How would one configure symfony/console to accept a dynamic list of options?
That said - the names for the options aren't known on development step so I need an application to accept everything and expose it using the standard $input->getOption.
Any chance it can be done easily (without hacking the component in million places)?
My attempts included extending the ArgvInput and InputDefinition classes but they failed due to various reasons (they are objective and symfony/console component implementation-specific). Briefly: the former requires parsing to be invoked multiple times; the latter - is instantiated in multiple places so I just couldn't find a proper way to inject it.
You can create your own ArgvInput that will allow all options.
For example you can see the slightly modified version of ArgvInput here
I have only modified lines : 178
And comment out the lines: 188-199
Then pass instance of your version ArgvInput instead of default one to
$input = new AcceptAllArgvInput();
$kernel = new AppKernel($env, $debug);
$application = new Application($kernel);
$application->run($input);
I have accomplished this in the past using the IS_ARRAY option. Would this not work for your instance as well?
->addArgument('routeParams', InputArgument::IS_ARRAY, "Required Placeholders for route");
My use case was a custom URL generator for a special authentication system. I needed a way to generate URLs for testing. Naturally, each route has a different number of required parameters and I wanted to avoid passing the parameters as a CSV string.
Command examples:
Usage: myGenerateToken user route [variables1] ... [variablesN]
php app/console myGenerateToken 1 productHomePage
php app/console myGenerateToken 1 getProduct 1
php app/console myGenerateToken 1 getProductFile 1 changelog
The variables were delivered to the command in the "routeParams" as an array
$params = $input->getArgument('routeParams');
var_dump($params);
array(2) {
[0] =>
string(1) "1"
[1] =>
string(9) "changelog"
}
I noticed that there is also an "Option" version called InputOption::VALUE_IS_ARRAY, but I did not have success getting it to work. The argument version InputArgument::IS_ARRAY seems to behave as an option anyways, as it does not error if no arguments are specified.
EDIT:
The author's question is seeking "How do i define variable command line options at run time" where my answer is "How do you provide multiple values for a pre-defined option/argument"
Here is how to implement this on PHP 7+ using symfony/console ^3.0:
abstract class CommandWithDynamicOptions extends Command {
/** #var array The list of dynamic options passed to the command */
protected $dynamicOptions = [];
/**
* #inheritdoc
*/
protected function configure() {
$this->setName('custom:command');
$this->setDefinition(new class($this->getDefinition(), $this->dynamicOptions) extends InputDefinition {
protected $dynamicOptions = [];
public function __construct(InputDefinition $definition, array &$dynamicOptions) {
parent::__construct();
$this->setArguments($definition->getArguments());
$this->setOptions($definition->getOptions());
$this->dynamicOptions =& $dynamicOptions;
}
public function getOption($name) {
if (!parent::hasOption($name)) {
$this->addOption(new InputOption($name, null, InputOption::VALUE_OPTIONAL));
$this->dynamicOptions[] = $name;
}
return parent::getOption($name);
}
public function hasOption($name) {
return TRUE;
}
});
}
}
Another approach bypassing Symfony validation and reading from argv directly:
class Foo extends Command {
protected function configure() {
$this->ignoreValidationErrors();
}
protected function execute(InputInterface $input, OutputInterface $output): int {
global $argv;
$customOptions = array_filter($argv, static function ($value) {
return is_string($value) && substr($value, 0, 2) === '--';
});
var_dump($customOptions);
}
}
./foo --foo=bar
Result:
array(1) {
[4]=> string(9) "--foo=bar"
}
Related
Laravel's documentation says (emphasis mine):
If the user must specify a value for an option, you should suffix the option name with a = sign…
But then goes on to say:
If the option is not specified when invoking the command, its value will be null…
Which suggests that "must" doesn't mean what I think it means. And indeed that is the case. A simple command with a signature like this:
protected $signature = "mycommand {-t|test=}";
Will run just fine when called like artisan mycommand -t. And what's worse is that if you specify a default value, it isn't applied in this case.
protected $signature = "mycommand {-t|test=42}";
When running artisan mycommand, $this->option('test') will give you a value of 42, but when run as artisan mycommand -t it gives a value of null.
