I am trying to generate a Name based on type of an object. In my system, I have,
class Employee {}
Class ContractEmp:Employee{}
class Manager:Employee{}
I am trying to generate name which looks like ContractEmp1 Where 1 will come from incrementer. I am trying to use Generics.
Any Help
Thank you,
With an extension method you could do something like this:
public static class NameExtension
{
private static Dictionary<string, int> counters = new Dictionary<string, int>();
public static string MakeUpName<T>(this T #object)
{
var t = typeof(T);
if ( ! counters.ContainsKey(t.FullName))
counters[t.FullName] = 0;
return t.Name + counters[t.FullName]++;
}
}
Test:
[TestFixture]
class NameTest
{
[Test]
public void test()
{
Console.WriteLine(new NameTest().MakeUpName());
Console.WriteLine(new NameTest().MakeUpName());
Console.WriteLine(new NameTest().MakeUpName());
Console.WriteLine(new NameTest().MakeUpName());
}
}
Output:
NameTest0
NameTest1
NameTest2
NameTest3
You can use a private static int in the Employee class which gets incremented on each constructor call. Combining this number with the typeof(this).Name value you can generate the names as described. Do note that the counter will count for all Employee extending classes so if you want an consecutive list of numbers for each Employee extending class, a specific counter should be implemented for every extending class. Also, the counters will be set to zero each time the application restarts.
public Class ContractEmp:Employee{
private static int counter = 1;
private String name = "";
public ContractEmp() {
name = typeof(this).Name + counter++;
}
}
Something like this should work!
Related
I have a piece of code below where Employee class creates object of AppraisalCalculator using reflection. I want to mock this AppraisalCalculator object using PowerMockito.
class AppraisalCalculator {
public int appraisal() {
return 300;
}
}
class Employee {
public int updateSalary() {
// line 1
AppraisalCalculator ac =
AppraisalCalculator.class.getConstructor().newInstance();
return ac.appraisal();
}
}
class TestRunner {
#Test
public void test() {
AppraisalCalulator acMock=PowerMockito.mock(AppraisalCalculator.class);
PowerMockito
.whenNew(AppraisalCalculator.class)
.withNoArguments()
.thenReturn(600);
Employee emp = new Employee();
int actualValue = emp.updateSalary();
int expectedValue=600;
Assert.equals(expectedValue,actualValue);
}
}
Here, even though I have mocked the Appraisal calculator object, it still calls the real appraisal() method from AppraisalCalculator. If the actual AppraisalCalculator at line 1 is created using new Operator instead of newInstance() then this mocking works.
Can anyone explain why this is not working if the actual object is created using reflection? What can I do to mock this Object in such scenario?
Let me first start by rephrasing your question will fully working code.
#RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
#PrepareForTest(Employee.class)
public class TestRunner {
#Test
public void test() throws Exception {
AppraisalCalculator acMock = PowerMockito.mock(AppraisalCalculator.class);
PowerMockito
.whenNew(AppraisalCalculator.class)
.withNoArguments()
.thenReturn(acMock);
when(acMock.appraisal()).thenReturn(600);
Employee emp = new Employee();
int actualValue = emp.updateSalary();
int expectedValue = 600;
assertEquals(expectedValue, actualValue);
}
}
Then, the way PowerMock works is that the PowerMockRunner will look at each class that needs to be prepared (here Employee), then look for a call to the constructor we want to replace and do it. This is done at class loading. The real class bytecode calling the constructor is replaced by the one returning the mock.
The thing is that if you are using reflection, PowerMock can't know by reading the bytecode that this constructor will be called. It will only be known dynamically afterwards. So no mocking done.
If you really do need to create the class to be mocked by reflection, I would actually refactor the code a bit.
In Employee I would add something like
protected AppraisalCalculator getCalculator() {
try {
return AppraisalCalculator.class.newInstance();
} catch (InstantiationException | IllegalAccessException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
while is a method dedicated to isolate the calculator construction.
The, just create a child class
#Test
public void testWithChildClass() {
// Note that you don't need PowerMock anymore
AppraisalCalculator acMock = Mockito.mock(AppraisalCalculator.class);
when(acMock.appraisal()).thenReturn(600);
Employee emp = new Employee() {
#Override
protected AppraisalCalculator getCalculator() {
return acMock;
}
};
int actualValue = emp.updateSalary();
int expectedValue = 600;
assertEquals(expectedValue, actualValue);
}
or a partial mock (spy)
#Test
public void test2() {
// No PowerMock either here
AppraisalCalculator acMock = Mockito.mock(AppraisalCalculator.class);
when(acMock.appraisal()).thenReturn(600);
Employee emp = spy(new Employee());
doReturn(acMock).when(emp).getCalculator();
int actualValue = emp.updateSalary();
int expectedValue = 600;
assertEquals(expectedValue, actualValue);
}
Please find the below code for the DAO & Entity Object and Accessor
#Table(name = "Employee")
public class Employee {
#PartitionKey
#Column(name = "empname")
private String empname;
#ClusteringColumn(0)
#Column(name = "country")
private String country;
#Column(name = "status")
private String status;
}
Accessor:
#Accessor
public interface EmployeeAccessor {
#Query(value = "SELECT DISTINCT empname FROM EMPLOYEE ")
ResultSet getAllEmployeeName();
}
}
DAO getAllEmployeeNames returns a List which are employee names
and it will be sorted in ascending order.
