I want to be sure that mocked is called with specific set of strings as parameter.
For example, I have the following code:
public class SomeLogic {
#Autowired
private SpecificService specificService;
public void action() {
Set<String> args = fillArgsMethod();
specificService.handleArgs(args);
}
}
And my current try to test it is the following
#Mock
private SpecificService specificService
#InjectMocks
private SomeLogic someLogic;
#Test
public void testAction() {
someLogic.action();
verify(specificService).handleArgs(anySet());
}
But I want to be sure, that handleArgs() will receive the exact set of strings, that I expect. How can I modify verifying to check that handleArgs is called with set "first","second"?
Thanks
Isah gave a valid answer, but I want to turn your attention to a more general feature of Mockito which is ArgumentCaptor
In you case you would do something along the following lines:
Class<HashSet<String>> setClass = (Class<HashSet<String>>)(Class)HashSet.class;
ArgumentCaptor<Set<String>> setCaptor= ArgumentCaptor.forClass(setClass .class);
verify(specificService).create(setCaptor.capture());
HashSet<String> capturedSet = setCaptor.getValue();
//do whatever test you want with capturedSet
Prepare your Set parameters before calling the test method
#Test
public void testAction() {
Set<String> expectedParams = new HashSet(Arrays.asList("first", "second");
//call tested method
verify(specificService).handleArgs(expectedParams);
}
isah's solution is perfect for you if you want to confirm that the set contains exactly the two items you specify; Mockito compares using .equals by default, and Set.equals is defined as refer to equal elements in any order.
For a more-flexible "contains" test that matches your question title, that allows for set members beyond your expected values, you can also use the Hamcrest contains matcher:
someLogic.action();
verify(specificService).handleArgs(argThat(contains("first", "second")));
At least, that's how it should look. Unfortunately, argThat infers its return type from the Matcher, which infers its return type from the arguments, so Java assumes your first argument is not a Set<String> but a Iterable<capture#1-of ? extends String>. You'll need to cast explicitly and suppress warnings to get it to work:
// requires #SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
verify(specificService).handleArgs(
(Set<String>) argThat(contains("first", "second")));
Related
I am trying to mock an external call along with an ArgumentMatcher to match the input values to the request. But when I trying to fetch the map from the ArgumentMatcher object, it gives me a null value.
Mockito.when(
dynamoDbMapper.scanPage(eq(ABC.class), argThat(new ArgumentMatcher<DynamoDBScanExpression>() {
#Override
public boolean matches(Object argument)
{
DynamoDBScanExpression scanExp = (DynamoDBScanExpression) argument;
Assert.assertEquals("5", scanExp.getLimit());
Assert.assertEquals("xyz",scanExp.getFilterExpression());
Assert.assertEquals(new HashMap(), scanExp.getExpressionAttributeNames());
return true;
}
}))).thenReturn(prepareScanResponse());
This expression scanExp.getExpressionAttributeNames() should ideally return a map but gives me a null value.
So suppose I have to mock a request whose input contains a map, and then try to implement ArgumentMatcher on that inout object which contains a map as an attribute, how would I do that?
Why not use a #Captor? Captors are used to get record parameters passed to methods. It seems like a cleaner way than to try to misuse a matcher.
#ExtendWith(MockitoExtension.class)
class MarketplaceHttpConnectorImplTest {
#Captor
ArgumentCaptor<DynamoDBScanExpression> scanExpressionCaptor;
#Mock
DynamoMapper dynamoDbMapper; // or something like this
#InjectMocks
MyClassToTest sut; // System Under Test
#Test
public void myTest() {
// prepare mocks
when(dynamoDbMapper.scanPage(eq(ABC.class), any(DynamoDBScanExpression.class)).thenReturn(prepareScanResponse());
// Now call the method to test
sut.methodToCall();
// Verify calls
verify(dynamoDbMapper, times(1)).scanPage(eq(ABC.class), scanExpressionCaptor.capture());
DynamoDBScanExpression param = scanExpressionCaptor.getValue();
// now test what was passed to the method.
assertNotNull(param);
// .....
}
}
Btw: don't mind the JUnit5. It also works in JUnit4. Also, I presumed there was just one value. You can capture multiple values in one #Captor and check all values.
Approach from mockito 1 not working after updating to 2.3.
private class ArgumentsMatcher implements ArgumentMatcher<Object[]> {
private final Object[] expected;
private ArgumentsMatcher(Object[] expected) {
this.expected = expected;
}
#Override
public boolean matches(Object[] argument) {
return Arrays.equals(expected, argument);
}
}
You can match against it using a captor like this:
// Use an argument captor of whatever type the varargs method is
ArgumentCaptor<String> captor = ArgumentCaptor.forClass(String.class);
// Verify on the method using the captor
verify(fooClass).fooMethod(captor.capture());
// Assert on the expected values
assertEquals(captor.getAllValues(), Arrays.asList("vararg1", "vararg2"));
The nice thing about this is that you can match against arrays (if you're in a case where arrays and varargs can be mixed) also use whatever hamcrest matchers you want so you can do things like verify a single element is present, ignore order, ignore duplicates, or whatever else you need to do.
