I am using groovy to create some mock classes for a test case. I am basically creating dummy objects where all the methods return null so that i can run my testcase.
I am using the following syntax:
MessageFactory.instance = ["getMessage": {a,b,c,d -> "dummy"}] as MessageFactory
So here i am trying to overwrite the singleton instance with my on fake factory object. The problem is that MessageFactory's constructor happens to be a private method. This gives me an illigal access exception when i run the code above. Is there a away i can create a proxy in groovy and overcome the private constructor issue?
If you have access to the MessageFactory, and are willing to modify it, then you use the standard dependency-injection solution, as detailed here: mock singleton
..Though it's not particularly Groovy.
Otherwise, the best workaround I've found is to override the method(s) on the singleton instance itself, like so:
#Singleton
class Test{
def method(){"Unmocked method called"}
}
def test = Test.instance
test.metaClass.method = {-> null}
test.method() // Now returns null
Naturally, as a singleton, this instance doesn't change (at least in theory)... So, overriding methods in this manner is effectively global.
Edit: Or you can use GMock, which supports constructor mocking (among other things).
Related
I am working on a shared library for Jenkins, and I want to access some utilities methods between some classes, but not all of them, thus I have established some statements:
I would like to avoid using static methods, since it does not access pipeline steps directly, and passing the pipeline instance every call would be a pain;
I would like to avoid a singleton as well, or prefixing every method call with the util class' instance;
Since it is not supposed to be shared between all classes I would like to avoid putting every method as a file on vars/ special directory, but I would like a similar behavior;
Despite extending the class would be a anti-pattern, it would be acceptable, though I would like to avoid the verbose Java syntax for declaring the class the same name as the file, once it is implicit in groovy;
This question does solve my problem partially, although there are issues with serialization, I noted that when I use checkpoint and some build is resumed from some stage, the instance loses all extra methods.
This other question would have helped me fix the serialization issue, however the author seems the have solved the root cause of his problem using a way that is not the original question titled for.
Is there a way to extends a implicit script class in groovy without using the class NameOfFile extends SomeOtherClass { put every thing inside this block } syntax? And without working with inner-class?
Or else, is there a way to declare a constructor using the script groovy syntax analogue as the previous question?
Or even, is there a way to change the serialization behavior to install the extra methods again after unserializing?
Appendix
The script syntax works more-or-less like this:
Consider the content of file src/cicd/pipeline/SomePipeline.groovy:
package cicd.pipeline
// there is no need to wrap everything inside class SomePipeline,
// since it is implicit
def method() {
// instance method, here I can access pipeline steps freely
}
def static otherMethod() {
// static method, here it is unable to access pipeline steps
// without a instance
}
#groovy.transform.Field
def field
def call() {
// if the class is used as method it will run
this.method()
SomePipeline.otherMethod() // or simply otherMethod() should work
this.field = 'foo'
println "this instance ${this.getClass().canonicalName} should be cicd.pipeline.SomePipeline"
}
// any code other than methods or variables with #Field
// annotation will be inside a implicit run method that is
// triggered likewise main method but isn't a static one
def localVar = 'foo'
println "It will not execute on constructor since it is on run: $localVar"
println "Method: ${org.codehaus.groovy.runtime.StackTraceUtils.sanitize(new Throwable()).stackTrace[0].methodName}"
println "this instance ${this.getClass().canonicalName} should be cicd.pipeline.SomePipeline"
If I was going to use the Java verbose syntax I would have to wrap almost everything inside a class SomePipeline which is implicit in groovy, this is the script syntax I want to keep.
I realised that this.getClass().superclass.canonicalName when outside Jenkins pipeline is groovy.lang.Script and when inside pipeline is org.jenkinsci.plugins.workflow.cps.CpsScript and based on this resource I was able to elaborate the following solution:
abstract class CustomScript extends org.jenkinsci.plugins.workflow.cps.CpsScript {
public CustomScript() {
// do something here, it will always execute regardless
// serialization, and before everything
}
}
#groovy.transform.BaseScript CustomScript baseScript
That is it, worked as expected! Of course you can elaborate this solution better in order to reduce repeating and avoid inner-classes, but I will leave it for your imagination.
I am trying to mock a call to a protected method of one of my classes:
import com.couchbase.client.java.view.Stale; // an enum
import com.google.common.base.Optional;
public class MyClass {
public List<String> myList(Optional<Integer> arg1, Optional<Stale> arg2) {
...
}
}
The mock shall be accomplished in the following way:
// Providing types for any() does not change anything
Mockito.when(myClass.myList(Mockito.any(), Mockito.any()).thenReturn(new ArrayList());
Whenever the previous line is executed the actual myList() method is called with null values for arg1 and arg2. Why is the method called, at all? After all, I am trying to avoid any executing thereof...
