I am implementing a Service Contract for WCF Service.
As per TDD I wrote a test case to just pass it using hardcoded values.
After that I started to put real logic into my Service implementation. The actual logic relies on 3-4 external service and database.
What should I do to my original test case that I wrote ?
If i Keep it same in order to make test pass it will have to call several other external services.
So I have question in general what should I do if I write a test case for a Business Facade first using TDD and later when I add real logic, if it involves external dependency.
Utilize a mocking framework (with dependency inversion or just a factory) so you can inject fake dependencies into the object. These can then then just return canned responses and/or be checked that the class utilizes the dependencies how you intended.
As an example, if your code calls a repository to save, we don't really care in the business method test that the repository did actually save to a persistance store, only that it got called and returned some data if required. What you're really testing is how your code reacts to what the dependency returned, or if it was utilzed correctly - but not the dependency's actual functionality
Ideally the first test should have been representative of how the class/method will work and return data, so the test would still be valid once you're finished.
Related
I'm developing a Spring Boot Web API, and I'm currently writing the required units tests.
I was wondering : Isn't writing the units tests (JUnit + Mockito) for the controllers sufficient ? Since the controllers are the entrypoint of my application and that all the logic that is implemented within the Service side is called from the exposed API, why do I need to write test for the Service side ?
First of all, if you write your tests to cover "required level of tests" or requirement to "have some tests at all" having the production implementation already done, it is slightly too late. In the majority of cases having tests first, based on your requirements, contract, use case or anything it more optimal approach. Nevertheless, I don't know your situation and the thing you're trying to implement, so treat it as a suggestion and move on to the key thing you are asking about.
Your JUnit (preferably 5) and Mockito tests, which probably use MockMvc are very good unit(-like) tests to cover web communication concerns such as: HTTP request types, content type, encoding, input and output parameters JSON (de)serialization, error handling, etc. They are best to test with the service layer mocked. Thanks to that you can easily cover a lot of web cases without the need to prepare data in a database, etc.
The core logic has to also be tested. Depending what it is, it might be feasible to test it in the unit way (the easiest to write, can cover a lot of - also corner - cases). It could be supplemented with some set of integration tests to verify that it works fine also in integration (Spring Beans, DB, etc.).
If desired, you may also write some E2E test from the web call via (real) HTTP requests through controllers, services to a database/datastore (if any), but I would limit it only to the most important scenarios to use it in your CI/CD pipeline to verify that a deployment finished successfully.
Disclaimer. I've found this approach useful in multiple situations, but definitely in some other circumstances it might be good to change the balance point to better apply testing.
I think you are probably getting confused between unit and Integration tests.
If you are using Mockito you are probably referring to unit tests wherein, the scope of the Test Class should be only the current class.
Any external method calls should be mocked.So in your case the service calls should be mocked in case you are writing unit test for your controller class.
Your Test Suite should contain
Junit for Controller-- To Test the interface contract points like HTTP Method, Request Parameters, Mandatory inputs, Valid Request Payloads.
Junit for all other classes including Service classes- This is to test your application classes core logic
Integration Test- Finally an integration test which can hit your controller endpoints with service classes and rest of the application code functionality.
I have read that dependency injection is good for testing, in that a class can be tested without its dependencies, but the question comes to my mind if Class A depends on Class B or C or any class, testing Class A independent of some class is yielding a test result of zero, not a failed or past test.
Class A was created to do something and if it is not fed anything whether using new key word or setting up the extra files in Spring, Class A won't do any work.
About the idea of making code modular, readable and maintainable: so business classes became cleaner, but all we did was shift confusion from dirty Java business classes to convoluted XML files and having to delete interfaces used to inject to our loosened objects.
In short, it seems we have to make edits and changes to a file somewhere,right?
Please feel free to put me in my place if my understanding is lacking, just a little irritated with learning Spring because I see the same amount of work just rearranged.
Dependency injection is good for unit testing because you can individually test each method without that method depending on anything else. That way each unit test can test exactly one method.
I would say that if the xml is what’s annoying you check out Spring boot. It’s based on a java configuration so no xml and it simplifies a lot of configuration for you based on your class path. When I first started spring I found the xml very daunting coming from a java background but the annotation based configuration and the auto configuring done by spring boot is extremely helpful for quickly getting applications working.
IMO biggest advantage of using the spring is dependency injection which makes your life easy. For example if you would like to create a new service with three dependencies, then you can create a class very easily using Spring. But without spring, you will end up writing different factory methods which will return you the instances you are looking for. This makes your code very verbose with static method calls. You may want to take a look at the code repositories before spring era.
Again if you would like to use Spring or not is your personal call based on project complexity. But it's other features/advantages cant be overlooked.
