When I use Sequelize Mock between with a query like that:
const {
active,
'in-progress': inProgress,
} = await ImmediateCare.findAll({
raw: true,
attributes: ['status', [fn('count', col('id')), 'count']],
group: ['ImmediateCare.status'],
}).then((status) => {
const counts = {
active: 0,
'in-progress': 0,
}
status.forEach((s) => {
counts[s.status] = parseInt(s.count, 10)
})
return counts
})
Is being returned NaN, I'm guessing that is because Sequelize Mock can't mock sequelize.fn('count')
Is that right?
You can use Sinon along with Sequelize Mock and stub the findAll call with mock data.
Something like this:
const sinon = require('sinon');
const SequelizeMock = require('sequelize-mock');
describe('', () => {
beforeEach(() => {
const dbConnection = new SequelizeMock();
const dbStub = sinon.stub(dbConnection, 'define');
const queryStub = sinon.stub().resolves(mockImmediateCareData);
dbStub.returns({ findAll : queryStub })
})
})
If this does not help, can you please share the defined mock object?
Also, the .then() is not needed as await is already being used.
I was taking the wrong path
This is the test for the method.
I'm not supposed to test the Sequelize count response, I just need to mock the result
Related
I have written a test case that successfully load files into virtual FS, and at the same time mounted a virtual volume as below
describe("should work", () => {
const { vol } = require("memfs");
afterEach(() => vol.reset());
beforeEach(() => {
vol.mkdirSync(process.cwd(), { recursive: true });
jest.resetModules();
jest.resetAllMocks();
});
it("should be able to mock fs that being called in actual code", async () => {
jest.mock("fs", () => {
return ufs //
.use(jest.requireActual("fs"))
.use(createFsFromVolume(vol) as any);
});
jest.mock("fs/promises", () => {
return ufs //
.use(jest.requireActual("fs/promises"))
.use(createFsFromVolume(vol) as any);
});
const { createFsFromVolume } = require("memfs");
const { ufs } = require("unionfs");
const { countFile } = require("../src/ops/fs");
vol.fromJSON(
{
"./some/README.md": "1",
"./some/index.js": "2",
"./destination": null,
},
"/app"
);
const result = ufs.readdirSync(process.cwd());
const result2 = ufs.readdirSync("/app");
const result3 = await countFile("/app");
console.log({ result, result2, result3 });
});
});
By using ufs.readdirSync, I can access to virtual FS and indeed result giving me files that loaded from disc into virtual FS, result2 representing /app which is a new volume created from vol.fromJSON.
Now my problem is I am unable to get the result for result3, which is calling countFile method as below
import fsPromises from "fs/promises";
export const countFile = async (path: string) => {
const result = await fsPromises.readdir(path);
return result.length;
};
I'm getting error
Error: ENOENT: no such file or directory, scandir '/app'
which I think it's because countFile is accessing the actual FS instead of the virtual despite I've had jest.mock('fs/promises')?
Please if anyone can provide some lead?
This is the function you want to unit test.
//CommonJS version
const fsPromises = require('fs/promises');
const countFile = async (path) => {
const result = await fsPromises.readdir(path);
return result.length;
};
module.exports = {
countFile
}
Now, how you would normally go about this, is to mock fsPromises. In this example specifically readdir() since that is the function being used in countFile.
This is what we call: a stub.
A skeletal or special-purpose implementation of a software component, used to develop or test a component that calls or is otherwise dependent on it. It replaces a called component.
const {countFile} = require('./index');
const {readdir} = require("fs/promises");
jest.mock('fs/promises');
beforeEach(() => {
readdir.mockReset();
});
it("When testing countFile, given string, then return files", async () => {
const path = "/path/to/dir";
// vvvvvvv STUB HERE
readdir.mockResolvedValueOnce(["src", "node_modules", "package-lock.json" ,"package.json"]);
const res = await countFile(path);
expect(res).toBe(4);
})
You do this because you're unit testing. You don't want to be dependent on other functions because that fails to be a unit test and more integration test. Secondly, it's a third-party library, which is maintained/tested by someone else.
