How we can programmatically configure Spring Boot to define new values to the spring.config.name and spring.config.location properties when running JUnit tests?
For example, if we would like to define these properties when running the application itself we could use something like (in Kotlin):
fun main(args: Array<String>) {
// SpringApplication.run(Application::class.java, *args)
val applicationContext = SpringApplicationBuilder(Application::class.java)
.properties(
"""spring.config.name:
${getSpringConfigNames()}
""",
"""spring.config.location:
${getSpringConfigLocationPaths()}
"""
)
.build()
.run(*args)
// val environment = applicationContext.getEnvironment()
}
But I wasn't able to find a way to configure this to use in the JUnit tests.
Edit
There is a complication here because of an spring boot limitation.
I would like to use an entire folder and its subfolders as valid locations to search for configuration files (so, for example, we could have folders for specific environments, databases, third-parties, and so on).
When running the application this was possible creating a method, in this case getSpringConfigLocationPaths(). And this method create a comma separated list with all folder inside the "main" folder.
For example, for the main folder src/main/resources/configuration it will output:
src/main/resources/configuration,
src/main/resources/configuration/environments,
src/main/resources/configuration/environments/development,
src/main/resources/configuration/environments/staging,
src/main/resources/configuration/environments/testing,
src/main/resources/configuration/environments/production,
src/main/resources/configuration/environments/common
How could we solve this situation when using JUnit tests and Spring Boot?
Unfortunately Spring Boot doesn't allow something like src/main/resources/configuration/**/*.
Because we have organized the system with several properties files on different subfolders we need to find a way to dinamically consider them.
I am using latest Spring Boot 2.2.0 and from my experience both #TestPropertySource and #SpringBootTest annotations can do the job because they have properties attribute.
So, you can do something like this:
#TestPropertySource(properties = ["spring.config.location=classpath:dev/", "spring.config.name=custom-app-name"]
#TestConfiguration
class DevTestCfg {} // this will make tests to look for configs in resources/dev/custom-app-name.properties
Also notice that there is a spring.config.additional-location property if you want your properties to be loaded from multiple locations.
The only problem here is that values in properties attribute must be constant.
But you can create multiple configurations for each environment and put corresponding #Profile("envName") on each configuration class. Then run your tests with different -Dspring.profiles.active and corresponding test configuration should be automatically picked up.
The tests that run spring boot should be carefully designed,
There is a whole testing framework for spring boot tests, so obviously consider using this framework.
When it comes to configuration management, I suggest considering the following:
There are two types of tests basically:
Tests that load a concrete specific configuration (set of beans), for example if you want to test only a DAO, you load a configuration for this dao.
In this case, the configuration is something that should be "tailored" to the needs of a specific test, and no "full" configuration is required.
For example, if the microservice contains a configuration for a database (user, password, schema, etc) and for, say, messaging management, there is no need to specify a configuration of a messaging system when testing a DAO, messaging beans won't be loaded anyway.
Usually, the test of this "type" will look like this:
#SpringBootTest(classes = {RelationalDbDaoConfiguration.class})
public class MyDaoTest {
}
If you don't have a configuration for your needs you can use #MockBean to mock unnecessary beans or even create a custom configuration in src/test/java so that it will be only in test classpath. It makes sense to use #TestConfiguration but it's beyond the scope of the question.
Now in order to load the configuration for db only, the are many options, to name a few:
#ActiveProfiles("dao") on a test class + putting "application-dao.properties/yaml" into the src/test/resources or src/test/resources/config
Use #TestPropertySource(locations = "classpath:whatever.properties") on test
Create a special "DbProperties" bean and initialize it programmatically in spring, it can make sense when you know some details about the context in which the test runs only during the actual test execution (for example, if you start a database before the test and the port is created dynamically, but its really a fairly advanced setup and is beyond the scope of this question) + the data source bean can read these properties
Use #SpringBootTest's properties attribute to provide 'fine-grained' properties definitions
Kind of obvious, but I'll mention it anyway: put application.properties in src/test/resources it will override regular configurations
The second type of tests is when you load the "entire" microservice, usually, these are tests that do not have "classes" parameter in #SpringBootTest annotation
#SpringBootTest // note, no actual configurations specified
public class MyMicroserviceTest {
...
}
Now, this definitely requires to specify a whole set of configurations, although the techniques for actually specifying these configurations are still applicable (just the content of configuration files will be different).
I do not suggest the usage of spring.config.location during the test, because this means that the test depends on some external resource, which makes the whole setup even more complicated.
If it's XML driven configuration,
#ContextConfiguration(locations = "/app-context.xml")
If it's annotation driven by configuration classes,
#ContextConfiguration(classes = {AppCOnfig::class, AnotherCOnfig::class}
These would be defined on the class level on the unit test class you run.
Further, if you have profiles for Junit to consider,
#ActiveProfiles("myProfile") would be added to the test class.
Related
My Spring-boot application has many #SpringBootTest and #DataJpaTest test classes.
My application also uses a H2 database.
I want my tests to use the DB defined at the application level.
