PHPUnit test if class methods were called - phpunit

I have model class that calls mailer class inside one of its methods:
class someModel{
public function sendEmail($data){
$mailer = new Mailer();
$mailer->setFrom($data['from']);
$mailer->setTo($data['to']);
$mailer->setSubject($data['subject']);
return $mailer->send();
}
}
How can I test sendEmail method? Maybe I should mock mailer class and check if all these mailer methods were called in sendMail method?
Your help would be appreciated.

IMO wrapping the Mailer class does not solve the problem you're facing, which is you don't have control over the Mail instance being used.
The problem comes from creating the dependencies inside the object that needs them instead of injecting them externally like this:
class someModel{
private $mailer;
public function __construct(Mailer $mailer) {
$this->mailer = $mailer;
}
public function sendEmail($data){
$this->mailer->setFrom($data['from']);
$this->mailer->setTo($data['to']);
$this->mailer->setSubject($data['subject']);
return $this->mailer->send();
}
}
When creating the someModel instance, you must pass a Mail instance (which is an external dependency). And in the test you can pass a Mail mock that will check that the correct calls are being made.
Alternative:
If you feel that injecting a Mail instance is bad (maybe because there are lots of someModel instances), or you just can't change your code this way, then you could use a Services repository, that will keep a single Mail instance and that allows you to set it externally (again, in the test you would set a mock).
Try a simple one like Pimple.

I would (and have in my own code with Mailer!) wrap your instance of Mailer inside a class that you write. In other words, make your own Email class that uses Mailer under the hood. That allows you to simplify the interface of Mailer down to just what you need and more easily mock it. It also gives you the ability to replace Mailer seamlessly at a later date.
The most important thing to keep in mind when you wrap classes to hide external dependencies is keep the wrapper class simple. It's only purpose is to let you swap out the Email libraries class, not provide any complicated logic.
Example:
class Emailer {
private $mailer = new Mailer();
public function send($to, $from, $subject, $data) {
$this->mailer->setFrom($from);
$this->mailer->setTo($to);
...
return $mailer->send();
}
}
class EmailerMock extends Emailer {
public function send($to, $from, $subject, $data) {
... Store whatever test data you want to verify ...
}
//Accessors for testing the right data was sent in your unit test
public function getTo() { ... }
...
}
I follow the same pattern for all classes/libraries that want to touch things external to my software. Other good candidates are database connections, web services connections, cache connections, etc.
EDIT:
gontrollez raised a good point in his answer about dependency injection. I failed to explicitly mention it, but after creating the wrapper the way you would want to use some form of dependency injection to get it into the code where you want to use it. Passing in the instance makes it possible to setup the test case with a Mocked instance.
One method of doing this is passing in the instance to the constructor as gontrollez recommends. There are a lot of cases where that is the best way to do it. However, for "external services" that I am mocking I found that method became tedious because so many classes ended up needing the instance passed in. Consider for example a database driver that you want to Mock for your tests, but you use in many many different classes. So instead what I do is create a singleton class with a method that lets me mock the whole thing at once. Any client code can then just use the singleton to get access to a service without knowing that it was mocked. It looked something like this:
class Externals {
static private $instance = null;
private $db = null;
private $email = null;
...
private function __construct() {
$this->db = new RealDB();
$this->mail = new RealMail();
}
static function initTest() {
self::get(); //Ensure instance created
$db = new MockDB();
$email = new MockEmail();
}
static function get() {
if(!self::$instance)
self::$instance = new Externals();
return self::$instance;
}
function getDB() { return $this->db; }
function getMail() { return $this->mail; }
....
}
Then you can use phpunit's bootstrap file feature to call Externals::initTest() and all your tests will be setup with the mocked externals!

First, as RyanW says, you should write your own wrapper for Mailer.
Second, to test it, use a mock:
<?php
class someModelTest extends \PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase
{
public function testSendEmail()
{
// Mock the class so we can verify that the methods are called
$model = $this->getMock('someModel', array('setFrom', 'setTo', 'setSubject', 'send'));
$controller->expects($this->once())
->method('setFrom');
$controller->expects($this->once())
->method('setTo');
$controller->expects($this->once())
->method('setSubject');
$controller->expects($this->once())
->method('send');
$model->sendEmail();
}
}
The above code is untested, but it basically mocks the someModel class, creating dummy functions for each each function called within sendEmail. It then tests to make sure each of the functions called by sendEmail is called exactly once when sendEmail is called.
See the PHPUnit docs for more info on mocking.

