How to write junit in easyMock for this code snippet
protected void fireMonitor(BusMessage busMessage) {
String distCode = getDistCode();
if (distCode.equals("OMP")) {
new Monitor(hotelRateFeed.getHostCode();
}
}
We need to validate the Monitor generated here. Can anyone please help me to solve?
You can actually mock and set expectation for new operator as well using PowerMock.
Monitor monitor= PowerMock.createMock(Monitor.class);
PowerMock.expectNew(Monitor.class, <hostcode parameter>).andReturn(monitor).once();
PowerMock.replayAll(monitor);
PowerMock.verify(monitor);
This way, you can verify if object is getting created once. Hope it helps
Related
I have configured Spock Global Extension and static class ErrorListener inside it. Works fine for test errors when I want to catch feature title and errors if they happen. But how can I add some custom information to the listener?
For example I have test that calls some API. In case it fails I want to add request/response body to the listener (and report it later). Obviously I have request/response inside the feature or I can get it. How can I pass this information to the Listener and read later in the handling code?
package org.example
import groovy.json.JsonSlurper
import org.spockframework.runtime.AbstractRunListener
import org.spockframework.runtime.extension.AbstractGlobalExtension
import org.spockframework.runtime.model.ErrorInfo
import org.spockframework.runtime.model.IterationInfo
import org.spockframework.runtime.model.SpecInfo
import spock.lang.Specification
class OpenBrewerySpec extends Specification{
def getBreweryTest(){
def breweryText = new URL('https://api.openbrewerydb.org/breweries/1').text
def breweryJson = new JsonSlurper().parseText(breweryText)
//TODO catch breweryText for test result reporting if it is possible
expect:
breweryJson.country == 'United States'
}
def cleanup() {
specificationContext.currentSpec.listeners
.findAll { it instanceof TestResultExtension.ErrorListener }
.each {
def errorInfo = (it as TestResultExtension.ErrorListener).errorInfo
if (errorInfo)
println "Test failure in feature '${specificationContext.currentIteration.name}', " +
"exception class ${errorInfo.exception.class.simpleName}"
else
println "Test passed in feature '${specificationContext.currentIteration.name}'"
}
}
}
class TestResultExtension extends AbstractGlobalExtension {
#Override
void visitSpec(SpecInfo spec) {
spec.addListener(new ErrorListener())
}
static class ErrorListener extends AbstractRunListener {
ErrorInfo errorInfo
#Override
void beforeIteration(IterationInfo iteration) {
errorInfo = null
}
#Override
void error(ErrorInfo error) {
errorInfo = error
}
}
}
Create file src/test/resources/META-INF/services/org.spockframework.runtime.extension.IGlobalExtension
and place string "org.example.TestResultExtension" there to enable extension.
I am pretty sure you found my solution here. Then you also know that it is designed to know in a cleanup() methods if the test succeeded or failed because otherwise Spock does not make the information available. I do not understand why deliberately omitted that information and posted a fragment instead of the whole method or at least mentioned where your code snippet gets executed. That is not a helpful way of asking a question. Nobody would know except for me because I am the author of this global extension.
So now after having established that you are inside a cleanup() method, I can tell you: The information does not belong into the global extension because in the cleanup() method you have access to information from the test such as fields. Why don't you design your test in such a way that whatever information cleanup() needs it stored in a field as you would normally do without using any global extensions? The latter is only meant to help you establish the error status (passed vs. failed) as such.
BTW, I even doubt if you need additional information in the cleanup() method at all because its purpose it cleaning up, not reporting or logging anything. For that Spock has a reporting system which you can also write extensions for.
Sorry for not being more specific in my answer, but your question is equally unspecific. It is an instance of the XY problem, explaining how you think you should do something instead of explaining what you want to achieve. Your sample code omits important details, e.g. the core test code as such.
