I'm calling a Java method from Groovy which expects an instance of a SAM interface as a parameter.
Normally Groovy is happy with passing in a closure in these cases, and will coerce it accordingly HOWEVER in this case, the interface extends another one and overrides the single method.
Note - It still only has one method, but it's been overriden.
In this instance Groovy doesn't automatically coerce the closure and the only way I seem to be able to call it is by using "AS".
I'm publishing an API to help kids to learn code and really don't want them to have to use "AS" because it would complicate things.
Here's some code that shows the issue...
Java
public interface BaseHandler<T> {
public void handle(T test);
}
public interface Handler extends BaseHandler<String> {
public void handle(String test);
}
public class LibraryClass {
public void method(Handler handler) {
handler.handle("WORLD!");
}
}
Groovy
LibraryClass bar = new LibraryClass();
bar.method({ name -> println "HELLO " + name})
Error
Caught: groovy.lang.MissingMethodException: No signature of method: Bar.doIt() is applicable for argument types: (testClosures$_run_closure1) values: [testClosures$_run_closure1#fe63b60]
Any help on how to get around this without using "AS" would be hugely appreciated
Groovy wants to implement the interface by coercion, but doesn't know which interface method it should implement. As there are 2:
the handle(String test) and a second one: handle(String test) (of the baseHandler)
The solution is to remove the handle(String test) from the handler (it adds nothing as the BaseHandler posesses this method already thanks to the generics).
Like this it works correctly:
public interface BaseHandler<T> {
public void handle(T test);
}
public interface Handler extends BaseHandler<String> {
}
public class LibraryClass {
public void method(Handler handler) {
handler.handle("WORLD!");
}
}
Related
Unit test noob here.
I have three classes: Db1Dao, Db2Dao, ExecuteClass where Db1Dao, Db2Dao are database access objects for two different databases. My goal is to fetch some data from db1 using Db1Dao and run executeClass.execute() to "put" the processed data into db2 using Db2Dao.
My ExecuteClass looks like this:
class ExecuteClass {
private Db1Dao db1Dao;
private Db2Dao db2Dao;
public void execute() {
...
List<String> listOfString = getExternalData(someParam);
List<Metadata> metadatum = db1Dao.get(someInputs);
... I do something to generate a list of new class `A` based on listOfString & metadatum ...
try {
db2Dao.put(listOfA);
} catch (PutException e){
...
}
}
public List<String> getExternalData(SomeClass someParam){
... do something
return listOfString;
}
}
Now I want to test:
Given a specific listOfString (returned by getExternalData) and a specific metadatum (returned by db1Dao.get):
Will I get the desired listOfA?
Am I able to call db2Dao.put and its input parameter is listOfA?
Particularly, I have hard-coded sample listOfString and metadatum and desired listOfA (and they will be passed via an object MockData, see the following code) but I don't know how to write the test using Mockito. The following is a test class I wrote but it does not work:
class TestClass extends BaseTest {
#Mock
private Db1Dao db1Dao;
#Mock
private Db2Dao db2Dao;
private ExecuteClass executeClass;
#BeforeEach
public void setUp() {
MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this);
executeClass = new ExecuteClass(db1Dao, db2Dao);
}
#ParameterizedTest
#MethodSource("MockDataProvider")
public void executeClassTest(final MockData mockData) throws PutException {
Mockito.when(db1Dao.get(Mockito.any(), ...))
.thenReturn(mockData.getMetadatum());
ExecuteClass executeClassSpy = Mockito.spy(executeClass);
Mockito.when(executeClassSpy.getExternalData(Mockito.any()))
.thenReturn(mockData.getListOfString());
executeClassSpy.execute();
// executeClass.execute(); not working neither...
List<A> listOfA = mockData.getDesiredListOfA();
Mockito.verify(db2Dao).put(listOfA);
}
}
Could anyone please let me know? Thank you in advance!!
You should not create a spy of the same class you want to test. Instead, try to write a unit test for the smallest amount of code (e.g. a public method) and mock every external operator (in your case Db1Dao and Db2Dao).
If testing a public method involves calling another public method of the same class, make sure to mock everything inside the other public method (in your case getExternalData). Otherwise, this other public method might be a good candidate for an extra class to have clear separation of concerns.
