I have the following code:
class Sleeper {
public void sleep(long duration) {
try {
Thread.sleep(duration);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
}
}
How do I test, with JMockit, that Thread.currentThread().interrupt() is called if Thread.sleep() throws an InterruptedException?
Interesting question. A bit tricky to test because mocking certain methods of java.lang.Thread can interfere with the JRE or with JMockit itself, and because JMockit is (currently) unable to dynamically mock native methods such as sleep. That said, it can still be done:
public void testResetInterruptStatusWhenInterrupted() throws Exception
{
new Expectations() {
#Mocked({"sleep", "interrupt"}) final Thread unused = null;
{
Thread.sleep(anyLong); result = new InterruptedException();
onInstance(Thread.currentThread()).interrupt();
}
};
new Sleeper.sleep();
}
As of JMockit 1.43, this is impossible
JMockit 1.43 added this commit, which checks if you are trying to mock a thread and blacklists it. Now you will get this exception:
java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: java.lang.Thread is not mockable
Related
I've written a small flink application. I has some input, and enriches it with data from an external source. It's an RichAsyncFunction and within the open method I construct a http client to be used for the enrichment.
Now I want to write an integration test for my job. But since the http client is created within the open method I have no means to provide it, and mock it in my integration test. I've tried to refactor it providing it within the constructor, but I'm always getting serialisation errors.
This is the example I'm working from:
https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-release-1.10/dev/stream/operators/asyncio.html
Thanks in advance :)
This question was posted over a year ago but I'll post the answer in-case anyone stumbles upon this in the future.
The serialization exception you are seeing is likely this
Exception encountered when invoking run on a nested suite. *** ABORTED *** (610 milliseconds)
java.lang.NullPointerException:
at java.util.Objects.requireNonNull(Objects.java:203)
at org.apache.flink.streaming.runtime.streamrecord.StreamElementSerializer.<init>(StreamElementSerializer.java:64)
at org.apache.flink.streaming.api.operators.async.AsyncWaitOperator.setup(AsyncWaitOperator.java:136)
at org.apache.flink.streaming.api.operators.SimpleOperatorFactory.createStreamOperator(SimpleOperatorFactory.java:77)
at org.apache.flink.streaming.api.operators.StreamOperatorFactoryUtil.createOperator(StreamOperatorFactoryUtil.java:70)
at org.apache.flink.streaming.util.AbstractStreamOperatorTestHarness.setup(AbstractStreamOperatorTestHarness.java:366)
at org.apache.flink.streaming.util.OneInputStreamOperatorTestHarness.setup(OneInputStreamOperatorTestHarness.java:165)
...
The reason is that your test operator needs to know how to deserialize the DataStream input type. The only way to provide this is by supplying it directly while initializing the testHarness and then passing it to the setup() method call.
So to test the example from the Flink docs you linked you can do something like this (my implementation is in Scala but you can adapt it to Java as well)
import org.apache.flink.api.common.ExecutionConfig
import org.apache.flink.api.java.typeutils.TypeExtractor
import org.apache.flink.configuration.Configuration
import org.apache.flink.streaming.api.datastream.AsyncDataStream.OutputMode
import org.apache.flink.streaming.api.operators.async.AsyncWaitOperator
import org.apache.flink.streaming.runtime.tasks.{StreamTaskActionExecutor, TestProcessingTimeService}
import org.apache.flink.streaming.runtime.tasks.mailbox.{MailboxExecutorImpl, TaskMailboxImpl}
import org.apache.flink.streaming.util.OneInputStreamOperatorTestHarness
import org.scalatest.{BeforeAndAfter, FunSuite, Matchers}
/**
This test case is written using Flink 1.11+.
