I have ~50 JSON arrays as an array of models being plugged into Unit tests to compare resultant configs. Each file looks like this:
0.json
1.json... and so on
[{model1},{model2},{model3}]
I am trying to run unit tests to compare the resultant configs and want to run the tests in a manner that the test itself keeps running and collect the models if an assertion fails and output it to a json file somewhere.
Say, model2 fails, I want to collect model2 into a file output.json as an array
Till now, the code looks like this, even if the test is file by file, its fine, but will save me days of effort:
#Test
public void compareAWithB() throws Exception {
File lbJsonFile1 = new File("src/test/resources/iad_ad3/6.json");
compareAWithBHelper(lbJsonFile1);
}
public void compareAWithBHelper(File lbJsonFile) throws Exception {
Model[] dtos = new ObjectMapper().readValue(lbJsonFile, Model[].class);
for(Model dto : dtos) {
Model model = ModelConverter.apiToDao(dto);
String A = doSomeThing();
String B = doSomething2();
Assert.assertEquals(A,B);
//Required: if assert fails, collect the json object and continue
}
I tried using SoftAssertions in AssertJ, but weirdly, it was not printing out all the json objects OR maybe, I don't really understand the checkThat() method properly.
Tried using collectors.checkThat, couldn't get it to work reliably. This is a production area, so, don't have much room for errors, and wanna reduce the manual effort.
Made another attempt to use collectors as one of the posts on stackoverflow, couldn't get it to work reliably
/*try {
collector.checkThat(A, CoreMatchers.equalTo(B));
} catch (AssertionError error) {
System.out.println(dto.toString());
throw new AssertionError(error.getMessage());
}*/
Can someone please help ?
If you want to gather all assertion errors and not stop at the first error then soft assertions is a good candidate to use. To get started with soft assertions you can follow the guide available here: https://assertj.github.io/doc/#assertj-core-soft-assertions.
collector.checkThat does not come from AssertJ (neither anything from your code samples), it's a bit confusing, I would suggest to write a reproducible test so that people can help more easily.
Alternatively if you are dealing with JSON, you can give a try to addressed by https://github.com/lukas-krecan/JsonUnit which provides first class citizen JSON assertions.
Hope it helps.
The Assertions class in JUnit 5 allows for passing an Supplier<String> as a messageSupplier, an object that provides the text of a message to report when the test fails.
For example, assertEquals:
public static void assertEquals( char expected,
char actual,
Supplier<String> messageSupplier )
I am wondering what the practical use of such a supplier might be, specifically in the context of unit testing.
I can imagine perhaps localizing the strings, though that seems a bit strange to localize when the audience is the members of a development project.
➥ Are there any other practical uses of passing such a message supplier rather than hard-coding message string?
When building message is expensive
If I remember correctly, we - the JUnit 5 team - introduced the supplier variant for cases in which building the message string is costly, eg due to accessing a database. You’d only want to do this if necessary, ie in case of failure.
When the message can be built only in case of failure
Besides being useful when building the message is expensive, as already answered, I think another interesting and useful use-case is when the failure message can be constructed only in case of failure.
For example, let's say that you have an object as a result of one of your methods, and you expect that object to be null. In case of failure you want to show a failure message with some information taken from the unexpected non-null object, e.g., by calling one of its methods:
MyEntity e = mySut.find(...);
assertNull(e, "Unexpected found entity with id: " + e.getId());
This test method will always throw a NullPointerException when the test should succeed. In fact, the message string is always evaluated, being an argument of the assert method.
Instead of resorting to a more complex and involved solution, undermining the readability of your tests, like
MyEntity e = mySut.find(...);
String failureMessage = "";
if (e != null)
failureMessage = "Unexpected found entity with id: " + e.getId();
assertNull(e, failureMessage);
You can simply use the assert method with a message supplier:
MyEntity e = mySut.find(...);
assertNull(e, () -> "Unexpected found entity with id: " + e.getId());
Now, the body of the lambda will be executed only in case of failure, when the object used to create the message is surely not null.
I'm using postman and newman to perform automated tests and I do a JUnit export in order to exploit them in TFS.