Here is where your scenario applies. From my perspective, your objective isn't to test countFile() rather, to test fsPromises and maybe test functionality to read virtual file-systems: unionfs. If so then, fsPromises doesn't need to really be mocked.
I have a jest test that is calling the real function and it compares the result returned with an expected result. The service function called uses uuid. I have all kind of errors while trying to mock uuid and can't seem to succeed.
My code is:
import uuid from 'uuid';
import tinyRuleset from './tiny_ruleset.json';
import { Store } from '../store';
describe('TuningStore test ', () => {
let store;
let db;
beforeEach(async () => {
db = levelup(encode(memdown(), { valueEncoding: 'json' }));
store= new Store(db);
});
test('createObject()', async () => {
jest.spyOn(uuid, 'v4').mockReturnValue('abc22');
const obj = await store.createObject();
expect(obj ).toEqual({
a: expect.any(string),
b: 'tiny_ruleset',
v: expect.any(Function)
});
});
})
I tried several ways, but none of them worked. My current error is: uuid is not a function. Also tried this:
const uuidv4Spy = jest.spyOn(store.$uuid, 'v4').mockReturnValueOnce('fake uuid');
Basically uuid is used inside the store.createObject() function.
Thank you!
As explained here Mock uuid
const uuidMock = jest.fn().mockImplementation(() => {
return 'my-none-unique-uuid';
});
jest.mock('uuid', () => {
return uuidMock;
});
you need to apply the mock in the test file before you are importing your real file.
I'm trying to test a router in Node.js app with Jest + Supertest, but my router is making a call to service, which is calling the endpoint:
router.post('/login', async (req, res, next) => {
try {
const { username, password } = req.body;
// I WANT TO MOCK userService.getUserInfo FUNCTION, BECAUSE IT IS MAKING A POST CALL
const identity = await userService.getUserInfo(username, password);
if (!identity.authenticated) {
return res.json({});
}
const requiredTenantId = process.env.TENANT_ID;
const tenant = identity.tenants.find(it => it.id === requiredTenantId);
if (requiredTenantId && !tenant) {
return res.json({});
}
const userResponse = {
...identity,
token: jwt.sign(identity, envVars.getVar(envVars.variables.AUTH_TOKEN_SECRET), {
expiresIn: '2h',
}),
};
return res.json(userResponse);
} catch (err) {
return next(err);
}
});
This is my test that works well:
test('Authorized - respond with user object', async () => {
const response = await request(app)
.post('/api/user/login')
.send(users.authorized);
expect(response.body).toHaveProperty('authenticated', true);
});
this is how getUserInfo function looks like:
const getUserInfo = async (username, password) => {
const identity = await axios.post('/user', {username, password});
return identity;
}
but it executes the method getUserInfo inside a router and this method is making a REST call - I want to mock this method in order to avoid REST calls to other services.
How it could be done?
I've found a mockImplementation function in Jest docs https://jestjs.io/docs/en/mock-function-api.html#mockfnmockimplementationfn
but how I can mock func inside a supertest testing?
You can use jest's auto mocking at the top of your test
like so:
jest.mock('./path/to/userService');
// and include it as well in your test
const userService = require('./path/to/userService');
it will generate a mock of the entire module and every function will be replaced with jest.fn() with no implementation
and then depending on the userService if it's just an object it's getUserInfo method will be a jest.fn() and you can set it's return value like this:
// resolved value as it should return a promise
userService.getUserInfo.mockResolvedValue(mockIdentity);
and the mockIdentity will have to look something like this:
const mockIdentity = {
authenticated: true,
tenants: [
{
id: "x12",
mockInfo: "mock-info-value"
}
],
mother: "Superwoman",
father: "Superman"
})
}
In a previous project I mocked the mysql library with Sinon. I did this like so:
X.js:
const con = mysql.createPool(config.mysql);
...
Some other place in the project:
const rows = await con.query(query, inserts);
...
