I am writing a react component which will load a URL within an iframe, then when the iframe's onLoad event fires it will call contentWindow.postMessage(). I'd like to prove this functionality using Jest, Enzyme, and JSDOM.
My component wraps react-iframe and looks pretty simple:
export class FilteredIframe extends React.PureComponent<FilteredIframeProps> {
onload = (e:Window) => {
console.log("ONLOAD CALLED");
if (this.props.filters) {
e.postMessage(this.props.filters, this.props.url);
}
}
render() {
return (<Iframe url={this.props.url}
display="initial"
position="static"
onLoad={this.onload}
/>);
}
}
I'm trying to figure out how to get enzyme/jsdom to test this, but I'm failing:
test("Posts message once the frame has loaded", async () => {
const payLoad = { data: "data" };
const result = mount(<FilteredIframe url="https:///www.bing.com" filters={payLoad}/>);
})
When running this in jest, I never see the "ONLOAD CALLED" message in the console. Is there some sort of special thing I need to do for jsdom or enzyme to make it actually call onLoad?
I revisited this and figured out I can call onLoad() of the iframe inside my component directly. I now have something like this:
test("Posts message once the frame has loaded", async () => {
const payLoad = { data: "data" };
const result = mount(<FilteredIframe url="https:///www.bing.com" filters={payLoad} />);
const iframe = result.find("iframe");
//mock contentWindow so we can examine messages
let receivedFilters = {};
const mockIFrameContents = {
contentWindow : {
postMessage: function (filters, url) {
receivedFilters = filters;
}
}
}
result.instance().setIframeRef(mockIFrameContents);
//Signal the contents have loaded
iframe.props().onLoad();
expect(receivedFilters === payLoad).toBeTruthy();
});
I also modified the component a little to use a ref for the iframe itself, and use the ref's contentWindow rather than the event target. But the real answer here was just to mock up the iframe contentWindow and call it's onLoad() directly, rather than try to get it to actually load something.
Forcing an update on a mounted wrapper worked for me.
<iframe onLoad={this.iframeLoaded}></iframe>
and test like so...
const mountWrapper = mount(<App />);
let container;
describe('iframe', () => {
beforeEach(() => {
container = mountWrapper.find('iframe');
});
it('calls iframeLoaded() when loaded', () => {
const spy = jest.spyOn(mountWrapper.instance(), 'iframeLoaded');
mountWrapper.instance().forceUpdate();
container.simulate('load');
expect(spy).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1);
});
});
You need to attach mounted iframe to document, there is attachTo option for mount to do this.
OPs answer had the pieces I needed. If you don't need the iframe loaded, but just the trigger (like if the iframe src is a pdf), trigger onLoad and update.
act(() => {
result.find('iframe').props().onLoad();
});
result.update();
Related
I'm refactoring a class component to a funcional component.
In my test file i was using enzyme, but i'm migrating to react-testing-library
This the test i'm doing using enzyme
it('should change module when clicked button login', () => {
const wrapper = mount(<SignUp setModuleCallback={jest.fn()} />)
const instance = wrapper.instance()
jest.spyOn(instance, 'setModule')
wrapper.find('button#login-button').simulate('click')
expect(instance.setModule).toHaveBeenCalled()
})
And this is what i'm trying to do using react-testing-library
it('should change module when clicked button login', async () => {
const { getByTestId } = render(<SignUp setModuleCallback={jest.fn()} />)
const instance = getByTestId('submit')
jest.spyOn(instance, 'setModule')
const button = await waitFor(() => getByTestId('submit'))
act(() => {
fireEvent.click(button)
})
expect(instance.setModule).toHaveBeenCalled()
})
Here's the error that i'm getting
The philosophy behind RTL is that you should test your components "the way your software is used." With that in mind, is there a way to test your component without explicitly asserting that the callback was invoked?
According to your test name, you expect some "module to change." Is there some way to verify in the DOM that the module was changed? For example, maybe each "module" has a unique title, in which case you could use screen.getByText to assert that the correct module is rendered after clicking the button.
