I'm having issues using a 'fake' store for my Unit Tests.
I have installed Kiwi by adding its framework folder to my project and replacing the Xcode's default test cases with Kiwi tests. These all run fine.
Since I'm using Core Data, I need to create a 'fake' store so I'm playing with the real database. I used http://www.cimgf.com/2012/05/15/unit-testing-with-core-data/ as my basic guide to do this.
However, since Xcode's default test implementation runs tests after launching the app, my '[MagicalRecord setupCoreDataStackWithStoreNamed:#"Store.sqlite"]' is still fired inside the App Delegate before any of the tests run.
By the time the tests try to use '[MagicalRecord setupCoreDataStackWithInMemoryStore]', this sqlite store is set up, and so the in-memory store doesn't get set up (AFAIK), since the aforementioned setup stack method checks first to see if a stack already exists, and just returns without executing anything if it does, so I end up with the sqlite database still.
As far as I can tell, this leaves me with the following options:
Put some environment variables or flags in for the test cases, and check for these in the app delegate, creating the appropriate store depending on this variable (i.e. tweaking my actual code for the sake of testing - not pretty, nor recommended by any practising TDD/BDDers).
Add managed context properties on all my controllers so I can manually specify the store to use (removing a great deal of the niceties of the MagicalRecord singleton access pattern).
Play (carefully) with my actual database (I'm not really willing to even contemplate this).
None of these seems to be a particularly good solution, so I'm hoping someone can see a better solution that I've stupidly overlooked.
Your tests should not be launching the app delegate. Try setting up your tests so that only the tests setup the in-memory core data store, as suggested in the article you reference.
Related
Coming from an Android/Espresso background, I am still struggling with XCUITest and UI testing for iOS.
My question is about two related but distinct issues:
How to compile and link against sources of the app under test?
How to jump into methods of the app under test and modify its state at runtime?
To tackle these questions, we should first understand the differences between XCode's "unit test targets" and "UI test targets".
XCUITests run inside a completely separate process and cannot jump into methods of the app under test. Moreover, by default, XCUITests are not linked against any sources of the app under test.
In contrast, XCode's unit tests are linked against the app sources. There is also the option to do "#testable imports". In theory, this means that unit tests can jump into arbitrary app code. However, unit tests do not run against the actual app. Instead, unit tests run against a stripped-down version of the iOS SDK without any UI.
Now there are different workarounds for these constraints:
Add some selected source files to a UI test target. This does not enable to call into the app, but at least it enables to share selected code between app and UI tests.
Pass launch arguments via CommandLine.arguments from the UI tests to the app under test. This enables to apply test-specific configurations to the app under test. However, those launch arguments need to be parsed and interpreted by the app, which leads to a pollution of the app with testing code. Moreover, launch arguments are only a non-interactive way to change the behavior of the app under test.
Implement a "debug UI" that is only accessible for XCUITest. Again, this has the drawback of polluting app code.
This leads to my concluding questions:
Which alternative methods exist to make XCUI tests more powerful/dynamic/flexible?
Can I compile and link UI tests against the entire app source and all pod dependencies, instead of only a few selected files?
Is it possible to gain the power of Android's instrumented tests + Espresso, where we can perform arbitrary state modifications on the app under test?
Why We Need This
In response to #theMikeSwan, I would like to clarify my stance on UI test architecture.
UI Tests should not need to link to app code, they are designed to
simulate a user tapping away inside your app. If you were to jump into
the app code during these tests you would no longer be testing what
your app does in the the real world you would be testing what it does
when manipulated in a way no user ever could. UI tests should not have
any need of any app code any more than a user does.
I agree that manipulating the app in such a way is an anti-pattern that should be only used in rare situations.
However, I have a very different stance on what should be possible.
In my view, the right approach for UI tests is not black-box testing but gray-box testing. Although we want UI tests to be as black-boxy as possible, there are situations where we want to dig deep into implementation details of the app under test.
Just to give you a few examples:
Extensibility: No UI testing framework can provide an API for each and every use case. Project requirements are different and there are times where we want to write our own function to modify the app state.
Internal state assertions: I want to be able to write custom assertions for the state of the app (assertions that do not only rely on the UI). In my current Android project, we had a notoriously broken subsystem. I asserted this subsystem with custom methods to guard against regression bugs.
Shared mock objects: In my current Android project, we have custom hardware that is not available for UI tests. We replaced this hardware with mock objects. We run assertions on those mock objects right from the UI tests. These assertions work seamlessly via shared memory. Moreover, I do not want to pollute the app code with all the mock implementations.
