Develop Reference

Mocking a function returned by a react hook

I'm building a pagination using the useQuery hook as part of the Apollo Client in React, which exposes a function called fetchMore seen here: https://www.apollographql.com/docs/react/data/pagination/
Everything works fine, but I'm trying to write a test one of the use cases, which is when the fetchMore function fails due to a network error. The code in my component looks like this.
const App = () => {
// Some other component logic
const {loading, data, error, fetchMore} = useQuery(QUERY)
const handleChange = () => {
fetchMore({
variables: {
offset: data.feed.length
},
updateQuery: (prev, { fetchMoreResult }) => {
if (!fetchMoreResult) return prev;
return Object.assign({}, prev, {
feed: [...prev.feed, ...fetchMoreResult.feed]
});
}
}).catch((e) => {
// handle the error
})
}
}
Basically I want to test the case where the fetchMore function function throws an Error. I DON'T want to mock the entire useQuery though, just the fetchMore function. What would be the best way to mock just the fetchMore function in my test?

One way to do it is to just mock the hook
In your spec file:
import { useQuery } from '#apollo/react-hooks'
jest.mock('#apollo/react-hooks',() => ({
__esModule:true
useQuery:jest.fn()
});
console.log(useQuery) // mock function - do whatever you want!
/*
e.g. useQuery.mockImplementation(() => ({
data:...
loading:...
fetchMore:jest.fn(() => throw new Error('bad'))
});
*/
You could also mock the stuff that goes on "behind the scenes" to simulate a network error, do whatever you need to to test your catch.
EDIT:
Search for __esModule: true on this page and you'll understand.
It's probably easier to just mock the whole function and return everything as mock data. But you can unmock it to use the real one so as not to conflict with other tests.

How can I test a class which contains imported async methods in it?

This is my first time working with tests and I get the trick to test UI components. Now I am attempting to test a class which has some static methods in it. It contains parameters too.
See the class:
import UserInfoModel from '../models/UserInfo.model';
import ApiClient from './apiClient';
import ApiNormalizer from './apiNormalizer';
import Article from '../models/Article.model';
import Notification from '../models/Notification.model';
import Content from '../models/Link.model';
export interface ResponseData {
[key: string]: any;
}
export default class ApiService {
static makeApiCall(
url: string,
normalizeCallback: (d: ResponseData) => ResponseData | null,
callback: (d: any) => any
) {
return ApiClient.get(url)
.then(res => {
callback(normalizeCallback(res.data));
})
.catch(error => {
console.error(error);
});
}
static getProfile(callback: (a: UserInfoModel) => void) {
return ApiService.makeApiCall(`profile`, ApiNormalizer.normalizeProfile, callback);
}
}
I already created a small test which is passing but I am not really sure about what I am doing.
// #ts-ignore
import moxios from 'moxios';
import axios from 'axios';
import { baseURL } from './apiClient';
import { dummyUserInfo } from './../models/UserInfo.model';
describe('apiService', () => {
let axiosInstance: any;
beforeEach(() => {
axiosInstance = axios.create();
moxios.install();
});
afterEach(() => {
moxios.uninstall();
});
it('should perform get profile call', done => {
moxios.stubRequest(`${baseURL.DEV}profile`, {
status: 200,
response: {
_user: dummyUserInfo
}
});
axiosInstance
.get(`${baseURL.DEV}profile`)
.then((res: any) => {
expect(res.status).toEqual(200);
expect(res.data._user).toEqual(dummyUserInfo);
})
.finally(done);
});
});
I am using moxios to test the axios stuff -> https://github.com/axios/moxios
So which could be the proper way to test this class with its methods?

