We have domain objects that extend an abstract base class to support a timestamp
abstract class TimestampedObject {
private Date timestamp;
public Date getTimestamp(){return timestamp;}
public void setTimestamp(final Date timestamp){this.timestamp = timestamp;}
}
But this clutters our hierarchy.
Could we use Spring AOP introductions or Aspectj ITDs to achieve this ?
An example right out of the AspectJ in Action book (from memory not tested) would go something like this:
public interface Timestamped {
long getTimestamp();
void setTimestamp();
public static interface Impl extends Timestamped {
public static aspect Implementation {
private long Timestamped.Impl.timestamp;
public long Timestamped.Impl.getTimestamp(){ return timestamp; }
public void Timestamped.Impl.setTimestamp(long in) { timestamp = in; }
}
}
//and then your classes would use it like this:
public class SomeClass implements Timestamped.Impl {
private void someFunc() {
setTimestamp(12);
long t = getTimestamp();
}
}
Not sure if the book had it that way or not but I usually create a separate Impl interface (as shown above) that just extends the main one so that some of my classes can implement timestamping differently without acquiring the ITD implementation. Like so :
public class SomeOtherClass implements Timestamped {
private long myOwnPreciousTimestamp;
public long getTimestamp() {
//Oh! I don't know should I give it to you?!
//I know, I will only give you a half of my timestamp
return myOwnPreciousTimestamp/2;
}
//etc.....
}
Yes, this is exactly what ITDs are for.
Related
I have a class containing constants:
namespace Test.AppService
{
public static class Const
{
public const bool Tmr = false;
public const int Pti = 10;
...
I was wondering if this would be a good candidate for dependency injection or would it be better to leave it as it is and just add using for Test.AppService into every page? Would appreciate advice on this.
Reading your comment about needing to use a different set of constants if that is something you see happening then Dependency injection makes sense. For example if you are using different environments like DEV, QA, Release comes to mind.
You would need to declare an interface with all your public fields. Implement that Interface in different classes with all the possible different scenarios. Then you can register your interface and the class with your desired set of values that you would be able to swap as needed.
For example:
public interface IConfiguration
{
public string ConnectionString {get;}
}
public class QaValues : IConfiguration
{
public string ConnectionString
{ get
{
return "qaconnection";
}
}
}
public class ReleaseValues : IConfiguration
{
public string ConnectionString
{ get
{
return "releaseconnection";
}
}
}
DependencyService.Register<IConfiguration,QaValues>();
I'm using Spring 3.1.4.RELEASE and Mockito 1.9.5. In my Spring class I have:
#Value("#{myProps['default.url']}")
private String defaultUrl;
#Value("#{myProps['default.password']}")
private String defaultrPassword;
// ...
From my JUnit test, which I currently have set up like so:
#RunWith(SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.class)
#ContextConfiguration({ "classpath:test-context.xml" })
public class MyTest
{
I would like to mock a value for my "defaultUrl" field. Note that I don't want to mock values for the other fields — I'd like to keep those as they are, only the "defaultUrl" field. Also note that I have no explicit "setter" methods (e.g. setDefaultUrl) in my class and I don't want to create any just for the purposes of testing.
Given this, how can I mock a value for that one field?
You can use the magic of Spring's ReflectionTestUtils.setField in order to avoid making any modifications whatsoever to your code.
The comment from Michał Stochmal provides an example:
use ReflectionTestUtils.setField(bean, "fieldName", "value"); before invoking your bean method during test.
Check out this tutorial for even more information, although you probably won't need it since the method is very easy to use
UPDATE
Since the introduction of Spring 4.2.RC1 it is now possible to set a static field without having to supply an instance of the class. See this part of the documentation and this commit.
It was now the third time I googled myself to this SO post as I always forget how to mock an #Value field. Though the accepted answer is correct, I always need some time to get the "setField" call right, so at least for myself I paste an example snippet here:
Production class:
#Value("#{myProps[‘some.default.url']}")
private String defaultUrl;
Test class:
import org.springframework.test.util.ReflectionTestUtils;
ReflectionTestUtils.setField(instanceUnderTest, "defaultUrl", "http://foo");
// Note: Don't use MyClassUnderTest.class, use the instance you are testing itself
// Note: Don't use the referenced string "#{myProps[‘some.default.url']}",
// but simply the FIELDs name ("defaultUrl")
You can use this magic Spring Test annotation :
#TestPropertySource(properties = { "my.spring.property=20" })
see
org.springframework.test.context.TestPropertySource
For example, this is the test class :
#ContextConfiguration(classes = { MyTestClass.Config.class })
#TestPropertySource(properties = { "my.spring.property=20" })
public class MyTestClass {
public static class Config {
#Bean
MyClass getMyClass() {
return new MyClass ();
}
}
#Resource
private MyClass myClass ;
#Test
public void myTest() {
...
