Trying to write some junits for a component. The issue im having is that that component has an autowired dependency, which itself has 3 autowired dependencies. So when I try to test a method, I keep getting a npe.
#Component
public class Transformer {
private CacheService cacheService;
public Transformer(CacheService cacheService) {
this.cacheService = cacheService;
}
public void doAction(CustomObject o){
cacheService.perform(o);
}
#Component
public class CacheService {
#Autowired private GenericBean genericBean;
#Autowired private Dao dao
public void doAction(CustomObject o){
dao.fetch(o);
}
}
Once it gets to that doAction method i get a npe since all those autowired beans are null. How do I get past this issue? I've tried a few past solutions I saw here, but none worked.
Consider using constructor level injection instead of field level injection (#Autowired on fields). Then you can construct your CacheService with needed mocks. this is best practice in most cases.
Otherwise check Spring #InjectMocks annotation.
But what about this:
#Service
public class DatabaseAccountService implements AccountService {
private final RiskAssessor riskAssessor;
public DatabaseAccountService(RiskAssessor riskAssessor) {
this.riskAssessor = riskAssessor;
}
// ...
}
This example is from the documentation:
https://docs.spring.io/spring-boot/docs/2.0.x/reference/html/using-boot-spring-beans-and-dependency-injection.html
Maybe I have not understood even the question. Could you comment?
In Spring there are at least 2 different ways for dependency injection: constructor injection and field injection. (leaving setter injection aside for now)
Constructor injection is the recommended way to do dependency injection:
#Service
public class DatabaseAccountService {
private final RiskAssessor riskAssessor;
#Autowired // annotation is not required in recent Spring versions
public DatabaseAccountService(RiskAssessor riskAssessor) {
this.riskAssessor = riskAssessor;
}
}
The referenced Spring documentation also shows an example for constructor injection, simply because it's the recommended way.
Field injection is used to inject dependencies directly into fields/properties as mentioned in the question.
#Service
public class DatabaseAccountService {
#Autowired // don't do this at home or work
private RiskAssessor riskAssessor;
public DatabaseAccountService() {
// RiskAssessor does not appear as constructor parameter
}
}
With the question in video "Can you use dependency injection against a (private) property?" they want to point exactly to field injection maybe to show the possibilities of Spring.
However, they also say that this is bad practice. The blog post Why field injection is evil explains why this is bad practice.
I am developing a SpringBoot application. Can anyone help me understand what is the difference between the below piece of code. I am working on a restful service and I saw constructor being autowired. I can understand its Constructor Injection. Usually I autowire a field. So I am unable to understand the difference between two.
Scenario 1:
#RestController
public class SomeServiceController {
#Autowired
private ASerice aService;
#Autowired
private BService bService;
}
Scenario 2:
#RestController
public class SomeServiceController {
private ASerice aService;
private BService bService;
#Autowired
public SomeServiceController (AService aService, BService bService)
{
this.aService = aService;
this.bService = bService;
}
}
The difference is that with the constructor injection, the class SomeServiceController can only be created if with this constructor.
So you could even instantiate the class to test it.
With field injection, this is not possible. To instantiate the class for a test, you must use reflection to set the two private services.
It's highly recommended to use constructor expression.
https://docs.spring.io/spring-framework/docs/current/reference/html/core.html#beans-factory-collaborators
So since I've been using Spring, if I were to write a service that had dependencies I would do the following:
#Component
public class SomeService {
#Autowired private SomeOtherService someOtherService;
}
I have now run across code that uses another convention to achieve the same goal
#Component
public class SomeService {
private final SomeOtherService someOtherService;
#Autowired
public SomeService(SomeOtherService someOtherService){
this.someOtherService = someOtherService;
}
}
Both of these methods will work, I understand that. But is there some advantage to using option B? To me, it creates more code in the class and unit test. (Having to write constructor and not being able to use #InjectMocks)
Is there something I'm missing? Is there anything else the autowired constructor does besides add code to the unit tests? Is this a more preferred way to do dependency injection?
Yes, option B (which is called constructor injection) is actually recommended over field injection, and has several advantages:
the dependencies are clearly identified. There is no way to forget one when testing, or instantiating the object in any other circumstance (like creating the bean instance explicitly in a config class)
the dependencies can be final, which helps with robustness and thread-safety
you don't need reflection to set the dependencies. InjectMocks is still usable, but not necessary. You can just create mocks by yourself and inject them by simply calling the constructor
See this blog post for a more detailed article, by one of the Spring contributors, Olivier Gierke.
I will explain you in simple words:
In Option(A), you are allowing anyone (in different class outside/inside the Spring container) to create an instance using default constructor (like new SomeService()), which is NOT good as you need SomeOtherService object (as a dependency) for your SomeService.
Is there anything else the autowired constructor does besides add code
to the unit tests? Is this a more preferred way to do dependency
injection?
Option(B) is preferred approach as it does NOT allow to create SomeService object without actually resolving the SomeOtherService dependency.
Please note, that since Spring 4.3 you don't even need an #Autowired on your constructor, so you can write your code in Java style rather than tying to Spring's annotations.
Your snippet would look like that:
#Component
public class SomeService {
private final SomeOtherService someOtherService;
public SomeService(SomeOtherService someOtherService){
this.someOtherService = someOtherService;
}
}
Good to know
If there is only one constructor call, there is no need to include an #Autowired annotation. Then you can use something like this:
#RestController
public class NiceController {
private final DataRepository repository;
public NiceController(ChapterRepository repository) {
this.repository = repository;
}
}
... example of Spring Data Repository injection.
