I know it is not a good thing write a unit test for mapper or get set but, it is what it is, so I am stucked how to do unit test for mappers;
StudentGroupList below;
#Getter
#Setter
public class StudentGroupList {
private String studentId;
}
StudentGroupListRowMapper below;
public class StudentGroupListRowMapper implements RowMapper<StudentGroupList> {
#Override
public StudentGroupList mapRow(Resultset rs, int rowNum) throws SQLException {
StudentGroupList studentGroupList = new StudentGroupList();
studentGroupList.setStudentId(rs.getString("student_id"));
return studentGroupList;
}
}
I have tried below, but jococo coverage test did not coverage anything
public class TaskGroupListRowMapperTest {
private ResultSet resultSet;
private StudentGroupList studentGroupList;
#Before
public void setUp() {
resultSet = mock(ResultSet.class);
studentGroupList = mock(StudentGroupList.class);
}
#Test
public void testStudentGroupListMapper() throws SQLException {
when(resultSet.getString("student_id"))
.thenReturn(studentGroupList.getStudentID());
assertTrue(studentGroupList.getStudentId(), true);
}
}
İt says exception; thenReturn() may be missing.
Take it easy, we were all there in the past and try to understand what a unit test is supposed to do.
You don't unit test everything just for the sake of unit test coverage. When you have a framework callback like RowMapper, it is one of those cases. Your StudentGroupListRowMapper is very simple, so an integration test for your Dao will cover it. Anyway, you want to unit test so just think of it as a simple class and let's go through the steps.
You want to create the instance of the class you want to test and also provide mock dependencies for any services it calls. Luckily your StudentGroupListRowMapper does not call anything. Since the method you want to test is StudentGroupList mapRow(Resultset rs, int rowNum), you have to decide if you can provide a Resultset and a rowNum. Since Resultset is not something you create, your provide a mock for that
Resultset inputRs = mock(Resultset.class);
int rowNum = 1;
Now when your method executes, it is going call inputRs.getString("student_id") to get student id but it is mock and it doesn't know what to return so you have to tell your mock what to do when inputRs.getString("student_id") is called
when(inputRs.getString("student_id")).thenReturn("sutdent-id-1");
Now you know your expected StudentGroupList should be created with "sutdent-id-1" and should be returned from the method.
assertEquals(resultedStudentGroupList.getStudentId(),"sutdent-id-1");
Lets combine all of them together.
public class StudentGroupListRowMapperTest {
StudentGroupListRowMapper mapper = new StudentGroupListRowMapper();
#Test
public void testMapRow() {
Resultset inputRs = mock(Resultset.class);
int rowNum = 1;
when(inputRs.getString("student_id")).thenReturn("sutdent-id-1");
StudentGroupList result = mapper.mapRow(inputRs, rowNum);
assertEquals(result.getStudentId(), "sutdent-id-1");
}
}
Related
I need to get trending articles from the community. I created a apex class for that by using ConnectApi.Knowledge.getTrendingArticles(communityId, maxResult).
I need to create a test class for that. I am using test class method provided by Salesforce for that. setTestGetTrendingArticles(communityId, maxResults, result) but I am getting this error "System.AssertException: Assertion Failed: No matching test result found for Knowledge.getTrendingArticles(String communityId, Integer maxResults). Before calling this, call Knowledge.setTestGetTrendingArticles(String communityId, Integer maxResults, ConnectApi.KnowledgeArticleVersionCollection result) to set the expected test result."
