Sinon - when to use spies/mocks/stubs or just plain assertions? - node.js

I'm trying to understand how Sinon is used properly in a node project. I have gone through examples, and the docs, but I'm still not getting it. I have setup a directory with the following structure to try and work through the various Sinon features and understand where they fit in
|--lib
|--index.js
|--test
|--test.js
index.js is
var myFuncs = {};
myFuncs.func1 = function () {
myFuncs.func2();
return 200;
};
myFuncs.func2 = function(data) {
};
module.exports = myFuncs;
test.js begins with the following
var assert = require('assert');
var sinon = require('sinon');
var myFuncs = require('../lib/index.js');
var spyFunc1 = sinon.spy(myFuncs.func1);
var spyFunc2 = sinon.spy(myFuncs.func2);
Admittedly this is very contrived, but as it stands I would want to test that any call to func1 causes func2 to be called, so I'd use
describe('Function 2', function(){
it('should be called by Function 1', function(){
myFuncs.func1();
assert(spyFunc2.calledOnce);
});
});
I would also want to test that func1 will return 200 so I could use
describe('Function 1', function(){
it('should return 200', function(){
assert.equal(myFuncs.func1(), 200);
});
});
but I have also seen examples where stubs are used in this sort of instance, such as
describe('Function 1', function(){
it('should return 200', function(){
var test = sinon.stub().returns(200);
assert.equal(myFuncs.func1(test), 200);
});
});
How are these different? What does the stub give that a simple assertion test doesn't?
What I am having the most trouble getting my head around is how these simple testing approaches would evolve once my program gets more complex. Say I start using mysql and add a new function
myFuncs.func3 = function(data, callback) {
connection.query('SELECT name FROM users WHERE name IN (?)', [data], function(err, rows) {
if (err) throw err;
names = _.pluck(rows, 'name');
return callback(null, names);
});
};
I know when it comes to databases some advise having a test db for this purpose, but my end-goal might be a db with many tables, and it could be messy to duplicate this for testing. I have seen references to mocking a db with sinon, and tried following this answer but I can't figure out what's the best approach.

You have asked so many different questions on one post... I will try to sort out.
Testing myFuncs with two functions.
Sinon is a mocking library with wide features. "Mocking" means you are supposed to replace some part of what is going to be tested with mocks or stubs. There is a good article among Sinon documentation which describes the difference well.
When you created a spy in this case...
var spyFunc1 = sinon.spy(myFuncs.func1);
var spyFunc2 = sinon.spy(myFuncs.func2);
...you've just created a watcher. myFuncs.func1 and myFuncs.func2 will be substituted with a spy-function, but it will be used to record the calling arguments and call real function after that. This is a possible scenario, but mind that all possibly complicated logic of myFuncs.func1/func2 will run after being called in the test (ex.: database query).
2.1. The describe('Function 1', ...) test suite looks too contrived to me.
It is not obvious which question you actually mean.
A function that returns a constant value is not a real life example.. In most cases there will be some parameters and the function under test will implement some algorithm of transmuting the input arguments. So in your test you're going to implement the same algorithm partly to check that the function works correctly. That is where TDD comes in place, which actually supposes you start implementation from a test and take parts of unit test code to implement the method being tested.
2.2. Stub. The second version of unit test looks useless in the given example. func1 is not accepting any parameter.
var test = sinon.stub().returns(200);
assert.equal(myFuncs.func1(test), 200);
Even if you replace the return part with 100 the test will run successfully.
The one that makes sense is, for example, replacing func2 with a stub to avoid heavy calculation/remote request (DB query, http or other API request) being launched in a test.
myFuncs.func2 = sinon.spy();
assert.equal(myFuncs.func1(test), 200);
assert(myFuncs.func2.calledOnce);
The basic rule for unit testing is that unit test should be kept as simple as possible, providing check for as smallest possible fragment of code. In this test func1 is being tested so we can neglect the logic of func2. Which should be tested in another unit test.
Mind that doing the following attempt is useless:
myFuncs.func1 = sinon.stub().returns(200);
assert.equal(myFuncs.func1(test), 200);
Because in this case you masked the real func1 logic with a stub and you're actually testing sinon.stub().return(). Believe me it works well! :D
Mocking database queries.
Mocking a database has always been a hurdle. I could provide some advises.
3.1. Have well fragmented environment. Even for a small project there better exist a development, stage and production completely independent environments. Including databases. Which means you have an automated way of DB creation: scripts or ORM.
In this scenario you will be easily maintaining test DB in your test engine using before()/beforeEach() to have a clean structure for your tests.
3.2. Have well fragmented code. There'd better exist several layers. The lowest (DAL) should be separated from business logic. In this case you will write code for business class, simply mocking DAL. To test DAL you can have the approach you mentioned (sinon.mock the whole module) or some specific libraries (ex.: replace db engine with SQLite for tests as described here)
Conclusion. "how these simple testing approaches would evolve once my program gets more complex".
It is hard to maintain unit tests unless you develop your application with tests in mind and, thus, well fragmented. Stick to the main rule - keep each unit test as small as possible. Otherwise you're right, it will eventually get messy. Because the constantly evolving logic of your application will be involved in your test code.

