I need to run a unit test based on whether this asset exists at runtime. The reason is, I am downloading the file in react native and in android, I am running some unit tests that requires this file.
I would like to run the unit test only if this file exists. Does anyone have any suggestions or code samples on how this can be achieved? Or is there another way these unit tests can be accomplished?
You shouldn't do that in a unit test because you want to have the file locally in your testing environment or have a mock that provides it. Otherwise you're not Eradicating Non-Determinism in Tests.
Let's assume you need to do something like that anyway. So, I would add a condition in the assert expression:
#Test
fun `Given a variable When has a value Then assert it has a value`(){
var myVar = null
myVar = getAValue()
myVar?.let {
assertNotEquals(null, myVar)
}
}
To me, eradicating non determinism in this particular context means that test scope has always specific expected values, the conditional expression in the let or an if enclosing an assert expression violates that. Hence the code above shouldn't be part of your tests. Instead, you have to write a test for the case myVar is null, you write another test for the case myVar is non null.
That's why I use Given, When, Then the conditional state would make the Given/When very messy.
Related
I have a helper class to save user object to shared preferences. I have used a serialize(): String function and a create(serializedString: String) function in my User data model. They use GSon serializer and are working good as suggested by the unit tests on them.
Now my helper class is called SharedPreferenceUserStore.kt which takes a Context object. The code is:
class SharedPreferenceUserStore(context: Context) {
companion object {
val TAG = SharedPreferenceUserStore::class.java.simpleName
}
var userLocalSharedPref: SharedPreferences =
context.getSharedPreferences(USER_LOCAL_STORE_SHARED_PREF_NAME, Context.MODE_PRIVATE)
/*
Store the required data to shared preference
*/
#SuppressLint("ApplySharedPref")
fun storeUserData(user: User) {
val userLocalDatabaseEditor = userLocalSharedPref.edit()
val serializedData = user.serialize()
userLocalDatabaseEditor.putString(
USER_LOCAL_STORE_SHARED_PREF_SERIALIZED_DATA_KEY,
serializedData
)
if (userLocalDatabaseEditor.commit()) {
Log.d(TAG, " Store Commit return true")
}
}
/*
Clear all the locally stored data from the shared pref
*/
#SuppressLint("ApplySharedPref")
fun clearUserData() {
val userLocalDatabaseEditor = userLocalSharedPref.edit()
userLocalDatabaseEditor.clear()
userLocalDatabaseEditor.commit()
}
fun getLoggedInUser(): User? {
val stringUser = userLocalSharedPref.getString(
USER_LOCAL_STORE_SHARED_PREF_SERIALIZED_DATA_KEY, "")
return if (stringUser==null || stringUser == ""){
null
} else{
User.create(stringUser)
}
}
And I have written some unit tests for this helper class as follows:
#RunWith(JUnit4::class)
class SharedPreferenceUserStoreTest {
lateinit var sharedPreferenceUserStore: SharedPreferenceUserStore
lateinit var user: User
//to be mocked
lateinit var sharedPreferences: SharedPreferences
lateinit var sharedPreferencesEditor: SharedPreferences.Editor
lateinit var context: Context
#Before
fun setUp() {
//mocking Context and SharedPreferences class
context = mock(Context::class.java)
sharedPreferences = mock(SharedPreferences::class.java)
sharedPreferencesEditor = mock(SharedPreferences.Editor::class.java)
//specifying that the context.getSharedPreferences() method call should return the mocked sharedpref
`when`<SharedPreferences>(context.getSharedPreferences(anyString(), anyInt()))
.thenReturn(sharedPreferences)
//specifying that the sharedPreferences.edit() method call should return the mocked sharedpref editor
`when`(sharedPreferences.edit()).thenReturn(sharedPreferencesEditor)
//specifying that the sharedPreferencesEditor.putString() method call should return the mocked sharedpref Editor
`when`(sharedPreferencesEditor.putString(anyString(), anyString())).thenReturn(
sharedPreferencesEditor
)
`when`(sharedPreferences.getString(anyString(), anyString())).thenReturn("")
//instantiating SharedPreferenceUserStore from the mocked context
sharedPreferenceUserStore = SharedPreferenceUserStore(context)
user = User(
35,
"Prashanna Bhandary",
"prashanna.bhandary#gmail.com",
"dd58a617ea618010c2052cb54079ad67.jpeg",
"98********",
"test address 01",
1,
"yes",
"2019-08-30 04:56:43",
"2019-08-30 05:14:47",
0
)
}
#After
fun tearDown() {
}
#Test
fun passUser_storeUserData() {
sharedPreferenceUserStore.storeUserData(user)
verify(sharedPreferencesEditor).putString(
Constants.USER_LOCAL_STORE_SHARED_PREF_SERIALIZED_DATA_KEY,
user.serialize()
)
verify(sharedPreferencesEditor).commit()
}
#Test
fun testClearUserData() {
sharedPreferenceUserStore.clearUserData()
verify(sharedPreferencesEditor).clear()
}
#Test
fun testGetLoggedInUser_storeNotCalled() {