So, remove the ExecuteClass executeClassSpy = Mockito.spy(executeClass); and make sure you setup everything with Mockito what's called within getExternalData.
To now actually, verify that Db2Dao was called with the correct parameter, either use your current approach with verifying the payload. But here it's important to 100% create the same data structure you get while executing your application code.
Another solution would be to use Mockito's #Captor. This allows you to capture the value of why verifying the invocation of a mock. Later on, you can also write assertions on the captured value:
#Captor
private ArgumentCaptor<ClassOfListOfA> argumentCaptor;
#Test
public void yourTest() {
Mockito.verify(db2Dao).put(argumentCaptor.capture());
assertEquals("StringValue", argumentCaptur.getValue().getWhateverGetterYouHave);
}
The following code worked for me.
I partially accepted #rieckpil's answer. I used #Captor which is very handy.
The reason I had to mock getExternalData() is because its implementation is still a "TODO".
class TestClass extends BaseTest {
#Mock
private Db1Dao db1Dao;
#Mock
private Db2Dao db2Dao;
#Captor
private ArgumentCaptor<List<A>> argumentCaptor;
private ExecuteClass executeClass;
#BeforeEach
public void setUp() {
MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this);
executeClass = new ExecuteClass(db1Dao, db2Dao);
}
#ParameterizedTest
#MethodSource("MockDataProvider")
public void executeClassTest(final MockData mockData) throws PutException {
Mockito.when(db1Dao.get(Mockito.any(), ...))
.thenReturn(mockData.getMetadatum());
ExecuteClass executeClassSpy = Mockito.spy(executeClass);
Mockito.when(executeClassSpy.getExternalData(Mockito.any()))
.thenReturn(mockData.getListOfString());
executeClassSpy.execute();
List<A> listOfA = mockData.getDesiredListOfA();
Mockito.verify(db2Dao).put(argumentCaptor.capture());
assertEquals(listOfA, argumentCaptor.getValue());
}
}
A simplified version of what I'm trying to do in Groovy:
class Animal {
static def echo() {
println this.name // ie "class.name"
}
}
class Dog extends Animal {
}
class Cat extends Animal {
}
Dog.echo()
Cat.echo()
// Output:
// => Animal
// => Animal
//
// What I want:
// => Dog
// => Cat
I think what I'm asking here is: when I call a static method on an object, and
the static method is defined in the object's superclass, is there a way to obtain
the actual type of the object?
A static method is not defined in the object context, but in the class context. You might get confused by the presence of this in the Groovy static method. However, it's only a syntactic sugar that eventually replaces this.name with Animal.class.name.
If you compile the Animal class from your example with a static compilation enabled, you will see that it compiles to the following Java equivalent (result after decompiling the .class file):
//
// Source code recreated from a .class file by IntelliJ IDEA
// (powered by Fernflower decompiler)
//
import groovy.lang.GroovyObject;
import groovy.lang.MetaClass;
import org.codehaus.groovy.runtime.DefaultGroovyMethods;
public class Animal implements GroovyObject {
public Animal() {
MetaClass var1 = this.$getStaticMetaClass();
this.metaClass = var1;
}
public static Object echo() {
DefaultGroovyMethods.println(Animal.class, Animal.class.getName());
return null;
}
}
You can see that the following line in the echo method:
DefaultGroovyMethods.println(Animal.class, Animal.class.getName());
operates directly on the Animal class name. So from the echo method perspective, it doesn't matter how many classes extend it. As long as those classes invoke echo method defined in the Animal class, you will always see Animal printed as a result.
And there is even more than that. If you use the following compiler configuration script:
config.groovy
withConfig(configuration) {
ast(groovy.transform.CompileStatic)
ast(groovy.transform.TypeChecked)
}
and then compile the script (let's call it script.groovy) using this configuration option with the following command:
groovyc --configscript=config.groovy script.groovy
then you will see something like this after decompiling the .class file:
//
// Source code recreated from a .class file by IntelliJ IDEA
// (powered by Fernflower decompiler)
//
import groovy.lang.Binding;
import org.codehaus.groovy.runtime.InvokerHelper;
public class script extends groovy.lang.Script {
public script() {
}
public script(Binding context) {
super(context);
}
public static void main(String... args) {
InvokerHelper.runScript(script.class, args);
}
public Object run() {
Animal.echo();
return Animal.echo();
}
}
You can see that even though you have invoked Dog.echo() and Cat.echo() in your Groovy script, the compiler replaced these calls with the double Animal.echo() invocation. It happened because calling this static method on any other subclass does not make any difference.
