My Sample Test Class:
namespace Test
{
[TestClass]
public class SampleTest
{
[TestMethod]
public void Test()
{
Assert.IsTrue(true); // <---------- LOOK
}
}
But if i do that:
namespace Test
{
[TestClass]
public class SampleTest
{
[TestMethod]
public void Test()
{
Assert.IsTrue(false); // <---------- LOOK
}
}
i win a AssertFailedException, the test break on this line, however the test dont show failure like a first test do with success!!
Help, Thank´s!!!
My Reference: http://www.jeff.wilcox.name/2008/03/silverlight2-unit-testing/
It's not clear what you are expecting to see and what the problem you are experiencing is.
Based on my deciphering skills, I think you're running into a paradigm difference.
In unit testing, any failed test will often cause a hard error. The reason being that you're not expecting to fail, so when you do, you want attention called to the failure, rather than just a nice test failed message.
Failures are more technically detailed than successes, this is to help you to find the cause of them, like when you see a stack trace and not simply "Error."
Any exception that is not explicitly attended implies (and somewhere should be also written in the output), that the test is failed as you were expecting.
Related
I want to run all selenium tests from an exe. I tried the solution mentioned on this thread (Run NUnit test fixture programmatically)
This is what I have written
public class Runner{
public static int Main(string[] args)
{
return new AutoRun(Assembly.GetCallingAssembly())
.Execute(new String[]{"/test:Runner.Foo.Login" });}
[TestFixture]
public class Foo
{
IWebDriver driver;
[Test]
public void Initialize()
{
driver = new FirefoxDriver();// (#"C:\Selenium\Firefox");
driver.Manage().Window.Maximize();
driver.Manage().Timeouts().ImplicitWait =
TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10);
Console.WriteLine("Setup Browser");
}
[Test]
public void Login()
{
eWb.Classes.LoginUser.eWbLogin(driver, ConfigurationSettings.AppSettings["UserId"],
ConfigurationSettings.AppSettings["Password"], "CU");
}}}}
The Console opens and is not able to read the test method Login.
You are passing Assembly.GetCallingAssemby() as a constructor argument to AutoRun. Since this is in your Main, there is no calling assembly, so I assume the value passed is null. Being told to find tests in null, AutoRun is pretty much guaranteed not to find any.
The proper call is to pass no argument at all, since the tests are, in fact, in the assembly making the call. AutoRun itself will figure out what the calling assembly is and should find your tests.
The SO answer to which you list does not use GetCallingAssembly. It uses GetExecutingAssembly. However, since no argument works equally well, that's what I would use. In fact, with NUnit, you should generally use defaults first and only tailor arguments where it's necessary.
Suggest reading the documentation as well: https://github.com/nunit/docs/wiki
I'm not able to figure out how to run a whole scenario before an other scenario, so that my test are not dependant on eachother.
I have this imaginary scenarios.
Scenario A
Given I have something
When I sumbit some data
I should see it on my webpage
Scenario B
Given SCENARIO A
When I delete the data
I should not see it on my webpage
When I run this scenario case, the software does not recognize Scenario A in scenario B, and ask me to create the step, like this...
You can implement missing steps with the snippets below:
#Given("^Registrere formue og inntekt$")
public void registrere_formue_og_inntekt() throws Throwable {
// Write code here that turns the phrase above into concrete actions
throw new PendingException();
}
You could either:
Use a Background to group all the steps that need to be executed before the different scenarii:
Background:
Given I have something
When I submit some data
Then I should see it on my webpage
Scenario: B
When I delete the data
Then I should not see it on my webpage
Group them as part of a step definition:
#Given("^Scenario A")
public void scenario_A() {
I_have_something();
I_submit_some_data();
I_should_see_it_on_my_page();
}
which you can then use like this:
Given Scenario A
When I delete the data
Then I should not see it on my webpage
Using this technique, you usually observe that some actions are constantly reused, and you may want to factor them out so that they can be reused across different step definitions; at that point, the Page Object pattern comes very handy.
Cucumber scenarios are supposed to be independent. A lot of work is done assuming and ensuring that independence. Trying to go against will be an obstacle course.
