Hello i have problem with my test.
I'm trying to test UserFactory which is creating UserObject by UserDto data.
I dont know how to test it because factory need PasswordEncoder in dependencies.
use App\Entity\User;
use App\Service\Factory\UserFactory;
use PHPUnit\Framework\MockObject\MockObject as MockObject;
use PHPUnit\Framework\TestCase;
class UserFactoryTest extends TestCase
{
/**
* #covers UserFactory
*/
public function testShouldCreateUserObjectFromUserDto()
{
//Given
/**
* #var UserDto | MockObject
*/
$userDto = $this->getMockBuilder(UserDto::class);
//When
$userFactory = new UserFactory(/* PASSWORD ENCODER */);
$user = $userFactory->create($userDto);
//Then
$this->assertInstanceOf(User::class, $user);
}
}
namespace App\Service\Factory;
use App\Entity\User;
use Symfony\Component\Security\Core\Encoder\UserPasswordEncoderInterface;
class UserFactory
{
/**
* #var UserPasswordEncoderInterface
*/
private $encoder;
public function __construct(UserPasswordEncoderInterface $encoder)
{
$this->encoder = $encoder;
}
public function create(UserDto $dto)
{
$user = new User();
$user->setPassword($this->encoder->encodePassword($dto->plainPassword));
/**
* CODE..
*/
return $user;
}
}
Is this right? how can i test this factory which have dependencies?
i cant user __construct in my TestClass
(Hint: apparently you're using the UserPasswordEncoderInterface wrong, because it's not a PasswordEncoderInterface - the former additionally expects the User as a param, while the latter does not, which I just learned today, you might want to fix that)
In general, you have to provide all dependencies for the class to be tested. There are different approaches, essentially: Implementing a reduced version of the interface (if it's an interface), actually finding the dependency and instantiate it or use a mock and tell it what will happen to it. The latter can be done if you generally know what happens with the dependency (non-blackbox testing).
So, you could just mock the interface with some well defined behavior:
//$upe = $this->getMockBuilder(\Symfony\Component\Security\Core\Encoder\UserPasswordEncoderInterface::class)->getMock();
$upe = $this->getMockBuilder(\Symfony\Component\Security\Core\Encoder\PasswordEncoderInterface::class)->getMock();
$upe->expects($this->any())
->method('encodePassword')
// omit following line, if you don't want to check for param
->with($this->equalTo('plainPassword'))
->willReturn('encodedPassword');
and then provide that mock to your userfactory:
$userfactory = new UserFactory($upe);
this is somewhat dependant on the implementation of UserFactory though, expecting it to essentially be called in the specified way and which will return the same string always. (You can go deeper into mocking and/or implement the interface yourself to have more control)
Related
The Symfony docs shows a solution, but it doesn't appear to work (i.e. Doctrine\Bundle\FixturesBundle\Purger\PurgerFactory needs to be replaced with Doctrine\Bundle\FixturesBundle\Purger\ORMPurgerFactory, and other changes). I modified the code as shown below, but am pretty certain I am not doing it correctly.
<?php
declare(strict_types=1);
namespace App\DataFixtures\Purger;
use Doctrine\Bundle\FixturesBundle\Purger\PurgerFactory;
use Doctrine\Common\DataFixtures\Purger\PurgerInterface;
use Doctrine\ORM\EntityManagerInterface;
use Doctrine\Bundle\FixturesBundle\Purger\ORMPurgerFactory;
class CustomPurgerFactory implements PurgerFactory
{
public function __construct(private ORMPurgerFactory $purgeFactory)
{
}
public function createForEntityManager(?string $emName, EntityManagerInterface $em, array $excluded = [], bool $purgeWithTruncate = false) : PurgerInterface
{
// Change $excluded, $purgeWithTruncate as desired.
return new CustomPurger($emName, $em, $excluded, $purgeWithTruncate, $this->purgeFactory);
}
}
<?php
declare(strict_types=1);
namespace App\DataFixtures\Purger;
use Doctrine\Common\DataFixtures\Purger\PurgerInterface;
use Doctrine\Common\DataFixtures\Purger\ORMPurgerInterface;
use Doctrine\ORM\EntityManagerInterface;
use Doctrine\Bundle\FixturesBundle\Purger\ORMPurgerFactory;
class CustomPurger implements ORMPurgerInterface
{
public function __construct(private ?string $emName, private EntityManagerInterface $entityManager, private array $excluded, private bool $purgeWithTruncate, private ORMPurgerFactory $purgeFactory)
{
}
public function setEntityManager(EntityManagerInterface $entityManager):void
{
// Seems rather redundent doing this even though I earlier inject $entityManager.
