I want to test a method which accepts list of string, makes a database call and returns list of entities.
EmployeeServiceTest
when(repository
.findByMessageTypeAndStatusAndMobileInOrderByCreatedDate("confirmed",
"received", anyList(), new PageRequest(0, 1000)))
.thenReturn(employeeEntities);
It gives below exception. matching the stringList with anyList() seems to be causing exception.
org.mockito.exceptions.misusing.InvalidUseOfMatchersException:
You cannot use argument matchers outside of verification or stubbing.
Examples of correct usage of argument matchers:
when(mock.get(anyInt())).thenReturn(null);
doThrow(new RuntimeException()).when(mock).someVoidMethod(anyObject());
verify(mock).someMethod(contains("foo"))
Also, this error might show up because you use argument matchers with methods that cannot be mocked.
Following methods *cannot* be stubbed/verified: final/private/equals()/hashCode().
Mocking methods declared on non-public parent classes is not supported.
anyList() to match List of string is causing the exception. any idea why the exception is caused?
Probably your employeeService does not contain a mocked EmployeeService.
Create it by calling
EmployeeService employeeService = mock(EmployeeService.class)
instead of instantiating the real class (do not use new EmployeeService() here).
Update after the question has been extended:
You are mixing how arguments are matched: the first, second and fourth parameter are plain objects but the third parameter is a matcher.
If you verify one argument with a matcher, you have to use them for every argument.
There are matchers which are not wildcards but check whether the argument is equal to a fixed value: wrap your other arguments in the eq matcher:
when(repository .findByMessageTypeAndStatusAndMobileInOrderByCreatedDate(
eq("confirmed"),
eq("received"),
anyList(),
eq(new PageRequest(0, 1000))
)).....
Notice you have to implement a proper equals method in the class PageRequest. Otherwise org.mockito.Matchers.eq cannot compare the parameters successfully.
I have a method which needs to be called instead of the real method.
Instead I get an exception. Can somebody please help me with right way to call the alternate method through mockito ?
org.mockito.exceptions.misusing.InvalidUseOfMatchersException:
Invalid use of argument matchers!
2 matchers expected, 4 recorded.
This exception may occur if matchers are combined with raw values:
//incorrect:
someMethod(anyObject(), "raw String");
When using matchers, all arguments have to be provided by matchers.
For example:
//correct:
someMethod(anyObject(), eq("String by matcher"));
//Code starts here
class A{
public realMethod(String s, Foo f){
}
}
class B {
public mockMethod(String s, Foo f) {
}
}
class UnitTestClass{
ClassA mock = new ClassA();
mock.when(realMethod(any(String.class), any(Foo.class))).thenReturn(mockMethod(any(String.class),any(Foo.class));
}
You are getting mocking wrong.
Here:
thenReturn(mockMethod(any(String.class),any(Foo.class));
That simply doesn't make sense.
Mocking works like this:
you create a mock object of some class, like A mock = mock(A.class)
you specify interactions on that mock object
Your code implies that you think that these specifications are working like "normal" code - but they do not!
What you want to do: when some object is called with certain parameters, then return the result of another method call.
Like in:
when(a.foo(x, y)).thenReturn(b.bar(x, y))
That is what want you intend to do. But thing is: it isn't that easy. You can't use the any() matcher in thee thenReturn part in order to "provide" the arguments that were passed in the when() call before! It is that simply.
Mocking should be within a specific unit test to get a specific result.
Meaning: you are not writing an ordinary program where it would make any sense to "forward" parameters to another call. In other words; your code should more look like:
when(mock.realMethod("a", someSpecificFoo)).thenReturn(mockMethod("a", someSpecificFoo))
That is the only thing possible here.
Beyond that, you might want to look into a Mockito enter link description here instead.
Long story short: it simply looks like you don't understand how to use mocking frameworks. I suggest that you step back and read/work various tutorials. This is not something you learn by trial and error.
List<Populate> fullAttrPopulateList = getFullAtrributesPopulateList(); //Prepare return list
when(mockEmployeeDao.getPopulateList(null)).thenReturn(fullAttrPopulateList);
MyDTO myDto = testablePopService.getMyPopData(); //Will call mockEmployeeDao.getPopulateList(null)
//verify(mockEmployeeDao,times(1)).getPopulateList(null);
assertEquals(fullAttrPopulateList.size(), myDto.getPopData().size()); //This fails because myDto.getPopData().size() returns 0
As you can see testablePopService.getMyPopData() calls mockEmployeeDao.getPopulateList(null) but when I debug it a zero sized list returns instead of the stubbed array list which is prepared by getFullAtrributesPopulateList();
If I uncomment the verify statement, it passes the test meaning getPopulateList(null) behavior does get called.
Can anyone give me some advice why my stubbed array list cannot be returned even it is verified the expected behavior happened? How come an empty array list returns rather than a null if I did something wrong?
First, check that the method is non-final and visible throughout its hierarchy. Mockito can have trouble mocking methods that are hidden (e.g. overriding a package-private abstract class's implementation); also, Mockito is entirely unable to mock final methods, or even to detect that the method is final and warn you about it.