Keep test data outside: In my current Android project, we load test data from JUnit right into the app. With XCUITest's command line arguments, this would be way more limited.
Custom synchronization mechanisms: In my current Android project, we have wrapper classes around multithreading infrastructure to synchronize our UI tests with background tasks. This synchronization is hard to achieve without shared memory (e.g. Espresso IdlingResources).
Trivial code sharing: In my current iOS project, I share a simple definition file for the aforementioned launch arguments. This enables to pass launch arguments in a typesafe way without duplicating string literals. Although this is a minor use case, it still shows that selected code sharing can be valuable.
For UI tests you shouldn't have to pollute your app code too much. You
could use a single command line argument to indicate UI tests are
running and use that to load up some test data, login a test user, or
pick a testing endpoint for network calls. With good architecture you
will only need to make the adjustment once when the app first launches
with the rest of your code oblivious that it is using test data (much
like if you have a development environment and a production
environment that you switch between for network calls).
This is exactly the thing that I am doing in my current iOS project, and this is exactly the thing that I want to avoid.
Although a good architecture can avoid too much havoc, it is still a pollution of the app code. Moreover, this does not solve any of the use cases that I highlighted above.
By proposing such a solution, you essentially admit that radical black-box testing is inferior to gray-box testing.
As in many parts of life, a differentiated view is better than a radical "use only the tools that we give you, you should not need to do this".
UI Tests should not need to link to app code, they are designed to simulate a user tapping away inside your app. If you were to jump into the app code during these tests you would no longer be testing what your app does in the the real world you would be testing what it does when manipulated in a way no user ever could. UI tests should not have any need of any app code any more than a user does.
For unit tests and integration tests of course you use #testable import … to get access to any methods and properties that are not marked private or fileprivate. Anything marked private or fileprivate will still be inaccessible from test code, but everything else including internal will be accessible. These are the tests where you should intentionally throw data in that can't possibly occur in the real world to make sure your code can handle it. These tests should still not reach into a method and make any changes or the test won't really be testing how the code behaves.
You can create as many unit test targets as you want in a project and you can use one or more of those targets to hold integration tests rather than unit tests. You can then specify which targets run at various times so that your slower integration tests don't run every time you test and slow you down.
The environment unit and integration tests run in actually has everything. You can create an instance of a view controller and call loadViewIfNeeded() to have the entire view setup. You can then test for the existence of various outlets and trigger them to send actions (Check out UIControl's sendActions(for: ) method). Provided you have setup the necessary mocks this will let you verify that when a user taps button A, a call gets sent to the proper method of thing B.
For UI tests you shouldn't have to pollute your app code too much. You could use a single command line argument to indicate UI tests are running and use that to load up some test data, login a test user, or pick a testing endpoint for network calls. With good architecture you will only need to make the adjustment once when the app first launches with the rest of your code oblivious that it is using test data (much like if you have a development environment and a production environment that you switch between for network calls).
If you want to learn more about testing Swift Paul Hudson has a very good book you can check out https://www.hackingwithswift.com/store/testing-swift. It has plenty of examples of the various kinds of tests and good advice on how to split them up.
Update based on your edits and comments:
It looks like what you really want is Integration Tests. These are easy to miss in the world of Xcode as they don't have their own kind of target to create. They use the Unit Test target but test multiple things working together.
Provided you haven't added private or fileprivate to any of your outlets you can create tests in a Unit Test target that makes sure the outlets exist and then inject text or trigger their actions as needed to simulate a user navigating through your app.
Normally this kind of testing would just go from one view controller to a second one to test that the right view controller gets created when an action happens but nothing says it can't go further.
You won't get images of the screen for a failed test like you do with UI Tests and if you use storyboards make sure to instantiate your view controllers from the storyboard. Be sure that you are grabbing any navigation controllers and the such that are required.
This methodology will allow you to act like you are navigating through the app while being able to manipulate whatever data you need as it goes into various methods.
If you have a method with 10 lines in it and you want to tweak the data between lines 7 and 8 you would need to have an external call to something mockable and make your changes there or use a breakpoint with a debugger command that makes the change. This breakpoint trick is very useful for debugging things but I don't think I would use it for tests since deleting the breakpoint would break the test.
I had to do it for a specific app. What we did is creating a kind of debug menu accessible only for UI tests (using launch arguments to make it available) and displayed using a certain gesture (two taps with two fingers in our case).