Introduction
Unit tests are automated tests written and run by software developers to ensure that a section of an application meets its design and behaves as intended. As if we are talking about object-oriented programming, a unit is often an entire interface, such as a class, but could be an individual method.
The goal of unit testing is to isolate each part of the program and show that the individual parts are correct. So if we consider your ApiService.makeApiCall function:
static makeApiCall(
url: string,
normalizeCallback: (d: ResponseData) => ResponseData | null,
callback: (d: any) => any
) {
return ApiClient.get(url)
.then((res: any) => {
callback(normalizeCallback(res.data));
})
.catch(error => {
console.error(error);
});
}
we can see that it has one external resource calling ApiClient.get which should be mocked. It's not entirely correct to mock the HTTP requests in this case because ApiService doesn't utilize them directly and in this case your unit becomes a bit more broad than it expected to be.
Mocking
Jest framework provides great mechanism of mocking and example of Omair Nabiel is correct. However, I prefer to not only stub a function with a predefined data but additionally to check that stubbed function was called an expected number of times (so use a real nature of mocks). So the full mock example would look as follows:
/**
* Importing `ApiClient` directly in order to reference it later
*/
import ApiClient from './apiClient';
/**
* Mocking `ApiClient` with some fake data provider
*/
const mockData = {};
jest.mock('./apiClient', function () {
return {
get: jest.fn((url: string) => {
return Promise.resolve({data: mockData});
})
}
});
This allows to add additional assertions to your test example:
it('should call api client method', () => {
ApiService.makeApiCall('test url', (data) => data, (res) => res);
/**
* Checking `ApiClient.get` to be called desired number of times
* with correct arguments
*/
expect(ApiClient.get).toBeCalledTimes(1);
expect(ApiClient.get).toBeCalledWith('test url');
});
Positive testing
So, as long as we figured out what and how to mock data let's find out what we should test. Good tests should cover two situations: Positive Testing - testing the system by giving the valid data and Negative Testing - testing the system by giving the Invalid data. In my humble opinion the third branch should be added - Boundary Testing - Test which focus on the boundary or limit conditions of the software being tested. Please, refer to this Glossary if you are interested in other types of tests.
The positive test flow flow for makeApiCall method should call normalizeCallback and callback methods consequently and we can write this test as follows (however, there is more than one way to skin a cat):
it('should call callbacks consequently', (done) => {
const firstCallback = jest.fn((data: any) => {
return data;
});
const secondCallback = jest.fn((data: any) => {
return data;
});
ApiService.makeApiCall('test url', firstCallback, secondCallback)
.then(() => {
expect(firstCallback).toBeCalledTimes(1);
expect(firstCallback).toBeCalledWith(mockData);
expect(secondCallback).toBeCalledTimes(1);
expect(secondCallback).toBeCalledWith(firstCallback(mockData));
done();
});
});
Please, pay attention to several things in this test:
- I'm using done callback to let jest know the test was finished because of asynchronous nature of this test
- I'm using mockData variable which the data that ApiClient.get is mocked this so I check that callback got correct value
- mockData and similar variables should start from mock. Otherwise Jest will not allow to out it out of mock scope
Negative testing
The negative way for test looks pretty similar. ApiClient.get method should throw and error and ApiService should handle it and put into a console. Additionaly I'm checking that none of callbacks was called.
import ApiService from './api.service';
const mockError = {message: 'Smth Bad Happened'};
jest.mock('./apiClient', function () {
return {
get: jest.fn().mockImplementation((url: string) => {
console.log('error result');
