Without looking into JUnit source itself (my next step) is there an easy way to set the default Runner to be used with every test without having to set #RunWith on every test? We've got a huge pile of unit tests, and I want to be able to add some support across the board without having to change every file.
Ideally I'm hope for something like: -Djunit.runner="com.example.foo".
I don't think this is possible to define globally, but if writing you own main function is an option, you can do something similar through code. You can create a custom RunnerBuilder and pass it to a Suite together with your test classes.
Class<?>[] testClasses = { TestFoo.class, TestBar.class, ... };
RunnerBuilder runnerBuilder = new RunnerBuilder() {
#Override
public Runner runnerForClass(Class<?> testClass) throws Throwable {
return new MyCustomRunner(testClass);
}
};
new JUnitCore().run(new Suite(runnerBuilder, testClasses));
This won't integrate with UI test runners like the one in Eclipse, but for some automated testing scenarios it could be an option.
JUnit doesn’t supporting setting the runner globally. You can hide away the #RunWith in a base class, but this probably won't help in your situation.
Depending on what you want to achieve, you might be able to influence the test behavior globally by using a custom RunListener. Here is how to configure it with the Maven Surefire plugin: http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-surefire-plugin/examples/junit.html#Using_custom_listeners_and_reporters
Related
I have a jodd project that uses Proxetta and JTX for creating transactions over services classes. The issue is that when I try to debug a service class I receive :
Unable to install breakpoint due to missing line number attributes
I suspect that there has something to do with they way Proxetta generates my proxies classes as it seems that in Spring if you have no interface for a class the same happens.
I use Eclispe and here how Proxetta is initialized:
public void initProxetta() {
ProxyAspect txServiceProxy = new ProxyAspect(AnnotationTxAdvice.class,
new MethodAnnotationPointcut(Transaction.class) {
#Override
public boolean apply(MethodInfo mi) {
return isPublic(mi) &&
isTopLevelMethod(mi) &&
matchClassName(mi, "*ServiceImpl") &&
super.apply(mi);
}
});
proxetta = ProxyProxetta.withAspects(txServiceProxy);
proxetta.setClassLoader(this.getClass().getClassLoader());
}
Would you please try the following quickstart webapp1 example?
Its gradle project, so you can quickly import it in any IDE. In this example, we create proxy almost exactly like you above, but on actions (which should not make a difference). Now try to put a breakpoint into the IndexAction - this one gets proxified, for example. I am able to put break point there in IntelliJ IDEA.
Moreover, I dunno why Eclipse complains about the breakpoint in the service implementation class, since Proxetta as you used above creates a proxy subclass, and does not change the target class in any way. So when you put breakpoint in the service implementation code, it is in your class, not proxy class.
Finally, did you put BP on the method, or inside the code? If it is the first (on the method), then please try to put the BP inside the code of your service: eg on first line of the method body.
I currently am working on an Eclipse plugin which needs to access the selected project in the Project Explorer. I have to provide JUnit tests, but i'm very unsure how to write proper tests for an Eclipse plugin.
I think JUnit is atleast properly creating a test-eclipse, since i can use calls like "PlatformUI.getWorkbench()" inside the test. But how do i setup a test-project inside this test-eclipse that my JUnit tests can work with? (I also need to set some of the project more internal stuff, since i'm checking natureIds and builderNames)
Thanks in advance for your answers! I would also be glad for links to a walkthrough of writing tests for an eclipse-plugin ;)
You write your tests in a plug-in as well, so that they're part of the executing Eciipse runtime. Then you have access to the APIs from org.eclipse.core.resources to create projects, folders, and files.
For creating a project specifically:
IProjectDescription description = ResourcesPlugin.getWorkspace().newProjectDescription(name);
IProject project = ResourcesPlugin.getWorkspace().getRoot().getProject(name);
// set nature IDs on the description here
try {
project.create(description, new NullProgressMonitor());
project.open(new NullProgressMonitor());
}
catch (CoreException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
return project;
I'm trying to write a test that needs both Robolectric 2.2 and PowerMock, as the code under test depends on some Android libraries and third party libraries with final classes that I need to mock.
