I have my code:
var User = function() {
...
}
and the test code using IIFE:
(function() { // test new user
var user = new User();
if (typeof user === 'undefined') {
console.log("Error: user undefined");
}
...
}());
both in the same js file. Works great! But, as the program grows, this is becoming too refractory for me to manage, as I have a piece of test code for every piece of business logic.
I've been taught to keep all my js in the same file, (minified is good) in production, but is there a best-practical way to keep my test code in a different file during development?
I was thinking I could use a shell script to append the test code to the production code when I want to run the tests, but I'd prefer a cross-platform solution.
I don't want or need a framework solution, I want to keep it light -- does node have anything built-in for this sort of thing?
Node has two expressions for this case. First:
module.exports = name_of_module;
Which is to export module for example function, object or something similar. And the second:
var module_name = require('Path/to/module');
to import it from other file. If you want to export IIFE you must assign it to global variable and module.export name of variable.
Related
I have a project for work where I am basically creating a form of CMS to which we will add applications as time moves forward.
The issue we're having is getting those applications loaded in (and more specifically modified) on run-time within the server.
The reason we're requiring this form of "hot loading" is because we don't want the server to restart whenever a change has been made, and more specifically, we'd like to add the new applications through an admin panel.
Nodemon is a useful tool for development, but for our production environment we want to be able to replace an existing application (or module/plugin if you will) without having to restart the server (whether it's manually or through nodemon, the server needs to be running at all time).
You could compare this to how CMS' like Drupal, Yoomla, or Wordpress do things, but for our needs, we decided that Node was the better way to go for many reasons.
Code wise, I am looking for something like this, but that will work:
let applications = []
//add a new application through the web interface calling the appropiate class method, within the method the following code runs:
applications.push(require('path/to/application');
//when an application gets modified:
applications.splice(index,1);
applications.push('path/to/application');
But I require existing instances of said application to be adjusted as well.
Example:
// file location: ./Applications/application/index.js
class application {
greet() {
console.log("Hello");
}
}
module.exports = application;
the app loader would load in said application:
class appLoader {
constructor() {
this.List = new Object();
}
Add(appname) {
this.List[appname] = require(`./Applications/${appname}/index`);
}
Remove(appname) {
delete require.cache[require.resolve(`./Applications/${appname}/index`)]
delete this.List[appname];
}
Reload(appname) {
this.Remove(appname);
this.Add(appname);
}
}
The running code:
const AppLoader = require('appLoader');
const applications = new AppLoader();
applications.add('application'); // adds the application created above
var app = new applications.List['application']();
app.greet();
// Change is made to the application file, .greet() now outputs "Hello World" instead of "Hello"
//do something to know it has to reload, either by fs.watch, or manual trigger
applications.Reload('application');
app.greet();
The expected behavior is:
Hello
Hello World
In reality, I'm getting:
Hello
Hello
If anyone can help me figure out a way to dynamically load in applications like this, but also remove/reload them during run-time, it would be greatly appreciated!
Edit: if there is a way to run my application code without the use of require that would allow a dynamic load/reload/remove, that is also a welcome solution
Ok, thanks to #jfriend00 I realized I need to fix something else with my code, so his comments can still be useful for other people. As to my issue of unloading required modules or reloading them without a server restart, I figured out a relatively elegant way of making it happen.
Let me start by showing you all my test class and app.js and I'll explain what I did and how it works.
Class.js:
"use strict";
class Class {
constructor() {
// this.file will be put in comments post run-time, and this.Output = "Hey" will be uncommented to change the source file.
var date = new Date()
this.Output = date.getHours() + ":" + date.getMinutes() + ":" + date.getSeconds() + "." + date.getMilliseconds();
this.file = global.require.fs.readFileSync('./file.mov');
//this.Output = "Hey";
}
}
module.exports = Class;
app.js:
'use strict';
global.require = {
fs: require('fs')
};
const arr = [];
const mod = './class.js'
let Class = [null];
Class[0] = require(mod);
let c = [];
c.push(new Class[0]());
console.log(c[0].Output);
console.log(process.memoryUsage());
setTimeout(() => {
delete require.cache[require.resolve(mod)];
delete Class[0];
Class[0] = require(mod);
console.log(Class)
delete c[0];
c[0] = new Class[0]();
console.log(c[0].Output);
console.log(process.memoryUsage());
}, 10000);
Now let me explain here for a bit, and mind you, this is testing code so the naming is just horrid.