However, when I open my .xml report, failures are indicated as follows:
-<failure type="AssertionFailure">
-<![CDATA[Failed 1 times.]]>
</failure>
I would like to know if it is possible to customize the "Failed 1 times." information in order to pass more relevant data about the failure (ie. json body error and description)
Thank you
Alexandre
Well, finally I found out how to proceed (not a clean way but sufficient for my purpose, so far):
I impact the file C:\Users\<myself>\AppData\Roaming\npm\node_modules\newman\lib\reporters\junit\index.js
Request's data and response can be recovered from 'executions' object:
stringExecutions = JSON.stringify(executions); //provide information about the arguments of the object "executions"
from this I can take general information by json-parsing this element and extracting what I want:
jsonExecutions = JSON.parse(stringExecutions)
jsonExecutions[0].response._details.code // gives me the http return code,
jsonExecutions[0].response._details.name // gives me the status,
jsonExecutions[0].response._details.detail //gives a bit more details
Error data (at test case/testsuite level) can be recovered from the 'err.error' object:
stringData = JSON.stringify(err.error); jsonData = JSON.parse(stringData);
from that I extract the data I need, ie.
jsonData.name // the error type
jsonData.message // the error detail
jsonData.stacktrace // the error stack
by the way, in the original file, stack cannot be displayed as there is no 'stack' argument in error.err (it is named 'stacktrace').
Finally failure data (at test step/testcase level) can be recovered from the 'failures' object:
stringFailure = JSON.stringify(failures); jsonFailure = JSON.parse(stringFailure);
from this I extract:
jsonFailure[0].name // the failure type
jsonFailure[0].stack // the failure stack
For my purpose, I add response details from jsonExecutions to my testsuite error data, which is much more verbose in the XML report than previousely.
If there is a cleaner/smarter way to perform this, do not hesitate to tell me, I'll be grateful
Next step : do it clean by creating a custom reporter. :)
Alexandre
After reading "What’s your/a good limit for cyclomatic complexity?", I realize many of my colleagues were quite annoyed with this new QA policy on our project: no more 10 cyclomatic complexity per function.
Meaning: no more than 10 'if', 'else', 'try', 'catch' and other code workflow branching statement. Right. As I explained in 'Do you test private method?', such a policy has many good side-effects.
But: At the beginning of our (200 people - 7 years long) project, we were happily logging (and no, we can not easily delegate that to some kind of 'Aspect-oriented programming' approach for logs).
myLogger.info("A String");
myLogger.fine("A more complicated String");
...
And when the first versions of our System went live, we experienced huge memory problem not because of the logging (which was at one point turned off), but because of the log parameters (the strings), which are always calculated, then passed to the 'info()' or 'fine()' functions, only to discover that the level of logging was 'OFF', and that no logging were taking place!
So QA came back and urged our programmers to do conditional logging. Always.
if(myLogger.isLoggable(Level.INFO) { myLogger.info("A String");
if(myLogger.isLoggable(Level.FINE) { myLogger.fine("A more complicated String");
...
But now, with that 'can-not-be-moved' 10 cyclomatic complexity level per function limit, they argue that the various logs they put in their function is felt as a burden, because each "if(isLoggable())" is counted as +1 cyclomatic complexity!
So if a function has 8 'if', 'else' and so on, in one tightly-coupled not-easily-shareable algorithm, and 3 critical log actions... they breach the limit even though the conditional logs may not be really part of said complexity of that function...
How would you address this situation ?
I have seen a couple of interesting coding evolution (due to that 'conflict') in my project, but I just want to get your thoughts first.
Thank you for all the answers.
I must insist that the problem is not 'formatting' related, but 'argument evaluation' related (evaluation that can be very costly to do, just before calling a method which will do nothing)
So when a wrote above "A String", I actually meant aFunction(), with aFunction() returning a String, and being a call to a complicated method collecting and computing all kind of log data to be displayed by the logger... or not (hence the issue, and the obligation to use conditional logging, hence the actual issue of artificial increase of 'cyclomatic complexity'...)
I now get the 'variadic function' point advanced by some of you (thank you John).
Note: a quick test in java6 shows that my varargs function does evaluate its arguments before being called, so it can not be applied for function call, but for 'Log retriever object' (or 'function wrapper'), on which the toString() will only be called if needed. Got it.
