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?
Related
I'm using Mocha and SuperTest to test my Express API. However my first test always seems to pass when inside the .then() of my request().
I'm passing in a String to a test that is expecting an Array. So should definitely fail the test.
It fails outside of the then() as expected, but I won't have access to the res.body there to perform my tests.
Here is my code:
const expect = require('chai').expect;
const request = require('supertest');
const router = require('../../routes/api/playlist.route');
const app = require('../../app');
describe('Playlist Route', function() {
// before((done) => {
// }
describe('Get all playlists by user', function() {
it('Should error out with "No playlists found" if there are no Playlists', function() {
request(app).get('/api/playlists/all')
.then(res => {
const { body } = res;
// Test passes if expect here
expect('sdfb').to.be.an('array');
})
.catch(err => {
console.log('err: ', err);
});
// Test fails if expect here
expect('sdfb').to.be.an('array');
})
})
});
I found this article but I'm not using a try catch block, but I thought maybe it could have something to do with the promise.
Quick reponse
it('decription', function(done) {
asyncFunc()
.then(() => {
expect(something).to.be(somethingElse)
done()
})
})
Detailed response in the comment of #jonrsharpe
Rather than using done, simply return request(app).get('/api/playlists/all') since request() returns a promise. Since you have expect('sdfb').to.be.an('array'); twice, remove the one that's not in the .then callback. When using asynchronous code, remember that synchronous code that appears to come after the async chain will execute before the promise .then handlers. This is counterintuitive.
Here's the .then approach:
it('should ...', () => {
return request(app)
.get('/api/playlists/all')
.then(res => {
const {body} = res;
// assert here
});
});
The other approach is to await the promise yourself in the test case function, then make assertions on the resolved response object. In this case, drop the then chain. This approach is generally preferred as it reduces nesting.
it('should ...', async () => {
const res = await request(app).get('/api/playlists/all');
const {body} = res;
// assert here
});
If you don't let Mocha know you're working with asynchronous code by returning a promise, awaiting the promises, or adding and calling the done parameter, the assertions occur asynchronously after the test is over and disappear into the void, creating a false positive.
Skip .catch either way. Since you've informed Mocha of the promise, if it rejects, it'll let you know.
Testing two modules, helper which makes use of render. It's possible for render to throw, so I handle that in helper, and I want tests to ensure that's working as expected.
When I originally wrote the tests, I wrote what was needed for that test in the test itself, including mocks, using jest.doMock. Once all the tests pass I wanted to refactor to share mocks where possible.
So this code works great:
test('throws', async () => {
jest.doMock('./render', () => jest.fn(async () => { throw new Error('mock error'); }));
const helper = require('./helper');
expect(async () => { helper(); }).rejects.toThrow('mock error');
expect(log_bug).toHaveBeenCalled();
});
test('succeeds', async () => {
jest.doMock('./render', () => jest.fn(async () => 'rendered result'));
const helper = require('./helper');
expect(await helper()).toEqual(true); //helper uses rendered result but doesn't return it
expect(log_bug).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
});
HOWEVER, these are not the only two tests and by far most of the other tests that mock render want it to return its success state. I tried to refactor that success use-case out to a file in __mocks__/render.js like so:
// __mocks__/render.js
module.exports = jest.fn(async () => 'rendered result');
And then refactor my tests to this, to be more DRY:
//intention: shared reusable "success" mock for render module
jest.mock('./render');
beforeEach(() => {
jest.resetModules();
jest.resetAllMocks();
});
test('throws', async () => {
//intention: overwrite the "good" render mock with one that throws
jest.doMock('./render', () => jest.fn(async () => { throw new Error('mock error'); }));
const helper = require('./helper');
expect(async () => { await helper(); }).rejects.toThrow('mock error');
expect(log_bug).toHaveBeenCalled();
});
test('succeeds', async () => {
//intention: go back to using the "good" render mock
const helper = require('./helper');
expect(await helper()).toEqual(true); //helper uses rendered result but doesn't return it
expect(log_bug).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
});
With this updated test code, the error-logging test still works as expected -- the mock is overwritten to cause it to throw -- but then for the next test, the error is thrown again.
