I'm playing around with a side practice software, and I'm trying to learn how to use Jest for testing. But I get an error when it should clean up the testing suite, I suspect because of async code.
When I run the Jest CLI with --runInBand, it works great, but I want to understand and fix so it will work without the flag.
\
Example of one of the test files
const {Genre} = require('../../../models/genre');
const {mongoose} = require('../../../app');
const request = require('supertest');
let server;
describe('testing GET for genres', function() {
beforeEach( function() {
server = require('../../../app').server;
});
afterEach(async function() {
await Genre.deleteMany({});
await mongoose.connection.close();
server.close();
});
it('should create a genre',async function() {
let genre = {
name: "abcde"
};
const result = await request(server).post('/api/genres').send(genre);
return expect(result).toBeDefined();
}) ;
});
Example of the other one:
const {User} = require('../../../models/user');
const request = require('supertest');
const {mongoose} = require('../../../app');
let server;
describe('testing POST for users', function() {
beforeEach(function() {
server = require('../../../app').server;
});
afterEach(async function() {
await User.deleteMany({});
await mongoose.connection.close();
server.close();
});
it('should create a user',async function() {
let user = {
email: "testing123#gmail.com",
password: "Yoyoyoy"
};
const result = await request(server).post('/api/users').send(user);
expect(result.status).toBe(200);
expect(result.body).toHaveProperty("email", "testing123#gmail.com");
expect(result.body).toHaveProperty("isAdmin", false);
}) ;
});
And when I run npm test, On of the 2 tests fail, and I get the error that the server is already running and also the error that I tried to do stuff/log after jest was shut down. Cleary this is a sync issue, can anyone help me to understand why, and how to control this?
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.
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.
I'm trying to follow the PACT workshop example with some alternate data.
This may be more of a Javascript/Node question but I'm a but stumped, as a novice.
Given a consumer.spec.js file of:
const chai = require('chai');
const nock = require('nock');
const chaiAsPromised = require('chai-as-promised');
const expect = chai.expect;
const API_PORT = process.env.API_PORT || 9123;
chai.use(chaiAsPromised);
const API_HOST = `http://localhost:${API_PORT}`;
describe('Consumer', () => {
describe('when a call to the Provider is made', () => {
const clothingStatus = 'hello';
const {emailClothingOfferStatus} = require('../client');
it('can process the HTML payload from the provider', () => {
nock(API_HOST)
.get('/provider')
.query({validPermStatus:'hello'})
.reply(200, {
test:'NO',
validPermStatus: clothingStatus,
count: 1000,
});
const response = emailClothingOfferStatus(clothingStatus);
return expect(response.body.clothingStatus).to.eventually.equal('hello')
})
})
});
and a client .js file of:
const request = require('superagent');
const API_HOST = process.env.API_HOST || 'http://localhost';
const API_PORT = process.env.API_PORT || 9123;
const API_ENDPOINT = `${API_HOST}:${API_PORT}`;
// Fetch provider data
const emailClothingOfferStatus = emailPermChoice => {
let withEmailClothing = {};
const emailClothingGrantedRegex = 'hello';
if(emailPermChoice){
console.log(emailPermChoice);
withEmailClothing = {validPermStatus: emailPermChoice}
}
return request
.get(`${API_ENDPOINT}/provider`)
.query(withEmailClothing)
.then(
res => {
if (res.body.validPermStatus.match(emailClothingGrantedRegex)) {
return {
clothingStatus: (res.body.validPermStatus),
}
} else {
throw new Error('Could not verify email clothing offer status')
}
},
err => {
throw new Error(`Error from response: ${err.body}`)
}
)
};
module.exports = {
emailClothingOfferStatus,
};
and I have the following in my package.json scripts:
"test:consumer": "./node_modules/.bin/mocha --timeout 150000 pact/consumer/test/consumer.spec.js",
When I run npm run test:consumer, I get:
1) Consumer
when a call to the Provider is made
can process the HTML payload from the provider:
TypeError: Cannot read property 'clothingStatus' of undefined
at Context.it (pact/consumer/test/consumer.spec.js:29:35)
I'm sure it's something obvious but can anyone help?
Two things stand out to me as a problem:
The test above is a normal unit test designed to show how unit tests won't catch contract issues, and leads you into why Pact is useful (In case this wasn't clear). In short, it's not a Pact test at all - I can tell because it's using Nock, meaning the expected requests will never reach Pact. I can also tell because the Pact package doesn't appear to be imported. You want to model from this file https://github.com/DiUS/pact-workshop-js/blob/master/consumer/test/consumerPact.spec.js
The response value is a Promise, which means you can't do return expect(response.body.clothingStatus).to.eventually.equal('hello') because response is a promise, so body will be undefined and clothingStatus is not a property of that. The chai eventually API is useful for this sort of test, but as I understand, it has to work directly with a Promise - you could do expect(response).to... and then chai can go to work.
