We Keep Coding

Mock function inside function with Jest

I would like to mock a function that is called inside another function and also control what it can return or possibly throw an error.
main.ts
import function from './function';
const main = async() => {
...
try {
value = await function(arguments);
} catch(error) {
...
}
}
For this dumb case for example if I wanted to test that "function" has been called with the right parameters, mocking its return value. I also want to be able to mock a thrown error from that function.
Basically I dont want my test to go inside this function, I just want to mock it and test the rest of the main function with the return value, and test the catch handler.
Here is the base of what I would want to do:
main.test.ts
import main from './main';
import function from './function';
describe('Test main', () => {
it('should call function with the right arguments', async() => {
function = jest.fn(() => value);
await main();
expect(function).toHaveBeenLastCalledWith(arguments);
// expect not to have thrown error
});
it('should handle the error of function', async() => {
function = jest.fn().mockRejectedValue(new Error('error'));
await main();
expect(function).toHaveBeenLastCalledWith(arguments);
// expect to have thrown error
});
});
Thank you for your help!

You need to mock the module.
Something like this:
import function from './function';
jest.mock("./function")
it("some", () => {
function.mockRejectedValue(new Error('error'));
//do stuff
expect(function).toHaveBeenLastCalledWith(arguments);
});

Jest testing context / spy on mocked variables created outside of functions (class level) Postmark

I'm trying to do some testing in Jest but getting stuck with a mock/spy. I've managed to get the test working but only by changing my implementation (which I feel dirty about).
Here's the test:
import * as postmark from 'postmark';
jest.mock('postmark');
const mockGetServers = jest.fn();
const AccountClient = jest.fn(() => {
return {
getServers: mockGetServers
};
});
postmark.AccountClient = AccountClient;
import accountApi from './account-api';
describe('account-api', () => {
describe('listServers', () => {
it('calls postmark listServers', async () => {
await accountApi.listServers();
expect(mockGetServers).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1);
});
});
});
Here's the working implementation:
import * as postmark from 'postmark';
const accountToken = 'some-token-number';
const listServers = async () => {
try {
const accountClient = postmark.AccountClient(accountToken);
const servers = await accountClient.getServers();
return servers;
} catch (e) {
console.log('ERROR', e);
}
};
export default {
listServers
}
Here's the original implementation:
import * as postmark from 'postmark';
const accountToken = 'some-token-number';
const accountClient = postmark.AccountClient(accountToken);
const listServers = async () => {
try {
const servers = await accountClient.getServers();
return servers;
} catch (e) {
console.log('ERROR', e);
}
};
export default {
listServers
}
The only change is where in the code the accountClient is created (either inside or outside of the listServers function). The original implementation would complete and jest would report the mock hadn't been called.
I'm stumped as to why this doesn't work to start with and guessing it's something to do with context of the mock. Am I missing something about the way jest works under the hood? As the implementation of accountApi will have more functions all using the same client it makes sense to create one for all functions rather than per function. Creating it per function doesn't sit right with me.
What is different about the way I have created the accountClient that means the mock can be spied on in the test? Is there a way I can mock (and spy on) the object that is created at class level not at function level?
Thanks

Am I missing something about the way jest works under the hood?
Two things to note:
ES6 import calls are hoisted to the top of the current scope
babel-jest hoists calls to jest.mock to the top of their code block (above everything including any ES6 import calls in the block)
What is different about the way I have created the accountClient that means the mock can be spied on in the test?
In both cases this runs first:
jest.mock('postmark');
...which will auto-mock the postmark module.
Then this runs:
import accountApi from './account-api';
In the original implementation this line runs:
const accountClient = postmark.AccountClient(accountToken);
...which captures the result of calling postmark.AccountClient and saves it in accountClient. The auto-mock of postmark will have stubbed AccountClient with a mock function that returns undefined, so accountClient will be set to undefined.
In both cases the test code now starts running which sets up the mock for postmark.AccountClient.
Then during the test this line runs:
await accountApi.listServers();
In the original implementation that call ends up running this:
const servers = await accountClient.getServers();
...which drops to the catch since accountClient is undefined, the error is logged, and the test continues until it fails on this line:
expect(mockGetServers).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1);
...since mockGetServers was never called.
On the other hand, in the working implementation this runs:
const accountClient = postmark.AccountClient(accountToken);
const servers = await accountClient.getServers();
...and since postmark is mocked by this point it uses the mock and the test passes.
Is there a way I can mock (and spy on) the object that is created at class level not at function level?
Yes.
Because the original implementation captures the result of calling postmark.AccountClient as soon as it is imported, you just have to make sure your mock is set up before you import the original implementation.
One of the easiest ways to do that is to set up your mock with a module factory during the call to jest.mock since it gets hoisted and runs first.
Here is an updated test that works with the original implementation:
import * as postmark from 'postmark';
jest.mock('postmark', () => { // use a module factory
const mockGetServers = jest.fn();
const AccountClient = jest.fn(() => {
return {
getServers: mockGetServers // NOTE: this returns the same mockGetServers every time
};
});
return {
AccountClient
}
});
import accountApi from './account-api';
describe('account-api', () => {
describe('listServers', () => {
it('calls postmark listServers', async () => {
await accountApi.listServers();
const mockGetServers = postmark.AccountClient().getServers; // get mockGetServers
expect(mockGetServers).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1); // Success!
});
});
});

