I've been stuck on this for a while and I'm not sure why PHPunit can't see that the function is being called.
This is the code I'm trying to test:
public function handle()
{
$path = $this->request->getPath();
$requestMethod = $this->request->getMethod();
if (!$path) {
$this->redirect('home');
} else if (!$this->isMethodPathFound($path, $requestMethod)) {
$this->redirect('404');
} else {
$handler = $this->getControllerFullName($this->routes[$path]['handler']);
if (is_callable($handler)) {
call_user_func($handler);
} else {
$this->redirect('404');
}
}
}
/**
* #param string $path
* #param int $statusCode
*/
public function redirect($path, $statusCode = 303)
{
if (defined('TESTING_ENVIRONMENT') && TESTING_ENVIRONMENT) {
return;
}
header(
'Location: ' . $this->request->getProtocol() .
$this->request->getHost() . '/' . $path,
true,
$statusCode
);
die();
}
The TESTING_ENVIRONMENT variable is set for the header function so it does not trigger on running PHPunit (I don't want to create another class to have that redirect function just to be able to mock it for one test) and this is the testing code:
public function testHandlePathIsEmpty()
{
$requestMock = $this->getMockBuilder('\services\Request')->getMock();
$requestMock->expects($this->once())->method('getPath')->willReturn('');
$requestMock->expects($this->once())->method('getMethod')->willReturn('GET');
$routerMock = $this->getMockBuilder('\services\Router')
->setConstructorArgs([$this->routes, $requestMock])
->enableProxyingToOriginalMethods()
->getMock();
$routerMock->expects($this->once())->method('redirect')
->with('asdasd')->willReturn(true);
$routerMock->handle();
}
The $routerMock object should definitely invoke the "redirect" function, and it says that it does not get invoked..even though when I var_dump/die inside the function, it does go inside of it.
Thanks for the help!
Though you hesitated to show the complete output of phpunit's error, your problem is very likely not that your method is not called, but that it is not called with all the expectations you defined.
Your code
$routerMock->expects($this->once())->method('redirect')
->with('asdasd')->willReturn(true);
translates to the following expectations: The method redirect must be called exactly once with an argument 'asdasd' and will return true.
From your testcode I do not see that there is asdasd passed to the redirect method. Your test will most likely succeed when you remove the with expectation.
Just to make this clear. If you have to mock the class u want to test, your code is way to complex and you should think about implementing your logic in another way.
How about not mocking the class you are actually testing, create the new instance by passing the Request and a Router Mock (Router mock might not have any logic since you are not going to use it) and then do the following in your code:
public function handle()
{
$request = $this->request;
$path = $request->getPath();
if (!$path) {
$this->redirect('home');
} else if (!$this->isMethodPathFound($path, $request->getMethod())) {
$this->redirect('404');
} else {
$handler = $this->getControllerFullName($this->routes[$path]['handler']);
if (is_callable($handler)) {
call_user_func($handler);
} else {
$this->redirect('404');
}
}
}
In your Unit-Test, you now can just test for
$requestMock
->expects($this->never())
->method('getMethod');
I see that this would only cover the second case to not being executed but the third one could happen aswell. Thats always a point why your code is not clean enough.
You should read something about KISS and SOLID to make your code more testable. This method is just too complex as you could test it correctly.
Related
We have PHP code in production that sometimes fails with "Call to member function on null", although the same code path executes fine several times before that in one invocation. We have a test that reproduces the error consistently at the same run of the loop.
I already proved that the object gets created correctly in the factory even if it gets returned as null. The factory method must not return null in any case, as indicated in the DocBlock. This question is not related to nullable return types or something like that.
The process does not exceed memory or runtime limitations and I already tried turning off the garbage collector, but no luck. The error happens both in PHP 7.0 and 7.3 on Debian, did not try on other versions or operating systems.
I am not allowed to paste the real code here, but I wrote a simple mockup to explain in more detail. Please keep in mind that this demo code will not result in the error, it is just meant to show the general structure of the program that runs into this fault.
