DOCSLIB.ORG

Unit Testing of Java EE Web Applications

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Unit Testing of Java EE Web Applications Unit Testing of Java EE Web Applications CHRISTIAN CASTILLO and MUSTAFA HAMRA KTH Information and Communication Technology Bachelor of Science Thesis Stockholm, Sweden 2014 TRITA-ICT-EX-2014:55 Unit Testing of Java EE Web Applications Christian Castillo Mustafa Hamra Bachelor of Science Thesis ICT 2013:3 TIDAB 009 KTH Information and Communication Technology Computer Engineering SE-164 40 KISTA Examensarbete ICT 2013:3 TIDAB 009 Analys av testramverk för Java EE Applikationer Christian Castillo Mustafa Hamra Godkänt Examinator Handledare 2014-maj-09 Leif Lindbäck Leif Lindbäck Uppdragsgivare Kontaktperson KTH/ICT/SCS Leif Lindbäck Sammanfattning Målet med denna rapport att är utvärdera testramverken Mockito och Selenium för att se om de är väl anpassade för nybörjare som ska enhetstesta och integritetstesta existerande Java EE Webbapplikationer. Rapporten ska också hjälpa till med inlärningsprocessen genom att förse studenterna, i kursen IV1201 – Arkitektur och design av globala applikationer, med användarvänliga guider. ii Bachelor thesis ICT 2014:6 TIDAB 009 Unit Testing of Java EE web applications Christian Castillo Mustafa Hamra Approved Examiner Supervisor 2014-maj-09 Leif Lindbäck Leif Lindbäck Commissioner Contact person KTH/ICT/SCS Leif Lindbäck Abstract This report determines if the Mockito and Selenium testing frameworks are well suited for novice users when unit- and integration testing existing Java EE Web applications in the course IV1201 – Design of Global Applications. The report also provides user-friendly tutorials to help with the learning process. iii PREFACE The report is a Bachelor Thesis that has been written in collaboration with the Department of Software and Computer Systems (SCS), School of Information and Communication Technology (ICT), Royal Institute of Technology (KTH). The purpose of this thesis is to analyze which unit testing frameworks and integration testing frameworks are well suited for Java EE applications for the course Design of Global Applications, IV1201. Being an academic report meant a close cooperation with our supervisor/examiner. Specifically, this study meant acquiring a strong grasp on the different frameworks such as Mockito framework extension over JUnit or JSFUnit, before implementing these on our previous Java EE code projects from when we attended the course. With this in mind, we like to thank our examiner and supervisor Leif Lindbäck at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) for his immense support and time dedicated into helping us throughout the project. Christian Castillo and Mustafa Hamra Stockholm, June 2014 iv NOMENCLATURE Abbreviations CDI Context Dependency Injection GUI/UI Graphical User Interface/User Interface HCI Human-Computer Interaction ICT Information and Communications Technology IDE Integrated Development Environment IMRaD Introduction, Method, Results and Discussion KTH Royal Institute of Technology OS Operating System OSGi Open Services Gateway Initiative PC Personal Computer SCS Software and Computer Systems SUT System Under Test TDD Test-Driven Development URL Uniform Resource Locator XP Extreme Programming v TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ..................................................................................................................... IV NOMENCLATURE ......................................................................................................... V 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 PURPOSE........................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 DELIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................ 2 1.4 METHOD ........................................................................................................................... 3 1.5 DISPOSITION ..................................................................................................................... 4 2 FRAME OF REFERENCE ............................................................................................ 5 3 THEORY ....................................................................................................................... 6 3.1 UNIT TESTING ................................................................................................................... 6 3.2 INTEGRATION TESTING ..................................................................................................... 7 3.2.1 Big Bang Approach ..................................................................................................... 7 3.2.2 Top-down Approach .................................................................................................... 9 3.2.3 Bottom-up Approach ................................................................................................. 11 3.3 MOCKITO ....................................................................................................................... 12 3.4 SELENIUM ...................................................................................................................... 14 4 THE PROCESS .......................................................................................................... 17 4.1 TEST CASES .................................................................................................................... 17 4.1.1 Test the logger ........................................................................................................... 