So, is there a way to require that a user must (actually) specify a value for a given option, if it's present on the command line?
Poking around the Laravel code, I confirmed that there is no way to have a truly "required" value. Although Symfony does provide for required values, Laravel doesn't use this capability. Instead the options are all created as optional, so I will have to write my own parser...
This was fairly straightforward; I had to write a custom parser class to override the Illuminate\Console\Parser::parseOption() method, and then override Illuminate\Console\Command::configureUsingFluentDefinition() to use that new class.
I elected to create a new option type, rather than change the behaviour of any existing command options. So now I declare my signature like this when I want to force a value:
<?php
namespace App\Console\Commands;
use App\Console\Command;
class MyCommand extends Command
{
/** #var string The double == means a required value */
protected $signature = "mycommand {--t|test==}";
...
}
Attempting to run artisan mycommand -t will now throw a Symfony\Component\Console\Exception\RuntimeException with a message of "The --test option requires a value." This also works for array options (--t==*) and/or options with default values (--t==42 or --t==*42.)
Here's the code for the new parser class:
<?php
namespace App\Console;
use Illuminate\Console\Parser as BaseParser;
use Symfony\Component\Console\Input\InputOption;
class Parser extends BaseParser
{
protected static function parseOption($token): InputOption
{
[$mytoken, $description] = static::extractDescription($token);
$matches = preg_split("/\\s*\\|\\s*/", $mytoken, 2);
if (isset($matches[1])) {
$shortcut = $matches[0];
$mytoken = $matches[1];
} else {
$shortcut = null;
}
switch (true) {
case str_ends_with($mytoken, "=="):
return new InputOption(
trim($mytoken, "="),
$shortcut,
InputOption::VALUE_REQUIRED,
$description
);
case str_ends_with($mytoken, "==*"):
return new InputOption(
trim($mytoken, "=*"),
$shortcut,
InputOption::VALUE_REQUIRED | InputOption::VALUE_IS_ARRAY,
$description
);
case preg_match("/(.+)==\*(.+)/", $mytoken, $matches):
return new InputOption(
$matches[1],
$shortcut,
InputOption::VALUE_REQUIRED | InputOption::VALUE_IS_ARRAY,
$description,
preg_split('/,\s?/', $matches[2])
);
case preg_match("/(.+)==(.+)/", $mytoken, $matches):
return new InputOption(
$matches[1],
$shortcut,
InputOption::VALUE_REQUIRED,
$description,
$matches[2]
);
default:
// no == here, fall back to the standard parser
return parent::parseOption($token);
}
}
}
And the new command class:
<?php
namespace App\Console;
use Illuminate\Console\Command as BaseCommand;
class Command extends BaseCommand
{
/**
* Overriding the Laravel parser so we can have required arguments
*
* #inheritdoc
* #throws ReflectionException
*/
protected function configureUsingFluentDefinition(): void
{
// using our parser here
[$name, $arguments, $options] = Parser::parse($this->signature);
// need to call the great-grandparent constructor here; probably
// could have hard-coded to Symfony, but better safe than sorry
$reflectionMethod = new ReflectionMethod(
get_parent_class(BaseCommand::class),
"__construct"
);
$reflectionMethod->invoke($this, $name);
$this->getDefinition()->addArguments($arguments);
$this->getDefinition()->addOptions($options);
}
}
I'm writing an unit test for my PHP project,
the unit test is to simulate a php://input data,
and I read the manual, it says:
php://input is a read-only stream that allows you to read raw data
from the request body.
How do I simulate the php://input, or write the request body in my PHP?
Here's my source code and unit test, both are simplified.
Source:
class Koru
{
static function build()
{
// This function will build an array from the php://input.
parse_str(file_get_contents('php://input'), $input);
return $input;
}
//...