Related

Azure function run code on startup for Node

I am developing Chatbot using Azure functions. I want to load the some of the conversations for Chatbot from a file. I am looking for a way to load these conversation data before the function app starts with some function callback. Is there a way load the conversation data only once when the function app is started?
This question is actually a duplicate of Azure Function run code on startup. But this question is asked for C# and I wanted a way to do the same thing in NodeJS
After like a week of messing around I got a working solution.
First some context:
The question at hand, running custom code # App Start for Node JS Azure Functions.
The issue is currently being discussed here and has been open for almost 5 years, and doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
As of now there is an Azure Functions "warmup" trigger feature, found here AZ Funcs Warm Up Trigger. However this trigger only runs on-scale. So the first, initial instance of your App won't run the "warmup" code.
Solution:
I created a start.js file and put the following code in there
const ErrorHandler = require('./Classes/ErrorHandler');
const Validator = require('./Classes/Validator');
const delay = require('delay');
let flag = false;
module.exports = async () =>
{
console.log('Initializing Globals')
global.ErrorHandler = ErrorHandler;
global.Validator = Validator;
//this is just to test if it will work with async funcs
const wait = await delay(5000)
//add additional logic...
//await db.connect(); etc // initialize a db connection
console.log('Done Waiting')
}
To run this code I just have to do
require('../start')();
in any of my functions. Just one function is fine. Since all of the function dependencies are loaded when you deploy your code, as long as this line is in one of the functions, start.js will run and initialize all of your global/singleton variables or whatever else you want it to do on func start. I made a literal function called "startWarmUp" and it is just a timer triggered function that runs once a day.
My use case is that almost every function relies on ErrorHandler and Validator class. And though generally making something a global variable is bad practice, in this case I didn't see any harm in making these 2 classes global so they're available in all of the functions.
Side Note: when developing locally you will have to include that function in your func start --functions <function requiring start.js> <other funcs> in order to have that startup code actually run.
Additionally there is a feature request for this functionality that can voted on open here: Azure Feedback
I have a similar use case that I am also stuck on.
Based on this resource I have found a good way to approach the structure of my code. It is simple enough: you just need to run your initialization code before you declare your module.exports.
https://github.com/rcarmo/azure-functions-bot/blob/master/bot/index.js
I also read this thread, but it does not look like there is a recommended solution.
https://github.com/Azure/azure-functions-host/issues/586
However, in my case I have an additional complication in that I need to use promises as I am waiting on external services to come back. These promises run within bot.initialise(). Initialise() only seems to run when the first call to the bot occurs. Which would be fine, but as it is running a promise, my code doesn't block - which means that when it calls 'listener(req, context.res)' it doesn't yet exist.
The next thing I will try is to restructure my code so that bot.initialise returns a promise, but the code would be much simpler if there was a initialisation webhook that guaranteed that the code within it was executed at startup before everything else.
Has anyone found a good workaround?
My code looks something like this:
var listener = null;
if (process.env.FUNCTIONS_EXTENSION_VERSION) {
// If we are inside Azure Functions, export the standard handler.
listener = bot.initialise(true);
module.exports = function (context, req) {
context.log("Passing body", req.body);
listener(req, context.res);
}
} else {
// Local server for testing
listener = bot.initialise(false);
}
You can use global variable to load data before function execution.
var data = [1, 2, 3];
module.exports = function (context, req) {
context.log(data[0]);
context.done();
};
data variable initialized only once and will be used within function calls.