17 4.1.2 Test of login method .................................................................................................. 18 4.1.3 Test of getters and setters .......................................................................................... 20 4.1.4 Test of login interaction ............................................................................................ 21 4.1.5 Test the login interaction & update status ................................................................ 22 4.1.6 Test of creating an application .................................................................................. 22 4.2 TUTORIALS ..................................................................................................................... 23 5 RESULTS ................................................................................................................... 25 5.1 MOCKITO TEST RESULTS ............................................................................................... 25 5.1.1 Results for test case: Test the logger ......................................................................... 25 5.1.2 Results for test case: Test of login method ................................................................ 28 5.1.3 Results for test case: Test of getters and setters ........................................................ 30 5.2 SELENIUM TEST RESULTS .............................................................................................. 33 5.2.1 Results for test case: Test of login interaction .......................................................... 33 5.2.2 Results for test case: Test of login interaction & update status ................................ 34 5.2.3 Results for test case: Test of creating an application ............................................... 35 5.3 EVALUATION OF TUTORIALS .......................................................................................... 37 5.3.1 Resulting structure of tutorials .................................................................................. 37 6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................... 39 6.1 DISCUSSION OF TEST CASE RESULTS ............................................................................... 39 6.1.1 Discussing results for test case: Test the logger ....................................................... 39 6.1.2 Discussing results for test case: Test of login method .............................................. 40 6.1.3 Discussing results for test case: Test of getters and setters ...................................... 42 vi 6.1.4 Discussing results for test case: Test of login interaction ........................................ 43 6.1.5 Discussing results for test case: Test of login interaction & update status .............. 43 6.1.6 Discussing results for test case: Test of creating an application .............................. 43 6.2 DISCUSSION OF TUTORIALS ............................................................................................ 44 6.2.1 Tutorial for Mockito .................................................................................................. 44 6.2.2 Tutorial for Selenium ................................................................................................ 45 6.3 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 47 6.3.1 Frameworks ............................................................................................................... 47 6.3.2 Tutorials .................................................................................................................... 47 7 RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE WORK .......................................................... 48 7.1
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Study on Functioning of Selenium Automation Testing Structure
    Volume 7, Issue 5, May 2017 ISSN: 2277 128X International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering Research Paper Available online at: www.ijarcsse.com A Study on Functioning of Selenium Automation Testing Structure 1Jyoti Devi, 2Kirti Bhatia, 3Rohini Sharma* 1, 2 Sat Kabir Institute of Technology and College Management Bahadurgarh, Haryana, India 3 Jesus and Mary Delhi University Delhi, India DOI: 10.23956/ijarcsse/V7I5/0204 Abstract— In recent years, there is advancement in the field of software engineering, applications are getting automated. As the software is error prone, there should some easy and automated way to test the software application. It is very challenging to test such complicated web applications. Human intervention can be reduced by using automation tools. Selenium is an online web based software testing tool. In this article, we have study the design and functioning of the selenium tool and used it to test various online applications. In order to test an application, testers do need not to learn the selenium web driver tool completely. This tool is helpful for a developer and tester, they can analyse their code owing to screen shot characteristics of framework. It generates the adapted test report to the tester. It is very simple to sustain and restore the test suite for new version of the application by this tool. Keywords—Selenium; Automated Testing; Test Cases; Report Generation I. INTRODUCTION The objective of software testing is to discover faults and errors in a software application. Software testing utilizes more than 50 % time of software development lifecycle. Testing time depends upon the algorithm used, programming language, line of codes, function points, external and internal interfaces [1].
