We have some legacy laravel projects which use facades in the classes.
use Cache;
LegacyClass
{
public function cacheFunctionOne()
{
$result = Cache::someFunction('parameter');
// logic to manipulate result
return $result;
}
public function cacheFunctionTwo()
{
$result = Cache::someFunction('parameter');
// different logic to manipulate result
return $result;
}
}
Our more recent projects use dependency injection of the underlying laravel classes that the facades represent as has been hinted at by Taylor Otwell himself. (We use constructor injection for each class, but to keep the example short, here I use method injection and use a single class.)
use Illuminate\Cache\Repository as Cache;
ModernClass
{
public function cacheFunctionOne(Cache $cache)
{
$result = $cache->someFunction('parameter');
// logic to manipulate result
return $result;
}
public function cacheFunctionTwo(Cache $cache)
{
$result = $cache->someFunction('parameter');
// different logic to manipulate result
return $result;
}
}
I know facades can be mocked
public function testExample()
{
Cache::shouldReceive('get')
->once()
->with('key')
->andReturn('value');
$this->visit('/users')->see('value');
}
Which works nicely for unit tests. The problem I am trying to understand is if these facades are mocked 'globally'.
For example, lets imagine I am writing an integration test (testing a few interconnected classes while mocking services - not an end to end test using live services) which at some point, executes two separate classes which contain the same facade that calls the same method with the same parameters.
In between these classes being called, is some complex functionality that changes what data is returned by that facades method using the same parameter.*
$modernClass->cacheFunctionOne($cache); // easily mocked
// logic that changes data returned by laravel Cache object function 'someFunction'
$modernClass->cacheFunctionTwo($cache); // easily mocked with a different mock
Our modern classes are easy to test because the underlying class that the facade represents is injected into each class (in this example, each method). This means I can create two separate mocks and inject them into each class (method) to mock the different results.
$legacyClass->cacheFunctionOne();
// logic that changes data returned by laravel Cache object function 'someFunction'
$legacyClass->cacheFunctionTwo();
In the legacy systems though, it would seem that the mocked facade is 'global' so that when the facade is run in each class, the exact same value is returned.
Am I correct in thinking this?
*I understand this example may seem completely redundant from a code architecture and testing point of view, but I am stripping out all real functionality to try and give some sort of 'simple' example of what I am asking.
Dependency Injection vs Facades
One of the major benefits of Dependency Injection is that code becomes a lot more testable once you start injecting dependencies into methods instead of instantiating/hardcoding them inside the method. This is because you can pass in the dependencies from inside unit tests and they will propagate through the code.
See: http://slashnode.com/dependency-injection/
Dependency Injection stands in stark contrast to Facades. Facades are static global classes, the PHP language does not allow one to overwrite or replace static functions on static classes. The Laravel facades use Mockery to provide mock functionality and they are limited by the same facts as above.
The issue for integration testing can come where you are hoping to retrieve data from a non-mocked Cache but once you use Facade::shouldReceive() then Facade::get() will be overridden by the mocked Cache. The reverse is also true. As a result, Facades are inappropriate where you are interleaving calls for mocked and unmocked data.
In order to test your code with the different data sets that you require, the best practice would be to refactor your legacy code to use DI.
Integration Tests
Easier method
An alternative is to call multiple Facade::shouldReceive() with expectations at the beginning of your integration test. Ensuring that you have the right numbers of expectations in the right order for each of the calls you will make in the integration test. This would probably be the faster way to write tests given your existing codebase.
Harder method
Whilst dependency injection is programming best practice. It could very well be that your codebase has so many legacy classes that it would take an unbelievable amount of time to refactor. In this case, it might be worthwhile considering end-to-end integration tests using a test database with fixtures.
Appendix:
For how mockery is called by Facade see - function createMockByName(): https://github.com/laravel/framework/blob/5.3/src/Illuminate/Support/Facades/Facade.php
For examples on chaining mockery calls see fhinkel commented on Feb 6, 2015: https://github.com/padraic/mockery/issues/401
Related
I recently tried to improve my unit testing skills and read quite some literature about unit testing and I am also trying to realize what I learned in a php-project I am currently developing with phpunit. But I still have a in my opinion very fundamental question how to unit test methods which interact with objects of other classes or even with other methods of the same class.