If I reverse the order of these tests so that the mock overwriting is last, then the failure doesn't happen, but that is clearly not the correct answer.
What am I doing wrong? Why can't I get my mock to properly reset after overriding it with doMock? The doMock docs do kind of illustrate what I'm trying to do, but they don't show mixing it with normal manual mocks.
Aha! I kept digging around and found this somewhat similar Q+A, which led me to try this approach instead of using jest.doMock to override inside of a test:
//for this one test, overwrite the default mock to throw instead of succeed
const render = require('./render');
render.mockImplementation(async () => {
throw new Error('mock error');
});
And with this, the tests pass no matter what order they run!
I'm running some tests using Mocha 6.1.4 (under WebdriverIO 5.11.6). I want to complete the execution of something in before (read: store some values via an HTTP call) and then start running the tests – the it fellows. Basically, do everythig as if it were synchronous calls. This is (an excerpt of) the (TypeScript) code that I'm using:
// file: ./test/service.spec.ts
describe("#this stuff", () => {
before(() => {
browser.url("login-url");
});
beforeEach(() => {
const service: TheService = new TheService();
return service.setUp(); // ...superagent returns a Promise
});
it("should-do-it", () => {
// ...test + expectations here
});
});
});
// ./src/the-service.ts
import * as superagent from "superagent";
// ...
public setUp() {
return superagent.post(this.uri)
.accept("application/json")
.set("Content-Type", "application/json")
.send(body)
.then();
}
If I understood correctly the Mocha docs (and some questions/answers also here in StackOverflow), returning a Promise inside beforeEach it is all I need to accomplish this, but so far, it doesn't work.
The only consistent way I've found is to execute the content of the it method as a setUp()'s callback:
// ...inside `it`
service.setUp().then(() => {
// ...test + expectations here
});
Can somebody versed on the ECMAScript / TypeScript world shed some light here?
Try this
beforeEach(async () => {
const service: TheService = new TheService();
await service.setUp(); // ...superagent returns a Promise
});
I'm running tests and I'm stubbing a function that calls the AWS sqs.deleteMessage function. .promise() is called on the call to this function. Every time I run my tests with the coverage I notice that it jumps to the catch block thus an error must be occurring on my .promise() call.
I've tried stubbing the function to resolve the promise but that doesn't seem to work. I've tried returning data as well and still have the same issue.
Below is an example of the code I'm trying to test. It never reaches the logger.info() line
fooObj.js
const foo = async (req) => {
try{
let res = await bar.deleteMessage(handle).promise();
logger.info("Sqs result message " + JSON.stringify(res));
} catch(error){
#catch block code
}
}
Below is the code for bar.deleteMessage()
bar.js
const aws = require('aws-sdk');
const sqs = new aws.SQS();
deleteMessage = function(handle){
return sqs.deleteMessage({
ReceiptHandle: handle
});
}
And finally here is the test code
const fooObj = require('foo')
const barObj = require('bar')
jest.mock('bar')
describe('foo test', ()=>{
test('a test' , ()=>{
barObj.deleteMessage.mockImplementation(()=>{
return Promise.resolve({status:200})
});
return fooObj.foo(req).then(data=>{
#Expect statements here
})
}
}
So I would like the logger.info line to be reached in coverage but I assume the issue has to do with how I'm stubbing the bar.deleteMessage function. I could use the aws-sdk-mock but I feel like I'm violating unit testing principles by mocking the sqs call that is in another file and the proper way to do it would simply be to properly stub the bar.deletemessage() function
You just need one change:
bar.deleteMessage needs to return an object with a promise property set to the function that returns the Promise:
barObj.deleteMessage.mockImplementation(() => ({
promise: () => Promise.resolve({ status: 200 })
}));
...or you can shorten it to this if you want:
barObj.deleteMessage.mockReturnValue({
promise: () => Promise.resolve({ status: 200 })
});
I have following:
it('invalid use', () => {
Matcher(1).case(1, () => {});
});
The case method is supposed to throw after some delay, how can I describe it for Mocha/Chai that's what I want - the test should pass (and must not pass when exception is not thrown)?
