Best Mockito code snippet using org.mockitousage.annotation.AnnotationsTest.should_keep_same_instance_if_field_initialized
should_keep_same_instance_if_field_initialized
Using AI Code Generation
1private List mock;2public void setup() {3 MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this);4}5public void should_keep_same_instance_if_field_initialized() {6 List firstMock = mock;7 List secondMock = mock;8 assertSame(firstMock, secondMock);9}
should_keep_same_instance_if_field_initialized
Using AI Code Generation
1private SomeClass someClass;2public void setUp() {3 MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this);4}5public void testMethod() {6 someClass.method();7}8private SomeClass someClass = new SomeClass();9private SomeClass someClass;10public void setUp() {11 MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this);12}13public void testMethod() {14 someClass.method();15}16private SomeClass someClass = new SomeClass();17private SomeClass someClass;18public void setUp() {19 MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this);20}21public void testMethod() {22 someClass.method();23}
should_keep_same_instance_if_field_initialized
Using AI Code Generation
1 private List< Object > list;2 public MockitoRule rule = MockitoJUnit.rule();3 public void should_keep_same_instance_if_field_initialized() {4 list.add( "one" );5 list.add( "two" );6 verify(list).add( "one" );7 verify(list).add( "two" );8}
Design Patterns for Data Access Layer
mockito test gives no such method error when run as junit test but when jars are added manually in run confugurations, it runs well
Junit for Spring Cache Manager
Comparison between Mockito vs JMockit - why is Mockito voted better than JMockit?
PowerMock Mockito [PowerMockito] @PrepareForTest -> java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: javassist/NotFoundException
Mockito ambiguous method call
How to expect requestTo by String pattern in MockRestServiceServer?
Mockito spy method not working
How to mock private method for testing using PowerMock?
How to mock ResourceBundle.getString()?
Well, the common approach to data storage in Java is, as you noted, not at all very object-oriented. This is in and of itself neither bad nor good: "object-orientedness" is neither an advantage nor disadvantage, it's just one of many paradigms, that sometimes helps with good architecture design (and sometimes not).
The reason DAOs in Java aren't usually object-oriented is exactly what you want to achieve – relaxing your dependency on the database. In a better-designed language, that allowed for multiple inheritances, this, of course, can be done very elegantly in an object-oriented way, but with Java, it just seems to be more troublesome than it is worth.
In a broader sense, the non-OO approach helps decouple your application-level data from the way it is stored. This is more than (non-)dependency on the specifics of a particular database, but also the storage schemas, which is especially important when using relational databases (don't get me started on ORM): you can have a well-designed relational schema seamlessly translated into the application OO model by your DAO.
So, what most DAOs are in Java nowadays are essentially what you mentioned in the beginning – classes, full of static methods. One difference is that, instead of making all the methods static, it is better to have a single static "factory method" (probably, in a different class), that returns a (singleton) instance of your DAO, which implements a particular interface, used by application code to access the database:
public interface GreatDAO {
User getUser(int id);
void saveUser(User u);
}
public class TheGreatestDAO implements GreatDAO {
protected TheGreatestDAO() {}
...
}
public class GreatDAOFactory {
private static GreatDAO dao = null;
protected static synchronized GreatDao setDAO(final GreatDAO d) {
final GreatDAO old = dao;
dao = d;
return old;
}
public static synchronized GreatDAO getDAO() {
return dao == null ? dao = new TheGreatestDAO() : dao;
}
}
public class App {
void setUserName(final int id, final String name) {
final GreatDAO dao = GreatDAOFactory.getDao();
final User u = dao.getUser(id);
u.setName(name);
dao.saveUser(u);
}
}
Why do it this way as opposed to static methods? Well, what if you do decide to switch to a different database? Naturally, you'd create a new DAO class, implementing the logic for your new storage. If you were using static methods, you would now have to go through all your code, accessing the DAO, and change it to use your new class, right? This could be a huge pain. And what if then you change your mind and want to switch back to the old DB?
With this approach, all you need to do is to change the GreatDAOFactory.getDAO()
and make it create an instance of a different class, and all your application code will be using the new database without any changes.
In real life, this is often done without any changes to the code at all: the factory method gets the implementation class name via a property setting, and instantiates it using reflection, so, all you need to do to switch implementations is to edit a property file. There are actually frameworks – like spring
or guice
– that manage this "dependency injection" mechanism for you, but I won't go into details, first, because it is really beyond the scope of your question, and also, because I am not necessarily convinced that the benefit you get from using those frameworks is worth the trouble integrating with them for most applications.
