Angular Testing DOM after update by Factory - angularjs

Ok, I'm trying to test the outcome of a function that updates the DOM>
I have a directive that loads a template via url.
Then a controller calls a factory method to update the html table with data.
I have the tests showing that I can get the data that is all good.
but how can I test that the updates to the table have taken place?
I am using NodeJS with Karma and Jasmine.
I have followed tutorials on how to load in templates, and I have that working, I can load and access the templates in my test fine.
but when I run the method to update the table, the tests fail.
I'll give an scaled down example of what I'm trying to do. Note, this is just demo code, Not a working app.
Template.
<table><tr><td class="cell1"></td></tr></table>
Directive.
dataTable.directive('dataTable', function () {
return {
restrict: 'E',
templateUrl: 'path/to/template/dataTable.html'
};
});
Controller
dataTable.controller('dataTableController', ['$scope', 'dataTableFactory',
function ($scope, dataTableFactory){
$scope.updateTable = function(){
dataTableFactory.loadData();
// code to load data from dataTableFactory here! //
dataTableFactory.updateTable();
}
}])
Factory
dataTable.factory('dataTableFactory',['$document',function($document){
var _tableData;
return(
"tableData": _tableData,
loadData: function(){
// code to get data and populate _tableData.
}
updateTable: function(){
$document.find('.cell1').append(this.tableData.data);
}
)
}])
Unit Test
describe('dataTable Tests', function () {
var scope, element, $compile, mDataTableFactory, controller, tableData, doc, factory;
beforeEach(module('dataTable'));
beforeEach(module('app.templates')); // setup via ng-html2js
beforeEach(inject(function (_$rootScope_, _$compile_,_$controller_,_dataTableFactory_) {
scope = _$rootScope_.$new();
doc = _$compile_('<flood-guidance></flood-guidance>')(scope);
factory = _dataTableFactory_;
controller = _$controller_('dataTableController', {
$scope: scope,
$element: doc,
dataTableFactory: factory
});
scope.$digest();
}));
it("Template should contain the cell cell1", function(){
expect(doc.find('.cell1').contents().length).toBe(0);
expect(doc.find('.cell1').html()).toBeDefined();
});
// Passes fine, so I know the template loads ok.
it('Should show data in cell1',function(){
factory.tableData = {data: 'someData'};
scope.updateTable();
expect(doc.find('.cell1').contents().length).toBe(1);
expect(doc.find('.cell1').html()).toBe('SomeData');
});
});
});
Test Ouptut
Expected 0 to be 1. Expected '' to be 'someData'.
If I put the updateTable code in to the controller and call the update function there, the test passes, but I'd like to have this in a factory, how can I make this test pass (the app runs and works as expected, I just can't get a working test).
I understand this kind of testing is more focused on the UI and not exactly 'Unit Testing' but is it possible to do this?

So essentially updateTable cannot find the changes performed by factory.tableData. I guess the problem may be due to the way how your factory exposes the _tableData property.
Could you try to modify your factory like this:
dataTable.factory('dataTableFactory',['$document',function($document){
var _tableData;
return(
getTableData: function() { return _tableData; },
setTableData: function(newVal) { _tableData = newVal; },
loadData: function(){
// code to get data and populate _tableData.
}
updateTable: function(){
$document.find('.cell1').append(this.tableData.data);
}
)
}])
and then of course use the setter/getter accordingly. See if it works this way.
OK so I'm still not sure if I fully get your intention but here is a fiddle with my refactored example.
http://jsfiddle.net/ene4jebb/1/
First of all the factory shouldn't touch the DOM, that's the directives responsibility. Thus my rework passes the cellvalue (new scope property) to the directive, which renders it. Now when you call setTableData (which will change _tableData.data) and since in test environment call the $digest loop yourself, the directive will automatically redraw the new stuff.
Controller is kept thin as possible thus only providing a scope property to the factory.
As said not sure if you were after this, but hope it helps. If there are any questions just ask.