This debug menu is just a pop-up view appearing over all screens. In this view, we add buttons which allow us updating the state of the app.
You can then use XCUITest to display this menu and interact with buttons.
I've come across this same problem OP. Coming from the Android ecosystem and attempting to leverage solutions for iOS will have you banging your head as to why Apple does things this way. It makes things difficult.
In our case we replicated a network mocking solution for iOS that allows us to control the app state using static response files. However, Using a standalone proxy to do this makes running XCUITest difficult on physical devices. Swift provides some underlying Foundations.URLSession features that allow you to do the same thing from inside of the configured session objects. (See URLProtocolClasses)
Now, our UI tests are having an IPC problem since the runner app is in its own process. Prior the proxy and UI tests lived in the same process so it was easy to control responses returned for certain requests.
This can be done using some odd bridges for interprocess communication, like CFMessaging and some others (see NSHipster here)
Hope this helps.
how exactly does the unit test environment work
The unit tests are in a bundle which is injected into the app.
Actually several bundles are injected. The overarching XCTest bundle is a framework called XCTest.framework and you can actually see it inside the built app:
Your tests are a bundle too, with an .xctest suffix, and you can see that in the built app as well:
Okay, let's say you ask for one or more tests to run.
The app is compiled and runs in the normal way on the simulator or the device: for example, if there is a root view controller hierarchy, it is assembled normally, with all launch-time events firing the way they usually do (for instance, viewDidLoad, viewDidAppear, etc.).
At last the launch mechanism takes its hands off. The test runner is willing to wait quite a long time for this moment to arrive. When the test runner sees that this moment as arrived, it executes the test bundle's executable and the tests begin to run. The test code is able to see the main bundle code because it has imported the main bundle as a module, so it is linked to it.
When the tests are finished, the app is abruptly torn down.
So what about UI tests?
UI tests are completely different.
Nothing is injected into your app.
What runs initially is a special separate test runner app, whose bundle identifier is named after your test suits with Runner appended; for example, com.apple.test.MyUITests-Runner. (You may even be able to see the the test runner launch.)
The test runner app in turn backgrounds itself and launches your app in its own special environment and drives it from the outside using the Accessibility framework to "tap" buttons and "see" the interface. It has no access to your app's code; it is completely outside your app, "looking" at its interface and only its interface by means of Accessibility.
We use GCDWebServer to communicate between test and the app under test.
The test asks the app under test to start this local server and then test can talk to app using this server. You can make requests on this server to fetch some data from app as well as to tell app to modify some behavior by providing data.
I am doing iOS UI testing with XCUITest.
Since we do not have access to the app, how do we set defaults to the app?
You can pass all the required data using launch arguments.
Please read documentation
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xctest/xcuiapplication/1500477-launcharguments
The other (and a bit slower) option is to use deep links.
This sounds much more complex than it is, but a technique that has worked for me is to set up an HTTP server in the testing suite that you can use to fetch mock data in your test code. I have had success with Embassy and Ambassador.
So you'd pass in a launch argument telling your app code to fetch from the server. For the case of UserDefaults a helper class for making these specific requests to the local endpoint works well. This unfortunately means your app code has to be doing some setup for testing, but depending on your needs it could be a good compromise.
Another possible solution to crossing the process boundary:
If you are not doing on device testing, you can access "SIMULATOR_SHARED_RESOURCES_DIRECTORY" and provide the data in a file for your test to consume.
On a real device this would be more difficult because you would need to use a shared Group container.
You probably can use "Application Data Package". It's when you save your app state into a container and then run tests with the saved environment.
There are many guides how to do it, that's just one of them:
https://www.codementor.io/paulzabelin/xcode-app-data-suni6p4ma
It might me a more powerful and overcomplicated thing that you need, but opens a big world of possibilities ;)
Do XCTests run in parallel (that is, are multiple tests allowed to run at the same moment?). Consider a single test file with multiple tests, and multiple test files with multiple tests each.
If core data is used in some of the components being tested, and tests can run in parallel, what is the correct method of using the core data in the tests? For example, the test should start with a 'clean' data store, and then add objects as needed, then get tested based off of the contents of the store. It sounds like if they all use the same managed object context/store they'll be pointing to the same data and thus be at risk for colliding with each other.
Tests are run serially on the main thread of the test runner process. However nothing automatically guards against you starting asynchronous actions which could extend into the execution of a future test case.