public without sharing class ConnectTopicCatalogController {
#AuraEnabled(cacheable=true)
public static List<ConnectApi.KnowledgeArticleVersion> getAllTrendingArticles(){
string commId = [Select Id from Network where Name = 'Customer Community v5'].Id;
ConnectApi.KnowledgeArticleVersionCollection mtCollection = ConnectApi.Knowledge.getTrendingArticles(commId, 12);
System.debug('getAllTrendingTopics '+JSON.serializePretty(mtCollection.items));
List<ConnectApi.KnowledgeArticleVersion> topicList = new List<ConnectApi.KnowledgeArticleVersion>();
for(ConnectApi.KnowledgeArticleVersion mtopic : mtCollection.items)
{
topicList.add(mtopic);
}
return topicList;
}
}
Test class that I am using for this
public class ConnectTopicCatalogControllerTest {
public static final string communityId = [Select Id from Network where Name = 'Customer Community v5'].Id;
#isTest
static void getTrendingArticles(){
ConnectApi.KnowledgeArticleVersionCollection knowledgeResult = new ConnectApi.KnowledgeArticleVersionCollection();
List<ConnectApi.KnowledgeArticleVersion> know = new List<ConnectApi.KnowledgeArticleVersion>();
know.add(new ConnectApi.KnowledgeArticleVersion());
know.add(new ConnectApi.KnowledgeArticleVersion());
system.debug('know '+know);
knowledgeResult.items = know;
// Set the test data
ConnectApi.Knowledge.setTestGetTrendingArticles(null, 12, knowledgeResult);
List<ConnectApi.KnowledgeArticleVersion> res = ConnectTopicCatalogController.getAllTrendingArticles();
// The method returns the test page, which we know has two items in it.
Test.startTest();
System.assertEquals(12, res.size());
Test.stopTest();
}
}
I need help to solve the test class
Thanks.
Your controller expects the articles to be inside the 'Customer Community v5' community, but you are passing the communityId parameter as null to the setTestGetTrendingArticles method.
Test class :
#isTest
public class PriceName_PriceList_test {
#istest static void PriceName_PriceListMethod(){
PriceName_PriceList priceObj = new PriceName_PriceList();
Product_Line_Item__c prl = New Product_Line_Item__c();
prl = [SELECT Product_Name__r.name, List_Price__c FROM Product_Line_Item__c];
prl.Product_Name__r.name = 'testproduct';
prl.List_Price__c = 123;
insert prl;
PriceObj.getdetails();
}
}
You didn't pass the Id to the class. So with a null the query will return 0. But it's interesting, I'd expect you to at least get coverage for line 6...
Change your code to this and run again
insert prl;
PriceObj.drId = prl.Id;
PriceObj.getdetails();
Or make the function accept an Id parameter and call PriceObj.getdetails(prl.Id), no idea what's your use case
I have just started to use FluentMigration for my current project. I wrote my first migration but I have some trouble writing a unit test for it.
Here is some sample code:
private ServiceProvider CreateServiceProvider()
{
return new ServiceCollection()
.AddLogging(lb => lb.AddFluentMigratorConsole())
.AddFluentMigratorCore()
.ConfigureRunner(
builder => builder
.AddSQLite()
.WithGlobalConnectionString("Data Source=:memory:;Version=3;New=True;")
.WithMigrationsIn(typeof(MigrationOne).Assembly))
.BuildServiceProvider();
}
private void PerformMigrateUp(IServiceScope scope)
{
var runner = scope.ServiceProvider.GetRequiredService<IMigrationRunner>();
runner.MigrateUp(1);
}
[Test]
public void ShouldHaveTablesAfterMigrateUp()
{
var provider = this.CreateServiceProvider();
using (var scope = provider.CreateScope())
{
this.PerformMigrateUp(scope);
// here I'd like to test if tables have been created in the database by the migration
}
}
I don't know how (or if it is possible) to access the current database connection so I can perform a query. Any suggestions would be helpful. Thanks.
Ok, I found a solution. I have to use the Process method of the runner's processor to perform my own sql query.
