How can I use JUnit ExpectedException in Scala? - exception

I'd like to be able to use JUnit 4.7's ExpectedException #Rule in Scala. However, it doesn't seem to catch anything:
import org.junit._
class ExceptionsHappen {
#Rule
def thrown = rules.ExpectedException.none
#Test
def badInt: Unit = {
thrown.expect(classOf[NumberFormatException])
Integer.parseInt("one")
}
}
This still fails with a NumberFormatException.

To make this work with JUnit 4.11 in Scala, you should meta-annotate your annotation so that the annotation is applied only to the (synthetic) getter method, not the underlying field:
import org.junit._
import scala.annotation.meta.getter
class ExceptionsHappen {
#(Rule #getter)
var thrown = rules.ExpectedException.none
#Test
def badInt: Unit = {
thrown.expect(classOf[NumberFormatException])
Integer.parseInt("one")
}
}

EDIT: Following the release of JUnit 4.11, you can now annotate a method with #Rule.
You will use it like:
private TemporaryFolder folder = new TemporaryFolder();
#Rule
public TemporaryFolder getFolder() {
return folder;
}
For earlier versions of JUnit, see the answer below.
--
No, you can't use this directly from Scala. The field needs to be public and non-static. From
org.junit.Rule:
public #interface Rule: Annotates fields that contain rules. Such a field must be public, not static, and a subtype of TestRule.
You cannot declare a public fields in Scala. All fields are private, and made accessible by accessors. See the answer to this question.
As well as this, there is already an enhancement request for junit (still Open):
Extend rules to support #Rule public MethodRule someRule() { return new SomeRule(); }
The other option is that it non-public fields be allowed, but this has already been rejected: Allow #Rule annotation on non-public fields.
So your options are:
clone junit, and implement the first suggestion, the method, and submit a pull request
Extend the Scala class from a java class which implements the #Rule
-
public class ExpectedExceptionTest {
#Rule
public ExpectedException thrown = ExpectedException.none();
}
and then inheriting from that:
class ExceptionsHappen extends ExpectedExceptionTest {
#Test
def badInt: Unit = {
thrown.expect(classOf[NumberFormatException])
Integer.parseInt("one")
}
}
which works correctly.

As a very newbie to Scala I am just using a very simple workaround: explicitly catch the exception and fail if your expected exception is not thrown.
Below is a sample skeleton:
try {
*your code that should throw an exception*
fail("Did not generate *the.Exception.you.expect*")
} catch {
case t: *the.Exception.you.expect* => // do nothing, it's expected :)
}

Without knowing JUnit rules, and without testing it, because I don't have an appropriate setup at hand, I go out on a limb and suggest turning thrown into a val.
I guess its some member that is initialized with something and then it gets some state and then some other machinery checks the state against something. You are always creating new ones and keep forgetting the expectation.

If Scala has something similar like static imports, then catch-exception is an alternative to JUnit 4.7's ExpectedException #Rule.

I'm still using JUnit 4, and found #Juh_'s comment instructive. This worked in Scala 2.11.0.
import org.junit.rules.ExpectedException
import org.junit.{Rule, Test}
import scala.reflect.{ClassTag, classTag}
class DeleteMe {
object Thrower {
def throwException[R <: Throwable: ClassTag](message: String): Unit = {
throw classTag[R].runtimeClass.getConstructor(classOf[String]).newInstance(message).asInstanceOf[R]
}
}
#Rule
def exceptionRule:ExpectedException = ExpectedException.none()
#Test(expected = classOf[Exception])
def checkConversionExceptions = {
val myMessage = "My Message"
exceptionRule.expectMessage(myMessage)
Thrower.throwException[Exception](myMessage)
()
}
}

