return value, the value of this and exception thrown (if any) for all its calls". It just spies on the calls made to it. It can either wrap nothing or it can wrap and transparently pass through to an existing function.
A stub is a spy "with pre-programmed behavior". A stub lets you spy on the calls made to it and also lets you define how the function should behave (return value, exception thrown, etc.). If an existing function is wrapped in a stub the behavior defined by the stub is used instead of the function.
"fake was introduced with Sinon with v5. It simplifies and merges concepts from spies and stubs." It spies on the calls made to it like both spies and stubs, it can be created with or without behavior and it can also wrap an existing function.
A mock is a fake method "with pre-programmed behavior...as well as pre-programmed expectations". A mock lets you define how the function should behave and also how it is expected to be used. Calling verify() on a mock will fail if the mock was not used as expected.

Related

Mockito verify doesn't match multiple stub

It seems that, when I use thenReturn like this:
when(abc.call()).thenReturn(a).thenReturn(b),
I expect:
verify(abc, times(2)).call()
instead, the method seems only get called once, I am a little confused(my test work as expected, the mock seems return the value I expected), but for the invocation times, I don't know if I am getting the wrong result, or it's a expected behavior of the Mockito?
when() is mocking the abc.call() method which has to produce a certain return type. If the method is called once, it will return the value also once, so the stubbing for method invocation is done only once hence the verify only recognizes one call.
You need to customize your function so that the stub(abc.call()) gets called more than once.
You can follow this thread for implementing multiple stubs

Jest and Sinon: how do I stub an entire class?

so I know in sinon you can go
sinon.stub(class.prototype, 'method').callsFake(() => {
// ... some logic here ...
});
However, I need to stub the entire class, not just one method on it. Ideally, I want to do something like:
sinon.stub(class.prototype, myClassObjectHere);
Is there a way to do this with Sinon?
I appreciate your help and answer, but I know people are gonna ask why this needs to be done at all. There is no other way. The reason is this class.method I am stubbing does not always return the same value. Base on what parameters was passed into the constructor... the stubbed method needs to call one of several other methods on the class. And from my stubbed method, I do not have visibility onto those other methods. Thanks for your help
You could use sinon.createStubInstance(), creates a new object with the given function as the protoype and stubs all implemented functions.
var stub = sinon.createStubInstance(MyConstructor, overrides);
overrides is an optional map overriding created stubs, for example:
var stub = sinon.createStubInstance(MyConstructor, {
foo: sinon.stub().returnsThis()
});

Jest how to assert that function is not called

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);

Spock framework: what is the purpose of Spies vs. a using real object or Mock?

From the documentation:
A spy is always based on a real object. Hence you must provide a class type rather than an interface type, along with any constructor arguments for the type. If no constructor arguments are provided, the type’s default constructor will be used.
Method calls on a spy are automatically delegated to the real object. Likewise, values returned from the real object’s methods are passed back to the caller via the spy.
Also:
When stubbing a method on a spy, the real method no longer gets called:
subscriber.receive(_) >> "ok"
Instead of calling SubscriberImpl.receive, the receive method will now simply return "ok".
If a spy is just an interface layer between a real object and the caller, why not just use the real object? What does using a spy offer that using the real object or a Mock do not?
It seems to be in this void between a Mock and a real object to me.
Spies can be used in different scenarios. However, it is good if you can implement your tests without resorting to spies.
(Think twice before using this feature. It might be better to change the design of the code under specification.)
They can be used to verify that a method was called without mocking the method itself
You can stub out calls that you don't want to happen
You can use partial mocks to test the object itself
// this is now the object under specification, not a collaborator
def persister = Spy(MessagePersister) {
// stub a call on the same object
isPersistable(_) >> true
}
when:
persister.receive("msg")
then:
// demand a call on the same object
1 * persister.persist("msg")
Example and quote are from the docs # http://spockframework.org/spock/docs/1.1/all_in_one.html#Spies
In my practice I prefer to use a real objects as much as possible. In case when only one method is to be mocked I still use a real object but with overridden needed method:
MyDomainClass myRealObjectWithMockedMethod = new MyDomainClass() {
#Override
Object doSomething() {
return "hard coded or mocked result";
}
}
// test what you need
myRealObjectWithMockedMethod.action();
Note, this way works only of overridden method is not final. Otherwise Spy will help to define a behavior of this method.
A spy offers the possibility to use the original object but also mock out one method. For example you have a class where you want to test the implementation of the toString() method. But this calls an long running method which needs some external access like a database. In this case you use a spy and let your long running method return some test string and then use the toString from the original object.
Or like the spock example the method subscriber.receive maybe needs a server which sends out asynchronous messages. To write an test for subscriber not relying on the server or to handle asynchronous complexity you let the spy return ok and can easily test your methods which will rely on a server ok.

Creating a yieldable Node Module/Object

I am trying to create a Node module (using harmony) that upon loading by another module/application, has to be yielded to so that things in it's construct can be executed and loaded before any of it's exposed functions can be called.
The issue I am having is that I cannot seem to yield to the internal function that is being executed, using module.exports. An example would help.
module.exports = function*(s_id){
console.log('loading the module lets it execute up till here');
if (!(this instanceof Tester)) return yield new Tester();
}
function* Tester(){
console.log('but we never execute this generator function');
}
Tester.prototype = {
model : function*(){
// other functions
}
}
It's been stumping me for hours now! I feel like the solution is super simple but I cannot seem to wrap my head around it. I have tried to simply make the Tester() function the export, but am still having the same issue. Why can't I seem to yield to the Tester() function?
Also, what may an alternative be to this approach? I want to maintain the Object nature of the module so that the module can be loaded with different inputs, such as the s_id variable/object in the example above.
a Node module (using harmony) that upon loading by another module/application, has to be yielded to so that things in it's construct can be executed and loaded before any of it's exposed functions can be called
Don't do that. Generators are not made for asynchrony. yield doesn't do what you want here. A module is not "yielded" to await something in it to load. yield is magic, but not async magic.
If you must use an asynchronous module loading process, export a promise for your actual module. That is a standard interface for something to await, and can be consumed using a standardized approach that does not rely on internals of your module.
You still can use yield syntax for constructing that promise, just use your favorite coroutine library.
return yield new Tester();
…
function* Tester(){…}
Uh oh. Well yes, apparently it is possible to call generator functions as constructors. But believe me, it is not what you want. A constructor for an arbitrary object should return that object, instead of an iterator (just like it shouldn't return a promise). If some of your object methods are generator methods, that's fine, but your constructor should be not.
If you really want to use a generator function in your code like that (and it's not meant to be a constructor), you
will need to yield* the iterator you've created (tester()) instead of yielding it
must not overwrite its .prototype property like you did, as that causes the iterator to malfunction. (Of course you should never do that at all, even though most of the time it works)

Resources