return Promise.reject(mockError);
})
}
});
describe( 't1', () => {
it('should handle error', (done) => {
console.error = jest.fn();
const firstCallback = jest.fn((data: any) => {
return data;
});
const secondCallback = jest.fn((data: any) => {
return data;
});
ApiService.makeApiCall('test url', firstCallback, secondCallback)
.then(() => {
expect(firstCallback).toBeCalledTimes(0);
expect(secondCallback).toBeCalledTimes(0);
expect(console.error).toBeCalledTimes(1);
expect(console.error).toBeCalledWith(mockError);
done();
});
});
});
Boundary testing
Boundary testing could be arguing in your case but as long as (according to your types definition normalizeCallback: (d: ResponseData) => ResponseData | null) first callback can return null it could be a good practice to check if is the successfully transferred to a second callback without any errors or exceptions. We can just rewrite our second test a bit:
it('should call callbacks consequently', (done) => {
const firstCallback = jest.fn((data: any) => {
return null;
});
const secondCallback = jest.fn((data: any) => {
return data;
});
ApiService.makeApiCall('test url', firstCallback, secondCallback)
.then(() => {
expect(firstCallback).toBeCalledTimes(1);
expect(firstCallback).toBeCalledWith(mockData);
expect(secondCallback).toBeCalledTimes(1);
done();
});
});
Testing asynchronous code
Regarding testing asynchronous code you can read a comprehensive documentation here. The main idea is when you have code that runs asynchronously, Jest needs to know when the code it is testing has completed, before it can move on to another test. Jest provides three ways how you can do this:
By means of a callback
it('the data is peanut butter', done => {
function callback(data) {
expect(data).toBe('peanut butter');
done();
}
fetchData(callback);
});
Jest will wait until the done callback is called before finishing the test. If done() is never called, the test will fail, which is what you want to happen.
By means of promises
If your code uses promises, there is a simpler way to handle asynchronous tests. Just return a promise from your test, and Jest will wait for that promise to resolve. If the promise is rejected, the test will automatically fail.
async/await syntax
You can use async and await in your tests. To write an async test, just use the async keyword in front of the function passed to test.
it('the data is peanut butter', async () => {
const data = await fetchData();
expect(data).toBe('peanut butter');
});
Example
Here you can find a ready to use example of your code
https://github.com/SergeyMell/jest-experiments
Please, let me know if something left unclear for you.
UPDATE (29.08.2019)
Regarding your question
Hi, what can I do to mock ./apiClient for success and error in the same file?
According to the documentation Jest will automatically hoist jest.mock calls to the top of the module (before any imports). It seems that you can do setMock or doMock instead, however, there are issues with mocking this way that developers face from time to time. They can be overridden by using require instead of import and other hacks (see this article) however I don't like this way.
The correct way for me in this case is do split mock defining and implementation, so you state that this module will be mocked like this
jest.mock('./apiClient', function () {
return {
get: jest.fn()
}
});
But the implementation of the mocking function differs depending on scope of tests:
describe('api service success flow', () => {
beforeAll(() => {
//#ts-ignore
ApiClient.get.mockImplementation((url: string) => {
return Promise.resolve({data: mockData});
})
});
...
});
describe('api service error flow', () => {
beforeAll(() => {
//#ts-ignore
ApiClient.get.mockImplementation((url: string) => {
console.log('error result');
return Promise.reject(mockError);
})
});
...
});
This will allow you to store all the api service related flows in a single file which is what you expected as far as I understand.
I've updated my github example with api.spec.ts which implements all mentioned above. Please, take a look.