//calling getLoggedInUser() without calling storeUserData() should give null
assertEquals(null, sharedPreferenceUserStore.getLoggedInUser())
//verify that getString() was called on the shared preferences
verify(sharedPreferences).getString(Constants.USER_LOCAL_STORE_SHARED_PREF_SERIALIZED_DATA_KEY, "")
}
#Test
fun testGetLoggedInUser_storeCalled(){
//call getLoggedInUser(), we are expecting null
assertNull(sharedPreferenceUserStore.getLoggedInUser())
//verify that getString() was called on the shared preferences
verify(sharedPreferences).getString(Constants.USER_LOCAL_STORE_SHARED_PREF_SERIALIZED_DATA_KEY, "")
}
}
As I am really new to Unit Testing and Mocking libraries like Mockito. Now my question is are my tests any good? and I wanted to test if the getLoggedInUser() funciton of my helper class is doing what it is supposed to do (ie. get logged in user if shared pref has it), how do I do that?
In addition do suggest me any improvements I can make to my test or the helper class itself. Thank you.
Judging your test for what it is - A unit test running on a host machine with Android dependencies mocked with Mockito - it looks fine and like what you would expect.
The benefit-to-effort ratio of such tests are debatable, though. Personally I think it would be more valuable to run such a test against the real SharedPreferences implementation on a device, and assert on actual side effects instead of verifying on mocks. This has a couple of benefits over mocked tests:
You don't have to re-implement SharedPreferences with mocking
You know that SharedPreferenceUserStore will work with the real SharedPreferences implementation
But, such tests also have a debatable benefit-to-effort ratio. For a solo developer project, think about what kind of testing that is most important. Your time is limited so you will only have time to spend on writing the most important kind of tests.
The most important kinds of tests are the ones that test your app in the same way your users will use it. In other words, write high-level UI Automator tests. You can write how many mocked or on-device unit tests as you want. If you don't test that your entire app as a whole works, you will not know that it works. And if you don't know that your app as a whole works, you can't ship it. So in some way you have to test your app in its entirety. Doing it manually quickly becomes very labour intensive as you add more and more functionality. The only way to continually test your app is to automate the high-level UI testing of your app. That way you will also get code coverage that matters.
One big benefit of high-level UI testing that is worth pointing out is that you don't have to change them whenever you change some implementation detail in your app. If you have lots of mocked unit tests, you will have to spend a lot of time to refactor your unit tests as you refactor the real app code, which can be very time consuming, and thus a bad idea if you are a solo developer. Your UI Automator tests do not depend on low-level implementation details and will thus remain the same even if you change implementation details.
For example, maybe in the future you want to use Room from Android Jetpack to store your user data instead of SharedPreference. You will be able to do that without changing your high level UI tests at all. And they will be a great way to regression test such a change. If all you have are mocked unit tests, it will be a lot of work to rewrite all relevant unit tests to work with Room instead.
I agree with what #Enselic say about favoring Integration Test over Unit Tests.
However I disagree with his statement that this mockito test looks fine.
The reason for that is that (almost) every line in your code under test involves a mock operation. Basically mocking the complete method would have the same result.
What you are doing in your test is testing that mockito works as expected, which is something you should not need to test.
On the other hand your test is a complete mirror of the implementation itself. Which means everytime you refactor something, you have to touch the test. Preferably would be a black box test.
If you use Mockito you should try to restrict its use to methods that actually do something (that is not mocked).
Classes that generally should be mocked for testing purposes are dependencies that interact with external components (like a database or a webservice), however in these cases you are normally required to have Integration Tests as well.
And if your Integration-Tests already cover most part of the code, you can check whether you want to add a test using a mock for those parts that are not covered.
I have no official source for what I am trying to express, its just based on my experience (and therefore my own opinion). Treat it as such.
There is not much that can be said regarding the tests that guys before me haven't said.
