I have following consumer component that uses a reference service called sender,
#Component(configurationPolicy = ConfigurationPolicy.REQUIRE, configurationPid = DATA_SYNC_CONFIG)
public class DataSynchronizer {
#Reference
private TelemetrySender sender;
//calls some methods of sender
}
And this works fine as long as there is one implementation for interface TelementrySender
But if there are two implementations for that interface, and if I want to select which implementation to bind based on configuration property , what is the correct way to do it? According to my understanding and findings following method is tried.
included a bind method to my component as follows.
#Component(configurationPolicy = ConfigurationPolicy.REQUIRE, configurationPid = DATA_SYNC_CONFIG)
public class DataSynchronizer {
private TelemetrySender sender;
#Reference
void setSender(TelemetrySender telemetrySender ) {
// read configuration and set only correct implementation
this.sender= telemetrySender ;
}
//calls some methods of sender
}
one of my TelemetrySender implementation is as follows,
#Component(configurationPolicy = ConfigurationPolicy.REQUIRE, configurationPid = HTTP_TELEMETRY_SENDER_CONFIG,property={ "service=http" })
public class HttpConnector implements TelemetrySender {
}
My problem is how to select correct TelemntrySender inside setSender method? Or if I'm using wrong approach please correct me. I referred this article
The simplest way is to use an attribute in the config sender.target=<search filter>.
See OSGi compendium 112.6.2.1.
So if the service you want to bind has the property sendername=my then you could set:
sender.target=(sendername=my)
Related
As per spring's Event handling mechanism, we can use SpEL to select a specific handler under some circumstances. Taken from the spring doc.
public class EventXHandler {
private String handlerClassName;
#EventListener(condition = "#event.name == handlerClassName")
public void processBlockedListEvent(BlockedListEvent event) {
// notify appropriate parties via notificationAddress...
}
}
My question is; if I can access to the handler class' property in the spel.
No; you cannot do that.
If you know the bean name and add a public getter for the property, you can use
#event.name == #beanName.handlerClassName.
i have several interfaces which extend a single interface.
I need to add, during a #PostCostruct method, these interfaces to a Map.
The problem is that i need to retrieve the #Service class name from the DB and i don't know ho to put the interface in the map...
I'll try to explain it better
I have a general service interface
public interface IVehicleServiceGeneral{
//methods...
}
then i have several interfaces which extend the general one.
public interface IService1 extends IVehicleServiceGeneral{
}
public interface IService2 extends IVehicleServiceGeneral{
}
the concrete implementations of these classes are annotated with #Service("service1Name"), #Service("service2Name") and so on...
Then from the DB i retrieve my Suppliers
public class Supplier {
private long id;
private String serviceName;
//getters and setters
}
Finally i need to create the map, because i need to access the implementations at runtime based on the Supplier, i created a ContextAware class to get my beans by name, but the interfaces are not beans... I also tried to put the #Qualifier on the interface, but obviously it does not work... How can I put the interface in the map?
#PostConstruct
private void createServiceMap(){
serviceMap = new HashMap<OBUSupplier, IVehicleServiceGeneral>();
List<Supplier> suppliers = supplierService.findAll();
for(Supplier s : suppliers) {
serviceMap.put(s, contextAware.getBean(s.getServiceName()));
}
}
You can create IVehicleServiceGeneral instance map like this:
class SomeClass {
Map vehicleServiceGeneralInstanceMap = new HashMap();
SomeClass(Set<IVehicleServiceGeneral> instances) {
instances.forEach(i -> vehicleServiceGeneralInstanceMap.put(i.getServiceName(), i));
}
private void createServiceMap() {
Map serviceMap = new HashMap<OBUSupplier, IVehicleServiceGeneral>();
List<Supplier> suppliers = supplierService.findAll();
for(Supplier s : suppliers) {
serviceMap.put(s, vehicleServiceGeneralInstanceMap.get(s.getServiceName()));
}
}
The only thing you require is IVehicleServiceGeneral#getServiceName which your Service1, 2 need to override with proper names that present in DB.
