I use play-framework application, and going to use JWEBUNIT for functional testings.
There is a article that proved me to use that way:
http://nesbot.com/2011/10/16/play-framework-sample-app-JWebUnit-synchronous-ajax
Everything fine, but I have a problem with my first test, it just stuck while try to invoke it - and no any response form it.
The code where he stuck is (I use the same pieces of code like in that Article above):
#Test
public void testIndexRendersSuccessfully()
{
wt.beginAt(getRoute("Application.index"));
wt.assertElementPresent("createEvent");
assertEquals(wt.getElementById("error").getTextContent(), "");
assertEquals(wt.getElementById("success").getTextContent(), "");
}
My dependencies for jwebunit are like this:
require:
- play
- net.sourceforge.jwebunit -> jwebunit-core 3.0
- net.sourceforge.jwebunit -> jwebunit-htmlunit-plugin 3.0
Do you have experiences with that or already had such problem?
I found the answer,sorry I do not like read article right to the end.
I just need to put this to conf
%test.play.pool=2
Related
I'm an architect from a strong JavaScript background, but I did some .NET and Java in the past.
However, I wanted to put a hand on ActionScript3, which I was promised that is very related to JavaScript.
As a startup project I took on myself to try port to ActionScript3 one of my favorite assertion utils - should.js - that makes your test codes really pleasant to read.
Updated: 2013-02-19
I saw I confuse with my abstract speaking, so I replaced some of the post with the concrete question in mind.
Here's the full picture:
Consider the following JavaScript code:
Object.defineProperty(Object.prototype, 'should'
, { set: function(){}
, get:
function(){
return new Assertion(Object(this).valueOf());
}
, configurable: true
, enumerable : false
}
);
That is part of the implementation of the JavaScript module Should. The other part is a definition of a the class Assertion, that is constructed with a value, and implements a wide and nice set of assertion methods, against that value. Methods like like
var o = Assertion(actualValue)
o.equals(expectedValue1)
o.moreThan(expectedValue2)
o.contains(expectedValue3)
and aliases to keep english grammer
var o = Assertion(actualValue)
o.equal(expectedValue1)
o.contain(expectedValue3)
and aliases for the lazy sharpshooters, like
o.eql(expectedValue)
o.gt(expectedValue) //greater then
o.gte(...) //greater then or equal
//and so on...
and some connectors that just return this, (which is the instance of Assertion constructed with the test value) like
o.be
o.and
What does it give you?
A test code that looks like this:
var person = getPerson();
Should.exist(person); //that's a static call, and that's easy
//but these are a member calls:
person.should.have("name","age","address","friends");
person.name.should.equal("John");
person.age
.should
.be.number()
.and.be.between(20,30);
person.address
.should
.be.string().and
.startWith("\d").and
.endWith(" st.")
//or even
.and.match(/^[0-9]{1,9}\s+[A-Z][a-z0-9 ]* st\.$/);
person.friends
.should
.be.array().and
.be.between(3,5).and
.containOnlyType(String);
Isn't that wonderful? it's plain English!
You could argue about aesthetics of indentation, where to put the and, and if they are at all necessary, but besides that - anybody can read or write it:
Once you took the 'should' attribute that exists on every object but does not spoil map iterations - you can go on chaining whatever you have to claim regarding the value you started from.
It could have more nifty iteration tools, reflection utilities, be augmented with test functions relevant for your object model, and so on and so forth, but lets just get over the first step :)
But for that, you need every object in the system to feature a non-enumerable smart property called should that in it's getter function returns an Assertion object constructed with the this as the tested value.
(you ain't seen nothing yet - wait to see the beautiful rejection messages it gives! Yummie!!
So yea - I would happily sacrifice the option to call an attribute "should"... and will happily give up intelisense as well - at least as long as it's plain English)
So, in comments, bfavaretto gave us the first step - we know how to prevent enumeration of an attribute - great & thanks!!
Now, can we make it a getter-attribute who's function can access the this?
When I'm done I'm going to put it in some public repo licensed under MIT, for all of us to have fun with :)
Help anybody?
You example is actually 90% correct - but define it like actionscript, not like javascript!
You can still define prototypes in AS3 and they will still work just like prototypes in AS2. The only difference in AS3 is the compiler. AVM2 for some reason does not cast prototypes to native classes (although I didn't test custom classes).