I have now posted my experience on this topic.
I will leave it there until next Tuesday for voting, then I will select one of your answers.
Again, thank you for all the suggestions :)
With current logging frameworks, the question is moot
Current logging frameworks like slf4j or log4j 2 don't require guard statements in most cases. They use a parameterized log statement so that an event can be logged unconditionally, but message formatting only occurs if the event is enabled. Message construction is performed as needed by the logger, rather than pre-emptively by the application.
If you have to use an antique logging library, you can read on to get more background and a way to retrofit the old library with parameterized messages.
Are guard statements really adding complexity?
Consider excluding logging guards statements from the cyclomatic complexity calculation.
It could be argued that, due to their predictable form, conditional logging checks really don't contribute to the complexity of the code.
Inflexible metrics can make an otherwise good programmer turn bad. Be careful!
Assuming that your tools for calculating complexity can't be tailored to that degree, the following approach may offer a work-around.
The need for conditional logging
I assume that your guard statements were introduced because you had code like this:
private static final Logger log = Logger.getLogger(MyClass.class);
Connection connect(Widget w, Dongle d, Dongle alt)
throws ConnectionException
{
log.debug("Attempting connection of dongle " + d + " to widget " + w);
Connection c;
try {
c = w.connect(d);
} catch(ConnectionException ex) {
log.warn("Connection failed; attempting alternate dongle " + d, ex);
c = w.connect(alt);
}
log.debug("Connection succeeded: " + c);
return c;
}
In Java, each of the log statements creates a new StringBuilder, and invokes the toString() method on each object concatenated to the string. These toString() methods, in turn, are likely to create StringBuilder instances of their own, and invoke the toString() methods of their members, and so on, across a potentially large object graph. (Before Java 5, it was even more expensive, since StringBuffer was used, and all of its operations are synchronized.)
This can be relatively costly, especially if the log statement is in some heavily-executed code path. And, written as above, that expensive message formatting occurs even if the logger is bound to discard the result because the log level is too high.
This leads to the introduction of guard statements of the form:
if (log.isDebugEnabled())
log.debug("Attempting connection of dongle " + d + " to widget " + w);
With this guard, the evaluation of arguments d and w and the string concatenation is performed only when necessary.
A solution for simple, efficient logging
However, if the logger (or a wrapper that you write around your chosen logging package) takes a formatter and arguments for the formatter, the message construction can be delayed until it is certain that it will be used, while eliminating the guard statements and their cyclomatic complexity.
public final class FormatLogger
{
private final Logger log;
public FormatLogger(Logger log)
{
this.log = log;
}
public void debug(String formatter, Object... args)
{
log(Level.DEBUG, formatter, args);
}
… &c. for info, warn; also add overloads to log an exception …
public void log(Level level, String formatter, Object... args)
{
if (log.isEnabled(level)) {
/*
* Only now is the message constructed, and each "arg"
* evaluated by having its toString() method invoked.
*/
log.log(level, String.format(formatter, args));
}
}
}
class MyClass
{
private static final FormatLogger log =
new FormatLogger(Logger.getLogger(MyClass.class));
Connection connect(Widget w, Dongle d, Dongle alt)
throws ConnectionException
{
log.debug("Attempting connection of dongle %s to widget %s.", d, w);
Connection c;
try {
c = w.connect(d);
} catch(ConnectionException ex) {
log.warn("Connection failed; attempting alternate dongle %s.", d);
c = w.connect(alt);
}
log.debug("Connection succeeded: %s", c);
return c;
}
}
Now, none of the cascading toString() calls with their buffer allocations will occur unless they are necessary! This effectively eliminates the performance hit that led to the guard statements. One small penalty, in Java, would be auto-boxing of any primitive type arguments you pass to the logger.
The code doing the logging is arguably even cleaner than ever, since untidy string concatenation is gone. It can be even cleaner if the format strings are externalized (using a ResourceBundle), which could also assist in maintenance or localization of the software.
Further enhancements
Also note that, in Java, a MessageFormat object could be used in place of a "format" String, which gives you additional capabilities such as a choice format to handle cardinal numbers more neatly. Another alternative would be to implement your own formatting capability that invokes some interface that you define for "evaluation", rather than the basic toString() method.
