I have a SpringBootTest where I need to initialize some stuff before the Spring #Configuration classes are processed. My data sources are loaded from JNDI, so I need to initialize the JNDI context before it processes the #Configuration class that contains my data source configuration. How can I accomplish this? I tried by using the setUp method in my unit test, but that doesn't work.
I wound up doing something similar to what's posted here: http://en.newinstance.it/2009/03/27/mocking-jndi/
Yeah, it's a little unorthodox to "mock" JNDI, but I wanted a true unit test where if JNDI were available and the data sources were under JNDI, my code was able to pull the data sources out and use them appropriately.
Related
I want to use Mongock migration tool to initialize my app's configuration that is stored in database.
The problem I have is that one of my configs is used in class that is annotated with #Configuration. As Mongock changesets are executed after #Configuration it cannot retrieve not existing yet value from database and that results in a crash of application. Is there a way to postpone creating #Configuration class? Or should I initialize this one config without using mongock?
I don't fully understand your issue. I think that you need Mongock to run before your class annotated with #Configuration is processed. As you mention, SpringMongock requires the configuration class to be processed, as it requires the Spring ApplicationContext. However, you can run Mongock as standalone runner and use it(run it) wherever you want, as it doesn't depend on Spring context.
Mongock documentation
I hope it helps.
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.
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 have written some code in order test integration with mongoDB. Please find the link to the main method for running this spring boot application below,
https://github.com/siva54/simpleusercontrol/blob/master/src/main/java/com/siva/UserManagementApplication.java
From what I have read, An application should contain any of the configurations from the following URL to declare how the applications manages the context,
http://docs.spring.io/autorepo/docs/spring-boot/current/reference/html/using-boot-using-springbootapplication-annotation.html
I haven't used any of those contexts, However my application works fine and I'm able to run it without any issues. Am I missing something here? Can you please help with the info of how my application is able to start and manage the context/dependencies automatically?
Thanks in advance
#SpringBootApplication is equivalent of #Configuration, #EnableAutoConfiguration and #ComponentScan. Let's consider why your application works without of any of this three annotations.
Why it works without #Configuration:
When Spring will scan packages, it will find all classes marked by #Configuration and will use them as part of configuration. But in next line you manually passed UserManagementApplication as configuration source:
SpringApplication.run(UserManagementApplication.class, args);
So spring doesn't need to find this class by scan. Therefor it is not necessary to mark it by #Configuration.
Why it works without #ComponentScan:
Class UserManagementApplication has #ImportResource("classpath:spring/application-context.xml") annotation. That means file spring/application-context.xml will be included into configuration. And this file contains next line:
<context:component-scan base-package="com.siva.*" />
So, you don't need use annotation for scan packages, because you already declared it in the xml file.
Why it works without #EnableAutoConfiguration:
This annotation allows to Spring to try guess and configure the components automatically. For example, if you include the following dependency in your build.gradle:
dependencies {
compile 'org.springframework.boot:spring-boot-starter-data-mongodb'
}
Spring configures all the components required to work with MongoDB automatically. And all you need just specify host and user/pass in the aplication.proprties file.
But you preferred to declare all needed beans manually in the spring/application-context.xml file. So, you simply don't need #EnableAutoConfiguration annotation at all.
I am having a little weird behavior with my spring-data-mongo where my repository package is not being scanned by the <mongo:repositories/> tag. I am using spring 3.2.3.RELEASE with spring-data-mongo 1.2.1.RELEASE.
I have a project called edowmis and in it there are 2 maven modules, datalayer and web which a webapp.I am using the datalayer in isolation so the other module can be ignored. I have an application context for datalayer
So I wanted to test my setup by writing a small Unit/Integration test but I've noticed I can't autowire my UserRepository because It says there isn't such a bean
Since I am using IntelliJ I can see certain visuals when things are ok and not ok. I've addec <context:component-scan/> to my application context but no result.
But when I add the #Component annotation it has started identifying the Class.
all information you might need is on pastie.org
Is the #component or #Repository really necessary or something is wrong with my configuration?
Yes, the #Component or #Repository is necessary. The scan simply indicates that spring should look for classes identified via annotations (#Component, #Repository, #Service) and load them as beans. If you don't use repository or component scan, you would have to manually instantiate all spring-managed beans via XML configuration or Java configuration.
You have to tell spring which classes to turn into beans as it doesn't assume everything in the classpath is supposed to be a spring-managed bean, which is why you need to use the annotations.