Scaffolding with JMock
0 likes2,794 views
This document discusses scaffolding tests using the JMock library. It provides an overview of JMock features for creating mock objects and defining expectations in tests. Specific patterns are demonstrated, such as expecting a sequence of method invocations and using anonymous expectations blocks. The document also discusses test doubles and how to design code for mockability. Examples include testing a scheduler class in isolation using stubs and mocks.
![A SIMPLE EXAMPLE:
THE ROMAN CALCULATOR
Everyone always uses the same one, which is a Roman
Numerals, but I’m going to give it a little twist, which is that I’ll try
and use a Roman Numeral calculator - not a Roman Numeral
converter [...]
Source: https://github.com/hjwp/tdd-roman-numeral-calculator](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/scaffoldingwithjmock-130627043142-phpapp02/85/Scaffolding-with-JMock-49-320.jpg)
Scaffolding with JMock
- 1. SCAFFOLDING WITH JMOCK Software Engineering Class Valerio Maggio, Ph.D. valerio.maggio@unina.it Prof.Adriano Peron June 6, 2013
- 4. A BIGTHANKYOU GOESTO.. Luciano Conte Vittorio Parrella Marco Zeuli
- 5. CALCULATOR CLASS • Requirements: • Input numbers cannot have more than 5 digits; • The calculator can remember a given (unique) number; • Only non-negative numbers are allowed. • In case of negative numbers, an exception is thrown! Calculator + add (double augend, double addend): double + subtract (double minuend, double subtrahend): double + multiply (double multiplicand, double multiplier): double + divide (double dividend, double divisor): double + addToMemory(double number): void + recallNumber(): double - memory: double + MAX_DIGITS_LEN: int = 5 <<final>> <<static>>
- 7. STACK: LIFO QUEUE Stack <<constructor>> + Stack(capacity: int) + pop(): Process + push(Process p): void Process + getName():String + setName(String n): void +getPid(): Integer + setPid(Integer pid): void +getPriority():Integer +setPriority(Integer p): void - name: String - pid: Integer - priority: Integer (default=-1) *1 _list
- 8. BRIEF RECAP OF: “PROGRAMMING CLASS” FIFO QUEUE enqueue()
- 9. BRIEF RECAP OF: “PROGRAMMING CLASS” FIFO QUEUE enqueue()
- 10. BRIEF RECAP OF: “PROGRAMMING CLASS” FIFO QUEUE enqueue() dequeue()
- 11. BRIEF RECAP OF: “PROGRAMMING CLASS” FIFO QUEUE enqueue() dequeue()
- 12. BRIEF RECAP OF: “PROGRAMMING CLASS” enqueue() dequeue() LIFO QUEUE
- 13. BRIEF RECAP OF: “PROGRAMMING CLASS” enqueue() dequeue() LIFO QUEUE
- 14. BRIEF RECAP OF: “PROGRAMMING CLASS” enqueue() dequeue() LIFO QUEUE
- 15. BRIEF RECAP OF: “PROGRAMMING CLASS” enqueue() dequeue() LIFO QUEUE
- 16. + enqueue(Process p):void + dequeue():Process <<abstract>> Queue *1 _list Process FIFOQueue LIFOQueue PriorityQueue + addProcess(Process p, Queue q):void + schedule(Queue q):Process Scheduler 1 * _queues Q: How would you test Scheduler? Remember: Unit tests run in isolation!
- 17. TEST SCAFFOLDING
- 20. INTEGRATIONTESTING PROBLEM • Integrate multiple components implies to decide in which order classes and subsystems should be integrated and tested • CITO Problem • Class IntegrationTesting Order Problem • Solution: • Topological sort of dependency graph
- 21. INTEGRATIONTESTING EXAMPLE ClassA ClassB ClassC Subsystem ClassA ClassB ClassC Subsystem
- 22. INTEGRATIONTESTING EXAMPLE ClassA ClassB ClassC Subsystem ClassA ClassB ClassC Subsystem
- 23. TESTING IN ISOLATION Testing in Isolation benefits!
- 24. TESTING IN ISOLATION Test code that have not been written Testing in Isolation benefits!
- 25. TESTING IN ISOLATION Test only a single method (behavior) without side effects from other objects Test code that have not been written Testing in Isolation benefits!