The annotation with value #AutoConfigureTestDatabase(replace = AutoConfigureTestDatabase.Replace.NONE) works fine. But the problem is, I need to add this configuration to almost 50+ classes. Or else create an abstract class with this annotation and make my tests extend this abstract class which will again result in making changes in 50+ files.
Is there any better way to do it? Like in application.yml of the tests? Or any other way?
Making changes to 50 files or even 5000 files shouldn't be a problem, as long as you don't have to touch each by hand.
With a proper IDE it shouldn't be a problem to search and replace #SpringBootTest and DataJpaTest with #AutoConfigureTestDatabase(replace = AutoConfigureTestDatabase.Replace.NONE).
You probably wan't to include the fully classified class names and then run a "organize imports" on all (touched) files.
What's the recommended way to run a spring boot test where only the one subject under test is configured in the context.
If I annotate the test with
#RunWith(SpringRunner.class)
#SpringBootTest(properties = "spring.profiles.active=test")
#ContextConfiguration(classes = MyTestBean.class)
Then it seems to work - the test passes, the context starts quickly and seems to only contain the bean that I want. However, this seems like an incorrect use of the #ContextConfiguration(classes = MyTestBean.class) annotation. If I understand correctly the class that I reference is supposed to be a Configuration class, not a regular spring service bean or component for example.
Is that right? Or is this indeed a valid way to achieve this goal? I know there are more complex examples like org.springframework.boot.test.autoconfigure.json.JsonTest which use #TypeExcludeFilters(JsonExcludeFilter.class) to control the context - but this seems overkill for my use case. I just want a context with my one bean.
Clarification
I know that I can just construct the one bean I am testing as a POJO without a spring context test and remove the three annotations above. But in my precise use case I am actually reliant on some of the configuration applied to the context by settings in the application-test.properties file - which is why I've made this a Spring Boot test with a profile set. From my perspective this isn't a plain unit test of a single class in isolation of the spring context configuration - the test is reliant on certain configuration being applied (which is currently provided by the spring boot app properties). I can indeed just test the components as a POJO by creating a new instance outside of a spring context, I'm using constructor injection making the providing of necessary dependencies simple but the test does rely on things like the log level (the test actually makes assertions on certain logs being produced) which requires that the log level is set correctly (which is currently being done via logging.level.com.example=DEBUG in a properties file which sets up the spring context).
For starters, reading the documentation first (e.g., the JavaDoc linked below in this answer) is a recommend best practice since it already answers your question.
If I understand correctly the class that I reference is supposed to be
a Configuration class, not a regular spring service bean or
component for example.
Is that right?
No, that's not completely correct.
Classes provided to #ContextConfiguration are typically #Configuration classes, but that is not required.
Here is an excerpt from the JavaDoc for #ContextConfiguration:
Annotated Classes
The term annotated class can refer to any of the following.
A class annotated with #Configuration
A component (i.e., a class annotated with #Component, #Service, #Repository, etc.)
A JSR-330 compliant class that is annotated with javax.inject annotations
Any other class that contains #Bean-methods
Thus you can pass any "annotated class" to #ContextConfiguration.
Or is this indeed a valid way to achieve this goal?
It is in fact a valid way to achieve that goal; however, it is also a bit unusual to load an ApplicationContext that contains a single user bean.
Regards,
Sam (author of the Spring TestContext Framework)
It is definitely a reasonable and normal thing to only test a single class in a unit test.
There is no problem including just one single bean in your test context. Really, a #Configuration is (typically) just a collection of beans. You could hypothetically create a #Configuration class just with MyTestBean, but that would really be unnecessary, as you can accomplish doing the same thing listing your contextual beans with #ContextConfiguration#classes.
However, I do want to point out that for only testing a single bean in a true unit test, best practice ideally leans towards setting up the bean via the constructor and testing the class that way. This is a key reason why the Spring guys recommend using constructor vs. property injection. See the section entitled Constructor-based or setter-based DI of this article, Oliver Gierke's comment (i.e. head of Spring Data project), and google for more information. This is probably the reason you're getting a weird feeling about setting up the context for the one bean!
You can also use ApplicationContextRunner to create your context using a test configuration of your choice (even with one bean if you like, but as other people have already mentioned for one bean it's more reasonable to use the constructor the classical way without using any spring magic).
What I like this way of testing is the fact that test run very fast since you don't load all the context. This method is best used when the tested bean doesn't have any Autowired dependencies otherwise it's more convenient to use #SpringBootTest.
Below is an example that illustrates the way you can use it to achieve your goal:
class MyTest {
#Test
void test_configuration_should_contains_my_bean() {
new ApplicationContextRunner()
.withUserConfiguration(TestConfiguration.class)
.run(context -> {
assertThat(context.getBean(MyTestBean.class)).isNotNull();
});
}
#Configuraiton
public static class TestConfiguration {
#Bean
public MyTestBean myTestBean(){
new MyTestBean();
}
}
}
I’m looking for some guidance on the best way of writing integration (ie tests for entire Spring Boot Application) for Spring Cloud Task.