I think you might want to look at proxyquire.
import * as postmark from 'postmark';
import * as proxyquire from 'proxyquire';
jest.mock('postmark');
const mockGetServers = jest.fn();
const AccountClient = jest.fn(() => {
return {
getServers: mockGetServers
};
});
postmark.AccountClient = AccountClient;
import accountApi from proxyquire('./account-api', postmark);
describe('account-api', () => {
describe('listServers', () => {
it('calls postmark listServers', async () => {
await accountApi.listServers();
expect(mockGetServers).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1);
});
});
});
Note that I have not tested this implementation; tweaking may be required.

JestJS: Async test isn't stopped

I got two problems with this jest test:
Is it possible to define the Content collection only once instead of doing that inside of the test?
I do get this error:
Jest did not exit one second after the test run has completed.
This usually means that there are asynchronous operations that weren't stopped in your tests. Consider running Jest with --detectOpenHandles to troubleshoot this issue.
I don't see why my async code weren't stopped...
import resolvers from 'resolvers/'
import Db from 'lib/db'
const db = new Db()
describe('Resolver', () => {
let token
beforeAll(async () => {
await db.connect()
})
beforeEach(async () => {
token = 'string'
await db.dropDB()
})
afterAll(async () => {
await db.connection.close()
})
describe('articleGetContent()', () => {
test('should return dataset', async () => {
// SETUP
const Content = db.connection.collection('content')
const docs = [{
// some content...
}]
await Content.insertMany(docs)
// EXECUTE
const result = await resolvers.Query.articleGetContent({}, {
id: '123,
language: 'en'
}, {
token
})
// VERIFY
expect.assertions(1)
expect(result).toBeDefined()
})
})
})
resolver
import { articleGetContent } from '../models/article'
export default {
Query: {
articleGetContent: async (obj, { id }, { token }) => articleGetContent(id, token)
}
}
This is how my db class looks like
db.js
export default class Db {
constructor (uri, callback) {
const mongo = process.env.MONGO || 'mongodb://localhost:27017'
this.mongodb = process.env.MONGO_DB || 'testing'
this.gfs = null
this.connection = MongoClient.connect(mongo, { useNewUrlParser: true })
this.connected = false
return this
}
async connect (msg) {
if (!this.connected) {
try {
this.connection = await this.connection
this.connection = this.connection.db(this.mongodb)
this.gfs = new mongo.GridFSBucket(this.connection)
this.connected = true
} catch (err) {
console.error('mongo connection error', err)
}
}
return this
}
async disconnect () {
if (this.connected) {
try {
this.connection = await this.connection.close()
this.connected = false
} catch (err) {
console.error('mongo disconnection error', err)
}
}
}
async dropDB () {
const Content = this.connection.collection('content')
await Content.deleteMany({})
}
}

Related to the second question I hope you've found some issues on github about it.
In general, the issue is described in the debug log.
Jest works with promises, as a result, you shouldn't leave any async operations in any status except resolved.
In your case, you have your DB connection opened so you need to implement another method disconnect for your DB class, this link to docs will help you, but I guess you have it already as it's not the full db.js file ( I see some custom method dropDB. Main idea here is to have it in afterAll hook:
afterAll(() => db.disconnect());
Great example at the bottom of the page
What about the first question, it really depends on what you are doing in your method dropDB. If you're running method for dropping collection, you could store the reference to this collection somewhere outside and use it as it will automatically create the new one, but it would be great to see this method.
Additionally, your async test was created in a wrong way, you could read more here for example in my Update. You need to run this function in the beginning of the test: expect.assertions(number)
expect.assertions(number) verifies that a certain number of assertions
are called during a test. This is often useful when testing
asynchronous code, in order to make sure that assertions in a callback
actually got called.

