Does this work with Powermock libraries? about testparameterinjector HOT 12 CLOSED

I didn't have time this week, but I'll try to do it next week.

from testparameterinjector.

The class under test should have a default constructor, so you could check that.

If there is no obvious error there, we don't explicitly support Powermock. If you think there is a fix that we could do on our side to support Powermock, I'm happy to consider it.

from testparameterinjector.

Constructor present or absent in the class under test doesn't seem to make a difference. The powermock delegation seems to be creating an additional constructor.
I haven't yet looked at a possible solution, but wondering what is the purpose of this check for a single constructor?

https://github.com/google/TestParameterInjector/blob/main/junit4/src/main/java/com/google/testing/junit/testparameterinjector/TestParametersMethodProcessor.java#L447

from testparameterinjector.

One potential fix would be check for the public constructor and use that to get the annotations?

  private ImmutableList<Optional<TestParametersValues>>
      getConstructorParametersOrSingleAbsentElement(Class<?> testClass) {
    Constructor<?> constructor = getOnlyConstructor(testClass);
    return hasRelevantAnnotation(constructor)
        ? FluentIterable.from(getConstructorParameters(constructor))
            .transform(Optional::of)
            .toList()
        : ImmutableList.of(Optional.absent());
  }

from testparameterinjector.

Here's a fix that I tried locally and works, change is in getOnlyConstructor. Thoughts? I can create a PR if needed.

if (constructors.size() > 1 && testClass.isAnnotationPresent(PowerMockRunnerDelegate.class)) {
      for (Constructor<?> constructor : constructors) {
        if (Modifier.isPublic(constructor.getModifiers())) {
          return getOnlyElement(ImmutableList.of(constructor));
        }
      }
    }

from testparameterinjector.

Upon further investigation, it looks like the issue happens only when PowerMockRunner and EasyMockSupport is used. For example, I was able to repro the issue with the following class in this repo.

@RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
@PowerMockRunnerDelegate(TestParameterInjector.class)
public class PowerMockDelegateTest extends EasyMockSupport {

  public PowerMockDelegateTest() {

  }

  @Test
  public void test(@TestParameter boolean parameter) {
    assertThat(this.getClass().getAnnotation(PowerMockRunnerDelegate.class).annotationType())
            .isEqualTo(PowerMockRunnerDelegate.class);
  }
}

from testparameterinjector.

Looks the test runner itself is using getTestClass().getOnlyConstructor(), which is probably modified by Powermock to do the right thing. But then later, the following custom method is called by TestParameterInjector:

  private static Constructor<?> getOnlyConstructor(Class<?> testClass) {
    ImmutableList<Constructor<?>> constructors =
        ImmutableList.copyOf(testClass.getDeclaredConstructors());
    checkState(
        constructors.size() == 1, "Expected exactly one constructor, but got %s", constructors);
    return getOnlyElement(constructors);
  }

Ideally, we'd use getTestClass().getOnlyConstructor() throughout the codebase, but that's a big refactor. Instead, I'm thinking of being more lenient and filtering out non-public constructors first and let getTestClass().getOnlyConstructor() do the validation.

from testparameterinjector.

Could you check locally if this works?

import static com.google.common.collect.MoreCollectors.onlyElement;

constructors.stream().filter(c -> Modifier.isPublic(c.getModifiers())).collect(onlyElement())

from testparameterinjector.

yes, this works, @nymanjens

from testparameterinjector.

Are you planning to push your change? @nymanjens

from testparameterinjector.

I'll make a release (1.14) for this so you can test the updated code

from testparameterinjector.

great, thank you so much!

from testparameterinjector.