how can I override beans in Spring (Boot) Integration Tests the idiomatic way?
Up until now I had source configuration like this:
#Configuration
class ApplicationConfiguration {
#Bean
CarsRepository carsRepository() {
// return some real sql db
}
}
And tests like this:
#SpringBootTest
class ApplicationISpec extends Specification {
#Configuration
#Import(Application.class)
static class TestConfig {
#Bean
#Primary
CarsRepository testsCarsRepository() {
// return some in-memory repository
}
}
def "it can do stuff with cars"() {
// do some REST requests to application and verify it works
// there is no need to make real calls to real DB
}
}
First thing is that test bean testsCarsRepository method must differ than original one (which is not obvious, and there is no warning/error about it).
But the final question is: what is the idiomatic way of overriding beans with Spring in integration tests?
When I posted my WTF about method name on Twitter - Stephane Nicoll said the #Primary is not intended to be used for overriding beans in tests.
So what is the preferred way of that?
You can use #Profile together with #ActiveProfile annotation to separate you test and production configurations. For example change you test config to:
#SpringBootTest
#ActiveProfiles("test")
class CarsISpec extends Specification {
#Configuration
#Import(Application.class)
#Profile("test")
static class TestConfig {
#Bean
CarsRepository testsCarsRepository() {
// return some in-memory repository
}
}
}
Don't forget to mark you production configuration ApplicationConfiguration with #Profile("!test").
Also Spring Boot provides numerous tools for testing (e.g. #DataJpaTest with embedded database, #MockBean for mocking beans in context and etc.) Link to doc
Related
I have a Configuration Class, which creates the bean for RedissonClient and also Creates the CacheManager. How to create the Unit Test case for this Configuration classes.
Can we write unit test case for #Configuration Class?
If we can, How we need to develop.
I prefer to write the test case in Spock Framework, with Groovy. If not, using Junit or Mockito Framework. How to write the unit test case for the Classes which are annotated with #Configuration in Spring Boot application
#Configuration
public class CacheConfiguration {
private static final String CONFIG= "Configuration";
#Value("${redis.server.url}")
private String redisUrl;
#Value("${redis.server.password}")
private String password;
#Bean
public RedissonClient redissonClient() {
Config config = new Config();
config.useSingleServer().setAddress(redisUrl).setPassword(password);
RedissonClient client = Redisson.create(config);
return client;
}
#Bean
public CacheManager redissonCacheManager(RedissonClient redissonClient) {
Map<String, CacheConfig> config = new HashMap<String, CacheConfig>();
config.put(CONFIG, new CacheConfig(24*60*1000, 12*60*1000));
return new RedissonSpringCacheManager(redissonClient, config);
}
}
I think you should realize that classes annotated with #Configuration are not really java classes, or at least you should not treat them like this. I know it sound controversial, I'll explain...
So historically spring used XML configurations to declare beans.
In spring 2.5 I guess, they've introduced an annotation based method where you put annotations #Component/#Service on classes, put #Autowired wherever you want spring to inject dependencies, then spring starts, scans the classpath, detects the beans and starts the application context with these beans.
Then Spring 3.0 has introduced a Java Configuration way of doing spring related configurations:#Configuration / #Bean in a special class.
So you should view these configuration classes as a "substitution" to the methods I've described before
Now let me ask, do you think you should test and XML bean configuration on its own? Probably not...
Do you think you should test that class has annotation #Component on it and all the necessary dependencies are autowired (with reflection or whatever)? Probably not.
So why you want to test the Java Config classes?
Here is another argument that you might find interesting
I've said that these classes are solely for spring to resolve the beans and it internally runs them. But spring doesn't just "run" them - it creates run-time wrapper for them to overcome some technicalities. Here is an example of one such thing:
Lest assume we have three beans: A,B,C such as B and C depend on A.
class A {}
class B {
private A a;
public B(A a) {this.a = a;}
}
class C {
private A a;
public C(A a) {this.a = a;}
}
All beans are expected to be singletons so we define the configuration like this:
#Configuration
public class MyConfig {
#Bean
public A a() { return new A(); }
#Bean
public B b() { return new B(a()); }
public C c() {return new C(a()); }
}
Note that we call a() in definitions of B and C
Now, let me ask you a question: If its a "regular" java code how two different invocations of method a() (in B's and C's constructor) respectively are supposed to return the same instance of A?