X.test.js:
const sinon = require('sinon');
const mockMysql = sinon.mock(require('mysql'));
...
mockMysql.expects('createPool').returns({
query: () => {
// Handles the query...
},
...
It worked perfectly.
In another project I am trying to mock pg, again with Sinon.
pool.js:
const { Pool } = require('pg');
const config = require('#blabla/config');
const pool = new Pool(config.get('database'));
module.exports = pool;
Some other place in the project:
const con = await pool.connect();
const result = await con.query(...
Y.test.js:
???
I can't understand how to mock connect().query(). None of the following approaches work:
1:
const { Pool } = require('pg');
const config = require('#blabla/config');
const mockPool = sinon.mock(new Pool(config.get('database')));
...
mockPool.expects('connect').returns({
query: () => {
console.log('query here');
},
});
1 results in no error but the real db connection is used.
2:
const { Pool } = sinon.mock(require('pg'));
const config = require('#blabla/config');
const pool = new Pool(config.get('database'));
pool.expects('connect').returns({
query: () => {
console.log('query here');
},
});
2 => TypeError: Pool is not a constructor
3:
const { Pool } = sinon.mock(require('pg'));
const config = require('#blabla/config');
const pool = sinon.createStubInstance(Pool);
pool.connect.returns({
query: () => {
console.log('query here');
},
});
3 => TypeError: The constructor should be a function.
Can anybody point me in the right direction with how to mock my PostgreSQL connection?
Example: I have postgres.js like this.
const { Pool } = require('pg');
const handler = {
count: async (pgQuery) => {
try {
const pool = new Pool();
const res = await pool.query(pgQuery);
return { count: parseInt(res.rows[0].counter, 10) };
} catch (error) {
// Log/Throw error here.
}
return false;
}
}
module.exports = handler;
The spec test I created on postgres.spec.js is like this.
const { expect } = require('chai');
const sinon = require('sinon');
const pgPool = require('pg-pool');
const handler = require('postgres.js');
describe('Postgres', function () {
it('should have method count that bla bla', async function () {
// Create stub pgPool query.
const postgreeStubQuery = sinon.stub(pgPool.prototype, 'query');
postgreeStubQuery.onFirstCall().throws('XXX');
postgreeStubQuery.onSecondCall().resolves({
rows: [{ counter: 11 }],
});
// Catch case.
const catcher = await handler.count('SELECT COUNT()..');
expect(catcher).to.equal(false);
expect(postgreeStubQuery.calledOnce).to.equal(true);
// Correct case.
const correct = await handler.count('SELECT COUNT()..');
expect(correct).to.deep.equal({ count: 11 });
expect(postgreeStubQuery.calledTwice).to.equal(true);
// Restore stub.
postgreeStubQuery.restore();
});
});
To stub pool.query(), you need to stub pg-pool prototype and method query.
Hope this helps.
Since you're needing to mock the returned results of a query, I think the easiest solution would be to abstract your database from the the code needing the query results. Example being, your query results are returning information about a person. Create a person.js module with specific methods for interacting with the database.
Your other code needing the person information from the database won't know or care what type of database you use or how you connect to it, all they care to know is what methods are exposed from person.js when they require it.
//person.js
const { Pool } = require('pg')
// do other database connection things here
const getPersonById = function (id) {
// use your query here and return the results
}
module.exports = { getPersonById }
Now in your tests, you mock the person module, not the pg module. Imagine if you had 20 some odd tests that all had the mock MySQL pool set up then you changed to pg, you'd have to change all of those, nightmare. But by abstracting your database connection type/setup, it makes testing much easier, because now you just need to stub/mock your person.js module.
const person = require('../person.js') //or whatever relative file path it's in
const sinon = require('sinon')
describe('person.js', function () {
it('is stubbed right now', function () {
const personStub = sinon.stub(person)
personStub.getPersonById.returns('yup')
expect(personStub.getPersonById()).to.eq('yup')
})
})
Below is a simpler approach that means the system-under-test doesn't need any special tricks.