DAO
public class EmployeeDAOImpl implements EmployeeDAO {
private EmployeeAccessor employeeAccessor;
#PostConstruct
public void init() {
employeeAccessor = datastaxCassandraTemplate.getAccessor(EmployeeAccessor.class);
}
#Override
public List<String> getAllEmployeeNames() {
List<Row> names = employeeAccessor.getAllEmployeeName().all();
List<String> empnames = names.stream()
.map(name -> name.getString("empname")).collect(Collectors.toList());
empnames.sort(naturalOrder()); //sorted
return empnames;
}
}
JUnit Test(mockito):
I am not able to mock the List[datastax row]. How to mock and returns a list of rows with values "foo" and "bar".Please help me in unit test this.
#Category(UnitTest.class)
#RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
public class EmployeeDAOImplUnitTest {
#Mock
private ResultSet resultSet;
#Mock
private EmployeeAccessor empAccessor;
//here is the problem....how to mock the List<Row> Object --> com.datastax.driver.core.Row (interface)
//this code will result in compilation error as we are mapping a List<Row> to the ArrayList<String>
//how to mock the List<Row> with a list of String row object
private List<Row> unSortedTemplateNames = new ArrayList() {
{
add("foo");
add("bar");
}
};
//this is a test case to check if the results are sorted or not
//mock the accessor and send rows as "foo" & "bar"
//after calling the dao , the first element must be "bar" and not "foo"
#Test
public void shouldReturnSorted_getAllTemplateNames() {
when(empAccessor.getAllEmployeeName()).thenReturn(resultSet);
when(resultSet.all()).thenReturn(unSortedTemplateNames); //how to mock the List<Row> object ???
//i am testing if the results are sorted, first element should not be foo
assertThat(countryTemplates.get(0), is("bar"));
}
}
Wow! This is overly complex, hard to follow, and not an ideal way to write unit tests.
Using PowerMock(ito) along with "static" references in your own code is not recommended and is a sure sign of a code smells.
First, I am not sure why you decided to use a static reference (e.g. EmployeeAccessor.getAllEmployeeName().all(); inside the EmployeeDAOImpl class, getAllEmployeeNames() method) instead of using the instance variable (i.e. empAccessor), which is more conducive to actual "unit testing"?
The EmployeeAccessor, getAllEmployeeName() "interface" method is not static (clearly). However, seemingly, whatever this (datastaxCassandraTemplate.getAccessor(EmployeeAccessor.class);) generates makes it so (really?), which then requires the use of PowerMock(ito), o.O
Frameworks like PowerMock, and extensions of (i.e. "PowerMockito"), were meant to test and mock code used by your application (unfortunately, but necessarily so) where this "other" code makes use of statics, Singletons, private methods and so on. This anti-pattern really ought not be followed in your own application design.
Second, it is not really apparent what the "Subject Under Test" (SUT) is in your test case. You implemented a test class (i.e. EmployeeDAOImplTest) for, supposedly, your EmployeeDAOImpl class (the actual "SUT"), but inside your test case (i.e. shouldReturnSorted_getAllTemplateNames()), you are calling... countryLocalizationDAOImpl.getAllTemplateNames(); thus testing the CountryLocalizationDAOImpl class (??), which is not the "SUT" of the EmployeeDAOImplTest class.
Additionally, it is not apparent that the EmployeeDAOImpl even uses a CountryLocalizationDAO instance (assuming an interface here as well), and if it does, then it is certainly something that should be "mocked" when the EmployeeDAOImpl "interacts" with instances of CountryLocalizationDAO, particularly in the context of a unit test. The only correlation between the EmployeeDAO and CountryLocalizationDAO is that the Employee has a country field.
There are a few other problems with your design/setup as well, but anyway.
Here are a few suggestions...