Possible solution: applying double dispatch
There is one way to get the expected output - override echo static method in Dog and Cat class. I can assume that your real method may do something more than the exemplary echo method you have shown above, so you might need to call the super echo method from a parent class. But... there are two problems: (1) you can't use super.echo() in the static context, and (2) it doesn't solve the problem, because parent method still operates in the Animal class context.'
To solve this kind of issue you might want to mimic a technique called double dispatch. In short - when we don't have information about the caller in the method that was called, let's allow the caller to pass this information with the method call. Consider the following example:
import groovy.transform.CompileStatic
#CompileStatic
class Animal {
// This is a replacement for the previous echo() method - this one knows the animal type from a parameter
protected static void echo(Class<? extends Animal> clazz) {
println clazz.name
}
static void echo() {
echo(Animal)
}
}
#CompileStatic
class Dog extends Animal {
static void echo() {
echo(Dog)
}
}
#CompileStatic
class Cat extends Animal {
static void echo() {
echo(Cat)
}
}
Animal.echo()
Dog.echo()
Cat.echo()
This may sound like a boilerplate solution - it requires implementing echo method in each subclass. However, it encapsulates the echo logic in the method that requires Class<? extends Animal> parameter, so we can let every subclass to introduce their concrete subtype. Of course, this is not a perfect solution. It requires implementing echo method in each subclass, but there is no other alternative way. Another problem is that it doesn't stop you from calling Dog.echo(Animal) which will cause the same effect as calling Animal.echo(). This double dispatch like approach is more like introducing a shorthand version of echo method which uses the common static echo method implementation for simplicity.
I don't know if this kind of approach solves your problem, but maybe it will help you find a final solution.
I am testing a legacy code that use inheritance method. I am trying to mock super-method
to verity if the super-method is being call or not.
#RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
public class HumanTest {
#Test
public void test() throws NoSuchMethodException, SecurityException {
// 1. arrange
Human sut = PowerMockito.spy(new Human());
PowerMockito.doNothing().when((SuperHuman) sut).run(); // SuperHuman is the parent class
// 2. action
sut.run();
// 3. assert / verify
}
}
public class Human extends SuperHuman {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("human run");
super.run();
}
}
public class SuperHuman {
public void run() {
System.out.println("superhuman run");
}
}
I was expecting that "human run" will be printed. But the actual result was none printed.
PowerMockito.doNothing().when((SuperHuman) sut).run(); // SuperHuman is the parent class
This won't work in your case since PowerMockito will mock method of Human even if you made cast.
I checked your code example and could say that it is possible to suppress invocation of super class method with:
Method toReplace = PowerMockito.method(SuperHuman.class, "run");
PowerMockito.suppress(toReplace);
But it seems that method replacment feature does not work for methods of super class:
createPartialMock should support mocking overridden methods in super classes.
So this does not work:
PowerMockito.replace(toReplace).with(new InvocationHandler() {
#Override
public Object invoke(Object proxy, Method method, Object[] args) throws Throwable {
System.out.println("Method of superclass has been invoked !");
return null;
}
});
But still you should be able to verify invocation of super method let's say indirectly, by mocking other classes which are invoked in super method only.
For instance check that System.out.println was invoked with "superhuman run" or something like this.
Suppose I have the following interface:
public interface ISomething {
default int doStuff() {
return 2 * getValue();
}
int getValue();
}
When I now mock this interface like this:
#Mock
private ISomething _something;
#Before
public void setup() {
doCallRealMethod().when(_something).doStuff();
}
and try to test the doStuff() method like the following:
#Test
public void testDoStuff() {
when(_something.getValue()).thenReturn(42);
assertThat("doStuff() returns 84", _something.doStuff(), is(84));
}
I expect the test to succeed, but I get:
org.mockito.exceptions.base.MockitoException:
Cannot call real method on java interface. Interface does not have any implementation!
Calling real methods is only possible when mocking concrete classes.