$this->entityManager = $entityManager;
}
public function purge() : void
{
// Delete any tables which must be deleted first to prevent FK constraint errors.
// This doesn't seem write.
$purger = $this->purgeFactory->createForEntityManager($this->emName, $this->entityManager, $this->excluded, $this->purgeWithTruncate);
$purger->purge();
}
}
services:
App\DataFixtures\Purger\DoctrinePurgerFactory:
tags:
- { name: 'doctrine.fixtures.purger_factory', alias: 'my_purger' }
arguments:
- '#doctrine.fixtures.purger.orm_purger_factory'
Or should it be done by decorating the default purger as suggested by this post?
Okay. So you do have a few things wrong and the docs are somewhat out of date. From a big picture point of view you want something like:
bin/console doctrine:fixtures:load --purger=my_purger
to use your custom purger factory (aliased as my_purger) to instantiate and execute your custom purger's purge method. The job of the factory is to just create the purger not to execute it.
I followed the docs and implemented PurgerInterface but the purge command complained about it not implementing ORMPurgerInterface which, as you noted, adds a seemingly superfluous method. I think it is still a work in progress. The default ORMPurger has a couple of additional public methods not defined in any interface which is also strange. The fact that Doctrine is inconsistent with it's usage of the Interface suffix does not help. But it is what it is.
This works under 6.1:
# CustomPurger.php
use Doctrine\Common\DataFixtures\Purger\ORMPurgerInterface;
use Doctrine\ORM\EntityManagerInterface;
class CustomPurger implements ORMPurgerInterface
{
private EntityManagerInterface $em;
public function setEntityManager(EntityManagerInterface $em) : void
{
$this->em = $em;
}
public function purge() : void
{
dd(' my purger');
}
}
# CustomPurgerFactory.php
use Doctrine\Bundle\FixturesBundle\Purger\PurgerFactory;
use Doctrine\Common\DataFixtures\Purger\PurgerInterface;
use Doctrine\ORM\EntityManagerInterface;
class CustomPurgerFactory implements PurgerFactory
{
public function createForEntityManager(?string $emName, EntityManagerInterface $em, array $excluded = [], bool $purgeWithTruncate = false) : PurgerInterface
{
return new CustomPurger($em);
}
}
# services.yaml
App\Purger\CustomPurgerFactory:
tags:
- { name: 'doctrine.fixtures.purger_factory', alias: 'my_purger' }
bin/console doctrine:fixtures:load --purger=my_purger
> purging database
^ " my purger"
As far as decorating goes, you decorate a service when you want to modify some methods without extending the original class. There is only one method here and it's quite a doozy so I don't think decorating will help.
If you wanted to always use your purger without the --purger option then you could probably point the default purger factory service id to your factory. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.
One final note: I took a look at your decorating link. Don't know what they were trying to do but I do know it has nothing to do with decorating.
I have a factory class that creates different objects and I have a lot of loggers defined for each type of object.
And I want to get all loggers collection in my factory. Before I just used a ContainerInterface in my factory constructor, but since Symfony 5.1 container autowiring is deprecated.
Now I can not find a way to get a collection of loggers. I tried to use
!tagged_iterator { tag: 'monolog.logger' }
and also tried to set a tag for LoggerInterface and get a tagged_iterator for it, but it didn't work. I suggest that it is because loggers are not real classes.
This might be overkill but as you say the logger services are a bit unusual. Seems like they should be tagged or be taggable by LoggerInterface but I ran some test and could not get it to work. Here is a brute force approach which relies on logger services having ids of monolog.logger.name:
# Start with a service locator class
namespace App\Service;
use Psr\Log\LoggerInterface;
use Symfony\Component\DependencyInjection\ServiceLocator;
class LoggerLocator extends ServiceLocator
{
// Just to specify the return type to keep IDEs happy
public function get($id) : LoggerInterface
{
return parent::get($id);
}
}
...