If you want to explicitly assert that a callback function was invoked, are you sure you have to use spyOn for this test? I would try something like this:
it('should change module when clicked button login', async () => {
const mockCallback = jest.fn()
const { getByTestId } = render(<SignUp setModuleCallback={mockCallback} />)
const button = await waitFor(() => getByTestId('submit'))
act(() => {
fireEvent.click(button)
})
expect(mockCallback).toHaveBeenCalled()
})
I am trying to write a test to assert that my class method is being called when the componentWillMount method fires when the component renders.
I have tried the Jest documentation in addition to researching this online. From the answers I've found (including on here) there seemed to be 2 possible methods of doing this.
The first was to:
shallow render the component
create a jest.fn of the class method I want to test,
call componentWillMount using wrapper.instance().componentWIllMount
assert that the method was called once
The second was to spy on the method I'm expecting to be called:
shallow render the component
set up the spy and assign to a constant e.g. functionSpy
call componentWillMount
assert the functionSpy was called how ever many times
The refresh method definitely fires whenever the component is rendered so I just need to work out how I can reflect this in a test.
The code base I am working on is for a civil service system so have to be really careful what I disclose, hopefully this will be enough for explaining the problem I'm having..
The class is structured:
export class Search extends AnErrorComponent {
static propTypes = {
.....
};
state = {
.....
}
componentWillMount(){
this.refresh();
}
refresh = () => {
.....
} // This is the method I'm trying to test
but can't seem to access/test.
search = () => {
.....
}
//etc
render(){
return(
...
);
}
}
To test this I've tried:
describe('Search component', () => {
it("should call the refresh method when the page loads", () => {
const store = makeStore();
const wrapper = shallow(<Search store={store}/>);
wrapper.instance().refresh = jest.fn();
wrapper.update();
wrapper.instance().componentWillMount;
expect(wrapper.instance().refresh).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1);
});
});
The result of running this test is:
● Search component › should call the refresh method when the page loads
expect(jest.fn()).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1)
Expected mock function to have been called one time, but it was called zero times.
I also tried:
describe('Search component', () => {
it("should call the refresh method when the page loads", () => {
const store = makeStore();
const wrapper = shallow(<Search store={store}/>);
const refreshSpy = spyOn(Search.prototype, 'refresh');
wrapper.instance().componentWillMount;
expect(refreshSpy).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1);
});
});
I get the error:
● Search component › should call the refresh method when the page loads
refresh() method does not exist
This refers to the spy I tried to create.
I've double checked and I have imported the Search component in addition to the component it inherits from. I have also tried using mount instead of shallow rendering; however to make this work I had to wrap the component in a provider otherwise an error would be thrown e.g.
<provider store={store}>
<Search />
</provider>
I still got the same results after when using mount and wrapping the component in a provider. Due to the spy error I tried console logging wrapper.instance() in both tests and noted that none of the class methods are listed anywhere if this helps? Any help on this would be greatly appreciated. (This is the first question I've posted on here so hopefully this makes sense).
** Just to add, when using jest.spyOn() I get TypeError: jest.spyOn is not a function. I am using Jest 21.2.1 which I read should allow me to use jest.spyOn() as it was added in V19. **
componentWillMount is a method on the class instance, not a property. You need to call it to trigger the effect:
describe('Search component', () => {
it("should call the refresh method when the page loads", () => {
const store = makeStore();
const wrapper = shallow(<Search store={store}/>);
wrapper.instance().refresh = jest.fn();
wrapper.update();
wrapper.instance().componentWillMount(); // Calling the method
expect(wrapper.instance().refresh).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1);
});
});
You need to call componentWillMount and spyOn the refresh function by Mock Implementation
describe('Search component', () => {
const store = makeStore();
const wrapper = shallow(<Search store={store}/>);
let refresh;
beforeAll(() => {
refresh = jest.spyOn(Search.prototype, 'refresh').mockImplementation(() => true);
});
it("should call the refresh method when the page loads", () => {
wrapper.instance().componentWillMount();
expect(refresh.mock.calls.length).toBe(1);
});
afterAll(() => {
refresh.mockRestore();
});
});
I have this test:
import {
render,
cleanup,
waitForElement
} from '#testing-library/react'
const TestApp = () => {
const { loading, data, error } = useFetch<Person>('https://example.com', { onMount: true });
return (
<>
{loading && <div data-testid="loading">loading...</div>}
{error && <div data-testid="error">{error.message}</div>}
{data &&
<div>
<div data-testid="person-name">{data.name}</div>
<div data-testid="person-age">{data.age}</div>
</div>
}
</>
);
};
describe("useFetch", () => {
const renderComponent = () => render(<TestApp/>);
it('should be initially loading', () => {
const { getByTestId } = renderComponent();
expect(getByTestId('loading')).toBeDefined();
})
});
The test passes but I get the following warning:
Warning: An update to TestApp inside a test was not wrapped in
act(...).