It looks like the VarargMatcher interface is not needed anymore. I am using Mockito in a Scala project and it appears you can create custom varargs matchers like normal custom matchers but you just treat the argument as a sequence (not sure how it works in Java, I suspect you get an Array or a List).
A matcher checking if the varargs contain a certain element works like this:
import org.mockito.ArgumentMatcher
case class IsVarargsContaining[T](expected: T) extends ArgumentMatcher[T] {
override def matches(arg: T): Boolean =
arg.isInstanceOf[Seq[T]] && arg.asInstanceOf[Seq[T]].contains(expected)
override def toString() = s"<vararg list containing element $expected>"
}
It looks like this is no longer supported in Mockito 2. The alternative to your code would be:
// imagine this was expected
String[] expected = {"A", "B", "C"};
// and this was the method
void call(String ... varArgs);
// here's how you'd verify it
verify(someFunction).call(eq("A"), eq("B"), eq("C"));
// or
verify(someFunction).call(any());
I'm using mockito 2.15 and I ended up with creating a custom Matcher that implements org.mockito.ArgumentMatcher<T> and takes a set of values to match as a constructor argument.
Then I just pass it around:
verify(someone).aMethods(argThat(matcher), argThat(matcher), etc.);
Not great (the number of argThat() calls has to match the args length) but at least it's not order-sensitive...
Basically, I want to override a parent class with different arguments. For example:
class Hold<T> {
public var value:T;
public function new(value:T) {
set(value);
}
public function set(value:T) {
this.value = value;
}
}
Then override that class, something like:
class HoldMore extends Hold<T> {
public var value2:T;
public function new(value:T, value2:T) {
super(value);
set(value, value2);
}
override public function set(value:T, value2:T) {
this.value = value;
this.value2 = value2;
}
}
Obviously this will return an error, Field set overloads parent class with different or incomplete type. Is there a way around this? I tried using a public dynamic function, and then setting set in the new() function, but that gave a very similar error. Any thoughts?
This is just a complement to #stroncium's answer, which is totally correct.
Here is an example how it could look like:
class Hold<T> {
public var value:T;
public function new(value:T) {
set(value);
}
public function set(value:T) {
this.value = value;
}
}
class HoldMore<T> extends Hold<T> {
public var value2:T;
public function new(value:T, value2:T) {
super(value);
setBoth(value, value2);
}
// you cannot override "set" with a different signature
public function setBoth(value:T, value2:T) {
this.value = value;
this.value2 = value2;
}
}
alternatively, you could use an array as parameter or a dynamic object holding multiple values in order to "set" them using the same method, but you loose some of the compiler's type checking.
If you wrote the base class you could add an optional argument to it, this would be a workaround though, not directly what you want to do.
In the current state it totally won't work. There is not only 1 problem, but few of them:
Type T is meaningless in context of this new class, you should either use some concrete type or template this class over T.
You can not change the number of arguments of function when overriding it. However you can add another function(with a different name) to accept 2 arguments and do what you want (which is the way you would use in most languages, by the way).
I don't really understand how you see a contravariance problem there. The actual problem is that haxe doesn't support function overload. (It actually does, the function signature is name + full type, but that's not what you would want to write nor support, and is mostly used for js/java externs.)
Unfortunately the language doesn't allow it.
I was developing the below class..
public class Test1
{
public void method(Object o)
{
System.out.println("Object Verion");
}
public void method(String s)
{
System.out.println("String Version");
}
public static void main(String args[])
{
Test1 question = new Test1();
//question.method(question);
question.method(null);
}
}
Now upon executing it invokes string version as output So please advise here string is treated as null and what should we pass to invoke the object version.Thanks in advance
All other things being equal, the most-specific method will be called. From the JLS:
15.12.2.5. Choosing the Most Specific Method
If more than one member method is both accessible and applicable to a
method invocation, it is necessary to choose one to provide the
descriptor for the run-time method dispatch. The Java programming
language uses the rule that the most specific method is chosen.
The informal intuition is that one method is more specific than
another if any invocation handled by the first method could be passed
on to the other one without a compile-time type error.
question.method(null) could mean either the String or Object overload, but since String is more specific (narrower) than Object, the String overload is the method that is called.
I have the following code.
public void GetMessages(Expression<Func<IMessageQueryable, bool>> messageSpecification, string folder = "INBOX")
{
// Implementation stripped
}
How can i provide default value for messageSpecification?. Specification says the value must be a compile time constant. Is this possible?.
EDIT: Not lookig for specifying it as Expression<Func<IMessageQueryable, bool>> messageSpecification = null
You can OverLoad it. What would your default value be?
Why bother? Create an overload for the same method without messageSpecification parameter and define it's default value yourself inside the overloaded method and pass it to your original method. Default parameters are actually never meant to be used like that anyway.
public void GetMessages(string folder = "INBOX")
{
this.GetMessages(DEFAULT_VALUE, folder);
}