suppose I want to mock a method with the following signature:
public A foo(A a)
I want foo to be mocked in a way that it returned what it received (that is the same instance a)
I tried unsuccessfully the following:
Capture<A> capture = new Capture();
expect(myclass.foo(capture)).andReturn(capture.getValue());
This does not work because the capture is still empty when getValue() is called.
Any ideas?
Thanks
public class A {
public <A> A foo(A a) {
return null;
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
A mock = createNiceMock(A.class);
expect(mock.foo(anyObject())).andAnswer(new IAnswer<Object>() {
#Override
public Object answer() throws Throwable {
return EasyMock.getCurrentArguments()[0];
}
}).anyTimes();
replay(mock);
System.out.println(mock.foo("1"));
System.out.println(mock.foo(2L));
}
}
Prints out:
1
2
Related
When I need to work with I/O (Query DB, Call to the third API,...), I can use RichAsyncFunction. But I need to interact with Google Sheet via GG Sheet API: https://developers.google.com/sheets/api/quickstart/java. This API is sync. I wrote below code snippet:
public class SendGGSheetFunction extends RichAsyncFunction<Obj, String> {
#Override
public void asyncInvoke(Obj message, final ResultFuture<String> resultFuture) {
CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(() -> {
syncSendToGGSheet(message);
return "";
}).thenAccept((String result) -> {
resultFuture.complete(Collections.singleton(result));
});
}
}
But I found that message send to GGSheet very slow, It seems to send by synchronous.
Most of the code executed by users in AsyncIO is sync originally. You just need to ensure, it's actually executed in a separate thread. Most commonly a (statically shared) ExecutorService is used.
private class SendGGSheetFunction extends RichAsyncFunction<Obj, String> {
private transient ExecutorService executorService;
#Override
public void open(Configuration parameters) throws Exception {
super.open(parameters);
executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(30);
}
#Override
public void close() throws Exception {
super.close();
executorService.shutdownNow();
}
#Override
public void asyncInvoke(final Obj message, final ResultFuture<String> resultFuture) {
executorService.submit(() -> {
try {
resultFuture.complete(syncSendToGGSheet(message));
} catch (SQLException e) {
resultFuture.completeExceptionally(e);
}
});
}
}
Here are some considerations on how to tune AsyncIO to increase throughput: http://apache-flink-user-mailing-list-archive.2336050.n4.nabble.com/Flink-Async-IO-operator-tuning-micro-benchmarks-td35858.html
Before I setup a test class like the code below:
1. the Factory and test Dataprovider both used excel as the dataprovider.
2. In the Factory dataprovider table, it has a list of url
3. Each time, it will find one of the url in the factory dataprovider table, and run the test in each test methods..
public class Test {
WebDriver driver;
private String hostName;
private String url;
#Factory(dataProvider = "xxxx global variables", dataProviderClass = xxxx.class)
public GetVariables(String hostName, String url) {
this.hostName = hostName;
this.url = url;
}
#BeforeMethod
#Parameters("browser")
public void start(String browser) throws Exception {
driver = new FirefoxDriver();
driver.get(url);
Thread.sleep(1000);
}
#Test(priority = 10, dataProvider = "dataprovider Test A", dataProviderClass = xxx.class)
public void TestA(Variable1,
Variable2,Variable3) throws Exception {
some test here...
}
#Test(priority = 20, dataProvider = "dataprovider Test B", dataProviderClass = xxx.class)
public void TestB(Variable1,
Variable2,Variable3)
throws Exception {
some test here...
}
#AfterMethod
public void tearDown() {
driver.quit();
}
Now I want to dynamically assign different group for each test for different url. I am thinking add a variable 'flag' in the #Factory dataprovider:
#Factory(dataProvider = "xxxx global variables", dataProviderClass = xxxx.class)
public GetVariables(String hostName, String url, String flag) {
this.hostName = hostName;
this.url = url;
this.flag = flag;
}
That when flag.equals("A"), it will only run test cases in test groups={"A"}.
When flag.equals("B"), it will only run test cases in test groups ={"B"},
When flag.equals("A,B"), it will only run test cases in test groups ={"A","B"}
Is there any way I can do that?
Thank you!
TestNG groups provides "flexibility in how you partition your tests" but it isn't for conditional test sets. For that you simply use plain old Java.
You can use inheritance or composition (I recommend the latter, see Item 16: Favor composition over inheritance from Effective Java).
Either way the general idea is the same: use a Factory to create your test class instances dynamically creating the appropriate class type with the appropriate test annotations and/or methods that you want to run.
Examples:
Inheritance
import org.testng.annotations.Factory;
import org.testng.annotations.Test;
public class DemoTest {
#Factory
public static Object[] createTests() {
return new Object[]{
new FlavorATest(),
new FlavorBTest(),
new FlavorABTest()
};
}
/**
* Base test class with code for both A-tests and B-tests.
