I have a class that has a static method that passes in request and that calls server to retrieve the response.
is there a way to mock that since it unit test I do not want to make a service call.
String jsonResponse = getMeMyMoney(request)
protected static String getMeMyMoney(request)
{
response = executeService(request)
return response
}
I tried this which is supposed to bypass the method but it still went it. Any one knows how to do this
doReturn("1").when(TestClass.getMeMyMoney("S"));
You cannot mock static methods with Mockito, it is also stated in FAQ.
Use PowerMock on top of Mockito.
PowerMockito.mockStatic(TestClass.class);
when(TestClass.getMeMyMoney("S")).thenReturn("1");
Related
Since upgrading spring-integration to 5.3.10.RELEASE we can't mock the requestFactory on HttpRequestExecutingMessageHandler anymore in the unit tests, it is actually checked if the requestFactory setter has been called and an exception is thrown in that case.
So, how to configure the HttpRequestExecutingMessageHandler.requestFactory now with a Mockito instance?
The check there is like this:
public void setRequestFactory(ClientHttpRequestFactory requestFactory) {
assertLocalRestTemplate("requestFactory");
this.restTemplate.setRequestFactory(requestFactory);
}
That means that you have been providing a RestTemplate into this HttpRequestExecutingMessageHandler. The requestFactory is essentially a property of the RestTemplate. So, consider to set your mock into that external RestTemplate instead.
This is not related to cloud sdk per se, but more regarding mocking the s4 endpoints which we usually use c sdk to query.
We want to do this for our load test, where we would not want the load test to go till s4 endpoint. We are considering using wiremock, to mock the endpoints, but the question is, whether the mocking logic in wiremock itself will contribute not in an insignificant manner to the metrics we are taking. If it would, then the metric becomes somewhwat unreliable since we want the apps performance metric not the mock framework's.
Other approach would be to use a mock server application dedicated for this, so that from app we would not have to do any mocking. Just route the call to the mock server app(using a mock destination perhaps)
My question to you guys is, have you ever encountered this use case? Perhaps yourself, or maybe from a consumer of yours. I would like to know how other teams in SAP solved this problem.
Thanks,
Sachin
In cases like yours, where the entire system (including responses from external services) should be tested, we usually recommend using Wiremock.
This is, because Wiremock is rather easy to setup and works well-enough for regular testing scenarios.
However, as you also pointed out, Wiremock introduces significant runtime overhead for the tested code and, thus, rending performance measurements of any kind more or less useless.
Hence, you could try mocking the HttpClient using Mockito instead:
BasicHttpResponse page = new BasicHttpResponse(new BasicStatusLine(HttpVersion.HTTP_1_1, 200, "OK"));
page.setEntity(new StringEntity("hello world!));
HttpClient httpClient = mock(HttpClient.class);
doReturn(page).when(httpClient).execute(any(HttpUriRequest.class));
This enables fine-grained control over what your applications retrieves from the mocked endpoint without introducing any kind of actual network actions.
Using the code shown above obviously requires your application under test to actually use the mocked httpClient.
Assuming you are using the SAP Cloud SDK in your application, this can be achieved by overriding the HttpClientCache used in the HttpClientAccessor with a custom implementation that returns your mocked client, like so:
class MockedHttpClientCache implements HttpClientCache
{
#Nonnull
#Override
public Try<HttpClient> tryGetHttpClient(#Nonnull final HttpDestinationProperties destination, #Nonnull final HttpClientFactory httpClientFactory) {
return Try.of(yourMockedClient);
}
#Nonnull
#Override
public Try<HttpClient> tryGetHttpClient(#Nonnull final HttpClientFactory httpClientFactory) {
return Try.of(yourMockedClient);
}
}
// in your test code:
HttpClientAccessor.setHttpClientCache(new MockedHttpClientCache());
Currently, code similar to the following exists in one of our applications:
#Component
public class ProcessRequestImpl {
private ExecutorService executorService;
public processRequest(...) {
// code to pre-process request
executorService.execute(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
ProcessRequestImpl.this.doWork(...);
}
}
}
private void doWork(...) {
// register in external file that request is being processed
// call external service to handle request
}
}
The intent of this is to create a queue of requests to the external service. The external service may take some time to process each incoming request. After it handles each one, it will update the external file to register that the specific request has been processed.
ProcessRequestImpl itself is stateless, in that all state is set in the constructor and there is no external access to that state. The process() method is called by another component in the application.