# now make the kernel into a compiler pass
# src/Kernel.php
class Kernel extends BaseKernel implements CompilerPassInterface
...
public function process(ContainerBuilder $container)
{
$loggerServices = [];
foreach($container->getServiceIds() as $id) {
if (!strncmp($id,'monolog.logger.',15)) {
//echo 'Logger ' . $id . "\n";
$loggerServices[$id] = new Reference($id);
}
}
$loggerLocator = $container->getDefinition(LoggerLocator::class);
$loggerLocator->setArguments([$loggerServices]);
}
# and now we can inject the locator where it is needed
class SomeController {
public function index(Request $request, LoggerLocator $loggerLocator)
{
dump($loggerLocator);
$logger = $loggerLocator->get('monolog.logger.' . $name);
Seems like there should be a way to do this just through configuring but a pass is easy enough I guess.
I have a Doctrine repository class that can be used to persist a User, I don't want to check if the entity was really persisted or not, I just want to know what to do in this situation:
It's easy to test a repository method that has a return value. But in this case, I have nothing to do, and I'd like to cover 100% of the code, without making unsafe code that can break like use #addToAssertionCount.
<?php
namespace Domain\Repository;
use DateTime;
use Domain\Entity\User;
use Domain\Repository\Interfaces\UserRepositoryInterface;
class UserRepository extends Repository implements UserRepositoryInterface
{
public function create(User $user): void
{
$user->setCreatedAt(new DateTime('now'));
$this->getEntityManager()->persist($user);
}
}
And a testing class for it:
<?php
namespace Domain\Repository;
use Doctrine\ORM\EntityManager;
use Domain\Entity\User;
use PHPUnit\Framework\TestCase;
class UserRepositoryTest extends TestCase
{
private UserRepository $sut;
public function setUp(): void
{
$entity_manager = $this->createMock(EntityManager::class);
$this->sut = new UserRepository($entity_manager);
}
public function test_assert_create(): void
{
$user = $this->createMock(User::class);
$this->sut->create($user);
// What to assert??
}
}
At this point, I don't know even what to assert, once the persist() method returns void, which I can't mock.
Focusing on 100% code coverage is not a good idea and encourages writing tests that have little to no value. What does that mean? The create method has two side effects: It changes the users creation date and persists it. You could test it like this:
final class UserRepositoryTest extends TestCase
{
/**
* #var EntityManager&MockObject
*/
private EntityManager $entityManager;
private UserRepository $sut;
public function setUp(): void
{
$this->entityManager = $this->createMock(EntityManager::class);
$this->sut = new UserRepository($this->entityManager);
}
public function test_create_should_persist_entity(): void
{
$user = new User();
$user->setCreatedAt(new DateTime('2000-01-01 12:15:30'));
// validate that persist call was made
$this->entityManager->expects(self::once())
->method('persist')
->with($user);
$this->sut->create($user);
// validate that creation date was set
self::assertEqualsWithDelta(new DateTime('now'), $user->getCreatedAt(), 3);
}
}
You could go even one step further and verify that the creation date was set before the persist call was made by using the callback constraint. But then, you're pretty much checking the implementation line by line in your test. That's how people end with tests that break all the time.
So, what to do instead? Focus on the purpose of the user repository: If you put something in, you should be able to get it out. This, however, requires that you use an actual entity manager. But you wrote, that you don't want to check that the entity was actually persisted. In that case, I would rather write no tests than the example I gave above.
I appear to be having issues with my spec tests when it comes to stubs that are calling other methods.
I've been following Laracasts 'hexagonal' approach for my controller to ensure it is only responsible for the HTTP layer.