So spring indeed uses a lot of sophisticated code and this is what actually runs in runtime, not your class as is, but the transformed version of it and you never know what are those transformations exactly since its and internal spring thing. But is so what is the point of testing it as it is?
I believe there are more arguments like this, but the point is clear - don't test the Configuration classes on their own.
Instead you can use an integration test that will run the spring container and load all the classes required in the configuration. However, in this case you'll probably want to mock some classes (by using #MockBean for example) so it won't be a 100% accurate test.
In terms of code coverage - IMO you should exclude these classes from coverage altogether
After some research and found that, we can run the embedded redis server and we can check whether we able to connect to redis server by spin up the application. I don't if this is correct or not. But by doing so, it really takes time to complete it, took around 20 seconds. Used following dependency to test this // https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/it.ozimov/embedded-redis
testCompile group: 'it.ozimov', name: 'embedded-redis', version: '0.7.2'
#SpringBootTest(classes = [TestApp])
class CacheConfigurationSpec extends Specification {
#Shared
RedisServer redisServer;
def setupSpec() {
redisServer = RedisServer.builder()
.port(6379)
.setting("bind 127.0.0.1")
.setting("maxmemory 128M")
.build()
redisServer.start()
}
def cleanupSpec() {
if (redisServer != null) {
redisServer.stop()
}
}
#Autowired
private RedissonClient redissonClient;
def "load all contexts"() {
}
}
#SpringBootApplication
class TestApp {
static void main(String[] args){
SpringApplication.run(TestApp.class, args)
}
}
I am using the #DataJpaTest from Spring for my test which will then use H2 as in memory database as described here . I'm also using Flyway for production. However once the test starts FLyway kicks in and reads the SQL file. How can I exclude the FlywayAutoConfiguration and keep the rest as described here in spring documentation in order to let Hibernate create the tables in H2 for me?
#RunWith(SpringRunner.class)
#DataJpaTest
public class MyRepositoryTest {
#Autowired
private TestEntityManager entityManager;
#Autowired
private MyRepository triggerRepository;
}
Have you tried the #OverrideAutoConfiguration annotation?
It says it "can be used to override #EnableAutoConfiguration".
I'm assuming that from there you can somehow exclude FlywayAutoConfiguration
like so:
#EnableAutoConfiguration(exclude=FlywayAutoConfiguration.class)
Adding the dependency on an in-memory database to my build.gradle
e.g. testRuntime "com.h2database:h2:1.4.194"
And adding flyway.enabled=false to application.properties in src/test/resources worked for me.
I am converting an old JDBC app into a spring-data-jpa app and I'm working on the first tests now. I kept seeing a security module instantiation error from spring-boot as it tried to bootstrap the security setup, even though #DataJpaTest should theoretically be excluding it.
My problem with the security module probably stems from the pre-existing implementation which I inherited using PropertySourcesPlaceholderConfigurer (via my PropertySpringConfig import below)
Following the docs here:
http://docs.spring.io/spring-boot/docs/1.4.x/reference/htmlsingle/#test-auto-configuration
and your comments on #LiviaMorunianu's answer, I managed to work my way past every spring-boot exception and get JUnit to run with an auto-configured embedded DB.
My main/production spring-boot bootstrap class bootstraps everything including the stuff I want to exclude from my tests. So instead of using #DataJpaTest, I copied much of what it is doing, using #Import to bring in the centralized configurations that every test / live setup will use.
I also had issues because of the package structure I use, since initially I was running the test which was based in com.mycompany.repositories and it didn't find the entities in com.mycompany.entities.
Below are the relevant classes.