And XML files or Java configs are the ways of achieving spring configuration - where you would like to add your business logic is personal flavour. Only thing is you should be consistent all across your project.
I would suggest that you read Martin Fowler's great article on Inversion of Control and Dependency Injection to gain a better understanding of why frameworks like Spring can be really useful to solve a well known set of common dependency injection problems when writing software.
As others have mentioned, there is no obligation to use Spring; and whatever you can do with Spring, you can probably do it by other means like abstract factories, factory methods, or service locators.
If your project is small enough, then you probably wouldn't mind solving the dependency injection issues on your own using some design patterns like those mentioned above. However, depending on the size of your project, many would prefer to use a framework or a library that already packs a bunch of solutions to these recurrent head scratchers.
In regards to the advantages of dependency injection frameworks when doing unit testing is the idea that you don't need to test the dependencies of your class, but only your class.
For example, most likely your application has a layered design. It is very common to have a data access class or a repository that you use to retrieve data from a datasource. Logically, you also have a class where you use that DAO.
Evidently, you already wrote unit testing for your DAO, and therefore, when you're testing your business class (where the DAO is being used) you don't care about testing your DAO again.
Fortunately, since Spring requires some form of dependency injection for your DAO, this means your class must provide a constructor or a setter method through which we can inject that DAO into our business class, right?
Well, then during unit testing of your business class, you can conveniently use those injection points to inject your own fake DAO (i.e. a mock object). That way, you can focus on the testing of your business class and forget about retesting the DAO again.
Now compare this idea with other solutions you may have done on your own:
You inject the dependency directly by instantiating the DAO within your business class.
You use a static factory method within your code to gain access to the DAO.
You use a static method from a service locator within your code to gain access to the DAO.
None of these solutions would make your code easy to test because there is no simple manner to get in the way of choosing exactly what dependency I want injected into my business class while testing it (e.g. how do you change the static factory method to use a fake DAO for testing purposes?).
So, in Spring, using XML configuration or annotations, you can easily have different dependencies being injected into your service object based on a number of conditions. For example, you may have some configurations for testing that evidently would be different than those used in production. And if you have a staging environment, you may even have different XML configurations of dependencies for your application depending on whether it is running in production or integration environments.
This pluggability of dependencies is the key winning factor here in my opinion.
So, as I was saying, my suggestion to you is that you first expand your understanding of what problems Spring core (and in general all dependency injection frameworks) is trying to solve and why it matters, and that will give you a broader perspective and understanding of these problems in a way that you could to determine when it is a good idea to use Spring and when it is not.
I have a Web API controller action that takes a quite complex object as an argument. It's to be passed to the webservice as JSON, of course, and is supposed to deserialize into an instance of a C# class.
I have unit tests in the business layer to convince me that JSON serialization/deserialization of the class in question works as expected.
And I have C# unit tests running against the Web API controllers, passing instances of this class into the actions, to ensure that if the controller actions have the right behavior, given the correct objects.
My problem: these objects are complicated enough that constructing improper JSON isn't going to be easy. My intent is to create some convenience functions, in Javascript, to aid in that construction, and I'd like to have unit tests to make sure that they work, and unit tests to ensure that properly-formatted JSON is deserialized into the target class as expected.
That means I need to create, in my VS2013 solution, a way to run javascript, both as self-contained unit tests, and as calls against my Web API webservice.
Any suggestions as to what tooling would work best for that?
I'd really like something that can be contained within Visual Studio, so that it can be configured as an MsBuild target. (Would make the guys who deal with the Continuous Integration configuration much happier.)
I've a java application which has multiple modules - (GWT-)RPC services, perf-library, remote-client (All java code written/owned by my team). The perf-library contains Spring AOP aspects related code and it's primarily used to push intercepted method logs to a data store. Now, perf-library is dependent on another remote-client which actually maintains a queue and handles the job of pushing logs to the data store. So, in a way, perf-library just delegates the task to remote-client.
The business logic code calls intercepted methods which have AOP logic and hence there is a dependency on remote-client. Obviously, I don't want to connect to the remote-client from within unit tests. I think I need to mock the implementation of method push() which connects to remote-client. What I'm unable to figure out is how to use the mock implementation for the business logic code package unit tests.
To clarify things, I've modules like this -
RPC service module - e.g. method login() is intercepted.
perf-library - Has aspects (to intercept methods like login()) and implementation to call remote-client
remote-client - Push data to some data-store
Now, for writing the unit tests for RPC service methods, how do I get the mock implementation of push() as it is internal to perf-library. Let's say, I've an interface LogClient (having method push()) which is implemented by two classes (one for production and another for test). I can use this Test implementation for unit tests of perf-library itself, but how do I make the RPC unit tests use it. I'm new to Spring, so not sure if this can be done easily with Spring or anything else. Any help will be nice.
