Codegass opened a new issue, #6660: URL: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/6660
##### ISSUE TYPE * Improvement Request ##### COMPONENT NAME unit-test ##### OS / ENVIRONMENT N/A ##### SUMMARY The test case [searchForNonExistingLoadBalancer](https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/blob/ddb11b1b966cc2b3443ef4d2eeb55c1d64ff3fb9/server/src/test/java/org/apache/cloudstack/network/lb/ApplicationLoadBalancerTest.java#L189-L205) checks that when retrieving a non-existing lb, an InvalidParameterValueException should be raised. However, the intention is not explicit in the current implementation of the test case. See below the current implementation: ```java try { rule = _appLbSvc.getApplicationLoadBalancer(nonExistingLbId); if (rule != null) { notFound = false; } } catch (InvalidParameterValueException ex) { notFound = true; } assertTrue("Found non-existing load balancer; no invalid parameter value exception was thrown", notFound); ``` The test case relies on a parameter named notFound, being asserted in line [204](https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/blob/ddb11b1b966cc2b3443ef4d2eeb55c1d64ff3fb9/server/src/test/java/org/apache/cloudstack/network/lb/ApplicationLoadBalancerTest.java#L204), and a try-catch block with if condition between lines [195 to 204](https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/blob/ddb11b1b966cc2b3443ef4d2eeb55c1d64ff3fb9/server/src/test/java/org/apache/cloudstack/network/lb/ApplicationLoadBalancerTest.java#L195-#L204) to achieve the testing goal. It can be simplified to 4 lines with a more explicit intention for easy understanding, as follows: <!-- In this test case, the `_appLbSvc.getApplicationLoadBalancer(nonExistingLbId)` method is the testing target, and if we expand the method, we will find out that this method is rely on the `_lbDao.findById(ruleId)` method, which is actually mocked in the setup of the test class at line [125 - 126](https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/blob/ddb11b1b966cc2b3443ef4d2eeb55c1d64ff3fb9/server/src/test/java/org/apache/cloudstack/network/lb/ApplicationLoadBalancerTest.java#L125-L126), and it will always return `null`. ```java @Override public ApplicationLoadBalancerRule getApplicationLoadBalancer(long ruleId) { ApplicationLoadBalancerRule lbRule = _lbDao.findById(ruleId); if (lbRule == null) { throw new InvalidParameterValueException("Can't find the load balancer by id"); } return lbRule; } ``` So here the `rule != null` check is not necessary. This test case can be simplified by replacing the if condition and try-catch with the Expected Exception Annotation from JUnit. And to make sure the mocked function executed properly, I also suggest adding the `verify` function from Mockito. --> After refactoring ```java //Negative test - try to retrieve non-existing lb public void searchForNonExistingLoadBalancer() { assertThrows(InvalidParameterValueException.class, _appLbSvc.getApplicationLoadBalancer(nonExistingLbId)); verify(_lbDao).findById(1L); } ``` With the given input nonExistingLbID, the target function `_appLbSvc.getApplicationLoadBalancer(nonExistingLbId)` is expected to throw an `InvalidParameterValueException`, as specified in the expected annotation. The try-catch block and the if condition are removed. I added `verify(_lbDao).findById(1L)` since the `_lbDao.findById(ruleId)` method is mocked to always return null for testing the target function `_appLbSvc.getApplicationLoadBalancer(nonExistingLbId)`. We just need to verify that it is executed, when the Exception does not throw, no need to check the value as in the original [line 197](https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/blob/ddb11b1b966cc2b3443ef4d2eeb55c1d64ff3fb9/server/src/test/java/org/apache/cloudstack/network/lb/ApplicationLoadBalancerTest.java#L197). ###### Operational impact The testing refactoring won’t affect any part of the production code behavior. Also, only the original cases are replaced with unit tests. ###### Note Please let me know if this makes sense. Any comments are welcome and appreciated. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
