Integration testing custom validation constraints in Jersey 2

I recently joined a team trying to switch a monolithic legacy system into set of RESTful services in Java. They decided to use latest 2.x version of Jersey as a REST container which was not a first choice for me, since I’m not a big fan of JSR-* specs. But now I must admit that JAX-RS 2.x is doing things right: requires almost zero boilerplate code, support auto-discovery of features and prefers convention over configuration like other modern frameworks. Since the spec is still young, it’s hard to find good tutorials and kick-off projects with some working code. I created jersey2-starter project on GitHub which can be used as starting point for your own production-ready RESTful service. In this post I’d like to cover how to implement and integration test your own validation constraints of REST resources. Custom constraints One of the issues which bothers me when coding REST in Java is littering your class model with annotations. Suppose you want to build a simple Todo list REST service, when using Jackson, validation and Spring Data, you can easily end up with this as your entity class: @Document public class Todo { private Long id; @NotNull private String description; @NotNull private Boolean completed; @NotNull private DateTime dueDate; @JsonCreator public Todo(@JsonProperty("description") String description, @JsonProperty("dueDate") DateTime dueDate) { this.description = description; this.dueDate = dueDate; this.completed = false; } // getters and setters } Your domain model is now effectively blured by messy annotations almost everywhere. Let’s see what we can do with validation constraints (@NotNulls). Some may say that you could introduce some DTO layer with own validation rules, but it conflicts for me with pure REST API design, which stands that you operate on resources which should map to your domain classes. On the other hand – what does it mean that Todo object is valid? When you create a Todo you should provide a description and due date, but what when you’re updating? You should be able to change any of description, due date (postponing) and completion flag (marking as done) – but you should provide at least one of these as valid modification. So my idea is to introduce custom validation constraints, different ones for creation and modification: @Target({TYPE, PARAMETER}) @Retention(RUNTIME) @Constraint(validatedBy = ValidForCreation.Validator.class) public @interface ValidForCreation { //... class Validator implements ConstraintValidator<ValidForCreation, Todo> { /... @Override public boolean isValid(Todo todo, ConstraintValidatorContext constraintValidatorContext) { return todo != null && todo.getId() == null && todo.getDescription() != null && todo.getDueDate() != null; } } } @Target({TYPE, PARAMETER}) @Retention(RUNTIME) @Constraint(validatedBy = ValidForModification.Validator.class) public @interface ValidForModification { //... class Validator implements ConstraintValidator<ValidForModification, Todo> { /... @Override public boolean isValid(Todo todo, ConstraintValidatorContext constraintValidatorContext) { return todo != null && todo.getId() == null && (todo.getDescription() != null || todo.getDueDate() != null || todo.isCompleted() != null); } } } And now you can move validation annotations to the definition of a REST endpoint: @POST @Consumes(APPLICATION_JSON) public Response create(@ValidForCreation Todo todo) {...} @PUT @Consumes(APPLICATION_JSON) public Response update(@ValidForModification Todo todo) {...} And now you can remove those NotNulls from your model. Integration testing There are in general two approaches to integration testing: test is being run on separate JVM than the app, which is deployed on some other integration environment test deploys the application programmatically in the setup block. Both of these have their pros and cons, but for small enough servoces, I personally prefer the second approach. It’s much easier to setup and you have only one JVM started, which makes debugging really easy. You can use a generic framework like Arquillian for starting your application in a container environment, but I prefer simple solutions and just use emdedded Jetty. To make test setup 100% production equivalent, I’m creating full Jetty’s WebAppContext and have to resolve all runtime dependencies for Jersey auto-discovery to work. This can be simply achieved with Maven resolved from Shrinkwrap – an Arquillian subproject: WebAppContext webAppContext = new WebAppContext(); webAppContext.setResourceBase("src/main/webapp"); webAppContext.setContextPath("/"); File[] mavenLibs = Maven.resolver().loadPomFromFile("pom.xml") .importCompileAndRuntimeDependencies() .resolve().withTransitivity().asFile(); for (File file: mavenLibs) { webAppContext.getMetaData().addWebInfJar(new FileResource(file.toURI())); } webAppContext.getMetaData().addContainerResource(new FileResource(new File("./target/classes").toURI())); webAppContext.setConfigurations(new Configuration[] { new AnnotationConfiguration(), new WebXmlConfiguration(), new WebInfConfiguration() }); server.setHandler(webAppContext); (this Stackoverflow thread inspired me a lot here) Now it’s time for the last part of the post: parametrizing our integration tests. Since we want to test validation constraints, there are many edge paths to check (and make your code coverage close to 100%). Writing one test per each case could be a bad idea. Among the many solutions for JUnit I’m most convinced to the Junit Params by Pragmatists team. It’s really simple and have nice concept of JQuery-like helper for creating providers. Here is my tests code (I’m also using builder pattern here to create various kinds of Todos): @Test @Parameters(method = "provideInvalidTodosForCreation") public void shouldRejectInvalidTodoWhenCreate(Todo todo) { Response response = createTarget().request().post(Entity.json(todo)); assertThat(response.getStatus()).isEqualTo(BAD_REQUEST.getStatusCode()); } private static Object[] provideInvalidTodosForCreation() { return $( new TodoBuilder().withDescription("test").build(), new TodoBuilder().withDueDate(DateTime.now()).build(), new TodoBuilder().withId(123L).build(), new TodoBuilder().build() ); } OK, enough of reading, feel free to clone the project and