You may also want to check that your call is using the overload you expect. Mockito's default list return value is an empty list, so you may simply stubbing one method and seeing the default value for another. You can see which method interactions Mockito has added by adding a call to verifyZeroInteractions temporarily, and Mockito will throw an exception with a list of calls that mock has received. You could also add verifyNoMoreInteractions, and even leave it in there, at the expense of test brittleness (i.e. the test breaks when the actual code continues to work).
If I register a component with the container with a name (don't worry... contrived example!)
container.Register(Component.For<double>().Instance(Math.PI).Named("pi")
And ask to resolve that service type with a different name
container.Resolve<double>("e")
I get an ComponentNotFound exception. But now if I use the typed factory facility
interface IDoubleFactory { double GetDoubleByName(string name); }
container.Register(
Component.For<DoubleSelector, ITypedFactoryComponentSelector>()
Component.For<IDoubleFactory>().AsFactory(f => f.SelectedWith<DoubleSelector>())
Component.For<double>().Instance(Math.PI).Named("pi"))
public class DoubleSelector : DefaultTypedFactoryComponentSelector
{
protected override string GetComponentName(MethodInfo method, object[] arguments)
{
return arguments[0] as string;
}
}
and try to use the factory to resolve a bogus name
container.Resolve().GetDoubleByName("e")
I get pi back instead of an exception. It appears that having given a name to the ITypedFactoryComponentSelector which did not help, it has fallen back to just using the Type (in this case double) and grabbed the first thing registered against it.
The answer may be a bug in Windsor 2.5.1. The contract for ITypedFactoryComponentSelector suggests that if you return null for ComponentType but non-null for ComponentName, the lookup will be done by name, and not type. But two problems get in your way if you try to do that.
According to GitHub sources, code in DefaultTypedFactoryComponentSelector.BuildFactoryComponent calls GetCompatibleArrayItemType on what may be a null ComponentType pointer, which causes an exception. This seems like a bug, plain and simple.
If you find a way to monkey patch that, then it appears that TypedFactoryComponentResolver.Resolve method doesn't quite arrange to call the right overloads on the kernel to resolve in cases where ComponentType is null. I'm much less clear whether this is a bug or a lack in my understanding of which IWindsorContainer.Resolve methods do what. That said, a dispatch to the various methods (Resolve<object>(string key), for example) seems to do the trick.
Both classes are unsealed, so it's straightforward to fix with derived classes.
Please tell me why the constructor does not return any value. I want a perfect technical reason to explain to my students why the constructor does not have any return type.
What actually happens with the constructor is that the runtime uses type data generated by the compiler to determine how much space is needed to store an object instance in memory, be it on the stack or on the heap.
This space includes all members variables and the vtbl. After this space is allocated, the constructor is called as an internal part of the instantiation and initialization process to initialize the contents of the fields.
Then, when the constructor exits, the runtime returns the newly-created instance. So the reason the constructor doesn't return a value is because it's not called directly by your code, it's called by the memory allocation and object initialization code in the runtime.
Its return value (if it actually has one when compiled down to machine code) is opaque to the user - therefore, you can't specify it.
Well, in a way it returns the instance that has just been constructed.
You even call it like this, for example is Java
Object o = new Something();
which looks just like calling a "regular" method with a return value
Object o = someMethod();
How is a constructor supposed to return a return value? The new operator returns the newly created instance. You do not call a ctor, newdoes it.
MyClass instance = new MyClass();
If the ctor would return a value, like so:
public int MyClass()
{
return 42;
}
Where would you receive the integer?
(I'm biased towards C++, so regarding other languages, take this with a grain of salt.)
Short answer: You don't want to have to explicitly check for success for every single object construction in your code.
Somewhat longer answer: In C++, constructors are called for dynamically as well as for globally and automatically allocated objects. In this code
void f()
{
std::string s;
}
there is no way for the constructor of s (std::string::string()) to return any value. Either it succeeds - then we can use the object, or it throws an exception - the we never get a chance to try to use it.
IMO, that's the way it should be.
A constructor is some method automatically called when you initialize a new instance of an object.
This method is there if you need to initialize your object to a given state and run few default methods.
Actually you can imagine the constructor always return the instance of the object created that would be a good image.
When you call a constructor the return value is the new object:
Point pt = new Point(1,2);
But within the constructor itself, you're not actually creating and returning the object; it's been created before your code starts, you're just setting up the initial values.
Point::Point(int x, int y) {
this->x = x;
this->y = y;
}
The lack of a return type reflects the fact that constructors are used differently than other functions. A return type of null, while technically accurate, doesn't reflect well the fact that the code is used as if it returns an object. However, any other return type would indicate that your code is supposed to return something at the end, which is also incorrect.
Constructor doesn’t return anything not even Void. Though some of the answers have mentioned that Constructor do return reference to the newly created object , which is not true. It’s the new operator that returns the object.
