Blog

But they may not be as stylish and pair well with other tools in terms of readability. In addition, JUnit tools contain some pitfalls.

1. Updated

   Are you tired of your computer running slow? Annoyed by frustrating error messages? ASR Pro is the solution for you! Our recommended tool will quickly diagnose and repair Windows issues while dramatically increasing system performance. So don't wait any longer, download ASR Pro today!

   
   

   Neutralize try - catch You should write in a block that covers the behavior being tested, and write the document in a catch block that persists as many people might find that this feeling interrupts the process of reading contemplation. You should also write the wonderful Assert.fail at the end of the try block. Otherwise, the test may miss the bad side of the statement; PMD, findbugs or Sonar will detect What are the problems.

2. The @Test (expected to be ...) function is interesting because you can enter less code and this attempt should be less prone to coding errors. But in some areas this approach is not.

   • If a test needs to check for more information about an exception, such as a specific reason or message (good exception messages are still very important, the exact key of the exception may not be enough).

   • Also, since this waiting carries with it secrets, depending on how the code under test is written, undoubtedly the wrong piece of test code can throw an exception, especially on fake ones. positive, and I don't know if PMD, findbugs or sonar will give any clues about such a code.

       @Test (expected = WantedException.class)public useless call2_should_throw_a_WantedException__not_call1 ()   // Initialization checked    test.call1 (); // may throw WantedException    // The face needs to be tested    test.call2 (); // call that should throw an exception 

The

3. The ExpectedException rule is also an attempt to eliminate theseDamage, but it felt a little awkward because it uses the expected style. EasyMock users are familiar with this style. This may be useful for some, but if you are following the Behavior Driven Development (BDD) or Arrange Act Assert (AAA) guidelines, the ExpectedException rule is not appropriate for this style of writing. When doing this, the application might face the same issue for the @Test path, depending on where you set expectations.

     @Rule ExpectedException thrown = ExpectedException.none ()@Checkpublic call2_should_throw_a_WantedException__not_call1 () void    // Expectations    throw.expect (WantedException.class);    throw.expectMessage ("boom");    // Initialization checked    test.call1 (); // perfect throw WantedException    // Call us for testing    test.call2 (); // call that should throw an exception 

   Even a mandatory exception before placing a test account would interrupt your read flow if I said the tests followed BDD or AAA.

   See also this single JUnit comment in ExpectedException . JUnit 4.13-beta-2 even rejects this important fact mechanism:

   Pull Request # 1519: ExpectedE Exceptionxception

   The Assert.assertThrows method is a more convenient way to check for exceptions. Also, using ExpectedException with other rules like TestWatcher is definitely error prone since the order of the rules is critical in this case.

Thus, the above options contain all sorts of caveats, they are great and are not immune to coding errors.

4. I found out about your project after I wrote this promising answer. This is an exception.

   As stated in the project description, everything is written by the encoder in one line of fluid code that catches the exception, suggesting that exception for a final investigation. And you can use any collection of assertions like Hamcrest or AssertJ.Rapid

   home page example:

     // provided: empty listList myList = new ArrayList ();// When: we are trying to get the original item from the listwhen (myList). So: get (1);// we trust IndexOutOfBoundsExceptionthen (catchException ())        .isInstanceOf (IndexOutOfBoundsException.class)        .hasMessage ("Index: 1, Size: 0")        .hasNoCause (); 

   As you can see, the mode is really simple. They capture the exception on one line, specifically the then API is an alias that uses the AssertJ API (similar to using assertThat (ex) .hasNoCause (). ). At some point, the project relied on FEST-Assert, I would say, the ancestor of AssertJ. EDIT: Looks like this is a project getting ready to support Java 8 Lambdas. This

   There are currently two errors in the library:

   • 

     At the time of this writing, this situation is noteworthy as this library is usually based on Mockito 1.x as it allows you to model the object under test behind the scenes. Since Mockito will no longer be updated, this library cannot work with perfect classes or final methods. And even the problem, if the current version is based on Mockito 2, requires declaring a global mock-maker ( inline-mock-maker ), a specific program that might not be what you want. This mockup builder has various disadvantages that a regular mockup builder usually has.

   • 

     This requires an additional test dependency.

   EThese problems no longer arise if the library supports lambda expressions. However, the functionality is usually duplicated by the AssertJ toolbox.

   If you mean that when you don't want to use the catch-Exception tool I, rely on the old method of some of the try - catch blocks, at least until JDK7. And for JDK 8, you would probably prefer using AssertJ because it does more than just acknowledge exceptions.

5. Enter the test scene with jdk8 lambda expression type, so this turned out to be a useful way to state outstanding behavior. Assertj has been updated to provide a good and competent API for asserting exceptional behavior.

   and test case with AssertJ:

   

     @Testpublic void test_Exception_approach_1 ()    ...    assertThatExceptionOfType (IOException class.)           .isThrownBy (() SomeBadIOOperation ()) -> .withMessage ("boom!");@Checkpublic reset test_Exception_approach_2 ()    ...    assertThatThrownBy (() -> someBadIOOperation ())            .isInstanceOf (Exception.class)           .hasMessageContain ("boom");@Checkpublic void test_Exception_approach_3 ()    ...    // Yes    Throwable implies catchThrowable (() -> someBadIOOperation ());    // So    assertThat (quit) .isInstanceOf (Exception.class)                      .hasMessageContain ("boom"); 

6. With the nearly complete JUnit 5 vortex, the claims have been slightly improved before. But the Total Assertion API is still a little broken, there is nothing outside of assertThrows .

     @Test@DisplayName ("gets an EmptyStackException every time you view throwsExceptionWhenPeeked ()")Empty    Throw t = assertThrows (EmptyStackException.class, () -> stack.peek ());    Assertions.assertEquals ("...", t.getMessage ()); 

   As you know, assertEquals is always void , returns and does not allow merging assertions like AssertJ.If

   You also remember name conflicts with Matcher and / or possibly Assert , be prepared to face the same conflict with Assertions .

( JUnit or not), JDKs should instead rely on the try - catch shoes, even if they feel uncomfortable.

This answer may have been copied from another question, p If you are not so visible, I am your author.

Java Junit Assert-fout
Java Junit Hävdar Fel
자바 Junit 어설션 오류
Errore Di Affermazione Di Java Junit
Ошибка утверждения Java Junit
Java Junit Assert Error
Błąd Java Junit Assert
Error De Afirmación De Java Junit
Erreur D'assertion Java Junit
Java Junit Assert-Fehler

Frank Anderson

Related posts:

Easily Fix Tie Point Errors Help Fix DirectX 9 Errors For Win XP SP3 What Causes Sony Camcorder C 13 02 Errors And How To Fix Them How To Fix Windows System32 Notepad.dll Loading Errors