Testing Involving Database

well before specifying my problem, i want to tell that i'm new to the field of testing, so here is my problem:
i developed a rest api using express + sequelize(mysql), and i want to write some test for my api. i choosed to use jasmine library for testing.
so right know i want to test the create and update rest endpoint, i will need access to a database, but the problem is that the test cases are run in parallel, and there is only one database, so if i want to delete all item from a table in a test case, and another test case have create a row in that table, there will be a problem.
const request = require('superagent');
const models = require('../../src/models');
const Station = models.Station;
describe("station testing", function () {
before(() => {
// delete and recreate all database table
// before running any test
});
describe("crud station", function () {
it('should create model', () => {
Station.create({
'name': 'test',
lat: 12,
long: 123,
}).then( model => {
expect(model).toBeTruthy();
});
});
it('should delete evrything', () => {
Station.deleteAll().then( () => {
// problem here if after the first model is created and before create model except is executed
expect(Station.Count()).toEqual(0);
}
});
});
});
Your problem is that you are not writing unit tests here.
You need to understand the most important rule of unit testing - only test one unit at a time. A unit can be thought of as an area of your code. In a traditional desktop project (Java, C#, etc), a unit would be one class. In the case of Javascript, a unit is harder to define, but it certainly will only include the Javacript. If you are including any server code (for example, the database) in your tests, then you are not unit testing, you are doing integration testing (which is also very important, but much harder).
Your Javascript will have dependencies (ie other code that it calls, say via Ajax calls), which in your case will include the server code that is called. In order to unit test, you need to make sure that you are only testing the Javascript, which means that when running the tests, you don't want the server code to be called at all. That way, you isolate any errors in that unit of code, and can be confident that any problems found are indeed in that unit. If you include other units, then it could be the other units that have the problem.
In a strongly-typed language (like Java, C#, etc), there are frameworks that allow you to set up a mock for each dependency. Whilst I haven't tried any myself (that's this week's job), there are mocking frameworks for Javascript, and you would probably need to use one of them to do real unit testing. You mock out the server code, so when you run the test, it doesn't actually hit the database at all. Apart from solving your problem, it avoids a whole load of other issues that you will likely hit at some point with your current approach.
If you don't want to use a mocking framework, one other way to do it is to change your Javascript so that the function you are testing takes an extra parameter, which is a function that does the actual server call. So, instead of...
deleteCustomer(42);
deleteCustomer(id) {
validate(id);
$.ajax(...);
}
...your code would look like this...
deleteCustomer(42, callServer);
deleteCustomer(id, serverCall) {
validate(id);
serverCall(id);
}
...where serverCall() contains the Ajax call.
Then, to unit test, you would test something like this...
deleteCustomer(42, function(){});
...so that instead of calling the server, nothing is actually done.
This is obviously going to require some rewriting of your code, which could be avoided by mocking, but would work. My advice would be to spend some time learning how to use a mocking framework. It will pay off in the long run.
Sorry this has been a bit long. Unfortunately, you're getting into a complex area of unit testing, and it's important to understand what you're doing. I strongly recommend you read up about unit testing before you go any further, as a good understanding of the basics will save you a lot of trouble later on. Anything by Robert Martin (aka Uncle Bob) on the subject will be good, but there are plenty of resources around the web.
Hope this helps. If you want any more info, or clarification, ask away.
Jasmine supports a function for beforeEach which run before each spec in a describe block.
You can use that.
describe("A spec using beforeEach and afterEach", function() {
var foo = 0;
beforeEach(function() { foo += 1; });
afterEach(function() { foo = 0; });
it("is just a function, so it can contain any code", function() {
expect(foo).toEqual(1);
});
it("can have more than one expectation", function() {
expect(foo).toEqual(1)
expect(true).toEqual(true);
});
});
So you could let the beforeEach take care of the delete operation.