sinon stub not restoring properly if the stubbing method is deconstructed

Given the test codes below:
subAuthCall:
const sinon = require('sinon')
const sandbox = sinon.createSandbox()
function stubSuccessCall() {
return sandbox.stub(authorization, 'authorize').returns({enabled: true});
}
function stubFailedCall() {
return sandbox.stub(authorization, 'authorize').returns({enabled: false});
function restoreSub() {
sandbox.restore();
}
in the authorization.js file, I have:
function authorize(data) {
return data.enabled;
}
module.exports = {
authorize
}
and then in the middleware, I have:
const {authorize} = require('./authorization')
async function check() {
//import auth data
console.log(authorize(data))
if (authorize(data)) {
//resolve to true
} else {
//reject
}
}
Then in the test case, I called:
afterEach(authorizationStub.restorStub);
describe('auth testing', () => {
it('test successful', () => {
authorizationStub.stubSuccessCall();
return check().then(res => {expect(res.result).to.equl(true)});
})
it('test failed', () => {
authorizationStub.stubFailedCall();
return check().then(res => {expect(res.result).to.equl(false)});
})
})
It's a overly simplified auth logic and test case. The weird problem I had is that if I run both test cases, it prints out:
1 - test successful
true // from console.log(authorize(data))
2 - test failed
true // from console.log(authorize(data))
The 1st test case passed and the 2nd one failed (because the stubbing didn't return the right result)
but in the test failed, case, it supposed to return false as how I stub it in stubFailedCall, but it still has the same result in stubSuccessCall. I have verified the restoreStub is called.
I accidentally came across the fix: In the middleware, I used to have:
const {authorize} = require('./authorization')
...
but if I changed this to:
const auth = require('./authorization')
and then in the codes, instead of:
authorize(data)
I do:
auth.authorize(data)
This will work - both test cases will pass without any other changes.
My question is, why sinon stub/restoring stub didn't work if I deconstruct the authorize call in the middleware, but if I use an object to make the call, it will work? What's the mechanism behind this?

How to assert stubbed fetch more than once

Using proxyquire, sinon, and mocha.
I am able to stub fetch on the first call of fetch. But on the second fetch call, which is recursive, I am not able to assert it. From the output, it looks like the assertion may run before the test finishes. You will see this with second fetch console out after assertion.
index.js
var fetch = require('node-fetch');
function a() {
console.log('function a runs');
fetch('https://www.google.com')
.then((e) => {
console.log('first fetch');
b();
})
.catch((e)=> {
console.log('error')
});
}
function b() {
fetch('https://www.google.com')
.then((e) => {
console.log('second fetch');
})
.catch((e)=> {
console.log('error')
});
}
a()
test:
describe('fetch test demo', ()=> {
it('fetch should of called twice', (done)=> {
fetchStub = sinon.stub();
fetchStub2 = sinon.stub();
fetch = sinon.stub();
fetchStub.returns(Promise.resolve('hello'));
fetchStub2.returns(Promise.resolve('hi'));
var promises = [ fetchStub, fetchStub2 ]
fetch.returns(Promise.all(promises));
proxy('../index', {
'node-fetch': fetch
});
fetch.should.have.been.callCount(2);
done()
});
});
fetch test demo
function a runs
1) fetch should of called twice
first fetch
second fetch
lifx alert test
- fetch should of called three times
when rain change is over 50%
- should run fetch twice
0 passing (78ms)
2 pending
1 failing
1) fetch test demo fetch should of called twice:
expected stub to have been called exactly twice, but it was called once
stub(https://www.google.com) => [Promise] { } at a (/home/one/github/lifx-weather/foobar.js:5:3)
AssertionError: expected stub to have been called exactly twice, but it was called once
stub(https://www.google.com) => [Promise] { } at a (foobar.js:5:3)
at Context.it (test/bar.js:22:28)