And this is the class with the property :
#Component
public class MyClass {
#Value("${my.spring.property}")
private int mySpringProperty;
...
I'd like to suggest a related solution, which is to pass the #Value-annotated fields as parameters to the constructor, instead of using the ReflectionTestUtils class.
Instead of this:
public class Foo {
#Value("${foo}")
private String foo;
}
and
public class FooTest {
#InjectMocks
private Foo foo;
#Before
public void setUp() {
ReflectionTestUtils.setField(Foo.class, "foo", "foo");
}
#Test
public void testFoo() {
// stuff
}
}
Do this:
public class Foo {
private String foo;
public Foo(#Value("${foo}") String foo) {
this.foo = foo;
}
}
and
public class FooTest {
private Foo foo;
#Before
public void setUp() {
foo = new Foo("foo");
}
#Test
public void testFoo() {
// stuff
}
}
Benefits of this approach: 1) we can instantiate the Foo class without a dependency container (it's just a constructor), and 2) we're not coupling our test to our implementation details (reflection ties us to the field name using a string, which could cause a problem if we change the field name).
You can also mock your property configuration into your test class
#RunWith(SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.class)
#ContextConfiguration({ "classpath:test-context.xml" })
public class MyTest
{
#Configuration
public static class MockConfig{
#Bean
public Properties myProps(){
Properties properties = new Properties();
properties.setProperty("default.url", "myUrl");
properties.setProperty("property.value2", "value2");
return properties;
}
}
#Value("#{myProps['default.url']}")
private String defaultUrl;
#Test
public void testValue(){
Assert.assertEquals("myUrl", defaultUrl);
}
}
I used the below code and it worked for me:
#InjectMocks
private ClassABC classABC;
#Before
public void setUp() {
ReflectionTestUtils.setField(classABC, "constantFromConfigFile", 3);
}
Reference: https://www.jeejava.com/mock-an-autowired-value-field-in-spring-with-junit-mockito/
Also note that I have no explicit "setter" methods (e.g. setDefaultUrl) in my class and I don't want to create any just for the purposes of testing.
One way to resolve this is change your class to use Constructor Injection, that can be used for testing and Spring injection. No more reflection :)
So, you can pass any String using the constructor:
class MySpringClass {
private final String defaultUrl;
private final String defaultrPassword;
public MySpringClass (
#Value("#{myProps['default.url']}") String defaultUrl,
#Value("#{myProps['default.password']}") String defaultrPassword) {
this.defaultUrl = defaultUrl;
this.defaultrPassword= defaultrPassword;
}
}
And in your test, just use it:
MySpringClass MySpringClass = new MySpringClass("anyUrl", "anyPassword");
Whenever possible, I set the field visibility as package-protected so it can be accessed from the test class. I document that using Guava's #VisibleForTesting annotation (in case the next guy wonders why it's not private). This way I don't have to rely on the string name of the field and everything stays type-safe.
I know it goes against standard encapsulation practices we were taught in school. But as soon as there is some agreement in the team to go this way, I found it the most pragmatic solution.
Another way is to use #SpringBootTest annotation properties field.
Here we override example.firstProperty property:
#SpringBootTest(properties = { "example.firstProperty=annotation" })
public class SpringBootPropertySourceResolverIntegrationTest {
#Autowired private PropertySourceResolver propertySourceResolver;
#Test
public void shouldSpringBootTestAnnotation_overridePropertyValues() {
String firstProperty = propertySourceResolver.getFirstProperty();
String secondProperty = propertySourceResolver.getSecondProperty();
Assert.assertEquals("annotation", firstProperty);
Assert.assertEquals("defaultSecond", secondProperty);
}
}
As you can see It overrides only one property. Properties not mentioned in #SpringBootTest stay untouched. Therefore, this is a great solution when we need to override only specific properties for the test.
