56

I work with Typescript on an AngularJS 1.X project. I use different Javascript libraries for different purposes. To unit-test my source I would like to stub some dependencies using the Typings (= interfaces). I don't want to use the ANY-type and neither to write an empty method for each interface method.

Im looking for a way to do something like that:

let dependency = stub(IDependency);
stub(dependency.b(), () => {console.log("Hello World")});
dependency.a(); // --> Compile, do nothing, no exception
dependency.b(); // --> Compile, print "Hello World", no exception

The pain I have right now, is that I either use any and implement all methods which get called in my test case or I implement the interface and implement the full interface. That's too much useless code :(.

How can I generate an object that has an empty implementation for each method and is typed? I use Sinon for mocking purposes, but im open to use other libraries too.

PS: I know that Typescript erases the interfaces...but I still would like to solve that :).

8 Answers 8

49

I have been writing Typescript tests using qUnit and Sinon, and I have experienced exactly the same pain you are describing.

Let's assume you have a dependency on an interface like:

interface IDependency {
    a(): void;
    b(): boolean;
}

I have managed to avoid the need of additional tools/libraries by using a couple of approaches based on sinon stubs/spies and casting.

  • Use an empty object literal, then directly assign sinon stubs to the functions used in the code:

    //Create empty literal as your IDependency (usually in the common "setup" method of the test file)
    let anotherDependencyStub = <IDependency>{};
    
    //Set stubs for every method used in your code 
    anotherDependencyStub.a = sandbox.stub(); //If not used, you won't need to define it here
    anotherDependencyStub.b = sandbox.stub().returns(true); //Specific behavior for the test
    
    //Exercise code and verify expectations
    dependencyStub.a();
    ok(anotherDependencyStub.b());
    sinon.assert.calledOnce(<SinonStub>anotherDependencyStub.b);
    
  • Use object literal with empty implementations of the methods needed by your code, then wrap methods in sinon spies/stubs as required

    //Create dummy interface implementation with only the methods used in your code (usually in the common "setup" method of the test file)
    let dependencyStub = <IDependency>{
        a: () => { }, //If not used, you won't need to define it here
        b: () => { return false; }
    };
    
    //Set spies/stubs
    let bStub = sandbox.stub(dependencyStub, "b").returns(true);
    
    //Exercise code and verify expectations
    dependencyStub.a();
    ok(dependencyStub.b());
    sinon.assert.calledOnce(bStub);
    

They work quite nice when you combine them with sinon sandboxes and common setup/teardown like the one provided by qUnit modules.

  • In the common setup you create a new sandbox and the mock object literals for your dependencies.
  • In the test you just specify the spies/stubs.

Something like this (using the first option, but would work the same way if you were using the second option):

QUnit["module"]("fooModule", {
    setup: () => {
        sandbox = sinon.sandbox.create();
        dependencyMock = <IDependency>{};
    },
    teardown: () => {
        sandbox.restore();
    }
});

test("My foo test", () => {
    dependencyMock.b = sandbox.stub().returns(true);

    var myCodeUnderTest = new Bar(dependencyMock);
    var result = myCodeUnderTest.doSomething();

    equal(result, 42, "Bar.doSomething returns 42 when IDependency.b returns true");
});

I would agree this is still not the ideal solution but it works reasonably well, doesn't require extra libraries and keeps the amount of extra code needed to a low manageable level.

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

1 Comment

I've recently found @salesforce/ts-sinon to be useful for this, as it includes a stubInterface method (as well as other methods such as fromStub) which makes using Sinon in TypeScript much nicer.
16

Latest TypeMoq (ver 1.0.2) supports mocking TypeScript interfaces, as long as the runtime (nodejs/browser) supports the Proxy global object introduced by ES6.

So, assuming IDependency looks like this:

interface IDependency {
    a(): number;
    b(): string;
}

then mocking it with TypeMoq would be as simple as this:

import * as TypeMoq from "typemoq";
...
let mock = TypeMoq.Mock.ofType<IDependency>();

mock.setup(x => x.b()).returns(() => "Hello World");

expect(mock.object.a()).to.eq(undefined);
expect(mock.object.b()).to.eq("Hello World");

Comments

15

I think the short answer is that this is not possible in Typescript, as the language offers no compile-time or run-time "reflection". It's not possible for a mock library to iterate the members of an interface.

See thread: https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/issues/1549

This is unfortunate for TDD developers, in which mocking a dependency is a central part of the development workflow.

There are a number of techniques for quickly stubbing the methods, however, as described by the other answers. These options might do the job, with a little mental adjustment.

Edit: The Typescript Abstract Syntax Tree, AST, is a compile-time "introspection" - which could probably be used to generate mocks. However, I don't know if anyone has made a practical library.