start writing your REST services! I recently joined a team trying to switch a monolithic legacy system into set of RESTful services in Java. They decided to use latest 2.x version of Jersey as a REST container which was not a first choice for me, since I’m not a big fan of JSR-* specs. But now I must admit that JAX-RS 2.x is doing things right: requires almost zero boilerplate code, support auto-discovery of features and prefers convention over configuration like other modern frameworks. Since the spec is still young, it’s hard to find good tutorials and kick-off projects with some working code. I created jersey2-starter project on GitHub which can be used as starting point for your own production-ready RESTful service. In this post I’d like to cover how to implement and integration test your own validation constraints of REST resources. Custom constraints One of the issues which bothers me when coding REST in Java is littering your class model with annotations. Suppose you want to build a simple Todo list REST service, when using Jackson, validation and Spring Data, you can easily end up with this as your entity class: @Document public class Todo { private Long id; @NotNull private String description; @NotNull private Boolean completed; @NotNull private DateTime dueDate; @JsonCreator public Todo(@JsonProperty("description") String description, @JsonProperty("dueDate") DateTime dueDate) { this.description = description; this.dueDate = dueDate; this.completed = false; } // getters and setters } Your domain model is now effectively blured by messy annotations almost everywhere. Let’s see what we can do with validation constraints (@NotNulls). Some may say that you could introduce some DTO layer with own validation rules, but it conflicts for me with pure REST API design, which stands that you operate on resources which should map to your domain classes. On the other hand – what does it mean that Todo object is valid? When you create a Todo you should provide a description and due date, but what when you’re updating? You should be able to change any of description, due date (postponing) and completion flag (marking as done) – but you should provide at least one of these as valid modification. So my idea is to introduce custom validation constraints, different ones for creation and modification: @Target({TYPE, PARAMETER}) @Retention(RUNTIME) @Constraint(validatedBy = ValidForCreation.Validator.class) public @interface ValidForCreation { //... class Validator implements ConstraintValidator<ValidForCreation, Todo> { /... @Override public boolean isValid(Todo todo, ConstraintValidatorContext constraintValidatorContext) { return todo != null && todo.getId() == null && todo.getDescription() != null && todo.getDueDate() != null; } } } @Target({TYPE, PARAMETER}) @Retention(RUNTIME) @Constraint(validatedBy = ValidForModification.Validator.class) public @interface ValidForModification { //... class Validator implements ConstraintValidator<ValidForModification, Todo> { /... @Override public boolean isValid(Todo todo, ConstraintValidatorContext constraintValidatorContext) { return todo != null && todo.getId() == null && (todo.getDescription() != null || todo.getDueDate() != null || todo.isCompleted() != null); } } } And now you can move validation annotations to the definition of a REST endpoint: @POST @Consumes(APPLICATION_JSON) public Response create(@ValidForCreation Todo todo) {...} @PUT @Consumes(APPLICATION_JSON) public Response update(@ValidForModification Todo todo) {...} And now you can remove those NotNulls from your model. Integration testing There are in general two approaches to integration testing: test is being run on separate JVM than the app, which is deployed on some other integration environment test deploys the application programmatically in the setup block. Both of these have their pros and cons, but for small enough servoces, I personally prefer the second approach. It’s much easier to setup and you have only one JVM started, which makes debugging really easy. You can use a generic framework like Arquillian for starting your application in a container environment, but I prefer simple solutions and just use emdedded Jetty. To make test setup 100% production equivalent, I’m creating full Jetty’s WebAppContext and have to resolve all runtime dependencies for Jersey auto-discovery to work. This can be simply achieved with Maven resolved from Shrinkwrap – an Arquillian subproject: WebAppContext webAppContext = new WebAppContext(); webAppContext.setResourceBase("src/main/webapp"); webAppContext.setContextPath("/"); File[] mavenLibs = Maven.resolver().loadPomFromFile("pom.xml") .importCompileAndRuntimeDependencies() .resolve().withTransitivity().asFile(); for (File file: mavenLibs) { webAppContext.getMetaData().addWebInfJar(new FileResource(file.toURI())); } webAppContext.getMetaData().addContainerResource(new FileResource(new File("./target/classes").toURI())); webAppContext.setConfigurations(new Configuration[] { new AnnotationConfiguration(), new WebXmlConfiguration(), new WebInfConfiguration() }); server.setHandler(webAppContext); (this Stackoverflow thread inspired me a lot here) Now it’s time for the last part of the post: parametrizing our integration tests. Since we want to test validation constraints, there are many edge paths to check (and make your code coverage close to 100%). Writing one test per each case could be a bad idea. Among the many solutions for JUnit I’m most convinced to the Junit Params by Pragmatists team. It’s really simple and have nice concept of JQuery-like helper for creating providers. Here is my tests code (I’m also using builder pattern here to create various kinds of Todos): @Test @Parameters(method = "provideInvalidTodosForCreation") public void shouldRejectInvalidTodoWhenCreate(Todo todo) { Response response = createTarget().request().post(Entity.json(todo)); assertThat(response.getStatus()).isEqualTo(BAD_REQUEST.getStatusCode()); } private static Object[] provideInvalidTodosForCreation() { return $( new TodoBuilder().withDescription("test").build(), new TodoBuilder().withDueDate(DateTime.now()).build(), new TodoBuilder().withId(123L).build(), new TodoBuilder().build() ); } OK, enough of reading, feel free to clone the project and start writing your REST services!