Updated post:
In a Controller if I do this:
def obj = new Test(name:"lol")
obj.save(flush:true)
obj.name = "lol2"
//a singleton service with nothing to do with obj
testService.dostuff()
/*
"obj" gets persisted to the database right here
even before the next println
*/
println "done"
Can anyone please explain me why is this happening with Grails 1.3.7 and not with Grails 2? What is the reason?
I know I could use discard() and basically restructure the code but I am interested in what and why is happening behind the scenes. Thanks!
Old post:
I have a test Grails application. I have one domain class test.Test:
package test
class Test {
String name
static constraints = {}
}
Also I have a service test.TestService:
package test
class TestService {
static scope = "singleton"
static transactional = true
def dostuff() {
println "test service was called"
}
}
And one controller test.TestController:
package test
class TestController {
def testService
def index = {
def obj = new Test(name:"lol")
obj.save(flush:true)
obj.name = "lol2"
testService.dostuff()
println "done"
}
}
So what I do:
Create a domain object
Change one of it's properties
Call a singleton service method
What I would expect:
Nothing gets persisted to the db unless I call obj.save()
What happens instead:
Right after the service call Grails will do an update query to the database.
I have tried the following configuration from this url: http://grails.1312388.n4.nabble.com/Turn-off-autosave-in-gorm-td1378113.html
hibernate.flush.mode="manual"
But it didn't help.
I have tested it with Grails 1.3.7, Grails 2.0.3 does not have this issue.
Could anyone please give me a bit more information on what is exactly going on? It seems like the current session has to be terminated because of the service call and because the object is dirty it is getting automatically persisted to the database after the service call. What I don't understand that even with the manual flush mode configuration in Hibernate does not help.
Thanks in advance!
I'm not sure what about that thread you linked to made you think it would work. They all said it wouldn't work, the ticket created has been closed as won't fix. The solution here is to use discard() as the thread stated.
First of all I would like to remark I am new with the concept of prism, DI and containers. I am looking on one of the code samples provided with the Prism Library:
The code simply injects a view with the "Hello World" string (in a TextBlock element) to a region in the shell.
When the application starts-up, it creates a new BootStrapper instance, which creates and initializes the shell:
public class Bootstrapper : UnityBootstrapper
{
protected override DependencyObject CreateShell()
{
return Container.Resolve<Shell>();
}
protected override void InitializeShell()
{
base.InitializeShell();
Application.Current.RootVisual = (UIElement)this.Shell;
}
protected override void ConfigureModuleCatalog()
{
base.ConfigureModuleCatalog();
ModuleCatalog moduleCatalog = (ModuleCatalog)this.ModuleCatalog;
moduleCatalog.AddModule(typeof(HelloWorldModule.HelloWorldModule));
}
}
My question refers to the method CreateShell(). I couldnt find nowhere in the supplied code (including not in a configuration file or any xaml file...) where do they register the type Shell, and even if it was registered - the supplies Shell class doesnt implement any interface... what is the meaning of resolving a specific type?
the Shell implementation:
public partial class Shell : UserControl
{
public Shell()
{
InitializeComponent();
}
}
This looks like a magic to me, so I tried to create my own type (MyType) and resolve it the same way:
Container.Resolve<MyType>();
By setting a breakepoint inside MyType constructor, I saw that it DID resolved MyType. Can somebody please explain to me how does it work?
These couple of threads should answer your question:
http://compositewpf.codeplex.com/Thread/View.aspx?ThreadId=230051
Does unity just make clasess with out needing anything registered?
Additionally, if you are eager to get more detail into how Unity can do this, simple download Unity 2.0 and open the source code that is provided with the installer.
I hope this helps.
Thanks,
Damian
You do not need to register a type you want to resolve. You need to register the dependencies of a type, that you want to resolve. In this case, the Shell doesn't need any dependencies, so you can resolve it simply. But for an example (not really), if your shell getting an interface IService as a parameter, then you must register IService, before you resolve Shell.