Having said that, you could create your custom implementation of the Cucumber JUnit runner. Having this custom implementation, and by looking at the source of the original runner, you can expose / wrap / change the internals to allow what you want. For example with the following runner:
public class MyCucumber extends Cucumber {
private static Runtime runtime;
private static JUnitReporter reporter;
private static List<CucumberFeature> features;
public MyCucumber(Class<?> clazz) throws InitializationError, IOException {
super(clazz);
}
#Override
#SuppressWarnings("static-access")
protected Runtime createRuntime(ResourceLoader resourceLoader,
ClassLoader classLoader, RuntimeOptions runtimeOptions)
throws InitializationError, IOException {
this.runtime = super.createRuntime(resourceLoader, classLoader, runtimeOptions);
this.reporter = new JUnitReporter(runtimeOptions.reporter(classLoader), runtimeOptions.formatter(classLoader), runtimeOptions.isStrict());
this.features = runtimeOptions.cucumberFeatures(resourceLoader);
return this.runtime;
}
public static void runScenario(String name) throws Exception {
new ExecutionUnitRunner(runtime, getScenario(name), reporter).run(new RunNotifier());
}
private static CucumberScenario getScenario(String name) {
for (CucumberFeature feature : features) {
for (CucumberTagStatement element : feature.getFeatureElements()) {
if (! (element instanceof CucumberScenario)) {
continue;
}
CucumberScenario scenario = (CucumberScenario) element;
if (! name.equals(scenario.getGherkinModel().getName())) {
continue;
}
return scenario;
}
}
return null;
}
}
You can setup your test suite with:
#RunWith(MyCucumber.class)
public class MyTest {
}
And create a step definition like:
#Given("^I first run scenario (.*)$")
public void i_first_run_scenario(String name) throws Throwable {
MyCucumber.runScenario(name);
}
It is a fragile customization (can break easily with new versions of cucumber-junit) but it should work.
I'm trying to mock a call to the final method ResourceBundle.getString(). With PowerMock 1.4.12 and EasyMock 3.1, the call is not being mocked; instead, the "real" method is called.
My test class:
#RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
#PrepareForTest(ResourceBundle.class)
public class TestSuite {
#Before
public void setUp() throws Exception {
ResourceBundle resourceBundleMock = PowerMock.createNiceMock(ResourceBundle.class);
expect(resourceBundleMock.getString(BundleConstants.QUEUE)).andReturn("Queue");
PowerMock.replay(resourceBundleMock);
beanBeingTested.setMessages(resourceBundleMock);
}
...
}
Code in BeanBeingTested:
private ResourceBundle messages;
...
String label = messages.getString(BundleConstants.QUEUE);
Error message:
java.util.MissingResourceException: Can't find resource for bundle $java.util.ResourceBundle$$EnhancerByCGLIB$$e4a02557, key Queue
at java.util.ResourceBundle.getObject(ResourceBundle.java:384)
at java.util.ResourceBundle.getString(ResourceBundle.java:344)
at com.yoyodyne.BeanBeingTested.setUpMenus(BeanBeingTested.java:87)
When I step through the test case, the debugger shows the type of beanBeingTested.messages as "EasyMock for class java.util.ResourceBundle", so the mock is injected correctly. (Also, there's no error on the call to getString() within the expect() call during set up).
With a plain mock instead of a nice mock, I get the following error:
java.lang.AssertionError:
Unexpected method call handleGetObject("Queue"):
getString("Queue"): expected: 1, actual: 0
Any idea what I'm doing wrong?
Thanks.
You are creating an instance using EasyMock. Instead, when working with static methods, you must mock the class (using PowerMock).
It should work like that (tested with EasyMock 3.0 and PowerMock 1.5, though):
#RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
#PrepareForTest(ResourceBundle.class)
public class TestSuite {
#Before
public void setUp() throws Exception {
// mock the class for one method only
PowerMock.mockStaticNice(ResourceBundle.class, "getString");
// define mock-behaviour on the class, when calling the static method
expect(ResourceBundle.getString(BundleConstants.QUEUE)).andReturn("Queue");
// start the engine
PowerMock.replayAll();
}
}
(I'm aware this question is a few months old, but it might help others, though)
Try using:
#PrepareForTest({ResourceBundle.class, BeanBeingTested.class})
With only ResourceBundle in the PrepareForTest the mock will work when called directly from your unit test method, but when called from BeanBeingTested you get the real method being used.
Powermock documentation is lacking in this area.
Why bother mocking the call to the resource bundle? Generally, I try to avoid mocking the nuts and bolts of java, such as ArrayList, Date, etc. Resource bundles (and MessageFormat.format()) more or less fall into the same category for me. They generally operate on strings which are fundamentals, and if these things are broken or changing their behavior enough to break a test it's definitely something I want to know :)
Just let them grab the string (which presumably is about to be set in the UI, perhaps after . Don't bother to assert the value returned since you don't want edits to the bundle to break your test. If the string gets set on a mock UI component, This is a good place for anyObject(String.class) which correctly expresses the fact you (probably) don't actually care about the specific string displayed.