I recently joined a team trying to switch a monolithic legacy system into set of RESTful services in Java. They decided to use latest 2.x version of Jersey as a REST container which was not a first choice for me, since I’m not a big fan of JSR-* specs. But now I must admit that JAX-RS 2.x is doing things right: requires almost zero boilerplate code, support auto-discovery of features and prefers convention over configuration like other modern frameworks. Since the spec is still young, it’s hard to find good tutorials and kick-off projects with some working code. I created jersey2-starter project on GitHub which can be used as starting point for your own production-ready RESTful service. In this post I’d like to cover how to implement and integration test your own validation constraints of REST resources.

Custom constraints

One of the issues which bothers me when coding REST in Java is littering your class model with annotations. Suppose you want to build a simple Todo list REST service, when using Jackson, validation and Spring Data, you can easily end up with this as your entity class:

@Document
public class Todo {
    private Long id;
    @NotNull
    private String description;
    @NotNull
    private Boolean completed;
    @NotNull
    private DateTime dueDate;

    @JsonCreator
    public Todo(@JsonProperty("description") String description, @JsonProperty("dueDate") DateTime dueDate) {
        this.description = description;
        this.dueDate = dueDate;
        this.completed = false;
    }
    // getters and setters
}

Your domain model is now effectively blured by messy annotations almost everywhere. Let’s see what we can do with validation constraints (@NotNulls). Some may say that you could introduce some DTO layer with own validation rules, but it conflicts for me with pure REST API design, which stands that you operate on resources which should map to your domain classes. On the other hand – what does it mean that Todo object is valid? When you create a Todo you should provide a description and due date, but what when you’re updating? You should be able to change any of description, due date (postponing) and completion flag (marking as done) – but you should provide at least one of these as valid modification. So my idea is to introduce custom validation constraints, different ones for creation and modification:

@Target({TYPE, PARAMETER})
@Retention(RUNTIME)
@Constraint(validatedBy = ValidForCreation.Validator.class)
public @interface ValidForCreation {
    //...
    class Validator implements ConstraintValidator<ValidForCreation, Todo> {
    /...
        @Override
        public boolean isValid(Todo todo, ConstraintValidatorContext constraintValidatorContext) {
            return todo != null
                && todo.getId() == null
                && todo.getDescription() != null
                && todo.getDueDate() != null;
        }
    }
}

@Target({TYPE, PARAMETER})
@Retention(RUNTIME)
@Constraint(validatedBy = ValidForModification.Validator.class)
public @interface ValidForModification {
    //...
    class Validator implements ConstraintValidator<ValidForModification, Todo> {
    /...
        @Override
        public boolean isValid(Todo todo, ConstraintValidatorContext constraintValidatorContext) {
            return todo != null
                && todo.getId() == null
                && (todo.getDescription() != null || todo.getDueDate() != null || todo.isCompleted() != null);
        }
    }
}

And now you can move validation annotations to the definition of a REST endpoint:

@POST
@Consumes(APPLICATION_JSON)
public Response create(@ValidForCreation Todo todo) {...}

@PUT
@Consumes(APPLICATION_JSON)
public Response update(@ValidForModification Todo todo) {...}

And now you can remove those NotNulls from your model.

Integration testing

There are in general two approaches to integration testing:

  • test is being run on separate JVM than the app, which is deployed on some other integration environment
  • test deploys the application programmatically in the setup block.

Both of these have their pros and cons, but for small enough servoces, I personally prefer the second approach. It’s much easier to setup and you have only one JVM started, which makes debugging really easy. You can use a generic framework like Arquillian for starting your application in a container environment, but I prefer simple solutions and just use emdedded Jetty. To make test setup 100% production equivalent, I’m creating full Jetty’s WebAppContext and have to resolve all runtime dependencies for Jersey auto-discovery to work. This can be simply achieved with Maven resolved from Shrinkwrap – an Arquillian subproject:

    WebAppContext webAppContext = new WebAppContext();
    webAppContext.setResourceBase("src/main/webapp");
    webAppContext.setContextPath("/");
    File[] mavenLibs = Maven.resolver().loadPomFromFile("pom.xml")
                .importCompileAndRuntimeDependencies()
                .resolve().withTransitivity().asFile();
    for (File file: mavenLibs) {
        webAppContext.getMetaData().addWebInfJar(new FileResource(file.toURI()));
    }
    webAppContext.getMetaData().addContainerResource(new FileResource(new File("./target/classes").toURI()));

    webAppContext.setConfigurations(new Configuration[] {
        new AnnotationConfiguration(),
        new WebXmlConfiguration(),
        new WebInfConfiguration()
    });
    server.setHandler(webAppContext);

(this Stackoverflow thread inspired me a lot here)

Now it’s time for the last part of the post: parametrizing our integration tests. Since we want to test validation constraints, there are many edge paths to check (and make your code coverage close to 100%). Writing one test per each case could be a bad idea. Among the many solutions for JUnit I’m most convinced to the Junit Params by Pragmatists team. It’s really simple and have nice concept of JQuery-like helper for creating providers. Here is my tests code (I’m also using builder pattern here to create various kinds of Todos):

@Test
@Parameters(method = "provideInvalidTodosForCreation")
public void shouldRejectInvalidTodoWhenCreate(Todo todo) {
    Response response = createTarget().request().post(Entity.json(todo));

    assertThat(response.getStatus()).isEqualTo(BAD_REQUEST.getStatusCode());
}

private static Object[] provideInvalidTodosForCreation() {
    return $(
        new TodoBuilder().withDescription("test").build(),
        new TodoBuilder().withDueDate(DateTime.now()).build(),
        new TodoBuilder().withId(123L).build(),
        new TodoBuilder().build()
    );
}

OK, enough of reading, feel free to clone the project and start writing your REST services!

You May Also Like

Spock, Java and Maven

Few months ago I've came across Groovy - powerful language for JVM platform which combines the power of Java with abilities typical for scripting languages (dynamic typing, metaprogramming).