When testing, code that causes React state updates should be wrapped into act(...):
act(() => {
/* fire events that update state */
});
/* assert on the output */
This ensures that you're testing the behavior the user would see in the browser
in TestApp
console.error
node_modules/react-dom/cjs/react-dom.development.js:506
Warning: An update to TestApp inside a test was not wrapped in act(...).
When testing, code that causes React state updates should be wrapped into act(...):
act(() => {
/* fire events that update state */
});
/* assert on the output */
This ensures that you're testing the behavior the user would see in the browser
in TestApp
The key is to await act and then use async arrow function.
await act( async () => render(<TestApp/>));
Source:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/59839513/3850405
Try asserting inside 'await waitFor()' - for this your it() function should be async
it('should be initially loading', async () => {
const { getByTestId } = renderComponent();
await waitFor(() => {
expect(getByTestId('loading')).toBeDefined();
});
});
Keep calm and happy coding
I was getting the same issue which gets resolved by using async queries (findBy*) instead of getBy* or queryBy*.
expect(await screen.findByText(/textonscreen/i)).toBeInTheDocument();
Async query returns a Promise instead of element, which resolves when an element is found which matches the given query. The promise is rejected if no element is found or if more than one element is found after a default timeout of 1000ms. If you need to find more than one element, use findAllBy.
https://testing-library.com/docs/dom-testing-library/api-async/
But as you know it wont work properly if something is not on screen. So for queryBy* one might need to update test case accordingly
[Note: Here there is no user event just simple render so findBy will work otherwise we need to put user Event in act ]
Try using await inside act
import { act } from 'react-dom/test-utils';
await act(async () => {
wrapper = mount(Commponent);
wrapper.find('button').simulate('click');
});
test('handles server ok', async () => {
render(
<MemoryRouter>
<Login />
</MemoryRouter>
)
await waitFor(() => fireEvent.click(screen.getByRole('register')))
let domInfo
await waitFor(() => (domInfo = screen.getByRole('infoOk')))
// expect(domInfo).toHaveTextContent('登陆成功')
})
I solved the problem in this way,you can try it.
I don't see the stack of the act error, but I guess, it is triggered by the end of the loading when this causes to change the TestApp state to change and rerender after the test finished. So waiting for the loading to disappear at the end of the test should solve this issue.
describe("useFetch", () => {
const renderComponent = () => render(<TestApp/>);
it('should be initially loading', async () => {
const { getByTestId } = renderComponent();
expect(getByTestId('loading')).toBeDefined();
await waitForElementToBeRemoved(() => queryByTestId('loading'));
});
});
React app with react testing library:
I tried a lot of things, what worked for me was to wait for something after the fireevent so that nothing happens after the test is finished.
In my case it was a calendar that opened when the input field got focus. I fireed the focus event and checked that the resulting focus event occured and finished the test. I think maybe that the calendar opened after my test was finished but before the system was done, and that triggered the warning. Waiting for the calendar to show before finishing did the trick.
fireEvent.focus(inputElement);
await waitFor(async () => {
expect(await screen.findByText('December 2022')).not.toBeNull();
});
expect(onFocusJestFunction).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1);
// End
Hopes this helps someone, I just spent half a day on this.