// Three placeholder classes with common methods
class Bender
{
public function common()
{
echo "Bend, bend!" . PHP_EOL;
}
}
class Clamper
{
public function common()
{
echo "Clamp, clamp!" . PHP_EOL;
}
}
class Worker
{
public function common()
{
echo "Work, work!" . PHP_EOL;
}
}
// abstract class with static factory to produce objects
abstract class MomCorp
{
/**
* Factory to create one of several objects
*
* #param string $name
* #return Bender|Clamper|Worker
*/
public static function factory($name)
{
$type = self::managementDecision($name);
switch ($type)
{
case "bender":
$robot = new Bender();
break;
case "clamper":
$robot = new Clamper();
break;
default:
$robot = new Worker();
}
// optional QA works flawlessly here, object is fine all the time!
// $robot->common();
return $robot;
}
public static function managementDecision($name)
{
// irrelevant magic happens on $name here
return "bender";
}
}
foreach (['Rodriguez', 'Angle-ine', 'Flexo', 'Billie'] as $newName)
{
echo "$newName: ";
// The next two lines break after some loops - why?
// The perfectly functional object in factory gets returned as null
$bot = MomCorp::factory($newName);
$bot->common();
}
// SAMPLE OUTPUT
// Rodriguez: Bend, bend!
// Angle-ine: Bend, bend!
// Flexo: Bend, bend!
// Billie: Call to a member function common() on null
Has anyone experienced the same and has any hints on what might cause such an error and how to fix it?
So, as part of a project, I was considering building a flagging system. The idea behind this would be a cron job that runs daily to determine whether each of a series of flags still applied to a specific object (and if so, save that flag data for the object).
// code stub
$flags = $this->getFlags();
foreach($flags as $flag)
{
$className = 'Svc_Flags_'.$flag->flag_code;
if(class_exists($className, false)
{
(new $className())->setFlag();
}
}
And right now, in the dummy code for that class, I have a constructor that echos a simple text message, and the function setFlag() that echos a different text message.
<?php class Svc_Flags_Test extends Svc
{
public function __construct()
{
echo 'construct<br/>';
}
public function setFlag()
{
echo 'set flag<br/>';
}
}
Now, this doesn't work. By that, I mean that I am not seeing either echo.
However, if I do this:
// code stub
$flags = $this->getFlags();
foreach($flags as $flag)
{
$className = 'Svc_Flags_'.$flag->flag_code;
(new $className())->setFlag(); // This is the added line of code
if(class_exists($className, false)
{
(new $className())->setFlag();
}
}
I get the constructor echo, and the setFlag() echo TWICE.
Why is this happening? Now, I'm pretty sure I could just wrap part of this in a try/catch block to get past any errors if a class isn't there, but I'm curious as to why it doesn't seem to find the class unless I explicitly call it before the if statement.
during unit testing i'm always get confused about what to test.
Do i need to test the API and only the API or also the method result values.
class SomeEventHandler
{
public function onDispatch (Event $event)
{
if ($event->hasFoo)
{
$model = $this->createResponseModel('foo');
}
else
{
$model = $this->createResponseModel('bar');
}
// End.
return $model;
}
private function createResponseModel ($foo)
{
$vars = array(
'someVare' => true,
'foo' => $foo
);
// End.
return new ResponseModel($vars);
}
}
So should i test if the method onDispatch returns a instance of ResponseModel or should i also test if the variable foo is set properly?
Or is the test below just fine?
class SomeEventHandlerTest
{
// assume that a instance of SomeEventHandler is created
private $someEventHandler;
public function testOnDispatch_EventHasFoo_ReturnsResponseModel ()
{
$e = new Event();
$e->hasFoo = true;
$result = $someEventHandler->onDispatch($e);
$this->assertInstanceOf('ResponseModel', $result);
}
public function testOnDispatch_EventHasNoFoo_ReturnsResponseModel ()
{
$e = new Event();
$e->hasFoo = false;
$result = $someEventHandler->onDispatch($e);
$this->assertInstanceOf('ResponseModel', $result);
}
}
If you were checking the code by hand what is it that you would check? Just that a ResponseModel was returned or that it also had the proper values?
If you weren't writing tests and executed the code what would you look for to ensure that the code was doing what it was supposed to. You would check that the values in the returned object were correct. I would do that by using the public API of the object and verify that the values are right.
One idea is to have the tests such that if the code were deleted, you would be able to recreate all the functionality via only having the tests. Only checking the returned object could result in a function that just has return new ResponseModel();. This would pass the test but would not be what you want.