I'm using Spring 3.1.4.RELEASE and Mockito 1.9.5. In my Spring class I have:
#Value("#{myProps['default.url']}")
private String defaultUrl;
#Value("#{myProps['default.password']}")
private String defaultrPassword;
// ...
From my JUnit test, which I currently have set up like so:
#RunWith(SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.class)
#ContextConfiguration({ "classpath:test-context.xml" })
public class MyTest
{
I would like to mock a value for my "defaultUrl" field. Note that I don't want to mock values for the other fields — I'd like to keep those as they are, only the "defaultUrl" field. Also note that I have no explicit "setter" methods (e.g. setDefaultUrl) in my class and I don't want to create any just for the purposes of testing.
Given this, how can I mock a value for that one field?
You can use the magic of Spring's ReflectionTestUtils.setField in order to avoid making any modifications whatsoever to your code.
The comment from Michał Stochmal provides an example:
use ReflectionTestUtils.setField(bean, "fieldName", "value"); before invoking your bean method during test.
Check out this tutorial for even more information, although you probably won't need it since the method is very easy to use
UPDATE
Since the introduction of Spring 4.2.RC1 it is now possible to set a static field without having to supply an instance of the class. See this part of the documentation and this commit.
It was now the third time I googled myself to this SO post as I always forget how to mock an #Value field. Though the accepted answer is correct, I always need some time to get the "setField" call right, so at least for myself I paste an example snippet here:
Production class:
#Value("#{myProps[‘some.default.url']}")
private String defaultUrl;
Test class:
import org.springframework.test.util.ReflectionTestUtils;
ReflectionTestUtils.setField(instanceUnderTest, "defaultUrl", "http://foo");
// Note: Don't use MyClassUnderTest.class, use the instance you are testing itself
// Note: Don't use the referenced string "#{myProps[‘some.default.url']}",
// but simply the FIELDs name ("defaultUrl")
You can use this magic Spring Test annotation :
#TestPropertySource(properties = { "my.spring.property=20" })
see
org.springframework.test.context.TestPropertySource
For example, this is the test class :
#ContextConfiguration(classes = { MyTestClass.Config.class })
#TestPropertySource(properties = { "my.spring.property=20" })
public class MyTestClass {
public static class Config {
#Bean
MyClass getMyClass() {
return new MyClass ();
}
}
#Resource
private MyClass myClass ;
#Test
public void myTest() {
...
And this is the class with the property :
#Component
public class MyClass {
#Value("${my.spring.property}")
private int mySpringProperty;
...
I'd like to suggest a related solution, which is to pass the #Value-annotated fields as parameters to the constructor, instead of using the ReflectionTestUtils class.
Instead of this:
public class Foo {
#Value("${foo}")
private String foo;
}
and
public class FooTest {
#InjectMocks
private Foo foo;
#Before
public void setUp() {
ReflectionTestUtils.setField(Foo.class, "foo", "foo");
}
#Test
public void testFoo() {
// stuff
}
}
Do this:
public class Foo {
private String foo;
public Foo(#Value("${foo}") String foo) {
this.foo = foo;
}
}
and
public class FooTest {
private Foo foo;
#Before
public void setUp() {
foo = new Foo("foo");
}
#Test
public void testFoo() {
// stuff
}
}
Benefits of this approach: 1) we can instantiate the Foo class without a dependency container (it's just a constructor), and 2) we're not coupling our test to our implementation details (reflection ties us to the field name using a string, which could cause a problem if we change the field name).
You can also mock your property configuration into your test class
#RunWith(SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.class)
#ContextConfiguration({ "classpath:test-context.xml" })
public class MyTest
{
#Configuration
public static class MockConfig{
#Bean
public Properties myProps(){
Properties properties = new Properties();
properties.setProperty("default.url", "myUrl");
properties.setProperty("property.value2", "value2");
return properties;
}
}
#Value("#{myProps['default.url']}")
private String defaultUrl;
#Test
public void testValue(){
Assert.assertEquals("myUrl", defaultUrl);
}
}
I used the below code and it worked for me:
#InjectMocks
private ClassABC classABC;
#Before
public void setUp() {
ReflectionTestUtils.setField(classABC, "constantFromConfigFile", 3);
}
Reference: https://www.jeejava.com/mock-an-autowired-value-field-in-spring-with-junit-mockito/
Also note that I have no explicit "setter" methods (e.g. setDefaultUrl) in my class and I don't want to create any just for the purposes of testing.