First, let's test what your EmployeeDAOImplTest is meant to test... EmployeeDAO.getAllEmployeeNames() in a sorted fashion. This in turn may give you ideas of how to test your "CountryLocalizationDAO, getAllTemplateNames() method perhaps (if it even makes sense, i.e. getAllTemplateNames() is in fact dependent on an Employee's country, when Employees are ordered by name (i.e. "empname" and accessed via EmployeeAccessor).
public class EmployeeDAOImpl implements EmployeeDAO {
private final EmployeeAccessor employeeAccessor;
// where does the DataStaxCassandraTemplate reference come from?!
private DataStaxCassadraTemplate datastaxCassandraTemplate = ...;
public EmployeeDAOImpl() {
this(datastaxCassandraTemplate.getAccessor(EmployeeAccessor.class));
}
public EmployeeDAOImpl(EmployeeAccessor employeeAccessor) {
this.employeeAccessor = employeeAccessor;
}
protected EmployeeAccessor getEmployeeAccessor() {
return this.empAccessor;
}
public List<String> getAllEployeeNames() {
List<Row> nameRows = getEmployeeAccessor().getAllEmployeeName().all();
...
}
}
Then in your test class...
public class EmployeeDAOImplUnitTest {
#Mock
private EmployeeAccessor mockEmployeeAccessor;
// SUT
private EmployeeDAO employeeDao;
#Before
public void setup() {
employeeDao = new EmployeeDAOImpl(mockEmployeeAccessor);
}
protected ResultSet mockResultSet(Row... rows) {
ResultSet mockResultSet = mock(ResultSet.class);
when(mockResultSet.all()).thenReturn(Arrays.asList(rows));
return mockResultSet;
}
protected Row mockRow(String employeeName) {
Row mockRow = mock(Row.class, employeeName);
when(mockRow.getString(eq("empname")).thenReturn(employeeName);
return mockRow;
}
#Test
public void getAllEmployeeNamesReturnsSortListOfNames() {
when(mockEmployeeAccessor.getAllEmployeeName())
.thenReturn(mockResultSet(mockRow("jonDoe"), mockRow("janeDoe")));
assertThat(employeeDao.getAllEmployeeNames())
.contains("janeDoe", "jonDoe");
verify(mockEmployeeAccessor, times(1)).getAllEmployeeName();
}
}
Now, you can apply similar techniques if in fact there is an actual correlation between Employees and CountryLocalizationDAO via the EmployeeAccessor.
Hope this helps get you on a better track!
-j
In the section on handling Java Beans with Groovy of Groovy In Action, I found this script (slightly modified):
class Book{
String title
}
def groovyBook = new Book()
// explicit way
groovyBook.setTitle('What the heck, really ?')
println groovyBook.getTitle()
// short-hand way
groovyBook.title = 'I am so confused'
println groovyBook.title
There are no such methods in the class Book so how does that work ?
Yes, they are auto defined and calling book.title is actually calling book.getTitle()
See http://groovy.codehaus.org/Groovy+Beans
You can see this in action with the following script:
def debug( clazz ) {
println '----'
clazz.metaClass.methods.findAll { it.name.endsWith( 'Name' ) || it.name.endsWith( 'Age' ) }.each { println it }
}
class A {
String name
int age
}
debug( A )
// Prints
// public int A.getAge()
// public java.lang.String A.getName()
// public void A.setAge(int)
// public void A.setName(java.lang.String)
// Make name final
class B {
final String name
int age
}
debug( B )
// Prints
// public int B.getAge()
// public java.lang.String B.getName()
// public void B.setAge(int)
// Make name private
class C {
private String name
int age
}
debug( C )
// Prints
// public int C.getAge()
// public void C.setAge(int)
// Try protected
class D {
protected String name
int age
}
debug( D )
// Prints
// public int D.getAge()
// public void D.setAge(int)
// And public?
class E {
public String name
int age
}
debug( E )
// Prints
// public int E.getAge()
// public void E.setAge(int)
Several notes:
For all property fields(public ones only), there are autogenerated accesors.
Default visibility is public. So, you should use private/protected keyword to restrict accessor generation.
Inside an accessor there is direct field access. like this.#title
Inside a constructor you have direct access to! This may be unexpected.
For boolean values there are two getters with is and get prefixes.
Each method with such prefixes, even java ones are treated as accessor, and can be referenced in groovy using short syntax.
But sometimes, if you have ambiguous call there may be class cast exception.
Example code for 4-th point.
class A{
private int i = 0;
A(){
i = 4
println("Constructor has direct access. i = $i")
}
void setI(int val) { i = val; println("i is set to $i"); }
int getI(){i}
}
def a = new A() // Constructor has direct access. i = 4
a.i = 5 // i is set to 5
println a.i // 5
4-th note is important, if you have some logic in accessor, and want it to be applied every time you call it. So in constructor you should explicit call setI() method!
Example for 7
class A{
private int i = 0;
void setI(String val) { println("String version.")}
void setI(int val) { i = val; println("i is set to $i"); }
}
def a = new A()
a.i = 5 // i is set to 5
a.i = "1s5" // GroovyCastException: Cannot cast object '1s5' with class 'java.lang.String' to class 'int'
So, as I see property-like access uses first declared accessor, and don't support overloading. Maybe will be fixed later.