Given that I'm forced to use the Robolectric test runner through:
#RunWith(RobolectricTestRunner.class)
...I cannot use the PowerMock test runner, so I'm trying to go with the PowerMock java agent alternative, without luck so far.
I have setup everything according to this guide but I'm facing a collision problem between classes required by the javaagent library and by robolectric through its dependency with asm-1.4. Both depend on
org.objectweb.asm.ClassVisitor
, but javaagent-1.5.1 ships with its own version where ClassVisitor is an interface while asm-1.4 version for the same namespace is an abstract class, with the corresponding error at runtime:
java.lang.IncompatibleClassChangeError: class org.objectweb.asm.tree.ClassNode has interface org.objectweb.asm.ClassVisitor as super class
I have even tried to modify the javaagent library jar to entirely remove the org.objectew.asm classes in there, but that doesn't work as ClassNotFoundException happens afterwards due to some other classes needed in the org.objectweb.asm package that only ship in the javaagent library jar, and not in the asm one.
Any ideas? According to examples out there the agent seems to work fine with, at least, the Spring test runner.
I had the same problem and while I didn't solve this problem as such, I wanted to share my approach, which removes the need for PowerMock (which is always a good thing in my view): I wanted to mock a call to
Fragment fooFragment = new FooFragment();
So what I did was addanother level of indirection. I created a FragmentProvider class:
public FragmentFactory fragmentFactory = new FragmentFactory();
[...]
Fragment fooFragment = fragmentFactory.getFooFragment();
After i did this, I could just mock out the factory with standard Mockito, like this:
FragmentFactory mockFactory = mock(FragmentFactory.class);
activity.fragmentFactory = mockFactory;
when(mockFactory.getFooFragment()).thenReturn(mockFooFragment);
I have a method which works like this:
public void deploy(UserInput userInput) {
if (userInput is wrong)
return;
//start deployment process
}
The userInput consist of individual checks in the deploy method. Now, I'd like to JUnit test if the user input check algorithms behave right (so if the deployment process would start or not depending on the right or wrong user input). So I need to test this with right and wrong user inputs. I could do this task by checking if anything has been deployed at all, but in this case this is very cumbersome.
So I wonder if it's somehow possible to know in the corresponding JUnit test if the deploy method has been aborted or not (due to wrong user inputs)? (By the way, changing the deploy method is no option.)
As you describe your problem, you can only check your method for side effects, or if it throws an Exception. The easiest way to do this is using a mocking framework like JMockit or Mockito. You have to mock the first method after the checking of user input has finished:
public void deploy(UserInput userInput) {
if (userInput is wrong)
return;
//start deployment process
startDeploy(); // mock this method
}
You can also extend the class under test, and override startDeploy() if it's possible. This would avoid having to use a mocking framework.
Alternative - Integration tests
It sounds like the deploy method is large and complex, and deals with files, file systems, external services (ftp), etc.
It is sometimes easier in the long run to just accept that you're dealing with external systems, and test these external systems. For instance, if deploy() copies a file to directory x, test that the file exists in the target directory. I don't know how complex deploy is, but often mocking these methods can be as hard as just testing the actual behaviour. This may be cumbersome, but like most tests, it would allow you refactor your code so it is simpler to understand. If your goal is refactoring, then in my experience, it's easier to refactor if you're testing actual behaviour rather than mocking.
You could create a UserInput stub / mock with the correct expectations and verify that only the expected calls (and no more) were made.
However, from a design point of view, if you were able to split your validation and the deployment process into separate classes - then your code can be as simple as:
if (_validator.isValid(userInput)) {
_deployer.deploy(userInput);
}
This way you can easily test that if the validator returns false the deployer is never called (using a mocking framework, such as jMock) and that it is called if the validator returns true.
It will also enable you to test your validation and deployment code seperately, avoiding the issue you're currently having.
Puzzled: I added a new test case function to a junit test. I run the entire class from either Eclipse or from maven, and the old case (there was only one before) runs and the new one does not. It doesn't fail. A breakpoint in it is not hit. The new function has an #Test annotation, just like the old one.
Junit version is 4.5.
Is there a way to get junit to log or trace its thought process in selecting functions to run?
I guess you still ran old class file, as new Java file was not be compiled successfully.
You could modify an old test method to see if the class is really modified: to let successful method to fail.