I test a statefull bean with a #QuarkusTest. It keeps a certain state. Obviously, I would like to have a fresh bean for every test. At the moment, each test might modify he current state, which is the effective for a oncoming test. This is highly undersireable and breaks my tests.
Is there a way to force a new bean clean bean getting injected for every test when running a #QuarkusTest?
Eg. A very basic subscription service, which holds the current subscription to avoid double subscriptions:
#ApplicationScoped
public class SubscriptionService {
#Inject
DeviceClient deviceClient;
private final Set<String> subscribedDevices = new HashSet<>();
public void subscribe(String deviceId, Consumer<RadarFrame> consumer){
if(subscriptions.contains(deviceId)){
return;
}
deviceClient.subscribe(deviceId, consumer);
subscriptions.add(deviceId);
}
public void unsubscribe(String deviceId, Consumer<RadarFrame> consumer){
deviceClient.unsubscribe(deviceId);
subscriptions.remove(deviceId);
}
}
I could manually unsubscribe the device after each test, which is a bad small as I use potention untested implemented logic for setup/teardown. It would be nice if a injected bean could be reinitialized before each test on a #QuarkusTest.
Or did I miss another clean option?
#ApplicationScoped beans will be there for the entire life of the container.
The recommended way to do this is to create a reset() method in the bean to later be called in tests. With JUnit 5 this would be something like:
#AfterEach
void tearDown() {
subscriptionService.reset();
}
You can make that method package friendly to limit it's usage.
Related
I want to switch from firing CDI beans synchronous to asynchronous to be able to work stuff parallel.
event.fire(myObject) -> event.fireAsync(myObject)
As I currently use the request context to know what tenant the current process is about, I am confronted with the problem, that the #RequestScoped context is lost in a #ObservesAsync method. Therefor I don't know anymore to what db to persist etc. I could provide the necessary information in the cdi event object and recreate the requestcontext manually after recieving, but this would bloat my object and clutter my code.
Is there a way to simply keep the request context for a async cdi event?
Request scoped objects are not required to be thread-safe and usually are not. For that reason, request context is never automatically propagated across threads. For asynchronous events, indeed you should put all the necessary data into the event object.
You are of course not the first person to ask about this. There's been attempts to define an API/SPI for context propagation (MicroProfile Context Propagation, Jakarta Concurrency), including CDI request context, but they only work correctly in case of sequential processing with thread jumps (common in non-blocking/reactive programming). If you try to [ab]use context propagation for concurrent processing, you're signing up for troubles. For the latest discussion about this, see https://github.com/jakartaee/cdi/issues/474
I actually switched to using interfaces. This gives me more control and makes the code more understandable:
abstract class Publisher<T>{
#All
#Inject
private List<EventConsumer<T>> eventConsumers;
#Inject
private ContextInfo contextInfo;
#Inject
private MutableContextInfo mutableContextInfo;
...
public void publishEvent(T event){
String myContextInfo= contextInfo.getMyContextInfo();
eventConsumers.forEach(consumer -> notifyAsync(consumer, receivedObject, myContextInfo))
}
private void notifyAsync(EventConsumer<T> consumer, T object, String myContextInfo) {
Uni.createFrom()
.voidItem()
.subscribeAsCompletionStage()
.thenAccept(voidItem -> notifyConsumer(consumer, object, myContextInfo));
}
/**
* Method needs to be public to be able to activate request context on self invocation
*/
#ActivateRequestContext
public void notifyConsumer(EventConsumer<T> consumer, T object, String myContextInfo) {
mutableContextInfo.setMyContextInfo(myContextInfo);
try {
consumer.onEvent(object);
} catch (RuntimeException ex) {
log.error("Error while promoting object to eventconsumer", ex);
}
}
}
I came across an interesting article: AOP Aspects as mocks in JUnit
Since I have requirement to mock multiple final and private static variables, I am planning to use AOP in place of reflection or PowerMockito as they are causing issues with SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.
Is there any way I can use #Aspect for test classes without using the annotation #EnableAspectJAutoProxy? (I want to use an aspect targeting class X only in one test case.)
