如何使用 Spring MVC 控制器作为集成测试的假端点？

Question

I have a service that calls out to a third-party endpoint using java.net.URLConnection . As part of an integration test that uses this service I would like to use a fake endpoint of my own construction.

I have made a Spring MVC Controller that simulates that behaviour of the endpoint I require. (I know this endpoint works as expected as I included it in my web app's servlet config and hit it from a browser once started).

I am having trouble figuring out how I can get this fake endpoint available for my integration test.

Is there some feature of Spring-Test that would help me here? Do I somehow need to start up a servlet at the beginning of my test? Are there any other solutions entirely?

Answer 1

It's a bad idea to use a Spring MVC controller as a fake endpoint. There is no way to simply have the controller available for the integration test and starting a servlet with just that controller alongside whatever you are testing requires a lot of configuration.

It is much better to use a mocking framework like MockServer ( http://www.mock-server.com/ ) to create your fake endpoint. MockServer should be powerful enough to cover even complex responses from the fake endpoint, with relatively little setup.

Answer 2

Check out Spring MVC Test that was added to Spring in version 3.2.

Here are some tutorials: 1 , 2 , 3

Answer 3

First I think we should get the terminology right. There are two general groups of "fake" objects in testing (simplified): a mock, which returns predefined answers on predefined input and stubs which are a simplified version of the object the SUT (system under test) communicates with. While a mock basically does nothing than to provide a response, a stub might use a live algorithm, but not store it's results in a database or send them to customers via eMail for example. I am no expert in testing, but those two fake objects are rather to be used in unit and depending on their scope in acceptance tests.

So your sut communicates with a remote system during integration test . In my book this is the perfect time to actually test how your software integrates with other systems, so your software should be tested against a test version of the remote system. In case this is not possible (they might not have a test system) you are conceptually in some sort of trouble. You can shape your stub or mock only in a way you expect it to work, very much like the part of the software you have written to communicate with that remote service. This leaves out some important things you want to test with integration tests: Was the client side implemented correctly so that it will work with the live server. Do we have to develop work around as there are implementation errors on the server side? In which scale will the communication with the remote system affect our software's performance? Do our authentication credentials work? Does the authentication mechanism work? What are the technical and conceptual implications of this communication relationship no one has thought of so far? (Believe me, the latter will happen more often than you might expect!)

Generally speaking: What will happen if you do integration tests against a mock or a stub is that you test against your own understanding of how to implement the client and the server side of communication, and you do not test how your client works with the actual remote server or at least the best thing next to that, a test system. I can tell you from experience: never make assumptions on how a remote system should behave - test it. Even when talking of a JMS server: test it!

In case you are working for a company, testing against a provided test system is even more important: if you software works against a test system and you can prove it (selenium is a good helper here, as well as good logging, believe it or not) and your software does not work with a live version, you have a situation which I call "instablame": it is immediately obvious that it is not your fault the software isn't working. I myself hate fingerpointing to the bone, but most suits tend to ask "Who's fault was it?" even before "Can we fix that immediately?" and way before "How can we solve that problem?". And there is a special group of suits called lawyers, you know ... ;)

That being said: if you absolutely have to use those stubs during your integration tests, I would create an own project for them (let's say " MyProject-IT-Stubs " and build and run the latest version of MyProject-IT-Stubs before I run the IT of my main project. When using maven, you could create MyProject-IT-Stubs with war packaging, call it as a dependency during the pre-integration-test phase and fire up a jetty for this war in the same phase. Then your integration tests run, either successful or not and you can tear down the jetty in the post-integration-test phase.

The IMHO best way to organize your project with maven would be to have a project with three modules: MyProject , MyProject-IT-Stubs and MyProject-IT (declaring dependencies on MyProject and MyProject-IT-Stubs . This keeps your projects nice and tidy and the stubs do not pollute your project. You might want to think about organizing MyProject-IT-Stubs into modules as well, one for each remote system you have to talk to. As soon as you have test access, you can simply deactivate the according module in MyProject-IT-Stubs .

I am sure according options exist for InsertYourBuildToolHere .