DDevelopment & Design

Using Eclipse snippets for faster JUnit test creation (with Mockito!)

I’m using this snippet to create a template of new unit test method supporting BDD mockito tests. This is a good example for adding static imports to a class from snippets.@${testType:newType(org.junit.Test)}public void should${testname}() { ${staticIm…I’m using this snippet to create a template of new unit test method supporting BDD mockito tests. This is a good example for adding static imports to a class from snippets.@${testType:newType(org.junit.Test)}public void should${testname}() { ${staticIm…

I’m using this snippet to create a template of new unit test method supporting BDD 

mockito tests. This is a good example for adding static imports to a class from snippets.

@${testType:newType(org.junit.Test)}
public void should${testname}() {
${staticImport:importStatic('org.mockito.BDDMockito.*', 'org.mockito.Matchers.*', 'org.mockito.Mockito.*', 'org.junit.Assert.*')}// given

// when ${cursor} // then } The result is astonishing ;)

import static org.mockito.BDDMockito.*;
import static org.mockito.Matchers.*;
import static org.mockito.Mockito.*;
import static org.junit.Assert.*;

(…) @Test public void shouldTestSomething() { // given // when CURSOR_LANDS_HERE // then }

— Previous article

<!--:en-->Spring security authentication-success-handler-ref and authentication-failure-handler-ref does not work with KerberosServiceAuthenticationProvider<!--:-->

Next article —

<!--:en-->JCE keystore and untrusted sites<!--:-->

You May Also Like
DDevelopment & Design

Private fields and methods are not private in groovy

I used to code in Java before I met groovy. Like most of you, groovy attracted me with many enhancements. This was to my surprise to discover that method visibility in groovy is handled different than Java!

Consider this example:

class Person {
private String name
public  String surname

private Person() {}

private String signature() { "${name?.substring(0, 1)}. $surname" }

public String toString() { "I am $name $surname" }
}

How is this class interpreted with Java?

  1. Person has private constructor that cannot be accessed
  2. Field "name" is private and cannot be accessed
  3. Method signature() is private and cannot be accessed

Let's see how groovy interpretes Person:

public static void main(String[] args) {
def person = new Person()   // constructor is private - compilation error in Java
println(person.toString())

    person.@name = 'Mike'       // access name field directly - compilation error in Java
println(person.toString())

    person.name = 'John'        // there is a setter generated by groovy
println(person.toString())

    person.@surname = 'Foo'     // access surname field directly
println(person.toString())

    person.surname = 'Bar'      // access auto-generated setter
println(person.toString())

println(person.signature()) // call private method - compilation error in Java
}

I was really astonished by its output:

I am null null
I am Mike null
I am John null
I am John Foo
I am John Bar
J. Bar

As you can see, groovy does not follow visibility directives at all! It treats them as non-existing. Code compiles and executes fine. It's contrary to Java. In Java this code has several errors, pointed out in comments.

I've searched a bit on this topic and it seems that this behaviour is known since version 1.1 and there is a bug report on that: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GROOVY-1875. It is not resolved even with groovy 2 release. As Tim Yates mentioned in this Stackoverflow question: "It's not clear if it is a bug or by design". Groovy treats visibility keywords as a hint for a programmer.

I need to keep that lesson in mind next time I want to make some field or method private!