Is there some rule of thumb or some help how I can decide what dependencies I should stub/mock and for what dependencies I should simply use a normal object? To clarify my question, here is an example code, with different scenarios:
interface DependencyInterface {
public method dependentMethod() { ... }
}
class Dependency implements DependencyInterface {...}
class ClassUnderTest {
private $dependency
public __construct(DependencyInterface $dependency) {
$this->dependency = dependency;
}
public function methodUnderTest() {
...
$result1 = $this->dependency->dependentMethod();
...
$result2 = $this->otherMethod();
...
$result3 = $this->usedInMultiplePublicMethods();
}
public function otherMethod() {...}
private function usedInMultiplePublicMethods() {...}
}
So my questions are now for a unit test which tests the functionality of the method methodUnderTest, should I:
stub the interface DependencyInterface and inject it in the constructor, or should I simply use an instance of the implementation Dependency?
partially stub the class ClassUnderTest itself to deliver a fixed result for otherMethod, since this maybe very complex method has already its own complete unit tests?
I decided to not unit tests private methods, since they are not part of the interface of the class (I know this is a controversial topic and is not the scope of my question). Do I have now to cover for each public method which uses the private method usedInMultiplePublicMethods all possible effects which may occur in the private method? Or should I only test all possible effects in one of the public methods which uses it and stub the private method in the tests for all other public methods?
I am quite not sure about when to use stubbing/mocking and when not.
The why of mocking is to be able to write unit test that means a test which is: fast, isolated, repeatable, self validating and Thorough and Timely (F.I.R.S.T)
To be able to test a unit/module in isolation you may need to mock/stub any external module (database access, api call, logging system...).
For your points 1 & 2 , rad's answer points to main underlying principles to keep in mind e.g. if you are going to test a logic which is using a database service to fetch data and then doing computations on fetched data, would you mock that database service or use real database service ?
As is clear from objective - you are unit testing logic itself and not database service data fetch so you would mock database service and would assume that database service is giving correct data & you would simply focus on testing logic on computed data. You will have separate tests for database fetching service and that isolation property is all about.
The word unit is significant in that sense that your these tests should be very focused on current logic only by limiting your scope & by not cluttering everything else into it.
This answer is mainly for your points # 3. Its OK to not explicitly test private methods but if you go by basic purpose of unit tests - you wouldn't be much worried about something being private or public. Somewhere down the line, unit testing is for developer self satisfaction too & it would simply make your code more robust if unit tests are written for private methods too.
Just because access level is private doesn't change the basic concept that its a piece of logic that needs testing. Code coverage wise , you might be OK from one public method but I am of view that you should treat calls from different public methods as distinct.
Never forget the basic purpose of unit tests - that you are trying to find errors in your logic, trying to cover all boundary cases & trying to make your code more robust.
I have read a number of sources that hint that laravel facade's ultimately exist for convenience and that these classes should instead be injected to allow loose coupling. Even Taylor Otwell has a post explaining how to do this. It seems I am not the only one to wonder this.
use Redirect;
class Example class
{
public function example()
{
return Redirect::route("route.name");
}
}
would become
use Illuminate\Routing\Redirector as Redirect;
class Example class
{
protected $redirect;
public function __constructor(Redirect $redirect)
{
$this->redirect = $redirect
}
public function example()
{
return $this->redirect->route("route.name");
}
}
This is fine except that I am starting to find that some constructors and methods are beginning to take four+ parameters.
Since the Laravel IoC seems to only inject into class constructors and certain methods (controllers), even when I have fairly lean functions and classes, I am finding that constructors of the classes are becoming packed out with the needed classes that then get injected into the needed methods.
Now I am finding that if I continue down this approach that I will need my own IoC container, which feels like reinventing the wheel if I am using a framework like laravel?
For example I use services to control the business / view logic rather than controllers dealing with them - they simply route the views. So a controller will first take its corresponding service, then then the parameter in its url. One service function also needs to check the values from a form, so then I need Request and Validator. Just like that, I have four parameters.
// MyServiceInterface is binded using the laravel container
use Interfaces\MyServiceInterface;
use Illuminate\Http\Request;
use Illuminate\Validation\Factory as Validator;
...
public function exampleController(MyServiceInterface $my_service, Request $request, Validator $validator, $user_id)
{
// Call some method in the service to do complex validation
$validation = $my_service->doValidation($request, $validator);
// Also return the view information
$viewinfo = $my_service->getViewInfo($user_id);
if ($validation === 'ok') {
return view("some_view", ['view_info'=>$viewinfo]);
} else {
return view("another_view", ['view_info'=>$viewinfo]);
}
}
This is a single example. In reality, many of my constructors already have multiple classes being injected (Models, Services, Parameters, Facades). I have started to 'offload' the constructor injection (when applicable) to method injection, and have the classes calling those methods use their constructors to inject dependencies instead.
