Develop Reference

NodeJS: My jest spyOn function is not being called

I don't understand why my spy is not being used. I have used this code elsewhere and it has worked fine.
Here is my test:
const {DocumentEngine} = require('../documentEngine')
const fileUtils = require('../utils/fileUtils')
const request = {...}
const fieldConfig = {...}
test('If the Carbone addons file is not found, context is built with the carboneAddons property as an empty object', async () => {
const expectedResult = {
carboneAddons: {},
}
const fileExistSpy = jest
.spyOn(fileUtils, 'checkFileExists')
.mockResolvedValue(false)
const result = await docEngine.buildContext(request, fieldConfig)
expect(fileExistSpy).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1)
})
Here is the code that it is being tested:
async function buildContextForLocalResources(request, fieldConfig) {
/* other code */
const addonFormatters = await getCarboneAddonFormatters()
const context = {
sourceJson,
addonFormatters,
documentFormat,
documentTemplateId,
documentTemplateFile,
responseType,
jsonTransformContext
}
return context
}
async function getCarboneAddonFormatters() {
const addOnPath = path.resolve(
docConfig.DOC_GEN_RESOURCE_LOCATION,
'library/addon-formatters.js'
)
if (await checkFileExists(addOnPath)) {
logger.info('Formatters found and are being used')
const {formatters} = require(addOnPath)
return formatters
}
logger.info('No formatters were found')
return {}
}
This is the code from my fileUtils file:
const fs = require('fs/promises')
async function checkFileExists(filePath) {
try {
await fs.stat(filePath)
return true
} catch (e) {
return false
}
}
My DocumentEngine class calls the buildContext function which in turn calls the its method getCarboneAddonFormatters. The fileUtils is outside of DocumentEngine class in a utilities folder. The original code I had this working on was TypeScript as opposed to this which is just NodeJS Javascript. The config files for both are the same. When I try to step through the code (VSCode debugger), as soon as I hit the line with await fs.stat(filePath) in the checkFileExists function, it kicks me out of the test and moves on to the next test - no error messages or warnings.
I've spent most of the day trying to figure this out. I don't think I need to do an instance wrapper for the documentEngine, because checkFileExists is not a class member, and that looks like a React thing...
Any help in getting this to work would be appreciated.

How to mock fs module together with unionfs?

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.

How to mock pg Pool with Sinon

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.

Cannot read property of undefined thrown from running NPM and PACT

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')
})

How to connect to mongoDB and test for drop collection?

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);
});