Denis Kudriashov wrote:
Hi Herby.
There is message #will: which accepts the block with possible arguments
(if needed).
ZnClient stub new will: [ ZnMockClient ...]
Ah. I had the impression that will: only accepts the MockExpectedXxx
instance... will try. Thanks.
But generally your approach looks bad to me. You put too many details on
your tests which just duplicate Zinc API used in the domain code. It
makes tests brittle and tightly coupled. And they looks quite unreadable.
I usuallyintroduce kind of MyExternalClient intermediatewhich provides
Well, yes, like dao I use to communicate with database. I see, but...
there is always a but. If I am able to mock communication at lower
level, I do not specify which object / library / client must be used to
achieve that communication. I often find this a plus.
normal messages to interact with remote system. And it completely hides
overall http communication.
So in tests I stub this guy with simple mocks.
But in addition I write real communication tests specifically for that
object. They can be unstable because it is real network. But idea to
test actual communication in single place and abstract the rest of
system from it. Also it provide good checker for the possible API
changes and general problems with service.
I tend to move this way when there is more communication with outside
APIs (atm, I only have then one instance). And, as mentioned, I got used
to mock things at http level from node, where nock library is great way
to do these kinds of tests, so I got a slight bias to use 'mock at http
level' approach.
Best regards,
Denis
Thanks, Herby
2017-10-17 12:34 GMT+02:00 Herby Vojčík <he...@mailbox.sk
<mailto:he...@mailbox.sk>>:
Herby Vojčík wrote:
Hello!
I felt the need to mock http api (like nock in node, that is,
mock http
request-response itself on low-level part, leaving aside the
question of
what wrapper / library one uses to get to that http; in node it
mocks
basic http layer, here I tackled ZnClient), but struggled for a
time how
to grasp it. Finally I used something like this (with help of
Mocketry,
`1 to: 10` to mean "enough to actually be used even if there are
more
unrelated uses", it could as well be `1 to: 100`):
ZnClient stub new willReturnValueFrom:
((1 to: 10) collect: [ :i | ZnMockClient
For Denis Kudriashov: would you be willing to add something like
`willGenerateValueFrom: aBlock` to Mocketry, so previous two lines
could be replaced by simpler:
ZnClient stub new willGenerateValueFrom: [ ZnMockClient
?
If something allowing it is there, I am sorry but I haven't found it.
Herby
whenRequest: [ :request |
{ request uri scheme. request uri authority. request uri
pathPrintString. request uri query associations asSet }
= { #https. 'onesignal.com <http://onesignal.com>'.
'/api/v1/players/{1}' format: { UUID
fromString36: 'Q7' }. { 'app_id' -> appId } asSet }
and: [ #(GET HEAD) includes: request method ] ]
thenResponse: [ :request | ZnResponse ok: (ZnEntity json: '{}')
] ]).
with the help of this class (garbled utf not my fault, iceberg
metacello
integration does it):
'From Pharo6.0 of 13 May 2016 [Latest update: #60512] on 17
October 2017
at 12:05:38.908634 pm'!
ZnClient subclass: #ZnMockClient
instanceVariableNames: 'conditionBlock responseBlock'
classVariableNames: ''
poolDictionaries: ''
category: 'Towergame-Tests'!
!ZnMockClient commentStamp: 'HerbyVojcik 10/16/2017 16:43' prior: 0!
I am a mock ZnClient.
I am created with ZnMockClient whenRequest: whenBlock thenResponse:
thenBlock.
Upon execution of the request, when (whenBlock cull: request) is
true,
response is set to (thenBlock cull: request). Otherwise,
behaviour is
delegated to super.!
!ZnMockClient methodsFor: 'accessing' stamp: 'HerbertVojÄ Ãk
10/17/2017
12:00:27'!
conditionBlock
^ conditionBlock! !
!ZnMockClient methodsFor: 'accessing' stamp: 'HerbertVojÄ Ãk
10/17/2017
12:00:27'!
responseBlock: anObject
responseBlock := anObject! !
!ZnMockClient methodsFor: 'accessing' stamp: 'HerbertVojÄ Ãk
10/17/2017
12:00:27'!
conditionBlock: anObject
conditionBlock := anObject! !
!ZnMockClient methodsFor: 'accessing' stamp: 'HerbertVojÄ Ãk
10/17/2017
12:00:27'!
responseBlock
^ responseBlock! !
!ZnMockClient methodsFor: 'private protocol' stamp: 'HerbertVojÄ Ãk
10/17/2017 12:00:27'!
executeRequestResponse
^ (self conditionBlock cull: self request)
ifTrue: [ response := self responseBlock cull: self request.
response
contents ]
ifFalse: [ super executeRequestResponse ]! !
"-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- "!
ZnMockClient class
instanceVariableNames: ''!
!ZnMockClient class methodsFor: 'instance creation' stamp:
'HerbertVojÄ Ãk 10/17/2017 12:00:27'!
whenRequest: aBlock thenResponse: anotherBlock
^ self new
conditionBlock: aBlock;
responseBlock: anotherBlock;
yourself! !
Question 1: Is there a better way?
Question 2: If not, would ZnMockClient be good addition to Zinc
itself,
to ease testing for others?
Herby
