My motto for Java is "just because Java has static blocks, it doesn't mean that you should be using them." Jokes aside, there are a lot of tricks in Java that make testing a nightmare. Two of the most I hate are Anonymous Classes and Static Blocks. We have a lot of legacy code that make use of Static Blocks and these are one of the annoying points in our push in writing unit tests. Our goal is to be able to write unit tests for classes that depend on this static initialization with minimal code changes.
So far my suggestion to my colleagues is to move the body of the static block into a private static method and call it staticInit
. This method can then be called from within the static block. For unit testing another class that depends on this class could easily mock staticInit
with JMockit to not do anything. Let's see this in example.
public class ClassWithStaticInit {
static {
System.out.println("static initializer.");
}
}
Will be changed to
public class ClassWithStaticInit {
static {
staticInit();
}
private static void staticInit() {
System.out.println("static initialized.");
}
}
So that we can do the following in a JUnit.
public class DependentClassTest {
public static class MockClassWithStaticInit {
public static void staticInit() {
}
}
@BeforeClass
public static void setUpBeforeClass() {
Mockit.redefineMethods(ClassWithStaticInit.class, MockClassWithStaticInit.class);
}
}
However this solution also comes with its own problems. You can't run DependentClassTest
and ClassWithStaticInitTest
on the same JVM since you actually want the static block to run for ClassWithStaticInitTest
.
What would be your way of accomplishing this task? Or any better, non-JMockit based solutions that you think would work cleaner?
Sounds to me like you are treating a symptom: poor design with dependencies on static initialization. Maybe some refactoring is the real solution. It sounds like you've already done a little refactoring with your
staticInit()
function, but maybe that function needs to be called from the constructor, not from a static initializer. If you can do away with static initializers period, you will be better off. Only you can make this decision (I can't see your codebase) but some refactoring will definitely help.As for mocking, I use EasyMock, but I have run into the same issue. Side effects of static initializers in legacy code make testing difficult. Our answer was to refactor out the static initializer.
I suppose you really want some kind of factory instead of the static initializer.
Some mix of a singleton and an abstract factory would probably be able to get you the same functionality as today, and with good testability, but that would add quite a lot of boiler-plate code, so it might be better to just try to refactor the static stuff away completely or if you could at least get away with some less complex solution.
Hard to tell if it´s possible without seeing your code though.
PowerMock is another mock framework that extends EasyMock and Mockito. With PowerMock you can easily remove unwanted behavior from a class, for example a static initializer. In your example you simply add the following annotations to your JUnit test case:
PowerMock does not use a Java agent and therefore does not require modification of the JVM startup parameters. You simple add the jar file and the above annotations.