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.
Related
I have a few "connected" tests that are only relevant to run on a specific device model or on a specific brand and should be skipped on other brands/models.
I may be missing something, but this kind of filtering seems not possible out-of-the-box with AndroidJUnitRunner (by using annotation and/or passing appropriate arguments to it).
So, I was thinking to extend the AndroidX test framework to support this kind of filtering. In the end, I would like to be able to filter test with something like this
#TargetDeviceFilter(brand="SAMSUNG",model="XCover3")
#Test
public void myTestToRunOnSamsungXCover3DeviceOnly(){
...
}
My question: is there any way to accomplish this kind of filtering without extending AndroidX test framework? And if writing my own AndroidJUnitRunner and/or my own annotations is required, how should I start ?
I found a few interesting base classes that I may need to extend like :
androidx.test.internal.runner.TestRequestBuilder
androidx.test.internal.runner.TestRequestBuilder.DeviceBuild
but as those classes are in a "internal" package: attempting to extend them is probably not a good idea?
Any advice on how to deal with that problem is welcome.
I think, you may use org.junit.Assume.
Create a helper class DeviceHelper to detect mobile device informations for convenience.
Your test logic will be executed only if the assumption is correct.
#Test
public void myTestToRunOnSamsungXCover3DeviceOnly() {
// adapt this part to your business need
org.junit.Assume.assumeTrue(
DeviceHelper.isBrand("SAMSUNG") &&
DeviceHelper.isModel("XCover3")
);
// i.e. you can filter whatever you want test's according to device sdk_int
assumeTrue(SomeHelper.getDeviceSdk() >= 21);
// your test code
}
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 this below code.I want to write junit test for this method.
#Override
public void getSuccessData(Response response) {
if(response.getStatus().equalsIgnoreCase("success")){
BaseApplication.getInstance().setAccessToken(response.getToken().getAccessToken());
commonNavigate.navigateToHomeScreen((HomeActivity)view);
}
}
How can i write junit test case for this method.I am very new to junit.
This is (most probably) a callback method you want to test.
If you want to test a callback, you would need to understand mocking.
In very basic terms, mocking lets you create a fake source object and invoke some request method on it, and then verify that a particular callback has been invoked with certain parameters. Read about Mockito, which can be easily integrated with Android Studio: http://site.mockito.org/
Secondly, you code calls android-specific code:
BaseApplication.getInstance().setAccessToken(response.getToken().getAccessToken());
commonNavigate.navigateToHomeScreen((HomeActivity)view);
This code has dependency upon Context object. Please read what Context object means in Android and how it is shared in Application/Activity/View classes. "navigateToHomeScreen" method surely needs a Context!
Either you will mock android dependencies with fake objects, or you could run Instrumented tests which provide Context and other Android-framework-defendant objects.
To sum up - these are wide and complex topics and you should make a research on them first.
Use Mockito framework if you want to test methods. You need to mock objects so that you can test the method with dummy response.
Please refer this link for mockito
https://developer.android.com/training/testing/unit-testing/local-unit-tests.html#setup
I was wondering if it was good practice to subclass the test cases on Android. I mean, I need to test a lot of Parcelable objects and I could create a class like GenerericParcelableAndroidTestCase to test all these objects.
I also have a problem implementing it, I have something like this:
public class GenericParcelableTest extends AndroidTestCase {
private Parcelable p = null;
GenericParcelableTest(Parcelable p) {
this.p = p;
}
public void testDescribeContents() throws Exception {
assertEquals(0, p.describeContents());
}
}
And that:
public class AttachmentTest extends GenericParcelableTest {
public AttachmentTest() {
super(new Attachment());
}
}
Attachment implements Parcelable of course.
It returns me this error:
junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: Class GenericParcelableTest has no public constructor TestCase(String name) or TestCase()
I mean, I know that I created no empty constructor but why would I need one?
And generally, is there some known issues with this approach? If not why is there very few article on this topic on the internet (and actually some say even that it's not a good idea).
I have this conversation quite often when introducing new team members to unit testing. The way I explain it is by stating that your tests are first class citizens of your code base (no pun intended), they are susceptible to the same technical debt as any other part of your code base and have equivalent (maybe more?!) importance as that of the runtime code.
With this mindset, the questions begins to answer itself; if it makes sense from an OO perspective to use inheritance (i.e. your subclass is a insert name of test superclass) then subclass away. However, like any abuse of inheritance ever, be careful...the minute you add a test case that doesn't rely upon that superclass behaviour you may have a code smell.
In this scenario, it's likely (perhaps 90% of the time?) it is a separation of concern issue within the code being placed under test, i.e. the "unit" under test isn't actually (one) unit but has combinatorial behaviour. Refactoring that code to do one thing would be a good way of allowing your super-class test case to live on. However, watch this super class test case like a hawk...the minute you see booleans being added to signatures to "allow that similar but not the same" test case to run under your once unpolluted super class then you have a problem, a tech debt problem that is no different to your runtime code.
At last check AndroidTestCase depends on an Activity context so it's likely best described as an integration test which tend to regularly have boilerplate super-class test behaviour. In this case, try to narrow the focus of your superclass to the use case under test...i.e. extends LoginUseCase or extends LoginScenario to better "bucket" those subclasses in the first instance. This will help guide would be extenders as to whether they should be using it for their non-login scenario. Hopefully, conversation will ensue and tech debt accumulation be avoided!
Regarding your error, in JUnit3 do what #Allen recommends, if moving to JUnit4 with something like Robolectric then explore using Rules as well as #BeforeClass.
Personal note
I have only felt the need to write test super classes for pseudo-unit tests that mock an API end point (akin to MockWebServer if you are familiar with that product) and DAO integration tests whereby an in-memory db is started and torn down over the lifecycle of each test (warning - slow (but useful) tests!)
junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: Class GenericParcelableTest has no public constructor TestCase(String name) or TestCase()
You get this error because JUnit needs to be able to construct an instance of your test class. It only knows how to do this using no-arg, or single string constructors.
Instead of performing initialization in your constructor, you should put it in the setUp() method. This will let you use the default constructor while still initializing the object before the test method is called.
I want to test some method, for example:
public class testObj {
..
public void upload(Context context, Data data, Info info, Listener listener, Bla bla, ....) {
...
}
}
now in some cases i just want to know that this method was called, but i do not care about anyy of the arguments passed.
Now calling Mockito.any(Foo.class) is very discouraging, I know i can also use matchers but it's not that great also.
Is there some cleaner way to achive this?
No; verify needs to identify the method you're referring to, which means you'll need to call the correct method signature. Keeping an actual method call will also allow IDEs and automated refactoring tools to search for and modify the calls appropriately.
If you're running your tests from a Java 8 source environment, you can use any() with no argument; Java 8 has improved the ability to infer generic types when given as a parameter.
Though it usually makes more sense just to use matchers and explicit calls, you do have a few similar capabilities:
For stubbing, you can sometimes use a default answer to avoid specifying a lot of redundant calls and method values, but that won't help you with verification.
For verification, you can use MockingDetails.getInvocations() to inspect calls without using the built-in Mockito capabilities.
PowerMockito has private method verification by name, but not the same for public methods.