JUnit Test
#RunWith(SpringRunner.class)
#Transactional
#Import({TestConfiguration.class, LiveConfiguration.class})
public class ForecastRepositoryTests {
#Autowired
ForecastRepository repository;
Forecast forecast;
#Before
public void setUp() {
forecast = createDummyForecast(TEST_NAME, 12345L);
}
#Test
public void testFindSavedForecastById() {
forecast = repository.save(forecast);
assertThat(repository.findOne(forecast.getId()), is(forecast));
}
Live Configuration
#Configuration
#EnableJpaRepositories(basePackages = {"com.mycompany.repository"})
#EntityScan(basePackages = {"com.mycompany.entity"})
#Import({PropertySpringConfig.class})
public class LiveConfiguration {}
Test Configuration
#OverrideAutoConfiguration(enabled = false)
#ImportAutoConfiguration(value = {
CacheAutoConfiguration.class,
JpaRepositoriesAutoConfiguration.class,
DataSourceAutoConfiguration.class,
DataSourceTransactionManagerAutoConfiguration.class,
HibernateJpaAutoConfiguration.class,
TransactionAutoConfiguration.class,
TestDatabaseAutoConfiguration.class,
TestEntityManagerAutoConfiguration.class })
public class TestConfiguration {
// lots of bean definitions...
}
PropertySpringConfig
#Configuration
public class PropertySpringConfig {
#Bean
static PropertySourcesPlaceholderConfigurer propertySourcesPlaceholderConfigurer()
throws IOException {
return new CorePropertySourcesPlaceholderConfigurer(
System.getProperties());
}
}
In my particular case, i needed to disable the FlywayDB on in-memory integration tests. These are using a set of spring annotations for auto-configuring a limited applicationContext.
#ImportAutoConfiguration(value = TestConfig.class, exclude = FlywayAutoConfiguration.class)
the exclude could effectively further limit the set of beans initiated for this test
I had the same problem with my DbUnit tests defined in Spock test classes. In my case I was able to disable the Flyway migration and managed to initialize the H2 test database tables like this:
#SpringBootTest(classes = MyApplication.class, webEnvironment = SpringBootTest.WebEnvironment.NONE,
properties = ["flyway.enabled=false", "spring.datasource.schema=db/migration/h2/V1__init.sql"])
I added this annotation to my Spock test specification class. Also, I was only able to make it work if I also added the context configuration annotation:
#ContextConfiguration(classes = MyApplication.class)
I resolved the same issue by excluding the autoconfiguration from my application definition, i.e.
#SpringBootApplication(exclude = {FlywayAutoConfiguration.class})
public class Application {
public static void main(String[] args) {
SpringApplication.run(Application.class, args);
}
}
you can also sue the following annotation:
#RunWith(SpringRunner.class)
#DataJpaTest(excludeAutoConfiguration = {MySqlConfiguration.class, ...})
public class TheClassYouAreUnitTesting {
}
You can just disable it in your test yaml file:
flyway.enabled: false
My goal is to migrate a Spring Boot application previously developed with Spring Boot 1.3 to the newest Spring Boot version 1.4. The application consists of several maven modules and only one of them contains class annotated with #SpringBootApplication.
One part of migration is to use #WebMvcTest annotation to efficiently test controllers, and here I get an issue.
Consider an example application from Spring Boot github page. #WebMvcTest annotation works perfectly, because, as far as I understand (after I did several tests), there is a class in the main package annotated with #SpringBootApplication. Note that I follow the same concept as shown in the example above for my own #WebMvcTest tests.
The only difference I see that in my application, controller classes are located in a separate maven module (without #SpringBootApplication annotated class), but with #Configuration and SpringBootConfiguration configurations. If I do not annotate any class with #SpringBootApplication I always get an assertion while testing controller. My assertion is the same as when SampleTestApplication class in the example above modified to have only #EnableAutoConfiguration and #SpringBootConfiguration annotations (#SpringBootApplication is not present):
getVehicleWhenRequestingTextShouldReturnMakeAndModel(sample.test.web.UserVehicleControllerTests) Time elapsed: 0.013 sec <<< FAILURE!
java.lang.AssertionError: Status expected:<200> but was:<404>
at org.springframework.test.util.AssertionErrors.fail(AssertionErrors.java:54)
at org.springframework.test.util.AssertionErrors.assertEquals(AssertionErrors.java:81)
at org.springframework.test.web.servlet.result.StatusResultMatchers$10.match(StatusResultMatchers.java:664)
at org.springframework.test.web.servlet.MockMvc$1.andExpect(MockMvc.java:171)
at sample.test.web.UserVehicleControllerTests.getVehicleWhenRequestingTextShouldReturnMakeAndModel(UserVehicleControllerTests.java:68)
How should I deal with that? Should I always have class annotated with #SpringBootApplication in order to run #WebMvcTest tests?
