I am writing unit testing for a vuejs 2 application that uses Vuex as a store. I have the following pattern in many of my components:
example component thing.vue:
<template>
<div>
{{ thing.label }}
</div>
</template>
<script>
export default {
name: 'thing',
data() { return { } },
computed: {
thing () {
return this.$store.state.thing;
}
}
}
</script>
Example Store State:
export const state = {
thing: { label: 'test' }
};
Example Unit for Thing.vue:
describe('thing ', () => {
const storeMock = new Vuex.Store( state: { thing: { label: 'test' } } );
it('should pull thing from store', () => {
const Constructor = Vue.extend(thing);
const component new Constructor({ store }).$mount();
expect(component.thing).toEqual({ label: 'test' });
});
});
Example Unit test for Store:
import store from './store';
describe('Vuex store ', () => {
it('should have a thing object', () => {
expect(store.state.thing).toEqual({ label: 'test' });
});
});
There is a huge problem with this pattern. When another developer refractors the store state, they will see the Store test fail, but because the thing unit test is based on a mocked version of the store that test with continue to pass, even though that component will never work. There isn't a good way to know a refactor invalidated a Mock.
So how do people unit test this type of dependence?
One way would be to cheat a little on the unit test and use the real store state, but then it isn't really a unit test. The other way is rely on integration testing to catch the mock - store mismatch, but that feels like it would be painful to debug why the unit tests pass but the integration tests are failing.
What we ended up doing is using the actual store. Because the store state is just an object we figured it was acceptable.
We also use the store getters, actions and mutations as templates for jasmine spyies.
// Vuex needs polyfill
import { polyfill } from 'es6-promise';
polyfill();
import Vue from 'vue';
import Vuex from 'vuex';
Vue.use(Vuex);
import test from 'app/components/test.vue';
import module from 'app/store/modules/module';
describe('Spec for Test.vue', () => {
var props;
var state;
var actions;
var mutations;
var getters;
var store;
beforeEach( () => {
jasmine.addMatchers(customMatchers);
props = { };
// Don't change the modules
state = Object.assign({}, module.state);
actions = Object.assign({}, module.actions);
mutations = Object.assign({}, module.mutations);
getters = Object.assign({}, module.getters);
// Add require global actions, mutations, and getters here...
actions.globalActionHere = 'anything'; // this turns into a spy
// Update State with required fields
state.defaults = { id: 1 } // default expected when the component loads
// Replace modules copies with mocks
actions = jasmine.createSpyObj('actions', actions);
mutations = jasmine.createSpyObj('mutations', mutations);
getters = jasmine.createSpyObj('getters', getters);
store = new Vuex.Store( { state: { module: state }, getters, actions, mutations } );
} );
it('should have a name of test', () => {
const Constructor = Vue.extend(thing);
const component new Constructor({ store, props }).$mount();
expect(component.$options.name).toBe('test');
});
});
Note the part
jasmine.createSpyObj('actions', actions);
Jasmine spies will use the module to create spyies for each of the methods, which is very useful.
Related
I have a component that has addTodo method and todos property, when addTodo is invoked I get all the todos from NGXS store and assign them to todos property
export class AppComponent {
#Select("todo.todos") todos$!: Observable<Todo[]>;
addTodo() {
const todo = { title: "Todo title" };
this.store
.dispatch(new TodoActions.AddTodo(todo))
.pipe(withLatestFrom(this.todos$))
.subscribe(([_, todos]) => {
this.todos = todos;
console.log(this.todos); //(1)
});
}
}
Works fine in the browser, Now I want to write a unit test for this, Below is what I have currently
it("should #addTodo", (done) => {
const todo = {title: "Todo title"};
actions.pipe(ofActionCompleted(TodoActions.AddTodo)).subscribe(() => {
console.log(component.todos); //(2)
expect(component.todos).toBe(todo); //Assertion fails
done();
});
component.addTodo();
});
log (2) prints first and gives undefined, then log (1) gets printed which means data is assigned later after the assertion, How to test this scenario?
I have Apollo Client running on my React app, and trying to keep authentication info in a Reactive Variable using useReactiveVar. Everything works in the dummy function when I first set the variable, however it resets the state after refreshing the app.