The Prototype Trick: Cast the class as an object.
Eg: if you create:
Array.prototype.random = function():void{}
Then create the object:
var myProtoArray:Array = new Array;
2 things will happen:
myProtoArray.random() //ERROR - this will fail, AVM2 did not map the prototype to Array
but
Object(myProtoArray).random() //WORKS
random() was cast to the Object class, then mapped to Array - I have no idea why!
Hope this helps, cheers.
I confess I'm not keenly familiar with how Javascript works, but if I'm understanding defineProperties purpose correctly, it is a runtime dictation of not just what a property should be, but also the associated namespace to which it belongs (or at least what AS3 considers a namespace).
Class properties are either predefined & only modifiable via custom get() set() functions, or dynamic. Once compiled, their namespace cannot be changed (to my knowledge), so any non-private property is implicitly enumerable, and modifiable whether or not you've written getter/setters (ie: foo.a = value). According to Adobe...
Properties that you create are enumerable, but built-in properties are
generally not enumerable.
That said, you can get a complete list of properties from a class by using describeType. Quite an exhaustive amount of info can be gleaned this way, and I suspect should suit your needs if you wanted to port Mozilla's recreated defineProperties example. Below is an example printing out only property values.
function showProps(obj:*):void {
var desc:XML= describeType(obj);
// public vars
for each (var n:XML in desc.variable){
trace(n.#name + ": " + obj[n.#name]);
}
// getters
for each (n in desc.accessor){
try {
trace(n.#name + ": " + obj[n.#name]);
} catch (error:Error) {
trace("Unable to read write-only property.");
}
}
}
I hope this helps, but I'm certain I don't fully understand what you're trying to accomplish. If you could elaborate, that'd be appreciated.
Ok, guys, thanks for all the help, 22+
I'll give a summary for the people that are interested in the original question, and after that - I'll show you the outcome of my efforts.
The challange was made of two parts:
1 - prevent the augmented (=added on runtime) property from being enumerated
To the first part - thanks to #bfavaretto, commented on the question level - Object.setPropertyIsEnumerable - did the trick great.
2 - make the augmented property operate a getter function with access to the this so it can use it on the constructor of the returned value.
About this second part - Basically - I could not find a way to augment (=add) a property getter to a prototype, and have it operate on instances that enjoy it's API through the inheritance tree.
Anyway, within these limits - here's the outcome:
https://github.com/osher/should.as
Not exact porting because of the platform differences,
and I still have some methods to catch up with the original should.js (like the HTTP testing methods)
but close enough.
The main difference is that instead
var o:Object =
{ name : "Radagast"
, color: "Brown"
}
o.should.have.properties("name","color")
.and.have.property("name","Radagast");
o.name.should.not.equal("Palandoo");
o.color.should.equal("Brown");
you have to go
o.should().have.properties("name","color")
and.have.property("name","Radagast");
o.name.should().not.equal("Palandoo");
o.color.should().equal("Brown");
(the brackets - no getter possible - so the should attribute is a method, and you have to invoke it yourself)
Now if you get stuck and need help from the intellisense, you have to do this:
var should:tdd.Should = o.color.should();
should. <ctrl+space>
which kind'a takes the sting out, but for a peek in the intelisense - it helps
Important
One more thing - you have to force the static constructor of Should as soon in execution as you can,
for example, I do it here:
[Suite]
[RunWith("org.flexunit.runners.Suite")]
public class my_awsome_test_suite
{
//forces the static constructor of tdd.Should
import tdd.Should;
private static var s:Should = new Should();
public var c1:testCase1;
public var c2:testCase2;
public var c3:testCase3;
public var c4:testCase4;
}
I'll probably add some propper README.md later, and more awsome member functions to tdd.Should
Have fun
I am using Moq, NUnit, WPF, MVVM, Ninject.
