I'm new to JMock, trying to develop a Spring controller test. Here is my test method:
#Test
public void testList() {
context.checking(new Expectations() {{
Student student = new Student(767001);
oneOf(studentService).getByNumber(767001); will(returnValue(student));
}});
ModelMap model = new ModelMap();
Student student = new Student(767001);
model.addAttribute("student", student);
CourseRightController instance = new CourseRightController();
request.setMethod("GET");
Assert.assertEquals(studentService.getByNumber(767001),model.get(student));
The question is how I'm able to test if the model contains the right object and object values? ModelMap is not that flexible than e.g ModelAndWiew. I can't get access to model attributes so the last code line here is not how it should be.
I usually use the Model interface and then in a test super class I have code which allows me to get at things in the Model
#Ignore
public abstract class SpringControllerTestCase {
/**
* Spring Model object - initialised in #Before method.
*/
private Model model;
/**
* Initialise fields before each test case.
*/
#Before
public final void setUpAll() {
model = new ExtendedModelMap();
}
public final Model getModel() {
return model;
}
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public <T> T getModelValue(final String key, final Class<T> clazz) {
return (T) getModel().asMap().get(key);
}
}
then in a test I can do
assertEquals("someValue", getModelValue("bean", String.class));
or
assertTrue(getModelValue("student", Student.class).getId() == "767001");
Note this is all just shorthand for code like this
Student student = (Student) model.asMap().get("student");
assertEquals(767001, student.getId());
You can use extended model map instead for more flexibility. And you should declare references using the interface not implementation.
There is also this package to be included in spring 3.2 which may help : https://github.com/SpringSource/spring-test-mvc
However I have always been fine using extendedmodelmap and plain old hashmaps.
In your example, have you implemented equals (and hashcode) correctly, if you have not overrridden these methods the assertEquals will be testing if the objects are the same reference.
Related
I am new to the MVVM architecture in Android, and I have some days with a doubt that I consider basic, but that I can't solve.
I proceed to discuss my problem:
I have an Entity, CustomerView (this entity is created from a DatabaseView):
#DatabaseView("select ... ")
public class CustomerView {
public String cardCode;
public String cardName;
public String cardFName;
...
Then, I have a Dao class:
#Dao
public interface OCRD_DAO {
...
#Query("SELECT * from CustomerView where cardCode= :cardCode")
LiveData<CustomerView> getCustomerViewByCardCode(String cardCode);
...
}
The repository class, makes use of the DAO class:
public LiveData<CustomerView> getCustomer(String cardCode){
return mOcrdDao.getCustomerViewByCardCode(cardCode);
}
The CustomerSheetViewModel class:
public class CustomerSheetViewModel extends BaseObservable {
private Repository mRepository;
public LiveData<CustomerView> mCustomer;
private MutableLiveData<String> _cardName;
#Bindable
public MutableLiveData<String> getCardName(){
return this._cardName;
}
public MutableLiveData<String> setCardName(String value){
// Avoids infinite loops.
if (mCustomer.getValue().cardName != value) {
mCustomer.getValue().cardName = value;
// React to the change.
saveData();
// Notify observers of a new value.
notifyPropertyChanged(BR._cardName);
}
}
public CustomerSheetViewModel (Application application, String cardCode) {
mRepository = new Repository(application);
this.mCustomer = mRepository.getCustomer(cardCode);
//Init MutableLiveData????
this._cardName = this.mCustomer.getValue().cardName;
//Null Exception, because this.mCustomer.getValue() is null
}
}
At this point, my problem occurs: when I initialise the CustomerView object, it is of type LiveData. However, if I want to make use of 2-way binding, I need an object of type MutableLiveData. So, I think I should create the MutableLiveData object with the data extracted from the database (i.e. from the call to the repository). When I try this (e.g. getValue().cardName) a null exception is thrown, since LiveData is asynchronous.
Finally, I could make use of this property in the layout:
android:text="#={customerSheetViewModel.cardName}"
I really appreciate any help, as I can't find any reference to 2-way binding when the data comes from a database read.
Thanks in advance.
I have a question concerning the representation model processors of Spring HATEOAS. We are experimenting to process models before serializing them to the client. Our use case is to enrich the imageUrl field of UserModel objects at runtime, as we have to build the URL based on values from a config bean (AWS S3 bucket URL differs for DEV / PROD setup).