Related

Unit testing controllers in angularJS

I am having a hard time understanding unit tests in angularJs. I have just started with unit tests and the syntax seems weird to me. Below is the code for testing a controller :
describe('PhoneCat controllers', function() {
describe('PhoneListCtrl', function(){
beforeEach(module('phonecatApp'));
it('should create "phones" model with 3 phones',
inject(function($controller) {
var scope = {},
ctrl = $controller('PhoneListCtrl', {$scope:scope});
expect(scope.phones.length).toBe(3);
}));
});
});
What I can understand from this syntax is that before each it block phonecatApp is initialised and that $controller service is used to get an instance of PhoneListCtrl controller.
However I am not able to understand the scope thing here. Can someone elaborate on whats behind getting the scope of the controller on this line.
ctrl = $controller('PhoneListCtrl', {$scope:scope});
Normally, at runtime, angular creates a scope and injects it into the controller function to instantiate it.
In your unit test, you instead want to create the scope by yourself and pass it to the controller function, in order to be able to see if it indeed has 3 phones after construction (for example).
You might also want to inject mock services instead of the real ones into your controller. That's what the array of objects allows in
$controller('PhoneListCtrl', {$scope:scope});
It tells angular: create an instance of the controller named 'PhoneListCtrl', but instead of creating and injecting a scope, use the one I give you.
If your controller depended on a service 'phoneService', and you wanted to inject a mock phoneService, you could do
var mockPhoneService = ...;
$controller('PhoneListCtrl', {
$scope: scope,
phoneService: mockPhoneService
});
It's not necessary to inject the scope, you can directly use the instance of controller to call the controller's functions and objects.In your example you can use like below, this will give the same result set as yours
describe('PhoneCat controllers', function() {
describe('PhoneListCtrl', function(){
beforeEach(module('phonecatApp'));
it('should create "phones" model with 3 phones',
inject(function($controller) {
var ctrl = $controller('PhoneListCtrl');
expect(ctrl.phones.length).toBe(3);
}));
});
});
and for you information each time the controller is instantiated it is bound to a $scope variable which is derived from $rootScope (i.e: child of rootscope). So you need to pass the $scope to grab the instance of controller and I am doing same thing in above example.

Unit-testing two controllers with Jasmine in AngularJS

I'm writing my first Unit Tests with Jasmine in AngularJS. I already have some controllers, services etc. and am trying to verify them (I know: First testing, then writing the code, but as I said, I am new to unit tests and want to develop my app further with unit tests).
In my case, I have the view with two controllers like
<div ng-controller="firstCtrl">
<div ng-controller="secondCtrl"></div>
</div>
On every page-load I check the routeParameters and get data from a WebAPI (this is done by the first controller). My second controller is based on the data, which is set by the first Ctrl to the $scope.
My question is, how do I write my unit-test for the secondCtrl in an elegant way? I have also a third, fourth [...] Controller, which depend on the data which was set by the first Controller. I don't want to have duplicated code, if not necessary.
The second Controller:
angular.module("myApp.controllers.secondController", ["myApp.Model"])
.controller("secondController", function ($scope, Model) {
$scope.data.Model = Model;
$scope.doSomething = function () {
// tries to grab something from the scope, which would normally be set by the first Controller, e.g.
return $scope.firstCtrlData.x;
};
});
The spec-file:
describe('My App', function () {
beforeEach(angular.mock.module('myApp'));
describe("Controller", function () {
var controller, scope;
beforeEach(inject(function ($rootScope, $controller, _Model_) {
scope = $rootScope.$new();
controller = $controller("secondCtrl", {
scope: $scope,
Model: _Model_
});
}));
it('ensures that Model is in scope.data defined', function () {
expect($scope.data.Model).toBeDefined();
});
it('doSomething() does something', function () {
var x = $scope.doeSomething();
expect(x).toBeDefined();
// this will fail
});
});
});
It is not just one 'x' - Value, it will be a whole data structure given in json Code, so it probably isn't the best way just by putting all my data in a mocked scope object...
As I am also new to angular, it is probably not even the best approach for the whole app having two controllers, but for me it seemed to be the shortest and most effective variant.