Controller
<?php
use Apes\Utilities\Connect;
use \OAuth;
class FacebookConnectController extends \BaseController {
/**
* #var $connect
*/
protected $connect;
/**
* Instantiates $connect
*
* #param $connect
*/
function __construct()
{
$this->connect = new Connect($this, OAuth::consumer('Facebook'));
}
/**
* Login user with facebook
*
* #return void
*/
public function initialise() {
// TODO: Actually probably not needed as we'll control
// whether this controller is called via a filter or similar
if(Auth::user()) return Redirect::to('/');
return $this->connect->loginOrCreate(Input::all());
}
/**
* User authenticated, return to main game view
* #return Response
*/
public function facebookConnectSucceeds()
{
return Redirect::to('/');
}
}
So when the route is initialised I construct a new Connect instance and I pass an instance of $this class to my Connect class (to act as a listener) and call the loginOrCreate method.
Apes\Utilities\Connect
<?php
namespace Apes\Utilities;
use Apes\Creators\Account;
use Illuminate\Database\Eloquent\Model;
use \User;
use \Auth;
use \Carbon\Carbon as Carbon;
class Connect
{
/**
* #var $facebookConnect
*/
protected $facebookConnect;
/**
* #var $account
*/
protected $account;
/**
* #var $facebookAuthorizationUri
*/
// protected $facebookAuthorizationUri;
/**
* #var $listener
*/
protected $listener;
public function __construct($listener, $facebookConnect)
{
$this->listener = $listener;
$this->facebookConnect = $facebookConnect;
$this->account = new Account();
}
public function loginOrCreate($input)
{
// Not the focus of this test
if(!isset($input['code'])){
return $this->handleOtherRequests($input);
}
// Trying to stub this method is my main issue
$facebookUserData = $this->getFacebookUserData($input['code']);
$user = User::where('email', '=', $facebookUserData->email)->first();
if(!$user){
// Not the focus of this test
$user = $this->createAccount($facebookUserData);
}
Auth::login($user, true);
// I want to test that this method is called
return $this->listener->facebookConnectSucceeds();
}
public function getFacebookUserData($code)
{
// I can't seem to stub this method because it's making another method call
$token = $this->facebookConnect->requestAccessToken($code);
return (object) json_decode($this->facebookConnect->request( '/me' ), true);
}
// Various other methods not relevant to this question
I've tried to trim this down to focus on the methods under test and my understanding thus far as to what is going wrong.
Connect Spec
<?php
namespace spec\Apes\Utilities;
use PhpSpec\ObjectBehavior;
use Prophecy\Argument;
use \Illuminate\Routing\Controllers\Controller;
use \OAuth;
use \Apes\Creators\Account;
class ConnectSpec extends ObjectBehavior
{
function let(\FacebookConnectController $listener, \OAuth $facebookConnect, \Apes\Creators\Account $account)
{
$this->beConstructedWith($listener, $facebookConnect, $account);
}
function it_should_login_the_user($listener)
{
$input = ['code' => 'afacebooktoken'];
$returnCurrentUser = (object) [
'email' => 'existinguser#domain.tld',
];
$this->getFacebookUserData($input)->willReturn($returnCurrentUser);
$listener->facebookConnectSucceeds()->shouldBeCalled();
$this->loginOrCreate($input);
}
So here's the spec that I'm having issues with. First I pretend that I've got a facebook token already. Then, where things are failing, is that I need to fudge that the getFacebookUserData method will return a sample user that exists in my users table.
However when I run the test I get:
Apes/Utilities/Connect
37 ! it should login the user
method `Double\Artdarek\OAuth\Facade\OAuth\P13::requestAccessToken()` not found.
I had hoped that 'willReturn' would just ignore whatever was happening in the getFacebookUserData method as I'm testing that separately, but it seems not.
Any recommendations on what I should be doing?
Do I need to pull all of the OAuth class methods into their own class or something? It seems strange to me that I might need to do that considering OAuth is already its own class. Is there some way to stub the method in getFacebookUserData?