Related

Creating proxies for real objects

I want to write an integration test using a real repository but also verify behavior of the repository
SomeService(IRepository r) calls r.QuerySomething()
And I've been trying to achieve this using Moq:
var mock = new Mock<IRepository >(() => new Repository());
mock.CallBase = true;
The trouble is that it never calls methods from Repository nor does it call it's constructor. The lambda over there is meant for getting ctor parameters (if type is a class) not for object initialization.
Q: How do I wrap new Repository() into a Mock<IIRepository> so I can verify calls?
NB: it works if the type give is a class but I cannot then use it for verifying since they implementatin is not virtual.
Alternatively is there some other nuget that can help me achieve this?
There is a technique that I use for testing brownfiled legacy code, it can probably help, in what you're trying to achieve. You can introduce a decorator into your tests project that wraps your original implementation, but also implements the IRepository interface.
class TestRepository : IRepostiory
{
public TestRepository(Repository next)
{
this.next = next;
}
}
Inside this class you can declare all the interface members as virtual.
class TestRepository : IRepostiory
{
public virtual IReadOnlyList<Client> GetByName(string name)
{
return this.next.GetByName(name);
}
}
Now you can use the TestRepository in place of your original implementation and also create a mock that verifies the calls to this class.
var repository = new Repository();
var sutMock = new Mock<TestRepository>(repository) { CallBase = true };
var sut = sutMock.Object;
sut.GetByName("John Doe");
sutMock.Verify(x => x.GetByName("John Doe"), Times.Once);
NB: The fact that you'd need a legacy code testing technique probably indicates to a code smell. I would recommend, as a first step, splitting the tests that assert the mock from those that assert the real implementation results (changes in the persistence layer).

How to unit-test protected methods?

Is there a way to unit-test protected or private methods of a class? As it is now, I'm making a lot of methods public in order to be able to test them, which breaks the API.
Edit: Actually answered here: Best practices to test protected methods with PHPUnit
You can access your private and/or protected method by using the ReflectionMethod class followed by invoke method, but to invoke the method you also need an instance of your class which in certain situations isn't possible. Based on this one nice example that works is this one:
Get a mock of your class:
$mockedInstance = $this->getMockBuilder(YourClass::class)
->disableOriginalConstructor() // you may need the constructor on integration tests only
->getMock();
Get your method to be tested:
$reflectedMethod = new \ReflectionMethod(
YourClass::class,
'yourMethod'
);
$reflectedMethod->setAccessible(true);
Call your private/protected method:
$reflectedMethod->invokeArgs( //use invoke method if you don't have parameters on your method
$mockedInstance,
[$param1, ..., $paramN]
);
For protected methods, you can subclass the class under test:
class Foo
{
protected function doThings($foo)
{
//...
}
}
class _Foo extends Foo
{
public function _doThings($foo)
{
return $this->doThings($foo);
}
}
and in the test:
$sut = new _Foo();
$this->assertEquals($expected, $sut->_doThings($stuff));
With private methods it is a bit more difficult, you could use the Reflection API to call protected methods. Also, there is an argument that private methods should only come into existence during refactoring so should be covered by the public methods that call them, but that only really works if you did test-first to start with and in real life we have legacy code to deal with ;)
Links for the reflection api:
http://php.net/manual/en/reflectionmethod.setaccessible.php
Also, this link looks useful for this purpose:
https://jtreminio.com/2013/03/unit-testing-tutorial-part-3-testing-protected-private-methods-coverage-reports-and-crap/