EDIT 1: I did a small maven project with 2 modules and a minimal configuration. It is here. Now, I get NoSuchBeanDefinitionException exception for repository defined in another module. If I configure "full" #SpringBootApplication - everything is fine.
EDIT 2: I modified small test project from EDIT 1 to give an original issue. I was playing with different annotations and added #ComponentScan on configuration class, because I suspected that beans are not registered properly. However, I expect that only #Controller bean (defined in #WebMvcTest(...class)) shall be registered based on magic behind #WebMvcTest behaviour.
EDIT 3: Spring Boot project issue.
Short answer: I believe so.
Long answer:
I believe #WebMvcTest needs to find the SpringBootApplication configuration since WebMvcTest's sole purpose is to help simplify tests (SpringBootApplication would rather try to load the whole world).
In your specific case, since you don't have any in your non-test packages, I believe it also finds SampleTestConfiguration which is annotated with #ScanPackages and somehow loads every beans.
Add the following in src/main/java/sample/test
#SpringBootApplication
public class SampleTestConfiguration {
}
And change your test to this:
#RunWith(SpringRunner.class)
#WebMvcTest(MyController.class)
public class MyControllerTest {
#Autowired
private MockMvc mvc;
#MockBean
private MyService ms;
#Autowired
private ApplicationContext context;
#Test
public void getDataAndExpectOkStatus() throws Exception {
given(ms.execute("1")).willReturn(false);
mvc.perform(get("/1/data").accept(MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON_VALUE)).andExpect(status().isOk()).andExpect(content().string("false"));
}
#Test
public void testMyControllerInAppCtx() {
assertThat(context.getBean(MyController.class), is(not(nullValue())));
}
#Test
public void testNoMyAnotherControllerInAppCtx() {
try {
context.getBean(MyAnotherController.class);
fail("Bean exists");
} catch (BeansException e) {
// ok
}
}
}
#WebMvcTest finds the SpringBootApplication, then load only a limited number of beans (see documentation):
#WebMvcTest will auto-configure the Spring MVC infrastructure and
limit scanned beans to #Controller, #ControllerAdvice, #JsonComponent,
Filter, WebMvcConfigurer and HandlerMethodArgumentResolver. Regular
#Component beans will not be scanned when using this annotation.
WebMvcTest requires SpringBootApplication: WebMvcTest inherits many AutoConfiguration, so it needs SpringBoot to load them. Then it disables many other AutoConfiguration and your Controllers become easily testable.
The whole point of using WebMvcTest is when you have a SpringBootApplication and you wish to make it simpler to test by disabling all beans except Controllers. If you don't have SpringBootApplication, then why use WebMvcTest at all?
It's an old topic, but there is a solution which wasn't mentioned here.
You can create a class annotated with SpringBootApplication just in your test sources. Then, you still have a nice, multi-module structure of your project, with just one "real" SpringBootApplication.
Yes,according to the spring boot docs
The search algorithm works up from the package that contains the test until it finds a #SpringBootApplication or #SpringBootConfiguration annotated class. As long as you’ve structure your code in a sensible way your main configuration is usually found.
But after I started using #WebMvcTest,spring boot still try to load other beans, finally TypeExcludeFilter did the trick.
#RunWith(SpringRunner.class)
#WebMvcTest(controllers = {JzYsController.class} )
public class JzYsControllerTest {
private static final String REST_V4_JZYS = "/rest/v4/JzYs";
#Autowired
private MockMvc mockMvc;
#MockBean
private JzYsService service;
#Test
public void deleteYsByMlbh() throws Exception {
Mockito.when(service.deleteYsByMlbh(Mockito.anyString())).thenReturn(Optional.of(1));
mockMvc.perform(delete(REST_V4_JZYS + "?mbbh=861FA4B0E40F5C7FECAF09C150BF3B01"))
.andExpect(status().isNoContent());
}
#SpringBootConfiguration
#ComponentScan(excludeFilters = #Filter(type = FilterType.CUSTOM, classes = TypeExcludeFilter.class))
public static class config{
}
}
There is one more solution. You can not use #WebMvcTest, but configure MockMvc yourself through the builder
class TestControllerTest {
private MockMvc mvc;
#BeforeEach
public void setup() {
mvc = MockMvcBuilders.standaloneSetup(new TestController())
.build();
}
#Test
void test() throws Exception {
// When
var res = mvc.perform(MockMvcRequestBuilders.get("/test/test"));
// Then
res.andExpect(status().isOk());
}
}
But this solution may entail a number of other problems, such as problems with configurations, environment property injections, etc.