Here's my cache.js:
import { InMemoryCache, makeVar } from "#apollo/client";
export const cache = new InMemoryCache({
typePolicies: {
Query: {
fields: {
isLoggedIn: {
read() {
return isLoggedInVar();
},
},
},
},
},
});
export const isLoggedInVar = makeVar();
export default cache;
Here's the component that reads the variable and renders different elements based on its state:
import React from "react";
import { useReactiveVar, useMutation } from "#apollo/client";
import MainButton from "../common/MainButton";
import { isLoggedInVar, userAddressVar } from "../../cache";
import { CREATE_OR_GET_USER } from "../../mutations/User";
const Profile = () => {
const isLoggedIn = useReactiveVar(isLoggedInVar);
const [createOrGetUser] = useMutation(CREATE_OR_GET_USER);
const handleCreateOrGetUser = () => {
const loginInput = {
address: 'text',
};
createOrGetUser({
variables: {
loginInput: loginInput,
},
}).then((res) => {
isLoggedInVar(true);
});
};
const profileComponent = isLoggedIn ? (
<div>Logged In</div>
) : (
<div onClick={handleCreateOrGetUser} className="profile-image"></div>
);
return (
<div className="profile-container">
{profileComponent}
</div>
);
};
export default Profile;
This component gets re-rendered properly when I invoke handleCreateOrGetUser, however, when I refresh the page, it resets the isLoggedInVar variable.
What would be the proper way to use Reactive Variables here to persist the cache?
It's not currently achievable using Apollo API according to their documentation.
There is currently no built-in API for persisting reactive variables,
but you can write variable values to localStorage (or another store)
whenever they're modified, and initialize those variables with their
stored value (if any) on app load.
There is a PR for that. https://github.com/apollographql/apollo-client/pull/7148
I am busy with a little proof of concept where basically the requirement is to have the home page be a login screen when a user has not logged in yet, after which a component with the relevant content is shown instead when the state changes upon successful authentication.
I have to state upfront that I am very new to react and redux and am busy working through a tutorial to get my skills up. However, this tutorial is a bit basic in the sense that it doesn't deal with connecting with a server to get stuff done on it.
My first problem was to get props to be available in the context of the last then of a fetch as I was getting an error that this.props.dispatch was undefined. I used the old javascript trick around that and if I put a console.log in the final then, I can see it is no longer undefined and actually a function as expected.
The problem for me now is that nothing happens when dispatch is called. However, if I manually refresh the page it will display the AuthenticatedPartialPage component as expected because the localstorage got populated.
My understanding is that on dispatch being called, the conditional statement will be reavaluated and AuthenticatedPartialPage should display.
It feels like something is missing, that the dispatch isn't communicating the change back to the parent component and thus nothing happens. Is this correct, and if so, how would I go about wiring up that piece of code?
The HomePage HOC:
import React from 'react';
import { createStore, combineReducers } from 'redux';
import { connect } from 'react-redux';
import AuthenticatedPartialPage from './partials/home-page/authenticated';
import AnonymousPartialPage from './partials/home-page/anonymous';
import { loggedIntoApi, logOutOfApi } from '../actions/authentication';
import authReducer from '../reducers/authentication'
// unconnected stateless react component
const HomePage = (props) => (
<div>
{ !props.auth
? <AnonymousPartialPage />
: <AuthenticatedPartialPage /> }
</div>
);
const mapStateToProps = (state) => {
const store = createStore(
combineReducers({
auth: authReducer
})
);
// When the user logs in, in the Anonymous component, the local storage is set with the response
// of the API when the log in attempt was successful.
const storageAuth = JSON.parse(localStorage.getItem('auth'));
if(storageAuth !== null) {
// Clear auth state in case local storage has been cleaned and thus the user should not be logged in.
store.dispatch(logOutOfApi());
// Make sure the auth info in local storage is contained in the state.auth object.
store.dispatch(loggedIntoApi(...storageAuth))
}
return {
auth: state.auth && state.auth.jwt && storageAuth === null
? state.auth
: storageAuth
};
}
export default connect(mapStateToProps)(HomePage);
with the Anonymous LOC being:
import React from 'react';
import { connect } from 'react-redux';
import { Link } from 'react-router-dom';
import { loggedIntoApi } from '../../../actions/authentication';
export class AnonymousPartialPage extends React.Component {
constructor(props) {
super(props);
}
onSubmit = (e) => {
e.preventDefault();
const loginData = { ... };
// This is where I thought the problem initially occurred as I
// would get an error that `this.props` was undefined in the final
// then` of the `fetch`. After doing this, however, the error went
// away and I can see that `props.dispatch is no longer undefined
// when using it. Now though, nothing happens.
