Inconsistent Dependency Injection to domains with Grails

I've encountered strange behavior with a domain class in my project: services that should be injected were null. I've became suspicious as why is that? Services are injected properly in other domain classes so why this one is different?

Constructors experiment

I've created an experiment. I've created empty LibraryService that should be injected and Book domain class like this:

class Book {
def libraryService

String author
String title
int pageCount

Book() {
println("Finished constructor Book()")
}

Book(String author) {
this()
this.@author = author
println("Finished constructor Book(String author)")
}

Book(String author, String title) {
super()
this.@author = author
this.@title = title
println("Finished constructor Book(String author, String title)")
}

Book(String author, String title, int pageCount) {
this.@author = author
this.@title = title
this.@pageCount = pageCount
println("Finished constructor Book(String author, String title, int pageCount)")
}

void logInjectedService() {
println(" Service libraryService is injected? -> $libraryService")
}
}
class LibraryService {
def serviceMethod() {
}
}

Book has 4 explicit constructors. I want to check which constructor is injecting dependecies. This is my method that constructs Book objects and I called it in controller:

class BookController {
def index() {
constructAndExamineBooks()
}

static constructAndExamineBooks() {
println("Started constructAndExamineBooks")
Book book1 = new Book().logInjectedService()
Book book2 = new Book("foo").logInjectedService()
Book book3 = new Book("foo", 'bar').logInjectedService()
Book book4 = new Book("foo", 'bar', 100).logInjectedService()
Book book5 = new Book(author: "foo", title: 'bar')
println("Finished constructor Book(Map params)")
book5.logInjectedService()
}
}

Analysis

Output looks like this:

Started constructAndExamineBooks
Finished constructor Book()
Service libraryService is injected? -> eu.spoonman.refaktor.LibraryService@2affcce2
Finished constructor Book()
Finished constructor Book(String author)
Service libraryService is injected? -> eu.spoonman.refaktor.LibraryService@2affcce2
Finished constructor Book(String author, String title)
Service libraryService is injected? -> null
Finished constructor Book(String author, String title, int pageCount)
Service libraryService is injected? -> null
Finished constructor Book()
Finished constructor Book(Map params)
Service libraryService is injected? -> eu.spoonman.refaktor.LibraryService@2affcce2

What do we see?

  1. Empty constructor injects dependencies.
  2. Constructor that invokes empty constructor explicitly injects dependencies.
  3. Constructor that invokes parent's constructor explicitly does not inject dependencies.
  4. Constructor without any explicit call declared does not call empty constructor thus it does not inject dependencies.
  5. Constructor provied by Grails with a map as a parameter invokes empty constructor and injects dependencies.

Conclusion

Always explicitily invoke empty constructor in your Grail domain classes to ensure Dependency Injection! I didn't know until today either! Read more

How to automate tests with Groovy 2.0, Spock and Gradle

This is the launch of the 1st blog in my life, so cheers and have a nice reading!

y u no test?

Couple of years ago I wasn't a big fan of unit testing. It was obvious to me that well prepared unit tests are crucial though. I didn't known why exactly crucial yet then. I just felt they are important. My disliking to write automation tests was mostly related to the effort necessary to prepare them. Also a spaghetti code was easily spotted in test sources.

Some goodies at hand

Now I know! Test are crucial to get a better design and a confidence. Confidence to improve without a hesitation. Moreover, now I have the tool to make test automation easy as Sunday morning... I'm talking about the Spock Framework. If you got here probably already know what the Spock is, so I won't introduce it. Enough to say that Spock is an awesome unit testing tool which, thanks to Groovy AST Transformation, simplifies creation of tests greatly.

An obstacle

The point is, since a new major version of Groovy has been released (2.0), there is no matching version of Spock available yet.

What now?

Well, in a matter of fact there is such a version. It's still under development though. It can be obtained from this Maven repository. We can of course use the Maven to build a project and run tests. But why not to go even more "groovy" way? XML is not for humans, is it? Lets use Gradle.