It looks like this:
private ServiceProvider CreateServiceProvider()
{
return new ServiceCollection()
.AddLogging(lb => lb.AddFluentMigratorConsole())
.AddFluentMigratorCore()
.ConfigureRunner(
builder => builder
.AddSQLite()
.WithGlobalConnectionString(#"Data Source=:memory:;Version=3;New=True;")
.WithMigrationsIn(typeof(MigrationDate20181026113000Zero).Assembly))
.BuildServiceProvider();
}
[Test]
public void ShouldHaveNewVersionAfterMigrateUp()
{
var serviceProvider = this.CreateServiceProvider();
var scope = serviceProvider.CreateScope();
var runner = scope.ServiceProvider.GetRequiredService<IMigrationRunner>();
runner.MigrateUp(1);
string sqlStatement = "SELECT Description FROM VersionInfo";
DataSet dataSet = runner.Processor.Read(sqlStatement, string.Empty);
Assert.That(dataSet, Is.Not.Null);
Assert.That(dataSet.Tables[0].Rows[0].ItemArray[0], Is.EqualTo("Migration1"));
}
This is an old question but an important one. I find it strange that I couldnt find any documentation on this.
In any case here is my solution which I find to be a bit better as you dont need to rely on the runner. Since you dont need that the options open up hugely for constructor arguments.
Firstly make sure you install Microsoft.Data.Sqlite or you will get a strange error.
SQLite in memory databases exist for as long as the connection does - and 1 database per connection on first glance. Actually though there is a way to share the database between connections as long as at least 1 connection is open at all times according to my experiments. You just need to name it.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/data/sqlite/connection-strings#sharable-in-memory
So to begin with I created a connection that will stay open until the test finishes. It will be named using Guid.NewGuid() so that subsequent connections will work as expected.
var dbName = Guid.NewGuid().ToString();
var connectionString = $"Data Source={dbName};Mode=Memory;Cache=Shared";
var connection = new SqliteConnection(connectionString);
connection.Open();
After that the crux of running the migrations is the same as previously answered but the connection string uses the named database:
var sp = services.AddFluentMigratorCore()
.ConfigureRunner(fluentMigratorBuilder => fluentMigratorBuilder
.AddSQLite()
.WithGlobalConnectionString(connectionString)
.ScanIn(AssemblyWithMigrations).For.Migrations()
)
.BuildServiceProvider();
var runner = sp.GetRequiredService<IMigrationRunner>();
runner.MigrateUp();
Here is a class I use to inject a connection factory everywhere that needs to connect to the database for normal execution:
internal class PostgresConnectionFactory : IConnectionFactory
{
private readonly string connectionString;
public PostgresConnectionFactory(string connectionString)
{
this.connectionString = connectionString;
}
public DbConnection Create()
{
return new NpgsqlConnection(connectionString);
}
}
I just replaced this (all hail dependency inversion) with:
internal class InMemoryConnectionFactory : IConnectionFactory
{
private readonly string connectionstring;
public InMemoryConnectionFactory(string connectionstring)
{
this.connectionstring = connectionstring;
}
public DbConnection Create()
{
return new SqliteConnection(connectionstring);
}
}
where the connection string is the same named one I defined above.
Now you can simply use that connection factory anywhere that needs to connect to the same in memory database, and since we can now connect multiple times possibilities for integration testing open up.