Consider case method off limits, it cannot be changed.
For testing purposes it should be equivalent to:
it('setTimeout throw', _ => {
setTimeout(() => { throw new Error(); }, 1); // this is given, cannot be modified
});
I tried:
it('invalid use', done => {
Matcher(1).case(1, () => {});
// calls done callback after 'case' may throw
setTimeout(() => done(), MatcherConfig.execCheckTimeout + 10);
});
But that's not really helping me, because the test behavior is exactly reverted - when an exception from case (setTimeout) is not thrown, it passes (should fail) and when an exception is thrown the test fails (should succeed).
I read somewhere someone mentioning global error handler, but I would like to solve this cleanly using Mocha and/or Chai, if it is possible (I guess Mocha is already using it in some way).
You cannot handle exceptions from within a asynchronous callback, e.g. see Handle error from setTimeout. This has to do with the execution model ECMAScript uses. I suppose the only way to catch it is in fact to employ some environment-specific global error handling, e.g. process.on('uncaughtException', ...) in Node.js.
If you convert your function to Promises, however, you can easily test it using the Chai plugin chai-as-promsied:
import * as chai from 'chai';
import chaiAsPromised = require('chai-as-promised');
chai.use(chaiAsPromised);
const expect = chai.expect;
it('invalid use', async () => {
await expect(Matcher(1).case(1, () => {})).to.eventually.be.rejected;
});
Any Mocha statements like before, after or it will work asynchronously if you return a promise. I generally use something like the below for async tests.
Also don't forget to set timeout this.timeout(...) if you expect the async function to take more than 2 seconds.
it('some test', () => {
return new Promise(function(resolve,reject){
SomeAsyncFunction(function(error,vals) {
if(error) {
return reject(error);
} else {
try {
//do some chai tests here
} catch(e) {
return reject(e);
}
return resolve();
}
});
});
});
Specifically for your case, since we expect some error to be thrown after a period of time (assuming the empty callback you have provided to .case should not run due to the exception being thrown) then you can write it something like:
it('invalid use', () => {
//define the promise to run the async function
let prom = new Promise(function(resolve,reject){
//reject the promise if the function does not throw an error
//note I am assuming that the callback won't run if the error is thrown
//also note this error will be passed to prom.catch so need to do some test to make sure it's not the error you are looking for.
Matcher(1).case(1, () => {return reject(new Error('did not throw'))});
});
prom.catch(function(err){
try {
expect(err).to.be.an('error');
expect(err.message).to.not.equal('did not throw');
//more checks to see if err is the error you are looking for
} catch(e) {
//err was not the error you were looking for
return Promise.reject(e);
}
//tests passed
return Promise.resolve();
});
//since it() receives a promise as a return value it will pass or fail the test based on the promise.
return prom;
});
From Chai documentation :
When no arguments are provided, .throw invokes the target function and asserts that an error is thrown.
So you could something like
expect(Matcher(1).case(1, () => {})).to.throw
If your tested code calls setTimeout with a callback that throws and no-one is catching this is exception then:
1) this code is broken
2) the only way to see that problem is platform global exception handler like process.on('uncaughtException' mentioned by user ComFreek
The last resort chance is to stub setTimeout for duration of test (for example using sinon.stub) or just manually.
In such stubbed setTimeout you can decorate timeout handler, detect exception and call appropriate asserts.
NOTE, this is last resort solution - your app code is broken and should be fixed to properly propagate errors, not only for testing but ... well, to be good code.
Pseudocode example:
it('test', (done) => {
const originalSetTimeout = setTimeout;
setTimeout = (callback, timeout) => {
originalSetTimeout(() => {
try {
callback();
} catch(error) {
// CONGRATS, you've intercepted exception
// in _SOME_ setTimeout handler
}
}, timeout)
}
yourTestCodeThatTriggersErrorInSomeSetTimeoutCallback(done);
})
NOTE2: I intentionally didn't wrote proper async cleanup code, it's a homework. Again, see sinon.js and its sandbox
NOTE3: It will catch all setTimeout calls during test duration. Beware, there are dragons.