Would anybody, please, show me an example for at method in phpunit test doubles. I don't understand what is its purpose?
The purpose of the at() function is to specify the order that methods on a mock should be called. If you were to use once() or exactly(), the test would pass no matter which order the methods were called as PHPUnit is only checking that they are called during the test not when.
For example:
class FooTest extends PHPUnitTestCase {
public function testProperOrderOfMethods() {
$mockObject = $this->getMockBuilder('BarObject')
->setMethods(['baz', 'boz'])
->getMock();
$mockObject->expects($this->at(0))
->method('boz');
$mockObject->expects($this->at(1))
->method('bar');
$sut = new Foo();
$sut->methodBeingTested($mockObject);
}
This requires that our function needs to look like:
public function methodBeingTested($dependecy) {
$dependency->boz();
$dependency->bar();
}
And would fail if the function order were changed.
An example use case might be your class is using an object that connects to a service and retrieves data. You would want to have the connection opened, retrieve the data, and then close the connection. Or it may need to make further requests depending on the response. Either way all of these actions need to happen in a specific order so in your test, you would use at().
Related
I have the following code:
private function registerShutdownFunction(): void
{
register_shutdown_function(function () {
$this->dropDatabasesAndUsersIfExist();
});
}
And this code:
private function dropDatabasesAndUsersIfExist(): void
{
// some code for deletion of the databases...
foreach ($connections as $connection) {
$this->assertNotContains($connection, $databases);
}
}
But dropDatabasesAndUsersIfExist is not a "test..." method. And phpunit ignores assertions outside of the test methods.
And seems there are problems may occur, because this shutdown function running directly before the die of the script...
You can use PHPUnit's Assert class outside of test cases if that is really what you want to do:
PHPUnit\Framework\Assert::assertNotContains($connection, $databases);
Edit: After reading your question one more time I'm not really sure if my answer helps you. If I got you right, you are already using the assertion but it did not behave as you'd expect it. My guess is that you want the whole test run to fail if any of the assertions in dropDatabasesAndUsersIfExist was not met.
One solution could be to move the checks you are doing in dropDatabasesAndUsersIfExist to a separate test class that should be executed last. You can achieve this by appending another test suite with the new class right after your test suite(s).
I'd like to explore wether we can save time by setting that all Moq-mocks created by AutoMoq should by default return Fixture-created values as method return values.
This would be beneficial when doing a test like the following:
[TestMethod]
public void Client_Search_SendsRestRequest()
var client = fixture.Create<Client>();
// Could be removed by implementing the mentioned functionality
Mock.Of(JsonGenerator).Setup(j => j.Search(It.IsAny<string>())).Returns(create("JsonBody")));
client.Search(fixture.Create("query"));
Mock.Of(client.RestClient).Verify(c => c.Execute(It.IsAny<RestRequest>()));
Mock.Of(client.RestClient).Verify(c => c.Execute(It.Is<RestRequest>(r => record(r.Body) == record(client.JsonGenerator.Search(query)))));
}
Note that the generated values must be cached inside (?) the proxies, we want the same value "frozen" in order to check. Also, setting up the mock with Setup should override the created value.
So, how can we modify AutoMoq mocks to do this?
A simple test verifying that it works could be:
[TestMethod]
public void MockMethodsShouldReturnCreatedValues()
{
Guid.Parse(new Fixture().Create<ITest>().Test());
}
public interface ITest
{
string Test();
}
Definitely possible, just use the AutoConfiguredMoqCustomization instead of the AutoMoqCustomization. The mocks will use the fixture to generate returns values for all its methods, properties and indexers (*).
Properties will be evaluated eagerly, whereas indexers/methods' return values will be evaluated and cached when invoked for this first time.
(*) There are two exceptions to this rule - the customization cannot automatically setup generic methods or methods with ref parameters, as explained here. You'll have to set those up manually, with the help of the .ReturnsUsingFixture method.
I'm trying to learn how to use Mockery with Laravel 5. I've based my efforts mostly on Way's book (Laravel Testing Decoded) and other tutorials, which say integration [with PHPUnit] only requires the tearDown() method. So I've included that. The problem is that it doesn't seem to be resetting things between tests. My test class contents look essentially like this:
public function __construct()
{
$this->mock = Mockery::mock('Class\To\Mock');
}
public function tearDown()
{
Mockery::close();
}
public function test_RedirectWithoutAuthentication()
{
// Act
$this->call('GET', '/path/1');
// Assert
$this->assertRedirectedTo('/auth/login');
}
public function test_X()
{
// Arrange
$this->mock->shouldReceive('MockedClassMethod')->once();
// Act
$this->call('GET', '/path/1');
}
The first test works and the Auth middleware kicks the user to the login page. In the interest of TDD, I've written the second test before the MockedClassMethod is actually written. So to my way of thinking, it should fail spectacularly. But it doesn't. It passes!
If I change the order of the tests, it "works" (unwritten fails, auth passes) which leads me to believe that it's not really an order problem, but something to do with one test not getting cleaned up before the next.
Any insights will save my remaining hair from being pulled out. :-)
In accordion with the PHPUnit doc:
The setUp() and tearDown() template methods are run once for each test
method (and on fresh instances) of the test case class.
The constructor is called only the first time so the tearDown is called before the second test executed of the class and the effect is that the mockery instance was closed.
