Here's my case, I have a class A which has one member field b. And I want to test and in unit test, I mocked A and also need to call method f() which will invoke b's f(). But the b variable in mocked A is null, so will throw NPE, and I have no get/set method for b, so is there any way to mock b ? THanks
public static class B{
public void f() {
}
}
public static class A {
B b;
public void f() {
b.f();
}
}
If you want to mock out the b property of A in a test, you've given the b property default (package-private) access, so as long as your test is in the same package you could replace the b property directly.
#Test
public void testB() {
A underTest = new A();
B mockedB = Mockito.mock(B.class);
underTest.b = mockedB;
underTest.f();
Mockito.verify(mockedB).f();
}
As an aside, I personally dislike using package-private access to mess around with member properties for tests, and instead would recommend a dependency injection framework like Guice or Spring DI for constructor injection.
However you've described that you've mocked out A, I'd have thought if this was the case the f() method of A would do nothing - you wouldn't get a null pointer exception as the call to the mock will replace the real b property and just be a void method that does nothing. Please can you provide more details if this is the case?
Related
I am writing test class for my java class. I am using Junit5 with Mockito.
I am using Junit5 which isnt compatible with Power Mockito so I am using Mockito only.
I have class Emp which have function findSalary like below and EmpProfileClient is initialized at constructor.
Class Emp {
......
public void findSalary(empId) {
...
TaxReturn taxReturn = new TaxReturn(EmpProfileClient);
int value = taxReturn.apply(new TaxReturnRequest.withEmpId(empId))
.returnInRupee();
...
}
}
When I am writing the test case, I mocked EmpProfileClient, but since we are creating TaxReturn in a method, How I can mock TaxReturn.apply so I can write the expectation to get the value as per my choice which I set in the test class?
If you want to mock this, the TaxReturn class should be an injected bean in the Emp class. Add an injection framework (like Spring) and inject the TaxReturn class. In the test you write you can inject a Mock instead of the real class. See #InjectMocks annotation of the mockito framework.
If I understood your question correctly(you are looking for mocking taxReturn.apply) I'd suggest next:
First. Refactor your taxReturn instantiation(as it is would be much easier to mock method behavior in comparison for trying to mock local variable)
public class EmpService {
public int findSalary(Integer empId) {
//...
// It's doesn't matter what the actual empProfileClient type is
// as you mocking creation behavior anyway
Object empProfileClient = null;
TaxReturn taxReturn = createClient(empProfileClient);
int value = taxReturn.apply(new TaxReturnRequest().withEmpId(empId))
.returnInRupee();
//...
return value; // or whatever
}
protected TaxReturn createClient(Object empProfileClient) {
return new TaxReturn(empProfileClient);
}
}
Second. Use Mockito.spy() in your test:
class EmpServiceTest {
#Test
void findSalary() {
TaxReturn taxReturn = Mockito.mock(TaxReturn.class);
// this is the main idea, here you using partial EmpService mock instance
// part is mocked(createClient()) and other part(findSalary()) is tested
EmpService service = Mockito.spy(EmpService.class);
when(service.createClient(any())).thenReturn(taxReturn);
when(taxReturn.apply(any(TaxReturnRequest.class))).thenReturn(taxReturn);
int yourExpectedValue = 5;
when(taxReturn.returnInRupee()).thenReturn(yourExpectedValue);
assertEquals(yourExpectedValue, service.findSalary(0));
}
}
Keep in mind that any(), spy(), when() and mock() methods are part of Mockito API. So there is nothing hidden here
I have Class A and Class B. B is autowired in class A. Now I want to test the flow using mockito.
So the problem is when I tried to mock the class A and B in my test case using #InjectMock its going to class A but its not invoking class B.
I dont want to mock the class B which is autowired in class A, from A its should make call to class B and get the user details data.
#Component
public class A {
#Autowired
private B b;
public Users getUsers() {
Long id = 10;
b.getUserDetails(id);
// some Logic
}
}
#Component
public class B {
public UserDetails getUserDetails(Long id) {
// some logic to get users details ..
}
}
#RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
public class TestA {
#InjectMocks
private A a;
#InjectMocks
private B b;
#Test
public void testA() {
Users actual = a.getUsers();
assertEquals(actual, expected());
assertNotNull(actual);
}
private Users expected() {
return new Users(); // expected users object
}
}
You should use #Spy on B in order to use real B class
#Spy
private B b;
the spy will wrap an existing instance. It will still behave in the same way as the normal instance – the only difference is that it will also be instrumented to track all the interactions with it.
You should change #InjectMocks annotation on above B to #Spy and you should add #Spy on above A also. Because you want to use B.class's and A.class's real methods. Why you need to use #Spy ?
If you use #Mock, by default for all methods, mock returns null, an empty collection or appropriate primitive / primitive wrapper value (e.g. 0, false, null, ...)
If you use #Spy then the real methods are called (unless a method was stubbed).
As a result, your creation in TestA.class should be like :
#Spy #InjectMocks private A a;
#Spy private B b;
I've an interface like this:
public interface ICustomer extends IEnd<Customer> {
String getId();
ICustomer id(String id);
ICustomer email(String email);
ICustomer description(String description);
}
I need to mock any methods which returns an ICustomer regardless of parameters.
When these methods are called, the self called ICustomer have to be returned.
Any ideas?
To do this you need a custom Answer class:
public class CustomerAnswer implements Answer {
#Override
public Object answer(InvocationOnMock invocation) throws Throwable {
Class retType = invocation.getMethod().getReturnType();
if (ICustomer.class.isInstance(retType)) {
return invocation.getMock();
}
// provide default logic here -- override with "when()" calls.
return null;
}
}
Then create your mock, specifying the default behavior:
Foo mockCustomer = mock(ICustomer.class, new CustomerAnswer());
Add, when() statements for other methods that need to be stubbed.
