Testing @用于部分模拟的SuppressStaticInitialization
我有一个奇怪的例子,我想测试一些功能,而不去碰另一个。。。我很难选择一个合适的描述,我希望下面介绍的代码是非常自我描述的 假设我有一个保持一些策略的类:Testing @用于部分模拟的SuppressStaticInitialization,testing,java-8,powermock,Testing,Java 8,Powermock,我有一个奇怪的例子,我想测试一些功能,而不去碰另一个。。。我很难选择一个合适的描述,我希望下面介绍的代码是非常自我描述的 假设我有一个保持一些策略的类: class TypeStrategy { private static final CreateConsumer CREATE_CONSUMER = new CreateConsumer(); private static final ModifyConsumer MODIFY_CONSUMER = new Modif
class TypeStrategy {
private static final CreateConsumer CREATE_CONSUMER = new CreateConsumer();
private static final ModifyConsumer MODIFY_CONSUMER = new ModifyConsumer();
private static final Map<Type, Consumer<ConsumerContext>> MAP = Map.of(
Type.CREATE, CREATE_CONSUMER,
Type.MODIFY, MODIFY_CONSUMER
);
public static void consume(Type type, ConsumerContext context) {
Optional.ofNullable(MAP.get(nodeActionType))
.orElseThrow(strategyMissing(type))
.accept(context);
}
}
这个想法很简单——有些策略是针对某一类型注册的;方法consume将简单地尝试查找正确的注册类型,并使用提供的ConsumerContext对其调用consume
现在的问题是:我非常想测试我所关心的所有策略是否都已注册,并且我可以对它们调用accept——这就是我真正想要测试的
通常,我会在TypeStrategy上使用@SuppressStaticInitializationFor,而使用WhiteBox::setInternalState只会放置创建和修改消费者所需的任何内容;但在这种情况下,我不能,因为地图也将被跳过,我真的不想这样,我所关心的是这两种策略-我需要地图保持原样
除了一些讨厌的重构,这确实让我达到了我想要的程度,我不知道如何才能做到这一点。在最好的情况下,我希望@SuppressStaticInitializationFor将支持某些部分跳过,在这种情况下,您可以指定一些过滤器,以确定您希望跳过的内容,但实际上,这不是一个选项
我还可以测试调用链上的所有其他内容-即测试accept应该执行的所有操作,但这会在该测试中增加近70行模拟,了解它真的想测试一个非常小的部分会成为一场噩梦。从您的描述来看,似乎黑盒测试不是一个选项,因此,也许我们可以通过模拟消费者的构造函数并验证他们的交互来依赖一些白盒测试 在下面,您可以找到从初始示例推断出的完整示例,包括.orelsethrowstrategmissingtype的一个可能选项 一个重要的注意事项/免责声明:由于我们保持TypeStrategy不变,这意味着将执行映射的静态初始化块。因此,我们需要特别注意消费者模拟实例。我们需要确保在初始模拟阶段添加到映射中的相同模拟实例在所有测试中都可用,否则验证将失败。因此,我们将为所有测试创建一次模拟,而不是为每个测试创建模拟。虽然在单元测试中不建议这样做,但测试应该是独立的,我相信在这种特殊情况下,这是一种可以接受的体面的权衡
import org.junit.BeforeClass;
import org.junit.Test;
import org.junit.runner.RunWith;
import org.powermock.api.mockito.PowerMockito;
import org.powermock.core.classloader.annotations.PrepareForTest;
import org.powermock.modules.junit4.PowerMockRunner;
import java.util.AbstractMap;
import java.util.Map;
import java.util.Optional;
import java.util.function.Consumer;
import java.util.function.Supplier;
import java.util.stream.Collectors;
import java.util.stream.Stream;
import static org.hamcrest.Matchers.is;
import static org.junit.Assert.assertThat;
import static org.junit.Assert.fail;
import static org.mockito.Mockito.*;
import static org.powermock.api.mockito.PowerMockito.whenNew;
// enable powermock magic
@RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
@PrepareForTest({MockitoTest.TypeStrategy.class})
public class MockitoTest {
private static CreateConsumer createConsumerMock;
private static ModifyConsumer modifyConsumerMock;
// static initializer in TypeStrategy => mock everything once in the beginning to avoid having new mocks for each test (otherwise "verify" will fail)
@BeforeClass
public static void setup() throws Exception {
// mock the constructors to return mocks which we can later check for interactions
createConsumerMock = mock(CreateConsumer.class);
modifyConsumerMock = mock(ModifyConsumer.class);
whenNew(CreateConsumer.class).withAnyArguments().thenReturn(createConsumerMock);
whenNew(ModifyConsumer.class).withAnyArguments().thenReturn(modifyConsumerMock);
}
@Test
public void shouldDelegateToCreateConsumer() {
checkSpecificInteraction(Type.CREATE, createConsumerMock);
}
@Test
public void shouldDelegateToModifyConsumer() {
checkSpecificInteraction(Type.MODIFY, modifyConsumerMock);
}
private void checkSpecificInteraction(Type type, Consumer<ConsumerContext> consumer) {
ConsumerContext expectedContext = new ConsumerContext();
// invoke the object under test
TypeStrategy.consume(type, expectedContext);
// check interactions
verify(consumer).accept(expectedContext);
}
@Test
public void shouldThrowExceptionForUnsupportedConsumer() {
ConsumerContext expectedContext = new ConsumerContext();
// unsupported type mock
Type unsupportedType = PowerMockito.mock(Type.class);
when(unsupportedType.toString()).thenReturn("Unexpected");
// powermock does not play well with "@Rule ExpectedException", use plain old try-catch
try {
// invoke the object under test
TypeStrategy.consume(unsupportedType, expectedContext);
// if no exception was thrown to this point, the test is failed
fail("Should have thrown exception for unsupported consumers");
} catch (Exception e) {
assertThat(e.getMessage(), is("Type [" + unsupportedType + "] not supported"));
}
}
/* production classes below */
public static class TypeStrategy {
private static final CreateConsumer CREATE_CONSUMER = new CreateConsumer();
private static final ModifyConsumer MODIFY_CONSUMER = new ModifyConsumer();
private static final Map<Type, Consumer<ConsumerContext>> MAP = Stream.of(
new AbstractMap.SimpleEntry<>(Type.CREATE, CREATE_CONSUMER),
new AbstractMap.SimpleEntry<>(Type.MODIFY, MODIFY_CONSUMER)
).collect(Collectors.toMap(Map.Entry::getKey, Map.Entry::getValue));
public static void consume(Type type, ConsumerContext context) {
Optional.ofNullable(MAP.get(type))
.orElseThrow(strategyMissing(type))
.accept(context);
}
private static Supplier<IllegalArgumentException> strategyMissing(Type type) {
return () -> new IllegalArgumentException("Type [" + type + "] not supported");
}
}
public static class CreateConsumer implements Consumer<ConsumerContext> {
@Override
public void accept(ConsumerContext consumerContext) {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException("Not implemented");
}
}
public static class ModifyConsumer implements Consumer<ConsumerContext> {
@Override
public void accept(ConsumerContext consumerContext) {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException("Not implemented");
}
}
public enum Type {
MODIFY, CREATE
}
public static class ConsumerContext {
}
}
你的消费者如何,并检查与他们的互动?@Morfic这确实是答案,如果你用一个小例子来回答,你会很乐意接受的