One way to resolve this is change your class to use Constructor Injection, that can be used for testing and Spring injection. No more reflection :)
So, you can pass any String using the constructor:
class MySpringClass {
private final String defaultUrl;
private final String defaultrPassword;
public MySpringClass (
#Value("#{myProps['default.url']}") String defaultUrl,
#Value("#{myProps['default.password']}") String defaultrPassword) {
this.defaultUrl = defaultUrl;
this.defaultrPassword= defaultrPassword;
}
}
And in your test, just use it:
MySpringClass MySpringClass = new MySpringClass("anyUrl", "anyPassword");
Whenever possible, I set the field visibility as package-protected so it can be accessed from the test class. I document that using Guava's #VisibleForTesting annotation (in case the next guy wonders why it's not private). This way I don't have to rely on the string name of the field and everything stays type-safe.
I know it goes against standard encapsulation practices we were taught in school. But as soon as there is some agreement in the team to go this way, I found it the most pragmatic solution.
Another way is to use #SpringBootTest annotation properties field.
Here we override example.firstProperty property:
#SpringBootTest(properties = { "example.firstProperty=annotation" })
public class SpringBootPropertySourceResolverIntegrationTest {
#Autowired private PropertySourceResolver propertySourceResolver;
#Test
public void shouldSpringBootTestAnnotation_overridePropertyValues() {
String firstProperty = propertySourceResolver.getFirstProperty();
String secondProperty = propertySourceResolver.getSecondProperty();
Assert.assertEquals("annotation", firstProperty);
Assert.assertEquals("defaultSecond", secondProperty);
}
}
As you can see It overrides only one property. Properties not mentioned in #SpringBootTest stay untouched. Therefore, this is a great solution when we need to override only specific properties for the test.
For single property you can write it without braces:
#SpringBootTest(properties = "example.firstProperty=annotation")
Answer from: https://www.baeldung.com/spring-tests-override-properties#springBootTest
I also encourage you to whenever possible pass property as a parameter in constructor like in Dherik answer (https://stackoverflow.com/a/52955459/1673775) as it enables you to mock properties easily in unit tests.
However in integration tests you often don't create objects manually, but:
you use #Autowired
you want to modify property used in a class that is used in your integration test indirectly as it is deep dependency of some directly used class.
then this solution with #SpringBootTest might be helpful.
With this class
#Component
public class Sample {
#Value("${my.name}")
public static String name;
}
If I try Sample.name, it is always 'null'. So I tried this.
public class Sample {
public static String name;
#PostConstruct
public void init(){
name = privateName;
}
#Value("${my.name}")
private String privateName;
public String getPrivateName() {
return privateName;
}
public void setPrivateName(String privateName) {
this.privateName = privateName;
}
}
This code works. Sample.name is set properly. Is this good way or not? If not, is there something more good way? And how to do it?
First of all, public static non-final fields are evil. Spring does not allow injecting to such fields for a reason.
Your workaround is valid, you don't even need getter/setter, private field is enough. On the other hand try this:
#Value("${my.name}")
public void setPrivateName(String privateName) {
Sample.name = privateName;
}
(works with #Autowired/#Resource). But to give you some constructive advice: Create a second class with private field and getter instead of public static field.
Soruce of this info is this: https://www.baeldung.com/spring-inject-static-field
Spring uses dependency injection to populate the specific value when it finds the #Value annotation. However, instead of handing the value to the instance variable, it's handed to the implicit setter instead. This setter then handles the population of our NAME_STATIC value.