- 26. SCHEDULER EXAMPLE + enqueue(Process p):void + dequeue():Process <<abstract>> Queue *1 _list Process FIFOQueue LIFOQueue PriorityQueue + addProcess(Process p, Queue q):void + schedule(Queue q):Process Scheduler 1 * _queues
- 28. SOLUTION WITH STUBS @Marco Zeuli
- 29. KEY IDEAS • Wrap all the details of Code • (sort of) Simulation • Mocks do not provide our own implementation of the components we'd like to swap in • Main Difference: • Mocks test behavior and interactions between components • Stubs replace heavyweight process that are not relevant to a particular test with simple implementations
- 30. MOCK OBJECTS • Powerful way to implement BehaviorVerification • while avoidingTest Code Duplication between similar tests. • It works by delegating the job of verifying the indirect outputs of the SUT • Important Note: Design for Mockability • Dependency Injection Pattern
- 31. NAMING CONFUSION • Unfortunately, while two components are quite distinct, they're used interchangeably. • Example: spring-mock package • If we were to be stricter in terms of naming, stub objects defined previously are test doubles • Test Doubles, Stubs, Mocks, Fake Objects… how could we work it out ?
- 32. TEST DOUBLE PATTERN • Q: How can we verify logic independently when code it depends on is unusable? • Q1: How we can avoid slow tests ? • A:We replace a component on which the SUT depends with a “test- specific equivalent.”
- 33. TEST STUB PATTERN • Q: How can we verify logic independently when it depends on indirect inputs from other software components ? • A:We replace a real objects with a test-specific object that feeds the desired inputs into the SUT
- 34. MOCKS OBJECTS • Q: How can we implement BehaviorVerification for indirect outputs of the SUT ? • A:We replace an object on which the SUT depends on with a test-specific object that verifies it is being used correctly by the SUT.
- 35. MOCK LIBRARIES • Two main design philosophy: • DSL Libraries • Record/Replay Models Libraries Record Replay Frameworks: First train mocks and then verify expectations DSL Frameworks: •Domain Specific Languages •Specifications embedded in “Java” Code
- 36. MOCK LIBRARIES • Two main design philosophy: • DSL Libraries • Record/Replay Models Libraries Record Replay Frameworks: First train mocks and then verify expectations DSL Frameworks: •Domain Specific Languages •Specifications embedded in “Java” Code
- 39. JMOCK FEATURES (INTRO) • JMock previous versions required subclassing • Not so smart in testing • Now directly integrated with Junit4 • JMock tests requires more typing • JMock API is extensible
- 40. JMOCK FEATURES • JMock syntax relies heavily on chained method calls • Sometimes difficult to decipher and to debug • Common Patterns: invocation-count(mockobject).method(arguments); inSequence(sequence-name); when(state-machine.is(state-name)); will(action); then(state-machine.is(new-state name));
- 41. 1.TEST FIXTURE • Mockery represents the context • JUnitRuleMockery replaces the @RunWith(JMock.class) annotation • JUnit4Mockery reports expectation failures as JUnit4 test failures
- 42. 2. CREATE MOCK OBJECTS • References (fields andVars) have to be final • Accessible from Anonymous Expectations
- 43. 3.TESTS WITH EXPECTATIONS • A test sets up it expectations in one or more expectation blocks • An expectation block can contain any number of expectations • Expectation blocks can be interleaved with calls to the code under test.
- 44. 3.TESTS WITH EXPECTATIONS • Expectations have the following structure: invocation-count(mockobject).method(arguments); inSequence(sequence-name); when(state-machine.is(state-name)); will(action); then(state-machine.is(new-state name));
- 45. WHAT ARETHOSE DOUBLE BRACES? • Anonymous subclass of Expectations • Baroque structure to provide a scope for setting expectations • Collection of expectation components • Is an example of Builder Pattern • Improves code completion
- 46. COOKBOOK: EXPECT A SEQUENCE OF INVOCATIONS Expect that a sequence of method calls has been executed in the right order @Marco Zeuli
- 49. A SIMPLE EXAMPLE: THE ROMAN CALCULATOR Everyone always uses the same one, which is a Roman Numerals, but I’m going to give it a little twist, which is that I’ll try and use a Roman Numeral calculator - not a Roman Numeral converter [...] Source: https://github.com/hjwp/tdd-roman-numeral-calculator
- 50. PYTHON • Language for geeks • Multi-paradigm • StrongTyped • DynamicTyped • Language for “serious” guys • Object Oriented Language • StrongTyped • StaticTyped JAVAvs
- 51. DUCKTYPING •Walks like a duck? •Quacks like a duck? •Yes, It’s a duck! def half (n): return n/2.0 Q: What is the type of the variable n
- 52. ISTHERE SOMEONETHAT (REALLY) USES PYTHON? • IBM, Google, Microsoft, Sun, HP, NASA, Industrial Light and Magic • Google it! • site:microsoft.com python • You’ll get more than 9k hits
- 54. REFERENCES (1) Growing Object-Oriented Software, Guided ByTests Freeman and Pryce,Addison Wesley 2010 JMock Project WebSite (http://jmock.org)
- 55. REFERENCES (II) xUnitTest Patterns: RefactoringTest Code Meszaros G., Pearson Education 2007