I have been told that more than four parameters for a method or class constructor as a rule of thumb is bad practice / code smell. However I cannot see how you can really avoid this if you choose the path of injecting laravel facades.
Have I got this idea wrong? Are my classes / functions not lean enough? Am I missing the point of laravels container or do I really need to think of creating my own IoC container? Some others answers seems to hint at the laravel container being able to eliminate my issue?
That said, there doesn't seem to be a definitive consensus on the issue...
This is one of the benefits of constructor injection - it becomes obvious when you class is doing to much, because the constructor parameters grow too large.
1st thing to do is split up controllers that have too many responsibilities.
Say you have a page controller:
Class PageController
{
public function __construct(
Request $request,
ClientRepositoryInterface $clientrepo,
StaffRepositortInterface $staffRepo
)
{
$this->clientRepository = $clientRepo;
//etc etc
}
public function aboutAction()
{
$teamMembers = $this->staffRepository->getAll();
//render view
}
public function allClientsAction()
{
$clients = $this->clientRepository->getAll();
//render view
}
public function addClientAction(Request $request, Validator $validator)
{
$this->clientRepository->createFromArray($request->all() $validator);
//do stuff
}
}
This is a prime candidate for splitting into two controllers, ClientController and AboutController.
Once you have done that, if you still have too many* dependencies, its time to look for what i will call indirect dependancies (because i cant think of the proper name for them!) - dependencies that are not directly used by the dependant class, but instead passed on to another dependency.
An example of this is addClientAction - it requires a request and a validator, just to pass them to the clientRepostory.
We can re factor by creating a new class specifically for creating clients from requests, thus reducing our dependencies, and simplifying both the controller and the repository:
//think of a better name!
Class ClientCreator
{
public function __construct(Request $request, validator $validator){}
public function getClient(){}
public function isValid(){}
public function getErrors(){}
}
Our method now becomes:
public function addClientAction(ClientCreator $creator)
{
if($creator->isValid()){
$this->clientRepository->add($creator->getClient());
}else{
//handle errors
}
}
There is no hard and fast rule as to what number of dependencies are too many.
The good news is if you have built your app using loose-coupling, re-factoring is relatively simple.
I would much much rather see a constructor with 6 or 7 dependencies than a parameterless one and a bunch of static calls hidden throughout the methods
One issue with facades is that additional code has to be written to support them when doing automated unit testing.
As for solutions:
1. Resolving dependencies manually
One way of resolving dependencies, if you do not wish to do it via. constructors or methods injection, is to call app() directly:
/* #var $email_services App\Contracts\EmailServicesContract
$email_services = app('App\Contracts\EmailServicesContract');
2. Refactoring
Sometimes when I find myself passing too many services, or dependencies into a class, maybe I have violated the Single Responsibility Principe. In those cases, maybe a re-design is needed, by breaking the service or dependency into smaller classes. I would use another service to wrap up a related group of classes to serve something as a facade. In essence, it'll be a hierarchy of services/logic classes.
Example: I have a service that generate recommended products and send it out to users via email. I call the service WeeklyRecommendationServices, and it takes in 2 other services as dependency - a Recommendation services which is a black-box for generating the recommendations (and it has its own dependencies -- perhaps a repo for products, a helper or two), and an EmailService which maybe has Mailchimp as a dependency). Some lower-level dependencies, such as redirects, validators, etc. will be in those child services instead of the service that acts as the entry point.
3. Use Laravel global functions
Some of the Facades are available as function calls in Laravel 5. For instance, you can use redirect()->back() instead of Redirect::back(), as well as view('some_blade) instead of View::make('some_blade'). I believe it's the same for dispatch and some other commonly used facades.