I also consider it a benefit when the test fails due to a missing message key. THAT I want to know.
I have a few static util methods in my project, some of them just pass or throw an exception. There are a lot of examples out there on how to mock a static method that has a return type other than void. But how can I mock a static method that returns void to just "doNothing()"?
The non-void version uses these lines of code:
#PrepareForTest(StaticResource.class)
...
PowerMockito.mockStatic(StaticResource.class);
...
Mockito.when(StaticResource.getResource("string")).thenReturn("string");
However if applied to a StaticResources that returns void, the compile will complain that when(T) is not applicable for void...
Any ideas?
A workaround would probably be to just have all static methods return some Boolean for success but I dislike workarounds.
You can stub a static void method like this:
PowerMockito.doNothing().when(StaticResource.class, "getResource", anyString());
Although I'm not sure why you would bother, because when you call mockStatic(StaticResource.class) all static methods in StaticResource are by default stubbed
More useful, you can capture the value passed to StaticResource.getResource() like this:
ArgumentCaptor<String> captor = ArgumentCaptor.forClass(String.class);
PowerMockito.doNothing().when(
StaticResource.class, "getResource", captor.capture());
Then you can evaluate the String that was passed to StaticResource.getResource like this:
String resourceName = captor.getValue();
Since Mockito 3.4.0, an experimental API was introduced to mock static methods.
The following example code has been tested with Mockito 4.3.1 (testImplementation("org.mockito:mockito-inline:4.3.1), and JUnit Jupiter 5.8.2, OpenJDK 11.
import org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions;
import org.junit.jupiter.api.Test;
import org.mockito.MockedStatic;
import org.mockito.Mockito;
import java.util.UUID;
public class StaticMockTest {
#Test
void showCaseStaticMock() {
try (MockedStatic<StaticMockTest> staticMock = Mockito.mockStatic(StaticMockTest.class)) {
staticMock.when(StaticMockTest::getUUIDValue).thenReturn("Mockito");
Assertions.assertEquals("Mockito", StaticMockTest.getUUIDValue());
}
// Regular UUID
UUID.fromString(StaticMockTest.getUUIDValue());
}
public static String getUUIDValue() {
return UUID.randomUUID().toString();
}
}
Previous Answer, probably Mockito 1.x/2.x with Powermock 1.x/2.x
You can do it the same way you do it with Mockito on real instances. For example you can chain stubs, the following line will make the first call do nothing, then second and future call to getResources will throw the exception :
// the stub of the static method
doNothing().doThrow(Exception.class).when(StaticResource.class);
StaticResource.getResource("string");
// the use of the mocked static code
StaticResource.getResource("string"); // do nothing
StaticResource.getResource("string"); // throw Exception
Thanks to a remark of Matt Lachman, note that if the default answer is not changed at mock creation time, the mock will do nothing by default. Hence writing the following code is equivalent to not writing it.
doNothing().doThrow(Exception.class).when(StaticResource.class);
StaticResource.getResource("string");
Though that being said, it can be interesting for colleagues that will read the test that you expect nothing for this particular code. Of course this can be adapted depending on how is perceived understandability of the test.
By the way, in my humble opinion you should avoid mocking static code if your crafting new code. At Mockito we think it's usually a hint to bad design, it might lead to poorly maintainable code. Though existing legacy code is yet another story.
Generally speaking if you need to mock private or static method, then this method does too much and should be externalized in an object that will be injected in the tested object.
Hope that helps.
Regards
In simpler terms,
Imagine if you want mock below line:
StaticClass.method();
then you write below lines of code to mock:
PowerMockito.mockStatic(StaticClass.class);
PowerMockito.doNothing().when(StaticClass.class);
StaticClass.method();
To mock a static method that return void for e.g. Fileutils.forceMKdir(File file),
Sample code:
File file =PowerMockito.mock(File.class);
PowerMockito.doNothing().when(FileUtils.class,"forceMkdir",file);
So I've been using EasyMock's class extension for a while now. All of a sudden I'm getting this exception, but only when I run the entire test suite:
java.lang.IllegalStateException: 0 matchers expected, 1 recorded.
