CODEWITHSUNDEEP
javajunitjunit4hamcrest
Kevindra
Kevindra

Reputation: 1762

Writing better JUnit Parameterized test cases

I have an interesting requirement. I want to have as better test case coverage as possible in my application. I am using Parameterized Junit to run testcases with number of different inputs. My sample test class looks like this:

@Parameters
public static Collection<Object[]> testInputs()
{
    return Arrays.asList({
        {1, CoreMatchers.is(1)},
        {2, CoreMatchers.is(2)}
    });
}
@Test
public test()
{
    myApp.run(); 
    assertThat(myApp.getA(), matcher);
}

This way, I defined the assertion logic with my test parameters. Now I want to run multiple matchers on the test case, some of them can be custom matchers which I wrote.

@Parameters
public static Collection<Object[]> testInputs()
{
    return Arrays.asList({
        {1, Arrays.asList( CoreMatchers.is(1), CustomMatchers.status(1) ) },
        {2, Arrays.asList( CoreMatchers.is(2), CustomMatchers.status(2) ) }
    });
}

And assertion is like:

for(Matcher<MyApp> matcher: matchers)
{
    assertThat(myApp, matcher);
}

But the problem is, both the matchers run on different objects. What is the best way I can define my CustomMatcher ??

Should I categorize the assertion by type of matcher?

I would appreciate any help. Thanks in advance.

Upvotes: 0

Views: 1490

Answers (2)

David Harkness
David Harkness

Reputation: 36552

I'm not sure what you mean by "both the matchers run on different objects," but you can combine the matchers for a single test run using CoreMatchers.allOf. This way you don't need to loop over a list of matchers and can pass any number of matchers, including one.

@Parameters
public static Collection<Object[]> testInputs()
{
    return Arrays.asList({
        {1, CoreMatchers.allOf( CoreMatchers.is(1), CustomMatchers.status(1) ) },
        {2, CoreMatchers.allOf( CoreMatchers.is(2), CustomMatchers.status(2) ) }
    });
}

Upvotes: 1

artbristol
artbristol

Reputation: 32427

I'm not really sure what you're asking, but I think you would be better using pure java.lang objects rather than JUnit objects as the parameters. So

return Arrays.asList({
    {1, 1},
    {2, 2}
});

and use the is matcher in the actual test.

If the matchers are doing really different things, don't use a parameterized test, just use a separate test method. To reduce duplication, use the usual refactoring tools to extract common methods between test methods.

Upvotes: 1

Related Questions