    [Show full text]
  • Practical Unit Testing for Embedded Systems Part 1 PARASOFT WHITE PAPER
    Practical Unit Testing for Embedded Systems Part 1 PARASOFT WHITE PAPER Table of Contents Introduction 2 Basics of Unit Testing 2 Benefits 2 Critics 3 Practical Unit Testing in Embedded Development 3 The system under test 3 Importing uVision projects 4 Configure the C++test project for Unit Testing 6 Configure uVision project for Unit Testing 8 Configure results transmission 9 Deal with target limitations 10 Prepare test suite and first exemplary test case 12 Deploy it and collect results 12 Page 1 www.parasoft.com Introduction The idea of unit testing has been around for many years. "Test early, test often" is a mantra that concerns unit testing as well. However, in practice, not many software projects have the luxury of a decent and up-to-date unit test suite. This may change, especially for embedded systems, as the demand for delivering quality software continues to grow. International standards, like IEC-61508-3, ISO/DIS-26262, or DO-178B, demand module testing for a given functional safety level. Unit testing at the module level helps to achieve this requirement. Yet, even if functional safety is not a concern, the cost of a recall—both in terms of direct expenses and in lost credibility—justifies spending a little more time and effort to ensure that our released software does not cause any unpleasant surprises. In this article, we will show how to prepare, maintain, and benefit from setting up unit tests for a simplified simulated ASR module. We will use a Keil evaluation board MCBSTM32E with Cortex-M3 MCU, MDK-ARM with the new ULINK Pro debug and trace adapter, and Parasoft C++test Unit Testing Framework.
    [Show full text]
  • Parallel, Cross-Platform Unit Testing for Real-Time Embedded Systems
    University of Denver Digital Commons @ DU Electronic Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 1-1-2017 Parallel, Cross-Platform Unit Testing for Real-Time Embedded Systems Tosapon Pankumhang University of Denver Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd Part of the Computer Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Pankumhang, Tosapon, "Parallel, Cross-Platform Unit Testing for Real-Time Embedded Systems" (2017). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 1353. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd/1353 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. PARALLEL, CROSS-PLATFORM UNIT TESTING FOR REAL-TIME EMBEDDED SYSTEMS __________ A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Daniel Felix Ritchie School of Engineering and Computer Science University of Denver __________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy __________ by Tosapon Pankumhang August 2017 Advisor: Matthew J. Rutherford ©Copyright by Tosapon Pankumhang 2017 All Rights Reserved Author: Tosapon Pankumhang Title: PARALLEL, CROSS-PLATFORM UNIT TESTING FOR REAL-TIME EMBEDDED SYSTEMS Advisor: Matthew J. Rutherford Degree Date: August 2017 ABSTRACT Embedded systems are used in a wide variety of applications (e.g., automotive, agricultural, home security, industrial, medical, military, and aerospace) due to their small size, low-energy consumption, and the ability to control real-time peripheral devices precisely. These systems, however, are different from each other in many aspects: processors, memory size, develop applications/OS, hardware interfaces, and software loading methods.
