Assume I want to unit test a method with this signature:
List<MyItem> getMyItems();
Assume MyItem
is a Pojo that has many properties, one of which is "name"
, accessed via getName()
.
All I care about verifying is that the List<MyItem>
, or any Iterable
, contains two MyItem
instances, whose "name"
properties have the values "foo"
and "bar"
. If any other properties don't match, I don't really care for the purposes of this test. If the names match, it's a successful test.
I would like it to be one-liner if possible. Here is some "pseudo-syntax" of the kind of thing I would like to do.
assert(listEntriesMatchInAnyOrder(myClass.getMyItems(), property("name"), new String[]{"foo", "bar"});
Would Hamcrest be good for this type of thing? If so, what exactly would be the hamcrest version of my pseudo-syntax above?
This question is related to
java
unit-testing
junit4
hamcrest
Its not especially Hamcrest, but I think it worth to mention here. What I use quite often in Java8 is something like:
assertTrue(myClass.getMyItems().stream().anyMatch(item -> "foo".equals(item.getName())));
(Edited to Rodrigo Manyari's slight improvement. It's a little less verbose. See comments.)
It may be a little bit harder to read, but I like the type and refactoring safety. Its also cool for testing multiple bean properties in combination. e.g. with a java-like && expression in the filter lambda.
As long as your List is a concrete class, you can simply call the contains() method as long as you have implemented your equals() method on MyItem.
// given
// some input ... you to complete
// when
List<MyItems> results = service.getMyItems();
// then
assertTrue(results.contains(new MyItem("foo")));
assertTrue(results.contains(new MyItem("bar")));
Assumes you have implemented a constructor that accepts the values you want to assert on. I realise this isn't on a single line, but it's useful to know which value is missing rather than checking both at once.
Assertj is good at this.
import static org.assertj.core.api.Assertions.assertThat;
assertThat(myClass.getMyItems()).extracting("name").contains("foo", "bar");
Big plus for assertj compared to hamcrest is easy use of code completion.
AssertJ 3.9.1 supports direct predicate usage in anyMatch
method.
assertThat(collection).anyMatch(element -> element.someProperty.satisfiesSomeCondition())
This is generally suitable use case for arbitrarily complex condition.
For simple conditions I prefer using extracting
method (see above) because resulting iterable-under-test might support value verification with better readability.
Example: it can provide specialized API such as contains
method in Frank Neblung's answer. Or you can call anyMatch
on it later anyway and use method reference such as "searchedvalue"::equals
. Also multiple extractors can be put into extracting
method, result subsequently verified using tuple()
.
Try:
assertThat(myClass.getMyItems(),
hasItem(hasProperty("YourProperty", is("YourValue"))));
AssertJ provides an excellent feature in extracting()
: you can pass Function
s to extract fields. It provides a check at compile time.
You could also assert the size first easily.
It would give :
import static org.assertj.core.api.Assertions;
Assertions.assertThat(myClass.getMyItems())
.hasSize(2)
.extracting(MyItem::getName)
.containsExactlyInAnyOrder("foo", "bar");
containsExactlyInAnyOrder()
asserts that the list contains only these values whatever the order.
To assert that the list contains these values whatever the order but may also contain other values use contains()
:
.contains("foo", "bar");
As a side note : to assert multiple fields from elements of a List
, with AssertJ we do that by wrapping expected values for each element into a tuple()
function :
import static org.assertj.core.api.Assertions;
import static org.assertj.core.groups.Tuple;
Assertions.assertThat(myClass.getMyItems())
.hasSize(2)
.extracting(MyItem::getName, MyItem::getOtherValue)
.containsExactlyInAnyOrder(
tuple("foo", "OtherValueFoo"),
tuple("bar", "OtherValueBar")
);
Alternatively to hasProperty
you can try hamcrest-more-matchers where
matcher with extracting function. In your case it will look like:
import static com.github.seregamorph.hamcrest.MoreMatchers.where;
assertThat(myClass.getMyItems(), contains(
where(MyItem::getName, is("foo")),
where(MyItem::getName, is("bar"))
));
The advantages of this approach are:
Expected: iterable containing [Object that matches is "foo" after call
MyItem.getName, Object that matches is "bar" after call MyItem.getName]
but: item 0: was "wrong-name"
Source: Stackoverflow.com