Your function emailClothingOfferStatus returns response.then() which is a promise and not an actual response.
Therefore response.body is undefined.
You should be able to test the result like this:
const response = emailClothingOfferStatus(clothingStatus);
response.then((res) => {
expect(res.body.clothingStatus).to.eventually.equal('hello')
})
I have an Express app that uses node-slack-sdk to make posts to Slack when certain endpoints are hit. I am trying to write integration tests for a route that, among many other things, calls a method from that library.
I would like to prevent all default behavior of certain methods from the Slack library, and simply assert that the methods were called with certain arguments.
I have attempted to simplify the problem. How can I stub a method (which is actually nested within chat) of an instance of an WebClient, prevent the original functionality, and make assertions about what arguments it was called with?
I've tried a lot of things that haven't worked, so I'm editing this and providing a vastly simplified set-up here:
index.html:
const express = require('express');
const {WebClient} = require('#slack/client');
const app = express();
const web = new WebClient('token');
app.post('/', (req, res) => {
web.chat.postMessage({
text: 'Hello world!',
token: '123'
})
.then(() => {
res.json({});
})
.catch(err => {
res.sendStatus(500);
});
});
module.exports = app;
index.test.html
'use strict';
const app = require('../index');
const chai = require('chai');
const chaiHttp = require('chai-http');
const sinon = require('sinon');
const expect = chai.expect;
chai.use(chaiHttp);
const {WebClient} = require('#slack/client');
describe('POST /', function() {
before(function() {
// replace WebClient with a simplified implementation, or replace the whole module.
});
it('should call chat.update with specific arguments', function() {
return chai.request(app).post('/').send({})
.then(function(res) {
expect(res).to.have.status(200);
// assert that web.chat.postMessage was called with {message: 'Hello world!'}, etc
});
});
});
There are a few things that make this difficult and unlike other examples. One, we don't have access to the web instance in the tests, so we can't stub the methods directly. Two, the method is buried within the chat property, web.chat.postMessage, which is also unlike other examples I've seen in sinon, proxyquire, etc documentation.
The design of your example is not very testable which is why you're having these issues. In order to make it more testable and cohesive, it's better to pass in your WebClient object and other dependencies, rather than create them in your route.
const express = require('express');
const {WebClient} = require('#slack/client');
const app = express();//you should be passing this in as well. But for the sake of this example i'll leave it
module.exports = function(webClient) {
app.post('/', (req, res) => {
web.chat.postMessage({
text: 'Hello world!',
token: '123'
})
.then(() => {
res.json({});
})
.catch(err => {
res.sendStatus(500);
});
})
return app;
};
In order to implement this, build your objects/routes at a higher module. (You might have to edit what express generated for you. I'm not sure, personally I work with a heavily refactored version of express to fit my needs.) By passing in your WebClient you can now create a stub for your test.
'use strict';
const chai = require('chai');
const chaiHttp = require('chai-http');
const sinon = require('sinon');
const expect = chai.expect;
chai.use(chaiHttp);
const {WebClient} = require('#slack/client');
const web = new WebClient('token');
let app = require('../index')(web);
describe('POST /', function() {
it('should call chat.update with specific arguments', function() {
const spy = sinon.spy();
sinon.stub(web.chat, 'postMessage').callsFake(spy);
return chai.request(app).post('/').send({})
.then(function(res) {
expect(res).to.have.status(200);
assert(spy.calledWith({message: 'Hello world!'}));
});
});
});
This is known as Dependency Injection. Instead of having your index module build it's dependency, WebClient, your higher modules will pass in the dependency in order for the them to control the state of it's lower modules. Your higher module, your test, now has the control it needs to create a stub for the lower module, index.
The code above was just quick work. I haven't tested to see if it works, but it should answer your question.
So #Plee, has some good points in term of structuring. But my answer is more about the issue at hand, how to make the test work and things you need to understand. For getting better at writing unit tests you should use other good resources like books and articles, I assume there would be plenty of great resources online for the same
The first thing you do wrong in your tests is the first line itself
const app = require('../index');
Doing this, you load the index file which then executes the below code
const {WebClient} = require('#slack/client');
const app = express();
const web = new WebClient('token');
So now the module has loaded the original #slack/client and created an object which is not accessible outside the module. So we have lost our chance of customizing/spying/stubbing the module.
So the first thumb rule
Never load such modules globally in the test. Or otherwise never load them before stubbing
So next we want is that in our test, we should load the origin client library which we want to stub
'use strict';
const {WebClient} = require('#slack/client');
const sinon = require('sinon');
Now since we have no way of getting the created object in index.js, we need to capture the object when it gets created. This can be done like below
var current_client = null;
class MyWebClient extends WebClient {
constructor(token, options) {
super(token, options);
current_client = this;
}
}
require('#slack/client').WebClient = MyWebClient;
So now what we do is that original WebClient is replaced by our MyWebClient and when anyone creates an object of the same, we just capture that in current_client. This assumes that only one object will be created from the modules we load.