(Edited to Add) 4. Using traits
As I was working on queued jobs today, I also observe that another way to inject dependencies is by using traits. For instance, the DispathcesJobs trait in Laravel has the following lines:
protected function dispatch($job)
{
return app('Illuminate\Contracts\Bus\Dispatcher')->dispatch($job);
}
Any class that uses the traits will have access to the protected method, and access to the dependency. It's neater than having many dependencies in the constructor or method signatures, is clearer (about what dependencies are involved) than globals and easier to customize than manual DI container calls. The drawback is that each time you invoke the function you have to retrieve the dependency from the DI container,
Class methods that form a part of the routing mechanism in Laravel (middleware, controllers, etc.) also have their type-hints used to inject dependencies - they don't all need to be injected in the constructor. This may help to keep your constructor slim, even though I'm not familiar with any four parameter limit rule of thumb; PSR-2 allows for the method definition to be stretched over multiple lines presumably because it's not uncommon to require more than four parameters.
In your example you could inject the Request and Validator services in the constructor as a compromise, since they're often used by more than one method.
As for establishing a consensus - Laravel would have to be more opinionated for applications to be similar enough to utilise a one-size-fits-all approach. An easier call though is that I think facades will go the way of the dodo in a future version.
Not so much an answer but some food for thought after talking to my colleagues who have made some very valid points;
If the internal structure of laravel is changed between versions (which has happened in the past apparently), injecting the resolved facade class paths would break everything on an upgrade - while using the default facades and helper methods mostly (if not completely) avoids this issue.
Although decoupling code is generally a good thing, the overhead of injecting these resolved facade class paths makes classes cluttered - For developers taking over the project, more time is spent trying to follow the code which could be spent better on fixing bugs or testing. New developers have to remember which injected classes are a developers and which are laravels. Developers unfamiliar with laravel under the hood have to spend time looking up the API. Ultimately the likelihood of introducing bugs or missing key functionality increases.
Development is slowed and testability isn't really improved since facades are already testable. Rapid development is a strong-point of using laravel in the first place. Time is always a constraint.
Most of the other projects use laravel facades. Most people with experience using laravel use facades. Creating a project that doesn't follow the existing trends of previous projects slows things down in general. Future inexperienced (or lazy!) developers may ignore facade injection and the project may end up with a mixed format. (Even code reviewers are human)
Well your thoughts and concerns and correct and I had them as well.
There are some benefits of Facades ( I generally dont use them ), but if you do use just I would suggest using them only in the controllers, as the controllers are just entry and exit points for me at least.
For the example you gave I'll show how I generally handle it:
// MyServiceInterface is binded using the laravel container
use Interfaces\MyServiceInterface;
use Illuminate\Http\Request;
use Illuminate\Validation\Factory as Validator;
...
class ExampleController {
protected $request;
public function __constructor(Request $request) {
// Do this if all/most your methods need the Request
$this->request = $request;
}
public function exampleController(MyServiceInterface $my_service, Validator $validator, $user_id)
{
// I do my validation inside the service I use,
// the controller for me is just a funnel for sending the data
// and returning response
//now I call the service, that handle the "business"
//he makes validation and fails if data is not valid
//or continues to return the result
try {
$viewinfo = $my_service->getViewInfo($user_id);
return view("some_view", ['view_info'=>$viewinfo]);
} catch (ValidationException $ex) {
return view("another_view", ['view_info'=>$viewinfo]);
}
}
}
class MyService implements MyServiceInterface {
protected $validator;
public function __constructor(Validator $validator) {
$this->validator = $validator;
}
public function getViewInfo($user_id, $data)
{
$this->validator->validate($data, $rules);
if ($this->validator->fails()) {
//this is not the exact syntax, but the idea is to throw an exception
//with the errors inside
throw new ValidationException($this->validator);
}
echo "doing stuff here with $data";
return "magic";
}
}
Just remember to break your code to small individual pieces that each one handles his own responsibility.
When you properly break your code, in most cases you will not have so many constructor parameters, and code will be easily testable and mocked.
Just one last note, if you are building a small application or even a page in a huge application for example a "contact page" and "contact page submit", you can surely do everything in the controller with facades, it simply depends on the complexity of the project.
I love the laravel due to its beautiful architecture.Now as from my approach i wouldnt inject all the facades in to the controller method only why? Injecting Redirect facades only in controller wrong practices as it might need in other. And mainly the things that are mostly used should be declared for all while for those who uses some or only then its best practice to inject them via method as when you declare at top it will hamper in your memory optimization as well as the speed of your code. Hope this would help
I have a method with some logic in it and I'm not sure how to unit test it. Because it's a unit test for this specific method it should run without connecting to the database. I read about stubs and mockups but I can't find a way to apply them to this situation.