I am writing a test for my LoginViewModel, and in the test when I use the constructor of the LoginViewModel to create a new instance, I am getting a NullReferenceException error. The code compiles and runs, (i.e. when I run the program the LoginView shows, and works with the LoginViewModel to create the correct behaviour etc) but for some reason the UnitTest is crashing.
this is the constructor:
public LoginViewModel(ILoginServices loginServices,IDialogService dialogServices)
{
InitializeFields();
_loginServices = loginServices;
_dialogService = dialogServices;
DomainList = _loginServices.GetDomainListing();
}
I have mocked the dependencies as follows:
Mock<ILoginServices> moq = new Mock<ILoginServices>();
moq.Setup(log =>
log.LoginUser(It.IsAny<string>(),
It.IsAny<string>(),
It.IsAny<string>()))
.Callback<string, string, string>((i, j, k) => CheckArgs(i, j, k));
moq.Setup(log2 =>
log2.GetDomainListing()).Returns(new List<string> { "Domain" });
Mock<IDialogService> moq2 = new Mock<IDialogService>();
I have also tried inserting real services as the parameters.
I have verified that the mocks do work, and the objects these mocks
return are not null.
I have commented out all the code in the constructor.
I have tried inserting the line
LoginViewModel test = new LoginViewModel(_fakeLoginService,_fakeDialogService);
in front of the call to the constructor (to see if it had to do with the original local variable being disposed or something before) and this line crashed instead.
From all I can see this must be the constructor,(but not the code I have written inside it) and that this is solely related to NUnit / Moq as my code still compiles and runs fine.
I have no idea on this one guys, can anyone point me in the right direction?
[Edit]
Ok so I have run through the code and the error comes from this line of code:
ImageSource = (ImageSource)Application.Current.FindResource(_imageName);
This code is going to a ImageDictionary and getting a reference to the image for an undo button in the WindowViewModel (which my LoginViewModel inherits).
My hypotheses as to why its working in the normal running of the application, but not in the testing are:
1) Because I am running the program code through NUnit, the Application.Current object isnt getting property assigned/there is no Application.Current object to get.
**or**
2) Something to do with the fact that because the program code is being run in NUnit, the code doesn't have access to/can't resolve the ImageDictionary to find the image.
I'm leaning more strongly to the first hypothesis, but I'm as of yet not 100% sure, and I am having trouble finding the values of the Application.Current at runtime, cause when I move my cursor over the code the tooltip that normally appears showing the detail of the object that is not appearing.
My new question is: Does any of this make sense? Do you guys know if the Application.Current object exists / can be accessed when running the testing project through NUnit?
Any help will be appreciated.
You are correct. Application.Current is null for Unit tests. You can work around this by injecting the Application object as referencing singletons in code can make life tricky.
I've been taking a look at the use of namespaces in ActionScript 3, and honestly I can't see why they're needed. Does anyone have a convincing example of their use?
I'm also finding them strangely hard to implement.
This is a good write-up on namespaces: http://gskinner.com/blog/archives/2010/01/a_complete_guid.html
I avoid using them in my own code... but sometimes I need to use them when working with framework classes employ them. For instance, ObjectProxy uses them.
They seem like a quirk of the language to me... and they seem like they are used to get around limitations of the language. (see comment below)
I was researching on usage of this namespace feature.
I stumbled upon another link with more comprehensive explanations with some example usage in the maashaack project: https://code.google.com/p/maashaack/wiki/Namespace
One example given is overriding access modifiers. Reproduced below:
package test
{
public class ClassA
{
public function ClassA()
{
}
public function test( msg:String ):void
{
trace( msg );
}
protected function trace( msg:String ):void
{
public::trace( "[ " + msg + " ]" );
}
}
}
These are compile time uses of namespace:
Sharing library internals across different packages.
Aliasing package.
Preventing name conflict.
Aliasing packages is possible with Flex SDK compiler and ShockScript. Normally, conflicting or confusing package-qualified names would be deambiguated like this:
com.qux.fn()
com.baz.fn()
But with aliasing:
namespace q = 'com.qux'
namespace b = 'com.baz'
q::fn()
b::fn()
I'm trying to setup a test in JUnit w/ EasyMock and I'm running into a small issue that I can't seem to wrap my head around. I was hoping someone here could help.
Here is a simplified version of the method I'm trying to test:
public void myMethod() {
//(...)
Obj myObj = this.service.getObj(param);
if (myObj.getExtId() != null) {
OtherObj otherObj = new OtherObj();
otherObj.setId(myObj.getExtId());
this.dao.insert(otherObj);
}
//(...)
}
Ok so using EasyMock I've mocked the service.getObj(myObj) call and that works fine.
My problem comes when JUnit hits the dao.insert(otherObj) call. EasyMock throws a *Unexpected Method Call* on it.