Older versions likely have a simpler constructor definition for [[AsyncWaitOperator]] so you might have to remove the last two arguments (processingTimeService and mailboxExecutor)
*/
class AsyncDatabaseRequestSuite extends FunSuite with BeforeAndAfter with Matchers {
var testHarness: OneInputStreamOperatorTestHarness[String, (String, String)] = _
val TIMEOUT = 1000
val CAPACITY = 1000
val MAILBOX_PRIORITY = 0
def createTestHarness: Unit = {
val operator = new AsyncWaitOperator[String, (String, String)](
new AsyncDatabaseRequest {
override def open(configuration: Configuration): Unit = {
client = new MockDatabaseClient(host, post, credentials); // put your mock DatabaseClient object here
}
},
TIMEOUT,
CAPACITY,
OutputMode.UNORDERED,
new TestProcessingTimeService,
new MailboxExecutorImpl(
new TaskMailboxImpl,
MAILBOX_PRIORITY,
StreamTaskActionExecutor.IMMEDIATE
)
)
// supply the TypeSerializer for the "input" type of the operator
testHarness = new OneInputStreamOperatorTestHarness[String, (String, String)](
operator,
TypeExtractor.getForClass(classOf[String]).createSerializer(new ExecutionConfig)
)
// supply the TypeSerializer for the "output" type of the operator to the setup() call
testHarness.setup(
TypeExtractor.getForClass(classOf[(String, String)]).createSerializer(new ExecutionConfig)
)
testHarness.open()
}
before {
createTestHarness
}
after {
testHarness.close()
}
test("Your test case goes here") {
// fill in your test case here
}
}
Here is the solution in Java
class TestingClass {
#InjectMocks
ClassUnderTest cut;
private static OneInputStreamOperatorTestHarness<IN, OUT> testHarness; // replace IN, OUT with your asyncFunction's
private static long TIMEOUT = 1000;
private static int CAPACITY = 1000;
private static int MAILBOX_PRIORITY = 0;
private long UNUSED_TIME = 0L;
Driver driverRef;
public void createTestHarness() throws Exception {
cut = new ClassUnderTest() {
#Override
public void open(Configuration parameters) throws Exception {
driver = mock(Driver.class); // mock your driver (external data source here).
driverRef = driver; // create external ref to driver to refer to in test
}
};
MailboxExecutorImpl mailboxExecutorImpl = new MailboxExecutorImpl(
new TaskMailboxImpl(), MAILBOX_PRIORITY, StreamTaskActionExecutor.IMMEDIATE
);
AsyncWaitOperator operator = new AsyncWaitOperator<>(
gatewayEnrichment,
TIMEOUT,
CAPACITY,
ORDERED,
new TestProcessingTimeService(),
mailboxExecutorImpl
);
testHarness = new OneInputStreamOperatorTestHarness<IN, OUT>(
operator,
TypeExtractor.getForClass(IN.class).createSerializer(new ExecutionConfig())
);
testHarness.setup(TypeExtractor.getForClass(OUT.class).createSerializer(new ExecutionConfig()));
testHarness.open();
}
#BeforeEach()
void setUp() throws Exception {
createTestHarness();
MockitoAnnotations.openMocks(this);
}
#AfterEach
void tearDown() throws Exception {
testHarness.close();
}
#Test
public void test_yourTestCase() throws Exception {
}
}
I am writing a component (an endpoint) that will receive the Camel Exchange like this:
from("file|activemq|whatever").to(myEndpoint);
Upon receiving, I want it to pass the exchange to a set of subroutines, which may work asynchronously, and which will eventually decide that they have finished, possibly composed a response in an Out message of the Exchange. All may happen outside the Camel Context, I am working only with the Exchange object.
Then my subroutines should invoke something that will tell Camel that it should propagate the response back, do other stuff as per the source and middle components requirements (for example, if it is a file:/, rename a file) and consider the routing ow this Exchange completed.
I was thinking that I would invoke the Exchange's Uint of Work done method.
Unfortunately I am noticing that Camel still tries to end the exchange by itself too, in wrong time and state. For example, for file source, it fails to rename the file which already has been removed.