For example a call to perfomBlock on a NSManagedObjectContext is not guaranteed to execute before the next test starts. This can be especially problematic if your tests trigger saves which propagate asynchronously to parent managed object contexts.
I've found it valuable to write easily testable code which means injecting the managed object contexts or other dependencies into the code under test. That should allow you to build an independent Core Data stack for each test case rather than unexpectedly sharing some global state in a single context. Then you just need to beware of overly permissive notification observers which don't bother to check the sender of a NSNotification (i.e. when observing NSManagedObjectContextDidSaveNotifications).
Each XCTest method is run sequentially (one at the moment)
To test Core Data I often create in memory Persistance Store, here you have good snipped: code using this kind of MOC you always have clear core data state
Please check also this Rays tutorial
1.Test cases are executed one by one and test files as well.
2.Your core data managed object context should be created by importing you app in your test case(#testable import product_name) file and access the core date objects in test case files.All the test cases will be run independently.
So As you mentioned the test should start with a 'clean' data store, and then add objects as needed, then get tested based off of the contents of the store.yes,this is correct way.make sure core data managed objects are created in test files.test cases can be tested in Test Navigation section.
We've got a suite of UI tests for our app written using KIF which I'd like to convert to use the new Xcode UI test framework.
Some of our current tests work like this:
Assert that there are no objects in a core data table
Do some stuff in the UI
Assert that there are some objects in the core data table
Cancel the thing we were doing in the UI
Assert that there are no leaked objects in the core data table
I need to look at the actual core data store, not just the UI, because the leaked rows wouldn't necessarily be shown in the UI. How can I access a core data store from an Xcode UI test?
The answer is that you can't, not without abusing signals. XCUITests are not intended to touch the metal; they are intended to exercise user facing behavior only.
The test that you describe sounds like a perfectly good candidate for a unit test, though!
UPDATE:
(based on comments from OP)
Well, as far as I can tell you have four options
you can create a backchannel that will use signals passing to break
the separation between XCUITest and the app's internals.
you can
build functionality to mock the UI interactions in your unit tests
so that you can validate against side effects.
you can add an
assertion and then exercise it manually.
you can file a Radar
asking for the functionality.
You can easily test against Core Data but your test you described does not make much sense. If you are cancelling the UI action then Core Data does not save to disk. When you mention "table" that means to me that you are looking on disk.
If you want to load an empty Core Data store, create some objects, verify they were created, delete them and confirm they were deleted; that can all be done in a UI test.
Start with no store on disk (or use an in-memory store)
Run your UI test
Do a fetch against Core Data and confirm objects are in memory
Perform your cancel code
Confirm code is removed from Core Data.
What part are you having an issue with?
I've been reading up on SQLite3 included in the iOS firmware which might serve my needs for the app i'm writiung.
What I can't figure out is if it is persistent or goes away like some objects do.
For example if I do sqlite3_open() which appears to be a C function rather than an Objective-C object, if I open this at the start of my application, will it stay persistent until I close it no matter how many views I push/pop all over the place.
Obviously that would depend on where I put it but if I was doing a universal app and had some central functions for loading / saving data which were common to both iPhone/iPad, if, in my didFinishLoading: I put a call to open the SQLite database and then called various exec's of queries, would it remain persistent throughout the lifecycle of the application.
or
Am I better off opening and closing as needed, i'm coming from a PHP background so i'd normally open a database at the start of the script and then run many queries and then finally close it before browser output.
From the 1,000,000th i've learned over the last few months about iOS programming, I think the latter might be the better way as there's possibility of app exit prematurely or it going to background.
I'd just like a second opinion on my thinking please.
I dont know directly, but I think you are right - you only need to open it once at the start of your app.
Looking at sqlitepersistentobjects, an ORM framework for iOS, it only opens the DB when its first used, and never closes it except when there is a problem opening it :)
Single opened sqlite database used throughout the app from different places in your app is fine.
You are using word "persistent" which is confusing. What you mean is "reuse of single connection, for executing different statements in the app, possibly from different threads". Persistence has completely different meaning in context of databases - it means that the requested modification of data has been safely stored to media (disk, flash drive) and the device can even unexpectedly shut down without affecting written data.
It's recommended to keep running sqlite statements from a single, dedicated thread.
It's not recommended to connect to sqlite database from different processes for and executing parallel modifications.
A good alternative solution is to use sqlite async extension which sends all writes to a dedicated, background thread.
You can check out https://github.com/mirek/CoreSQLite3 framework if you want to use custom built (newer version) of sqlite.