For single property you can write it without braces:
#SpringBootTest(properties = "example.firstProperty=annotation")
Answer from: https://www.baeldung.com/spring-tests-override-properties#springBootTest
I also encourage you to whenever possible pass property as a parameter in constructor like in Dherik answer (https://stackoverflow.com/a/52955459/1673775) as it enables you to mock properties easily in unit tests.
However in integration tests you often don't create objects manually, but:
you use #Autowired
you want to modify property used in a class that is used in your integration test indirectly as it is deep dependency of some directly used class.
then this solution with #SpringBootTest might be helpful.
I have an idea for a specific event handling based on generics, but seems like Weld can't handle them. I asked google but couldn't find an alternative CDI extension for this.
Question: is there a CDI extension, that can handle event propagation of generic-typed events?
In the following the explicit problem I have.
I have three general events, EntityCreated, EntityChanged and EntityDeleted. The base class for them is defined like this:
public abstract class DatabaseEvent<TargetType> {
public TargetType target;
public DatabaseEvent(TargetType target) {
this.target = target;
}
}
The events then are simple inherited classes:
public class EntityCreatedEvent<TargetType> extends DatabaseEvent<TargetType> {
public EntityCreatedEvent(TargetType target) {
super(target);
}
}
I fire them like this:
public abstract class MyHome<EntityType> {
private EntityType entity;
#Inject
Event<EntityCreatedEvent<EntityType>> entityCreatedEvent;
public void fireCreatedEvent() {
EntityCreatedEvent<EntityType> payload = new EntityCreatedEvent<EntityType>(entity);
entityCreatedEvent.fire(payload);
}
}
I want to observe them like this:
public void handleProjectCreated(#Observes EntityCreatedEvent<Project> event) { ... }
When launching the server Weld tells me it can't handle generic-typed events. The CDI-way of doing things would be to use additional qualifiers instead of the generics to distiguish them, e.g.:
public void handleProjectCreated(#Observes #ProjectEvent EntityCreatedEvent event) { ... }
However, I fire the events from that MyHome base class, where I can't just fire with the #ProjectEvent: it might not be a project but another type.
My solution up to now is to skip that typing altogether and handle them like this:
public void handleProjectCreated(#Observes EntityCreatedEvent event) {
if(event.target instanceof Project) { ... }
}
This solution is okay, but not perfect.
I guess you can do this with dinamically binding qualifier members. This is what your code would look like:
public abstract class MyHome {
private EntityType entity;
#Inject
Event<EntityCreatedEvent> entityCreatedEvent;
public void fireCreatedEvent() {
entityCreatedEvent.select(getTypeBinding()).fire(new EntityCreatedEvent(entity));
}
private TypeBinding getTypeBinding() {
return new TypeBinding() {
public Class<? extends EntityType> value() {return entity.getClass();}
};
}
#Qualifier
#Target({ PARAMETER, FIELD })
#Retention(RUNTIME)
public #interface EntityTypeQualifier {
Class<? extends EntityType> value();
}
public abstract class TypeBinding extends AnnotationLiteral<EntityTypeQualifier> implements EntityTypeQualifier {}
//Observers
public void handleEntityType1Created(#Observes #EntityTypeQualifier(EntityType1.class) EntityCreatedEvent event) {}
public void handleEntityType2Created(#Observes #EntityTypeQualifier(EntityType2.class) EntityCreatedEvent event) {}
As this CDI issue points it is not possible to fire an without having the type of T at runtime.
But, if you have the type of T (i.e. you have an instance) you can use the Event as an Instance, and select the event to be fired using a dynamic type literal.
I am creating a MongoRepository and need to create a count query. Can someone provide an example of what is the best way to do this via the SpringData MongoDB MongoRepository facility? All the examples I was able to find reference returning a List but not counts.
Here is what I am trying to do (obviously it does not work):
public interface SchoolRepository extends MongoRepository<School, String> {
#Query("db.school.count({studentStatus: ?0});")
int getCountOfStudents(int studentStatus);
}
Thanks.
-AP_
I found this question as I was trying to do something similar. Unfortunately, given what I see in org.springframework.data.repository.query.parser.PartTree:
private static final Pattern PREFIX_TEMPLATE = Pattern.compile("^(find|read|get)(\\p{Upper}.*?)??By");
It does not appear to be supported.