Next is to update our before method to stub the web.chat.postMessage method. So we update our before method like below
before(function() {
current_client = null;
app = require('../index');
var stub = sinon.stub();
stub.resolves({});
current_client.chat.postMessage = stub;
});
And now comes the testing function, which we update like below
it('should call chat.update with specific arguments', function() {
return chai.request(app).post('/').send({})
.then(function(res) {
expect(res).to.have.status(200);
expect(current_client.chat.postMessage
.getCall(0).args[0]).to.deep.equal({
text: 'Hello world!',
token: '123'
});
});
});
and the results are positive
Below is the complete index.test.js I used, your index.js was unchanged
'use strict';
const {WebClient} = require('#slack/client');
const sinon = require('sinon');
var current_client = null;
class MyWebClient extends WebClient {
constructor(token, options) {
super(token, options);
current_client = this;
}
}
require('#slack/client').WebClient = MyWebClient;
const chai = require('chai');
const chaiHttp = require('chai-http');
const expect = chai.expect;
chai.use(chaiHttp);
let app = null;
describe('POST /', function() {
before(function() {
current_client = null;
app = require('../index');
var stub = sinon.stub();
stub.resolves({});
current_client.chat.postMessage = stub;
});
it('should call chat.update with specific arguments', function() {
return chai.request(app).post('/').send({})
.then(function(res) {
expect(res).to.have.status(200);
expect(current_client.chat.postMessage
.getCall(0).args[0]).to.deep.equal({
text: 'Hello world!',
token: '123'
});
});
});
});
Based on the other comments, it seems like you are in a codebase where making a drastic refactor would be difficult. So here is how I would test without making any changes to your index.js.
I'm using the rewire library here to get and stub out the web variable from the index file.
'use strict';
const rewire = require('rewire');
const app = rewire('../index');
const chai = require('chai');
const chaiHttp = require('chai-http');
const sinon = require('sinon');
const expect = chai.expect;
chai.use(chaiHttp);
const web = app.__get__('web');
describe('POST /', function() {
beforeEach(function() {
this.sandbox = sinon.sandbox.create();
this.sandbox.stub(web.chat);
});
afterEach(function() {
this.sandbox.restore();
});
it('should call chat.update with specific arguments', function() {
return chai.request(app).post('/').send({})
.then(function(res) {
expect(res).to.have.status(200);
const called = web.chat.postMessage.calledWith({message: 'Hello world!'});
expect(called).to.be.true;
});
});
});
How do I do rake style commands in my test file (Jest) with sequelize seeder files?
I'm trying to do the same thing as this, but with sequelize.
describe('routes : movies', () => {
beforeEach(() => {
return knex.migrate.rollback()
.then(() => { return knex.migrate.latest(); })
.then(() => { return knex.seed.run(); });
});
afterEach(() => {
return knex.migrate.rollback();
});
});
I know I'm late to answer this but I just spent the past week trying to solve this issue. I have been able to successfully do this using Sequelize in conjunction with their sister project, Umzug. You will have to read the documentation for your specific issue but I can copy my test file so you can get an idea of how I did it. I'm happy to help someone if they still struggle with it after looking at the files.
// account.test.js
const models = require('../models/index.js');
const migrations = require("../index");
beforeAll(async () => {
await migrations.up().then(function() {
console.log("Migration and seeding completed")
});
});
afterAll( async () => {
await migrations.down().then(function() {
console.log("Migrations and down seeding completed");
})
const users = await models.User.findAll();
expect(users).toStrictEqual([]);
});
describe("Integration Test", () => {
it("Account integration test", async () => {
const data = { userId: 1210}
const users = await models.User.findAll();
console.log("All users:", JSON.stringify(users, null, 2));
expect(users[0].firstName).toBe('John');
expect(data).toHaveProperty('userId');
});
});
My index.js file
// index.js
const config = require('/config/config.json');
const { Sequelize } = require('sequelize');
const { Umzug, SequelizeStorage } = require('umzug');
const sequelize = new Sequelize(config);
const umzugMigration = new Umzug({
migrations: { glob: 'migrations/*.js' },
context: sequelize.getQueryInterface(),
storage: new SequelizeStorage({ sequelize }),
logger: console,
});
const umzugSeeding = new Umzug({
migrations: { glob: 'seeders/*.js' },
context: sequelize.getQueryInterface(),
storage: new SequelizeStorage({ sequelize }),
logger: console,
});
module.exports.up = () => umzugMigration.up().then(() => umzugSeeding.up());
module.exports.down = () => umzugSeeding.down();
I think you shouldn't make real DB requests while testing your code. Mock your DB request and return the data set from your mock function if it's needed. Otherwise, it looks like you testing a library, in your case this lib is knex.
Read for more details regarding mocks https://jestjs.io/docs/en/mock-functions