This is a sample of what I want to do.
The question is answered(adding for discussion on what could be done)
//External class
public final class ABC(){
public void method1() throws Exception {}
}
#Service
public void DestClass() {
private static final ABC abc = new ABC();
public Object m() {
// code (...)
try {
abc.method1();
}
catch(Exception e) {
// do something (...)
return null;
}
// more code (...)
}
}
Spring framework allows to programmatically create proxies that advise target objects , without configuring through #EnableAspectJAutoProxy or <aop:aspectj-autoproxy>
Details can be found in the documentation section : Programmatic Creation of #AspectJ Proxies and the implementation is pretty simple.
Example code from the documentation.
// create a factory that can generate a proxy for the given target object
AspectJProxyFactory factory = new AspectJProxyFactory(targetObject);
// add an aspect, the class must be an #AspectJ aspect
// you can call this as many times as you need with different aspects
factory.addAspect(SecurityManager.class);
// you can also add existing aspect instances, the type of the object supplied must be an #AspectJ aspect
factory.addAspect(usageTracker);
// now get the proxy object...
MyInterfaceType proxy = factory.getProxy();
Please note that with Spring AOP , only method executions can be adviced. Excerpt from the documentation
Spring AOP currently supports only method execution join points
(advising the execution of methods on Spring beans). Field
interception is not implemented, although support for field
interception could be added without breaking the core Spring AOP APIs.
If you need to advise field access and update join points, consider a
language such as AspectJ.
The document shared with the question is about aspectj and without providing the sample code to be adviced it is hard to conclude if the requriement can acheived through Spring AOP. The document mentions this as well.
One example of the integration of AspectJ is the Spring framework,
which now can use the AspectJ pointcut language in its own AOP
implementation. Spring’s implementation is not specifically targeted
as a test solution.
Hope this helps.
--- Update : A test case without using AOP ---
Consider the external Class
public class ABCImpl implements ABC{
#Override
public void method1(String example) {
System.out.println("ABC method 1 called :"+example);
}
}
And the DestClass
#Service
public class DestClass {
private static final ABC service = new ABCImpl();
protected ABC abc() throws Exception{
System.out.println("DestClass.abc() called");
return service;
}
public Object m() {
Object obj = new Object();
try {
abc().method1("test");
} catch (Exception e) {
System.out.println("Exception : "+ e.getMessage());
return null;
}
return obj;
}
}
Following test class autowires the DestClass bean with overridden logic to throw exception . This code can be modified to adapt to your requirement.
#RunWith(SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.class)
#ContextConfiguration(classes = { DestClassSpringTest.TestConfiguration.class })
public class DestClassSpringTest {
#Configuration
static class TestConfiguration {
#Bean
public DestClass destClass() {
return new DestClass() {
protected ABC abc() throws Exception {
// super.abc(); // not required . added to demo the parent method call
throw new Exception("Custom exception thrown");
}
};
}
}
#Autowired
DestClass cut;
#Test
public void test() {
Object obj = cut.m();
assertNull(obj);
}
}
Following will be the output log
DestClass.abc() called // this will not happen if the parent method call is commented in DestClassSpringTest.TestConfiguration
Exception : Custom exception thrown
The article you are referring to is using full AspectJ, not Spring AOP. Thus, you do not need any #EnableAspectJAutoProxy for that, just
either the AspectJ load-time weaver on the command line when running your test via -javaagent:/path/to/aspectjweaver.jar
or the AspectJ compiler activated when compiling your tests (easily done via AspectJ Maven plugin if you use Maven)
Both approaches are completely independent of Spring, will work in any project and even when using Spring also work when targeting execution of third party code because no dynamic proxies are needed unlike in Spring AOP. So there is no need to make the target code into a Spring bean or to create a wrapper method in your application class for it. When using compile-time weaving you can even avoid weaving into the third party library by using call() instead of execution() pointcut. Spring AOP only knows execution(), AspectJ is more powerful.