Facade pattern for Symfony2 services

New to Symfony2, I'm building an app that uses an external API to get data. I created a lot of client classes to retrieve and transform each entity from the API, and I defined those classes as services - e.g., I have a FooClient with methods like getAll() or getThoseThatInterestMe($me), which return data from the API.
Now I wanted to create a ApiClientFacade class, which acts as an interface in front of all the XxxClient classes, following the Facade Pattern - e.g., this facade class would have a method getAllFoo(), which in turn would call FooClient::getAll(), and so on...
I could define my facade class as a service as well, but it'd have too many dependencies - I have around 30 client classes. Also, afaik with this approach I'd be loading all 30 dependencies every time, while most of the times I'd only need one dependency...
So, is there a better way to do this?
Use additional ApiClientFactory to move responsibility about "instantiation of ApiClient objects" from your ApiFacade class (which is your initial idea, as I understood).
In some pseudo-php code my idea is:
$api = new ApiFacade(new ApiClientFactory);
$api->sendNotificationAboutUserLogin('username', time());
An example of method:
class ApiFacade {
private $apiFactory;
public function __construct(ApiClientFactory $factory)
{
$this->apiFactory = $factory;
}
public function sendNotificationAboutUserLogin($username, $timeOfOperation)
{
return $this->apiFactory
->createApi('User')
->post(
'notifications',
array('operation' => 'login', 'username' => $username, 'timeOfOperation' => $timeOfOperation)
);
}
}
In this case your Facade class stays injectable (testable), but also becomes simpler instantiatable (you don't need to pass all dependencies into it anymore).
The ApiClientFactory should look like that:
class ApiClientFactory {
private $apiBaseUrl;
public function __construct($apiBaseUrl)
{
$this->apiBaseUrl = $apiBaseUrl;
}
public function createApi($apiName)
{
switch ($apiName) {
case 'User': return new \My\UserApi($this->apiBaseUrl);
default: // throw an exception?
}
}
}

Load custom configuration in a console command using dependency-injection

I have started using Symfony's console components to build various cli tools.
I am currently slapping together such a console app, that has require various configurations, some of which are shared among commands, other configs are unique to the command.
At first I was using a helper class, with a static function call to load a regular configuration array.
Yesterday I refactored this and now load configuration in the config component, along with the treeBuilder mechanism for validation. This is all done in the main console script, not in the "command" classes.
$app = new Application('Console deployment Application', '0.0.1');
/**
* Load configuration
*/
$configDirectories = array(__DIR__.'/config');
$locator = new FileLocator($configDirectories);
$loader = new YamlConfigLoader($locator);
$configValues = $loader->load(file_get_contents($locator->locate("config.yml")));
// process configuration
$processor = new Processor();
$configuration = new Configuration();
try {
$processedConfiguration = $processor->processConfiguration(
$configuration,
$configValues
);
// configuration validated
var_dump($processedConfiguration);
} catch (Exception $e) {
// validation error
echo $e->getMessage() . PHP_EOL;
}
/**
* Load commands
*/
foreach(glob(__DIR__ . '/src/Command/*Command.php') as $FileName) {
$className = "Command\\" . rtrim(basename($FileName), ".php");
$app->addCommands(array(
new $className,
));
}
$app->run();
Currently, the only means to setup the configuration is to setup the code that loads the configuration in a separate class and call this class in in the configure() method of every method.
Maybe there is a more "symfonyish" way of doing this that I missed, I also would like to avoid having the entire framework in codebase, this is meant to be a lightweight console app.
Is there a way to pass the processed configuration to the commands being invoked, using DI or some other method I am not aware of?
Manual Injection
If you wany to keep things light and only have one (the same) configuration object for all commands, you don't even needa DI container. Simply create the commands like this:
...
$app->addCommands(array(
new $className($configuration),
));
Although you have to be aware of the trade-offs, e.g. you will have to have more effort extending this in the future or adjust to changing requirements.
Simple DI Container
You can of course use a DI container, there is a really lightweight container called Twittee, which has less than 140 characters (and thus fits in a tweet). You could simply copy and paste that and add no dependency. In your case this may end up looking similar to:
$c = new Container();
$c->configA = function ($c) {
return new ConfigA();
};
$c->commandA = function($c) {
return new CommandA($c->configA());
}
// ...
You then would need to set that up for all your commands and configurations and then simply for each command:
$app->addCommand($c->commandA());
Interface Injection
You could roll your own simple injection mechanism using interfaces and setter injection. For each dependency you want to inject you will need to define an interface:
interface ConfigAAwareInterface {
public function setConfigA(ConfigA $config);
}
interface ConfigBAwareInterface {
public function setConfigA(ConfigA $config);
}
Any class that needs the dependency can simply implement the interface. As you will mostly repeat the setters, make use of a trait:
trait ConfigAAwareTrait {
private $config;
public function setConfigA(ConfigA $config) { $this->config = $config; }
public function getConfigA() { return $this->config }
}
class MyCommand extends Command implements ConfigAAwareInterface {
use ConfigAAwareTrait;
public function execute($in, $out) {
// access config
$this->getConfigA();
}
}
Now all that is left is to actually instantiate the commands and inject the dependencies. You can use the following simple "injector class":
class Injector {
private $injectors = array();
public function addInjector(callable $injector) {
$this->injectors[] = $injector;
}
public function inject($object) {
// here we'll just call the injector callables
foreach ($this->injectors as $inject) {
$inject($object);
}
return $object;
}
}
$injector = new Injector();
$configA = new ConfigA();
$injector->addInjector(function($object) use ($configA) {
if ($object instanceof ConfigAAwareInterface) {
$object->setConfigA($configA);
}
});
// ... add more injectors
Now to actually construct a command, you can simply call:
$injector->inject(new CommandA());
And the injector will inject dependencies based on the implemented interfaces.
This may at first seem a little complicated, but it is in fact quite helpful at times.
However, if you have multiple objects of the same class that you need to inject (e.g. new Config("path/to/a.cfg") and new Config("path/to/b.cfg")) this might not be an ideal solution, as you can only distinguish by interfaces.
Dependency Injection Library
You can of course also use a whole library and add that as dependency. I have written a list of PHP dependency injection containers in a separate answer.