How to mock ng-grid when unit testing a controller

I'm currently trying to write tests for existing blocks of code and running into an issue with a controller that has a nested ng-grid inside of it. The issue comes from the controller trying to interact with the grid on initialization.
Testing Software
node#0.10.14
karma#0.10.2
karma-jasmine#0.1.5
karma-chrome-launcher#0.1.2
My Test:
define(["angularjs", "angular-mocks", "jquery",
"js/3.0/report.app",
"js/3.0/report.controller",
"js/3.0/report.columns"
],
function(angular, ngMocks, jquery, oARModule, oARCtrl, ARColumns) {
"use strict";
describe("Report Center Unit Tests", function() {
var oModule;
beforeEach(function() {
oModule = angular.module("advertiser_report");
module("advertiser_report");
});
it("Advertiser Report Module should be registered", function() {
expect(oModule).not.toBeNull();
});
describe("Advertiser Report Controller", function() {
var oCtrl, scope;
beforeEach(inject(function($rootScope, $controller, $compile) {
var el = document.createElement('div');
el.setAttribute('ng-grid','gridOptions');
el.className = 'gridStyle';
scope = $rootScope.$new();
$compile(el)(scope);
oCtrl = $controller('ARController', {
$scope: scope
});
}));
it("Advertiser Report controller should be registered", function() {
expect(oCtrl).not.toBeNull();
});
});
});
});
You'll see where I've tried to create and compile an element with the ng-grid attribute. Without doing this I get the following error:
TypeError: Cannot read property 'columns' of undefined
Which is a result of the controller attempting to call things like
$scope.gridOptions.$gridScope.columns.each
So I added the creation of a div with ng-grid attribute, and got a new error:
TypeError: Cannot set property 'gridDim' of undefined
So, I tried to add scope.gridOptions before the $controller call, but this brought me back to the original error. I've been searching for way to make this work without rewriting the controller and/or templates, since they are currently working correctly in production.
Your (major!) problem here is that the controller is making assumptions about a View. It should not know about and thus not interact with ng-grid. Controllers should be View-independent! That quality (and Dependency Injection) is what makes controllers highly testable. The controller should only change the ViewModel (i.e. its $scope), and in testing you validate that the ViewModel is correct.
Doing otherwise goes against the MVVM paradigm and best practices.
If you feel like you must access the View (i.e. directives, DOM elements, etc...) from the controller, you are likely doing something wrong.
The problem in the second Failing test is gridOptions and myData is not defined prior to the compilation. Notice the sequence of the 2 statements.
Passing
oCtrl = $controller('MainCtrl', { $scope: $scope });
$compile(elm)($scope);
Failing
$compile(elm)($scope);
oCtrl = $controller('MainCtrl', { $scope: $scope });
In both cases you are trying to use the same html
elm = angular.element('<div ng-grid="gridOptions" style="width: 1000px; height: 1000px"></div>');
I suggest you get rid of
oCtrl = $controller('MainCtrl', { $scope: $scope });
maneuvers and use the following HTML element instead
elm = angular.element('<div ng-controller="MainCtrl"
ng-grid="gridOptions" style="width: 1000px; height: 1000px"></div>');
Notice ng-controller="MainCtrl".
So the end story is that you need gridOptions defined somewhere so
that it ngGrid can access it. And make sure gridOptions dependent
code in controller is deferred in a $timeout.
Also take a look at the slight changes in app.js
$timeout(function(){
//your gridOptions dependent code
$scope.gridOptions.$gridScope.columns.each(function(){
return;
});
});
Here is the working plnkr.

Angularjs UI won't update with service binding that's updated by promise?

I've spent the night on trying to figure this out and have finally decided to give up and ask for help.
I'm building a web-app with AngularJS that is designed to work with flakey connections (mobiles).
I'm trying to implement the functionality for a user to add a object (whether that's an appointment, book, etc is irrelevant) to the server.
Service that handles syncing objects with the server:
angular.module('App')
.service('syncUp', function syncUp($http, $q, app) {
this.addObject = function addObject(object) {
var deferred = $q.defer();
app.inSync = false;
var httpConfig = {
method: 'POST',
url: 'http://myurl.dev/app_dev.php/api/add-object',
data: object
}
function persist() { setTimeout(function() {
$http(httpConfig).
success(function(data, status) {
app.inSync = true;
deferred.resolve(data.id);
}).
error(function(data, status) {
app.inSync = false;
persist();
});
}, 3000);
};
persist();
return deferred.promise;
}
});
'app' service that the status bar is bound to:
'use strict';
angular.module('App')
.service('app', function app($http, $q) {
this.inSync = true;
});
Template binding to the 'app' service inSync property:
<div class="status" ng-class="{'insync':inSync}"></div>
Specific object service that sends data from the controller to the syncUp service:
this.addBook = function(book)
{
var tempId = syncUp.generateUid();
this.books[tempId] = book;
this.books[tempId].tempId = tempId;
syncUp.addObject({
'type': 'book',
'data': this.books[tempId]
}).then(function(newId) {
booksRef[newId] = book;
delete booksRef[tempId];
}, function() {});
}
Everything is working as it should (data is being persisted to the server and the ID is being returned and replacing the tempId just fine. The problem is, when the inSync key on the 'app' service is updated, the class isn't added/removed from the div as it should be with ng-class in the template. If I load another route, that will force iterate through whatever internal cycle angular is doing and update the class on the template.
I've tried all manner of $apply() solutions, moving where the app.inSync key is set back to true, looping a function watching it. It's being set in all the right places (from debugging I know it's set back to true correctly), I just can't figure out how to make the change appear on the UI.
I tried:
$rootScope.$apply(function() {
app.inSync = true;
});
Which gave me an error (already running a digest, or something).
So I tried the 'safeApply' version that has been circulated on many answers/blogs, which didn't throw the error, but didn't work either.
As far as I can figure out, the UI should be updated when promises are resolved (both the http and my syncUp.addObject promise are resolved, so I'm not sure why it's not working.
Any ideas? I need to keep the current implementation of promises to be able to set the returned ID from the server on the added object, to avoid a circular-dependency issue between the syncUp and object angular services.
Edit:
And the status bar directive:
angular.module('App')
.directive('navigation', function (app) {
return {
templateUrl: '/app/views/navigation.html',
restrict: 'E',
link: function (scope, element, attrs) {
scope.inSync = app.inSync;
}
}
});
References you make in templates refer to objects on the current $scope. Services do usually not create or add anything to the $scope, so putting properties on a service, will not make them available to the template. To get stuff on the $scope, you need to use a controller. You can use the ng-controller directive to reference a controller, you'll find examples of this in the first AngularJS tutorials.
What you should do is create a controller and have it listen for events from the service. Here's an example of how to do that.
That's the nice way; You might also be able to get away with it by putting the inSync = true on the $rootScope as such;
service('syncUp', function syncUp($http, $q, app, $rootScope) {
// (...)
$rootScope.inSync = true;
It looks like you're hoping to see bindings operating between a service ('app') and a template. It's hard to tell if we're not seeing the entire picture. Going on that assumption, you need to refactor so that you are setting up bindings on a controller.
I would expect the controller setup to look something like this:
angular.module('App')
.controller('app', function app($http, $q, $scope) {
$scope.inSync = true;
});
Now you will have two-way binding hooked-up on the 'inSync' property.
Otherwise, your template looks fine.
If I'm off base, please update your question with more context, or better yet make a fiddle to boil down the problem.