By the way: Unfortunately both your question and your comment about the solution you found are somewhat fuzzy and I do not fully understand your requirement. E.g. you talked about mocking final and private static variables, which would also be possible in other ways with AspectJ by using set() and/or get() pointcuts. But actually it seems you do not need to mock the field contents, just stub the results of method calls upon the objects assigned to those fields.
I'm new to EJB and I'm facing my first problem. I'm trying to use an #Schedule method contained in a Stateless EJB. I'd like this method to use a private member variable which would be set at bean creation:
Here's a short example:
#Singleton
#LocalBean
#Startup
public class Starter {
#PostActivate
private void postActivate() {
ScheduleEJB scheduleEjb = new ScheduleEJB("Hello");
}
}
And the schedule bean:
#Stateless
#LocalBean
public class ScheduleEJB {
private String message;
public ScheduleEJB() {
super();
}
public ScheduleEJB(String message) {
super();
this.message= message;
}
#Schedule(second="*/3", minute="*", hour="*", dayOfMonth="*", dayOfWeek="*", month="*", year="*")
private void printMsg() {
System.out.println("MESSAGE : " + message);
}
}
The problem is that my "message" variable is always null when printed in the printMsg() method... What's the best way to achieve this?
Thanks for your help !
You're mixing few things here.
The #PostActivate annotation is to be used on Stateful Session Beans (SFSB), and you use it on the singleton. I guess that you mean the #PostConstruct method which applies to every bean which lifecycle is managed by the container.
You're using a constructor from your EJB. You cannot do:
ScheduleEJB scheduleEjb = new ScheduleEJB("Hello");
as it creates just an instance of this class. It's not an EJB - the container didn't create it, so this class does not have any EJB nature yet.
That's the whole point of dependency injection - you just define what you want and the container is responsible for providing you with an appropriate instance of the resource.
The Stateless Bean (SLSB) is not intented to hold the state. The SFSB is. Even if you would set the message in one SLSB method (i.e. in some ScheduleEJB#setMessage(String) method) than you need to remember that the EJB's are pooled. You don't have any guarantee that the next time you invoke a method on the ScheduleEJB you will get to the same instance.
In your case it would be the easies solution just to add the #Schedule method to your singleton class. Than you can define the variable of your choice in the #PostConstruct method. You can be sure that there is only one Singleton instance per JVM, so your variable will be visible in the Schedule annotated method of the same class.
HTH.
My app has a ProviderFactory static class that has static utility methods passing back static instances of things like a logger. The rest of my app then can just grab a/the reference to the logger from anywhere without having to pass in the logger (common design practice).
So, another part of my app, the DbCacheProvider, has methods that make calls to the logger so internally it gets a reference to the logger from the factory and then issues calls to it.
My question is that using Moq, I want to verify methods on the logger are being called by the methods within the DbCacheProvider. I can do this using dependency injection when I pass a mock logger into the DbCacheProvider as a parameter, but I'm not passing the logger in (not do I want to). So, how would I verify the DbCacheProvider is making calls to the logger?
If you don't want to pass the logger in through the constructor you'd need to change your ProviderFactory while running unit tests to return your mocked logger.
Anyway there are a couple of reasons it's often suggested to set up dependency injection:
Your tests are more straightforward and don't involve finagling with custom factories
IoC frameworks like Unity, Ninject and Autofac make it easy to create objects when their dependencies are set up this way. If you set up all of your objects this way, the framework will do all the heavy lifting of creating the right objects and passing them in for you. The dependency injection is done automatically and won't be a burden for you.