If this were to be implemented in a Spring Integration application, which of the following two approaches would be best recommended:
Keep the above code as is.
Extract doWork(), into a separate endpoint, configure that endpoint to receive messages on a channel, and to use configuration to achieve the multi threading in place of the executor service.
Some of the reasons we are looking at Spring Integration are as follows:
To remove the workflow logic from the code itself, so that the workflow and the chain of processing is evident on a higher level.
To simplify each class, enhancing readability and testability.
To avoid threading code if possible, and define that at a higher level of abstraction in configuration.
Given the sample code, could those goals be achieved using Spring Integration. Also, what would be an example of the DSL to achieve that.
Thanks
Something like
#Bean
public IntegrationFlow flow() {
return IntegrationFlows.from(SomeGatewayInterface.class)
.handle("someBean", "preProcess")
.channel(MessageChannels.executor(someTaskExecutorBean())
.handle("someBean", "doWork")
.get();
The argument passed to the gateway method become the payload of the preprocess method, which would return some object that becomes the message payload, which becomes the parameter passed to doWork.
I would like the URL for a request to be /AmazingRequest (or even /AmazingService) instead of /json/reply/AmazingRequest.
I've tried the Route attribute, but it seems to have no effect. Is it possible within ServiceStack, or would I have to resort to URL rewriting?
This is what I've tried. It compiles, but the attribute has no effect.
public class MyServiceEndpoints : IService
{
[Route("/AmazingService")]
public AmazingResponse Post(AmazingRequest request)
{
return new Amazing(request).GetResponse();
}
}
I realize I would need to tell ServiceStack that it is a json request, but I'm fine with adding the Accept and Content-Type headers or maybe even a ?format=json to the query string.
P.S. I'm using the BSD version of ServiceStack
In ServiceStack Routes are defined on the Request DTO as it's part of your Service Contract, e.g:
[Route("/AmazingService")]
public class AmazingRequest { ... }
The pre-defined Route you're using is because ServiceStack doesn't think there's any custom route defined for your Service and just uses the default one.
The alternative way for declaring your Routes is to use the Fluent Registration API in your AppHost, e.g:
public void Configure(Container container)
{
Routes
.Add<AmazingRequest>("/AmazingService");
}
But the benefit of defining them on the Request DTO's is that your .NET Service Clients will also have access to them and will be able to use your custom routes instead of falling back to the pre-defined routes.
What would be the easiest way to setup a request/response interceptor in ServiceStack that would execute for a particular service?
A request filter (IHasRequestFilter) works fine but a response filter (IHasResponseFilter) is not triggered if the service returns non 2xx status code. I need to retrieve the status code returned by the method as well as the response DTO (if any).
A custom ServiceRunner and overriding the OnBeforeExecute and OnAfterExecute methods seems to work fine but I find it pretty intrusive as the service runner need to be replaced for the entire application and I couldn't find a way clean way to isolate per functionality the tasks that need to be executed in those methods.
Is there some extension point in ServiceStack that I am missing that would allow me to execute some code before each service method and after each service method? A plugin would be ideal but how can I subscribe to some fictitious BeforeExecute and AfterExecute methods that would allow me to run some custom code?
UPDATE:
Just after posting the question I found out that global response filters are executed no matter what status code is returned by the service which is exactly what I needed. So one last question: Is it possible to retrieve the service type that will handle the request in a request filter? I need to check whether this service is decorated by some custom marker attribute.
I have found out a solution to my question about how to retrieve the service type in a custom request/response filter:
appHost.RequestFilters.Add((req, res, requestDto) =>
{
var metadata = EndpointHost.Metadata;
Type serviceType = metadata.GetServiceTypeByRequest(requestDto.GetType());
...
}
A custom ServiceRunner and overriding the OnBeforeExecute and OnAfterExecute methods seems to work fine but I find it pretty intrusive as the service runner need to be replaced for the entire application
Quick note, you can opt-in and choose only what requests should use a custom service runner, e.g:
public override IServiceRunner<TRequest> CreateServiceRunner<TRequest>(
ActionContext actionContext)
{
return useCustomRunner(actionContext.RequestType)
? new MyServiceRunner<TRequest>(this, actionContext)
: base.CreateServiceRunner<TRequest>(actionContext);
}
IHttpRequest has OperationName. I think thats what you are after.