    [Show full text]
  • Fast and Scalable Automation Framework : “Booster”
    WHITEPAPER Fast and Scalable Automation Framework : “Booster” Testing is a form of software business insurance. More automation coverage means less risk. and that is good news for everyone. Sonal Pallewar Email : [email protected] “Automation Framework” and “Why do we need a framework for test automation?” A framework is a software solution that can be used in place of ordinary code that offers generic functions. Some of the challenges of automation are: ● Writing and maintaining test automation frameworks Booster– Linux based ● Scaling to high number of simultaneous tests in multithreaded various environments automation framework ● Reporting and analytics of large number of test results to assess test coverage and build quality ● Ease of use to extend and maintain the framework ● Rich libraries that can be leveraged for quick delivery of automation ”Booster” addresses the above challenges and is used to automate and test several web and mobile frontend applications as well as backend components by executing hundreds of simultaneous tests. Booster is a best-fit Linux based multithreaded automation framework that is fast, scalable and easily extensible. Booster also has readily available rich web, mobile, Linux libraries that can be leveraged to quickly build product specific tests without investing much time in interaction with web and mobile UI interfaces. 1 Need of Booster framework Linux Based Booster is a Linux based framework Supports remote execution of web tests Supports remote execution of tests in target environments with the help of paramiko python library. Supports frontend and backend automation Consists of a rich set of Selenium, mobile and Linux libraries Selenium Grid Supports serial and parallel execution of tests, Multi-platform support i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Unit Testing Is a Level of Software Testing Where Individual Units/ Components of a Software Are Tested. the Purpose Is to Valid
    Unit Testing is a level of software testing where individual units/ components of a software are tested. The purpose is to validate that each unit of the software performs as designed. A unit is the smallest testable part of software. It usually has one or a few inputs and usually a single output. In procedural programming a unit may be an individual program, function, procedure, etc. In object-oriented programming, the smallest unit is a method, which may belong to a base/ super class, abstract class or derived/ child class. (Some treat a module of an application as a unit. This is to be discouraged as there will probably be many individual units within that module.) Unit testing frameworks, drivers, stubs, and mock/ fake objects are used to assist in unit testing. METHOD Unit Testing is performed by using the White Box Testing method. When is it performed? Unit Testing is the first level of testing and is performed prior to Integration Testing. BENEFITS Unit testing increases confidence in changing/ maintaining code. If good unit tests are written and if they are run every time any code is changed, we will be able to promptly catch any defects introduced due to the change. Also, if codes are already made less interdependent to make unit testing possible, the unintended impact of changes to any code is less. Codes are more reusable. In order to make unit testing possible, codes need to be modular. This means that codes are easier to reuse. Development is faster. How? If you do not have unit testing in place, you write your code and perform that fuzzy ‘developer test’ (You set some breakpoints, fire up the GUI, provide a few inputs that hopefully hit your code and hope that you are all set.) If you have unit testing in place, you write the test, write the code and run the test.
    [Show full text]
  • Including Jquery Is Not an Answer! - Design, Techniques and Tools for Larger JS Apps
    Including jQuery is not an answer! - Design, techniques and tools for larger JS apps Trifork A/S, Headquarters Margrethepladsen 4, DK-8000 Århus C, Denmark [email protected] Karl Krukow http://www.trifork.com Trifork Geek Night March 15st, 2011, Trifork, Aarhus What is the question, then? Does your JavaScript look like this? 2 3 What about your server side code? 4 5 Non-functional requirements for the Server-side . Maintainability and extensibility . Technical quality – e.g. modularity, reuse, separation of concerns – automated testing – continuous integration/deployment – Tool support (static analysis, compilers, IDEs) . Productivity . Performant . Appropriate architecture and design . … 6 Why so different? . “Front-end” programming isn't 'real' programming? . JavaScript isn't a 'real' language? – Browsers are impossible... That's just the way it is... The problem is only going to get worse! ● JS apps will get larger and more complex. ● More logic and computation on the client. ● HTML5 and mobile web will require more programming. ● We have to test and maintain these apps. ● We will have harder requirements for performance (e.g. mobile). 7 8 NO Including jQuery is NOT an answer to these problems. (Neither is any other js library) You need to do more. 9 Improving quality on client side code . The goal of this talk is to motivate and help you improve the technical quality of your JavaScript projects . Three main points. To improve non-functional quality: – you need to understand the language and host APIs. – you need design, structure and file-organization as much (or even more) for JavaScript as you do in other languages, e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Selenium Python Bindings Release 2