Mocking a resolve in $dialog

I've been creating an angularjs framework for an application I'm planning to write. At the moment I'm working on a sample application, I'm documenting as I go in a tutorial so that I have everything I did in one place.
I'm currently trying to create unit tests using karma and jasmine for the modal dialog I'm presenting. This modal dialog is created using the $dialog service from angular-bootstrap. This dialog I think is using a promise to pass data into the dialog controller, and I'd like to resolve that promise so I can check in my unit test that the data that has been passed in is as expected. I'm having a little difficulty in working out how to resolve that, I see examples using either scope.$apply or scope.$digest, neither appear to work and to be frank I don't quite understand what it's doing. I'm concerned that in the unit test I have assigned this promise to a variable, and perhaps that it won't resolve once assigned to a variable. I see mention that this "resolve" parameter is similar to the resolve on a route, but so far that hasn't helped me, and I'm not 100% sure that it's really a promise at all.
I'm looking both for something that makes it work, but also an explanation of why that works.
The controller I'm seeking to test looks like this:
.controller( 'ClubCtrl', function ClubController( $scope, ClubRes, $dialog ) {
$scope.clubs = ClubRes.query();
/* this is called from a button, which passes one of the clubs from $scope.clubs */
$scope.editClub = function(club) {
$scope.myDialog = $dialog.dialog({dialogFade: false, resolve: {club: function(){return angular.copy(club);}}});
$scope.myDialog.open('club/club_edit.tpl.html', 'ClubEditCtrl').then(function(result){
if (result === 'cancel'){}
else {
$scope.clubs = ClubRes.query();
}
});
};
})
The unit test I'm trying to get working at this point is aiming to mock out the whole dialog, and to check that the dialog has been called with the correct input parameters:
describe( 'Base club controller', function() {
var scope, httpBackend;
//mock Application to allow us to inject our own dependencies
beforeEach(angular.mock.module('league'));
//mock the controller for the same reason and include $rootScope and $controller
beforeEach(angular.mock.inject(function($rootScope, $controller, _$httpBackend_ ){
//create an empty scope
scope = $rootScope.$new();
// setup a mock for the resource - instead of calling the server always return a pre-canned response
httpBackend = _$httpBackend_;
httpBackend.when('GET', '../clubs.json').respond([
{"contact_officer":"Officer 1","created_at":"2012-02-02T00:00:00Z","date_created":"2012-01-01T00:00:00Z","id":1,"name":"Club 1","updated_at":"2012-03-03T00:00:00Z"},
{"contact_officer":"Officer 2","created_at":"2012-02-02T00:00:00Z","date_created":"2012-01-01T00:00:00Z","id":2,"name":"Club 2","updated_at":"2012-03-03T00:00:00Z"}]);
// setup a mock for the dialog - when called it returns the value that was input when it was instantiated
scope.fakeDialog = {
parameters: null,
response: null,
template: null,
controller: null,
dialog: function(parameters) {
this.parameters = parameters;
return this;
},
open: function(template, controller) {
this.template = template;
this.controller = controller;
return this;
},
then: function(callBack){
callBack(this.response);
}
};
//declare the controller and inject our empty scope
$controller('ClubCtrl', {$scope: scope, $dialog: scope.fakeDialog});
}));
it('Calls edit on first row', function() {
// check nothing set beforehand
expect(scope.fakeDialog.parameters).toBe(null);
expect(scope.fakeDialog.template).toBe(null);
expect(scope.fakeDialog.controller).toBe(null);
// call edit
scope.editClub(scope.clubs[0]);
scope.$digest();
httpBackend.flush();
// expect stuff to have happened
