Testing Kotlin with Spock Part 1 – Object

The object keyword in Kotlin creates singleton in a very convenient way. It can be used for example as a state of an operation. Spock Framework is one of the most expressive and readable test frameworks available in the Java ecosystem. Let’s see how Kotlin object can be used in the Spock tests.

What do we want to test?

We have a single method validate in Validator interface which returns validation status: Ok or Error.

sealed class ValidationStatus
object Ok : ValidationStatus()
object Error : ValidationStatus()


interface Validator<T> {
    fun validate(value: T): ValidationStatus
}

We also provide a simple implementation of this interface:

class AdultValidator : Validator<Int> {
    override fun validate(value: Int) = if (value >= 18) Ok else Error
}

 

How to test it with Spock?

First – silly approach

First, let’s write a parameterized test for the validator:

AdultValidator sut = new AdultValidator()

def 'should validate age #age'() {
    expect:
        sut.validate(age) == result
    where:
        age | result
        0   | Error
        17  | Error
        18  | Ok
        19  | Ok
}

 

We expect it to pass, but it fails… Error and Ok are classes in the code above.

Second – naive approach

We need instances instead, so we modify the test a little:

def 'should validate age #age'() {
    expect:
        sut.validate(age) == result
    where:
        age | result
        0   | new Error()
        17  | new Error()
        18  | new Ok()
        19  | new Ok()
}

 

And again, this one fails as well. Why? It is because Error and Ok classes do not have overridden equals method. But why? We expects Kotlin objects (those created with object keyword, not plain object) to have it implemented correctly. What is more, it works correctly in Kotlin:

fun isOk(status:ValidationStatus) = status == Ok

Third – correct approach

Let’s look into the class file:

$ javap com/github/alien11689/testingkotlinwithspock/Ok.class
Compiled from "Validator.kt"
public final class com.github.alien11689.testingkotlinwithspock.Ok extends com.github.alien11689.testingkotlinwithspock.ValidationStatus {
  public static final com.github.alien11689.testingkotlinwithspock.Ok INSTANCE;
  static {};
}

If we want to access the real object that Kotlin uses in such comparisson, then we should access the class static property called INSTANCE:

def 'should validate age #age'() {
    expect:
        sut.validate(age) == result
    where:
        age | result
        0   | Error.INSTANCE
        17  | Error.INSTANCE
        18  | Ok.INSTANCE
        19  | Ok.INSTANCE
}

Now the test passes.

Fourth – alternative approach

We can also check the method result without specific instance of the object class and use instanceof or Class#isAssignableFrom instead.

Show me the code

Code is available here.

You May Also Like

Distributed scans with HBase

HBase is by design a columnar store, that is optimized for random reads. You just ask for a row using rowId as an identifier and you get your data instantaneously. Performing a scan on part or whole table is a completely different thing. First of all, it is sequential. Meaning it is rather slow, because it doesn't use all the RegionServers at the same time. It is implemented that way to realize the contract of Scan command - which has to return results sorted by key. So, how to do this efficiently?HBase is by design a columnar store, that is optimized for random reads. You just ask for a row using rowId as an identifier and you get your data instantaneously. Performing a scan on part or whole table is a completely different thing. First of all, it is sequential. Meaning it is rather slow, because it doesn't use all the RegionServers at the same time. It is implemented that way to realize the contract of Scan command - which has to return results sorted by key. So, how to do this efficiently?

Thought static method can’t be easy to mock, stub nor track? Wrong!

No matter why, no matter is it a good idea. Sometimes one just wants to check or it's necessary to be done. Mock a static method, woot? Impossibru!

In pure Java world it is still a struggle. But Groovy allows you to do that really simple. Well, not groovy alone, but with a great support of Spock.

Lets move on straight to the example. To catch some context we have an abstract for the example needs. A marketing project with a set of offers. One to many.

import spock.lang.Specification

class OfferFacadeSpec extends Specification {

    OfferFacade facade = new OfferFacade()

    def setup() {
        GroovyMock(Project, global: true)
    }

    def 'delegates an add offer call to the domain with proper params'() {
        given:
            Map params = [projId: projectId, name: offerName]

        when:
            Offer returnedOffer = facade.add(params)

        then:
            1 * Project.addOffer(projectId, _) >> { projId, offer -> offer }
            returnedOffer.name == params.name

        where:
            projectId | offerName
            1         | 'an Offer'
            15        | 'whasup!?'
            123       | 'doskonała oferta - kup teraz!'
    }
}
So we test a facade responsible for handling "add offer to the project" call triggered  somewhere in a GUI.
We want to ensure that static method Project.addOffer(long, Offer) will receive correct params when java.util.Map with user form input comes to the facade.add(params).
This is unit test, so how Project.addOffer() works is out of scope. Thus we want to stub it.