Unit Test:
function testBuildInput()
{
// Trying to simulate the `php://input` data here.
// NOTICE: THIS WON'T WORK.
file_put_contents('php://input', 'test1=foobar&test2=helloWorld');
$data = Koru::build();
$this->assertEquals($data, ['test1' => 'foobar',
'test2' => 'helloWorld']);
}
Use a test double
Given the code in the question, the simplest solution is to restructure the code:
class Koru
{
static function build()
{
parse_str(static::getInputStream(), $input);
return $input;
}
/**
* Note: Prior to PHP 5.6, a stream opened with php://input could
* only be read once;
*
* #see http://php.net/manual/en/wrappers.php.php
*/
protected static function getInputStream()
{
return file_get_contents('php://input');
}
And use a test double:
class KoruTestDouble extends Koru
{
protected static $inputStream;
public static function setInputStream($input = '')
{
static::$inputStream = $input;
}
protected static function getInputStream()
{
return static::$inputStream;
}
}
The test method then uses the test double, not the class itself:
function testBuildInput()
{
KoruTestDouble::setInputStream('test1=foobar&test2=helloWorld');
$expected = ['test1' => 'foobar', 'test2' => 'helloWorld'];
$result = KoruTestDouble::build();
$this->assertSame($expected, $result, 'Stuff be different');
}
Avoid static classes if possible
Most of the difficulties with the scenario in the question are caused by the use of static class methods, static classes make testing hard. If at all possible avoid the use of static classes and use instance methods which allows solving the same sort of problem using mock objects.
See vfsStream package and this SO question and answers.
Basically, you would want to parametrize your service that reads data to accept a path:
public function __construct($path)
{
$data = file_get_contents($path); // you might want to use another FS read function here
}
And then, in a test, provide an vfsStream stream path:
\vfsStreamWrapper::register();
\vfsStream::setup('input');
$service = new Service('vfs://input')
In your code you would provide php://input as per usual.
This sort of extreme decomposition gains nothing and leads very brittle code. Your tests should express the expectations of your interfaces, and not the data you've supplied them with: Is PHP truly not free to return ["test2"=>"helloWorld","test1"=>"foobar"] in some future version? Is your code broken if it does? What exactly do you think you are testing?
I think you're overcomplicating this.
$a->doit should take $input as an argument and not call Koru::build as part of its initialisation. Then you can test $a->doit instead of testing parse_str.
If you insist on pressing on this example, then Koru::build needs to take an argument of 'php://input' – this is often called dependency injection, where you tell your functions everything they need to know. Then, when you want to "test" things, you can simply pass in some other file (or e.g. a data url).
With Kahlan you can monkey patch the file_get_contents function directly like so:
use My\Name\Space\Koru;
describe("::build()", function() {
it("parses data", function() {
allow('file_put_contents')->toBeCalled()->andRun(function() {
return 'test1=foobar&test2=helloWorld';
});
expect(Koru::build())->toBe([
'test1' => 'foobar',
'test2' => 'helloWorld'
]);
});
});
Use a Zend\Diactoros\Stream
https://zendframework.github.io/zend-diactoros/usage/
$_POST['foo'] = 'bar';
use Zend\Diactoros\ServerRequestFactory;
$psrRequest = ServerRequestFactory::fromGlobals();
var_dump($psrRequest->getParsedBody()); // foo => bar
var_dump($_POST); // foo => bar
more info https://laracasts.com/discuss/channels/general-discussion/psr-7?page=1
I have been using Behat for a year or so at a level fine for the automation of most websites but I now need to start using it more for user generated content, I am relatively new to PHP and at the moment I am struggling how to use a String entered in an Example table in an x-path array:
Feature: Campaign
Scenario Outline: Pass campaign string to xpath array
Then I add a new campaign name of "<campaign>"
Examples:
|campaign |
|Automation|
The context file looks like this
/**
* #Then /^I add a new campaign name of "([^"]*)"$/
*/
public function iAddANewCampaignNameOf($campaign)
{
/**
* #var CreateCampaign $createCampaign
*/
$createCampaign= $this->getPage('CreateCampaign');
$createCampaign->campaignName($campaign);
}
Then I use the Page Object extension for the class Campaign.php
class CreateCampaign extends AutomationPage
{
protected $path = 'someURL';
public $campaign;
protected $elements = array(
'campaignHeader' => array('xpath' => "//*[#id='site-navigation-campaigns']"),
);
public function campaignName ($campaign)
{
$this->campaign = $campaign;
$this->getSession()->wait(5000);
$this->getElement('campaignName')->setValue($campaign);
}
So far so good, the tester can enter a campaign name of "Automation" - it gets passed through the context file and the campaign name is set in the browser.