*
* Note that none of these test methods are annotated as tests so that
* subclasses may pick which ones to annotate.
*/
public static abstract class BaseTest {
protected void testA() {
// test something specific to flavor A
}
protected void testB() {
// test something specific to flavor B
}
}
// extend base but only annotate A-tests
public static class FlavorATest extends BaseTest {
#Test
#Override
public void testA() {
super.testA();
}
}
// extend base but only annotate B-tests
public static class FlavorBTest extends BaseTest {
#Test
#Override
public void testB() {
super.testB();
}
}
// extend base and annotate both A-tests and B-tests
public static class FlavorABTest extends BaseTest {
#Test
#Override
public void testA() {
super.testA();
}
#Test
#Override
public void testB() {
super.testB();
}
}
}
Composition
import org.testng.annotations.Factory;
import org.testng.annotations.Test;
public class DemoTest {
#Factory
public static Object[] createTests() {
return new Object[]{
new FlavorATest(),
new FlavorBTest(),
new FlavorABTest()
};
}
private static void testA() {
// test something specific to flavor A
}
private static void testB() {
// test something specific to flavor B
}
// only create A-test methods and delegate to shared code above
public static class FlavorATest {
#Test
public void testA() {
DemoTest.testA();
}
}
// only create B-test methods and delegate to shared code above
public static class FlavorBTest {
#Test
public void testB() {
DemoTest.testB();
}
}
// create A-test and B-test methods and delegate to shared code above
public static class FlavorABTest {
#Test
public void testA() {
DemoTest.testA();
}
#Test
public void testB() {
DemoTest.testB();
}
}
}
Your factory methods won't be as simple as you'll need to use your "flag" from your test data to switch off of and create instances of the appropriate test classes.
Is it possible to combine cucumber with CamelBlueprintTestSupport? I have my runner class:
#RunWith(Cucumber.class)
#CucumberOptions(monochrome=true,
format={ "pretty", "html:target/cucumber"},
features = "C:/Users/Developer/workspace_camel/SRV002_PatronInformation/src/test/resources/cucumber/asynchronousErrorHandling.feature")
public class RunFeature_SRV002_PatronInformationTest {
}
and my blueprint test class with the scenarios:
public class SRV002_PatronInformationScenarioTest extends CamelBlueprintTestSupport {
#Override
protected String getBlueprintDescriptor() {
return "/OSGI-INF/blueprint/blueprint.xml";
}
#Given("^client communicates asynchronous via socket$")
public void client_communicates_asynchronous_via_socket() throws Throwable {
System.out.println("test");
}
#When("^client posts message$")
public void an_error_occurs_inside_the_integration() throws Throwable {
String endpoint = "netty4:tcp://localhost:5000?sync=false&textline=true";
template.sendBody(endpoint, "test");
}
#Then("^the integration should not return response to the client$")
public void the_integration_should_not_return_the_error_to_the_client() throws Throwable {
System.out.println("test");
}
}
The problem now is that, when I run this I run into nullpointerexception at template.sendbody because the context, bundle and routes haven't started. For some reason it seems adding #RunWith(Cucumber) prevents the camel routes from starting.
Anyone knows how this can be solved? Thanks
Souciance
Ok so I managed to solve this.
For reference look here:
http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/How-to-test-routes-when-using-another-TestRunner-td5772687.html
Thanks to Gregor Lenz for the help.
Essentially the key here is that in your Camel BlueprintTestSupport class, inside the test method, that starts the given scenario you need to add this.setUp(). See the code below:
In Cucumber
SRVXXX_FileTransferCamelRunner filetransfer = new SRVXXX_FileTransferCamelRunner();
#Given("^an input file$")
public void an_input_file() throws Throwable {
endpoint.append("file:C:/Camel/input?fileName=input.txt");
}
#When("^client puts the file in the input directory$")
public void client_puts_the_file_in_the_input_directory() throws Throwable {
filetransfer.testPutFile(fileData.toString(), endpoint.toString());
}
#Then("^the integration should move the file to the output directory$")
public void the_integration_should_move_the_file_to_the_output_directory() throws Throwable {
String outputPath = "C:/Camel/output/input.txt";
filetransfer.testFileHasMoved(outputPath);
}
In Camel
#Test
public void testPutFile(String body, String endpoint) throws Exception {
this.setUp();
template.sendBody(endpoint,body);
Thread.sleep(2000);
assertFileNotExists(endpoint);
}
I have a static class (Foo) and a main class (Main)
See Main.java:
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println(Foo.i); // 0
Foo.i++;
System.out.println(Foo.i); // 1
// restart Foo here
System.out.println(Foo.i); // 1 again...I need 0
}
}
See Foo.java:
public class Foo {
public static int i = 0;
}
Is there any way to restart or reset a static class?