#Data
public class UserModel {
// ...
private String imageUrl;
}
Therefore, we create a UserProcessor to implement this:
public class UserProcessor implements RepresentationModelProcessor<EntityModel<UserModel>> {
private final ConfigAccessor configAccessor;
public UserProcessor(ConfigAccessor configAccessor) {
this.configAccessor = configAccessor;
}
#Override
public EntityModel<UserModel> process(EntityModel<UserModel> model) {
if (model.getContent() != null)
// do the enrichment and set "imageUrl" field
}
return model;
}
}
This works perfectly if we have a controller method like this:
#ResponseBody
#GetMapping("/me")
public EntityModel<UserModel> getCurrentUser(#AuthenticationPrincipal Principal principal) {
UserModel user = ... // get user model
return EntityModel.of(user);
}
However, we are struggling now with the enrichment whenever a UserModel is referenced in another model class, e.g., the BookModel:
#Data
public class BookModel {
private String isbn;
// ...
private EntityModel<UserModel> user; // or "private UserModel user;"
}
A controller method returning type EntityModel<BookModel> only applies the processor for its type, but not for types that are referenced. It seems the processors are not applied recursively.
Is this intentional or are we doing something wrong?
Thanks for any input and help,
Michael
I encountered the same issue and I resolved it by manually assembling resources, in your case that would be implementing RepresentationModelAssembler of the BookModel and then manually invoking the processor on the userModel object that is inside the book.
Make the outer resource a representation model
First consider the BookModel to extend RepresentationModel so that you can manually add links and assemble inner resources (which you would like for the EntityModel<UserModel> object)
#Data
public class BookModel extends RepresentationModel<BookModel> {...}
Write a model assembler
Now write the assembler that takes your book entity and transforms it into a representation model or a collection of these models. You will implement here what EntityModel.of(...) does for you automagically.
#Component
public class BookModelAssembler implements RepresentationModelAssembler<Book, BookModel> {
#Autowired
private UserProcessor userProcessor;
#Override
public BookModel toModel(Book entity) {
var bookModel = new BookModel(entity) // map fields from entity to model
// Transform the user entity to an entity model of user
var user = entity.getUser();
EntityModel<UserModel> userModel = EntityModel.of(user);
userModel = userProcessor.process(userModel);
bookModel.setUserModel(userModel);
return bookModel;
}
}
I might be going out on a limb but I suppose the reason for this is that the processors get invoked when an MVC endpoint returns a type that has a registered processor, which in the case of embedded types is not invoked. My reasoning is based on the docs for RepresentationModelProcessor, which states that processor processes representation models returned from Spring MVC controllers.
I am using Spring version 4.3.3 and Jackson version 2.8.3. I am trying to filter out specific fields from an entity bean based on some custom logic that is determined at runtime. The #JsonFilter seems ideal for this type of functionality. The problem is that when I put it at the field or method level, my custom filter never gets invoked. If I put it at the class level, it gets invoked just fine. I don't want to use it at the class level though since then I would need to separately maintain the list of hardcoded field names that I want to apply the logic to. As of Jackson 2.3, the ability to put this annotation at the field level is supposed to exist.
Here is the most basic custom filter without any custom logic yet:
public class MyFilter extends SimpleBeanPropertyFilter {
#Override
protected boolean include(BeanPropertyWriter beanPropertyWriter) {
return true;
}
#Override
protected boolean include(PropertyWriter propertyWriter) {
return true;
}
}
Then I have the Jackson ObjectMapper configuration:
public class MyObjectMapper extends ObjectMapper {
public MyObjectMapper () {
SimpleFilterProvider filterProvider = new SimpleFilterProvider();
filterProvider.addFilter("myFilter", new MyFilter());
setFilterProvider(filterProvider);
}
}
Then finally I have my entity bean:
#Entity
public class Project implements Serializable {
private Long id;
private Long version;
#JsonFilter("myFilter") private String name;
#JsonFilter("myFilter") private String description;
// getters and setters
}
If I move the #JsonFilter annotation to the class level where #Entity is, the filter at least gets invoked, but when it is at the field level like in the example here, it never gets invoked.
I have the same need but after examining the unit tests I discovered that this is not the use-case covered by annotating a field.
Annotating a field invokes a filter on the value of the field not the instance containing the field. For example, imagine you have to classes, A and B, where A contains a field of type B.
class A {
#JsonFilter("myFilter") B foo;
}
Jackson applies "myFilter" to the fields in B not in A. Since your example contains fields of type String, which has no fields, Jackson never invokes your filter.