Related

Unable to Mock functions inside static method Powermock

I am writing unit test for the below code using junit and mockito
public class Abc implements Runnable
{
private static ServerSocket server;
private static int port;
public Abc(int cPort)
{
port = cPort;
}
public void run()
{
init();
}
public static void init()
{
try {
server = new ServerSocket(port);
...something...
client.close();
}
}
catch(IOException e)
{
System.out.println("Exception inside init()...");
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
};
Unit test I have written
#RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
#PrepareForTest({ServerSocket.class})
public class abcTest {
#Mock (name = "server") //same name as private var.
ServerSocket mockServer;
#InjectMocks
Abc abc;
#Test
public void testInit() throws Exception {
int port = 1880;
Socket mockClient = Mockito.mock(Socket.class);
PowerMockito.whenNew(ServerSocket.class).
withArguments(anyInt()).thenReturn(mockServer);
abc = new Abc(port);
Abc.init();
PowerMockito.verifyNew(ServerSocket.class).withArguments(port);
}
};
But the call always go to original function definition. I am using junit 4.11 with mockito 2.28.2 and powermockito 2.0.2. I'm using java after a long time. Now its feel like kind of new. Please correct me if anything wrong in the code also.
You will need to change your PrepareForTest annotation
to #PrepareForTest({Abc.class}).
From the PowerMockito docu:
This annotation tells PowerMock to prepare certain classes for testing. Classes needed to be defined using this annotation are typically those that needs to be byte-code manipulated
In this case that refers to the class which creates the new instance of ServerSocket. ServerSocket itself is a non-final public class that does not require special handling from PowerMockito (instead Mockito can deal with this class on its own).
You could also change your test to do the following:
#Test
public void testInit() throws Exception {
int port = 1880;
ServerSocket mockServer = Mockito.mock(ServerSocket.class);
PowerMockito.whenNew(ServerSocket.class)
.withArguments(Mockito.anyInt()).thenReturn(mockServer);
Abc.port = port;
Abc.init();
PowerMockito.verifyNew(ServerSocket.class).withArguments(port);
}
(This first point is unrelated to whether the test fails or succeeds)
I do not know why you mix object's and static method behaviour together, but I think you should change that.In the test instead of creatic an ABC object, just could just set the static port variable directly.
Or alternatively change the whole ABC class into an object.
#InjectMocks failed for me as there is no default constructor
(Actually I got an error message in the console when trying to execute your code)
Additonaly you create a new instance of ABC in your test, which would have overwritten the things done by the annotations. Also as server is created during the init call, there is no need to inject a mock for it.
powermockito 2.0.2 actually depends on junit 4.12, so I am not sure what effects downgrading to an older version might have.
Socket mockClient seemed somewhat unrelated to the code your posted, so I removed it from my example in the answer, however as you use a client (I assume that is your Socket) in your code your probably need to do some mocking for that as well and provide the mock to the method accordingly.

Ignoring invoking internal static call

public static ResponseBean call(Bean bean) throws Exception {
// statements...
IgnoreCall.ignoreMethodCall(bean);
// statements...
// return
}
With the code snippet above, is it possible to test the method ignoring invocation of IgnoreCall.ignoreMethod(Bean) without needing to place the entire statement under a boolean condition?
Here's the unit test code snippet:
#RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
#PrepareTest
public ClassHelperTest {
#Test
public void testCall() throws Excpetion {
// stubbing...
ResponseBean responseBean = ClassHelper.call(bean);
// verify/ies
// assert/s
}
}
Notes:
Refactoring ClassHelper.call(Bean) should be avoided. Even with a bad OO design, refactoring is costly.
Method signature is locked unless another pattern is applicable for replacement.
Tried using Mockito.when and PowerMockito.when on the target static method, stubbing didn't work on run-time debug.
As your comments indicate that changing your production code is not possible, you "simply" have to dive into the static-mocking aspects of PowerMock; as outlined here for example.
Basically you need to enable IgnoreCall for static mocking; and then you make calls to ignoreMethodCall() a no-op.
But as you keep asking: the core problem with your question is the fact that you want to mock out a static method that is void. I have a complete example below, but before that some explanations.
The point is: you call a method for two reasons:
It has a side effect
It returns a value, and maybe, causes a side effect, too
A void method can only be called for side effects. And the thing is: when you do static mocking, then that works on class level.
Meaning: you instruct PowerMock to "prevent" any of the static methods of some class from execution; you simply "erase" the side effects of all those static methods! So, by telling PowerMock to do those static mocks, all void methods are already "gone".
But as said, you might also call methods for their return value. And then is when the when() method of Mockito kicks in. You use that method to say: when that value-returning method is invoked, then do this or that.
Long story short; here is a [mcve] using the elements you asked for:
package ghostcat.test;
import org.junit.Test;
import org.junit.runner.RunWith;
import org.powermock.api.mockito.PowerMockito;
import org.powermock.core.classloader.annotations.PrepareForTest;
import org.powermock.modules.junit4.PowerMockRunner;
class IgnoreCall {
public static void ignoreMethodCall(Object o) {
System.out.println("SHOULD NOT SHOW UP: " + o);
}
}
class CuT {
public static Object call(Object bean) {
System.out.println("statement1");
IgnoreCall.ignoreMethodCall(bean);
System.out.println("statement2");
return "whatever";
}
}
#RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
#PrepareForTest(IgnoreCall.class)
public class PMTest {
#Test
public void test() {
PowerMockito.mockStatic(IgnoreCall.class);
CuT.call("yeha");
}
}
As in your example ... there is IgnoreCall; used within that a static method that I just called "call".
This prints:
statement1
statement2
When I go in and comment out
// PowerMockito.mockStatic(IgnoreCall.class);
It prints:
statement1
SHOULD NOT SHOW UP: yeha
statement2
So, a simple example that should tell you exactly what you need to do.
I worked with eclipse neon, IBM java8 JDK, and simply imported all the JARs from powermock-mockito-junit-1.6.6.zip into my test project.