This is just a warning in react-testing-library (RTL). you do not have to use act in RTL because it is already using it behind the scenes. If you are not using RTL, you have to use act
import {act} from "react-dom/test-utils"
test('',{
act(()=>{
render(<TestApp/>)
})
})
You will see that warning when your component does data fetching. Because data fetching is async, when you render the component inside act(), behing the scene all the data fetching and state update will be completed first and then act() will finish. So you will be rendering the component, with the latest state update
Easiest way to get rid of this warning in RTL, you should run async query functions findBy*
test("test", async () => {
render(
<MemoryRouter>
<TestApp />
</MemoryRouter>
);
await screen.findByRole("button");
});
I keep getting Warning: An update to App inside a test was not wrapped in act(...). in my test suite whenever I make an API request and update the state.
I'm making use of react-testing-library. I also tried using ReactDOM test utils, got the same result. One other thing I tried was wrapping the container in act, still got the same result.
Please note that: My App works and my test passes. I just need to know what I was doing wrong or if it's a bug in the react-dom package that's making that error show up. And it's bad to mock the console error and mute it.
global.fetch = require('jest-fetch-mock');
it('should clear select content item', async () => {
fetch.mockResponseOnce(JSON.stringify({ results: data }));
const { container } = render(<App />);
const content = container.querySelector('.content');
await wait();
expect(content.querySelectorAll('.content--item').length).toBe(2);
});
Here's the hook implementation:
const [data, setData] = useState([]);
const [error, setError] = useState('');
const fetchInitData = async () => {
try {
const res = await fetch(API_URL);
const data = await res.json();
if (data.fault) {
setError('Rate limit Exceeded');
} else {
setData(data.results);
}
} catch(e) {
setError(e.message);
}
};
useEffect(() => {
fetchInitData();
}, [isEqual(data)]);
It's a known problem, check this issue in Github https://github.com/kentcdodds/react-testing-library/issues/281
For anyone who stumbles upon this more than a year later as I did, the issue Giorgio mentions has since been resolved, and wait has since been replaced with waitFor, as documented here:
https://testing-library.com/docs/dom-testing-library/api-async/
That being the case, I believe the solution to the warning now should be something like this:
import { render, waitFor } from '#testing-library/react';
// ...
it('should clear select content item', async () => {
fetch.mockResponseOnce(JSON.stringify({ results: data }));
const { container } = render(<App />);
const content = container.querySelector('.content');
await waitFor(() =>
expect(content.querySelectorAll('.content--item').length).toBe(2);
);
});
In my case, I had an App component loading data asynchronously in a useEffect hook, and so I was getting this warning on every single test, using beforeEach to render App. This was the specific solution for my case:
beforeEach(async () => {
await waitFor(() => render(<App />));
});
To get rid of the act() warning you need to make sure your promises resolve synchronously. You can read here how to do this.
Summary:
The solution for this is a bit involved:
we polyfill Promise globally with an implementation that can resolve
promises 'immediately', such as promise
transpile your javascript with a custom babel setup like the one in this repo
use jest.runAllTimers(); this will also now flush the promise task queue
I had this problem and gave up using wait and async instead used jest faketimers and so on, so your code should be something like this.
global.fetch = require('jest-fetch-mock');
it('should clear select content item', /*async */ () => {
jest.useFakeTimers();
fetch.mockResponseOnce(JSON.stringify({ results: data }));
const { container } = render(<App />);
const content = container.querySelector('.content');
// await wait();
act(() => {
jest.runAllTimers();
});
expect(content.querySelectorAll('.content--item').length).toBe(2);
});
I'm a Jest/React beginner. In jest's it I need to wait until all promises have executed before actually checking.
My code is similar to this:
export class MyComponent extends Component {
constructor(props) {
super(props);
this.state = { /* Some state */ };
}
componentDidMount() {
fetch(some_url)
.then(response => response.json())
.then(json => this.setState(some_state);
}
render() {
// Do some rendering based on the state
}
}
When the component is mounted, render() runs twice: once after the constructor runs, and once after fetch() (in componentDidMount()) finishes and the chained promises finish executing).