I have a need to exclude certain fields based on the caller's permissions. For example, an employee's profile may contain his taxpayer id, which is considered sensitive information and should only be serialized if the caller is a member of the Payrole department. Since I'm using Spring Security, I wish to integrate Jackson with the current security context.
public class EmployeeProfile {
private String givenName;
private String surname;
private String emailAddress;
#VisibleWhen("hasRole('PayroleSpecialist')")
private String taxpayerId;
}
The most obvious way to do this is to Jackson's filter mechanism but it has a few limitations:
Jackson does not support nested filters so adding an access filter prohibits using filters for any other purpose.
One cannot add Jackson annotations to existing, third-party classes.
Jackson filters are not designed to be generic. The intent is to write a custom filter for each class you wish to apply filtering. For example, I you need to filter classes A and B, then you have to write an AFilter and a BFilter.
For my use-case, the solution is to use a custom annotation introspector in conjunction with a chaining filter.
public class VisibilityAnnotationIntrospector extends JacksonAnnotationIntrospector {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
#Override
public Object findFilterId(Annotated a) {
Object result = super.findFilterId(a);
if (null != result) return result;
// By always returning a value, we cause Jackson to query the filter provider.
// A more sophisticated solution will introspect the annotated class and only
// return a value if the class contains annotated properties.
return a instanceof AnnotatedClass ? VisibilityFilterProvider.FILTER_ID : null;
}
}
This is basically a copy SimpleBeanProvider that replaces calls to include with calls to isVisible. I'll probably update this to use a Java 8 BiPredicate to make the solution more general but works for now.
This class also takes another filter as an argument and will delegate to it the final decision on whether to serialize the field if the field is visible.
public class AuthorizationFilter extends SimpleBeanPropertyFilter {
private final PropertyFilter antecedent;
public AuthorizationFilter() {
this(null);
}
public AuthorizationFilter(final PropertyFilter filter) {
this.antecedent = null != filter ? filter : serializeAll();
}
#Deprecated
#Override
public void serializeAsField(Object bean, JsonGenerator jgen, SerializerProvider provider, BeanPropertyWriter writer) throws Exception {
if (isVisible(bean, writer)) {
this.antecedent.serializeAsField(bean, jgen, provider, writer);
} else if (!jgen.canOmitFields()) { // since 2.3
writer.serializeAsOmittedField(bean, jgen, provider);
}
}
#Override
public void serializeAsField(Object pojo, JsonGenerator jgen, SerializerProvider provider, PropertyWriter writer) throws Exception {
if (isVisible(pojo, writer)) {
this.antecedent.serializeAsField(pojo, jgen, provider, writer);
} else if (!jgen.canOmitFields()) { // since 2.3
writer.serializeAsOmittedField(pojo, jgen, provider);
}
}
#Override
public void serializeAsElement(Object elementValue, JsonGenerator jgen, SerializerProvider provider, PropertyWriter writer) throws Exception {
if (isVisible(elementValue, writer)) {
this.antecedent.serializeAsElement(elementValue, jgen, provider, writer);
}
}
private static boolean isVisible(Object pojo, PropertyWriter writer) {
// Code to determine if the field should be serialized.
}
}
I then add a custom filter provider to each instance of ObjectMapper.
#SuppressWarnings("deprecation")
public class VisibilityFilterProvider extends SimpleFilterProvider {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
static final String FILTER_ID = "dummy-filter-id";
#Override
public BeanPropertyFilter findFilter(Object filterId) {
return super.findFilter(filterId);
}
#Override
public PropertyFilter findPropertyFilter(Object filterId, Object valueToFilter) {
if (FILTER_ID.equals(filterId)) {
// This implies that the class did not have an explict filter annotation.
return new AuthorizationFilter(null);
}
// The class has an explicit filter annotation so delegate to it.
final PropertyFilter antecedent = super.findPropertyFilter(filterId, valueToFilter);
return new VisibilityPropertyFilter(antecedent);
}
}
Finally, I have a Jackson module that automatically registers the custom annotaion introspector so I don't have to add it to each ObjectMapper instance manually.
public class FieldVisibilityModule extends SimpleModule {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
public FieldVisibilityModule() {
super(PackageVersion.VERSION);
}
#Override
public void setupModule(Module.SetupContext context) {
super.setupModule(context);
// Append after other introspectors (instead of before) since
// explicit annotations should have precedence
context.appendAnnotationIntrospector(new VisibilityAnnotationIntrospector());
}
}
There are more improvements that can be made and I still have more unit tests to write (e.g., handling arrays and collections) but this is the basic strategy I used.