What I am lacking is to be able to retain this $campaign name string and use it in another page so I can reference it in another array i.e. for selecting an existing campaign as follows:
SecondPageObjectPage.php
class ReferenceCampaign extends AutomationPage
{
protected $path = 'someURL';
protected $elements = array(
'referenceCampaign' => array('xpath' => "//*[contains(#id,'***HERE I NEED TO GET THE
$campaign value"),
);
public function editExistingCampaign ($campaign)
{
$this->getElement('referenceCampaign')->click();
}
}
I have tried my best to simplify things and I can explain further if any of this isnt clear - hopefully its just a simple PHP question and not really Behat specific
Thanks Ian
Your example is a much better way of doing things, I have only recently started using partial contains and it expands the flexibility of finding stubborn xpaths especially if you combine more than one, like the working example below:
public function editExistingCampaign ($campaign)
{
$this->getSession()->wait(5000);
$element = $this->find('xpath', '//*[contains(#id,"'.$campaign.'")]
[contains(#id,"actionbuttons")]');
if (isset($element)) {
$element->click();
} else {
throw new Exception('Element not found');
}
}
The only slight change was to add a ] at the end of the x-path
I'm sure it's a simple question, but I think that I am missing a point. If all you want is to get hold of the value that was used on the page then you need to review your code structure. First, you cannot pass method argument to the property definition in another class, but you can find the element inside editExistingCampaign.
class ReferenceCampaign extends AutomationPage
{
protected $path = 'someURL';
public function editExistingCampaign ($campaign)
{
$element = $this->find('xpath', '//*[contains(#id, "' . $campaign . '")]');
if (isset($element)) {
$element->click();
} else {
throw new Exception('Element not found');
}
}
}
I'm assuming you are using Symfony Page Object extension, which you should mention. I'm not sure if I've got the syntax right, but the idea is to find your element inside the method.
I'm using PHP 5.3's class_alias to help process my Symfony 1.4 (Doctrine) forms. I use a single action to process multiple form pages but using a switch statement to choose a Form Class to use.
public function executeEdit(sfWebRequest $request) {
switch($request->getParameter('page')) {
case 'page-1':
class_alias('MyFormPage1Form', 'FormAlias');
break;
...
}
$this->form = new FormAlias($obj);
}
This works brilliantly when browsing the website, but fails my functional tests, because when a page is loaded more than once, like so:
$browser->info('1 - Edit Form Page 1')->
get('/myforms/edit')->
with('response')->begin()->
isStatusCode(200)->
end()->
get('/myforms/edit')->
with('response')->begin()->
isStatusCode(200)->
end();
I get a 500 response to the second request, with the following error:
last request threw an uncaught exception RuntimeException: PHP sent a warning error at /.../apps/frontend/modules/.../actions/actions.class.php line 225 (Cannot redeclare class FormAlias)
This makes it very hard to test form submissions (which typically post back to themselves).
Presumably this is because Symfony's tester hasn't cleared the throughput in the same way.
Is there a way to 'unalias' or otherwise allow this sort of redeclaration?
As an alternate solution you can assign the name of the class to instantiate to a variable and new that:
public function executeEdit(sfWebRequest $request) {
$formType;
switch($request->getParameter('page')) {
case 'page-1':
$formType = 'MyFormPage1Form';
break;
...
