Note. But resently I have figured out that I could use virtual methods also. If either of these libraries is missing from the class path, Spock will gently let you know. Interaction-based testing is a design and testing technique that emerged in the Extreme Programming (XP) community in the early 2000’s. Creating simple Mock is no go, because it mock all methods in a class/interface. You could extract the Fun method into a calculator class that implements an interface. When should I use virtual methods rather than interfaces? Here, we set up the publisher with two instances of a real subscriber implementation. Stubbing method calls. The only way to do this is to check how many times the method sendEmail() was called using a mock. Testing a method which calls another method in the same class. Mocking classes works just like mocking interfaces; the only additional requirement is to put cglib-nodep-2.2 or higher and objenesis-1.2 or higher on the class path. Spock supports the creation of mocks using the static Mock() method. So far I have used to write interfaces to those classes I want to mock/fake.
In Spock we can distinguish three classes that are able to override a behaviour of some other class or interface: Stubs, Mocks and Spies.In this section we will focus on Stubs as unlike two others imitating other classes is their only responsibility. The mock object’s instance isn’t ever passed to the publisher; it is only used to describe the interaction.
If we choose to support mocking static methods, I'd rather offer API that is robust enough to support all kinds of use cases. I like when tools are separated from policies and are opinionated but not dogmatic :) If we think that mocking static is disgusting, we can ship it in a different jar called "mockito-for-crappy-code", loosely following @TimvdLippe idea. What we want is to mock only part of the class and to do that we can use Spock Spy .
Reason for that is that those classes don't have any virtual method to overwrite. is it really code smell to call a method on the same class? Let’s say you have a Person class that has external communication and return values accordingly.
I have a Java class named, MyClass, that I want to test with JUnit.The public method, methodA, that I want to test calls a private method, methodB, in the same class to determine which conditional path to follow.My goal is to write JUnit tests for the different paths in methodA.Also, methodB calls a service, so I do not want it to actually be executed when I run the JUnit tests.
You should pass an instance of that interface to class A at constructor.
In this post I’ll be discussing about mocking the methods in the same test class you are writing the test cases.
Hello all, I am struggling to reach 100% test coverage on a class I am writing a spock specification for. I don think I should create a separate class to find a car by id.
If a test class implements the methods setup(), setupSpec(), cleanup(), and cleanupSpec() then Spock will automatically use the method body to handle fixtures. As you can see I call the findById method on the deleteById method, so my questions are.
This reroutes all method calls on the real subscribers to the mock object. Besides interfaces, Spock also supports mocking of classes. Spock does not provide annotations to indicate fixture setup and teardown. If the Account class is a Java not Groovy class then we can still mock it out using the above methods. In testing you could have other classes implementing that interface, that return other values. Spy allows us to specify only the methods we want to mock and others leave from original object.
A global mock can only be created for a class type.