I would like to force the Client:GetClient to return the client object with the right properties so I can test each logic branch.
class ClientType {
function GetClientType($id) {
$objClient = Client::GetClient($id);
if ($objClient->Returning == 1) {
return 'returning';
}
else {
return 'normal';
}
}
This is the test I had in mind
class ResourceTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase {
function testGetClientType() {
$objClientType = new ClientType();
$this->assertTrue($objClientType->GetClientType(100), 'normal');
}
}
The problem is the dependency $objClient = Client::GetClient($id); The GetClient will pull a client from database but I need to replace this with a Stub so the unit tests work without real access to the database.
Conclusion
If you have code like the one presented: refactor it and use Dependency Injection.
If you have legacy code or just don't want to refactor try this solution: http://sebastian-bergmann.de/archives/885-Stubbing-Hard-Coded-Dependencies.html
With PHPUnit you can do
$class = $this->getMockClass(
'Client', /* name of class to mock */
array('getClient') /* list of methods to mock */
);
$class::staticExpects($this->any())
->method('getClient')
->will($this->returnValue('foo'));
In general, you want to avoid static methods though:
http://sebastian-bergmann.de/archives/883-Stubbing-and-Mocking-Static-Methods.html
https://kore-nordmann.de/blog/0103_static_considered_harmful.html
EDIT after update
PHPUnit can also stub hardcoded dependencies. See
Stubbing Hard-Coded Dependencies by Sebastian Bergmann
However, since you already noticed by now that it is a Pain the Behind to test statics and hardcoded dependencies, I suggest you remove the hardcoded dependency and static call with a real object that you inject into your ClientType instead.
Another option would be to use http://antecedent.github.io/patchwork (not affiliated with it), which
is a PHP library that makes it possible to redefine user-defined functions and methods
at runtime, loosely replicating the functionality runkit_function_redefine in pure PHP 5.3 code,
which, among other things, enables you to replace static and private methods with test doubles.
Try Mocking for such kind of a problem. I do not know PHP, but we do mocking in Java and C# in such a scenario.
EDIT
I'm sorry I didn't see that you were facing a problem with mocks. Well usually for Mocks you tell them what you expect from them and they respond to the same. LSV principle is being used in mocks. As for PHP, I'm sorry I have no idea on what tool to use for mocks and how you use them
Reading up and picking up on unit testing, trying to make sense of the following post on that explains the hardships of static function calls.
I don't clearly understand this issue. I have always assumed static functions were a nice way of rounding up utility functions in a class. For example, I often use static functions calls to initialise, ie:
Init::loadConfig('settings.php');
Init::setErrorHandler(APP_MODE);
Init::loggingMode(APP_MODE);
// start loading app related objects ..
$app = new App();
// After reading the post, I now aim for this instead ...
$init = new Init();
$init->loadConfig('settings.php');
$init->loggingMode(APP_MODE);
// etc ...
But, the few dozen tests I had written for this class are the same. I changed nothing and they still all pass. Am I doing something wrong?
The author of the post states the following:
The basic issue with static methods is they are procedural code. I have no idea how to unit-test procedural code. Unit-testing assumes that I can instantiate a piece of my application in isolation. During the instantiation I wire the dependencies with mocks/friendlies which replace the real dependencies. With procedural programing there is nothing to “wire” since there are no objects, the code and data are separate.
Now, I understand from the post that static methods create dependencies, but don't grasp intuitively why one cannot test the return value of a static method just as easily as a regular method?
I will be avoiding static methods, but I would of liked having an idea of WHEN static methods are useful, if at all. It seems from this post static methods are just about as evil as global variables and should be avoided as much as possible.
Any additional information or links on the subject would be greatly appreciated.
Static methods themselves aren't harder to test than instance methods. The trouble arises when a method--static or otherwise--calls other static methods because you cannot isolate the method being tested. Here is a typical example method that can be difficult to test:
public function findUser($id) {
Assert::validIdentifier($id);
Log::debug("Looking for user $id"); // writes to a file
Database::connect(); // needs user, password, database info and a database
return Database::query(...); // needs a user table with data
}
What might you want to test with this method?
Passing anything other than a positive integer throws InvalidIdentifierException.
Database::query() receives the correct identifier.
A matching User is returned when found, null when not.
These requirements are simple, but you must also setup logging, connect to a database, load it with data, etc. The Database class should be solely responsible for testing that it can connect and query. The Log class should do the same for logging. findUser() should not have to deal with any of this, but it must because it depends on them.