The build file

Update: at the end of the post is updated version of the build file.
apply plugin: 'groovy'
apply plugin: 'idea'

def langLevel = 1.7

sourceCompatibility = langLevel
targetCompatibility = langLevel

group = 'com.tamashumi.example.testwithspock'
version = '0.1'

repositories {
mavenLocal()
mavenCentral()
maven { url 'http://oss.sonatype.org/content/repositories/snapshots/' }
}

dependencies {
groovy 'org.codehaus.groovy:groovy-all:2.0.1'
testCompile 'org.spockframework:spock-core:0.7-groovy-2.0-SNAPSHOT'
}

idea {
project {
jdkName = langLevel
languageLevel = langLevel
}
}
As you can see the build.gradle file is almost self-explanatory. Groovy plugin is applied to compile groovy code. It needs groovy-all.jar - declared in version 2.0 at dependencies block just next to Spock in version 0.7. What's most important, mentioned Maven repository URL is added at repositories block.

Project structure and execution

Gradle's default project directory structure is similar to Maven's one. Unfortunately there is no 'create project' task and you have to create it by hand. It's not a big obstacle though. The structure you will create will more or less look as follows:
<project root>

├── build.gradle
└── src
├── main
│ ├── groovy
└── test
└── groovy
To build a project now you can type command gradle build or gradle test to only run tests.

How about Java?

You can test native Java code with Spock. Just add src/main/java directory and a following line to the build.gradle:
apply plugin: 'java'
This way if you don't want or just can't deploy Groovy compiled stuff into your production JVM for any reason, still whole goodness of testing with Spock and Groovy is at your hand.

A silly-simple example

Just to show that it works, here you go with a basic example.

Java simple example class:

public class SimpleJavaClass {

public int sumAll(int... args) {

int sum = 0;

for (int arg : args){
sum += arg;
}

return sum;
}
}

Groovy simple example class:

class SimpleGroovyClass {

String concatenateAll(char separator, String... args) {

args.join(separator as String)
}
}

The test, uhm... I mean the Specification:

class JustASpecification extends Specification {

@Unroll('Sums integers #integers into: #expectedResult')
def "Can sum different amount of integers"() {

given:
def instance = new SimpleJavaClass()

when:
def result = instance.sumAll(* integers)

then:
result == expectedResult

where:
expectedResult | integers
11 | [3, 3, 5]
8 | [3, 5]
254 | [2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128]
22 | [7, 5, 6, 2, 2]
}

@Unroll('Concatenates strings #strings with separator "#separator" into: #expectedResult')
def "Can concatenate different amount of integers with a specified separator"() {

given:
def instance = new SimpleGroovyClass()

when:
def result = instance.concatenateAll(separator, * strings)

then:
result == expectedResult

where:
expectedResult | separator | strings
'Whasup dude?' | ' ' as char | ['Whasup', 'dude?']
'2012/09/15' | '/' as char | ['2012', '09', '15']
'nice-to-meet-you' | '-' as char | ['nice', 'to', 'meet', 'you']
}
}
To run tests with Gradle simply execute command gradle test. Test reports can be found at <project root>/build/reports/tests/index.html and look kind a like this.


Please note that, thanks to @Unroll annotation, test is executed once per each parameters row in the 'table' at specification's where: block. This isn't a Java label, but a AST transformation magic.

IDE integration

Gradle's plugin for Iintellij Idea

I've added also Intellij Idea plugin for IDE project generation and some configuration for it (IDE's JDK name). To generate Idea's project files just run command: gradle idea There are available Eclipse and Netbeans plugins too, however I haven't tested them. Idea's one works well.

Intellij Idea's plugins for Gradle

Idea itself has a light Gradle support built-in on its own. To not get confused: Gradle has plugin for Idea and Idea has plugin for Gradle. To get even more 'pluginated', there is also JetGradle plugin within Idea. However I haven't found good reason for it's existence - well, maybe excluding one. It shows dependency tree. There is a bug though - JetGradle work's fine only for lang level 1.6. Strangely all the plugins together do not conflict each other. They even give complementary, quite useful tool set.

Running tests under IDE

Jest to add something sweet this is how Specification looks when run with jUnit  runner under Intellij Idea (right mouse button on JustASpecification class or whole folder of specification extending classes and select "Run ...". You'll see a nice view like this.

Building web application

If you need to build Java web application and bundle it as war archive just add plugin by typing the line
apply plugin: 'war'
in the build.gradle file and create a directory src/main/webapp.