Otherwise you will get Dependency Resolution Failed Exception. In Prism 4.1 it will be swallowed silently due to TryResolve.
I was wondering if I can capture the result of an action after the result returns and the JSP is rendered. I want to be able to take the entire result (generated HTML) and push it into memcached so I can bring it via Nginx with-out hitting the application server. Any ideas?
PS: I know I can run the interceptor after the action executes but before the result returns and the JSP is rendered, but not after the JSP is rendered.
I haven't found a way to do this inside of struts2, your best bet it to create a servlet Filter and have it modify the OutputStream.
http://onjava.com/pub/a/onjava/2003/11/19/filters.html
Hey I know its quite late now to answer you might have already found out the answer, however for others to benefit I am posting the answer.
One thing that is very similar to what you are doing is done by sitemesh filter.
Yes, filter comes before and after the Struts2 filter itself, so you can mess with the inputs and outputs easily.
But struts does evaluate JSP/freemarker/velocity and generate the final html which is passed to the user. JSP is a bit trickey because internally a servlet is called but check out org.apache.struts2.views.freemarker.FreemarkerResult class, you can see the actual html getting generated in template.process(model, writer);. This writer is actually ServletActionContext.getResponse().getWriter();
Now to get the html all you need to do is
ServletActionContext.getResponse().getWriter().toString() //This does not work out of box. To get the toString() to work you need to use a ResponseWrapper - which is the same method to get result html in Filters. See- Programming Customized Requests and Responses.
Listing to modify resulting html in struts 2. This is not tested, but it is extracted from my code I have written earlier for custom template engine. I will probably post full description in Custom template engine for struts2
public class DecoratorInterceptor implements Interceptor {
public String intercept(ActionInvocation invocation) throws Exception {
final ActionContext context = invocation.getInvocationContext ();
HttpServletResponse responseParent = (HttpServletResponse)
context.get(ServletActionContext.HTTP_RESPONSE);
CharResponseWrapper wrapper = new CharResponseWrapper(responseParent);
ServletActionContext.setResponse(wrapper);
//Actual Action called
String result = invocation.invoke();
String htmlReturned = wrapper.toString();
//play with htmlReturned ...
String modifiedhtml = pushintoMemCache(htmlReturned );
CharArrayWriter car = new CharArrayWriter();
car.write(modifiedhtml );
PrintWriter out = responseParent.getWriter();
out.write(car.toString());
out.flush();
}
#Override
public void destroy() {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
}
#Override
public void init() {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
}
}
Read this article - http://struts.apache.org/2.0.6/docs/interceptors.html
SUMMARY:When you request a resource
that maps to an "action", the
framework invokes the Action object.
But, before the Action is executed,
the invocation can be intercepted by
another object. After the Action
executes, the invocation could be
intercepted again. Unsurprisingly, we
call these objects "Interceptors."
Question: How do you determine if the view has been generated? Do you set a request header or an some sort of a flag to determine if the view has been generated?
You could try throwing a MemCachedException to indicate that it is time to load into a mem cache. Your interceptor code could read
try {
return invocation.invoke();
} catch (MemCachedException mce) {
// Your code to upload to MemCache.
} finally {
// blah blah clean up.
}
Within your interceptor's intercept() method, the ActionInvocation parameter has a getResult() method which returns null before Action execution (i. e. before you call invocation.invoke() in your intercept() method) and contains an implementation of Result afterwards. That object should give you some way to access the data you need, but how this is done probably depends on the class that is actually used.
See also my somewhat related question and the answer I posted after figuring it out.
i have a method that does takes in a object and saves it to the database. But, before i save the object, i do the following...
(psuedo code)
if (IsAuthenticated)
{
foo.UserId = AuthenticatedUser.Id;
}
else
{
foo.AnonEmail = "Jon#World-Domination";
foo.AnonName = "Jon Skeet";
}
try
{
_fooService.Save(foo);
}
catch
{
// Some view, with error stuff now added to
return View(...); ViewData.ModelState.