Here is some of my code:
Here I define an endpoint:
_proceeder = new DefaultEndpoint() {
private final String _defaultUri = "rex:producer-" + UUID.randomUUID().toString();
#Override
protected String createEndpointUri() {
return _defaultUri;
}
#Override
public Producer createProducer() throws Exception {
return new DefaultAsyncProducer(this) {
#Override
public boolean process(final Exchange exchange1, final AsyncCallback callback) {
final ExchangeWrapper exchange = new ExchangeWrapper(_uri, exchange1, MessageSystem.this);
_LOG.debug("Got input for {}. Processing...", _uri);
exchange._taken(); // 1. all subsequent will increase by 1
/// some majick....
final boolean done = exchange._released(); // if all were released immediately, itll be 0 and sent back now. otherwise the last to release will send it back.
if (done) {
_LOG.debug("Processed input for {} synchronously", _uri);
//callback.done(true);
} else {
_LOG.debug("Processed input for {} asynchronously, awaiting response", _uri);
//exchange1.addOnCompletion(new Synchronization() {
// #Override
// public void onComplete(Exchange exchange) {
// onFailure(exchange);
// }
//
// #Override
// public void onFailure(Exchange exchange) {
// callback.done(false);
// }
//});
}
return done;
}
};
}
#Override
public Consumer createConsumer(Processor processor) throws Exception {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException("Not supported yet."); //To change body of generated methods, choose Tools | Templates.
}
#Override
public boolean isSingleton() {
return true;
}
};
_proceeder.setCamelContext(context);
Needless to say that I don't understand why I am given an AsyncCallback in my DefaultAsyncProducer.process() method; regardless of me calling its done() method, the system doesn't see this and still ends the exchange by itself once more. But it is not the question.
here is the ExchangeWrapper _released and _done methods:
private void _done() throws Exception {
UnitOfWork uow = _exchange.getUnitOfWork();
uow.done(_exchange);
//try{
// uow.stop();
//}catch(Exception e){
//
//}
_exchange.setUnitOfWork(null);
}
private boolean _released() {
final boolean ret;
final int cnt;
final int trancnt;
synchronized (_exchange) {
cnt = _exchange.getProperty("rex.takenCount", Integer.class) - 1;
_exchange.setProperty("rex.takenCount", cnt);
trancnt = _exchange.getProperty("rex.takenAsTransient", Integer.class);
}
if (_LOG.isDebugEnabled()) {
_LOG.debug("Input for {} released. {} times left, {} transient", new Object[]{_exchange.getProperty("rex.uri", String.class), cnt, trancnt});
}
if (cnt <= 0 || cnt <= trancnt) {
if (_LOG.isDebugEnabled()) {
_LOG.debug("Message for {} is processed by all non-transient receivers. Setting done...", new Object[]{_exchange.getProperty("rex.uri", String.class)});
}
_done();
ret = true;
if (_LOG.isDebugEnabled()) {
_LOG.debug("Message for {} is set done", new Object[]{_exchange.getProperty("rex.uri", String.class)});
}
} else {
ret = false;
}
return ret;
}
So basically I wrap the Exchange to keep state and decide when the processing should be stopped.
While digging into the Camel internals I've seen some similar counters that keep track of how many times the Exchange has been taken for processing, but I'd like to be in control, thus my own wrapper.
So what should I call instead of
_exchange.getUnitOfWork().done(_exchange);
to tell the Camel Internal Processor and others that there is no need to mark the exchange done because I am doing it?
My latest finding is to call uow.stop(); so that it clears all the 'after' processors etc, but I suddenly understood that I may try and hack Camel myself for a long time, but it's better to ask people who know exactly what to do without trying and guessing.
These are the examples of my Routes:
RouteBuilder rb = new RouteBuilder(_context) {
#Override
public void configure() throws Exception {
if (_tokenizer != null) {
from(_uri).split().method(_tokenizer, "tokenizeReader").streaming().to(_proceeder);
} else {
from(_uri).to(_proceeder);
}
}
};
If I could avoid building routes, instantiating endpoints and producers, and employ standalone processors, I'd happily do, but I don't want to ditch what the marvelous Camel project has to offer in terms of splitting, streaming, marshalling etc etc; and all of this seems to be built around routes.
May be I am not clear with what are you trying to achieve with this, but let me try.