If instead the method above made calls to instance methods on Database and Log instances, the test could pass in mock objects with scripted return values specific to the test at hand.
function testFindUserReturnsNullWhenNotFound() {
$log = $this->getMock('Log'); // ignore all logging calls
$database = $this->getMock('Database', array('connect', 'query');
$database->expects($this->once())->method('connect');
$database->expects($this->once())->method('query')
->with('<query string>', 5)
->will($this->returnValue(null));
$dao = new UserDao($log, $database);
self::assertNull($dao->findUser(5));
}
The above test will fail if findUser() neglects to call connect(), passes the wrong value for $id (5 above), or returns anything other than null. The beauty is that no database is involved, making the test quick and robust, meaning it won't fail for reasons unrelated to the test like network failure or bad sample data. It allows you to focus on what really matters: the functionality contained within findUser().
Sebastian Bergmann agrees with Misko Hevery and quotes him frequently:
Stubbing and Mocking Static Methods
Unit-Testing needs seams, seams is where we prevent the execution of normal code path and is how we achieve isolation of the class under test. Seams work through polymorphism, we override/implement class/interface and then wire the class under test differently in order to take control of the execution flow. With static methods there is nothing to override. Yes, static methods are easy to call, but if the static method calls another static method there is no way to override the called method dependency.
The main issue with static methods is that they introduce coupling, usually by hardcoding the dependency into your consuming code, making it difficult to replace them with stubs or mocks in your Unit-Tests. This violates the Open/Closed Principle and the Dependency Inversion Principle, two of the SOLID principles.
You are absolutely right that statics are considered harmful. Avoid them.
Check the links for additional information please.
Update: note that while statics are still considered harmful, the capability to stub and mock static methods has been removed as of PHPUnit 4.0
I do not see any problem when testing static methods (at least none that doesn't exists in non-static methods).
Mock objects are passed to classes under test using dependency injection.
Mock static methods can be passed to classes under test using a suitable autoloader or manipulating the include_path.
Late static binding deals with methods calling static methods in the same class.
I have a method with some logic in it and I'm not sure how to unit test it. Because it's a unit test for this specific method it should run without connecting to the database. I read about stubs and mockups but I can't find a way to apply them to this situation.
I would like to force the Client:GetClient to return the client object with the right properties so I can test each logic branch.
class ClientType {
function GetClientType($id) {
$objClient = Client::GetClient($id);
if ($objClient->Returning == 1) {
return 'returning';
}
else {
return 'normal';
}
}
This is the test I had in mind
class ResourceTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase {
function testGetClientType() {
$objClientType = new ClientType();
$this->assertTrue($objClientType->GetClientType(100), 'normal');
}
}
The problem is the dependency $objClient = Client::GetClient($id); The GetClient will pull a client from database but I need to replace this with a Stub so the unit tests work without real access to the database.
Conclusion
If you have code like the one presented: refactor it and use Dependency Injection.
If you have legacy code or just don't want to refactor try this solution: http://sebastian-bergmann.de/archives/885-Stubbing-Hard-Coded-Dependencies.html
With PHPUnit you can do
$class = $this->getMockClass(
'Client', /* name of class to mock */
array('getClient') /* list of methods to mock */
);
$class::staticExpects($this->any())
->method('getClient')
->will($this->returnValue('foo'));
In general, you want to avoid static methods though:
http://sebastian-bergmann.de/archives/883-Stubbing-and-Mocking-Static-Methods.html
https://kore-nordmann.de/blog/0103_static_considered_harmful.html
EDIT after update
PHPUnit can also stub hardcoded dependencies. See
Stubbing Hard-Coded Dependencies by Sebastian Bergmann
However, since you already noticed by now that it is a Pain the Behind to test statics and hardcoded dependencies, I suggest you remove the hardcoded dependency and static call with a real object that you inject into your ClientType instead.
Another option would be to use http://antecedent.github.io/patchwork (not affiliated with it), which
is a PHP library that makes it possible to redefine user-defined functions and methods
at runtime, loosely replicating the functionality runkit_function_redefine in pure PHP 5.3 code,
which, among other things, enables you to replace static and private methods with test doubles.
Try Mocking for such kind of a problem. I do not know PHP, but we do mocking in Java and C# in such a scenario.
EDIT
I'm sorry I didn't see that you were facing a problem with mocks. Well usually for Mocks you tell them what you expect from them and they respond to the same. LSV principle is being used in mocks. As for PHP, I'm sorry I have no idea on what tool to use for mocks and how you use them