So Why constructor doesn’t return any value
Because its not supposed to return anything. The whole purpose of constructor is to initialize the current state of the object by setting the initial values.
So Why doesn’t it even return Void
This is actually a Design constraint which has been placed to distinguish it from methods. public void className() is perfectly legal in java but it denotes a method and not a constructor. To make the compiler understand that it’s a constructor , it requires a way to distinguish it.
all answers are biased towards C++/Java. there is no reason a constructor does not return a value other than the language design.
look at a constructor in a broader sense: it is a function which constructs a new object. you can write perfectly valid constructors in C:
typedef struct object object;
int object_create( object **this );
this is perfect OOP in C and the constructor returns value (this can also be called a factory, but the name depends on the intention).
however, in order to create an object automatically (to satisfy some type cast, or conversion for example), there have to be some rules defined. in C++, there is an argument-less constructor, which is inferred by the compiler if it is not defined.
the discussion is broader than what we think. Object Oriented Programming is a name which describes a way of thinking about programming. you can have OO in almost any language: all you need is structures and functions. mainstream languages like C++ and Java are so common that we think they define "the way". now look at the OO model in Ada: it is far from the model of C++ but is still OO. i am sure languages like Lisp have some other ways of doing OO.
One point that hasn't yet been discussed is that the constructor of class "foo" must be usable not only when creating instances of foo, but also when creating instances of classes derived from foo. In the absence of generics (which weren't available when Java, C++, or .net were designed) there would be no way for foo's constructor to return an object of any derived class. Therefore, what needs to happen is for the derived-class object to be created via some other means and then made available to foo's constructor (which will then be able to use the object in question as a foo when doing its initialization).
Even though the VM implementation of a constructor isn't to return any value, in practice it kind of does - the new object's reference. It would then be syntactically weird and / or confusing to be able to store one or both of the new object's reference and an additional return value in one statement.
So the reason the constructor doesn't return a value is because it's not called directly by your code, it's called by the memory allocation and object initialization code in the runtime. Its return value (if it actually has one when compiled down to machine code) is opaque to the user - therefore, you can't specify it.
Constructor is not directly called by the user's code. It's called by the memory allocation and object initialization code in the run time. Its value is not visible to the user.
In case of C#, the syntax for declaring object is :
classname objectname= new constructor();
According to this line, if we are using assignment operator(=) then it should return some value. But the main objective of a constructor is to assign values to variables, so when we use a new keyword it creates instance of that class, and constructor assigns values to the variable for that particular instance of object, so constructor returns assigned values for that objects's instance.
We can not call constructors independently. Instead they are automatically called whenever objects are created.
Ex:
MyDate md = new Mydate(22,12,2012);
In above example new will return a memory location which will be held by md, and programatically we can not return multiple values in single statements.
So constructors can not return anything.
From what I know about OO design methodologies, I would say the following:
1)By allowing a constructor to return a value, framework developer would allow the program to crash in an instant where the returned value is not handled. To keep the integrity of the program workflow, not allowing a return value from the initialization of an object is a valid decision. Instead, language designer would suggest/force the coders to use getter/setter - access methods.
2)Allowing the object to return a value on initialization also opens possible information leaks. Specially when there are multiple layer or access modifications applied to the variables/methods.
As you aware that when object is created constructor will be automatically called So now imagine that constructor is returning an int value. So code should like this...
Class ABC
{
int i;
public:
int ABC()
{
i=0;
return i;
}
.......
};
int main()
{
int k= ABC abc; //constructor is called so we have to store the value return by it
....
}
But as you aware that stament like int k= ABC abc; is not possible in any programming language. Hope you can understand.
i found it helpful
This confusion arises from the assumption that constructors are just like any other functions/methods defined by the class. NO, they are not.
Constructors are just part of the process of object creation. They are not called like other member functions.
I would be using Java as my language in the answer.
class SayHelloOnCreation {
public SayHelloOnCreation() {
System.out.println("Hello, Thanks For Creating me!");
}
}
class Test {
public static void main(String[]args) {
SayHelloOnCreation thing = new SayHelloOnCreation(); //This line here, produces an output - Hello, Thanks For Creating me!
}
}
Now let us see what is happening here. in java, we use the new keyword to create an instance of a class. And as you can see in the code, in the line, SayHelloOnCreation thing = new SayHelloOnCreation();, the expression after the assignment operator runs before assignment is done. So using the keyword new, we call the constructor of that class (SayHelloOnCreation()) and this constructor creates an object on the Java Heap. After the object is created, a reference to that object is assigned to the thing reference of type SayHelloOnCreation.
The point that I am trying to keep here is that if constructors were allowed to have a return type, Firstly the strongly typed nature of the language would be compromised (Remember I am speaking about Java here).
Secondly, an object of class SayHelloOnCreation is created here so by default I guess the constructor returns a reference of the same type, to avoid ClassCastException.
A method returns the value to its caller method, when called explicitly. Since, a constructor is not called explicitly, who will it return the value to. The sole purpose of a constructor is to initialize the member variables of a class.