#RestController
//or if you want to declare some specific use of the properties file then use
//#Configuration
//#PropertySource({"classpath:application-${youeEnvironment}.properties"})
public class PropertyController {
#Value("${name}")//not necessary
private String name;//not necessary
private static String NAME_STATIC;
#Value("${name}")
public void setNameStatic(String name){
PropertyController.NAME_STATIC = name;
}
}
This is my sample code for load static variable
import org.springframework.beans.factory.annotation.Autowired;
import org.springframework.beans.factory.annotation.Value;
import org.springframework.stereotype.Component;
#Component
public class OnelinkConfig {
public static int MODULE_CODE;
public static int DEFAULT_PAGE;
public static int DEFAULT_SIZE;
#Autowired
public void loadOnelinkConfig(#Value("${onelink.config.exception.module.code}") int code,
#Value("${onelink.config.default.page}") int page, #Value("${onelink.config.default.size}") int size) {
MODULE_CODE = code;
DEFAULT_PAGE = page;
DEFAULT_SIZE = size;
}
}
For those who want to use ApplicationContext in the main class of a Spring Boot application, you can just use the return value of SpringApplication.run.
Although workarounds may need to be implemented, one should try to avoid them in most scenarios if possible. Spring is great at handling dependency injection and treats most objects as Singletons. This means that Spring can handle the creation of objects for you, and the injection of these objects at runtime. When combining this with the fact that your Spring managed bean is likely a Singleton, the use of static methods and variables is largely unnecessary. You can simply autowire in an instance of the object you are looking for at the constructor level or variable level and reference the non-static version of the method or variable. This is ideal and behaves similarly to a static reference. Non static variables are basically static because you are only ever using one instance of the object in every part of the code and because of dependency injection you are never handling the instantiation of the object, just like with a static reference! Great! Now I'm sure there are instances where you need the work around (i.e. you aren't using dependency injection or class is not a singleton), but try to not use workarounds if possible. Also this is just my 2 cents. Someone may be able to offer 3. (:
public class InjectableClass{
#Value("${my.value}")
private String myString;
public String nonStaticMethod(){
return myString;
}
}
public class LogicClass{
private InjectableClass injectableClass;
#Autowire
public LogicClass(InjectableClass injectableClass){
this.injectableClass = injectableClass;
}
public void logicClassMethod(){
System.out.println("Hey! Here is the value I set on myString: " +
injectableClass.nonStaticMethod() + ". That was
basically like using a static method!");
}
}
In Spring 3 it is not possible to set #Autowired in either static fields or methods, so since I want to declare an utility class such as:
public class SchoolYearServiceUtil {
private static SchoolYearService schoolYearService;
public static SchoolYear getSchoolYear(Long id) {
return schoolYearService.get(id);
}
}
to avoid having to inject the schoolYearService everywhere (jsp, command class...) in which I need it. In this case, I don't need an interface to be implemented by SchoolYearServiceUtil.
I don't want to have to initialize the object through code but getting the same instance as the Spring's one.
Which would be the best option to implement the getSchoolYear as a static method?
Thanks.
Would this be conceptually wrong?:
#Component
public class SchoolYearServiceUtil {
private static SchoolYearService schoolYearService;
#Autowired(required = true)
private SchoolYearServiceUtil(#Qualifier("schoolYearServiceImpl") SchoolYearService schoolYearService) {
SchoolYearServiceUtil.schoolYearService = schoolYearService;
}
public static SchoolYearService getSchoolYearService() {
return schoolYearService;
}
public static SchoolYear getSchoolYear(Long id) {
return getSchoolYearService().get(id);
}
}
I would have to make sure that only Spring calls once the constructor and the constructor is called nowhere else, that's why I declared the constructor as private.
I fully support skaffman's comment. You don't need static fields with DI. You just define a bean of scope singleton (default).
There is a way to obtain a bean statically, but you should be aware that it is not to be used in regular situations. (there are some valid applications). It is to use the WebApplicationContextUtils.getRequiredWebApplicationContext(servletContext)
You notice that you need to pass a ServletContext argument.