It is comprised of two parts, though the first is "nice to have":
Use a DI framework to inject the pg.Pool. This is a better approach IMO anyway, and fits really well with testing.
In the beforeEach() of the tests, configure the DI framework to use a mock class with sinon.stub instances.
If you aren't using a DI framework, pass the mock as a Pool parameter... but DI is better ;)
The code below is TypeScript using tsyringe, but similar approaches will work fine with plain JavaScript etc.
Somewhere you'll have code that uses pg.Pool. A contrived example:
import { Pool } from 'pg'
...
function getPets(pool: Pool): Promise<Pet[]> {
return pool.connect()
.then(db => db.query(SQL_HERE)
.then(result => {
db.release()
return result.rows // or result.rows.map(something) etc
})
.catch(error => {
db.release()
throw error
})
)
}
That works, and it's fine if you want to pass the Pool instance in. I'd prefer not to, so I use tsyringe like this:
import { container } from 'tsyringe'
...
function getPets(): Promise<Pet[]> {
return container.resolve<Pool>().connect()
.then(...)
}
Exactly the same outcome, but getPets() is cleaner to call - it can be a pain to lug around a Pool instance.
The main of the program would set up an instance in one of a few ways. Here's mine:
...
container.register(Pool, {
useFactory: instanceCachingFactory(() => {
return new Pool(/* any config here */)
})
})
The beauty of this comes out in tests.
The code above (the "system under test") needs a Pool instance, and that instance needs a connect() method that resolves to a class with query() and release() methods.
This is what I used:
class MockPool {
client = {
query: sinon.stub(),
release: sinon.stub()
}
connect () {
return Promise.resolve(this.client)
}
}
Here's the setup of a test using MockPool:
describe('proof', () => {
let mockPool: MockPool
beforeEach(() => {
// Important! See:
// https://github.com/microsoft/tsyringe#clearing-instances
container.clearInstances()
mockPool = new MockPool()
container.registerInstance(Pool, mockPool as unknown as Pool)
})
})
The cast through unknown to Pool is needed because I'm not implementing the whole Pool API, just what I need.
Here's what a test looks like:
it('mocks postgres', async () => {
mockPool.client.query.resolves({
rows: [
{name: 'Woof', kind: 'Dog'},
{name: 'Meow', kind: 'Cat'}
]
})
const r = await getPets()
expect(r).to.deep.equal([
{name: 'Woof', kind: 'Dog'},
{name: 'Meow', kind: Cat'}
])
})
You can easily control what data the mock Postgres Pool returns, or throw errors, etc.
This is how I connect to a mongoDB using monk(). I'll store it in state.
Assume we want to drop some collections, we call dropDB.
db.js
var state = {
db: null
}
export function connection () {
if (state.db) return
state.db = monk('mongdb://localhost:27017/db')
return state.db
}
export async function dropDB () {
var db = state.db
if (!db) throw Error('Missing database connection')
const Users = db.get('users')
const Content = db.get('content')
await Users.remove({})
await Content.remove({})
}
I'm not quite sure if it is a good approach to use state variable. Maybe someone can comment on that or show an improvement.
Now I want to write a unit test for this function using JestJS:
db.test.js
import monk from 'monk'
import { connection, dropDB } from './db'
jest.mock('monk')
describe('dropDB()', () => {
test('should throw error if db connection is missing', async () => {
expect.assertions(1)
await expect(dropDB()).rejects.toEqual(Error('Missing database connection'))
})
})
This part is easy, but the next part gives me two problems:
How do I mock the remove() methods?
test('should call remove() methods', async () => {
connection() // should set `state.db`, but doesn't work
const remove = jest.fn(() => Promise.resolve({ n: 1, nRemoved: 1, ok: 1 }))
// How do I use this mocked remove()?
expect(remove).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(2)
})
And before that? How do I setup state.db?