expect(scope.fakeDialog.parameters.club.name).toBe('Club 1');
expect(scope.fakeDialog.template).toBe('club/club_edit.tpl.html');
expect(scope.fakeDialog.controller).toBe('ClubEditCtrl');
});
});
What I'm actually getting in console.log(scope.fakeDialog.parameters) is:
Object{dialogFade: false, resolve: Object{club: function (){ ... }}}
So my club is buried inside "resolve: Object......", which I think is a promise. I think what I need is a way to trigger that to resolve - but I'm not sure what that is.
OK, no responses as yet, and I've had the time tonight to piece through it slowly.
The short answer is that the resolve parameter to a dialog isn't necessarily a promise (although I think it can be sometimes if you wish it to be). Since I haven't passed in a promise I can directly evaluate these functions to work out their results, although I thought I'd tried that before and it didn't work.
I've also spent some time looking at spyOn, and I can use that for some of the things I had my mock doing, so I'm tidying that up at the same time.
My working code is as follows. Firstly, the controller that's being tested:
.controller( 'ClubCtrl', function ClubController( $scope, ClubRes, $dialog ) {
$scope.clubs = ClubRes.query();
/* this is called from a button, which passes one of the clubs from $scope.clubs */
$scope.editClub = function(club) {
$scope.myDialog = $dialog.dialog({dialogFade: false, resolve: {club: function(){return angular.copy(club);}}});
$scope.myDialog.open('club/club_edit.tpl.html', 'ClubEditCtrl').then(function(result){
if (result === 'cancel'){}
else {
$scope.clubs = ClubRes.query();
}
});
};
})
Then, the test code that tests that:
describe( 'Base club controller', function() {
var scope, httpBackend;
//mock Application to allow us to inject our own dependencies
beforeEach(angular.mock.module('league'));
//mock the controller for the same reason and include $rootScope and $controller
beforeEach(angular.mock.inject(function($rootScope, $controller, _$httpBackend_ ){
//create an empty scope
scope = $rootScope.$new();
// setup a mock for the resource - instead of calling the server always return a pre-canned response
httpBackend = _$httpBackend_;
httpBackend.when('GET', '../clubs.json').respond([
{"contact_officer":"Officer 1","created_at":"2012-02-02T00:00:00Z","date_created":"2012-01-01T00:00:00Z","id":1,"name":"Club 1","updated_at":"2012-03-03T00:00:00Z"},
{"contact_officer":"Officer 2","created_at":"2012-02-02T00:00:00Z","date_created":"2012-01-01T00:00:00Z","id":2,"name":"Club 2","updated_at":"2012-03-03T00:00:00Z"}]);
// setup a mock for the dialog - when called it returns the value that was input when it was instantiated
scope.fakeDialog = {
response: null,
club: null,
dialog: function(parameters) {
this.club = parameters.resolve.club();
return this;
},
open: function(template, controller) {
return this;
},
then: function(callBack){
callBack(this.response);
}
};
//declare the controller and inject our empty scope
$controller('ClubCtrl', {$scope: scope, $dialog: scope.fakeDialog});
}));
it('Calls edit on first row', function() {
// we expect the fakeDialog dialog and open methods to be called, so we spy on them to get the parameters
spyOn(scope.fakeDialog, "dialog").andCallThrough();
spyOn(scope.fakeDialog, "open").andCallThrough();
// call edit
scope.editClub(scope.clubs[0]);
scope.$digest();
httpBackend.flush();
// check parameters passed in
expect(scope.fakeDialog.dialog).toHaveBeenCalledWith({dialogFade: false, resolve: {club: jasmine.any(Function)}});
expect(scope.fakeDialog.club.contact_officer).toEqual('Contact Officer 1');
expect(scope.fakeDialog.open).toHaveBeenCalledWith('club/club_edit.tpl.html', 'ClubEditCtrl');
});
});
This seems to call the function and give the response into the club property on the fakeDialog object.

Resources