Note: I need this because I'm testing a static class with jUnit and I need to clean parameters before second test.
EDIT
ALMOST SOLUTION:
Using StanMax answer, I can to this:
Main.java
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
test();
test();
}
public static void test() throws Exception {
System.out.println("\ntest()");
MyClassLoader myClassLoader = new MyClassLoader();
Class<?> fooClass = myClassLoader.loadClass(Foo.class.getCanonicalName());
Object foo = fooClass.newInstance();
System.out.println("Checking classloader: " + foo.getClass().getClassLoader());
System.out.println("GC called!");
System.gc();
}
}
MyClassLoader.java
public class MyClassLoader {
private URLClassLoader urlClassLoader;
public MyClassLoader() {
try {
URL url = new File(System.getProperty("user.dir") + "/bin/").toURL();
URL[] urlArray = {url};
urlClassLoader = new URLClassLoader(urlArray, null);
} catch (Exception e) {
}
}
public Class<?> loadClass(String name) {
try {
return (Class<?>) urlClassLoader.loadClass(name);
} catch (Exception e) {
}
return null;
}
#Override
protected void finalize() throws Throwable {
System.out.println("MyClassLoader - End.");
}
}
Foo.java
public class Foo {
public static int i = 0;
static {
System.out.println("Foo - BEGIN ---------------------------------");
}
public void finalize() throws Throwable {
System.out.println("Foo - End.");
}
}
OUTPUT
test()
Foo - BEGIN ---------------------------------
Checking classloader: java.net.URLClassLoader#ec160c9
GC called!
MyClassLoader - End.
Foo - End.
test()
Foo - BEGIN ---------------------------------
Checking classloader: java.net.URLClassLoader#ec3fb9b
GC called!
MyClassLoader - End.
Foo - End.
PROBLEM: if I do the cast bellow:
Foo foo = (Foo) fooClass.newInstance();
I get error:
java.lang.ClassCastException
Only if you can unload class, get it re-loaded, as class static code gets executed when class is loaded.
But you can just directly modify the value:
Foo.i = 0;
(or create equivalent method for doing it, esp. if static member is not public)
Create a static method that sets the class variables to their initial values, then call it when you need it.
Avoid static.
It is well known that static is not testable and should thus be avoided. For example, avoiding static is one of the key motivations behind dependency injection. If you need one instance only at runtime, use the singleton pattern instead. And create a new instance for each test run.
You can try this.
Main MainObject = new Main;
MainObject.main(args);
It will restart the class again and again until you stop the class.
I am developing an application which uses WindowsFormsApplicationBase to enforce Single Instance. I get the following error when calling a method on a Remote object. It works fine if I don't use Single Instance approach.
System.Runtime.Remoting.RemotingException: Authentication failure ---> System.IO.IOException: Unable to read data from the transport connection: The connection was closed.
at System.Net.Security.NegoState.ProcessAuthentication(LazyAsyncResult lazyResult)
at System.Net.Security.NegotiateStream.AuthenticateAsClient(NetworkCredential credential, String targetName, ProtectionLevel requiredProtectionLevel, TokenImpersonationLevel allowedImpersonationLevel)
at System.Runtime.Remoting.Channels.Tcp.TcpClientTransportSink.CreateAuthenticatedStream(Stream netStream, String machinePortAndSid)
Here is my Code:
public class EntryPoint
{
[STAThread]
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
SingleInstanceManager sim = new SingleInstanceManager();
sim.Run(args);
}
}
public class SingleInstanceManager : WindowsFormsApplicationBase
{
private App app;
public SingleInstanceManager()
{
IsSingleInstance = true;
}
protected override bool OnStartup(Microsoft.VisualBasic.ApplicationServices.StartupEventArgs eventArgs)
{
app = new App();
app.InitializeComponent();
app.Run();
return false;
}
protected override void OnStartupNextInstance(StartupNextInstanceEventArgs eventArgs)
{
base.OnStartupNextInstance(eventArgs);
app.Activate();
}
}
This is how I am invoking the Remoting object:
public Hashtable GetData(string[] arg1, string[] arg2)
{
IDataProvider dataProvider = (IDataProvider )Activator.GetObject(typeof(IDataProvider ), "tcp://.....");
Hashtable data = dataProvider.GetData(arg1, arg2);
return data;
}
Thanks in advance.
I found the solution myself.
I used the following to implement single instance(http://www.ai.uga.edu/mc/SingleInstance.html).
[STAThread]
static void Main() // args are OK here, of course
{
bool ok;
m = new System.Threading.Mutex(true, "YourNameHere", out ok);
if (! ok)
{
MessageBox.Show("Another instance is already running.");
return;
}
Application.Run(new Form1()); // or whatever was there
GC.KeepAlive(m); // important!
}