This is how I went to work:
Step 1
I needed a way to separate required modules (like fs, or websocket, express, etc.) so it wouldn't mess with the whole delete require_cache() part of the code, my solution was making those globally required:
global.required = {
fs: require('fs')
}
Step 2
Figure out a way to make sure the Garbage Collector removes the unloaded code, I achieved this by putting my requires and class declarations inside of a variable so that I could use the delete functionality within Node/Javascript. (I used let in my test code because I was testing another method beforehand, haven't tested if const would work again).
I also made a variable that contains the path string for the file (in this case './Class.js' but for my explanation below I'll just write it in as is)
let Class = [null] //this declares an array that has an index '0'
Class[0] = require('./Class');
let c = [new Class[0]()] // this declares an array that has the class instantiated inside of index '0'
As for the garbage collection, I'm simply able to do the following:
delete Class[0];
delete c[0];
After this I am able to redo the declaration of the required class and subsequently the class itself and keep my code working without requiring a restart.
Take in mind that his takes a lot of work to implement in an actual project, but you could split it up by adding an unload() method to a class to unload underlying custom classes. But my initial testing shows that this works like a charm!
Edit: I feel required to note that without jfriend00's comments I'd never have figured out this solution
Output
When the project start, it outputs the current time and the process.memoryUsage()
13:49:13.540
{ rss: 50343936,
heapTotal: 7061504,
heapUsed: 4270696,
external: 29814377 }
during the 10 second wait, I change the Class.js file to not read the file.mov and say "Hey" instead of the time, after the 10s timout this is the output:
Hey
{ rss: 48439296,
heapTotal: 7585792,
heapUsed: 4435408,
external: 8680 }
I am trying to replace a specific package using
import Module from 'module';
const {require: oldRequire} = Module.prototype;
Module.prototype.require = function twilioRequire(file) {
if (file === 'the-package-of-interest) {
// return something else
}
return oldRequire.apply(this, arguments);
};
const p = require('the-package-of-interest');
// this gives me the replacement
This would work fine, but if this was placed inside a script that spawns another script, this does not work in the other script, i.e
// main.js
import Module from 'module';
import spawn from 'cross-spawn';
const {require: oldRequire} = Module.prototype;
Module.prototype.require = function twilioRequire(file) {
if (file === 'the-package-of-interest) {
// return something else
}
return oldRequire.apply(this, arguments);
};
spawn.sync('node', ['/path/to/another/script.js'], { stdio: "inherit" });
// another/script.js
require('the-package-of-interest');
// gives the original package, not the replacement
I don't suppose there is a way to spawn another script, but keep the hijacked require scope the same?
Even though mocking libraries are usually used in tests, this might be a good situation to stub another library or file you wrote with another one based on a configuration.
There are a lot of mocking libraries for node, and there's a good article which covers some of them.
The library it recommends is pretty good but you can use whatever you want to do this
Create a mock definitions file that replaces that import with the second file
First - define your mocks. You can do it in any place, this is just a setup.
Easiest way is to do this in the same file, but you can create a mock defitions file if you like
import rewiremock from 'rewiremock';
...
// by mocking the module library, you actually replace it everywhere
rewiremock('module')
.with(otherModule);
your other module need to have the same export for this to work and act with the same interface.
Replace the library based on a variable
To use, you need some sort of condition that will select if to use the original library or the second one
// This is only needed if you put the mock definitions in another file
// Just put the rest of the code under the previous snippter
// if everything is in the same file
require('<your_rewiremock_definitions_file>');
if (replaceImport) {
rewiremock.enable();
}
// run the code here
if (replaceImport) {
rewiremock.disabled();
}
Your module should be replaced everywhere by the second module.