Here is the majority of my implementation:
public static IDisposable CreateInMemoryDatabase(Assembly AssemblyWithMigrations, IServiceCollection services = null)
{
if (services == null)
services = new ServiceCollection();
var connectionString = GetSharedConnectionString();
var connection = GetPersistantConnection(connectionString);
MigrateDb(services, connectionString, AssemblyWithMigrations);
services.AddSingleton<IConnectionFactory>(new InMemoryConnectionFactory(connectionString));
return services.BuildServiceProvider()
.GetRequiredService<IDisposableUnderlyingQueryingTool>();
}
private static string GetSharedConnectionString()
{
var dbName = Guid.NewGuid().ToString();
return $"Data Source={dbName};Mode=Memory;Cache=Shared";
}
private static void MigrateDb(IServiceCollection services, string connectionString, Assembly assemblyWithMigrations)
{
var sp = services.AddFluentMigratorCore()
.ConfigureRunner(fluentMigratorBuilder => fluentMigratorBuilder
.AddSQLite()
.WithGlobalConnectionString(connectionString)
.ScanIn(assemblyWithMigrations).For.Migrations()
)
.BuildServiceProvider();
var runner = sp.GetRequiredService<IMigrationRunner>();
runner.MigrateUp();
}
private static IDbConnection GetPersistantConnection(string connectionString)
{
var connection = new SqliteConnection(connectionString);
connection.Open();
return connection;
}
Then here is a sample test:
public Test : IDisposable {
private readonly IDisposable _holdingConnection;
public Test() {
_holdingConnection = CreateInMemoryDatabase(typeof(MyFirstMigration).Assembly);
}
public void Dispose() {
_holdingConnection.Dispose();
}
}
You may notice that the static factory returns a custom interface. Its just an interface that extends the normal tooling I inject to repositories, but also implements IDisposable.
Untested bonus for integration testing where you will have a service collection created via WebApplicationFactory or TestServer etc:
public void AddInMemoryPostgres(Assembly AssemblyWithMigrations)
{
var lifetime = services.BuildServiceProvider().GetService<IHostApplicationLifetime>();
var holdingConnection= InMemoryDatabaseFactory.CreateInMemoryDapperTools(AssemblyWithMigrations, services);
lifetime.ApplicationStopping.Register(() => {
holdingConnection.Dispose();
});
}
This has baffled me for a while now and I cannot seem to get the grasp of it. I'm using Cell Value Factory to populate a simple one column table and it does not populate in the table.
It does and I click the rows that are populated but I do not see any values in them- in this case String values. [I just edited this to make it clearer]
I have a different project under which it works under the same kind of data model. What am I doing wrong?
Here's the code. The commented code at the end seems to work though. I've checked to see if the usual mistakes- creating a new column instance or a new tableview instance, are there. Nothing. Please help!
//Simple Data Model
Stock.java
public class Stock {
private SimpleStringProperty stockTicker;
public Stock(String stockTicker) {
this.stockTicker = new SimpleStringProperty(stockTicker);
}
public String getstockTicker() {
return stockTicker.get();
}
public void setstockTicker(String stockticker) {
stockTicker.set(stockticker);
}
}
//Controller class
MainGuiController.java
private ObservableList<Stock> data;
#FXML
private TableView<Stock> stockTableView;// = new TableView<>(data);
#FXML
private TableColumn<Stock, String> tickerCol;
private void setTickersToCol() {
try {
Statement stmt = conn.createStatement();//conn is defined and works
ResultSet rsltset = stmt.executeQuery("SELECT ticker FROM tickerlist order by ticker");
data = FXCollections.observableArrayList();
Stock stockInstance;
while (rsltset.next()) {
stockInstance = new Stock(rsltset.getString(1).toUpperCase());
data.add(stockInstance);
}
} catch (SQLException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(WriteToFile.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
System.out.println("Connection Failed! Check output console");
}
tickerCol.setCellValueFactory(new PropertyValueFactory<Stock,String>("stockTicker"));
stockTableView.setItems(data);
}
/*THIS, ON THE OTHER HAND, WORKS*/
/*Callback<CellDataFeatures<Stock, String>, ObservableValue<String>> cellDataFeat =
new Callback<CellDataFeatures<Stock, String>, ObservableValue<String>>() {
#Override
public ObservableValue<String> call(CellDataFeatures<Stock, String> p) {
return new SimpleStringProperty(p.getValue().getstockTicker());
}
};*/
Suggested solution (use a Lambda, not a PropertyValueFactory)
Instead of:
aColumn.setCellValueFactory(new PropertyValueFactory<Appointment,LocalDate>("date"));
Write:
aColumn.setCellValueFactory(cellData -> cellData.getValue().dateProperty());
For more information, see this answer:
Java: setCellValuefactory; Lambda vs. PropertyValueFactory; advantages/disadvantages
Solution using PropertyValueFactory
The lambda solution outlined above is preferred, but if you wish to use PropertyValueFactory, this alternate solution provides information on that.