unit testing a class that uses linq to sql

I want to write unit test for a class that contains linq to sql codes . I mean inside each method I have created a new DbContext and done database jobs .
I searched the web . first I came to use repository and Unit of Work patterns but I figured out that DbContext itself is a unit of work and its dbset works as repositories . another point is that I think there is no need to test Linq part because it works as it should ( tested by .net team ) . I want to test the logic I have added to the code . so I decided to create an interface with necessary methods with two implementations , one uses linqToSql while another is just a mock . something like this :
public interface IDbManager
{
bool Insert(MyEntity newEntity);
}
public class RealDbManager:IDbManager
{
public bool Insert(MyEntity newEntity)
{
using (DbDataContext db = new DbDataContext())
{
db.MyEntities.InsertOnSubmit(newEntity);
db.SubmitChanges();
}
}
}
public class MockDbManager:IDbManager
{
public bool Insert(MyEntity newEntity)
{
return true;
}
}
is the whole idea correct ? if so is this a correct implementation ?
is it possible to define DbDataContext as a class variable instead of creating new instance inside each method ?
You have the right general idea for a start. Your Mock Insert method should save the entity to some in-memory store so that subsequent queries will return the inserted information, as would be expected. But the very basic idea of having an interface, with a 'real' and a 'mock' implementation is there.
Remember that when using your Mock in tests, you are testing your other code that uses the mock - not the mock itself.
As for defining the DataContext as a member variable; you could use an IDisposable pattern for it, like so:
public class RealDbManager:IDbManager, IDisposable
{
DbDataContext db = new DbDataContext();
public bool Insert(MyEntity newEntity)
{
{
db.MyEntities.InsertOnSubmit(newEntity);
db.SubmitChanges();
}
}
public void Dispose()
{
db.Dispose();
}
}
You would just have to be sure to dispose of your DbManager, then.
Yes. The only thing I would avoid is to create an actual mocked class (in this case it should be called Fake), but using a mocking engine.
In your question you mention two kind of tests. First is testing the behavior of your class, the second is testing the integration of it. They seem the same but it's not.
In the first you need to mock your class to test its 'connection' against your other classes this way (using Moq):
[Test]
public void Test()
{
var entity = new Entity();
var mocked = new Mock<IDbManager>();
//you are telling the moq engine everytimes it finds an invocation of your repository
//to return true as you did in you mocked class
mocked.Setup( x => x.Insert( entity ) ).Returns( true );
var classUnderTest = new ClassUnderTest( mocked.Object );
//in this method you invoke your repository
var ret = classUnderTest.DoSomething( entity );
//assertions
Assert.Equal( something, ret);
//eventually you can verify that your repository has been hit once
mocked.Verify( x => x.Insert( It.IsAny<Entity>), Times.Once);
}
in the later as you correctly state, you have nothing to test on linq (Microsoft did it for us), but in case you need to verify the correctness of your linq you can do it only against a real db (or using a repository pattern against a fake repository). This is an integration test and it's has nothing to share with mocking.
To decouple your class from DbContext you could use repository pattern. Have a look at this article. http://dotnetspeak.com/index.php/2011/03/repository-pattern-with-entity-framework/

Resources