Upon receiving, I want it to pass the exchange to a set of
subroutines, which may work asynchronously, and which will eventually
decide that they have finished
So for this you can write a processor and configure it at the end of your route .Within your processor you can use a thread pool, submit to it the subroutine tasks, wait for their completion and decide if you want to change the message body ( correct way explained here with a good diagram explaining flow of an exchange through a route) and camel will automatically take care of returning the response to the caller of the route based on exchange pattern. For example in your case if the route begins from file/activemq route then it is event based/one way exchange and no response will be sent to the caller as there is no caller client as such. It will be just an event which will initiate the exchange.
Update :
For using the async processing feature in camel for enhanced scalability take a look at this example with code from the highly recommended Camel in Action book
I am trying to implement a javax.mail.event.MessageCountListener in Tomcat. When I start the application the contextInitialized method seems to run and the mailbox is read. However, I see the log message "Idling" only once. I would expect that it would idle constantly and invoke the AnalyzerService() when an email is received or deleted.
Update: Found that the idle() method is not returning. It runs untill com.sun.mail.iap.ResponseInputStream.readResponse(ByteArray ba) method where it runs into a while loop where it never gets out.
Am I misusing the idle() method for something I should not do? Is this a bug in com.sun.mail.iap package?
The AnalyzerContextListener.java:
import com.sun.mail.imap.IMAPStore;
import java.util.Properties;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
import javax.mail.Folder;
import javax.mail.MessagingException;
import javax.mail.Session;
import javax.mail.event.MessageCountListener;
import javax.servlet.ServletContext;
import javax.servlet.ServletContextEvent;
import javax.servlet.ServletContextListener;
public class AnalyzerContextListener implements ServletContextListener {
private ExecutorService executorService;
private final String username = "myemail#gmail.com";
private final String password = "mypassword";
private final String mailhost = "imap.gmail.com";
private final String foldername = "INBOX";
#Override
public void contextInitialized(ServletContextEvent sce) {
final ServletContext servletContext = sce.getServletContext();
executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(3);
Session session = Session.getInstance(new Properties());
try {
final IMAPStore store = (IMAPStore) session.getStore("imaps");
store.connect(mailhost, username, password);
final Folder folder = store.getFolder(foldername);
if (folder == null) {
servletContext.log("Folder in mailbox bestaat niet.");
return;
}
folder.open(Folder.READ_ONLY);
MessageCountListener countListener = new AnalyzerService();
folder.addMessageCountListener(countListener);
Runnable runnable = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
try {
servletContext.log("Aantal berichten in folder: " + folder.getMessageCount());
servletContext.log("Idling");
store.idle();
} catch (MessagingException ex) {
servletContext.log(ex.getMessage());
return;
}
}
}
};
executorService.execute(runnable);
servletContext.log("Executorservice gestart");
} catch (MessagingException ex) {
servletContext.log(ex.getMessage());
}
}
#Override
public void contextDestroyed(ServletContextEvent sce) {
sce.getServletContext().log("Context wordt vernietigd");
executorService.shutdown();
sce.getServletContext().log("Executorservice gestopt");
}
}
The AnalyzerService.java:
import javax.mail.Message;
import javax.mail.MessagingException;
import javax.mail.event.MessageCountEvent;
import javax.mail.event.MessageCountListener;
class AnalyzerService implements MessageCountListener {
public AnalyzerService() {
}
#Override
public void messagesAdded(MessageCountEvent event) {
Message[] addedMessages = event.getMessages();
for (Message message : addedMessages) {
try {
System.out.println(message.getSubject());
} catch (MessagingException ex) {
System.out.println(ex.getMessage());
}
}
}
#Override
public void messagesRemoved(MessageCountEvent event) {
Message[] removedMessages = event.getMessages();
for (Message message : removedMessages) {
try {
System.out.println(message.getSubject());
} catch (MessagingException ex) {
System.out.println(ex.getMessage());
}
}
}
}
while (true) {
try {
servletContext.log("Aantal berichten in folder: " + folder.getMessageCount());
servletContext.log("Idling");
store.idle();
} catch (MessagingException ex) {
servletContext.log(ex.getMessage());
return;
}
}
has exactly 2 3 possibilities to end earlier than never run only once.
The loop actually ends either:
Through the explicit return in case of a MessagingException. Look at your logs, there either a message or something strange like "null". Consider using a proper stacktrace log (.log(String message, Throwable throwable)) since Exception#getMessage() is often empty or not telling you much.