Frisby Functional Test standards

I'm new to this and I have been searching for ways (or standards) to write proper functional tests but I still I have many unanswered questions. I'm using FrisbyJS to write functional tests for my NodeJS API application and jasmine-node to run them.
I have gone through Frisby's documentation, but it wasn't fruitful for me.
Here is a scenario:
A guest can create a User. (No username duplication allowed, obviously)
After creating a User, he can login. On successful login, he gets an Access-Token.
A User can create a Post. Then a Post can have Comment, and so on...
A User cannot be deleted once created. (Not from my NodeJS Application)
What Frisby documentation says is, I should write a test within a test.
For example (full-test.spec.js):
// Create User Test
frisby.create('Create a `User`')
.post('http://localhost/users', { ... }, {json: true})
.expectStatus(200)
.afterJSON(function (json) {
// User Login Test
frisby.create('Login `User`')
.post('http://localhost/users/login', { ... }, {json: true})
.expectStatus(200)
.afterJSON(function (json) {
// Another Test (For example, Create a post, and then comment)
})
.toss();
})
.toss();
Is this the right way to write a functional test? I don't think so... It looks dirty.
I want my tests to be modular. Separate files for each test.
If I create separate files for each test, then while writing a test for Create Post, I'll need a User's Access-Token.
To summarize, the question is: How should I write tests if things are dependent on each other?
Comment is dependent on Post. Post is dependent on User.
This is the by product to using NodeJS. This is a large reason I regret deciding on frisby. That and the fact I can't find a good way to load expected results out of a database in time to use them in the tests.
From what I understand - You basically want to execute your test cases in a sequence. One after the other.
But since this is javascript, the frisby test cases are asynchronous. Hence, to make them synchronous, the documentation suggested you to nest the test cases. Now that is probably OK for a couple of test cases. But nesting would go chaotic if there are hundreds of test cases.
Hence, we use sequenty - another nodejs module, which uses call back to execute functions(and test cases wrapped in these functions) in sequence. In the afterJSON block, after all the assertions, you have to do a call back - cb()[which is passed to your function by sequenty].
https://github.com/AndyShin/sequenty
var sequenty = require('sequenty');
function f1(cb){
frisby.create('Create a `User`')
.post('http://localhost/users', { ... }, {json: true})
.expectStatus(200)
.afterJSON(function (json) {
//Do some assertions
cb(); //call back at the end to signify you are OK to execute next test case
})
.toss();
}
function f2(cb){
// User Login Test
frisby.create('Login `User`')
.post('http://localhost/users/login', { ... }, {json: true})
.expectStatus(200)
.afterJSON(function (json) {
// Some assertions
cb();
})
.toss();
}
sequenty.run(f1,f2);

Webworker-threads: is it OK to use "require" inside worker?

(Using Sails.js)
I am testing webworker-threads ( https://www.npmjs.com/package/webworker-threads ) for long running processes on Node and the following example looks good:
var Worker = require('webworker-threads').Worker;
var fibo = new Worker(function() {
function fibo (n) {
return n > 1 ? fibo(n - 1) + fibo(n - 2) : 1;
}
this.onmessage = function (event) {
try{
postMessage(fibo(event.data));
}catch (e){
console.log(e);
}
}
});
fibo.onmessage = function (event) {
//my return callback
};
fibo.postMessage(40);
But as soon as I add any code to query Mongodb, it throws an exception:
(not using the Sails model in the query, just to make sure the code could run on its own -- db has no password)
var Worker = require('webworker-threads').Worker;
var fibo = new Worker(function() {
function fibo (n) {
return n > 1 ? fibo(n - 1) + fibo(n - 2) : 1;
}
// MY DB TEST -- THIS WORKS FINE OUTSIDE THE WORKER
function callDb(event){
var db = require('monk')('localhost/mydb');
var users = db.get('users');
users.find({ "firstName" : "John"}, function (err, docs){
console.log(("serviceSuccess"));
return fibo(event.data);
});
}
this.onmessage = function (event) {
try{
postMessage(callDb(event.data)); // calling db function now
}catch (e){
console.log(e);
}
}
});
fibo.onmessage = function (event) {
//my return callback
};
fibo.postMessage(40);
Since the DB code works perfectly fine outside the Worker, I think it has something to do with the require. I've tried something that also works outside the Worker, like
var moment = require("moment");
var deadline = moment().add(30, "s");
And the code also throws an exception. Unfortunately, console.log only shows this for all types of errors:
{Object}
{/Object}
So, the questions are: is there any restriction or guideline for using require inside a Worker? What could I be doing wrong here?
UPDATE
it seems Threads will not allow external modules
https://github.com/xk/node-threads-a-gogo/issues/22
TL:DR I think that if you need to require, you should use a node's
cluster or child process. If you want to offload some cpu busy work,
you should use tagg and the load function to grab any helpers you
need.
Upon reading this thread, I see that this question is similar to this one:
Load Nodejs Module into A Web Worker
To which Audreyt, the webworker-threads author answered:
author of webworker-threads here. Thank you for using the module!
There is a default native_fs_ object with the readFileSync you can use
to read files.
Beyond that, I've mostly relied on onejs to compile all required
modules in package.json into a single JS file for importScripts to
use, just like one would do when deploying to a client-side web worker
environment. (There are also many alternatives to onejs -- browserify,
etc.)
Hope this helps!
So it seems importScripts is the way to go. But at this point, it might be too hacky for what I want to do, so probably KUE is a more mature solution.
I'm a collaborator on the node-webworker-threads project.
You can't require in node-webworker-threads
You are correct in your update: node-webworker-threads does not (currently) support requireing external modules.
It has limited support for some of the built-ins, including file system calls and a version of console.log. As you've found, the version of console.log implemented in node-webworker-threads is not identical to the built-in console.log in Node.js; it does not, for example, automatically make nice string representations of the components of an Object.
In some cases you can use external modules, as outlined by audreyt in her response. Clearly this is not ideal, and I view the incomplete require as the primary "dealbreaker" of node-webworker-threads. I'm hoping to work on it this summer.
When to use node-webworker-threads
node-webworker-threads allows you to code against the WebWorker API and run the same code in the client (browser) and the server (Node.js). This is why you would use node-webworker-threads over node-threads-a-gogo.
node-webworker-threads is great if you want the most lightweight possible JavaScript-based workers, to do something CPU-bound. Examples: prime numbers, Fibonacci, a Monte Carlo simulation, offloading built-in but potentially-expensive operations like regular expression matching.
When not to use node-webworker-threads
node-webworker-threads emphasizes portability over convenience. For a Node.js-only solution, this means that node-webworker-threads is not the way to go.
If you're willing to compromise on full-stack portability, there are two ways to go: speed and convenience.
For speed, try a C++ add-on. Use NaN. I recommend Scott Frees's C++ and Node.js Integration book to learn how to do this, it'll save you a lot of time. You'll pay for it in needing to brush up on your C++ skills, and if you want to work with MongoDB then this probably isn't a good idea.
For convenience, use a Child Process-based worker pool like fork-pool. In this case, each worker is a full-fledged Node.js instance. You can then require to your heart's content. You'll pay for it in a larger application footprint and in higher communication costs compared to node-webworker-threads or a C++ add-on.