const props = this.props;
fetch('https://.../api/auth/login', {
method: 'POST',
headers: {
'Content-Type': 'application/json',
},
body: JSON.stringify(loginData)
})
.then(function(response) {
return response.json();
})
.then(function(data) {
if(data && data.jwt) {
props.dispatch(loggedIntoApi(data));
localStorage.setItem('auth', JSON.stringify(data));
}
// else show an error on screen
});
};
render() {
return (
<div>
... onSubmit gets called successfully somewhere in here ...
</div>
);
}
}
export default connect()(AnonymousPartialPage);
the action:
// LOGGED_INTO_API
export const loggedIntoApi = (auth_token) => ({
type: 'LOGGED_INTO_API',
auth: auth_token
});
// LOGGED_OUT_OF_API
export const logOutOfApi = (j) => ({
type: 'LOG_OUT_OF_API'
});
and finally the reducer:
const authDefaultState = { };
export default (state = authDefaultState, action) => {
switch (action.type) {
case 'LOGGED_INTO_API':
// SOLUTION : changed this line "return action.auth;" to this:
return { ...action.auth, time_stamp: new Date().getTime() }
case 'LOG_OUT_OF_API':
return { auth: authDefaultState };
default:
return state;
}
};
My suggestion would be to make sure that the state that you are changing inside Redux is changing according to javascript's equality operator!. There is a really good answer to another question posted that captures this idea here. Basically, you can't mutate an old object and send it back to Redux and hope it will re-render because the equality check with old object will return TRUE and thus Redux thinks that nothing changed! I had to solve this issue by creating an entirely new object with the updated values and sending it through dispatch().
Essentially:
x = {
foo:bar
}
x.foo = "baz"
dispatch(thereWasAChange(x)) // doesn't update because the x_old === x returns TRUE!
Instead I created a new object:
x = {
foo:"bar"
}
y = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(x)) // creates an entirely new object
dispatch(thereWasAChange(y)) // now it should update x correctly and trigger a rerender
// BE CAREFUL OF THE FOLLOWING!
y = x
dispatch(thereWasAChange(y)) // This WON'T work!!, both y and x reference the SAME OBJECT! and therefore will not trigger a rerender
Hope this helps!
A react component wrapped with an apollo-client query will automatically initiate a call to the server for data.
I would like to fire off a request for data only on a specific user input.
You can pass the skip option in the query options - but this means the refetch() function is not provided as a prop to the component; and it appears that the value of skip is not assessed dynamically on prop update.
My use is case is a map component. I only want data for markers to be loaded when the user presses a button, but not on initial component mount or location change.
A code sample below:
// GraphQL wrapping
Explore = graphql(RoutesWithinQuery, {
options: ({ displayedMapRegion }) => ({
variables: {
scope: 'WITHIN',
targetRegion: mapRegionToGeoRegionInputType(displayedMapRegion)
},
skip: ({ targetResource, searchIsAllowedForMapArea }) => {
const skip = Boolean(!searchIsAllowedForMapArea || targetResource != 'ROUTE');
return skip;
},
}),
props: ({ ownProps, data: { loading, viewer, refetch }}) => ({
routes: viewer && viewer.routes ? viewer.routes : [],
refetch,
loading
})
})(Explore);
To include an HoC based on a condition affected by a props change, you could use branch from recompose.
branch(
test: (props: Object) => boolean,
left: HigherOrderComponent,
right: ?HigherOrderComponent
): HigherOrderComponent
check: https://github.com/acdlite/recompose/blob/master/docs/API.md#branch
For this specific example, would look something like:
const enhance = compose(
branch(
// evaluate condition
({ targetResource, searchIsAllowedForMapArea }) =>
Boolean(!searchIsAllowedForMapArea || targetResource != 'ROUTE'),
// HoC if condition is true
graphql(RoutesWithinQuery, {
options: ({ displayedMapRegion }) => ({
variables: {
scope: 'WITHIN',
targetRegion: mapRegionToGeoRegionInputType(displayedMapRegion)
},
}),
props: ({ ownProps, data: { loading, viewer, refetch } }) => ({
routes: viewer && viewer.routes ? viewer.routes : [],
refetch,
loading
})
})
)
);
Explore = enhance(Explore);
I have a similar use case, I wanted to load the data only when the user clicked.