    Selenium Python Bindings Release 2 Baiju Muthukadan Sep 03, 2021 Contents 1 Installation 3 1.1 Introduction...............................................3 1.2 Installing Python bindings for Selenium.................................3 1.3 Instructions for Windows users.....................................3 1.4 Installing from Git sources........................................4 1.5 Drivers..................................................4 1.6 Downloading Selenium server......................................4 2 Getting Started 7 2.1 Simple Usage...............................................7 2.2 Example Explained............................................7 2.3 Using Selenium to write tests......................................8 2.4 Walkthrough of the example.......................................9 2.5 Using Selenium with remote WebDriver................................. 10 3 Navigating 13 3.1 Interacting with the page......................................... 13 3.2 Filling in forms.............................................. 14 3.3 Drag and drop.............................................. 15 3.4 Moving between windows and frames.................................. 15 3.5 Popup dialogs.............................................. 16 3.6 Navigation: history and location..................................... 16 3.7 Cookies.................................................. 16 4 Locating Elements 17 4.1 Locating by Id.............................................. 18 4.2 Locating by Name............................................ 18 4.3
    [Show full text]
  • Testing and Debugging Tools for Reproducible Research
    Testing and debugging Tools for Reproducible Research Karl Broman Biostatistics & Medical Informatics, UW–Madison kbroman.org github.com/kbroman @kwbroman Course web: kbroman.org/Tools4RR We spend a lot of time debugging. We’d spend a lot less time if we tested our code properly. We want to get the right answers. We can’t be sure that we’ve done so without testing our code. Set up a formal testing system, so that you can be confident in your code, and so that problems are identified and corrected early. Even with a careful testing system, you’ll still spend time debugging. Debugging can be frustrating, but the right tools and skills can speed the process. "I tried it, and it worked." 2 This is about the limit of most programmers’ testing efforts. But: Does it still work? Can you reproduce what you did? With what variety of inputs did you try? "It's not that we don't test our code, it's that we don't store our tests so they can be re-run automatically." – Hadley Wickham R Journal 3(1):5–10, 2011 3 This is from Hadley’s paper about his testthat package. Types of tests ▶ Check inputs – Stop if the inputs aren't as expected. ▶ Unit tests – For each small function: does it give the right results in specific cases? ▶ Integration tests – Check that larger multi-function tasks are working. ▶ Regression tests – Compare output to saved results, to check that things that worked continue working. 4 Your first line of defense should be to include checks of the inputs to a function: If they don’t meet your specifications, you should issue an error or warning.
    [Show full text]
  • The Art, Science, and Engineering of Fuzzing: a Survey
    1 The Art, Science, and Engineering of Fuzzing: A Survey Valentin J.M. Manes,` HyungSeok Han, Choongwoo Han, Sang Kil Cha, Manuel Egele, Edward J. Schwartz, and Maverick Woo Abstract—Among the many software vulnerability discovery techniques available today, fuzzing has remained highly popular due to its conceptual simplicity, its low barrier to deployment, and its vast amount of empirical evidence in discovering real-world software vulnerabilities. At a high level, fuzzing refers to a process of repeatedly running a program with generated inputs that may be syntactically or semantically malformed. While researchers and practitioners alike have invested a large and diverse effort towards improving fuzzing in recent years, this surge of work has also made it difficult to gain a comprehensive and coherent view of fuzzing. To help preserve and bring coherence to the vast literature of fuzzing, this paper presents a unified, general-purpose model of fuzzing together with a taxonomy of the current fuzzing literature. We methodically explore the design decisions at every stage of our model fuzzer by surveying the related literature and innovations in the art, science, and engineering that make modern-day fuzzers effective. Index Terms—software security, automated software testing, fuzzing. ✦ 1 INTRODUCTION Figure 1 on p. 5) and an increasing number of fuzzing Ever since its introduction in the early 1990s [152], fuzzing studies appear at major security conferences (e.g. [225], has remained one of the most widely-deployed techniques [52], [37], [176], [83], [239]). In addition, the blogosphere is to discover software security vulnerabilities. At a high level, filled with many success stories of fuzzing, some of which fuzzing refers to a process of repeatedly running a program also contain what we consider to be gems that warrant a with generated inputs that may be syntactically or seman- permanent place in the literature.