The unit test term is self-explanatory that you test a unit. A function in complete isolation. Any outside dependencies are mocked. Here if your'e testing makeApiCall function you'll have to stub it's parameters and then mock the ApiClient promise and expect the function to return whatever you're expecting it to return with respect to your mocked and stub parameters.
One thing that people normally forget and which is the most important is to test the negative cases of a function. What will happen if your function throws an error will it break the app. How your function behaves in case something fails. Tests are written to avoid breaking changes in the app.
here is a better guide how to test async functions in JEST which coding examples:
https://www.leighhalliday.com/mocking-axios-in-jest-testing-async-functions
Hope this helps
UPDATE
Mock your ApiClient
for pass case:
jest.mock('./apiClient', () => {
get: jest.fn(() => Promise.resolve(data)) // for pass case
})
for fail case:
jest.mock('./apiClient', () => {
get: jest.fn(() => Promise.reject(false)) // for fail case
})
now call your makeApiCall for both cases once for success and once for fail.
for fail case:
const makeCall = await makeApiCall( <your stub params here> )
expect(makeCall).toThrowError() // note here you can check whatever you have done to handle error. ToThrowError is not a built-in function but just for understanding
I've mostly done testing in Jasmine so this last piece of code is kind of a psuedo code.

I guess what you are asking is how to test ApiService. If this is the case, then mocking the very own thing you want to test would make the unit test pointless.
What I would expect is the following items
You just want to test logic in your own class, not in the library.
You don't want to make an actual network request, this spams the server and make the test slower to run.
If this is the case, then you should mock out some lib to control their behaviour and see how your class behave under those circumstances. And, mock out any operation that involves network IO, make your test faster and less reliant on external resources.
There are a few things you could check with some dependencies mocked out:
delegation, e.g. is axios called once, with the right param?
directly mock the behaviour of the lib, in your case using maxios.
import ApiService, { baseURL } from './apiClient';
describe('ApiService', () => {
let axiosInstance: any;
beforeEach(() => {
axiosInstance = axios.create();
moxios.install();
});
afterEach(() => {
moxios.uninstall();
});
// usually 1 test suite for each method
describe('#getProfile', (done) => {
// mocking behaviour
it('should perform get profile call', () => {
moxios.stubRequest(`${baseURL.DEV}profile`, {
status: 200,
response: {
_user: dummyUserInfo
}
});
ApiService.getProfile((profile) => {
expect(profile).toEqual(dummyUserInfo); // you get what i mean
done();
});
});
// directly mock axios
it('delegates to axios', (done) => {
// you should put this to the top to avoid confusion, it will be hoisted
jest.mock('axios', () => ({
create: jest.fn(() => ({
get: jest.fn(() => Promise.resolve()),
})),
}));
ApiService.getProfile((profile) => {
// do some assertion
expect(axiosInstance.get).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1);
expect(axiosInstance.get).toHaveBeenCalledWith(url, someParam, youGetIt);
done();
});
});
// rmb to test some error case
it('should throw when param is not correct', (done) => { ... });
});
});

How to mock a method that accepts no arguments and its supposed to work normally in 1 test, and supposed to throw an error in another test

I'm trying to get 100% coverage on my AWS project but I don't know how to mock methods that don't accept arguments AND are supposed to pass a test that makes them work properly(return values) and another test that makes them throw an error. I can't change the tech I am using so please try to help me with the things I am using right now.
I am using Nodejs, Typescript, Mocha, Chai, nyc and mock-require for mocking.
It's an AWS project so I am working with AWS methods
Here is the function and method, I am mocking describeAutoScalingGroups()
export async function suspendASGroups() {
const autoscaling = new AWS.AutoScaling();
const asgGroups = await autoscaling.describeAutoScalingGroups().promise();
if (!asgGroups.AutoScalingGroups) {
throw new Error("describeAutoScalingGroups inside of suspendAGSGroups didn't return any groups");
}
// some other stuff below
This is the TEST that is supposed to fail(Above this there is a test of the same function which will return regular values)
it('Should throw an error, should fail', async () => {
assertNative.rejects(awsFunctions.resumeAGSGroups());
try {
let result = await awsFunctions.suspendASGroups();
} catch (e) {
assert.isTrue(
e.name == 'Error' &&
e.message == "describeAutoScalingGroups inside of suspendAGSGroups didn't return any groups",
'describeAutoScalingGroups in suspendAGSGroups didnt have the proper error message'
);
}
});
And here is the mock code
public describeAutoScalingGroups() {
const data = (): AWS.AutoScaling.Types.AutoScalingGroupsType => {
return {
// some values here
};
return {
promise: data
};
}
I expect to be able to pass both tests, the one that expects a regular value and one that expects it to throw an error
here is a picture of the coverage: https://i.imgur.com/D6GX0tf.png
I expect that red part to be gone :)
Thank you

In your mock you need to return something for AutoScalingGroupsType that evaluates to false, since you have this check:
if (!asgGroups.AutoScalingGroups) { ... }
So you could simply do this:
public describeAutoScalingGroups() {
return {
promise: () => {
return { AutoScalingGroups: false }
}
};

I was given an answer on reddit so I will post it here too:
You need a different mock for each test. You should setup your mocks in before/beforeEach hooks which you will get from mocha https://mochajs.org/#hooks.
Using sinon would make the mock creation cleaner but if you are stuck with mock-require then it looks like you will need to use https://www.npmjs.com/package/mock-require#mockrerequirepath
--- end of comment
How I did it:
I made another mock file that is the same as the regular mock file, except this one can only fail functions(which is good)
Here is the code in the TEST:
describe('Testing FAILING suspendAGSGroups', () => {
it('Should throw an error, should fail', async () => {
const mock = require('mock-require');
mock.stopAll();
let test = require('./test/mocks/indexFailMocks');
mock.reRequire('./test/mocks/indexFailMocks');
let awsFailing = mock.reRequire('./handler');
// the line above is pretty important, without it It wouldnt have worked, you need to reRequire something even if it's the code of it isn't changed(I only changed the MOCK file but I had to reRequire my main function)
try {
let result = await awsFailing.suspendASGroups();
} catch (e) {
assert.isTrue(
e.name == 'Error' &&
e.message == "describeAutoScalingGroups inside of
suspendAGSGroups didn't return any groups",
'describeAutoScalingGroups in suspendAGSGroups didnt have the proper
error message'
);
}
});
});

How would I test this promise based code with jest?