You can try this approach for the same purpose:
#Entity
#Inheritance(
strategy = InheritanceType.SINGLE_TABLE
)
#DiscriminatorColumn(
discriminatorType = DiscriminatorType.STRING,
length = 2
)
#Table(
name = "project"
)
#JsonTypeInfo(
use = Id.CLASS,
include = As.PROPERTY,
property = "#class"
)
#JsonSubTypes({
#Type(
value = BasicProject.class,
name = "basicProject"
),
#Type(
value = AdvanceProject.class,
name = "advanceProject"
)})
public abstract class Project {
private Long id;
private Long version;
}
#Entity
#DiscriminatorValue("AD")
public class AdvanceProject extends Project {
private String name;
private String description;
}
#Entity
#DiscriminatorValue("BS")
public class BasicProject extends Project {
private String name;
}
I don't think you will make it work. I was trying and these are results of my investigation, maybe it will be helpful.
First of all, as #Faron noticed, the #JsonFilterannotation is applied for the class being annotated not a field.
Secondly, I see things this way. Let's imagine, somewhere in Jackson internals you are able to get the actual field. You can figure out if there is the annotation using Java Reflection API. You can even get the filter name. Then you get to the filter and pass the field value there. But it happens at runtime, how will you get the corresponding JsonSerializer of the field type if you decide to serialize the field? It is impossible because of type erasure.
The only alternative I see is to forget about dynamic logic. Then you can do the following things:
1) extend JacksonAnnotationIntrospector (almost the same as implement AnnotationIntrospector but no useless default code) overriding hasIgnoreMarker method. Take a look at this answer
2) criminal starts here. Kinda weird way taking into account your initial goal but still: extend BeanSerializerModifier and filter out fields there. An example can be found here. This way you can define serializer that actually doesn't serialize anything (again, I understand how strange it is but maybe one will find it helpful)
3) similar to the approach above: define useless serializer based on BeanDescription implementing ContextualSerializer's createContextual method. The example of this magic is here
Thanks to this really good blog, I was able to use #JsonView to filter out specific fields from an entity bean based on some custom logic that is determined at runtime.
Since the #JsonFilter does not apply for the fields within a class, I found this to be a cleaner workaround.
Here is the sample code:
#Data
#AllArgsConstructor
public class TestEntity {
private String a;
#JsonView(CustomViews.SecureAccess.class)
private Date b;
#JsonView(CustomViews.SecureAccess.class)
private Integer c;
private List<String> d;
}
public class CustomViews {
public static interface GeneralAccess {}
public static interface SecureAccess {}
public static class GeneralAccessClass implements GeneralAccess {}
public static class SecureAccessClass implements SecureAccess, GeneralAccess {}
public static Class getWriterView(final boolean hasSecureAccess) {
return hasSecureAccess
? SecureAccessClass.class
: GeneralAccessClass.class;
}
}
#Test
public void test() throws JsonProcessingException {
final boolean hasSecureAccess = false; // Custom logic resolved to a boolean value at runtime.
final TestEntity testEntity = new TestEntity("1", new Date(), 2, ImmutableList.of("3", "4", "5"));
final ObjectMapper objectMapper = new ObjectMapper().enable(MapperFeature.DEFAULT_VIEW_INCLUSION);
final String serializedValue = objectMapper
.writerWithView(CustomViews.getWriterView(hasSecureAccess))
.writeValueAsString(testEntity);
Assert.assertTrue(serializedValue.contains("a"));
Assert.assertFalse(serializedValue.contains("b"));
Assert.assertFalse(serializedValue.contains("c"));
Assert.assertTrue(serializedValue.contains("d"));
}
I have a REST API built with Spring Boot / Spring MVC, using the implicit JSON serialization via Jackson.
Now, just before the implicit serialization, I would like to "inject" some UI texts from message resources into the objects that Jackson converts into JSON. Is there some neat, simple way to do this?
As a much simplified example, below I'd like to set Section title to a user-visible value, based purely based on its SectionType.
(Sure, I could hardcode the UI texts in SectionType, but I'd rather keep them separate, in resource files, because it's cleaner, and they might be localised at some point. And I can't autowire MessageSource in the entities / model objects which are not Spring-managed.)