Groovy generates public accessor / mutator methods for fields when and only when there is no access modifier present. For fields declared as public, private or protected no getters and setters will be created.
For fields declared as final only accessors will be created.
All that applies for static fields analogously.
Is it possible to create an object with a constructor parameter which returns a property value when referenced, without using dot notation? Here's a few examples:
public class myObject
{
public string myObject {get; private set;}
public myObject( string tempstring)
{
this.myObject = tempstring.ToUpper();
}
}
var a = new myObject("somevalue");
Console.WriteLine( myObject ); // outputs the string "SOMEVALUE"
Here's another attempt:
public class myInt
{
public int myInt {get; private set;}
public myInt(string tempInt)
{ this.myInt = Convert.ToInt32(tempInt);
}
}
var a = new myInt("3");
var b = a + a; // ends up being an int datatype value of 6
I know I could always do var b = a.myInt + a.myInt. I guess I could create a static class with a static function that converts a parameter each time to a result, but it wouldn't maintain state.
Just curious. It would make what I am actually trying to do much less difficult.
In the first case, yes. Override the ToString method.
public class myObject
{
public string myValue {get; private set;}
public myObject( string tempstring)
{
this.myValue = tempstring.ToUpper();
}
public override string ToString()
{
return myValue;
}
}
In the second case, sort of. You shouldn't try to overload operators to offer unexpected behavior. Create a method to perform behavior that wouldn't make sense when reading the code. What you are suggesting (returning an int) would definitely not be expected by me to return an int (mostly because of the var rather than a strictly defined type). Using the + operator to return a new myInt object would make sense. Using the + operator return an int would not.
You could overload the + operator to return a new myInt object, and then also add an implicit cast to int. Just make sure it makes sense, and that it is readable.
Within the class, you could use:
public static implicit operator int(myInt m)
{
return myValue;
}
public static myInt operator +(myInt left, myInt right)
{
// requires constructor that takes int
return new myInt(left.myValue + right.myValue);
}
Of course, you could go the direct route, but again only use it when it makes it more readable and not less (note, just like methods operators cannot be overloaded simply by return type, so you'd have to pick between the two).
public static int operator +(myInt left, myInt right)
{
return left.myValue + right.myValue;
}
How about implicit conversions. See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/z5z9kes2(VS.71).aspx
I was just trying to code the following extension method:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
namespace _4Testing
{
static class ExtensionMethods
{
public static void AssignMe(this int me, int value)
{
me = value;
}
}
}
But it is not working, i mean, can I use an extension method to alter values from extended classes? I don't want to change void return type to int, just changing extended class value. Thanks in advance
Your example uses int, which is a value type. Classes are reference types and behaves a bit differently in this case.
While you could make a method that takes another reference like AssignMe(this MyClass me, MyClass other), the method would work on a copy of the reference, so if you assign other to me it would only affect the local copy of the reference.
Also, keep in mind that extension methods are just static methods in disguise. I.e. they can only access public members of the extended types.
public sealed class Foo {
public int PublicValue;
private int PrivateValue;
}
public static class FooExtensions {
public static void Bar(this Foo f) {
f.PublicValue = 42;
// Doesn't compile as the extension method doesn't have access to Foo's internals
f.PrivateValue = 42;
}
}
// a work around for extension to a wrapping reference type is following ....
using System;
static class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var me = new Integer { value = 5 };
int y = 2;
me.AssignMe(y);
Console.WriteLine(me); // prints 2
Console.ReadLine();
}
public static void AssignMe(this Integer me, int value)
{
me.value = value;
}
}
class Integer
{
public int value { get; set; }
public Integer()
{
value = 0;
}
public override string ToString()
{
return value.ToString();
}
}
Ramon what you really need is a ref modifier on the first (i.e. int me ) parameter of the extension method, but C# does not allow ref modifier on parameters having 'this' modifiers.
[Update]
No workaround should be possible for your particular case of an extension method for a value type. Here is the "reductio ad absurdum" that you are asking for if you are allowed to do what you want to do; consider the C# statement:
5.AssignMe(10);
... now what on earth do you think its suppose to do ? Are you trying to assign 10 to 5 ??
Operator overloading cannot help you either.
This is an old post but I ran into a similar problem trying to implement an extender for the String class.
My original code was this:
public static void Revert(this string s)
{
char[] xc = s.ToCharArray();
s = new string(xc.Reverse());
}
By using the new keyword I am creating a new object and since s is not passed by reference it will not be modified.
I changed it to the following which provides a solution to Ramon's problem:
public static string Reverse(this string s)
{
char[] xc = s.ToCharArray();
Array.Reverse(xc);
return new string(xc);
}
In which case the calling code will be:
s = s.Reverse();
To manipulate integers you can do something like:
public static int Increment(this int i)
{
return i++;
}
i = i.Increment();