Updated version
#dman, since you updated your test case I owe you an updated answer. Although rephrased, the scenario is still unorthodox - it seems like you want to ignore in a sense the 'law of gravity' even though you know it's right there in front of you.
I'll try to be as descriptive as possible. You have two functions which are doing async stuff by design. a() calls b() sequentially - by the way this is not recursion. Both functions do not notify their callers upon completion / failure, i.e. they are treated as fire-and-forget.
Now, let's have a look at your test scenario. You create 3 stubs. Two of them resolve to a string and one combining their execution using Promise.all(). Next, you proxy the 'node-fetch' module
proxy('./updated', {
'node-fetch': fetch
});
using the stub that returns the combined execution of stubs 1 & 2. Now, if you print out the resolved value of fetch in either function, you will see that instead of a string it's an array of stubs.
function a () {
console.log('function a runs');
fetch('http://localhost')
.then((e) => {
console.log('first fetch', e);
b();
})
.catch((e) => {
console.log('error');
});
}
Which I guess is not the intended output. But let's move over as this is not killing your test anyway. Next, you have added the assertion together with the done() statement.
fetch.should.have.been.callCount(2);
done();
The issue here is that whether you are using done() or not, the effect would be exactly the same. You are executing your scenario in sync mode. Of course in this case, the assertion will always fail. But the important thing here is to understand why.
So, let's rewrite your scenario to mimic the async nature of the behavior you want to validate.
'use strict';
const chai = require('chai');
const sinon = require('sinon');
const SinonChai = require('sinon-chai');
chai.use(SinonChai);
chai.should();
const proxy = require('proxyquire');
describe('fetch test demo', () => {
it('fetch should of called twice', (done) => {
var fetchStub = sinon.stub();
var fetchStub2 = sinon.stub();
var fetch = sinon.stub();
fetchStub.returns(Promise.resolve('hello'));
fetchStub2.returns(Promise.resolve('hi'));
var promises = [fetchStub, fetchStub2];
fetch.returns(Promise.all(promises));
proxy('./updated', {
'node-fetch': fetch
});
setTimeout(() => {
fetch.should.have.been.callCount(2);
done();
}, 10);
});
});
As you can see, the only change made was wrapping the assertion within a timer block. Nothing much - just wait for 10ms and then assert. Now the test passes as expected. Why?
Well, to me it's pretty straightforward. You want to test 2 sequentially executed async functions and still run your assertions in sync mode. That sounds cool, but it's not gonna happen :) So you have 2 options:
Have your functions notify callers upon completion and then run your assertions in truly async mode
Mimic the async nature of things using unorthodox techniques
Reply based on original test scenario
It can be done. I've re-factored your provided files a bit so that
can be executed.
index.js
const fetch = require('node-fetch');
const sendAlert = require('./alerts').sendAlert;
module.exports.init = function () {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
fetch('https://localhost')
.then(function () {
sendAlert().then(() => {
resolve();
}).catch(
e => reject(e)
);
})
.catch(e => {
reject(e);
});
});
};
alerts.js
const fetch = require('node-fetch');
module.exports.sendAlert = function () {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
fetch('https://localhost')
.then(function () {
resolve();
}).catch((e) => {
reject(e);
});
});
};
test.js
'use strict';
const chai = require('chai');
const sinon = require('sinon');
const SinonChai = require('sinon-chai');
chai.use(SinonChai);
chai.should();
const proxy = require('proxyquire');
describe.only('lifx alert test', () => {
it('fetch should of called twice', (done) => {
var body = {
'hourly': {
data: [{
time: 1493413200,
icon: 'clear-day',
precipIntensity: 0,
precipProbability: 0,
ozone: 297.17
}]
}
};
var response = {
json: () => {
return body;
}
};
const fetchStub = sinon.stub();
fetchStub.returns(Promise.resolve(response));
fetchStub['#global'] = true;
var stubs = {
'node-fetch': fetchStub
};
const p1 = proxy('./index', stubs);
p1.init().then(() => {
try {
fetchStub.should.have.been.calledTwice;
done();
} catch (e) {
done(e);
}
}).catch((e) => done(e));
});
});
What you're trying to do though is a bit unorthodox when it comes to
good unit testing practices. Although proxyquire supports this
mode of stubbing through a feature called global overrides, it is
explained here why should anyone think twice before going down
this path.
In order to make your example pass the test, you just need to add an
extra attribute to the Sinon stub called #global and set it to
true. This flag overrides the require() caching mechanism and
uses the provided stub no matter which module is called from.
So, although what you're asking can be done I will have to agree with
the users that commented your question, that this should not be
adopted as a proper way of structuring your tests.

Here is also a alternative way to do this using Promise.all().
Note: this won't work if using fetch's json method and you need to pass data in the resolve() for logic on data. It will only pass in the stubs when resolved. However, it will assert the number of times called.
describe('fetch test demo', () => {
it('fetch should of called twice', () => {
let fetchStub = sinon.stub();
let fetchStub2 = sinon.stub();
let fetch = sinon.stub();
fetchStub.returns(Promise.resolve('hello'));
fetchStub2.returns(Promise.resolve('hi'));
var promises = [ fetchStub, fetchStub2 ]
var promise = Promise.all(promises);
fetch.returns(promise);
proxy('../foobar', { 'node-fetch': fetch });
return promise.then(() => {
fetch.should.have.callCount(2);
});
});
});

I have found another way to get things done.
May be this could work for someone.
describe('Parent', () => {
let array: any = [];
before(async () => {
array = await someAsyncDataFetchFunction();
asyncTests();
});
it('Dummy test to run before()',async () => {
expect(0).to.equal(0); // You can use this test to getting confirm whether data fetch is completed or not.
});
function asyncTests() {
array.forEach((currentValue: any) => {
describe('Child', async () => {
it('Test '+ currentValue ,() => {
expect(currentValue).to.equal(true);
})
})
});
}
});
That's how I achieved the assertion on every element of the array. (Array data is being fetch asynchronously).