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 VojÄÃk <herby@mailbox.sk <mailto:herby@mailbox.sk>>:
Herby VojÄÃk 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: 'HerbertVojà ÃÂk 10/17/2017 12:00:27'! conditionBlock ^ conditionBlock! !
!ZnMockClient methodsFor: 'accessing' stamp: 'HerbertVojà ÃÂk 10/17/2017 12:00:27'! responseBlock: anObject responseBlock := anObject! !
!ZnMockClient methodsFor: 'accessing' stamp: 'HerbertVojà ÃÂk 10/17/2017 12:00:27'! conditionBlock: anObject conditionBlock := anObject! !
!ZnMockClient methodsFor: 'accessing' stamp: 'HerbertVojà ÃÂk 10/17/2017 12:00:27'! responseBlock ^ responseBlock! !
!ZnMockClient methodsFor: 'private protocol' stamp: 'HerbertVojà ÃÂk 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: 'HerbertVojà ÃÂk 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