Code coverage for node.js project using Q promises

I'm currently working on a node.js project. We use Q library for promises (https://github.com/kriskowal/q).
We are using mocha for tests and code-coverage provided with grunt tasks (https://github.com/pghalliday/grunt-mocha-test) which uses blanket.js for coverage and travis-cov reporter for asserting the coverage threshold.
Unfortunately the solution does not provide branches coverage for promises.
I have tried Intern (http://theintern.io/), however basic example I wrote does not show correct branch coverage too.
Can you recommend a solution that would provide correct coverage for Q promises and works with grunt and node seamlessly?
Well, checking promises for coverage should not be too hard because JavaScript has absolutely sick aspect oriented programming abilities. While automated tools are offtopic here, let's go through what branches a promise has:
First, the resolver function for the promise (either a promise constructor or a deferred) have their own branches.
Each .then clause has 3 branches (one for success, one for failure, one for progress), if you want loop coverage too, you'd want each progress event when progress is attached to fire zero times, once and multiple times - although let's avoid progress for this question and in general since it's being deprecated and replaced in Q.
The .done, .catch etc... are all private cases of .then. Aggregation methods like .all are private cases of the promise constructor since they create a new aggregate promise and their .then needs to be checked just as well.
So, let's see how we can do this, first - note that Q uses Promise.prototype.then internally for aggregation methods, so we can override it:
Promise.prototype._then = Promise.prototype.then;
var branches = 0;
Promise.prototype.then = function(fulfilled,rejected,progressed){
branches += (fulfilled.call) +(rejected.call) + (progressed.call);
var nFulfilled = function(){ branches--;return fulfilled.apply(this,arguments); };
var nRejected = function(){ branches--; return rejected.apply(this,arguments); };
//progression may happen more than once
var nProgressed = function(){
if(!nProgress.happened) {
branches--;
nProgress.happened = true;
}
return progressed.apply(this,arguments);
};
nProgressed.happened = false;
return this._then((fulfilled.call) ? nFulfilled : undefined,
(rejected.call) ? nRejected : undefined,
(progressed.call) ? nProgressed : undefined);
};
What we're doing here, is hooking on every .then and keeping track of handlers attached and handlers being called.
The branches variable will contain the number of code paths created with promises, and not actually executed. You can use more sophisticated logic here (for example - count rather than subtract) and I'd like to see someone pick up the glove and make a git repo from this :)

Resources