Update 1
So I tried stubbing the method that's being called inside getFacebookUserData and my updated spec looks like this:
function it_should_login_the_user($listener, $facebookConnect)
{
$returnCurrentUser = (object) [
'email' => 'existinguser#domain.tld',
];
$input = ['code' => 'afacebooktoken'];
// Try stubbing any methods that are called in getFacebookUserData
$facebookConnect->requestAccessToken($input)->willReturn('alongstring');
$facebookConnect->request($input)->willReturn($returnCurrentUser);
$this->getFacebookUserData($input)->willReturn($returnCurrentUser);
$listener->facebookConnectSucceeds()->shouldBeCalled();
$this->loginOrCreate($input);
}
The spec still fails but the error has changed:
Apes/Utilities/Connect
37 ! it should login the user
method `Double\Artdarek\OAuth\Facade\OAuth\P13::requestAccessToken()` is not defined.
Interestingly if I place these new stubs after the $this->getFacebookUserData stub then the error is 'not found' instead of 'not defined'. Clearly I don't fully understand the inner workings at hand :D
Not everything, called methods in your dependencies have to be mocked, because they will in fact be called while testing your classes:
...
$facebookConnect->requestAccessToken($input)->willReturn(<whatever it should return>);
$this->getFacebookUserData($input)->willReturn($returnCurrentUser);
...
If you don't mock them, phpspec will raise a not found.
I'm not familiar with the classes involved but that error implies there is not method Oauth:: requestAccessToken().
Prophecy will not let you stub non-existent methods.
I like and use the Yii framework, particularly its "components", which are lazily-instantiated and you can swap them in or out in your configuration file. Kind of like a dependency injection-lite.
I try to keep the business logic of my code completely independent of the Framework, in case I ever want to repurpose that code, or even change frameworks.
Let's say I have a class in my service layer called AccountService, which implements IAccountService and has a one-argument constructor.
interface IAccountService
{
function getUserById($id);
}
class AccountService implements IAccountService
{
private $_userRepository;
public function __construct(IUserRepository $userRepository) {
$this->_userRepository = $userRepository;
}
public function getUserById($id) {
return $this->_userRepository->getById($id);
}
}
Great. So far, it's totally framework-free. Now I'd like to expose this as a Yii component, so it can be lazily-instantiated and easily used by Yii controllers and other Yii components.
But Yii components (which implement IApplicationComponent) must have exactly zero constructor arguments, while my class requires one!
Any ideas?
Here's what I've got. I'm not really happy with any of them; they both look over-engineered and I'm detecting a distinct smell from them.
Option 1 - compose: I create a class called "AccountServiceComponent" which implements Yii's IApplicationComponent. It cannot extend my AccountService class, because of the constructor, but it could instantiate one as a private member and wrap all of its methods, like so:
class AccountServiceComponent implements IApplicationComponent, IAccountservice
{
private $_accountService;
public __construct() {
$this->_accountService = new AccountService(new UserRepository());
}
public getUserById($id) {
return $this->_accountService->getUserById($id);
}
}
Cons: I'll have to wrap every method like that, which is tedious and could lead to "baklava code." Especially considering that there'll be multiple service classes, each with multiple methods.
Option 2 - mixin: (Or behavior or trait or whatever it's called these days.)
Yii (having been written prior to PHP 5.4) offers "behaviors" in the form of a class which implements IBehavior. I could create a behavior class which extends my service, and attach it to a component:
class AccountServicesBehavior extends AccountService implements IBehavior
{
// Implement the few required methods here
}
class AccountServiceComponent implements IApplicationComponent
{
public function __construct() {
$accountService = new AccountService(new UserRepository());
$this->attachBehavior($accountService);
}
Cons: My component no longer officially implements IAccountService. Also seems to be getting excessive with the layering.
Option 3 - optional constructor parameters:
I could just make the constructor parameter to my service class optional, and then extend it into a component:
class AccountService implements IAccountService
{
public $userRepository;
public function __construct(IUserRepository $userRepository = null) {
$this->userRepository = $userRepository;
}
public function getUserById($id) {
return $this->_userRepository->getById($id);
}
}
class AccountServiceComponent extends AccountService implements IApplicationComponent
{
}
Cons: The optional constructor parameter means this class coudld now be instantiated without supplying it with everything it needs.
...so, any other options I'm missing? Or am I just going to have to choose the one that disturbs me the least?
Option 3 but with an object as the optional argument sounds best imo:
public function __construct(IUserRepository $userRepository = new UserRepository()) {
$this->userRepository = $userRepository;
}