I tried subclassing ISomething with an abstract class like this:
public abstract class Something implements ISomething {
}
and mock this class like above. With this approach, I get the same.
Does Mockito not support calling default implementations?
That's correct. The current version of Mockito doesn't support this. You could raise a feature request here. Do note that it seems to be related to issue 456 which was fixed in release 1.10.0, so please make sure you test this in the latest version first.
I was working on a project using Mockito 1.9.5 and ran into the same issue that you found. We couldn't upgrade Mockito because of the way our build server worked. The problem we ran into was when we were writing unit tests for the concrete subclasses, as we couldn't stub out or include the default methods from the interface in our mock objects (so slightly different from your example).
Here is an example subclass using your model:
public class ConcreteSomething implements ISomething {
#Override
int getValue()
{
return 42;
}
}
Then in the unit test class, we explicitly made a private inner class. This class overrode all the default methods of the concrete class under test (i.e. ConcreteSomething) with the interface's default implementation. So in this example, something like:
private class ConcreteSomethingDefaultImpl extends ConcreteSomething {
#Override
int doStuff() {
return super.doStuff();
}
}
For us, a mock made using mock(ConcreteSomething.class) couldn't have it's default methods called using doCallRealMethod(), but mock(ConcreteSomethingDefaultImpl.class) could, and more importantly, it was the default implementation code in the interface that was being used.
I hope that helps anyone else who is constrained to use a particular version of Mockito.
I am trying to do some dependency injection for my tests using nUnit. I'm new to TDD and nUnit so it's possible I am missing something simple. So basically I've created a SetUp method for my interfaces. I originally was using a constructor but I read it's bad to do this when doing TDD so I now using a method.
When I run my test I construct an object and assign it to the interface and then I call a method using that interface. I want to test if it can parse a string decimal.
When I run my test it says test failed and the message is:Invalid signature for SetUp or TearDown method
See below for the actual code:
public class DonorTests
{
private IDonor _Donor;
private IValidateInput _ValidInput;
//DonorTests(IDonor donor, IValidateInput validInput)
//{
// _Donor = donor;
// _ValidInput = validInput;
//}
[SetUp]
void Setup(IDonor donor, IValidateInput validInput)
{
_Donor = donor;
_ValidInput = validInput;
}
[Test]
public void HandleStringNotDecimal()
{
_ValidInput = new ValidateInput();
Assert.IsTrue(_ValidInput.IsDecimal("3445.3450"));
}
}
My class that uses this interface
public class ValidateInput : IValidateInput
{
public decimal RoundTwoDecimalPlaces(decimal amount)
{
return Math.Round(amount);
}
public bool IsDecimal(string amount)
{
decimal ParsedDecimal;
return Decimal.TryParse(amount, out ParsedDecimal);
}
public decimal ConvertToString(string value)
{
decimal ParsedDecimal;
Decimal.TryParse(value, out ParsedDecimal);
return ParsedDecimal;
}
}
You're injecting dependencies using constructor injection previously, right? I think you will not be able to perform dependency injection using method decorated with SetUpAttribute because such method has to be parameterless. Also Setup method has to be public, see this SO thread.
How are we typically dealing with similar situations in our company is:
[TestFixture]
public class DonorTests
{
private IDonor _Donor;
private IValidateInput _ValidInput;
[SetUp]
public void Setup()
{
_Donor = new Donor();
_ValidInput = new ValidateInput();
}
[Test]
public void HandleStringNotDecimal()
{
Assert.IsTrue(_ValidInput.IsDecimal("3445.3450"));
}
}
Or if construction of ValidInput and Donor is cheap then we simply create new instance for each test, having special method for that purpose so when we decide to test another implementation of IValidateInput then it is enough to change it in one place only:
[TestFixture]
public class DonorTests
{
[Test]
public void HandleStringNotDecimal()
{
var validInput = CreateValidateInput();
Assert.IsTrue(validInput .IsDecimal("3445.3450"));
}
private static IValidateInput CreateValidateInput()
{
return new ValidateInput();
}
}
Besides the cause mentioned in the accepted answer, I have met the same error when leaving method as non-public (private or protected).
NUnit most probably relies on reflection and does not deal with non-public methods, so special methods (i.e. decorated with NUnit specific attributes) must be public.