I wouldn't mind mocking that dao in my test and using expectLastCall().once(); on it, but that assumes that I have a handle on the "otherObj" that's passed as a parameter at insert time...
Which of course I don't since it's conditionally created within the context of the method being tested.
Anyone has ever had to deal with that and somehow solved it?
Thanks.
You could also use EasyMock.isA(OtherObj.class) for a little more type safety.
If you can't get a reference to the object itself in your test code, you could use EasyMock.anyObject() as the expected argument to yourinsert method. As the name suggests, it will expect the method to be called with.. well, any object :)
It's maybe a little less rigorous than matching the exact argument, but if you're happy with it, give it a spin. Remember to include the cast to OtherObjwhen declaring the expected method call.
The anyObject() matcher works great if you just want to get past this call, but if you actually want to validate the constructed object is what you thought it was going to be, you can use a Capture. It would look something like:
Capture<OtherObj> capturedOtherObj = new Capture<OtherObj>();
mockDao.insert(capture(capturedOtherObj));
replay(mockDao);
objUnderTest.myMethod();
assertThat("captured what you expected", capturedOtherObj.getValue().getId(),
equalTo(expectedId));
Also, PowerMock has the ability to expect an object to be constructed, so you could look into that if you wanted.
Note also that if you use EasyMock.createStrictMock();, the order of the method calls is also important and if you break this rule, it would throw an unexpected method call.
I am trying to see if there is a way to include "descriptive text" in my junit reports by way of javadocs. JUnit 4 doesnt seem to support the 'description' attribute for the #Test annotation like TestNG does.
So far from what I have researched there is only one tool out there called javadoc-junit (http://javadoc-junit.sourceforge.net/). However I could not get this to work since it seems to be incompatible with Junit 4.
What I want is some way to provide a sentence or two of text with my each test method in the JUnit report. JavaDoc is no good since the target audience will have to swtich between JavaDoc and the Junit Report to see documentation and/or test stats.
Anyone know of anything else I could use with minimal effort?
Best,
Ray J
In JUnit 5 there is a way to annotate every test with a #DisplayName. The declared test classes can have text, special characters and emojis.
The declared text on each test is visible by test runners and test reports.
The Javadoc says:
public #interface DisplayName
#DisplayName is used to declare a custom display name for the annotated test class or test method.
Display names are typically used for test reporting in IDEs and build tools and may contain spaces, special characters, and even emoji.
And the User Guide:
import org.junit.gen5.api.DisplayName;
import org.junit.gen5.api.Test;
#DisplayName("A special test case")
class DisplayNameDemo {
#Test
#DisplayName("Custom test name containing spaces")
void testWithDisplayNameContainingSpaces() {
}
#Test
#DisplayName("╯°□°）╯")
void testWithDisplayNameContainingSpecialCharacters() {
}
#Test
#DisplayName("😱")
void testWithDisplayNameContainingEmoji() {
}
}
There's also rather recent solution called Allure. That's a Java-based test execution report mainly based on adding supplementary annotations to the code. Existing annotations include:
custom description: #Description("A cool test")
grouping by features or stories: #Features({"feature1", "feature2"}), #Stories({"story1", "story2" })
marking methods executed inside test case as steps: #Step (works even for private methods)
attachments: #Attachment(name = "Page screenshot", type = "image/png")
See their wiki and example project for more details.
I don't put javadocs in JUnit tests. I usually make the name of the method descriptive enough so it's as good as or better than any comment I could come up with.
I could imagine, that the Framework for Integrated Tests (FIT) would be a nice and clean solution.
What does FIT do?
FIT is a framework that allows to write tests via a table in a Word document, a wiki table or an html table.
Every character outside of a table is ignored by FIT and let you enter documentation, description, requirements and so on.
How does on of these tables look like?
Imagine a function MyMath.square(int) that squares it's input parameter. You have to build a so called Fixture, being an adapter between your MyMath and the following table:
class.with.Fixture.Square
x square()
2 4
5 25
The first column describes input values, the second the expected result. If it's not equal, this field is marked as red.
How does a Fixture look like?
For the given example, this would be the correct fixture:
package class.with.Fixture // Must be the same as in the fist row of the table
public class Square extends Fixture {
public int x; // Must be the same as in the second row
public int square() { // Must be the same as in the second row
return MyMath.square(x);
}
}
Probably, you can use FIT for your requirements.
Feel free to comment my answer or edit your question for more information!