}
$this->form = new $formType();
}
This doesn't use class_alias but keeps the instantiation in a single spot.
I do not know for sure if it is possible, but judging from the Manual, I'd say no. Once the class is aliased, there is no way to reset it or redeclare it with a different name. But then again, why do use the alias at all?
From your code I assume you are doing the aliasing in each additional case block. But if so, you can just as well simply instantiate the form in those blocks, e.g.
public function executeEdit(sfWebRequest $request) {
switch($request->getParameter('page')) {
case 'page-1':
$form = new MyFormPage1Form($obj);
break;
...
}
$this->form = $form;
}
You are hardcoding the class names into the switch/case block anyway when using class_alias. There is no advantage in using it. If you wanted to do it dynamically, you could create an array mapping from 'page' to 'className' and then simply lookup the appropriate class.
public function executeEdit(sfWebRequest $request) {
$mapping = array(
'page-1' => 'MyFormPage1Form',
// more mappings
);
$form = NULL;
$id = $request->getParameter('page');
if(array_key_exists($id, $mapping)) {
$className = $mapping[$id];
$form = new $className($obj);
}
$this->form = $form;
}
This way, you could also put the entire mapping in a config file. Or you could create FormFactory.
public function executeEdit(sfWebRequest $request) {
$this->form = FormFactory::create($request->getParameter('page'), $obj);
}
If you are using the Symfony Components DI Container, you could also get rid of the hard coded factory dependency and just use the service container to get the form. That would be the cleanest approach IMO. Basically, using class_alias just feels inappropriate here to me.
function class_alias_once($class, $alias) {
if (!class_exists($alias)) {
class_alias($class, $alias);
}
}
This doesn't solve the problem itself, but by using this function it is ensured that you don't get the error. Maybe this will suffice for your purpose.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I've read everywhere about how great they are, but for some reason I can't seem to figure out how exactly I'm supposed to test something. Could someone perhaps post a piece of example code and how they would test it? If it's not too much trouble :)
There is a 3rd "framework", which is by far easier to learn - even easier than SimpleTest, it's called phpt.
A primer can be found here:
http://qa.php.net/write-test.php
Edit: Just saw your request for sample code.
Let's assume you have the following function in a file called lib.php:
<?php
function foo($bar)
{
return $bar;
}
?>
Really simple and straight forward, the parameter you pass in, is returned. So let's look at a test for this function, we'll call the test file foo.phpt:
--TEST--
foo() function - A basic test to see if it works. :)
--FILE--
<?php
include 'lib.php'; // might need to adjust path if not in the same dir
$bar = 'Hello World';
var_dump(foo($bar));
?>
--EXPECT--
string(11) "Hello World"
In a nutshell, we provide the parameter $bar with value "Hello World" and we var_dump() the response of the function call to foo().
To run this test, use: pear run-test path/to/foo.phpt
This requires a working install of PEAR on your system, which is pretty common in most circumstances. If you need to install it, I recommend to install the latest version available. In case you need help to set it up, feel free to ask (but provide OS, etc.).
There are two frameworks you can use for unit testing. Simpletest and PHPUnit, which I prefer. Read the tutorials on how to write and run tests on the homepage of PHPUnit. It is quite easy and well described.
You can make unit testing more effective by changing your coding style to accommodate it.
I recommend browsing the Google Testing Blog, in particular the post on Writing Testable Code.
I rolled my own because i didnt have time to learn someone elses way of doing things, this took about 20 minutes to write up, 10 to adapt it for posting here.
Unittesting is very usefull to me.
this is kinda long but it explains itself and there is an example at the bottom.