But as I commented in the OP, be sure you actually want to mock this class before you go thru all the trouble. Only mock when it will make the test code simpler. If you have some simple implementation of the interface that is just a POJO with fluent API (no side-effects, no complicated dependencies or injections), there is probably no need to mock it. Instead use a real instance, because the real instance already returns the original object.
If you need to verify() on the ICustomer object, then use a #Spy of a real instance of a ICustomer.
// What is the technical reason behind this scenarios..?
You're trying to use a statement other than a declaration directly inside the class - rather than within a method. When did you expect the method to get called?
Basically all you can have directly within a type is a bunch of declarations - methods, variables, constructors, events, nested types etc. Method calls (or any other statements) which aren't part of a declaration have to be written within methods, constructors etc.
Method call statement can not be part of a class declaration, but only within Function members declarations scope, such as Methods, Properties, Constructors etc.
For example:
public class ExampleClass
{
private void SayHelloWorld()
{
Console.Writeline("Hello World!");
}
public void CallSayHelloWorldMethod()
{
this.SayHelloWorld();
}
}
At the above example you can see that I call the SayHelloWorld method within the CallSayHelloWorldMethod metod.
Update:
The closest thing I can think of in your case is to use the class's constructor where your method call will be executed as soon as you'll instantiate your class:
public class ExampleClass
{
//The class constructor
public ExampleClass()
{
this.SayHelloWorld();
}
private void SayHelloWorld()
{
Console.Writeline("Hello World!");
}
}
And when you instantiating it, it will be immediately called:
//Your method call will be executed here
ExampleClass exampleClass = new ExampleClass();
You have a few problems... This won't even compile as you are trying to call the method obj.m1() in the class definition.
A obj = new A();
obj.m1(); // Why this code wont work??? --> This must be inside a method
When you create an instance of a class it will create a new member variable called obj which is an instance of A --> A obj = newA() above;
You will now be able to call obj's methods as in your second example.
Also, in order to get this to compile you will need to fix the m2 method:
public void m2() { //--> should have a curly brace
obj.m1(); // But This will work.
}
I have the impression that closures run as the actual class being called (instead of the implementing super class) and thus break when some variables are not visible (e.g. private in the super class).
For example
package comp.ds.GenericTest2
import groovy.transform.CompileStatic
#CompileStatic
class ClosureScopeC {
private List<String> list = new ArrayList<String>()
private int accessThisPrivateVariable = 0;
void add(String a) {
list.add(a)
println("before ${accessThisPrivateVariable} ${this.class.name}")
// do something with a closure
list.each {String it ->
if (it == a) {
// accessThisPrivateVariable belongs to ClosureScopeC
accessThisPrivateVariable++
}
}
println("after ${accessThisPrivateVariable}")
}
}
// this works fine
a = new ClosureScopeC()
a.add("abc")
a.add("abc")
// child class
class ClosureScopeD extends ClosureScopeC {
void doSomething(String obj) {
this.add(obj)
}
}
b = new ClosureScopeD()
// THIS THROWS groovy.lang.MissingPropertyException: No such property: accessThisPrivateVariable for class: comp.ds.GenericTest2.ClosureScopeD
b.doSomething("abc")
The last line throws a MissingPropertyException: the child class calls the "add" method of the super class, which executes the "each" closure, which uses the "accessThisPrivateVariable".
I am new to groovy, so I think there must be an easy way to do this, because otherwise it seems that closures completely break the encapsulation of the private implementation done in the super class ... this seems to be a very common need (super class implementation referencing its own private variables)
I am using groovy 2.1.3
I found this to be a good reference describing how Groovy variable scopes work and applies to your situation: Closure in groovy cannot use private field when called from extending class
From the above link, I realized that since you have declared accessThisPrivateVariable as private, Groovy would not auto-generate a getter/setter for the variable. Remember, even in Java, private variables are not accessible directly by sub-classes.
Changing your code to explicitly add the getter/setters, solved the issue:
package com.test
import groovy.transform.CompileStatic
#CompileStatic
class ClosureScopeC {
private List<String> list = new ArrayList<String>()
private int accessThisPrivateVariable = 0;
int getAccessThisPrivateVariable() { accessThisPrivateVariable }
void setAccessThisPrivateVariable(int value ){this.accessThisPrivateVariable = value}
void add(String a) {
list.add(a)
println("before ${accessThisPrivateVariable} ${this.class.name}")
// do something with a closure
list.each {String it ->
if (it == a) {
// accessThisPrivateVariable belongs to ClosureScopeC
accessThisPrivateVariable++
}
}
println("after ${accessThisPrivateVariable}")
}
}
// this works fine
a = new ClosureScopeC()
a.add("abc")
a.add("abc")
// child class
class ClosureScopeD extends ClosureScopeC {
void doSomething(String obj) {
super.add(obj)
}
}
b = new ClosureScopeD()
b.doSomething("abc")
There is a simpler way, just make the access modifier (should rename the property really) to protected, so the sub-class has access to the property.. problem solved.
protected int accessThisProtectedVariable
To clarify on your statement of concern that Groovy possibly has broken encapsulation: rest assured it hasn't.
By declaring a field as private, Groovy is preserving encapsulation by intentionally suspending automatic generation of the public getter/setter. Once private, you are now responsible and in full control of how or if there is a way for sub-classes (protected) or all classes of objects (public) to gain access to the field by explicitly adding methods - if that makes sense.
Remember that by convention, Groovy ALWAYS calls a getter or setter when your codes references the field. So, a statement like:
def f = obj.someField
will actually invoke the obj.getSomeField() method.
Likewise:
obj.someField = 5
will invoke the obj.setSomeField(5) method.