Want to know more?

If you haven't heard about Spock or Gradle before or just curious, check the following links:

What next?

The last thing left is to write the real production code you are about to test. No matter will it be Groovy or Java, I leave this to your need and invention. Of course, you are welcome to post a comments here. I'll answer or even write some more posts about the subject.

Important update

Spock version 0.7 has been released, so the above build file doesn't work anymore. It's easy to fix it though. Just remove last dash and a word SNAPSHOT from Spock dependency declaration. Other important thing is that now spock-core depends on groovy-all-2.0.5, so to avoid dependency conflict groovy dependency should be changed from version 2.0.1 to 2.0.5.
Besides oss.sonata.org snapshots maven repository can be removed. No obstacles any more and the build file now looks as follows:
apply plugin: 'groovy'
apply plugin: 'idea'

def langLevel = 1.7

sourceCompatibility = langLevel
targetCompatibility = langLevel

group = 'com.tamashumi.example.testwithspock'
version = '0.1'

repositories {
mavenLocal()
mavenCentral()
}

dependencies {
groovy 'org.codehaus.groovy:groovy-all:2.0.5'
testCompile 'org.spockframework:spock-core:0.7-groovy-2.0'
}

idea {
project {
jdkName = langLevel
languageLevel = langLevel
}
}
Read more

How to use mocks in controller tests

Even since I started to write tests for my Grails application I couldn't find many articles on using mocks. Everyone is talking about tests and TDD but if you search for it there isn't many articles.

Today I want to share with you a test with mocks for a simple and complete scenario. I have a simple application that can fetch Twitter tweets and present it to user. I use REST service and I use GET to fetch tweets by id like this: http://api.twitter.com/1/statuses/show/236024636775735296.json. You can copy and paste it into your browser to see a result.

My application uses Grails 2.1 with spock-0.6 for tests. I have TwitterReaderService that fetches tweets by id, then I parse a response into my Tweet class.


class TwitterReaderService {
Tweet readTweet(String id) throws TwitterError {
try {
String jsonBody = callTwitter(id)
Tweet parsedTweet = parseBody(jsonBody)
return parsedTweet
} catch (Throwable t) {
throw new TwitterError(t)
}
}

private String callTwitter(String id) {
// TODO: implementation
}

private Tweet parseBody(String jsonBody) {
// TODO: implementation
}
}

class Tweet {
String id
String userId
String username
String text
Date createdAt
}

class TwitterError extends RuntimeException {}

TwitterController plays main part here. Users call show action along with id of a tweet. This action is my subject under test. I've implemented some basic functionality. It's easier to focus on it while writing tests.


class TwitterController {
def twitterReaderService

def index() {
}

def show() {
Tweet tweet = twitterReaderService.readTweet(params.id)
if (tweet == null) {
flash.message = 'Tweet not found'
redirect(action: 'index')
return
}

[tweet: tweet]
}
}

Let's start writing a test from scratch. Most important thing here is that I use mock for my TwitterReaderService. I do not construct new TwitterReaderService(), because in this test I test only TwitterController. I am not interested in injected service. I know how this service is supposed to work and I am not interested in internals. So before every test I inject a twitterReaderServiceMock into controller:


import grails.test.mixin.TestFor
import spock.lang.Specification

@TestFor(TwitterController)
class TwitterControllerSpec extends Specification {
TwitterReaderService twitterReaderServiceMock = Mock(TwitterReaderService)

def setup() {
controller.twitterReaderService = twitterReaderServiceMock
}
}

Now it's time to think what scenarios I need to test. This line from TwitterReaderService is the most important:


Tweet readTweet(String id) throws TwitterError

You must think of this method like a black box right now. You know nothing of internals from controller's point of view. You're only interested what can be returned for you:

  • a TwitterError can be thrown
  • null can be returned
  • Tweet instance can be returned

This list is your test blueprint. Now answer a simple question for each element: "What do I want my controller to do in this situation?" and you have plan test:

  • show action should redirect to index if TwitterError is thrown and inform about error
  • show action should redirect to index and inform if tweet is not found
  • show action should show found tweet

That was easy and straightforward! And now is the best part: we use twitterReaderServiceMock to mock each of these three scenarios!

