Develop Reference

Mocha/Chai/Supertest passing tests when not meeting requirements [duplicate]

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.

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?

Unit Test failing promise

I am new to asynchronous programming. I am writing a test case for the following example code.
someAsync(text) {
try {
//do something and resolve result
return Promise.resolve(result);
} catch (err) {
return Promise.reject(new Error(`Failure ${err}`));
}
}
I am testing it with the following code:
it('should throw error when called', (done) => {
const mymodule = new MyModule(args);
mymodule.someAsync('something that causes failure').catch((err) => {
expect(err).to.exist;
expect(err.message).to.contains('This should pass');
done(err);
});
});
This test case fails, assertions pass and then after done again it throws error.
Please tell me where am I going wrong?

done(err) makes a spec to fail. Since it's expected error, it shouldn't fail a spec, it should be done() instead.
Mocha doesn't need done to handle promises, a promise can be returned from a spec.
It likely should be:
it('should throw error when called', () => {
const mymodule = new MyModule(args);
return mymodule.someAsync('something that causes failure').catch((err) => {
expect(err).to.exist;
expect(err.message).to.contain('This should pass');
});
});
Also, it's not evident from the listed code that expect(err.message).to.contain('This should pass') assertion is true.

This might or might not have anything to do with your error, but that does not really look like asynchronous code. Something like this might make more sense:
const someAsync = (text) => new Promise((resolve, reject)) => {
try {
// do something and capture result
resolve(result);
} catch (err) {
reject(new Error(`Failure ${err}`));
}
})
As estus' comment said, we probably need the actual error and the test framework to diagnose further.

How do I fail a test in Jest when an uncaught promise rejection occurs?

I'm working on adding test coverage to a Node project I'm working on using Jest. The code I'm testing is throwing errors within promises resulting in an UnhandledPromiseRejectionWarning message being logged to the console.
While writing tests, I can pretty easily identify these issues and resolve them, but these warnings aren't actually causing Jest to mark the tests as failed, so our CI won't catch it. I've searched around for any suggestions and haven't found much.
I did find in Node's documentation that you can catch these warnings and handle them...
process.on('unhandledRejection', (error) => {
throw error; // Or whatever you like...
});
So it seems like it would be pretty straightforward to add this code into my test cases. After all, an Error thrown within the test should cause the test to fail...
describe('...', () => {
it('...', () => {
process.on('uncaughtRejection', (error) => {
throw error;
});
// the rest of my test goes here
});
});
Unfortunately the behavior I'm seeing is that the error does get thrown, but Jest doesn't catch it and fail the test. Instead, Jest crashes with this error and the tests don't continue to run. This isn't really desirable, and seems like incorrect behavior.
Throwing an error outside of the uncaughtRejection handler works as expected: Jest logs the thrown error and fails the test, but doesn't crash. (i.e. the test watcher keeps watching and running tests)

The way I've approached this is very much tied into the way I write my functions - basically, any function that uses promises should return a promise. This allows whatever code calls that function to handle catching errors in any way it sees fit. Note that this is my approach and I'm not going to claim this is the only way to do things.
For example... Imagine I'm testing this function:
const myFunction = () => {
return doSomethingWithAPromise()
.then(() => {
console.log('no problems!');
return true;
});
};
The test will look something like this:
describe('...', () => {
it('...', () => {
return myFunction()
.then((value) => {
expect(value).toBe(true);
});
});
});
Which works great. Now what happens if the promise is rejected? In my test, the rejected promise is passed back to Jest (because I'm returning the result of my function call) and Jest can report on it.
If, instead, your function does not return a promise, you might have to do something like this:
const myOtherFunction = () => {
doSomethingWithAPromise()
.then(() => {
console.log('no problems!');
return true;
})
.catch((err) => {
// throw the caught error here
throw err;
});
};
Unlike the example above, there is no (direct) way for Jest to handle a rejected promise because you're not passing the promise back to Jest. One way to avoid this might be to ensure there is a catch in the function to catch & throw the error, but I haven't tried it and I'm not sure if it would be any more reliable.

Include the following content in Jest's setupFiles:
if (!process.env.LISTENING_TO_UNHANDLED_REJECTION) {
process.on('unhandledRejection', reason => {
throw reason
})
// Avoid memory leak by adding too many listeners
process.env.LISTENING_TO_UNHANDLED_REJECTION = true
}
Courtesy of stipsan in https://github.com/facebook/jest/issues/3251#issuecomment-299183885.

module:
export function myPromise() {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
const error = new Error('error test');
reject(error);
});
}
test:
import { myPromise } from './module';
it('should reject the promise', () => {
expect.assertions(1);
const expectedError = new Error('error test');
myPromise().catch((error) => {
expect(error).toBe(expectedError);
});

From the node documentation site we can see that The process object is an instance of EventEmitter.
Using the emit function from process we can trigger the errors like uncaughtRejection and uncaughtException programmatically when needed.
it("should log the error", () => {
process.emit("unhandledRejection");
...
const loggerInfo = jest.spyOn(logger, "info");
expect(loggerInfo).toHaveBeenCalled();
});

Not sure if this helps, but you can also assert for promise rejections as such
index.js
module.exports = () => {
return Promise.reject('it didnt work');
}
index.spec.js
const thing = require('../src/index');
describe('rejected promise', () => {
it('should reject with a reason', ()=> {
return expect(thing()).rejects.toEqual('it didnt work');
});
});

How to write a test using Mocha+Chai to expect an exception from setTimeout?

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.