In order to solve your problem you can use the setup method for init the mocked object. So replace the class constructor of the test class with the setup method as follow:
Try to use this:
protected function setUp()
{
$this->mock = Mockery::mock('Class\To\Mock');
}
instead of:
public function __construct()
{
$this->mock = Mockery::mock('Class\To\Mock');
}
Hope this help
I had tried using the setUp() method as described by Matteo, and it caused the tests not to run at all. So I abandoned that course thinking I was way off. But Matteo's suggestion turned me back to it.
A little digging into why it caused the tests to fail showed that the $app object was never getting created. Hmm... So then it dawned on me that the setUp() method was overriding some important stuff. So to fix it, all that was needed was to call the parent method first! Like so:
public function setUp()
{
parent::setUp();
$this->mock = Mockery::mock('Class\To\Mock');
}
From that point, the setUp() and tearDown() worked as expected.
I'm still not sure why all the examples I seem to find show the mock being created in the constructor. Maybe I'm still not getting something, but at least it's working... for now. :-)
I have some questions with a particular structure of a program I'm writing.
I'm using a Remote Object to make a remote call to a Rails method (using WebOrb). The problem arises in the way that I get my data back.
Basically I have a function, getConditions, in which I add an event listener to my remote call and then I make the remote call. However, what I want to do is to get that data back in getConditions so I can return it. This is a problem because I only access the event result data in the event handler. Here's some basic code describing this issue:
public function getConditions():Array
{
remoteObject.getConditions.addEventListener("result", onConditionResult);
remoteObject.getConditions();
//Here is where I want to get my event.result data back
}
public function onConditionResult(event:ResultEvent):void
{
//Here's the data that I want
event.result;
}
How can I achieve this data turn-about?
Remote calls in flex are always asynchronous so you won't be able to call getConditions() and wait there for the result. You have to use a function closure to process the results, either by means of an event handler than you declare elsewhere or a dynamic one created immediately within getConditions(), like so:
remoteObject.getConditions.addEventListener("result", function(event:ResultEvent):void {
// Run the code that you would want to when process the result.
});
remoteObject.getConditions();
The advantage of doing the above is that you would be able to "see" parameters passed to getConditions() or the result of any logic that happened before addEventListener() in the function closure. This however, takes a slight performance hit compared to declaring an explicit function (for that exact reason).
I should also add that doing so requires you to clean up after yourselves to make sure that you are not creating a new listener for every request.
you do it like this
public function getConditions():Array
{
remoteObject.getConditions.addEventListener("result", onConditionResult);
remoteObject.getConditions();
}
public function callMyExtraFunction(data:Object):void
{
//Here is where you want to get your event.result data back
}
public function onConditionResult(event:ResultEvent):void
{
//Here's the data that you want
var data:Object = event.result;
callMyExtraFunction(data);
}
You could make use of Call Responder like so :
<s:CallResponder id="getOperationsResult"/>
then use these lines to get the result from get operations
getOperationResult.token = remoteObject.getOperation();
this creates the call and returns the result stores it in getOpresult
whnever u want to access this u can call that token or getOperationResult.lastResult
Hope that helps
Chris
I'm trying to use callLater with FlexUnit v0.9:
public function testCallLater():void {
Application.application.callLater( addAsync(function():void {
assertTrue(true);
}, 1000));
}
but when it runs I get this error:
ArgumentError: Error #1063: Argument count mismatch on flexunit.framework::AsyncTestHelper/handleEvent(). Expected 1, got 0.
at Function/http://adobe.com/AS3/2006/builtin::apply()
at mx.core::UIComponent/callLaterDispatcher2()[C:\autobuild\3.2.0\frameworks\projects\framework\src\mx\core\UIComponent.as:8628]
at mx.core::UIComponent/callLaterDispatcher()[C:\autobuild\3.2.0\frameworks\projects\framework\src\mx\core\UIComponent.as:8568]
I'm not sure what the problem is. Is callLater incompatible with FlexUnit?
First, you should really consider migrating to FlexUnit 4.0: http://blogs.digitalprimates.net/codeSlinger/index.cfm/2009/5/3/FlexUnit-4-in-360-seconds
Second, callLater is meant to be used to delay processing until the next frame in visual classes. Your test case class is not a visual class extending UIComponent, therefore you should not try to use callLater.
Third, addAsync is use to test the results of an asynchronous operation. This is typically used in testing the results of a network request, of a file read, of a timer event, etc. That is why normally you see an "event" as a parameter in the addAsync test function (because asynchronous requests use events to process results). In your case, you're not responding to an asynchronous operation with your addAsync call, and therefore you shouldn't be looking for an event in your test function. Remove the event:Event parameter and the error will go away.
However, perhaps you can re-phrase this question to state what you're trying to accomplish? The code sample that you've indicated is not really doing anything useful. If you can be a little more specific we can help you write a better test case.
For help with using addAsync with older versions of FlexUnit, see this tutorial: http://life.neophi.com/danielr/2007/03/asynchronous_testing_with_flex.html
It looks like you are expecting an event, but not getting one. I imagine the following code would work.
public function testCallLater():void {
Application.application.callLater( addAsync(function(/*removed event declaration*/):void {
assertTrue(true);
}, 1000));
}
Just in case someone needs it, this works :
private function testCallLater():void {
Application.application.callLater(doCallLater, [ addAsync(funcUnderTest, 1000) ]);
}
private function doCallLater(testFunc:Function):void {
testFunc(null); // Dummy arg necessary because of addAsync expecting one arg
}
private function funcUnderTest(e:Object = null):void {
assertTrue(true);
}