Update
As explained by poke the global variable makes the problem. So I switched to a class:
db.js
export class Db {
constructor() {
this.connection = monk('mongdb://localhost:27017/db');
}
async dropDB() {
const Users = this.connection.get('users');
const Content = this.connection.get('content');
await Users.remove({});
await Content.remove({});
}
}
which results in this test file:
db.test.js
import { Db } from './db'
jest.mock('./db')
let db
let remove
describe('DB class', () => {
beforeAll(() => {
const remove = jest.fn(() => Promise.resolve({ n: 1, nRemoved: 1, ok: 1 }))
Db.mockImplementation(() => {
return { dropDB: () => {
// Define this.connection.get() and use remove as a result of it
} }
})
})
describe('dropDB()', () => {
test('should call remove method', () => {
db = new Db()
db.dropDB()
expect(remove).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(2)
})
})
})
How do I mock out any this elements? In this case I need to mock this.connection.get()
Having a global state is definitely the source of your problem here. I would suggest to look for a solution that does not involve global variables at all. As per Global Variables Are Bad, global variables cause tight coupling and make things difficult to test (as you have noticed yourself).
A better solution would be to either pass the database connection explicitly to the dropDB function, so it has the connection as an explicit dependency, or to introduce some stateful object that holds onto the connection and offers the dropDB as a method.
The first option would look like this:
export function openConnection() {
return monk('mongdb://localhost:27017/db');
}
export async function dropDB(connection) {
if (!connection) {
throw Error('Missing database connection');
}
const Users = connection.get('users');
const Content = connection.get('content');
await Users.remove({});
await Content.remove({});
}
This would also make it very easy to test dropDB as you can now just pass a mocked object for it directly.
The other option could look like this:
export class Connection() {
constructor() {
this.connection = monk('mongdb://localhost:27017/db');
}
async dropDB() {
const Users = this.connection.get('users');
const Content = this.connection.get('content');
await Users.remove({});
await Content.remove({});
}
}
A test for the first option could look like this:
test('should call remove() methods', async () => {
const usersRemove = jest.fn().mockReturnValue(Promise.resolve(null));
const contentRemove = jest.fn().mockReturnValue(Promise.resolve(null));
const dbMock = {
get(type) {
if (type === 'users') {
return { remove: usersRemove };
}
else if (type === 'content') {
return { remove: contentRemove };
}
}
};
await dropDB(dbMock);
expect(usersRemove).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1);
expect(contentRemove).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1);
});
Basically, the dropDB function expects an object that has a get method which when called returns an object that has a remove method. So you just need to pass something that looks like that, so the function can call those remove methods.
For the class, this is a bit more complicated since the constructor has a dependency on the monk module. One way would be to make that dependency explicit again (just like in the first solution), and pass monk or some other factory there. But we can also use Jest’s manual mocks to simply mock the whole monk module.
Note that we do not want to mock the module containing our Connection type. We want to test that, so we need it in its un-mocked state.
To mock monk, we need to create a mock module of it at __mocks__/monk.js. The manual points out that this __mocks__ folder should be adjacent to the node_modules folder.
In that file, we simply export our custom monk function. This is pretty much the same we already used in the first example, since we only care about getting those remove methods in place:
export default function mockedMonk (url) {
return {
get(type) {
if (type === 'users') {
return { remove: mockedMonk.usersRemove };
}
else if (type === 'content') {
return { remove: mockedMonk.contentRemove };
}
}
};
};
Note that this refers to the functions as mockedMonk.usersRemove and mockedMonk.contentRemove. We’ll use this in the test to configure those function explicitly during the test execution.
Now, in the test function, we need to call jest.mock('monk') to enable Jest to mock the monk module with our mocked module. Then, we can just import it too and set our functions within the test. Basically, just like above:
import { Connection } from './db';
import monk from 'monk';
// enable mock
jest.mock('./monk');
test('should call remove() methods', async () => {
monk.usersRemove = jest.fn().mockReturnValue(Promise.resolve(null));
monk.contentRemove = jest.fn().mockReturnValue(Promise.resolve(null));
const connection = new Connection();
await connection.dropDB();
expect(monk.usersRemove).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1);
expect(monk.contentRemove).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1);
});