Is it possible to name a test suite in JUnit 4?

In JUnit3, one would could name a test suite like this:
public static Test suite() {
TestSuite suite = new TestSuite("Some test collection");
suite.addTestSuite(TestX.class);
return suite;
}
Is there an equivalent way to do this in JUnit4?
Thanks.
EDIT
Thank you, I actually managed to get it working. My question was if there is a JUnit4 equivalent way of specifying the name/description of a test suite, like in JUnit3 with "Some test collection".
Some background:
I'm converting junit tests in legacy code to the version 4, and I don't want to lose any information if possible. I apologize, I should really have been more specific in the original question.
You can do this with the Suite runner #RunWith(Suite.class):
#RunWith(Suite.class)
#SuiteClasses({Test1.class, Test2.class, TestX.class})
public class MySuite {}
Where Test1, Test2, TestX contain your tests
ref. RunWith, Suite
update:
WRT changing the actual description of your suite, I don't think there's a way to do it out-of-the-box (if there is I haven't seen it yet). What you can do, is to define your own runner with a custom description [update2]:
#RunWith(DescribedSuiteRunner.class)
#SuiteClasses({Test1.class, Test2.class, TestX.class})
#SuiteDescription("Some test collection")
public class MySuite {}
public class DescribedSuiteRunner extends Suite {
// forward to Suite
public DescribedSuiteRunner(Class<?> klass, RunnerBuilder builder)
throws InitializationError {
super(klass, builder);
}
#Override
protected String getName() {
return getTestClass()
.getJavaClass()
.getAnnotation(SuiteDescription.class)
.value();
}
}
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
#Target(ElementType.TYPE)
public #interface SuiteDescription {
String value();
}
The default implementation of getName just returns the class being tested's name
Yes, In JUnit 3.x, the JUnit methods had to be specifically named. They needed to begin with the word test in order for JUnit to run that as a test case. Now you can just use the #Test annotation:
#Test
public void thisIsMyTest() {
// test goes here
}
Also in JUnit4 you can state if you want some tests to run before or after all the tests in this class are invoked:
#Before
public void init() throws Exception {
System.out.println("Initializing...");
}
#After
public void finish() throws Exception {
System.out.println("Finishing...");
}
Further comparisons between JUnit3 and JUnit4 here and here.
Edit: after blgt's comment, I see I might have misunderstood your intent.
You are probably looking for #RunWith(Suite.class) - When a class is annotated with #RunWith, JUnit will invoke the class in which is annotated so as to run the tests, instead of using the runner built into JUnit. Full example of usage is here, tl;dr below:
#RunWith(Suite.class)
#SuiteClasses({ FirstTest.class, SecondTest.class })
public class AllTests {
...
}