In Python you pass the formatted values as parameters to the logging function. String formatting is only applied if logging is enabled. There's still the overhead of a function call, but that's minuscule compared to formatting.
log.info ("a = %s, b = %s", a, b)
You can do something like this for any language with variadic arguments (C/C++, C#/Java, etc).
This isn't really intended for when the arguments are difficult to retrieve, but for when formatting them to strings is expensive. For example, if your code already has a list of numbers in it, you might want to log that list for debugging. Executing mylist.toString() will take a while to no benefit, as the result will be thrown away. So you pass mylist as a parameter to the logging function, and let it handle string formatting. That way, formatting will only be performed if needed.
Since the OP's question specifically mentions Java, here's how the above can be used:
I must insist that the problem is not 'formatting' related, but 'argument evaluation' related (evaluation that can be very costly to do, just before calling a method which will do nothing)
The trick is to have objects that will not perform expensive computations until absolutely needed. This is easy in languages like Smalltalk or Python that support lambdas and closures, but is still doable in Java with a bit of imagination.
Say you have a function get_everything(). It will retrieve every object from your database into a list. You don't want to call this if the result will be discarded, obviously. So instead of using a call to that function directly, you define an inner class called LazyGetEverything:
public class MainClass {
private class LazyGetEverything {
#Override
public String toString() {
return getEverything().toString();
}
}
private Object getEverything() {
/* returns what you want to .toString() in the inner class */
}
public void logEverything() {
log.info(new LazyGetEverything());
}
}
In this code, the call to getEverything() is wrapped so that it won't actually be executed until it's needed. The logging function will execute toString() on its parameters only if debugging is enabled. That way, your code will suffer only the overhead of a function call instead of the full getEverything() call.
In languages supporting lambda expressions or code blocks as parameters, one solution for this would be to give just that to the logging method. That one could evaluate the configuration and only if needed actually call/execute the provided lambda/code block.
Did not try it yet, though.
Theoretically this is possible. I would not like to use it in production due to performance issues i expect with that heavy use of lamdas/code blocks for logging.
But as always: if in doubt, test it and measure the impact on cpu load and memory.
Thank you for all your answers! You guys rock :)
Now my feedback is not as straight-forward as yours:
Yes, for one project (as in 'one program deployed and running on its own on a single production platform'), I suppose you can go all technical on me:
dedicated 'Log Retriever' objects, which can be pass to a Logger wrapper only calling toString() is necessary
used in conjunction with a logging variadic function (or a plain Object[] array!)
and there you have it, as explained by #John Millikin and #erickson.
However, this issue forced us to think a little about 'Why exactly we were logging in the first place ?'
Our project is actually 30 different projects (5 to 10 people each) deployed on various production platforms, with asynchronous communication needs and central bus architecture.
The simple logging described in the question was fine for each project at the beginning (5 years ago), but since then, we has to step up. Enter the KPI.
Instead of asking to a logger to log anything, we ask to an automatically created object (called KPI) to register an event. It is a simple call (myKPI.I_am_signaling_myself_to_you()), and does not need to be conditional (which solves the 'artificial increase of cyclomatic complexity' issue).
That KPI object knows who calls it and since he runs from the beginning of the application, he is able to retrieve lots of data we were previously computing on the spot when we were logging.
Plus that KPI object can be monitored independently and compute/publish on demand its information on a single and separate publication bus.
That way, each client can ask for the information he actually wants (like, 'has my process begun, and if yes, since when ?'), instead of looking for the correct log file and grepping for a cryptic String...
Indeed, the question 'Why exactly we were logging in the first place ?' made us realize we were not logging just for the programmer and his unit or integration tests, but for a much broader community including some of the final clients themselves. Our 'reporting' mechanism had to be centralized, asynchronous, 24/7.
The specific of that KPI mechanism is way out of the scope of this question. Suffice it to say its proper calibration is by far, hands down, the single most complicated non-functional issue we are facing. It still does bring the system on its knee from time to time! Properly calibrated however, it is a life-saver.