How to Fix It
The case of your getter and setter methods are wrong.
getstockTicker should be getStockTicker
setstockTicker should be setStockTicker
Some Background Information
Your PropertyValueFactory remains the same with:
new PropertyValueFactory<Stock,String>("stockTicker")
The naming convention will seem more obvious when you also add a property accessor to your Stock class:
public class Stock {
private SimpleStringProperty stockTicker;
public Stock(String stockTicker) {
this.stockTicker = new SimpleStringProperty(stockTicker);
}
public String getStockTicker() {
return stockTicker.get();
}
public void setStockTicker(String stockticker) {
stockTicker.set(stockticker);
}
public StringProperty stockTickerProperty() {
return stockTicker;
}
}
The PropertyValueFactory uses reflection to find the relevant accessors (these should be public). First, it will try to use the stockTickerProperty accessor and, if that is not present fall back to getters and setters. Providing a property accessor is recommended as then you will automatically enable your table to observe the property in the underlying model, dynamically updating its data as the underlying model changes.
put the Getter and Setter method in you data class for all the elements.
I have the following class and test. I want to test passing a null value as a parameter to the constructor and are expecting an ArgumentNullException. But since I use the Autofixture's CreateAnonymous method I get a TargetInvocationException instead.
What is the correct way to write those kinds of tests?
public sealed class CreateObject : Command {
// Properties
public ObjectId[] Ids { get; private set; }
public ObjectTypeId ObjectType { get; private set; }
public UserId CreatedBy { get; private set; }
// Constructor
public CreateObject(ObjectId[] ids, ObjectTypeId objectType, UserId createdBy) {
Guard.NotNull(ids, "ids");
Guard.NotNull(objectType, "objectType");
Guard.NotNull(createdBy, "createdBy");
Ids = ids;
ObjectType = objectType;
CreatedBy = createdBy;
}
}
[TestMethod]
[ExpectedException(typeof(ArgumentNullException))]
public void constructor_with_null_ids_throw() {
fixture.Register<ObjectId[]>(() => null);
fixture.CreateAnonymous<CreateObject>();
}
IMO, Ruben Bartelink's comment is the best answer.
With AutoFixture.Idioms, you can do this instead:
var fixture = new Fixture();
var assertion = new GuardClauseAssertion(fixture);
assertion.Verify(typeof(CreateObject).GetConstructors());
The Verify method will provide you with a quite detailed exception message if any constructor argument in any constructor is lacking a Guard Clause.
FWIW, AutoFixture extensively uses Reflection, so I don't consider it a bug that it throws a TargetInvocationException. While it could unwrap all TargetInvocationException instances and rethrow their InnerException properties, that would also mean disposing of (potentially) valuable information (such as the AutoFixture stack trace). I've considered this, but don't want to take AutoFixture in that direction, for exactly that reason. A client can always filter out information, but if information is removed prematurely, no client can get it back.
If you prefer the other approach, it's not too hard to write a helper method that unwraps the exception - perhaps something like this:
public Exception Unwrap(this Exception e)
{
var tie = e as TargetInvocationException;
if (tie != null)
return tie.InnerException;
return e;
}
I came across this while I was searching for something similar. I would like to add that, combined with automoqcustomization and xunit, below code also works and its much cleaner.
[Theory, AutoMoqData]
public void Constructor_GuardClausesArePresent(GuardClauseAssertion assertion)
{
assertion.Verify(typeof(foo).GetConstructors());
}
You just need to create the AutoMoqData attribute as follows.
public class AutoMoqDataAttribute : AutoDataAttribute
{
public AutoMoqDataAttribute() : base(() => new Fixture().Customize(new AutoMoqCustomization()))
{
}
}