#Entity
public class Entry {
// persistent fields omitted
#JsonProperty
public List<Sections> getSections() {
// Sections created on-the-fly, based on persistent data
}
}
public class Section {
public SectionType type;
public String title; // user-readable text whose value only depends on type
}
public enum SectionType {
MAIN,
FOO,
BAR;
public String getUiTextKey() {
return String.format("section.%s", name());
}
}
Somewhere in a #RestController:
#RequestMapping(value = "/entry/{id}", method = RequestMethod.GET)
public Entry entry(#PathVariable("id") Long id) {
return service.findEntry(id);
}
UI texts that I'd like to keep separate from code (messages_en.properties):
section.MAIN=Main Section
section.FOO=Proper UI text for the FOO section
section.BAR=This might get localised one day, you know
And what I'd like to do in a Spring-managed service/bean somewhere (using Messages, a very simple helper wrapping a MessageSource):
section.title = messages.get(section.type.getUiTextKey())
Note that if I call entry.getSections() and set the title for each, it will not affect the JSON output, since the Sections are generated on the fly in getSections().
Do I have to go all the way to custom deseriazation, or is there a simpler way to hook into the model objects just before they get serialized by Jackson?
Sorry if the question is unclear; I can try to clarify if needed.
As I said in the comment you can write an Aspect around every controller method that returns Section.
I wrote a simple example. You have to modify it with the message source.
Controller:
#RestController
#RequestMapping("/home")
public class HomeController {
#RequestMapping("/index")
public Person index(){
Person person = new Person();
person.setName("evgeni");
return person;
}
}
Aspect
#Aspect
#Component
public class MyAspect {
#Around("execution(public Person com.example..*Controller.*(..))")//you can play with the pointcut here
public Object addSectionMessage(ProceedingJoinPoint pjp) throws Throwable {
Object retVal = pjp.proceed();
Person p = (Person) retVal; // here cast to your class(Section) instead of Person
p.setAge(26);//modify the object as you wish and return it
return p;
}
}
Since the aspect is also a #Component you can #Autowire in it.
I am using spring mvc without annotations.
I want to take jsp(html code) as response from ajax call.
I do not want to use response.getWriter().print(..). can any one tell me any other solution.?
You can return JSP using ModelAndView like this
#RequestMapping (
value = "/path/call",
method = RequestMethod.POST
)
#ResponseBody
public ModelAndView blah(....) {
return new ModelAndView("location to JSP file");
}
You could add data to MandV using the method below
/**
* Add an attribute to the model.
* #param attributeName name of the object to add to the model
* #param attributeValue object to add to the model (never {#code null})
* #see ModelMap#addAttribute(String, Object)
* #see #getModelMap()
*/
public ModelAndView addObject(String attributeName, Object attributeValue) {
getModelMap().addAttribute(attributeName, attributeValue);
return this;
}
i highly recommend reading the documentation, without actual knowledge of the spring framework you will have a hard time using it ... As has already been mentioned, you will usually have a Controller class which handles requests - these are annotated with #RequestMapping and the controller is annotated with #Controller, of course. This is an example from the documentation :
#Controller
#RequestMapping("/appointments")
public class AppointmentsController {
private final AppointmentBook appointmentBook;
#Autowired
public AppointmentsController(AppointmentBook appointmentBook) {
this.appointmentBook = appointmentBook;
}
#RequestMapping(method = RequestMethod.GET)
public Map<String, Appointment> get() {
return appointmentBook.getAppointmentsForToday();
}
#RequestMapping(value="/{day}", method = RequestMethod.GET)
public Map<String, Appointment> getForDay(#PathVariable #DateTimeFormat(iso=ISO.DATE) Date day, Model model) {
return appointmentBook.getAppointmentsForDay(day);
}
#RequestMapping(value="/new", method = RequestMethod.GET)
public AppointmentForm getNewForm() {
return new AppointmentForm();
}
#RequestMapping(method = RequestMethod.POST)
public String add(#Valid AppointmentForm appointment, BindingResult result) {
if (result.hasErrors()) {
return "appointments/new";
}
appointmentBook.addAppointment(appointment);
return "redirect:/appointments";
}
}
As you can see, requests are now semi-automatically resolved / passed to JSP-parsers which process your stored JSP and output HTML. That is called MVC and although the MVC-model in spring differs a bit from the standard point of view its quite useful and somewhat standard'ish.
Yet again : if you want to use spring, please read the documentation. It is important and useful.
spring mvc without annotations
pretty much defeats the whole concept. I think you need to re-do your application design, apparently it is flawed --- no offense, im just stating the obvious.