In short, what you decide to test is subjective, however you should at the minimum test all your public methods.
Many people limit their tests to public methods and simply ensure code coverage on the protected/private methods is adequate. However, feel free to test anything you think warrants a test. Generally speaking, the more tests the better.
In my opinion you should certainly test for your response data, not just the return type.
I rely on Unit Tests to let me make code changes in the future and be satisfied my changes have not created any breaks, just by running the tests.
So in your case, if the "foo" or "bar" response data is important, you should test it.
That way if you later change the response strings by accident, your tests will tell you.
I have an interesting problem and have searched the internet, but haven't yet found an answer.
I work for a company that doesn't allow it's workers to utilize OOP, it is kind of ridiculous, but the working experience is valuable.
Consider the following function:
function get_setting_values_from_file( $parameter )
{
exec("/usr/var/binary --options $parameter", $output, $return);
$settings = file( $output[0] );
foreach( $settings as $setting ) {
if( strstr( $setting, "color") ) {
$setting = explode( ":", $setting );
return $setting[1];
}
}
return false;
}
I need to unit test a similar function. I am currently using phpUnit for my tests and the vfsStream libraries to mock the file system, but how do you mock the call to exec("/usr/var/binary --options $parameter", $output, $return) when I'm developing with no access to the actual system? What is the recommend approach for dealing with test cases like this?
All feedback is appreciated.
You could mock exec() by using a function mock library. I made one (php-mock) for you which requires you to use namespaces
namespace foo;
use phpmock\phpunit\PHPMock;
class ExecTest extends \PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase
{
use PHPMock;
public function testExec()
{
$mock = $this->getFunctionMock(__NAMESPACE__, "exec");
$mock->expects($this->once())->willReturnCallback(
function ($command, &$output, &$return_var) {
$this->assertEquals("foo", $command);
$output = "failure";
$return_var = 1;
}
);
exec("foo", $output, $return_var);
$this->assertEquals("failure", $output);
$this->assertEquals(1, $return_var);
}
}
Simply mock this function to return the text that you are trying to get into $settings. You do not need to call the executable, simply create the file or return.
For instance, assuming the function get_setting_values_from_file() returns the settings as an array, you can simply mock the function in your test to return the settings as an array. Create a test stub to mock the object that contains the get_setting_values_from_file() method, and have that mock simply return the same FALSE, 1 or 2 that the test assumed.
$stub = $this->getMock('GetSettingsClass');
$stub->expects($this->any())
->method('get_settings_from_file')
->will($this->returnValue(0));
This is from the PHPUnit manual -> http://phpunit.de/manual/3.8/en/test-doubles.html#test-doubles.stubs
Optionally, you could even bypass the call, and simply test the functions/code that works on the returns by creating the array and passing it to those functions.
Assumed Example in the main code:
...
$settings = get_setting_values_from_file( 'UserType' );
$UserType = get_user_type($settings);
return $UserType;
function get_user_type($settings)
{
if($settings !== FALSE) // Returned from your function if parameter is not found
{
switch($settings)
{
case 1:
return 'User'; // Best to use Constants, but for example here only
break;
case 2:
return 'Admin';
break;
...
}
}
else
{
return FALSE;
}
}
Now, in your test, you can simply
$this->assertFalse(get_user_type(FALSE, 'Ensure not found data is handled properly as FALSE is returned');
$this->assertEqual('User', get_user_type(1), 'Test UserType=1');
$this->assertEqual('Admin', get_user_type(1), 'Test UserType=2');
...
These work as the code does not call the function that had to mock the read from the OS, but does handle all the expected returns by calling the function processing the setting return value. Here, you have simply assumed the return from the function 'get_setting_values_from_file()' without needing the file or any mocks.
This does NOT however test reading from the file, which I would do in another test by using the setUp and tearDown to actual create a file with the values you want (fopen/fwrite) and then call your function and ensure it returns what is expected.
I hope this helps to explain what I was thinking.
I tried to ask this before, and messed up the question, so I'll try again. Is it possible to make an object return false by default when put in an if statement? What I want:
$dog = new DogObject();
if($dog)
{
return "This is bad;"
}
else
{
return "Excellent! $dog was false!"
}
Is there a way this is possible? It's not completely necessary, but would save me some lines of code. thanks!