I am working on custom Spring Boot starters. In a test starter what I wanted do to is to implement a composed annotation, which would add additional #Configuration classes to the ApplicationContext (and possibly use this annotation in a TestExecutionListener). ex:
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
#Target(ElementType.TYPE)
#ContextConfiguration(classes = AdditionalTestConfiguration.class)
public #interface ComposedAnnotation {
}
And use that in my Spring Boot integration test:
#RunWith(SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.class)
#WebIntegrationTest
#SpringApplicationConfiguration(Application.class)
#ComposedAnnotation
public class SomeTest {
}
No inheritance is involved. Unfortunately, it does not seem to work. I doubt it's a Spring Boot thing, rather Spring testing framework itself.
Is there any way I can achieve expected result?
You're right: this is not an issue with Spring Boot. But it's also not an issue with spring-test.
Rather, it's the intended behavior of Spring in general. For details, check out my answer to this question: #ActiveProfiles in meta annotation and on test class not working
In summary, you cannot achieve this with two #ContextConfiguration annotations declared on an individual test class (either directly or as meta-annotations).
However, I just came up with a trick that will allow you to achieve this. Specifically, you can create an ApplicationContextInitializer (ACI) that registers one or more #Configuration classes. In your composed annotation, you can then register this ACI to register the always present #Configuration classes. And when the composed annotation is actually used, it can declare additional #Configuration classes like normal.
I just submitted a working example in this commit.
Basically, the code would look something like this:
#ContextConfiguration(loader = AnnotationConfigContextLoader.class, initializers = FooConfigInitializer.class)
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
#Target(ElementType.TYPE)
public #interface ComposedContextConfiguration {
#AliasFor(annotation = ContextConfiguration.class, attribute = "classes")
Class<?>[] value() default {};
}
public class FooConfigInitializer implements ApplicationContextInitializer<GenericApplicationContext> {
#Override
public void initialize(GenericApplicationContext applicationContext) {
new AnnotatedBeanDefinitionReader(applicationContext).register(FooConfig.class);
}
}
And you can use it like this:
#RunWith(SpringRunner.class)
#ComposedContextConfiguration(BarConfig.class)
public class InitializerConfiguredViaMetaAnnotationTests { /* ... */ }
Your ApplicationContext will then be loaded from FooConfig and BarConfig.
The above examples obviously do not use Spring Boot, but the same principles should also be applicable to #SpringApplicationConfiguration.
Regards,
Sam (author of the Spring TestContext Framework)
For example, now in each test class I have to do
#RunWith(SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.class)
#ContextConfiguration(loader=AnnotationConfigContextLoader.class)
I want to get rid of
#ContextConfiguration(loader=AnnotationConfigContextLoader.class)
and want Spring to scan all the beans in my project.
How can I do that?
You can do this:
#RunWith(SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.class)
#ContextConfiguration
public class MyTest {
#Test
public void testSomething() {
}
#Configuration
#ComponentScan("basepackage")
public static class SpringConfig {
}
}
By default #ContextConfiguration will look for static inner classes annotated with #Configuration, which is why this set up will just work.
You can get rid of loader param altogether, that is not required
If you have your spring configuration in an xml file you would use something like:
#ContextConfiguration(locations="classpath:applicationContext.xml")
If you use Java Config then you would use
#ContextConfiguration(classes=Config.class)
I used generic names in the above samples, you'll of course need to adapt to your project's configuration.
In both cases Spring's component scanning will need to be enabled for Spring to pickup the annotated classes.
You can also simply add #SpringBootTest if using Spring Boot.
#TestConfiguration
#ComponentScan("basepackage")
public class TestConfig{
}
Adding a config class lets spring to load application context.
This solved this issue for me.