我知道有一种方法是:
@Test
public void foo() {
try {
// execute code that you expect not to throw Exceptions.
} catch(Exception e) {
fail("Should not have thrown any exception");
}
}
还有更干净的方法吗?(可能使用了Junit的@Rule?)
我知道有一种方法是:
@Test
public void foo() {
try {
// execute code that you expect not to throw Exceptions.
} catch(Exception e) {
fail("Should not have thrown any exception");
}
}
还有更干净的方法吗?(可能使用了Junit的@Rule?)
当前回答
Java 8让这变得容易多了,Kotlin/Scala更是如此。
我们可以写一个小工具类
class MyAssertions{
public static void assertDoesNotThrow(FailingRunnable action){
try{
action.run()
}
catch(Exception ex){
throw new Error("expected action not to throw, but it did!", ex)
}
}
}
@FunctionalInterface interface FailingRunnable { void run() throws Exception }
然后你的代码就变得很简单:
@Test
public void foo(){
MyAssertions.assertDoesNotThrow(() -> {
//execute code that you expect not to throw Exceptions.
}
}
如果你不能使用java -8,我会使用一种非常古老的java工具:任意的代码块和一个简单的注释
//setup
Component component = new Component();
//act
configure(component);
//assert
/*assert does not throw*/{
component.doSomething();
}
最后,用kotlin,一种我最近爱上的语言:
fun (() -> Any?).shouldNotThrow()
= try { invoke() } catch (ex : Exception){ throw Error("expected not to throw!", ex) }
@Test fun `when foo happens should not throw`(){
//...
{ /*code that shouldn't throw*/ }.shouldNotThrow()
}
尽管有很多空间可以随意改变你想要如何表达这一点,但我一直喜欢流畅的断言。
关于
你想错了。只需测试您的功能:如果抛出异常,测试将自动失败。如果没有抛出异常,您的测试将全部显示为绿色。
这在原则上是正确的,但在结论上是不正确的。
Java允许控制流的异常。这是由JRE运行时本身在Double等api中完成的。parseDouble通过NumberFormatException和路径。通过invalidpatheexception获取。
Given you've written a component that validates Number strings for Double.ParseDouble, maybe using a Regex, maybe a hand-written parser, or perhaps something that embeds some other domain rules that restricts the range of a double to something specific, how best to test this component? I think an obvious test would be to assert that, when the resulting string is parsed, no exception is thrown. I would write that test using either the above assertDoesNotThrow or /*comment*/{code} block. Something like
@Test public void given_validator_accepts_string_result_should_be_interpretable_by_doubleParseDouble(){
//setup
String input = "12.34E+26" //a string double with domain significance
//act
boolean isValid = component.validate(input)
//assert -- using the library 'assertJ', my personal favourite
assertThat(isValid).describedAs(input + " was considered valid by component").isTrue();
assertDoesNotThrow(() -> Double.parseDouble(input));
}
我还鼓励您使用Theories或Parameterized对输入参数化这个测试,这样您就可以更容易地对其他输入重复使用这个测试。或者,如果您想要与众不同,您可以使用测试生成工具(以及这个工具)。TestNG对参数化测试有更好的支持。
What I find particularly disagreeable is the recommendation of using @Test(expectedException=IllegalArgumentException.class), this exception is dangerously broad. If your code changes such that the component under test's constructor has if(constructorArgument <= 0) throw IllegalArgumentException(), and your test was supplying 0 for that argument because it was convenient --and this is very common, because good generating test data is a surprisingly hard problem--, then your test will be green-bar even though it tests nothing. Such a test is worse than useless.
其他回答
对于5之前的JUnit版本:
使用AssertJ fluent断言3.7.0:
Assertions.assertThatCode(() -> toTest.method())
.doesNotThrowAnyException();
更新:
JUnit 5引入了assertDoesNotThrow()断言,所以我更喜欢使用它,而不是向项目添加额外的依赖项。详情请看这个答案。
我遇到了同样的情况,我需要检查异常是否在应该抛出的时候抛出,并且仅在应该抛出的时候抛出。 最终使用异常处理程序对我的好处如下代码:
try {
functionThatMightThrowException()
}catch (Exception e){
Assert.fail("should not throw exception");
}
RestOfAssertions();
对我来说,主要的好处是它非常直截了当,并且在相同的结构中检查“如果且仅当”的另一种方式非常容易
我偶然发现这一点是因为SonarQube的规则“squid:S2699”:“向这个测试用例添加至少一个断言。”
我有一个简单的测试,它的唯一目标是不抛出异常。
考虑这段简单的代码:
public class Printer {
public static void printLine(final String line) {
System.out.println(line);
}
}
可以添加什么样的断言来测试这个方法? 当然,您可以尝试捕获它,但这只是代码膨胀。
解决方案来自JUnit本身。
如果没有抛出异常,并且你想显式地说明这种行为,只需添加预期,如下例所示:
@Test(expected = Test.None.class /* no exception expected */)
public void test_printLine() {
Printer.printLine("line");
}
Test.None.class是预期值的默认值。
如果您导入org.junit.Test。没有,你可以这样写:
@Test(expected = None.class)
你可能会觉得更有可读性。
在这个问题上遇到了麻烦,因为我创建了一些泛型方法
@Test
void testSomething() {
checkGeneric(anComplexObect)
}
在https://newbedev.com/sonarqube-issue-add-at-least-one-assertion-to-this-test-case-for-unit-test-with-assertions中提出了一些注释的东西。
解决方案要简单得多。将“checkGeneric”方法重命名为“assertGeneric”就足够了。
@Test
void testSomething() {
assertGeneric(anComplexObect)
}
你可以使用@Rule,然后调用方法reportMissingExceptionWithMessage,如下所示: 这是Scala代码。