The most important is a GroovyMock(Project, global: true) statement.
What it does is modifing Project class to behave like a Spock's mock. 
GroovyMock() itself is a method inherited from SpecificationThe global flag is necessary to enable mocking static methods.
However when one comes to the need of mocking static method, author of Spock Framework advice to consider redesigning of implementation. It's not a bad advice, I must say.

Another important thing are assertions at then: block. First one checks an interaction, if the Project.addOffer() method was called exactly once, with a 1st argument equal to the projectId and some other param (we don't have an object instance yet to assert anything about it).
Right shit operator leads us to the stub which replaces original method implementation by such statement.
As a good stub it does nothing. The original method definition has return type Offer. The stub needs to do the same. So an offer passed as the 2nd argument is just returned.
Thanks to this we can assert about name property if it's equal with the value from params. If no return was designed the name could be checked inside the stub Closure, prefixed with an assert keyword.

Worth of  mentioning is that if you want to track interactions of original static method implementation without replacing it, then you should try using GroovySpy instead of GroovyMock.

Unfortunately static methods declared at Java object can't be treated in such ways. Though regular mocks and whole goodness of Spock can be used to test pure Java code, which is awesome anyway :)No matter why, no matter is it a good idea. Sometimes one just wants to check or it's necessary to be done. Mock a static method, woot? Impossibru!

In pure Java world it is still a struggle. But Groovy allows you to do that really simple. Well, not groovy alone, but with a great support of Spock.

Lets move on straight to the example. To catch some context we have an abstract for the example needs. A marketing project with a set of offers. One to many.

import spock.lang.Specification

class OfferFacadeSpec extends Specification {

    OfferFacade facade = new OfferFacade()

    def setup() {
        GroovyMock(Project, global: true)
    }

    def 'delegates an add offer call to the domain with proper params'() {
        given:
            Map params = [projId: projectId, name: offerName]

        when:
            Offer returnedOffer = facade.add(params)

        then:
            1 * Project.addOffer(projectId, _) >> { projId, offer -> offer }
            returnedOffer.name == params.name

        where:
            projectId | offerName
            1         | 'an Offer'
            15        | 'whasup!?'
            123       | 'doskonała oferta - kup teraz!'
    }
}
So we test a facade responsible for handling "add offer to the project" call triggered  somewhere in a GUI.
We want to ensure that static method Project.addOffer(long, Offer) will receive correct params when java.util.Map with user form input comes to the facade.add(params).
This is unit test, so how Project.addOffer() works is out of scope. Thus we want to stub it.

The most important is a GroovyMock(Project, global: true) statement.
What it does is modifing Project class to behave like a Spock's mock. 
GroovyMock() itself is a method inherited from SpecificationThe global flag is necessary to enable mocking static methods.
However when one comes to the need of mocking static method, author of Spock Framework advice to consider redesigning of implementation. It's not a bad advice, I must say.

Another important thing are assertions at then: block. First one checks an interaction, if the Project.addOffer() method was called exactly once, with a 1st argument equal to the projectId and some other param (we don't have an object instance yet to assert anything about it).
Right shit operator leads us to the stub which replaces original method implementation by such statement.
As a good stub it does nothing. The original method definition has return type Offer. The stub needs to do the same. So an offer passed as the 2nd argument is just returned.
Thanks to this we can assert about name property if it's equal with the value from params. If no return was designed the name could be checked inside the stub Closure, prefixed with an assert keyword.

Worth of  mentioning is that if you want to track interactions of original static method implementation without replacing it, then you should try using GroovySpy instead of GroovyMock.

Unfortunately static methods declared at Java object can't be treated in such ways. Though regular mocks and whole goodness of Spock can be used to test pure Java code, which is awesome anyway :)