Grails 2.5.0 static compilation, controllers and grails features

I am testing out Grails static compilation, specifically GrailsCompileStatic. The documentation is limited in explaining what Grails dynamic features aren't supported. My test Controller is very simple, but I'm running into problems already.
#GrailsCompileStatic
class UserController {
UserService userService
def list() {
def model = [:]
def model = request.JSON
withFormat {
json {
render(model as JSON)
}
}
}
}
When compiling the application I get two compile time errors. The first about a missing property for JSON on the request object, and a second error about a missing method for json in the withFormat closure.
Seems to me I'm either doing something wrong or GrailsCompileStatic doesn't work with these features?
About request.JSON
The request object's getJSON() method is added via the ConvertersPluginSupport class. The exact lines are:
private static void enhanceRequest() {
// Methods for Reading JSON/XML from Requests
def getXMLMethod = { -> XML.parse((HttpServletRequest) delegate) }
def getJSONMethod = { -> JSON.parse((HttpServletRequest) delegate)}
def requestMc = GrailsMetaClassUtils.getExpandoMetaClass(HttpServletRequest)
requestMc.getXML = getXMLMethod
requestMc.getJSON = getJSONMethod
}
As you can see it uses the dynamic dispatch mechanism, but fortunately it's not such a big deal. You can simply replicate it by executing JSON.parse(request) anywhere in your controller.
Pay attention though! JSON.parse(HttpServletRequest) returns an Object, which is either a JSONObject or a JSONArray, so if you plan on using them explicitly, and you are compiling statically, you will have to cast it.
You might create a common base class for your controllers:
import org.codehaus.groovy.grails.web.json.JSONArray
import org.codehaus.groovy.grails.web.json.JSONObject
import grails.converters.JSON
#GrailsCompileStatic
class BaseController {
protected JSONObject getJSONObject() {
(JSONObject) JSON.parse(request)
}
protected JSONArray getJSONArray() {
(JSONArray) JSON.parse(request)
}
}
Then in your controller you can simpy invoke getJSONObject() or getJSONArray. It's a bit of a workaround, but results in a staticly compileable code.
About withFormat
This is a bit more complicated. The withFormat construct is really a method, which has a Closure as it's first parameter. The internal implementation then figures out based on the current request or response content type which part of the argument closure is to be used.
If you want to figure out how to do this statically, take a look at the source code.
You could extend this class, then use it's protected methods, but I don't know if it's worth all the hussle, you would loose much of Grails' conciseness. But if you really want to do it, you can. Don't you just love open source projects ? :)

Call a Rest method with mockito

I use Jersey and I have the following Rest function which returns a JSON string when my server is deployed:
#GET
#Path("getallemployees")
#Produces("application/json")
public Response getAllEmployees() {
//building the entity object which is List<Employee>
return Response.ok(entity).build();
}
I need to develop some unit tests (not integration testing) and I want to somehow mock the HTTPRequest that invokes this method and then get the json String. The best option would be to use mockito for this.
Is there any suggestion on how to do it ?
Thanks !!
The problem is that the method returns a Response object to the caller which is deep within the framework code. It doesn't return JSON strings.
You can use Mockito, if you need to mock something inside the method itself. That should work.
But you may need to take the value returned by the method and convert it to JSON like this if you are using Jackson with Jersey.
Response response = getAllEmployees();
Object retval = response.getEntity();
try {
ObjectMapper mapper = new ObjectMapper();
// I like this formatting. You can change it.
mapper.configure(Feature.INDENT_OUTPUT, true);
mapper.configure(Feature.WRITE_ENUMS_USING_TO_STRING, true);
mapper.configure(Feature.USE_ANNOTATIONS, false);
mapper.configure(Feature.FAIL_ON_EMPTY_BEANS, false);
mapper.setSerializationInclusion(Inclusion.NON_NULL);
mapper.getSerializationConfig().setSerializationInclusion(JsonSerialize.Inclusion.NON_NULL);
mapper.getSerializationConfig().withSerializationInclusion(JsonSerialize.Inclusion.NON_NULL);
String json = mapper.writeValueAsString(retval);
... assert something about the string
} catch (JsonProcessingException e) {
// do something
} catch (IOException e) {
// do something
}
Some of this is guess work and speculation on my part but it may help. You could try using the Jersey Test Framework with the InMemoryTestContainerFactory:
It starts Jersey application and directly calls internal APIs to handle request created by client provided by test framework. There is no network communication involved. This containers does not support servlet and other container dependent features, but it is a perfect choice for simple unit tests.
It looks like to use it, all you need to do is extend JerseyTest and then override getTestContainerFactory() and follow the rest of the instructions, e.g.:
public class EmployeeResourceTest extends JerseyTest {
#Override
protected Application configure() {
// set up employee resource with mock dependencies etc...
return new ResourceConfig().registerInstances(employeeResource);
}
#Test
public void getAllEmployees() {
final String response = target("getallemployees").request().get(String.class);
// assert etc...
}
}
I used registerInstances instead of registerClasses in configure() as it looks like you can present a ready made Resource but set up with any mock dependencies you may want - although I haven't tried this myself.
The test class is a bit inflexible as you can only do one-time set up of dependencies in the configure() method, so it might be worth investigating using the MockitoJUnitRunner - although I'm not sure if it will work with the JerseyTest inheritance. It could allow you to do add behaviour to mocks in each #Test method, e.g.:
#Mock
private EmployeeResourceDependency dependency;
#InjectMocks
private EmployeeResource employeeResource;
// configure() as above but without mock setup up etc...
#Test
public void getAllEmployees() {
given(dependency.getEmployees()).willReturn(...);
// etc...
But like I said it might not be possible to mix them at all.