How would I test this code in jest? I'd like to make sure that the error and success of the passed promise is being called as needed. I'm sure it's something sorta simple, but it's driving me crazy. Thanks very much.
handleStatusChangeRequest (changeEntryStatus) {
return changeEntryStatus().then(() => {
this.handleStatusChangeSuccess()
}).catch(err => {
this.handleErrorDisplay(err)
})
}

If your code uses promises, there is a nice way to handle asynchronous tests. Just return a promise from your test, and Jest will wait for that promise to resolve.
If the promise is rejected, the test will automatically fail.
For example, let's say that changeData, instead of using a callback, returns a promise that is supposed to resolve to the string "status has been successfully modified".
Be sure to return the promise - if you omit this return statement, your test will complete before your changeData() -[async function] completes.
Here's a convenient and easy to follow pattern
test('if the data is changed', () => {
return changeData().then((data) => {
expect(data).toBe('status has been successfully modified');
});
})
Happy testing :)

This could be refactored, but for the sake of demonstration, I left the repeating bits in.
In example.spec.js, the callback, changeEntryStatus, is stubbed to return a promise. In order to check if other instance methods (this.method) were called, they are first mocked, then assertions are called on the mock after running the method being tested. Learn more in the Jest docs. (See my thoughts on mocking methods of the unit being tested at the bottom.)
Run the example on repl.it.
example.js:
class Example {
handleStatusChangeRequest(changeEntryStatus) {
return changeEntryStatus().then(() => {
this.handleStatusChangeSuccess()
}).catch(err => {
this.handleErrorDisplay(err)
})
}
handleStatusChangeSuccess() {
console.log('stubbed handleStatusChangeSuccess')
}
handleErrorDisplay(error) {
console.log('stubbed handleErrorDisplay:', error)
}
}
module.exports = Example;
example.spec.js:
const Example = require('./entryStatus')
describe('handleStatusChangeRequest', () => {
it('should run the changeEntryStatus callback', () => {
const {handleStatusChangeRequest} = new Example()
const stub = jest.fn().mockResolvedValue()
handleStatusChangeRequest(stub)
// must return because handleStatusChangeRequest is asynchronous
return expect(stub).toHaveBeenCalled()
});
it('should call example.handleStatusChangeSuccess', async () => {
const example = new Example()
const stub = jest.fn().mockResolvedValue()
example.handleStatusChangeSuccess = jest.fn()
await example.handleStatusChangeRequest(stub)
expect(example.handleStatusChangeSuccess).toHaveBeenCalled();
})
it('should call example.handleErrorDisplay', async () => {
const example = new Example()
const fakeError = { code: 'fake_error_code' }
const stub = jest.fn().mockRejectedValue(fakeError)
example.handleErrorDisplay = jest.fn()
await example.handleStatusChangeRequest(stub)
expect(example.handleErrorDisplay).toHaveBeenCalled()
expect(example.handleErrorDisplay).toHaveBeenCalledWith(fakeError)
});
});
Opinionated Disclaimer: Mocking methods of the unit under test is a smell. Consider checking for the expected effects of calling handleStatusChangeSuccess and handleErrorDisplay instead of checking to see if they were called. Then don't even expose those methods publicly unless consumers of the class need access.