As Brice mentioned, if your myList method is final, then Java skips virtual method dispatch and will call the original object (not your mock).
If you are spying on an actual class, it is expected behavior that when will call the actual object as part of the stub: after all, in the expression when(foo.bar()) Java doesn't know anything special about when and assumes that it cares about the return value) of foo.bar(), not the call itself. (I walk through the stubbing process in the "Implementation details" section of my answer here.)
This syntax is better for spies:
doReturn(new ArrayList()).when(myClass).myList(any(), any());
Because this different when method receives an object, Mockito can prepare the object to do nothing during the stubbing, which avoids any spurious calls to your myList method.
Although Jeff's answer did not show a workaround for my problem it pointed me into the right direction.
After changing the mocking behaviour to doReturn... I suddenly got an error message. This message told me that myClass is not a mock which makes sense since you can only mock (or stub?) methods of mocked or spied objects. So as Jeff's answer indicates and is explained in the documentation of mockito I created a partial mock of MyClass with
MyClass myClass = Mockito.spy(new MyClass());
With this partial mock Jeff's approach to method mocking suddenly worked (mine still does not and should therefore be avoided).
So: Thank you, Jeff!
I am writing junit test to test BaseClass method. The method uses super class members.
The BaseClass constructor invokes super(arg1, arg2).
In the super(arg1, arg2) constructor there is a dependency injector setting a private member
of the super class.
When I am running the test, since the dependency is not set, the super() is throwing an
exception. I want to mock only that statement in the super() which is setting the private member with dependency injection. How to do with mockito ?
Field injection is always a problem for testing. So whenever you have the choice, choose constructor injection instead.
You could start the dependency injector and make it inject a mock instead of a real class. Solutions would depend on the DI framework that you use actually (guice, cdi, ...) For guice you could use jukito, for cdi Arquillian for example. But it slows down the test execution and adds complexity to your test class.
As a alternative you could reflect the private field on an instance of you test class an simply set a mock. Something like:
instance = new TestObject();
Field injected = TestObject.class.getDeclaredField("injected");
injected.setAccessible(true);
injected.set(instance, mock(InjectedType.class));
while TestObject is the class that you want to test, injected the private field where something is injected an InjectedType the type of that private field.
I have an abstract java class which has a constructor and I'm extending it from a groovy class. (the idea is to keep the java class as a contract inside the app and load external groovy classes that implement certain constructors and methods)
How can I force in Groovy to implement an abstract super class's constructor?
Does Groovy allow to force the implementation of the abstract parent class's constructor?
The thing is that the Eclipse Groovy IDE is not forcing me to implement the constructor of the parent class in the subclass, I thougth Groovy would create it automatically and so that was the reason to not forcing it. However at run time when trying to get the constructor using java reflection fails it fails if I don't define the parent constructor in the subclass.
(I have 0 experience in Groovy)
It looks like an unchecked situation in the compiler. Upon decompiling, the extending class gets an empty constructor. Tests should get you covered, since this situation doesn't work in runtime.
I don't know of a way to use this class; i tried the ways i know:
abstract class AbstractClass {
String string
Integer integer
AbstractClass(String string, Integer integer) {
this.string = string
this.integer = integer
}
}
class ImplClass extends AbstractClass { }
// every constructor fails
abs1 = new ImplClass('a', 1)
abs2 = [string: 'b', integer: 2] as ImplClass
abs3 = new ImplClass(abs: 'c', a: 3)
abs4 = ImplClass [string:'d', integer:4]
Neither of them worked in runtime, but compiled fine ;-). The situation is more about compile error vs runtime error. Maybe filling a JIRA?
On the other way around, if you needed to inherit the constructors, you could go for #groovy.transfom.InheritConstructors in the extending class. This way you would have the constructors without needing to call super() explicitly.
In my attempt to mock an object in Groovy using the mock.interceptor package:
def mock = new MockFor(TheClass);
mock.demand.theMethod{ "return" }
mock.use {
def underTest = new TheClass()
println underTest.theMethod()
}
The problem I have is when creating TheClass() in the use{ block, it uses the actual constructor which, in this circumstance, I'd rather it not use. How can I create an instance of this class so I can test the method I do care about, theMethod, without needing to use the constructor?
Using EasyMock/CE, mocks can be made without using the constructor, but am curious how to achieve that in Groovy.
I recently saw a presentation by the author of GMock and it has some hooks to allow "constructor" mocking which I think is what you are after.
e.g.
def mockFile = mock(File, constructor('/a/path/file.txt'))
This library differs from that "built in" to groovy, however it looked very well written, with some thought put into the kinds of things you want to mock and more importantly the error messages you would get when tests should fail.
I think this is what you are after. I would say use constructor mocking with care - it could be a smell that you should inject a Factory object, but for some things it looked to work well.
You can use the interceptConstruction flag when calling MockFor, see
MockFor.