1 Comment

This is wrong, there is are few libraries that accomplish type safety, see other answers for a few examples.
7

From npmjs:

Mocking interfaces
You can mock interfaces too, just instead of passing type to mock function, set mock function generic type Mocking interfaces requires Proxy implementation

let mockedFoo:Foo = mock<FooInterface>(); // instead of mock(FooInterface)
const foo: SampleGeneric<FooInterface> = instance(mockedFoo);

ts-mockito supports mocking interfaces since version 2.4.0:

Comments

3

There are few libraries that allows to do that TypeMoq, TeddyMocks and Typescript-mockify are probably one of the more popular ones.

Check the github repositories and pick the one you like better : links:

You can also use more popular libs like Sinon, but first you have to use an <any> type and then narrow it to <IDependency> type (How do I use Sinon with Typescript?)

4 Comments

They all need a class to create a mock, an interface is not enough. I guess the type erasure makes it impossible, without hacking Typescript itself --> stackoverflow.com/questions/13142635/…
What about creating an empty object that implements your interface ? and pass it as a object to your mock ?
That does not create the methods --> Type erasure ;)
Right, then only solution is to create a tool that does that :/
0

You can try moq.ts, but it depends on Proxy object

interface IDependency {
  a(): number;
  b(): string;
}


import {Mock, It, Times} from 'moq.ts';

const mock = new Mock<IDependency>()
  .setup(instance => instance.a())
  .returns(1);

mock.object().a(); //returns 1

mock.verify(instance => instance.a());//pass
mock.verify(instance => instance.b());//fail

Comments

0

SafeMock is quite nice, but sadly seems like it is unmaintained now. Full disclosure, I used to work with the author.

import SafeMock, {verify} from "safe-mock";

const mock = SafeMock.build<SomeService>();

// specify return values only when mocks are called with certain arguments like this
when(mock.someMethod(123, "some arg")).return("expectedReturn");

// specify thrown exceptions only when mocks are called with certain arguments like this
when(mock.someMethod(123, "some arg")).throw(new Error("BRR! Its cold!")); 

// specify that the mock returns rejected promises with a rejected value with reject
when(mock.someMethod(123)).reject(new Error("BRR! Its cold!"));

//use verify.calledWith to check the exact arguments to a mocked method
verify(mock.someMethod).calledWith(123, "someArg");

SafeMock won't let you return the wrong type from mocks.

interface SomeService {
    createSomething(): string;
}

const mock: Mock<SomeService> = SafeMock.build<SomeService>();

//Won't compile createSomething returns a string
when(mock.createSomething()).return(123); 

Comments

-6

Now it's possible. I released an enhanced version of the typescript compiler that makes interfaces metadata available at runtime. For example, you can write:

interface Something {

}

interface SomethingElse {
    id: number;
}

interface MyService {
    simpleMethod(): void;
    doSomething(p1: number): string;
    doSomethingElse<T extends SomethingElse>(p1: Something): T;
}

function printMethods(interf: Interface) {
    let fields = interf.members.filter(m => m.type.kind === 'function'); //exclude methods.
    for(let field of fields) {
        let method = <FunctionType>field.type;
        console.log(`Method name: ${method.name}`);
        for(let signature of method.signatures) {
            //you can go really deeper here, see the api: reflection.d.ts
            console.log(`\tSignature parameters: ${signature.parameters.length} - return type kind: ${signature.returns.kind}`);
            if(signature.typeParameters) {
                for(let typeParam of signature.typeParameters) {
                    console.log(`\tSignature type param: ${typeParam.name}`); //you can get constraints with typeParam.constraints
                }
            }
            console.log('\t-----')
        }
    }
}

printMethods(MyService); //now can be used as a literal!!

and this is the output:

$ node main.js
Method name: simpleMethod
        Signature parameters: 0 - return type kind: void
        -----
Method name: doSomething
        Signature parameters: 1 - return type kind: string
        -----
Method name: doSomethingElse
        Signature parameters: 1 - return type kind: parameter
        Signature type param: T
        -----

With all these information, you can build stubs programmatically, as you prefer.

You can find my project here.

3 Comments

Suggesting your personal fork of typescript doesn't actually answer the question-- it's usually assumed that when people mention a language in a question, they mean an official release of that language. Hence my downvote.
@Maus It's your opinion. The question asks "How to stub a Typescript-Interface / Type-definition?". The answer provides a way to do this. If you read the official Typescript issues on github A LOT of people is trying to do this, but the team doesn't care at all, and does not give any means to do this in a clean way. I proved that this kind of thing is feasible: if many people ask for this feature, maybe the Typescript core team will listen to users requests.
I think it's impressive and important work, but i still don't think it's a great answer for this question

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.