Note: We're using Spring for maintaining beans and DI.
Not sure exactly how but Mockito can be a good choice.
Check this link for details.
I am a big fan of Dependency Injection and the Play Framework, but am having trouble seeing how the two could be exploited together.
There are modules for Spring and Guice, but the way that Play works makes it hard for me to see how DI could be beneficial beyond some quite simple cases.
A good example of this is that Play expects JPA work to be done by static methods associated with the entity in question:
#Entity
Person extends Model {
public static void delete(long id) {
em().find(id).remove();
}
//etc
}
So there is no need for a PersonManager to be injected into controllers in the way it might for a Spring J2EE application. Instead a controller just calls Person.delete(x).
Obviously, DI is beneficial when there are interfaces with external systems, as the concrete implementation can be mocked for testing etc., but I don't see much benefit for a self-contained Play application.
Does anyone have any good examples? Does anyone use it to inject a Manager-style class into Controllers so that a number of operations can be done within the same transaction, for example?
I believe from this sentence you wrote:
"Does anyone have any good examples? Does anyone use it to inject a Manager-style class into Controllers so that a number of operations can be done within the same transaction, for example?"
that before answering the DI question I should note something: transactions are managed automatically by Play. If you check the model documentation you will see that a transaction is automatically created at the beginning of a request, and committed at the end. You can roll it back via JPA or it will be rolled back if an exception is raised.
I mention this because from the wording of your sentence I'm not sure if you are aware of this.
Now, on DI itself, in my (not-so-extensive) experience with DI, I've seen it used mainly to:
Load the ORM (Hibernate) factory/manager
Load Service classes/DAOs into another class to work with them
Sure, there are more scenarios, but these probably cover most of the real usage. Now:
The first one is irrelevant to Play as you get access to your JPA object and transaction automatically
The second one is quite irrelevant too as you mainly work with static methods in controllers. You may have some helper classes that need to be instantiated, and some may even belong to a hierarchy (common interface) so DI would be beneficial. But you could just as well create your won factory class and get rid of the jars of DI.
There is another matter to consider here: I'm not so sure about Guice, but Spring is not only DI, it also provides a lot of extra functionalities which depend on the DI module. So maybe you don't want to use DI in Play, but you want to take advantage of the Spring tools and they will use DI, albeit indirectly (via xml configuration).
The problem in my humble opinion on the static initialization approach of Play! is that it makes testing harder. Once you approach the HTTP vs Object Orientation problem with static members and objects that carries the HTTP message data (request and response) you make a trade of having to create new instances for each request by the ability of make your objects loosely coupled with the rest of your project classes.
One good example of a different design are servlets, it also extends a base class but it approaches the problem with a single instance creation (by default, because there are configurations that enable more instances).
I believe that maybe a mix of the two approaches would be better, having a singleton of each controller would give the same characteristics of a full static class and would allow dependency injection of some kinds of object. But not the objects with request or session scope, once the controller would need to be created every new request. Moreover it would improve testability by inverting the control of dependency injection, thus allowing arbitrary injection points.
Dependencies would be injected by the container or by a test, probably using mocks for the heavy stuff that much likely would already have been tested before.
In my point of view, this static model pushes the developer away from testing controllers because extending FunctionalTest starts the application server, thus paying the price of heavy objects like repositories, services, crawlers, http clients, etc. I don't want to wait a lot of objects to be bootstrapped just to check if some code was executed on the controller, tests should be quick and clear to make developers love them as their programming assistant/guide.
DI is not the ultimate solution to use everywhere... Don't use DI just because you have it in your hands... In play, you don't need DI to develop controllers/models etc... but sometimes it could be a nice design: IMO, you could use it if you have a service with a well know interface but you would like to develop this service outside Play and test it outside play and even test your play project with just a dummy service in order NOT to depend on the full service implementation. Therefore DI can be interesting: you plug the service loosely in play. In fact, this is the original use case for DI afaik...
I just wrote a blog post about setting up a Play Framework application with Google Guice. http://geeks.aretotally.in/dependency-injection-with-play-framework-and-google-guice
I see some benefits, especially when a component of your application requires a different behavior based on a certain context or something like that. But I def believe people should be selective about what goes into a DI context.
It shows again that you should only use dependencies injection if you really have a benefit. If you have complex services it's useful, but in many cases it's not. Read the chapter about models in the play-documentation.
So to give you an example where you can use DI with play. Perhaps you must make a complex calculation, or you create a pdf with a report-engine. There I think DI can be useful, specially for testing. There I think the guice-module and spring-module are useful and can help you.
Niels
As of a year and some change later, Play 2.1 now has support for dependency injection in controllers. Here's their demo project using Spring 3, which lays it out pretty clearly.
Edit: here's another example using Guice and Scala, if that's your poison.