However, one thing that you might want to consider is refactoring your SharedPreferenceUserStore to accept not Context(which is quite a huge thing, and if not handled properly could lead to unforeseen issues and/or memory leaks), but rather SharedPreferences themselves. This way, your class, that deals only with updating the prefs doesn't have access to more than it should.
I have a ViewModel in which there is a method which has the following line of code:
billDate.set(!TextUtils.isEmpty(SampleApp.getInstance().getAccountManager().getDueDate()) ?
String.format(SampleApp.getInstance().getApplicationContext().getString(R.string.due),
SampleApp.getInstance().getAccountManager().getBillingDueDate()) :
SampleApp.getInstance().getApplicationContext().getString(R.string.missing_due_date));
I have a test class using Mockito to test the different methods in ViewModel. But it is failing with NullPointerException at this line:
String.format(SampleApp.getInstance().getApplicationContext().getString(R.string.due),
Below is the log:
java.lang.NullPointerException
at java.util.regex.Matcher.getTextLength(Matcher.java:1283)
at java.util.regex.Matcher.reset(Matcher.java:309)
at java.util.regex.Matcher.<init>(Matcher.java:229)
at java.util.regex.Pattern.matcher(Pattern.java:1093)
at java.util.Formatter.parse(Formatter.java:2547)
at java.util.Formatter.format(Formatter.java:2501)
at java.util.Formatter.format(Formatter.java:2455)
at java.lang.String.format(String.java:2940)
While running a test case, I see the log showing some error related to Pattern
Can somebody suggest, how to test the String.format() method?
First of all, you should not be importing android view packages into your ViewModel. So skip using things like TextUtils inside ViewModels.
As to the getApplicationContext().getString(), create an interface for this. Something like:
interface StringProvider {
String getString(int resource);
}
Then pass that interface in your ViewModel constructor and use that to get the string you want.
When you initialize the ViewModel, you can pass a concrete implementation of StringProvider like this:
class StringProviderImpl implements StringProvider {
String getString(int resource) {
return SampleApp.getInstance().getApplicationContext().getString(resource);
}
}
This way, for your unit tests, you can just mock StringProvider and don't have to worry about dealing with contexts inside your ViewModel and the related test code.
You don't need to test the String.format method. That is not your code, and your goal should be to test your own code. But your code is using that method, so you need to test your code. This is the part you are trying to validate or mock out as I understand it:
String.format(SampleApp.getInstance().getApplicationContext().getString(R.string.due), SampleApp.getInstance().getAccountManager().getBillingDueDate())
which makes several calls to SampleApp to get an instance. Since those calls to SampleApp.getInstance are static method calls, you won't be able to mock them out. There isn't enough code posted to know what SampleApp is or what SampleApp.getInstance() returns or to know if any of the subsequent calls on that instance are returning null, but one of them is. So I think to solve this you need to look at the what the getInstance method returns. If you can't touch that code and you're hoping to only modify your test classes, you may not be able to test this with mockito due to the static method.
But otherwise you will need to build a way for your tests so the call to SampleApp.getInstance returns a mock object as the instance instead of whatever real instance I presume it is returning now. Then you can mock out the subsequent methods like getApplicationContext and getString to make them return canned responses so that the string.format call will not fail on a null input.
One note of caution--if you do end up making the static getInstance method return a mock, but sure you have proper cleanup when your test is done to set it back to what it was returning originally so you don't inadvertently modify something that might cause another unrelated unit test to fail. That is always a risk if you change something returned by a static method in a unit test since you are effectively changing it for all tests.
Considering that the test fails after the AccountManager was already used, you should have set up the SampleApp as a mock or fake already.
SampleApp app = SampleApp.getInstance()
AccountManager am = app.getAccountManager();
Context context = app.getApplicationContext();
billDate.set(!TextUtils.isEmpty(am.getDueDate()) ?
String.format(context.getString(R.string.due), am.getBillingDueDate()) :
context.getString(R.string.missing_due_date);
Now you only need to make sure to mock the Context you provide with with app.getApplicationContext() or the SampleApp itself, if you use app.getString() directly.
doReturn(dueFormatString).when(context).getString(R.string.due);
doReturn(dueMissingString).when(context).getString(R.string.missing_due_date);
But in general you should abstract the Context away. Not using it will simplify your code and therefore your testing a lot.
Also consider using context.getString() instead of String.format() for formatting a string you load from a resource. It's as easy as adding the format arguments as parameters to the call.
context.getString(R.string.due, am.getBillingDueDate())
I have a function that returns a Completable which returns Completable.error(RuntimeException("message")) if another function fails or Completable.complete() if not.