You can use any other mocking library to do this. there's a short section at the start of the readme with different options if you want a different style or another library.
rewiremock works by replacing the node.js cache so it should change the dependency everywhere.
Update
I've completely rewritten this question based on subsequent investigation. Hopefully this will generate some answers.
I'm new to Postman, and trying to figure out how to most efficiently build a collection of tests for a REST application. There are a bunch of utility functions that I'd like to have accessible in each of my test scripts, but cut-and-paste-ing them in to each test script seems like a horrible solution.
In looking at the various "scopes" that Postman allows you to squirrel away data (e.g. globals, environment, collection), it seems that all of these are merely string/number stores. In other words, it properly stores them if you can/do stringify the results. But it doesn't actually allow you to store proper objects or functions. This makes sense, since each script seems to be run as a separate execution, so the idea of sharing pointers to things between different scripts doesn't make sense.
It seems like the accepted way to share utility functions is to toString() the function in the defining script (e.g. the Collection Pre-Req script), and then eval() that stringified version in the test script. For instance:
Collection Pre-Req Script
const utilFunc = () => { console.log("I am a utility function"); };
pm.environment.set("utilFunc",utilFunc.toString() );
Test Script
const utilFunc = eval(pm.environment.get("utilFunc"));
utilFunc();
The test script will successfully print to console "I am a utility function".
I've seen people do more complicated things where, if they have more than one utility function, put them in to an object like utils.func1 and utils.func2, and have the overall function return the utils object, so the test script still only has to have a single line at the top importing the whole thing.
The problem I'm running in to is scoping - since the literal text of the function is executed in the Test Script, everything thing that the utility function has to have must be in that code, or otherwise exist at eval() time in the Test Script. For instance, if I do:
Collection Pre-Req Script
const baseUtilFunc = (foo) => { console.log(foo); };
const utilFunc1 = (param) => { baseUtilFunc("One: " + param); };
const utilFunc2 = (param) => { baseUtilFunc("Two: " + param); };
pm.environment.set("utilFunc1",utilFunc1.toString() );
pm.environment.set("utilFunc2",utilFunc2.toString() );
Test Script
const utilFunc1 = eval(pm.environment.get("utilFunc1"));
const utilFunc2 = eval(pm.environment.get("utilFunc2"));
utilFunc1("Test");
This fails because, in the Test Script, baseUtilFunc does not exist. Obviously, in this example, it'd be easy to fix. But in a more complicated world where the utility functions I expect to use in my Test Scripts are themselves built on top of underlying helper functions, it gets more difficult.
So what is the right way to handle this issue? Do people just cram all the relevant logic in to one big function that they then call toString() on? Do they embed an extraction-from-environment-and-then-eval in each util function within its definition, so that it works in the Test Script context? Do they export each individual method?
There are different ways to do it. The way I did recently for one of the projects is creating a project in Git and then using raw url to fetch the data. I have a sample created at below repo
https://github.com/tarunlalwani/postman-utils
To load the file you will need to associate the below code at collection level
if (typeof pmutil == "undefined") {
var url = "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tarunlalwani/postman-utils/master/pmutils.js";
if (pm.globals.has("pmutiljs"))
eval(pm.globals.get("pmutiljs"))
else {
console.log("pmutil not found. loading from " + url);
pm.sendRequest(url, function (err, res) {
eval(res.text());
pm.globals.set('pmutiljs', res.text())
});
}
}
As shown in below screenshot
And the later in the tests or Pre-Requests you will run the below line of code to load it
eval(pm.globals.get("pmutiljs"))
And then you can use the functions easily in test.
