DDevelopment & Design

Custom SonarQube rules for Unit Tests

It’s a tutorial about creating new rules for SonarQube analysis to be applied to Unit Tests. It is not trivial and involves a few tricky database steps, so I want to share my tutorial about it.It’s a tutorial about creating new rules for SonarQube analysis to be applied to Unit Tests. It is not trivial and involves a few tricky database steps, so I want to share my tutorial about it.

I need a new rule

In our project we use (formely Sonar) to manage our code quality. It is a great tool and I recommend everyone to set it up and read its reports.

Recently, we’ve agreed that it’s better to use assertj assertions in our unit tests than JUnit’s. So I’ve decided to write a simple rule that checks if some of JUnit asserts assertTrue, assertFalse, assertNull and others are used. Then, I’ve discovered it’s not so easy to do it with Sonar:

  • only 10 code quality rules are applied to unit tests – they are in special repository PMD Unit Tests (source)
  • these 10 rules are disabled by default, you have to enable them by hand
  • you cannot add new rules to this group

However, it turned out it is doable with a small tricks.

Custom PMD Unit Tests rule tutorial

Create your XPath expression by following this tutorial on how to create custom PMD rule. There is a visual editor to test your rules as you develop them – that’s great. My XPath expression to avoid all JUnit assertions looks like this:

//PrimaryPrefix/Name[@Image='assertEquals' or @Image='assertNull' or @Image='assertNotNull' or @Image='assertSame' or @Image='assertNotSame' or @Image='assertArrayEquals' or @Image='assertTrue' or @Image='assertFalse']

Go to your Sonar installation, log in as an Administrator, head to Quality Profiles and select a profile that you use. Search for “xpath” and change Activation to Any. You should see two results like this:

Expand XPath rule template (dont’ worry that it says it’s deprecated) and then click Copy rule. Fill a form with message and XPath and save it. Then take a look at the bottom – you need an identifier of this rule:

You have created a PMD rule, now you need to move it to PMD Unit Tests group. Connect to Sonar’s MySQL database. Search for your rule by key:

mysql> select id, plugin_rule_key, plugin_name, parent_id, status from rules where plugin_rule_key='XPathRule_1385721910';
+-----+----------------------+----------------+-----------+-------------+
| id  | plugin_rule_key      | plugin_name    | parent_id | status      |
+-----+----------------------+----------------+-----------+-------------+
| 903 | XPathRule_1385721910 | pmd            | NULL      | DEPRECATED  |
+-----+----------------------+----------------+-----------+-------------+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)

Update plugin_name and status (remember to use appropiate primary key for id column):

mysql> update rules set plugin_name='pmd-unit-tests', status='READY' where id=903;
Query OK, 1 row affected (0.00 sec)
Rows matched: 1 Changed: 1 Warnings: 0

There is one step left. Sonar will change this rule’s status to REMOVED on restart due to his boot checks. You need to trick him and change parent_id to other’s PMD Unit Tests rule. List all these rules and choose one’s identifier.

mysql> select id, plugin_name, status from rules where plugin_name='pmd-unit-tests';
+-----+----------------+---------+
| id  | plugin_name    | status  |
+-----+----------------+---------+
| 775 | pmd-unit-tests | READY   |
| 776 | pmd-unit-tests | READY   |
| 777 | pmd-unit-tests | READY   |
| 778 | pmd-unit-tests | READY   |
| 779 | pmd-unit-tests | READY   |
| 780 | pmd-unit-tests | READY   |
| 781 | pmd-unit-tests | READY   |
| 782 | pmd-unit-tests | READY   |
| 783 | pmd-unit-tests | READY   |
| 784 | pmd-unit-tests | READY   |
| 903 | pmd-unit-tests | READY   |
+-----+----------------+---------+
11 rows in set (0.00 sec)\

Choose any id you like, let’s say 775 and apply it as parent_id to your newly created rule:

mysql> update rules set parent_id=775 where id=903;
Query OK, 1 row affected (0.00 sec)
Rows matched: 1 Changed: 1 Warnings: 0

Go to your Quality profile and make sure your rule is active! Check it twice, it’s easy to forget that step. It’s all set up, enjoy your analysis!

— Previous article

Running integration tests with surefire in integration-test phase

Next article —

Saint Nicholas in CSS

You May Also Like
DDevelopment & Design

Sample for lift-ng: Micro-burn 1.0.0 released

During a last few evenings in my free time I've worked on mini-application called micro-burn. The idea of it appear from work with Agile Jira in our commercial project. This is a great tool for agile projects management. It has inline tasks edition, drag & drop board, reports and many more, but it also have a few drawbacks that turn down our team motivation.

Motivation

From time to time our sprints scope is changing. It is not a big deal because we are trying to be agile :-) but Jira's burndowchart in this situation draw a peek. Because in fact that chart shows scope changes not a real burndown. It means, that chart cannot break down an x-axis if we really do more than we were planned – it always stop on at most zero.

Also for better progress monitoring we've started to split our user stories to technical tasks and estimating them. Original burndowchart doesn't show points from technical tasks. I can find motivation of this – user story almost finished isn't finished at all until user can use it. But in the other hand, if we know which tasks is problematic we can do some teamwork to move it on.

So I realize that it is a good opportunity to try some new approaches and tools.

Tools

I've started with lift framework. In the World of Single Page Applications, this framework has more than simple interface for serving REST services. It comes with awesome Comet support. Comet is a replacement for WebSockets that run on all browsers. It supports long polling and transparent fallback to short polling if limit of client connections exceed. In backend you can handle pushes in CometActor. For further reading take a look at Roundtrip promises

But lift framework is also a kind of framework of frameworks. You can handle own abstraction of CometActors and push to client javascript that shorten up your way from server to client. So it was the trigger for author of lift-ng to make a lift with Angular integration that is build on top of lift. It provides AngularActors from which you can emit/broadcast events to scope of controller. NgModelBinders that synchronize your backend model with client scope in a few lines! I've used them to send project state (all sprints and thier details) to client and notify him about scrum board changes. My actor doing all of this hard work looks pretty small:

Lift-ng also provides factories for creating of Angular services. Services could respond with futures that are transformed to Angular promises in-fly. This is all what was need to serve sprint history:

And on the client side - use of service:


In my opinion this two frameworks gives a huge boost in developing of web applications. You have the power of strongly typing with Scala, you can design your domain on Actors and all of this with simplicity of node.js – lack of json trasforming boilerplate and dynamic application reload.

DDD + Event Sourcing

I've also tried a few fresh approaches to DDD. I've organize domain objects in actors. There are SprintActors with encapsulate sprint aggregate root. Task changes are stored as events which are computed as a difference between two boards states. When it should be provided a history of sprint, next board states are computed from initial state and sequence of events. So I realize that the best way to keep this kind of event sourcing approach tested is to make random tests. This is a test doing random changes at board, calculating events and checking if initial state + events is equals to previously created state:



First look

Screenshot of first version:


If you want to look at this closer, check the source code or download ready to run fatjar on github.During a last few evenings in my free time I've worked on mini-application called micro-burn. The idea of it appear from work with Agile Jira in our commercial project. This is a great tool for agile projects management. It has inline tasks edition, drag & drop board, reports and many more, but it also have a few drawbacks that turn down our team motivation.
DDevelopment & Design

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 Specification.  The 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 Specification.  The 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 :)