Another (probably, more likely to be taken advantage of) benefit of this "factory approach" as opposed to "static" is testability. Imagine that you are writing a unit test that should test the logic of your App
class independently of any underlying DAO. You don't want it to use any real underlying storage for several reasons (speed, having to set it up, and clean up afterwards, possible collisions with other tests, the possibility of polluting test results with problems in DAO, unrelated to App
, which is actually being tested, etc.).
To do this, you want a test framework, like Mockito
, that allows you to "mock out" the functionality of any object or method, replacing it with a "dummy" object, with predefined behavior (I'll skip the details, because, this again is beyond the scope). So, you can create this dummy object replacing your DAO, and make the GreatDAOFactory
return your dummy instead of the real thing by calling GreatDAOFactory.setDAO(dao)
before the test (and restoring it after). If you were using static methods instead of the instance class, this would not be possible.
One more benefit, which is kinda similar to switching databases I described above is "pimping up" your DAO with additional functionality. Suppose that your application becomes slower as the amount of data in the database grows, and you decide that you need a cache layer. Implement a wrapper class, that uses the real DAO instance (provided to it as a constructor parameter) to access the database, and caches the objects it reads in memory so that they can be returned faster. You can then make your GreatDAOFactory.getDAO
instantiate this wrapper, for the application to take advantage of it.
(This is called "delegation pattern" … and seems like a pain in the butt, especially when you have lots of methods defined in your DAO: you will have to implement all of them in the wrapper, even to alter behavior of just one. Alternatively, you could simply subclass your DAO, and add caching to it this way. This would be a lot less boring coding upfront, but may become problematic when you do decide to change the database, or, worse, to have an option of switching implementations back and forth.)
One equally broadly used (but, in my opinion, inferior) alternative to the "factory" method is making the dao
a member variable in all classes that need it:
public class App {
GreatDao dao;
public App(final GreatDao d) { dao = d; }
}
This way, the code that instantiates these classes needs to instantiate the DAO object (which could still use the factory) and provide it as a constructor parameter. The dependency injection frameworks I mentioned above, usually do something similar to this.
This provides all the benefits of the "factory method" approach, that I described earlier, but, as I said, is not as good in my opinion. The disadvantages here are having to write a constructor for each of your app classes, doing the same exact thing over, and over, also not being able to instantiate the classes easily when needed, and some lost readability: with a large enough code base, a reader of your code, not familiar with it, will have hard time understanding which actual implementation of the DAO is used, how it is instantiated, whether it is a singleton, a thread-safe implementation, whether it keeps state, or caches anything, how the decisions on choosing a particular implementation are made etc.
Check out the latest blogs from LambdaTest on this topic:
Agile has unquestionable benefits. The mainstream method has assisted numerous businesses in increasing organizational flexibility as a result, developing better, more intuitive software. Distributed development is also an important strategy for software companies. It gives access to global talent, the use of offshore outsourcing to reduce operating costs, and round-the-clock development.
Desired Capabilities is a class used to declare a set of basic requirements such as combinations of browsers, operating systems, browser versions, etc. to perform automated cross browser testing of a web application.
Pair testing can help you complete your testing tasks faster and with higher quality. But who can do pair testing, and when should it be done? And what form of pair testing is best for your circumstance? Check out this blog for more information on how to conduct pair testing to optimize its benefits.
In general, software testers have a challenging job. Software testing is frequently the final significant activity undertaken prior to actually delivering a product. Since the terms “software” and “late” are nearly synonymous, it is the testers that frequently catch the ire of the whole business as they try to test the software at the end. It is the testers who are under pressure to finish faster and deem the product “release candidate” before they have had enough opportunity to be comfortable. To make matters worse, if bugs are discovered in the product after it has been released, everyone looks to the testers and says, “Why didn’t you spot those bugs?” The testers did not cause the bugs, but they must bear some of the guilt for the bugs that were disclosed.
Learn to execute automation testing from scratch with LambdaTest Learning Hub. Right from setting up the prerequisites to run your first automation test, to following best practices and diving deeper into advanced test scenarios. LambdaTest Learning Hubs compile a list of step-by-step guides to help you be proficient with different test automation frameworks i.e. Selenium, Cypress, TestNG etc.
You could also refer to video tutorials over LambdaTest YouTube channel to get step by step demonstration from industry experts.