/**
* Provides Assertions
**/
class Assert
{
public static function AreEqual( $a, $b )
{
if ( $a != $b )
{
throw new Exception( 'Subjects are not equal.' );
}
}
}
/**
* Provides a loggable entity with information on a test and how it executed
**/
class TestResult
{
protected $_testableInstance = null;
protected $_isSuccess = false;
public function getSuccess()
{
return $this->_isSuccess;
}
protected $_output = '';
public function getOutput()
{
return $_output;
}
public function setOutput( $value )
{
$_output = $value;
}
protected $_test = null;
public function getTest()
{
return $this->_test;
}
public function getName()
{
return $this->_test->getName();
}
public function getComment()
{
return $this->ParseComment( $this->_test->getDocComment() );
}
private function ParseComment( $comment )
{
$lines = explode( "\n", $comment );
for( $i = 0; $i < count( $lines ); $i ++ )
{
$lines[$i] = trim( $lines[ $i ] );
}
return implode( "\n", $lines );
}
protected $_exception = null;
public function getException()
{
return $this->_exception;
}
static public function CreateFailure( Testable $object, ReflectionMethod $test, Exception $exception )
{
$result = new self();
$result->_isSuccess = false;
$result->testableInstance = $object;
$result->_test = $test;
$result->_exception = $exception;
return $result;
}
static public function CreateSuccess( Testable $object, ReflectionMethod $test )
{
$result = new self();
$result->_isSuccess = true;
$result->testableInstance = $object;
$result->_test = $test;
return $result;
}
}
/**
* Provides a base class to derive tests from
**/
abstract class Testable
{
protected $test_log = array();
/**
* Logs the result of a test. keeps track of results for later inspection, Overridable to log elsewhere.
**/
protected function Log( TestResult $result )
{
$this->test_log[] = $result;
printf( "Test: %s was a %s %s\n"
,$result->getName()
,$result->getSuccess() ? 'success' : 'failure'
,$result->getSuccess() ? '' : sprintf( "\n%s (lines:%d-%d; file:%s)"
,$result->getComment()
,$result->getTest()->getStartLine()
,$result->getTest()->getEndLine()
,$result->getTest()->getFileName()
)
);
}
final public function RunTests()
{
$class = new ReflectionClass( $this );
foreach( $class->GetMethods() as $method )
{
$methodname = $method->getName();
if ( strlen( $methodname ) > 4 && substr( $methodname, 0, 4 ) == 'Test' )
{
ob_start();
try
{
$this->$methodname();
$result = TestResult::CreateSuccess( $this, $method );
}
catch( Exception $ex )
{
$result = TestResult::CreateFailure( $this, $method, $ex );
}
$output = ob_get_clean();
$result->setOutput( $output );
$this->Log( $result );
}
}
}
}
/**
* a simple Test suite with two tests
**/
class MyTest extends Testable
{
/**
* This test is designed to fail
**/
public function TestOne()
{
Assert::AreEqual( 1, 2 );
}
/**
* This test is designed to succeed
**/
public function TestTwo()
{
Assert::AreEqual( 1, 1 );
}
}
// this is how to use it.
$test = new MyTest();
$test->RunTests();
This outputs:
Test: TestOne was a failure
/**
* This test is designed to fail
**/ (lines:149-152; file:/Users/kris/Desktop/Testable.php)
Test: TestTwo was a success
Get PHPUnit. It is very easy to use.
Then start with very simple assertions. You can do alot with AssertEquals before you get into anything else. That's a good way to get your feet wet.
You may also want to try writing your test first (since you gave your question the TDD tag) and then write your code. If you haven't done this before it is an eye-opener.