My testing code is similar to this:
describe('MyComponent', () => {
fetchMock.get('*', some_response);
it('renders something', () => {
let wrapper = mount(<MyComponent />);
expect(wrapper.find(...)).to.have.something();
};
}
Whatever I return from it, it runs after the first time render() executes but before the second time. If, for example, I return fetchMock.flush().then(() => expect(...)), the returned promise executes before the second call to render() (I believe I can understand why).
How can I wait until the second time render() is called before running expect()?
I'd separate concerns, mainly because is easier to maintain and to test. Instead of declaring the fetch inside the component I'd do it somewhere else, for example in a redux action (if using redux).
Then test individually the fetch and the component, after all this is unit testing.
For async tests you can use the done parameter on the test. For example:
describe('Some tests', () => {
fetchMock.get('*', some_response);
it('should fetch data', (done) => { // <---- Param
fetchSomething({ some: 'Params' })
.then(result => {
expect(result).toBe({ whatever: 'here' });
done(); // <--- When you are done
});
});
})
The you can tests your component by just sending the loaded data in the props.
describe('MyComponent', () => {
it('renders something', () => {
const mockResponse = { some: 'data' };
let wrapper = mount(<MyComponent data={mockResponse}/>);
expect(wrapper.find(...)).to.have.something();
});
});
When it comes to testing you need to keep it simple, if your component is difficult to test, then there's something wrong with your design ;)
I've had some success with this, as it doesn't require wrapping or modifying components. It is however assuming there's only one fetch() in the component, but it can be easily modified if needed.
// testhelper.js
class testhelper
{
static async waitUntil(fnWait) {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
let count = 0;
function check() {
if (++count > 20) {
reject(new TypeError('Timeout waiting for fetch call to begin'));
return;
}
if (fnWait()) resolve();
setTimeout(check, 10);
}
check();
});
}
static async waitForFetch(fetchMock)
{
// Wait until at least one fetch() call has started.
await this.waitUntil(() => fetchMock.called());
// Wait until active fetch calls have completed.
await fetchMock.flush();
}
}
export default testhelper;
Then you can use it just before your assertions:
import testhelper from './testhelper.js';
it('example', async () => {
const wrapper = mount(<MyComponent/>);
// Wait until all fetch() calls have completed
await testhelper.waitForFetch(fetchMock);
expect(wrapper.html()).toMatchSnapshot();
});
I found a way to do what I originally asked. I have no opinion (yet) whether it is good strategy or not (in fact I had to refactor the component immediately afterwards, so this question is no longer relevant to what I'm doing). Anyway, here is the testing code (explanation below):
import React from 'react';
import { mount } from 'enzyme';
import { MyComponent } from 'wherever';
import fetchMock from 'fetch-mock';
let _resolveHoldingPromise = false;
class WrappedMyComponent extends MyComponent {
render() {
const result = super.render();
_resolveHoldingPromise && _resolveHoldingPromise();
_resolveHoldingPromise = false;
return result;
}
static waitUntilRender() {
// Create a promise that can be manually resolved
let _holdingPromise = new Promise(resolve =>
_resolveHoldingPromise = resolve);
// Return a promise that will resolve when the component renders
return Promise.all([_holdingPromise]);
}
}
describe('MyComponent', () => {
fetchMock.get('*', 'some_response');
const onError = () => { throw 'Internal test error'; };
it('renders MyComponent appropriately', done => {
let component = <WrappedMyComponent />;
let wrapper = mount(component);
WrappedMyComponent.waitUntilRender().then(
() => {
expect(wrapper.find('whatever')).toBe('whatever');
done();
},
onError);
});
});
The main idea is that, in the testing code, I subclass the component (if this was Python I'd probably monkey-patch it, which works more or less the same way in this case) so that its render() method sends a signal that it executed. The way to send the signal is by manually resolving a promise. When a promise is created, it creates two functions, resolve and reject, which when called terminate the promise. The way to have code outside the promise resolve the promise is by having the promise store a reference to its resolve function in an external variable.
Thanks to fetch-mock author Rhys Evans who kindly explained the manually-resolve-promise trick to me.