Opinionated Disclaimer: Mocking methods of the unit under test is a
smell. Consider checking for the expected effects of calling
handleStatusChangeSuccess and handleErrorDisplay instead of checking
to see if they were called. Then don't even expose those methods
publicly unless consumers of the class need access.
I wholeheartedly agree with webprojohn's disclaimer. Mocks are a smell as tests should assert the behavior of the code, not its implementation. Testing the latter makes the code brittle to change.
Stepping off my soapbox... :) We're looking for a way to test an asynchronous method. I'm not sure what assertions your tests should make to verify the behavior inside handleStatusChangeSuccess() and handleErrorDisplay(err) so the example below leaves a comment where those assertions would go. The following uses Promise.resolve() and Promise.reject() to trigger the outcomes to test. I've used async/await, Jest has other async examples in their docs.
const Example = require('./example')
describe('handleStatusChangeRequest', () => {
it('should resolve successfully', async () => {
const {handleStatusChangeRequest} = new Example();
const resolvePromise = () => Promise.resolve();
await handleStatusChangeRequest(resolvePromise);
// resolution assertions here
});
it('should resolve errors', async () => {
const {handleStatusChangeRequest} = new Example();
const fakeError = new Error('eep');
const rejectPromise = () => Promise.reject(fakeError);
// if your method doesn't throw, we can remove this try/catch
// block and the fail() polyfill
try {
await example.handleStatusChangeRequest(rejectPromise);
// if we don't throw our test shouldn't get here, so we
// polyfill a fail() method since Jest doesn't give us one.
// See https://github.com/facebook/jest/issues/2129
expect(true).toBe(false);
}
catch (e) {
// rejection assertions here
}
});
});

The answer I have looks so:
**Success tests
const instance = el.find(EntryToolBar).instance()
const spy = jest.spyOn(instance, 'handleStatusChangeSuccess')
await instance.handleStatusChangeRequest(() => Promise.resolve('cool man'))
expect(spy).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1)
**Error tests
const instance = el.find(EntryToolBar).instance()
const spy = jest.spyOn(instance, 'handleErrorDisplay')
await instance.handleStatusChangeRequest(() => Promise.reject(Error('shit')))
expect(spy).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1)
As I stated above, the handleStatusChangeSuccess and handleError methods are test else where with some snapshots (they just set state and render out some different jsx). I feel pretty good about this. I'm using spys/mocks, but I'm testing the implementation functions elsewhere. Sufficient?

$httpBackend doesn't seem to be flushing requests

I am testing my Angular app using ngDescribe. I don't think ngDescribe should be too much of a problem here, as it's just managing dependency injection for me. I first began to attempt my test the way the ngDescribe docs say, in the code below I have changed it to a more direct approach just to see if I could get any changes. I am calling a method that in turn calls $http.post('urlname', data); While debugging I can clearly see that my method gets all the way to where it calls post() but then it never continues. Because of this, my test always times out.
Hopefully I've just got something simple that's wrong! Here is my code. The test that fails is "Should work", all the others pass as expected.
Please also note that this is being processed by babel, both the test and the service, before being tested.
Here is the service, it works perfectly when being used. It has a few other variables involved that I have removed, but I assure you those variables are working correctly. While debugging for the tests, I can see that the await is hit, but it never continues past that, or returns. When used in the app, it returns exactly as expected. I THINK this has something to do with ngmock not returning as it should.
async function apiCall (endPoint, data) {
if (!endPoint) {
return false;
}
try {
return data ? await $http.post(`${endPoint}`, data) : await $http.get(`${endPoint}`);
} catch (error) {
return false;
}
}
Here are the tests:
ngDescribe({
name: 'Api Service, apiCall',
modules: 'api',
inject: ['apiService', '$httpBackend'],
tests (deps) {
let svc;
beforeEach(() => {
svc = deps.apiService;
});
it('is a function', () => {
expect(angular.isFunction(svc.apiCall)).toBe(true);
});
it('returns a promise', () => {
const apiCall = svc.apiCall();
expect(angular.isFunction(apiCall.then)).toBe(true);
});
it('requires an endpoint', async () => {
const apiCall = await svc.apiCall();
expect(apiCall).toBe(false);
});
it('should work', (done) => {
deps.http.expectPOST('fakeForShouldWork').respond({ success: true });
const apiCall = svc.apiCall('fakeForShouldWork', {});
apiCall.then(() => done()).catch(() => done());
deps.http.flush();
});
},
});
The method being called, apiCall, is simply a promise that is resolved by $http.post().then(); It will also resolve false if an error is thrown.
Since deps.http.expectPOST does not fail, I can tell that the outgoing request is sent. I validated this by changing it to expectGET and then I received an error about it being a POST.
I have tried moving the flush() method to all different parts of the test method, but it seems to make no difference.
Any thoughts? Thanks so much for your help!