Instead, we can add custom behaviour to the repository (see reference manual section 1.4.1) by creating a new interface and a class that implements it.
public interface SchoolRepository extends CrudRepository<School, String>, SchoolRepositoryCustom {
// find... read... get...
}
public interface SchoolRepositoryCustom {
int getCountOfStudents(int studentStatus);
}
#Service
public class SchoolRepositoryImpl implements SchoolRepositoryCustom {
#Autowired
private SchoolRepository schoolRepository;
public int getCountOfStudents(int studentStatus) {
// ...
}
}
Note that the class is named SchoolRepositoryImpl, not SchoolRepositoryCustomImpl.
With this class
#Component
public class Sample {
#Value("${my.name}")
public static String name;
}
If I try Sample.name, it is always 'null'. So I tried this.
public class Sample {
public static String name;
#PostConstruct
public void init(){
name = privateName;
}
#Value("${my.name}")
private String privateName;
public String getPrivateName() {
return privateName;
}
public void setPrivateName(String privateName) {
this.privateName = privateName;
}
}
This code works. Sample.name is set properly. Is this good way or not? If not, is there something more good way? And how to do it?
First of all, public static non-final fields are evil. Spring does not allow injecting to such fields for a reason.
Your workaround is valid, you don't even need getter/setter, private field is enough. On the other hand try this:
#Value("${my.name}")
public void setPrivateName(String privateName) {
Sample.name = privateName;
}
(works with #Autowired/#Resource). But to give you some constructive advice: Create a second class with private field and getter instead of public static field.
Soruce of this info is this: https://www.baeldung.com/spring-inject-static-field
Spring uses dependency injection to populate the specific value when it finds the #Value annotation. However, instead of handing the value to the instance variable, it's handed to the implicit setter instead. This setter then handles the population of our NAME_STATIC value.
#RestController
//or if you want to declare some specific use of the properties file then use
//#Configuration
//#PropertySource({"classpath:application-${youeEnvironment}.properties"})
public class PropertyController {
#Value("${name}")//not necessary
private String name;//not necessary
private static String NAME_STATIC;
#Value("${name}")
public void setNameStatic(String name){
PropertyController.NAME_STATIC = name;
}
}
This is my sample code for load static variable
import org.springframework.beans.factory.annotation.Autowired;
import org.springframework.beans.factory.annotation.Value;
import org.springframework.stereotype.Component;
#Component
public class OnelinkConfig {
public static int MODULE_CODE;
public static int DEFAULT_PAGE;
public static int DEFAULT_SIZE;
#Autowired
public void loadOnelinkConfig(#Value("${onelink.config.exception.module.code}") int code,
#Value("${onelink.config.default.page}") int page, #Value("${onelink.config.default.size}") int size) {
MODULE_CODE = code;
DEFAULT_PAGE = page;
DEFAULT_SIZE = size;
}
}
For those who want to use ApplicationContext in the main class of a Spring Boot application, you can just use the return value of SpringApplication.run.
Although workarounds may need to be implemented, one should try to avoid them in most scenarios if possible. Spring is great at handling dependency injection and treats most objects as Singletons. This means that Spring can handle the creation of objects for you, and the injection of these objects at runtime. When combining this with the fact that your Spring managed bean is likely a Singleton, the use of static methods and variables is largely unnecessary. You can simply autowire in an instance of the object you are looking for at the constructor level or variable level and reference the non-static version of the method or variable. This is ideal and behaves similarly to a static reference. Non static variables are basically static because you are only ever using one instance of the object in every part of the code and because of dependency injection you are never handling the instantiation of the object, just like with a static reference! Great! Now I'm sure there are instances where you need the work around (i.e. you aren't using dependency injection or class is not a singleton), but try to not use workarounds if possible. Also this is just my 2 cents. Someone may be able to offer 3. (:
public class InjectableClass{
#Value("${my.value}")
private String myString;
public String nonStaticMethod(){
return myString;
}
}
public class LogicClass{
private InjectableClass injectableClass;
#Autowire
public LogicClass(InjectableClass injectableClass){
this.injectableClass = injectableClass;
}
public void logicClassMethod(){
System.out.println("Hey! Here is the value I set on myString: " +
injectableClass.nonStaticMethod() + ". That was
basically like using a static method!");
}
}