In Spock there is a good documentation about interaction with mocks. You declare what methods are called, how many times, what parameters are given and what should be returned. Remember a black box? Mock is your black box with detailed instruction, e.g.: I expect you that if receive exactly one call to readTweet with parameter '1' then you should throw me a TwitterError. Rephrase this sentence out loud and look at this:


1 * twitterReaderServiceMock.readTweet('1') >> { throw new TwitterError() }

This is a valid interaction definition on mock! It's that easy! Here is a complete test that fails for now:


import grails.test.mixin.TestFor
import spock.lang.Specification

@TestFor(TwitterController)
class TwitterControllerSpec extends Specification {
TwitterReaderService twitterReaderServiceMock = Mock(TwitterReaderService)

def setup() {
controller.twitterReaderService = twitterReaderServiceMock
}

def "show should redirect to index if TwitterError is thrown"() {
given:
controller.params.id = '1'
when:
controller.show()
then:
1 * twitterReaderServiceMock.readTweet('1') >> { throw new TwitterError() }
0 * _._
flash.message == 'There was an error on fetching your tweet'
response.redirectUrl == '/twitter/index'
}
}

| Failure: show should redirect to index if TwitterError is thrown(pl.refaktor.twitter.TwitterControllerSpec)
| pl.refaktor.twitter.TwitterError
at pl.refaktor.twitter.TwitterControllerSpec.show should redirect to index if TwitterError is thrown_closure1(TwitterControllerSpec.groovy:29)

You may notice 0 * _._ notation. It says: I don't want any other mocks or any other methods called. Fail this test if something is called! It's a good practice to ensure that there are no more interactions than you want.

Ok, now I need to implement controller logic to handle TwitterError.


class TwitterController {

def twitterReaderService

def index() {
}

def show() {
Tweet tweet

try {
tweet = twitterReaderService.readTweet(params.id)
} catch (TwitterError e) {
log.error(e)
flash.message = 'There was an error on fetching your tweet'
redirect(action: 'index')
return
}

[tweet: tweet]
}
}

My tests passes! We have two scenarios left. Rule stays the same: TwitterReaderService returns something and we test against it. So this line is the heart of each test, change only returned values after >>:


1 * twitterReaderServiceMock.readTweet('1') >> { throw new TwitterError() }

Here is a complete test for three scenarios and controller that passes it.


import grails.test.mixin.TestFor
import spock.lang.Specification

@TestFor(TwitterController)
class TwitterControllerSpec extends Specification {

TwitterReaderService twitterReaderServiceMock = Mock(TwitterReaderService)

def setup() {
controller.twitterReaderService = twitterReaderServiceMock
}

def "show should redirect to index if TwitterError is thrown"() {
given:
controller.params.id = '1'
when:
controller.show()
then:
1 * twitterReaderServiceMock.readTweet('1') >> { throw new TwitterError() }
0 * _._
flash.message == 'There was an error on fetching your tweet'
response.redirectUrl == '/twitter/index'
}

def "show should inform about not found tweet"() {
given:
controller.params.id = '1'
when:
controller.show()
then:
1 * twitterReaderServiceMock.readTweet('1') >> null
0 * _._
flash.message == 'Tweet not found'
response.redirectUrl == '/twitter/index'
}


def "show should show found tweet"() {
given:
controller.params.id = '1'
when:
controller.show()
then:
1 * twitterReaderServiceMock.readTweet('1') >> new Tweet()
0 * _._
flash.message == null
response.status == 200
}
}

class TwitterController {

def twitterReaderService

def index() {
}

def show() {
Tweet tweet

try {
tweet = twitterReaderService.readTweet(params.id)
} catch (TwitterError e) {
log.error(e)
flash.message = 'There was an error on fetching your tweet'
redirect(action: 'index')
return
}

if (tweet == null) {
flash.message = 'Tweet not found'
redirect(action: 'index')
return
}

[tweet: tweet]
}
}

The most important thing here is that we've tested controller-service interaction without logic implementation in service! That's why mock technique is so useful. It decouples your dependencies and let you focus on exactly one subject under test. Happy testing! Read more

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! Read more