Through any unchecked exception. You should notice that in some log though since uncaught exceptions via executorService.execute should invoke the nearest uncaught exeption handler which is generally bad. See Choose between ExecutorService's submit and ExecutorService's execute
The loop stops executing after it logs "Idling"
store.idle() never returns. (every other line of code could do that theoretically as well, e.g. the folder.getMessageCount() call in a 2nd iteration but that's very unlikely)
Regarding No 3 - the documentation
Use the IMAP IDLE command (see RFC 2177), if supported by the server, to enter idle mode so that the server can send unsolicited notifications without the need for the client to constantly poll the server. Use a ConnectionListener to be notified of events. When another thread (e.g., the listener thread) needs to issue an IMAP comand for this Store, the idle mode will be terminated and this method will return. Typically the caller will invoke this method in a loop.
If the mail.imap.enableimapevents property is set, notifications received while the IDLE command is active will be delivered to ConnectionListeners as events with a type of IMAPStore.RESPONSE. The event's message will be the raw IMAP response string. Note that most IMAP servers will not deliver any events when using the IDLE command on a connection with no mailbox selected (i.e., this method). In most cases you'll want to use the idle method on IMAPFolder.
That sounds like this method is not designed to return any time soon. In your case never since you don't issue any commands towards the server after you enter idle. Besides that
folder.idle() could be what you should actually do
I guess the documentation is wrong, however ConnectionListener and MessageCountListener are two different things.
I have a util function as below:
public static boolean isWebElementEnabled(WebElement element) {
try {
return element.isEnabled();
} catch (Exception exx) {
return false;
}
}
public static boolean chkForThisElement(WebElement myElement) {
try {
return myElement.isDisplayed();
} catch (Exception e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
return false;
}
}
I call it like this in the base class:
public static boolean isusernameBoxEnabled = isWebElementEnabled(unameBox);
public static boolean ispWordBoxEnabled = isWebElementEnabled(pwordBox);
public static boolean issubmitBtnEnabled = isWebElementEnabled(submitBtn);
public static boolean isctrsDrpdwnEnabled = isWebElementEnabled(multyCts);
When I test it in the Test class, it always returns false. I tried diff ways of testing for existence, but it only returns false.
#Test(priority=1)
public void verifyLoginpagecontrols() {
Assert.assertTrue(isusernameBoxEnabled);
Assert.assertTrue(ispWordBoxEnabled);
Assert.assertTrue(issubmitBtnEnabled);
Assert.assertTrue(isctrsDrpdwnEnabled);
}
i found a solution that works cool with Ff and Chromre driver nevertheless fails in Htmlunit driver.
Solution for the above problem -
// Initialize the home page elements and then check for assertions;
homePagePO searchPage = PageFactory.initElements(driver,
homePagePO.class);
Assert.assertTrue(chkForThisElement(searchPage.AccManagerHref));
Assert.assertTrue(chkForThisElement(searchPage.disHref));
Sorry to say but I find several things wrong with your code :-
You have not initialized the page factory. That is the reason why you are getting the null error.
In your comment, you have said that you are finding elements by using #findBy. But why have you decalared the WebElement as static?.
Why have you declared isusernameBoxEnabled and related boolean variables as global variables. You could use the isWebElementEnabled() function in your assert directly.
Basically your isWebElementEnabled() is not useful at all if you are using page factory.
Because the moment you use unameBox, selenium looks for the element in the webpage and if not found returns a noSuchElement Exception. So unameBox wont reach isWebElementEnabled() if it is not found in the webpage.
You said there is a base class and Test class. But I don't understand how your code works if there are different classes because you have not made a reference to static variable as Assert.assertTrue(baseClass.isusernameBoxEnabled). So I am assuming that you have only one class and different methods.