Old question without an answer, I had a similar problem and solved it like this:
I have the following sample code and need to verify that not only was a method called but was called with a specific value.
public interface ILog
{
void Info(string message);
}
public interface ILogFactory
{
ILog GetLogger();
}
This is the class being tested, where the interface items are being injected:
public class NewAction
{
readonly ILogFactory _logger;
public NewAction(ILogFactory logger)
{
_logger = logger;
}
public void Step1()
{
_logger.GetLogger().Info("Step 1");
}
public void Step2()
{
_logger.GetLogger().Info("Step 2");
}
}
This is obviously a very simplistic view of my actual code, but I needed to verify that Step1 and Step2 are behaving as expected and passed the correct values to the Log, this would mean I also needed to ensure they occurred in the right order. My test:
[TestClass]
public class UnitTest1
{
[TestMethod]
public void TestMethod1()
{
// Arrange
var log = new Mock<ILog>();
var factory = new Mock<ILogFactory>();
factory.Setup(l => l.GetLogger()).Returns(log.Object);
// Act
var action = new NewAction(factory.Object);
action.Step1();
action.Step2();
// Assert
factory.Verify(l => l.GetLogger());
log.Verify(l => l.Info(It.Is<string>(s => s == "Step 1")));
log.Verify(l => l.Info(It.Is<string>(s => s == "Step 2")));
}
}
Hope this helps.
I'm trying to work out how to complete my implementation of the Repository pattern in an ASP.NET web application.
At the moment, I have a repository interface per domain class defining methods for e.g. loading and saving instances of that class.
Each repository interface is implemented by a class which does the NHibernate stuff. Castle Windsor sorts out the DI of the class into the interface according to web.config. An example of an implemented class is provided below:
public class StoredWillRepository : IStoredWillRepository
{
public StoredWill Load(int id)
{
StoredWill storedWill;
using (ISession session = NHibernateSessionFactory.OpenSession())
{
storedWill = session.Load<StoredWill>(id);
NHibernateUtil.Initialize(storedWill);
}
return storedWill;
}
public void Save(StoredWill storedWill)
{
using (ISession session = NHibernateSessionFactory.OpenSession())
{
using (ITransaction transaction = session.BeginTransaction())
{
session.SaveOrUpdate(storedWill);
transaction.Commit();
}
}
}
}
As pointed out in a previous thread, the repository class needs to accept an unit of work container (i.e. ISession) rather than instantiating it in every method.
I anticipate that the unit of work container will be created by each aspx page when needed (for example, in a property).
How do I then specify that this unit of work container instance is to be passed into the constructor of StoredWillRepository when Windsor is creating it for me?
Or is this pattern completely wrong?
Thanks again for your advice.
David
I have a persistence framework built on top of NHibernate that is used in a few Web apps. It hides the NH implementation behind an IRepository and IRepository<T> interface, with the concrete instances provided by Unity (thus I could in theory swap out NHibernate for, say, Entity Framework fairly easily).
Since Unity doesn't (or at least the version I'm using doesn't) support the passing in of constructor parameters other than those that are dependency injections themselves, passing in an extant NH ISession isn't possible; but I do want all objects in the UOW to share the same ISession.
I solve this by having a controlling repository class that manages access to the ISession on a per-thread basis:
public static ISession Session
{
get
{
lock (_lockObject)
{
// if a cached session exists, we'll use it
if (PersistenceFrameworkContext.Current.Items.ContainsKey(SESSION_KEY))
{
return (ISession)PersistenceFrameworkContext.Current.Items[NHibernateRepository.SESSION_KEY];
}
else
{
// must create a new session - note we're not caching the new session here... that's the job of
// BeginUnitOfWork().
return _factory.OpenSession(new NHibernateInterceptor());
}
}
}
}
In this example, PersistenceFrameworkContext.Current.Items accesses an IList<object> that is stored either ThreadStatic if not in a Web context, or within HttpContext.Current.Items if it is in a Web context (to avoid thread-pool problems). The first call to the property instantiates the ISession from the stored factory instance, subsequent calls just retrieve it from storage. The locking will slow things down slightly but not as much as just locking an appdomain-scoped static ISession instance.