    [Show full text]
  • Background Goal Unit Testing Regression Testing Automation
    Streamlining a Workflow Jeffrey Falgout Daniel Wilkey [email protected] [email protected] Science, Discovery, and the Universe Bloomberg L.P. Computer Science and Mathematics Major Background Regression Testing Jenkins instance would begin running all Bloomberg L.P.'s main product is a Another useful tool to have in unit and regression tests. This Jenkins job desktop application which provides sufficiently complex systems is a suite would then report the results on the financial tools. Bloomberg L.P. of regression tests. Regression testing Phabricator review and signal the author employs many computer programmers allows you to test very high level in an appropriate way. The previous to maintain, update, and add new behavior which can detect low level workflow required manual intervention to features to this product. bugs. run tests. This new workflow only the The product the code base was developer to create his feature branch in implementing has a record/playback order for all tests to be run automatically. Goal feature. This was leveraged to create a Many of the tasks that a programmer regression testing framework. This has to perform as part of a team can be framework leveraged the unit testing automated. The goal of this project was framework wherever possible. to work with a team to automate tasks At various points during the playback, where possible and make them easier callback methods would be invoked. An example of the new workflow, where a Jenkins where impossible. These methods could have testing logic to instance will automatically run tests and update the make sure the application was in the peer review.
    [Show full text]
  • Scraping Sites That Use Search Forms
    Chapter 9 Scraping Sites that Don’t Want to be Scraped/ Scraping Sites that Use Search Forms Skills you will learn: Basic setup of the Selenium library, which allows you to control a web browser from a Python script. Filling out a form on a website and scraping the returned records. Introduction: Sometimes, websites throw up hurdles, deliberately or incidentally, that can make scraping more difficult. For example, they may place cookies on your computer containing values that must be resubmitted with the next request to the server, failing which the request will be ignored or redirected to the landing page. These cookies may expire after a set period of time and have to be regenerated by the server. Ordinary scraping scripts using libraries such as urllib2 may fail when you attempt to scrape these kinds of sites because the script doesn’t send the expected values. Similarly, pages may contain hidden import fields (basically form fields that are not visible to the user) that automatically submit long strings of alphanumeric characters to validate the request. Again, the script fails to submit the required string, and the request fails or is redirected. On other occasions, you may need to fill out a form before the server will send data, or you may wish to use the form to selectively choose which data to scrape. Selenium allows us to deal with these challenges because it controls an actual browser, such as Firefox, and when the script “clicks” a submit button, as an example, any cookies, hidden form fields, or JavaScript routines are handled by the browser just as they would be if a human user had clicked the button.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Unit Testing
    INTRODUCTION TO UNIT TESTING In C#, you can think of a unit as a method. You thus write a unit test by writing something that tests a method. For example, let’s say that we had the aforementioned Calculator class and that it contained an Add(int, int) method. Let’s say that you want to write some code to test that method. public class CalculatorTester { public void TestAdd() { var calculator = new Calculator(); if (calculator.Add(2, 2) == 4) Console.WriteLine("Success"); else Console.WriteLine("Failure"); } } Let’s take a look now at what some code written for an actual unit test framework (MS Test) looks like. [TestClass] public class CalculatorTests { [TestMethod] public void TestMethod1() { var calculator = new Calculator(); Assert.AreEqual(4, calculator.Add(2, 2)); } } Notice the attributes, TestClass and TestMethod. Those exist simply to tell the unit test framework to pay attention to them when executing the unit test suite. When you want to get results, you invoke the unit test runner, and it executes all methods decorated like this, compiling the results into a visually pleasing report that you can view. Let’s take a look at your top 3 unit test framework options for C#. MSTest/Visual Studio MSTest was actually the name of a command line tool for executing tests, MSTest ships with Visual Studio, so you have it right out of the box, in your IDE, without doing anything. With MSTest, getting that setup is as easy as File->New Project. Then, when you write a test, you can right click on it and execute, having your result displayed in the IDE One of the most frequent knocks on MSTest is that of performance.
    [Show full text]