require_once 'ClassYouWantToTest';
require_once 'PHPUnit...blah,blah,whatever';
class ClassYouWantToTest extends PHPUnit...blah,blah,whatever
{
private $ClassYouWantToTest;
protected function setUp ()
{
parent::setUp();
$this->ClassYouWantToTest = new ClassYouWantToTest(/* parameters */);
}
protected function tearDown ()
{
$this->ClassYouWantToTest = null;
parent::tearDown();
}
public function __construct ()
{
// not really needed
}
/**
* Tests ClassYouWantToTest->methodFoo()
*/
public function testMethodFoo ()
{
$this->assertEquals(
$this->ClassYouWantToTest->methodFoo('putValueOfParamHere), 'expectedOutputHere);
/**
* Tests ClassYouWantToTest->methodBar()
*/
public function testMethodFoo ()
{
$this->assertEquals(
$this->ClassYouWantToTest->methodBar('putValueOfParamHere), 'expectedOutputHere);
}
For simple tests AND documentation, php-doctest is quite nice and it's a really easy way to get started since you don't have to open a separate file. Imagine the function below:
/**
* Sums 2 numbers
* <code>
* //doctest: add
* echo add(5,2);
* //expects:
* 7
* </code>
*/
function add($a,$b){
return $a + $b;
}
If you now run this file through phpdt (command-line runner of php-doctest) 1 test will be run. The doctest is contained inside the < code > block. Doctest originated in python and is fine for giving useful & runnable examples on how the code is supposed to work. You can't use it exclusively because the code itself would litter up with test cases but I've found that it's useful alongside a more formal tdd library - i use phpunit.
This 1st answer here sums it up nicely (it's not unit vs doctest ).
phpunit is pretty much the defacto unit testing framework for php. there is also DocTest (available as a PEAR package) and a few others.
php itself is tested for regressions and the like via phpt tests which can also be run via pear.
Codeception tests are much like common unit tests but are much powerful in things where you need mocking and stubbing.
Here is the sample controller test. Notice how easily stubs are created. How easily you check the method was invoked.
<?php
use Codeception\Util\Stub as Stub;
const VALID_USER_ID = 1;
const INVALID_USER_ID = 0;
class UserControllerCest {
public $class = 'UserController';
public function show(CodeGuy $I) {
// prepare environment
$I->haveFakeClass($controller = Stub::makeEmptyExcept($this->class, 'show'));
$I->haveFakeClass($db = Stub::make('DbConnector', array('find' => function($id) { return $id == VALID_USER_ID ? new User() : null ))); };
$I->setProperty($controller, 'db', $db);
$I->executeTestedMethodOn($controller, VALID_USER_ID)
->seeResultEquals(true)
->seeMethodInvoked($controller, 'render');
$I->expect('it will render 404 page for non existent user')
->executeTestedMethodOn($controller, INVALID_USER_ID)
->seeResultNotEquals(true)
->seeMethodInvoked($controller, 'render404','User not found')
->seeMethodNotInvoked($controller, 'render');
}
}
Also there are other cool things. You can test database state, filesystem, etc.
Besides the excellent suggestions about test frameworks already given, are you building your application with one of the PHP web frameworks that has automated testing built in, such as Symfony or CakePHP? Sometimes having a place to just drop in your test methods reduces the start-up friction some people associate with automated testing and TDD.
Way too much to re-post here, but here is a great article on using phpt. It covers a number of aspects around phpt that are often overlooked, so it could be worth a read to expand your knowledge of php beyond just writing a test. Fortunately the article also discusses writing tests!
The main points of discussion
Discover how marginally documented aspects of PHP work (or pretty much any part for that matter)
Write simple unit tests for your own PHP code
Write tests as part of an extension or to convey a potential bug to the internals or QA groups
I know there is a lot of info here already, but since this still shows up on Google searches i might as well add Chinook Test Suite to the list. It is a simple and small test framework.
You can easily test your classes with it and also create mock objects. You run the tests through a web browser and (not yet) through a console.
In the browser you can specify what test class or even what test method to run. Or you can simply run all tests.
A screenshot from the github page:
What i like about it is the way you assert tests. This is done with so called "fluent assertions". Example:
$this->Assert($datetime)->Should()->BeAfter($someDatetime);
And creating mock objects is a breeze too (with a fluent like syntax):
$mock = new CFMock::Create(new DummyClass());
$mock->ACallTo('SomeMethod')->Returns('some value');
Anyway, more info can be found on the github page with a code example as well:
https://github.com/w00/Chinook-TestSuite