No, PHP has no support for operator overloading. Maybe they'll add it in a future version.
Use the instanceof keyword.
For example
$result = Users->insertNewUser();
if($result instanceof MyErrorClass){
(CHECK WHAT WENT WRONG AND SAY WHY)
} else {
//Go on about our business because everything worked.
}
Info is here.
Use this? Not a real neat solution, but does what you want:
<?php
class Foo
{
private $valid = false;
public function Bar ( )
{
// Do stuff
}
public function __toString ( )
{
return ( $this -> valid ) ? '1' : '0';
}
}
?>
Zero is considered false, one is considered true by PHP
I was attempting to do this myself and found a solution that appears to work.
In response to the others who were trying to answer the question by telling the asker to use a different solution, I will also try to explain the reason for the question. Neither the original poster or I want to use an exception, because the point is not to use exception handling features and put that burden on any code we use this class in. The point, at least for me, was to be able to use this class seamlessly in other PHP code that may be written in a non-object-oriented or non-exception-based style. Many built-in PHP functions are written in such a way that a result of false for unsuccessful processes is desirable. At the same time, we might want to be able to handle this object in a special way in our own code.
For example, we might want to do something like:
if ( !($goodObject = ObjectFactory::getObject($objectType)) ) {
// if $objectType was not something ObjectFactory could handle, it
// might return a Special Case object such as FalseObject below
// (see Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture)
// in order to indicate something went wrong.
// (Because it is easy to do it this way.)
//
// FalseObject could have methods for displaying error information.
}
Here's a very simple implementation.
class FalseObject {
public function __toString() {
// return an empty string that in PHP evaluates to false
return '';
}
}
$false = new FalseObject();
if ( $false ) {
print $false . ' is false.';
} else {
print $false . ' is true.';
}
print '<br />';
if ( !$false ) {
print $false . ' is really true.';
} else {
print $false . ' is really false.';
}
// I am printing $false just to make sure nothing unexpected is happening.
The output is:
is false.
is really false.
I've tested this and it works even if you have some declared variables inside the class, such as:
class FalseObject {
const flag = true;
public $message = 'a message';
public function __toString() {
return '';
}
}
A slightly more interesting implementation might be:
class FalseException extends Exception {
final public function __toString() {
return '';
}
}
class CustomException extends FalseException { }
$false = new CustomException('Something went wrong.');
Using the same test code as before, $false evaluates to false.
I recently had to do something similar, using the null object pattern. Unfortunately, the null object was returning true and the variable in question was sometimes an actual null value (from the function's default parameter). The best way I came up with was if((string)$var) { although this wouldn't work for empty arrays.
Putting something in "an if statement" is simply evaluating the variable there as a boolean.
In your example, $dog would need to be always false for that to work. There is no way to tell when your variable is about to be evaluated in a boolean expression.
What is your ultimate purpose here? What lines of code are you trying to save?
I'm not sure about the object itself. Possible. You could try something like, add a public property to the DogObject class and then have that set by default to false. Such as.
class DogObject
{
var $isValid = false;
public function IsValid()
{
return $isValid;
}
}
And then when you would instantiate it, it would be false by default.
$dog = new DogObject();
if($dog->IsValid())
{
return "This is bad;"
}
else
{
return "Excellent! $dog was false!"
}
Just a thought.
If I understand what your asking, I think you want to do this:
if (!$dog){
return "$dog was false";
}
The ! means not. SO you could read that, "If not dog, or if dog is NOT true"
Under what conditions do you want if($dog) to evaluate to false? You can't do what you've literally asked for, but perhaps the conditioned could be replaced by something that does what you want.
class UserController
{
public function newuserAction()
{
$userModel = new UserModel();
if ($userModel->insertUser()) {
// Success!
} else {
die($userModel->getError());
}
}
}
Or
class UserController
{
public function newuserAction()
{
$userModel = new UserModel();
try {
$userModel->insertUser()
}
catch (Exception $e) {
die($e);
}
}
}
There are a million ways to handle errors. It all depends on the complexity of the error and the amount of recovery options.
How about using an Implicit Cast Operator like the following C# ?
like so:
class DogObject
{
public static implicit operator bool(DogObject a)
{
return false;
}
}
Then you can go...
var dog = new DogObject();
if(!dog)
{
Console.WriteLine("dog was false");
}