So I have an existing application which uses IIFEs extensively in the browser. I'm trying to introduce some unit testing into the code and keep with the pattern of IIFE for new updates to the code base. Except, I'm having trouble even writing a test which gives me a handle to the code. For example I see this type of logic all over the code base:
var Router = (function (router) {
router.routeUser = function(user) {
console.log("I'm in! --> " + user)
};
return router;
})(Router || {});
Then the JS file is included in a script tag in the markup:
<script src="js/RouteUser.js"></script>
and called like this in the production code:
Router.routeUser(myUser)
So my question is, how do I write a test which tests the method routeUser? I've tried this in my Mocha Test:
var router = require('../../main/resources/public/js/RouteUser');
suite('Route User Tests', function () {
test('Route The User', function () {
if (!router)
throw new Error("failed!");
else{
router.routeUser("Me")
}
});
});
But I get an exception:
TypeError: router.routeUser is not a function
at Context.<anonymous> (src\test\js\RouteUser.test.js:8:20)
Then I tried returning the method, which gives the same error:
var Router = (function (router) {
return {
routeUser: function (user) {
console.log("I'm in! --> " + user)
}
}
}
)(Router || {});
Can anyone point me the right direction here?
It sounds that...
you have a codebase of scripts that are only used in the browser context (usage of IIFE suggests this)
you'd like to introduce browserless unit tests (Jest, Mocha?) using node.js (good idea!)
but you probably don't want to migrate the whole codebase to a different coding style at this moment in time (can be a lot of work depending on the size of your codebase)
Given these assumptions, the problem is that you want your code to...
act as a script when used on production (set global window.Router etc)
act as a module when used in unit tests so that you can require() it in unit tests
UMD
UMD, or universal module definition, used to be a common way to write code so that it can work in multiple environments. Interesting approach, but very cumbersome, and I like to think UMD is a thing of the past nowadays...
I'll leave it here for completeness.
Just take UMD's idea
If the only thing you want for now to make a specific script act as a module too, so that it's importable in tests, you could do a small tweak:
var Router = (function (router) {
router.routeUser = function(user) {
console.log("I'm in! --> " + user)
};
if (typeof exports === "object") {
module.exports = router;
// now the Mocha tests can import it!
}
return router;
})(Router || {});
Long term solution
In the long run, you can get lots of benefits by rewriting all your code to use ONLY modules and use a tool like webpack to package it for you. The above idea is a small step in your direction that gives you one specific benefit (testability). But it is not a long term solution and you'll have some trouble handling dependencies (what if your Router expects some globals to be in place?)
If you intend to run your Mocha tests in the browser, you do not have to alter your existing code.
Let's walk through the IIFE pattern, because based on your code, I think you may misunderstand how it works. The basic shape is this:
var thing = (function() {
return 1;
})();
console.log(thing) // '1'
It's a var declaration setting thing equal to the value on the right side of the equals sign. On the right, the first set of parens wraps a function. Then, a second set of parens sits right next to it, at the end. The second set invokes the function expression contained in the first set of parens. That means the return value of the function will be the right-side value in the var statement. So thing equals 1.
In your case, that means that the outer Router variable is set equal to the router variable returned by your function. That means you can access it as Router in your tests, after including the script in the DOM:
suite('Route User Tests', function () {
test('Route The User', function () {
if (!Router) // <- Notice the capital 'R'
throw new Error("failed!");
else {
Router.routeUser("Me") // <- capital 'R'
}
});
});
If you intend to run your tests with node, see Kos's answer.
I need to add functionality to a Javascript class that I want to test using Jasmine. The class definition goes something like this:
GAME.Player.CustomPlayerSetup = function() {
...
};
If I remove GAME.Player I can write normal tests and have them pass. But when try to leave Game.Player in the class definition for CustomPlayerSetup, I get a Reference Error Game is not defined. How do define this test?
To answer Charles' suggestion, even if I declare the GAME and Player vars in my Jasmine test file before the the require line it still gives me, as in
GAME = {};
GAME.Player = {};
CustomPlayerSetup = require("../CustomPlayerSetup").CustomPlayerSetup;
describe("Custom Player Setup", function() {
...
});
the same error which points to the production code file, and not the test file. I'm using jasmine-node to run the tests.
Most likely in your spec-runner you have whatever file instantiates Game and/or player below the file running the spec (or you didn't include it at all).
If that's not the case try posting your spec-runner as well as one of your tests that fails.
Looks to me, you need to instantiate the object GAME.Player before run/include the js file on your jasmine tests. something like:
<script type="text/javascript">
var GAME = {Player:{}};
</script>
</script src="your_src.js"/>