Try the following code :-
public class Base {
#FindBy()
WebElement unameBox;
#FindBy()
WebElement pwordBox;
#FindBy()
WebElement submitBtn;
#FindBy()
WebElement multyCts;
}
public class Test {
#Test(priority=1)
public void verifyLoginpagecontrols() {
//initialize page factory
Base base = PageFactory.initElements(driver, Base.class);
Assert.assertTrue(base.unameBox.isEnabled());
Assert.assertTrue(base.pwordBox.isEnabled());
Assert.assertTrue(base.submitBtn.isEnabled());
Assert.assertTrue(base.multyCts.isEnabled());
}
}
Hope this helps you.
In a WPF application, I have a 3rd party library that is publishing messages.
The messages are like :
public class DialectMessage
{
public string PathAndQuery { get; private set; }
public byte[] Body { get; private set; }
public DialectMessage(string pathAndQuery, byte[] body)
{
this.PathAndQuery = pathAndQuery;
this.Body = body;
}
}
And I setup the external message source from my app.cs file :
public partial class App : Application
{
static App()
{
MyComponent.MessageReceived += MessageReceived;
MyComponent.Start();
}
private static void MessageReceived(Message message)
{
//handle message
}
}
These messages can be publishing from multiple thread at a time, making possible to call the event handler multiple times at once.
I have a service object that have to parse the incoming messages. This service implements the following interface :
internal interface IDialectService
{
void Parse(Message message);
}
And I have a default static instance in my app.cs file :
private readonly static IDialectService g_DialectService = new DialectService();
In order to simplify the code of the parser, I would like to ensure only one message at a time is parsed.
I also want to avoid locking in my event handler, as I don't want to block the 3rd party object.
Because of this requirements, I cannot directly call g_DialectService.Parse from my message event handler
What is the correct way to ensure this single threaded execution?
My first though is to wrap my parsing operations in a Produce/Consumer pattern. In order to reach this goal, I've try the following :
Declare a BlockingCollection in my app.cs :
private readonly static BlockingCollection<Message> g_ParseOperations = new BlockingCollection<Message>();
Change the body of my event handler to add an operation :
private static void MessageReceived(Message message)
{
g_ParseOperations.Add(message);
}
Create a new thread that pump the collection from my app constructor :
static App()
{
MyComponent.MessageReceived += MessageReceived;
MyComponent.Start();
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
Message message;
while (g_ParseOperations.TryTake(out message))
{
g_DialectService.Parse(message);
}
});
}
However, this code does not seems to work. The service Parse method is never called.
Moreover, I'm not sure if this pattern will allow me to properly shutdown the application.
What have I to change in my code to ensure everything is working?
PS: I'm targeting .Net 4.5
[Edit] After some search, and the answer of ken2k, i can see that I was wrongly calling trytake in place of take.
My updated code is now :
private readonly static CancellationTokenSource g_ShutdownToken = new CancellationTokenSource();
private static void MessageReceived(Message message)
{
g_ParseOperations.Add(message, g_ShutdownToken.Token);
}
static App()
{
MyComponent.MessageReceived += MessageReceived;
MyComponent.Start();
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
while (!g_ShutdownToken.IsCancellationRequested)
{
var message = g_ParseOperations.Take(g_ShutdownToken.Token);
g_DialectService.Parse(message);
}
});
}
protected override void OnExit(ExitEventArgs e)
{
g_ShutdownToken.Cancel();
base.OnExit(e);
}
This code acts as expected. Messages are processed in the correct order. However, as soon I exit the application, I get a "CancelledException" on the Take method, even if I just test the IsCancellationRequested right before.
The documentation says about BlockingCollection.TryTake(out T item):
If the collection is empty, this method immediately returns false.
So basically your loop exits immediately. What you may want is to call the TryTake method with a timeout parameter instead, and exit your loop when a mustStop variable becomes true:
bool mustStop = false; // Must be set to true on somewhere else when you exit your program
...
while (!mustStop)
{
Message yourMessage;
// Waits 500ms if there's nothing in the collection. Avoid to consume 100% CPU
// for nothing in the while loop when the collection is empty.
if (yourCollection.TryTake(out yourMessage, 500))
{
// Parses yourMessage here
}
}
For your edited question: if you mean you received a OperationCanceledException, that's OK, it's exactly how methods that take a CancellationToken object as parameter must behave :) Just catch the exception and exit gracefully.