Actually, In my experience, The second option is better. Without the need for #Autowired. In fact, it is wiser to create code that is not too tightly coupled with the framework (as good as Spring is). You want code that tries as much as possible to adopt a deferred decision-making approach. That is as much pojo as possible, so much such that the framework can be swapped out easily.
So I would advise you create a separate Config file and define your bean there, like this:
In SomeService.java file:
public class SomeService {
private final SomeOtherService someOtherService;
public SomeService(SomeOtherService someOtherService){
this.someOtherService = someOtherService;
}
}
In ServiceConfig.java file:
#Config
public class ServiceConfig {
#Bean
public SomeService someService(SomeOtherService someOtherService){
return new SomeService(someOtherService);
}
}
In fact, if you want to get deeply technical about it, there are thread safety questions (among other things) that arise with the use of Field Injection (#Autowired), depending on the size of the project obviously. Check this out to learn more on the advantages and disadvantages of Autowiring. Actually, the pivotal guys actually recommend that you use Constructor injection instead of Field Injection
I hope I won't be downgraded for expressing my opinion, but for me option A better reflects the power of Spring dependency injection, while in the option B you are coupling your class with your dependency, in fact you cannot instantiate an object without passing its dependencies from the constructor. Dependency Injection have been invented for avoid that by implementing Inversion of Control,so for me option B doesn't have any sense.
Autowired constructors provides a hook to add custom code before registering it in the spring container. Suppose SomeService class extends another class named SuperSomeService and it has some constructor which takes a name as its argument. In this case, Autowired constructor works fine. Also, if you have some other members to be initialized, you can do it in the constructor before returning the instance to spring container.
public class SuperSomeService {
private String name;
public SuperSomeService(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
}
#Component
public class SomeService extends SuperSomeService {
private final SomeOtherService someOtherService;
private Map<String, String> props = null;
#Autowired
public SomeService(SomeOtherService someOtherService){
SuperSomeService("SomeService")
this.someOtherService = someOtherService;
props = loadMap();
}
}
I prefer construction injection, just because I can mark my dependency as final which is not possible while injecting properties using property injection.
your dependencies should be final i.e not modified by program.
There are few cases when #Autowired is preferable.
One of them is circular dependency. Imagine the following scenario:
#Service
public class EmployeeService {
private final DepartmentService departmentService;
public EmployeeService(DepartmentService departmentService) {
this.departmentService = departmentService;
}
}
and
#Service
public class DepartmentService {
private final EmployeeService employeeService;
public DepartmentService(EmployeeService employeeService) {
this.employeeService = employeeService;
}
}
Then Spring Bean Factory will throw circular dependency exception. This won't happen if you use #Autowired annotation in both beans. And this is understandable: the constructor injection happens at very early stage of Spring Bean initialization, in createBeanInstance method of Bean Factory, while #Autowired-based injection happens way later, on post processing stage and is done by AutowiredAnnotationBeanPostProcessor.
Circular dependency is quite common in complex Spring Context application, and it needs not to be just two beans referring one another, it could a complex chain of several beans.
Another use case, where #Autowired is very helpful, is self-injection.
#Service
public class EmployeeService {
#Autowired
private EmployeeService self;
}
This might be needed to invoke an advised method from within the same bean. Self-injection is also discussed here and here.
There is a way to inject the dependencies through constructor using #RequeiredArgsContructor annotation from Lombok
#RequiredArgsConstructor
#Service
class A {
private final B b // needs to be declared final to be injected
}
In this way you don't need to specify a constructor
I have a spring controller that uses annotations. I gave this controller a constructor that takes two arguments. I want both ways of initializing the controller: constructor injection and setter injection.
#Controller("viewQuestionController")
#RequestMapping("/public/viewQuestions")
public class ViewQuestionController
{
#Resource(name="questionService")
private QuestionService questionService;
/*public ViewQuestionController()
{
int i=0;
i++;
}
*/
public ViewQuestionController(#Qualifier("questionService") QuestionService questionService)
{
this.questionService = questionService;
}
#Resource(name="questionService")
public void setQuestionService(QuestionService questionService)
{
this.questionService = questionService;
}
}
When I uncomment the default constructor, the controller is initiated correctly. However, if I don't, I get a BeanInstantiationException, No default constructor found; nested exception is java.lang.NoSuchMethodException.
So, is my configuration for the annotated constructor wrong or does a completely annotated controller in spring always need a default constructor?
If you want to configure constructor injection via annotations, you need to put the corresponding annotation on the constructor. I'm not sure how it can be done with #Resource, but #Autowired and #Inject support it:
#Autowired
public ViewQuestionController(#Qualifier("questionService") QuestionService questionService)
or
#Inject
public ViewQuestionController(#Named("questionService") QuestionService questionService)
I think Controller beans need a default constructor as they are initialized by the framework but there is no way to tell the framework hot to provide the dependency.
On second thought why not you autowire your question service and Spring will take care of it.
The following code should be good
#Controller("viewQuestionController")
#RequestMapping("/public/viewQuestions")
public class ViewQuestionController
{
#Autowired
private QuestionService questionService;
//Not providing any constructor would also be fine
public ViewQuestionController(){}
questionService will be initialized properly by Spring