}
// all good, redirect to the proper next view.
return RedirectToAction(...);
That code works fine, but i'm not sure how to write the two unit tests for a success.
a) User is authenticated with valid data
b) User is not authentiated with valid data.
The reason why i'm not sure what to do is, is that both scenario return the same RedirectToAction(..) view object. So i can successfully test that .. but it doesn't tell me if the object saved contains the authenticated user id or the anon info. It's like i want the first unit test to say
moq up an authenticated user
call method
test if result is RedirectToActionView
test if the foo object that was persisted contains the moq'd user id.
thoughts?
Update
The common suggestion is that i mock the fooService. I'm currently using Dependency Injection and Moq, so could somone show me how i would use Moq? I'm not sure how the DI is important here, though ???
I would mock up the _fooService object, and test what it receives as part of your test. That way your surrounding code remains the same and is untouched, and by checking what _fooService receives, you can assert whether the behaviour is as expected. The return object is not of interest in this case.
How do you mock your _fooService ? You can either implement your own 'test' version (adhering to the same interface as the real world version), or using a mocking framework. Whichever approach you use, your code above needs to be configured with a given implementation of the _fooService (usually on construction - see dependency injection for more info on how this may work)
You might mock _fooService.Save(foo) and inspect the supplied foo.
Maybe you are finding it difficult to test the object because you have more than one activity taking place in a single method.
The overall theme here is controller logic.
Decorate the domain object with user information
Persist the update logic
Determine the next view to render based on success/failure
If you extract another object (IUserDecoratorService) then your code looks like
userService.UpdateUserInformation(foo);
try
{
_fooService.Save(foo);
}
catch
{
// Some view, with error stuff now added to
return View(...); ViewData.ModelState.
}
// all good, redirect to the proper next view.
return RedirectToAction(...);
This method is simple to test as it is 2 simple interactions with the 2 services and a routing decision which you can already test.
Now you just need to write the tests for your new service:
[Test]
public void ShouldDecorateWithUserIdForAuthenticatedUser()
{
{setup authenticated user}
:
service.UpdateUserInformation(foo);
Assert.AreEqual(expectedId, foo.UserId);
Assert.IsNull(foo.AnonEmail);
Assert.IsNull(foo.AnonEName);
}
[Test]
public void ShouldSpoofTheAllKnowingSkeetIfAnonymousUser()
{
{setup anonymous user}
:
service.UpdateUserInformation(foo);
Assert.AreEqual(UnassignedId, foo.UserId);
Assert.AreEqual("Jon#World-Domination", foo.AnonEmail);
Assert.AreEqual("Jon Skeet", foo.AnonName);
}
you still have a reference to your object. At the end of your unit test, couldn't you just assert what the value was foo.AnonEmail or UserId?
Unit tests should not touch an external source, (that's an integration test) so if you go that route you should mock your datasource and then test through your mock.
Do you have access to foo in the test? I'm assuming it's a field on the class. Is there a public getter? If not you may have to use Reflection (I assume that's available in asp.net, but I'm not too familiar with it)
You want to use the DI to get the correct implementation of fooservice into your object, so at testing time you can do this;
(Using Moq)
[TestMethod]
public void Jon_Skeet_Is_Saved_If_User_Not_Authenticated()
{
bool jonWasSaved = false;
var mockFooService = new Mock<IFooService>();
mockFooService
.Expect(x => x.Save(It.Is<Foo>(foo => foo.AnonName == "Jon Skeet")))
.Callback(() => jonWasSaved = true;);
FooManager instance = new FooManager(mockFooService.Object);
Foo testFoo = new Foo();
testFoo.UserId = 1; // this is not the authenticated id
instance.baa(foo);
Assert.IsTrue(jonWasSaved);
}
You may also want to pass in a mock version of whatever service you use to check the AuthetnicatedUser.Id
HTH