at org.easymock.internal.ExpectedInvocation.createMissingMatchers(ExpectedInvocation.java:42)
at org.easymock.internal.ExpectedInvocation.<init>(ExpectedInvocation.java:34)
at org.easymock.internal.ExpectedInvocation.<init>(ExpectedInvocation.java:26)
at org.easymock.internal.RecordState.invoke(RecordState.java:64)
at org.easymock.internal.MockInvocationHandler.invoke(MockInvocationHandler.java:24)
at org.easymock.internal.ObjectMethodsFilter.invoke(ObjectMethodsFilter.java:56)
at org.easymock.classextension.internal.ClassProxyFactory$1.intercept(ClassProxyFactory.java:74)
at com.protrade.soccersim.data.emulator.matrix.PositionCategoryMatrix$$EnhancerByCGLIB$$c5298a7.getPossession(<generated>)
at com.protrade.soccersim.data.emulator.stats.team.PossessionCalculatorUnitTest.testDeterminePossessionHomeWin(PossessionCalculatorUnitTest.java:45)
The code involved is this little beauty (trimmed a bit):
#Before
public void setUp() throws Exception {
homeTeam = createMock( PositionCategoryMatrix.class );
awayTeam = createMock( PositionCategoryMatrix.class );
...
}
#Test
public void testDeterminePossessionHomeWin() {
expect(homeTeam.getPossession()).andReturn( 0.15151515 );
expect(awayTeam.getPossession()).andReturn( 0.01515152 );
replay( homeTeam, awayTeam );
...
}
The exception is being thrown on the first expect. And it really doesn't make sense. It says it's getting a matcher, but the method doesn't even take an argument. And odd enough it's only during test suites! I'm creating a new mock in the #Before, so it shouldn't be inheriting anything from somewhere else (not that some other method would have a matcher on it)
So, any ideas?
I was sick and tired of seeing this with each new legacy code base with EasyMock I had to work with. Write one new EasyMock test by the book and all of the sudden random tests start failing because of Matchers never captured. So I went looking how EasyMock stores those Matchers. It makes use of a final class LastControl, in that class are a few threadlocals where different things get stored. One of those was for the Matchers. Luck has it that there is a static method on there to pull all the Matchers from the threadlocal that where still on there. So this gave me this idea (with help of a collegue, thanks Sven, he wanted credit)
/**
* Base class to make sure all EasyMock matchers are cleaned up. This is not pretty but it will work
*
* #author N069261KDS
*
*/
public class BaseTest {
#Before
public void before(){
LastControl.pullMatchers();
}
#After
public void after(){
LastControl.pullMatchers();
}
}
Basicly let your test that fail with the Matchers error extend from this class and you'll be sure the Matchers are cleaned. Note this IS A WORKAROUND. The offending tests should have been written right in the first place. But if you have to wade through 5000+ tests , this is the lesser of two evils. I hope this will help people out !
While it's true that this can be a spurious message resulting from a "silly" EasyMock bug, it is also very likely to be due to invalid usage of the EasyMock API. In my case the message arose from this JUnit 3.8 test (and like you, this only happened when I ran my entire suite of tests, and only via Maven, not Eclipse):
public void testSomething() {
// Set up
MyArgumentType mockArg = (MyArgumentType) EasyMock.anyObject(); // bad API usage
// Invoke the method under test
final String result = objectUnderTest.doSomething(mockArg);
// Verify (assertions, etc.)
...
}
Instead of using anyObject(), I should have used createMock(MyArgumentType.class) or one of its variants. I don't know what I was thinking, I've written millions of these tests and used the API correctly.
The confusing bit is that the test that fails with the "wrong number of matchers" message isn't necessarily (or ever?) the one in which you used the API wrongly. It might be the first test executed after the buggy one that contains a replay() or verify() method, but I haven't verified this experimentally.
I had the same error message. I was (accidentally) using an isA() declaration in the call on the class under test
I.e.
classUnderTest.callStateChanged(calls, isA(LoggingOnlyListener.class));
when I meant:
classUnderTest.callStateChanged(calls, new LoggingOnlyListener());
And it was the test AFTER this one that failed every time.
I just ran into this problem, and I think I managed to figure it out. For me it was due the the previous test (that's in a different Class), where I was (incorrectly) using an EasyMock matcher in an Assert.assertEquals method.
It seems EasyMock couldn't complain about the extra matcher reported until the first expects methods was called.
I am running into a similar problem. From what I observed, even method returns are matched using Matchers. So if your first method fails for any reason, the matcher for the return match is still in the stack. That could be one reason why you are seeing 1 matchers recorded even when your method doesn't take any argument. Basically, the first method invocation never returned a value.
Which version of Easymock are you using?
I read a post about the release of v.2.5.2 and previuous versions might have a
dumb bug on the capture
try to use Easymock 2.5.2+