I was trying to write a unit test for this and see that the flow is going correctly to the error and success code but in my test I cannot differentiate between them using
underTest.unregisterFromService().test().assertComplete().assertNoErrors()
Does anyone know how the Completable.error() value can be checked in unit test?
I believe what you're looking for is
yourCompletable
.test()
.assertErrorMessage("your error message")
There is an assertError for that, most cases use the version that takes the Thorwable's type as a parameter, from the docs:
Asserts that this TestObserver/TestSubscriber received exactly one onError event which is an instance of the specified errorClass class.
Usage:
yourCompletable
.test()
.assertError(RuntimeException::class.java)
Here you can find the three versions of assertError.
I have a token property in my application class(Kotlin) that is based on a SharedPreferences value
var token : String?
get() = PreferenceManager.getDefaultSharedPreferences(applicationContext)
.getString(TOKEN_PEREF_TAG, null)
set(value) {
PreferenceManager.getDefaultSharedPreferences(applicationContext)
.edit()
.putString(TOKEN_PEREF_TAG, value)
.apply()
}
The problem is that I can't set a mock value like this:
whenever(app.token).thenReturn("token")
since I get the error
java.lang.RuntimeException: Method getDefaultSharedPreferences in android.preference.PreferenceManager not mocked.
Shouldn't the mock just return the provided string?
how can I get around this error?
You can fix this error by using the mockito-inline dependency instead of the mockito-core dependency. This uses a different mocking method that circumvents this issue of the platform classes not being available. It's also particularly useful because it allows you to mock final classes, therefore eliminating the need to put every one of your classes behind an interface or mark them as open in Kotlin.
This inline mocking method can also be turned on by a configuration file, however I found just using the inline dependency much more reliable.
In a 'small test' (jUnit test, the one in src/test) the android framework is not present and the whole framework is just a stub and provides no functionality. You either have to create your own mocked SharedPreferences and PreferenceManager using mockito or sth similar. Or use an 'medium test' (instrumented test, the one in src/androidTest) which must run on emulator or a device. For more on this check Fundamentals of Testing
I have been having quite a bit of trouble implementing unit testing on the Android. As a simple test, I've been trying to match a string retrieved from string resources:
String myString = myActivity.getResources().getString(R.string.testString));
However, when unit testing this invariably results in a null pointer exception. This includes robolectric as well as the Junit implementation delivered with the Android sdk.
One possible solution is to approach the retrieval of resources in a manner similar to a data access object. That is, create an interface through which string resources would be accessed. This would allow me to mock access the string resource. Similarly, I could separate the non-android dependent behavior of, say, an Activity, into a separate pojo class. This would allow me to run unit tests using standard Java testing tools. In fact, I could potentially delegate any Android infrastructure related activity to an interface.
This seems like a lot of jumping through hoops to get to unit testing. Is it worth it? Is there a more viable approach?
It turned out, the problem was that the activity has to be gotten in the actual test method. So, for example, my method now looks like this:
public void testGetActivityResourceString() {
Activity myActivity = this.getActivity();
String myString = myActivity.getResources().getString(R.string.hello);
Assert.assertNotNull(myString);
}
Whereas before I was creating activity in setup. This giveaway was in the docs:
"For each test method invocation, the Activity will not actually be created until the first time this method is called."
This was a real hassle to figure out. The example for HelloWorldTest doesn't work for the same reason.
Here's the full entry:
Public T getActivity ()
Since: API Level 3
Get the Activity under test, starting it if necessary.
For each test method invocation, the Activity will not actually be created until the first time this method is called.
If you wish to provide custom setup values to your Activity, you may call setActivityIntent(Intent) and/or setActivityInitialTouchMode(boolean) before your first call to getActivity(). Calling them after your Activity has started will have no effect.
NOTE: Activities under test may not be started from within the UI thread. If your test method is annotated with UiThreadTest, then your Activity will be started automatically just before your test method is run. You still call this method in order to get the Activity under test.
This works correctly:
public void testGetResourceString() {
assertNotNull(mActivity.getResources()
.getString(com.example.pkg.R.string.testString));
}
Because you haven't provided any of your code but only the getReousrces() line, I will guess what you are doing wrong:
you are not using the correct base class for your test, use ActivityInstrumentationTestCase2 because you need the system infrastructure
you are using the resources of your test project instead of your project under test, that's why in my example the id is com.example.pkg.R.string.testString.