Together with Groovy I've discovered spock framework (https://code.google.com/p/spock/) - specification framework for Groovy (of course you can test Java classes too!). But spock is not only test/specification framework - it also contains powerful mocking tools.

Even though spock is dedicated for Groovy there is no problem with using it for Java classes tests. In this post I'm going to describe how to configure Maven project to build and run spock specifications together with traditional JUnit tests.


Firstly, we need to prepare pom.xml and add necessary dependencies and plugins.

Two obligatory libraries are:
<dependency>
<groupid>org.spockframework</groupId>
<artifactid>spock-core</artifactId>
<version>0.7-groovy-2.0</version>
<scope>test</scope>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupid>org.codehaus.groovy</groupId>
<artifactid>groovy-all</artifactId>
<version>${groovy.version}</version>
<scope>test</scope>
</dependency>
Where groovy.version is property defined in pom.xml for more convenient use and easy version change, just like this:
<properties>
<gmaven-plugin.version>1.4</gmaven-plugin.version>
<groovy.version>2.1.5</groovy.version>
</properties>

I've added property for gmaven-plugin version for the same reason ;)

Besides these two dependencies, we can use few additional ones providing extra functionality:
  • cglib - for class mocking
  • objenesis - enables mocking classes without default constructor
To add them to the project put these lines in <dependencies> section of pom.xml:
<dependency>
<groupid>cglib</groupId>
<artifactid>cglib-nodep</artifactId>
<version>3.0</version>
<scope>test</scope>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupid>org.objenesis</groupId>
<artifactid>objenesis</artifactId>
<version>1.3</version>
<scope>test</scope>
</dependency>

And that's all for dependencies section. Now we will focus on plugins necessary to compile Groovy classes. We need to add gmaven-plugin with gmaven-runtime-2.0 dependency in plugins section:
<plugin>
<groupid>org.codehaus.gmaven</groupId>
<artifactid>gmaven-plugin</artifactId>
<version>${gmaven-plugin.version}</version>
<configuration>
<providerselection>2.0</providerSelection>
</configuration>
<executions>
<execution>
<goals>
<goal>compile</goal>
<goal>testCompile</goal>
</goals>
</execution>
</executions>
<dependencies>
<dependency>
<groupid>org.codehaus.gmaven.runtime</groupId>
<artifactid>gmaven-runtime-2.0</artifactId>
<version>${gmaven-plugin.version}</version>
<exclusions>
<exclusion>
<groupid>org.codehaus.groovy</groupId>
<artifactid>groovy-all</artifactId>
</exclusion>
</exclusions>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupid>org.codehaus.groovy</groupId>
<artifactid>groovy-all</artifactId>
<version>${groovy.version}</version>
</dependency>
</dependencies>
</plugin>

With these configuration we can use spock and write our first specifications. But there is one issue: default settings for maven-surefire plugin demand that test classes must end with "..Test" postfix, which is ok when we want to use such naming scheme for our spock tests. But if we want to name them like CommentSpec.groovy or whatever with "..Spec" ending (what in my opinion is much more readable) we need to make little change in surefire plugin configuration:
<plugin>
<groupid>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
<artifactid>maven-surefire-plugin</artifactId>
<version>2.15</version>
<configuration>
<includes>
<include>**/*Test.java</include>
<include>**/*Spec.java</include>
</includes>
</configuration>
</plugin>

As you can see there is a little trick ;) We add include directive for standard Java JUnit test ending with "..Test" postfix, but there is also an entry for spock test ending with "..Spec". And there is a trick: we must write "**/*Spec.java", not "**/*Spec.groovy", otherwise Maven will not run spock tests (which is strange and I've spent some time to figure out why Maven can't run my specs).

Little update: instead of "*.java" postfix for both types of tests we can write "*.class" what is in my opinion more readable and clean:
<include>**/*Test.class</include>
<include>**/*Spec.class</include>
(thanks to Tomek Pęksa for pointing this out!)

With such configuration, we can write either traditional JUnit test and put them in src/test/java directory or groovy spock specifications and place them in src/test/groovy. And both will work together just fine :) In one of my next posts I'll write something about using spock and its mocking abilities in practice, so stay in tune.