I've not tried the withQuery suggestion given by pencilcheck above. But I've seen the same suggestion elsewhere. I will try it, but in the meantime this is how I got it working based off a discussion on github:
./loadQuery.js
Note: I'm using the skip directive:
const LOAD = `
query Load($ids:[String], $skip: Boolean = false) {
things(ids: $ids) #skip(if: $skip) {
title
}
`
LoadMoreButtonWithQuery.js
Here I use the withState higher-order function to add in a flag and a flag setter to control skip:
import { graphql, compose } from 'react-apollo';
import { withState } from 'recompose';
import LoadMoreButton from './LoadMoreButton';
import LOAD from './loadQuery';
export default compose(
withState('isSkipRequest', 'setSkipRequest', true),
graphql(
gql(LOAD),
{
name: 'handleLoad',
options: ({ids, isSkipRequest}) => ({
variables: {
ids,
skip: isSkipRequest
},
})
}
),
)(Button);
./LoadMoreButton.js
Here I have to manually "flip" the flag added using withState:
export default props => (
<Button onClick={
() => {
props.setSkipRequest(false); // setter added by withState
props.handleLoad.refetch();
}
}>+</Button>
);
Frankly I'm a little unhappy with this, as it is introduces a new set of wiring (composed in by "withState"). Its also not battle tested - I just got it working and I came to StackOverflow to check for better solutions.
When writing a Mocha test spec against an action creator how can I be certain what a timestamp will be if it is generated within the action creator?
It doesn't have to utilize Sinon, but I tried to make use of Sinon Fake Timers to "freeze time" and just can't seem to get this pieced together wither with my limited knowledge of stubbing and mocking. If this is considered a Redux anti-pattern please point me in a better direction, but my understanding is that Redux action creators can be non-pure functions, unlike reducers.
Borrowing a little from the Redux Writing Tests Recipes here is the core of my problem as I understand it...
CommonUtils.js
import moment from 'moment';
export const getTimestamp = function () {
return moment().format();
};
TodoActions.js
import { getTimestamp } from '../../utils/CommonUtils';
export function addTodo(text) {
return {
type: 'ADD_TODO',
text,
timestamp: getTimestamp() // <-- This is the new property
};
};
TodoActions.spec.js
import expect from 'expect';
import * as actions from '../../actions/TodoActions';
import * as types from '../../constants/ActionTypes';
import { getTimestamp } from '../../utils/CommonUtils';
describe('actions', () => {
it('should create an action to add a todo', () => {
const text = 'Finish docs';
const timestamp = getTimestamp(); // <-- This will often be off by a few milliseconds
const expectedAction = {
type: types.ADD_TODO,
text,
timestamp
};
expect(actions.addTodo(text)).toEqual(expectedAction);
});
});
When testing time I have used this library successfully in the past: https://www.npmjs.com/package/timekeeper
Then in a beforeEach and afterEach you can save the time to be something specific and make your assertions then reset the time to be normal after.
let time;
beforeEach(() => {
time = new Date(1451935054510); // 1/4/16
tk.freeze(time);
});
afterEach(() => {
tk.reset();
});
Now you can make assertions on what time is being returned. Does this make sense?
I would still love to see other answers but I finally got a reasonable solution. This answer uses proxyquire to override/replace the getTimestamp() method defined in CommonUtils when used by TodoActions for the duration of the test.
No modifications to CommonUtils.js or TodoActions.js from above:
TodoActions.spec.js
import expect from 'expect';
import proxyquire from 'proxyquire';
import * as types from '../../constants/ActionTypes';
const now = '2016-01-06T15:30:00-05:00';
const commonStub = {'getTimestamp': () => now};
const actions = proxyquire('../../actions/TodoActions', {
'../../utils/CommonUtils': commonStub
});
describe('actions', () => {
it('should create an action to add a todo', () => {
const text = 'Finish docs';
const timestamp = now; // <-- Use the variable defined above
const expectedAction = {
type: types.ADD_TODO,
text,
timestamp
};
expect(actions.addTodo(text)).toEqual(expectedAction);
});
});