Again, thank you for all the suggestions. We will consider them for some parts of our system when simple logging is still in place.
But the other point of this question was to illustrate to you a specific problem in a much larger and more complicated context.
Hope you liked it. I might ask a question on KPI (which, believe or not, is not in any question on SOF so far!) later next week.
I will leave this answer up for voting until next Tuesday, then I will select an answer (not this one obviously ;) )
Maybe this is too simple, but what about using the "extract method" refactoring around the guard clause? Your example code of this:
public void Example()
{
if(myLogger.isLoggable(Level.INFO))
myLogger.info("A String");
if(myLogger.isLoggable(Level.FINE))
myLogger.fine("A more complicated String");
// +1 for each test and log message
}
Becomes this:
public void Example()
{
_LogInfo();
_LogFine();
// +0 for each test and log message
}
private void _LogInfo()
{
if(!myLogger.isLoggable(Level.INFO))
return;
// Do your complex argument calculations/evaluations only when needed.
}
private void _LogFine(){ /* Ditto ... */ }
In C or C++ I'd use the preprocessor instead of the if statements for the conditional logging.
Pass the log level to the logger and let it decide whether or not to write the log statement:
//if(myLogger.isLoggable(Level.INFO) {myLogger.info("A String");
myLogger.info(Level.INFO,"A String");
UPDATE: Ah, I see that you want to conditionally create the log string without a conditional statement. Presumably at runtime rather than compile time.
I'll just say that the way we've solved this is to put the formatting code in the logger class so that the formatting only takes place if the level passes. Very similar to a built-in sprintf. For example:
myLogger.info(Level.INFO,"A String %d",some_number);
That should meet your criteria.
Conditional logging is evil. It adds unnecessary clutter to your code.
You should always send in the objects you have to the logger:
Logger logger = ...
logger.log(Level.DEBUG,"The foo is {0} and the bar is {1}",new Object[]{foo, bar});
and then have a java.util.logging.Formatter that uses MessageFormat to flatten foo and bar into the string to be output. It will only be called if the logger and handler will log at that level.
For added pleasure you could have some kind of expression language to be able to get fine control over how to format the logged objects (toString may not always be useful).
(source: scala-lang.org)
Scala has a annontation #elidable() that allows you to remove methods with a compiler flag.
With the scala REPL:
C:>scala
Welcome to Scala version 2.8.0.final (Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM, Java 1.
6.0_16).
Type in expressions to have them evaluated.
Type :help for more information.
scala> import scala.annotation.elidable
import scala.annotation.elidable
scala> import scala.annotation.elidable._
import scala.annotation.elidable._
scala> #elidable(FINE) def logDebug(arg :String) = println(arg)
logDebug: (arg: String)Unit
scala> logDebug("testing")
scala>
With elide-beloset
C:>scala -Xelide-below 0
Welcome to Scala version 2.8.0.final (Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM, Java 1.
6.0_16).
Type in expressions to have them evaluated.
Type :help for more information.
scala> import scala.annotation.elidable
import scala.annotation.elidable
scala> import scala.annotation.elidable._
import scala.annotation.elidable._
scala> #elidable(FINE) def logDebug(arg :String) = println(arg)
logDebug: (arg: String)Unit
scala> logDebug("testing")
testing
scala>
See also Scala assert definition
As much as I hate macros in C/C++, at work we have #defines for the if part, which if false ignores (does not evaluate) the following expressions, but if true returns a stream into which stuff can be piped using the '<<' operator.
Like this:
LOGGER(LEVEL_INFO) << "A String";
I assume this would eliminate the extra 'complexity' that your tool sees, and also eliminates any calculating of the string, or any expressions to be logged if the level was not reached.
Here is an elegant solution using ternary expression
logger.info(logger.isInfoEnabled() ? "Log Statement goes here..." : null);
Consider a logging util function ...
void debugUtil(String s, Object… args) {
if (LOG.isDebugEnabled())
LOG.debug(s, args);
}
);
Then make the call with a "closure" round the expensive evaluation that you want to avoid.
debugUtil(“We got a %s”, new Object() {
#Override String toString() {
// only evaluated if the debug statement is executed
return expensiveCallToGetSomeValue().toString;
}
}
);