Based on existing documentation and samples I see two approaches for this:
1) Use the standard #SpringBootTest with #TestPropertySource(properties = {"spring.cloud.task.closecontext_enable=false"}
as described here
http://docs.spring.io/spring-cloud-task/docs/1.2.0.M2/reference/htmlsingle/#_writing_your_test
This seems to allow effectively only one test per test class as the task is run when the spring context is initialized ie once per test class. However
#Autowiring of beans in the context into the test class should work to eg to check the results of the task, or examine the state of the task repository.
2) Use SpringApplication.run(MyTaskApplication.class, myArguments); in each test method as in the example here
https://github.com/spring-cloud/spring-cloud-task/blob/master/spring-cloud-task-samples/batch-job/src/test/java/io/spring/BatchJobApplicationTests.java
This allows me to write multiple tests in the test class each with potentially different spring properties or batch job parameters.
The main problem I have with either approach that I can’t see how to get access eg #Autowire to beans in the context such as JdbcTemplate (eg to insert test input data for a job into an embedded db) or RestTemplate (to set up expectations using MockRestServiceServer)
after these beans are created but BEFORE the task is run - is this possible? If not it’s hard to see how to write meaningful integration tests for tasks.
What Ive done for now is a variation on approach (2) above (ie I can run the task more than once / have multiple tests in the same test class)
I'm using
SpringApplication application = new SpringApplication(new Object[] {MyTaskApplication.class, TestConfig.class});
TestConfig is defined with #TestConfiguration in the test class and contains mock beans etc overriding the actual beans
I then use
application.addListeners()
to add a ContextRefreshedEventListener which allows me to set expectations on mocks (or execute jdbc calls) after the beans are created but before the task is run.
(I have a generic Listener class that allows me to pass in the behaviour as a lambda or method reference per bean)
Then run the task with
application.run(args);
(can use different args in different tests)
I can also pass "--spring.cloud.task.closecontext_enable=false" as an argument to keep the application open if i want to verify mocks / db state after the test runs. In this case I close it manually at the end of the test.
If this seems a sensible approach it might be useful if Spring Cloud Task itself provided some sort of generic listener or hook to allow the setting of test state between bean creation and task execution.
I'm writing an integration testing framework, and in my parent test class I have the following:
#ContextConfiguration(loader = AnnotationConfigContextLoader.class)
public abstract class IntegrationTestParent extends AbstractTestNGSpringContextTests {
...
#Configuration
#EnableAutoConfiguration
#ComponentScan("redacted")
public static class AutomationTestConfig {
}
}
Which allows me a great deal of flexibility, however, I've noticed that my custom banner.txt file is no longer printed out, nor is my application.properties file (which sets spring.output.ansi.enabled=ALWAYS and some maven filtered application variables) being read.
In addition to some really leet figlet generated ascii art, it printed out a lot of convenient debug information about the JVM and various system and environment properties so I had a really good idea about the remote environments (a la Jenkins and Bamboo or anyone's arbitrary laptop) they were running on.
Is there a way to get this to behavior in addition to #ContextConfiguration(loader = AnnotationConfigContextLoader.class)?
I've found an intermediate solution. I will call it intermediate, because I get the behavior I want (annotation based contexts that are loadable in down stream projects where I have additional configurations and beans, etc) but I didn't use the AnnotationConfigContextLoader class.
I swapped it for the SpringApplicationContextLoader. Per the javadoc:
A ContextLoader that can be used to test Spring Boot applications
(those that normally startup using SpringApplication). Can be used to
test non-web features (like a repository layer) or start an
fully-configured embedded servlet container. Use #WebIntegrationTest
(or #IntegrationTest with #WebAppConfiguration) to indicate that you
want to use a real servlet container or #WebAppConfiguration alone to
use a MockServletContext.
If #ActiveProfiles are provided in the test class they will be used to
create the application context.
Based on the first few sentences, this was essentially what I was looking for.
I'm writing unit tests for pure java-config styled application with pretty big amount of configuration classes. To test some high-level logic I have to import a pack of configs. So, finally, the context declaration looks kinda:
#ContextConfiguration(
classes = {
// Common application configurations
BaseBusinessConfiguration.class, BusinessServicesConfiguration.class,
nts.trueip.gatekeeper.logic.configuration.ContextConfiguration.class,
ControllersConfiguration.class, FactoriesConfiguration.class, CachingConfiguration.class,
InterpretersConfiguration.class, UtilConfiguration.class, ValidatorsConfiguration.class,
// Common test environment configurations
MockedReposConfiguration.class, TestServicesConfiguration.class,
// Local test configuration
LogicTestConfiguration.class
}
)
I have to specify them for every test class in the project, and the majority of them are the same all the time, only some specific configurations may vary.
According to the #ContextConfiguration specification, it's possible to inherit locations and initializers from test superclass, but not classes.
Is there any practise to avoid so bulk configurations, moving some parts in superclasses/some side classes?
Despite the fact Spring hasn't a functional for configuration inheritance, #Import annotation works very well for the same purpose, in a composition style.