I then have BeginUnitOfWork and EndUnitOfWork methods to take care of the UOW - I have specifically disallowed nested UOWs because frankly they were a pain to manage.
public void BeginUnitOfWork()
{
lock (_lockObject)
{
if (PersistenceFrameworkContext.Current.Items.ContainsKey(SESSION_KEY))
EndUnitOfWork();
ISession session = Session;
PersistenceFrameworkContext.Current.Items.Add(SESSION_KEY, session);
}
}
public void EndUnitOfWork()
{
lock (_lockObject)
{
if (PersistenceFrameworkContext.Current.Items.ContainsKey(SESSION_KEY))
{
ISession session = (ISession)PersistenceFrameworkContext.Current.Items[SESSION_KEY];
PersistenceFrameworkContext.Current.Items.Remove(SESSION_KEY);
session.Flush();
session.Dispose();
}
}
}
Finally, a pair of methods provide access to the domain-type-specific repositories:
public IRepository<T> For<T>()
where T : PersistentObject<T>
{
return Container.Resolve<IRepository<T>>();
}
public TRepository For<T, TRepository>()
where T : PersistentObject<T>
where TRepository : IRepository<T>
{
return Container.Resolve<TRepository>();
}
(Here, PersistentObject<T> is a base class providing ID and Equals support.)
Access to a given repository is thus in the pattern
NHibernateRepository.For<MyDomainType>().Save();
This is then facaded over such that you can use
MyDomainType.Repository.Save();
Where a given type has a specialised repository (ie needs more than it can get from IRepository<T>) then I create an interface deriving from IRepository<T>, an extending implementation inheriting from my IRepository<T> implementation, and in the domain type itself I override the static Repository property using new
new public static IUserRepository Repository
{
get
{
return MyApplication.Repository.For<User, IUserRepository>();
}
}
(MyApplication [which is called something less noddy in the real product] is a facade class which takes care of supplying the Repository instance via Unity so you have no dependency on the specific NHibernate repository implementation within your domain classes.)
This gives me full pluggability via Unity for the repository implementation, easy access to the repository in code without jumping through hoops, and transparent, per-thread ISession management.
There's lots more code than just what's above (and I've simplified the example code a great deal), but you get the general idea.
MyApplication.Repository.BeginUnitOfWork();
User user = User.Repository.FindByEmail("wibble#wobble.com");
user.FirstName = "Joe"; // change something
user.LastName = "Bloggs";
// you *can* call User.Repository.Save(user), but you don't need to, because...
MyApplication.Repository.EndUnitOfWork();
// ...causes session flush which saves the changes automatically
In my Web app, I have session-per-request, so BeginUnitOfWork and EndUnitOfWork get called in BeginRequest and EndRequest respectively.
I have a pretty similar structure to yours, and here's how I solve your question:
1) To specify my container on each method, I have a separate class ("SessionManager") which I then invoke via a static property. By doing so, here's an example using my Save implementation:
private static ISession NHibernateSession
{
get { return SessionManager.Instance.GetSession(); }
}
public T Save(T entity)
{
using (var transaction = NHibernateSession.BeginTransaction())
{
ValidateEntityValues(entity);
NHibernateSession.Save(entity);
transaction.Commit();
}
return entity;
}
2) My container is not created on each ASPX page. I instantiate all of my NHibernate goodness on the global.asax page.
** A few more things spring up **
3) You don't need to have a helper to instantiate the Load. You might as well use Get instead of Load. More information # Difference between Load and Get.
4) Using your current code, you would have to repeat pretty much the same code for each domain object you need (StoredWillRepository, PersonRepository, CategoryRepository, etc..?), which seems like a drag. You could very well use a generic class to operate over NHibernate, like:
public class Dao<T> : IDao<T>
{
public T SaveOrUpdate(T entity)
{
using (var transaction = NHibernateSession.BeginTransaction())
{
NHibernateSession.SaveOrUpdate(entity);
transaction.Commit();
}
return entity;
}
}
In my implementation, I could then use something like:
Service<StoredWill>.Instance.SaveOrUpdate(will);
Technically, the answer to my question is to use the overload of container.Resolve which allows you to specify the constructor argument as an anonymous type:
IUnitOfWork unitOfWork = [Code to get unit of work];
_storedWillRepository = container.Resolve<IStoredWillRepository>(new { unitOfWork = unitOfWork });
But let's face it, the answers provided by everyone else have been much more informative.