Testing typescript classes with Jest and Jest Mocks
You can mock only foo using jest. Similarly, you can auto-mock FooFactory with jest. You can also mock FooFactory using a module factory passed to jest. And finally, if you plan to use the same mock across multiple test files you can mock the user module by creating a mock at.
Learn more. How to mock a function in Jest Ask Question. Asked 1 year, 5 months ago. Active 1 year, 5 months ago.
Viewed 3k times. I have the following typescript class which I want to test in Jest. Active Oldest Votes. There are a few different ways to approach it. Brian Adams Brian Adams Sign up or log in Sign up using Google.
Sign up using Facebook. Sign up using Email and Password. Post as a guest Name. Email Required, but never shown. The Overflow Blog.
The Overflow How many jobs can be done at home? Socializing with co-workers while social distancing. Featured on Meta. Community and Moderator guidelines for escalating issues via new response…. Feedback on Q2 Community Roadmap. Triage needs to be fixed urgently, and users need to be notified upon…. Technical site integration observational experiment live on Stack Overflow.Today we are happy to announce the next major release of Jest - version 24!
It's been 4 months since the last minor release, and 8 months since Jest 23, so this upgrade is a big one, with something for everyone! Highlights include built-in support for TypeScript by upgrading the Jest internals to Babel 7, fixing some long-standing issues with missing console output and performance issues when computing large diffs, and a brand new sparkling website.
For a full list of all changes see the changelog. The aim of the redesign was to highlight more of what makes Jest awesome, and to decouple the idea that Jest is primarily a tool for testing React apps - you can use Jest with all sorts of projects and we want to make that obvious.
It will not typecheck your code. While Jest has supported Babel 7 since version 22 released in Decemberit required usage of a bridge module in order to fit in with Jest's support of Babel 6. In Jest 24 we have migrated entirely over to Babel 7, with great help from community member milesj. This means that setup is now easier and we can take advantage of other Babel 7 features, such as config loading and automatic modules transpilation. If you want to run typechecks while you test, you should use ts-jest.
Testing typescript classes with Jest and Jest Mocks
You will need to configure the transformer, as Jest by default applies Babel to. Alternatively, you can run tsc or even use a Jest runner to simultaneously transpile your TypeScript whilst running your tests! See jest-runner-tsc for more information. Note that if you for whatever reason cannot upgrade to Babel 7, you can still use Jest 24 with babel 6 as long as you keep babel-jest at version Jest 23 had a change that made tests missing an implementation throw instead of being skipped.
This change was made due to feedback that accidentally skipped tests were hard to discover and hard to track down. However, this change broke the workflow for quite a few developers who used the feature to sketch out which tests to write. In Jest 24, we are addressing this issue by adding an explicit test. It allows you to quickly sketch out which tests you want to write and in the future, an ESLint rule might even be able to warn you that you have forgotten to write out some tests. When tests fail, you need to make confident and correct decisions which changes are expected progress and which changes are unexpected regressions.
It is especially important not to miss a few regressions hidden among much progress. Jest 24 makes reports when assertions fail more clear and concise for several matchers. Because the effort will continue in Jest 25, you might notice some temporary inconsistencies.
If your tests never fail, then you won't get to see them - for the rest of us, it'll be easier to debug why something isn't working as expected. Thanks for the hard work by ittordepam and other contributors from the community. You can see these changes across all these PRs:, Jest allows you to mock out whole modules in your tests, which can be useful for testing if your code is calling functions from that module correctly.11 Get Started With Jest Mocks
However, sometimes you may want to use parts of a mocked module in your test filein which case you want to access the original implementation, rather than a mocked version.
Your test will want to mock the fetch function so that we can be sure that it gets called without actually making the network request. However, you'll also need to mock the return value of fetch with a Response wrapped in a Promiseas our function uses it to grab the created user's ID. So you might initially try writing a test like this:. However, if you ran that test you would find that the createUser function would fail, throwing the error: TypeError: response.
This is because the Response class you've imported from node-fetch has been mocked due to the jest. To get around problems like this, Jest provides the jest. To make the above test work, make the following change to the imports in the test file:. This allows your test file to import the actual Response object from node-fetchrather than a mocked version. This means the test will now pass correctly.
So you might initially try writing a test like this: jest.Mock functions allow you to test the links between code by erasing the actual implementation of a function, capturing calls to the function and the parameters passed in those callscapturing instances of constructor functions when instantiated with newand allowing test-time configuration of return values.
There are two ways to mock functions: Either by creating a mock function to use in test code, or writing a manual mock to override a module dependency. Let's imagine we're testing an implementation of a function forEachwhich invokes a callback for each item in a supplied array. To test this function, we can use a mock function, and inspect the mock's state to ensure the callback is invoked as expected. All mock functions have this special. These mock members are very useful in tests to assert how these functions get called, instantiated, or what they returned:.
Mock functions are also very effective in code that uses a functional continuation-passing style. Code written in this style helps avoid the need for complicated stubs that recreate the behavior of the real component they're standing in for, in favor of injecting values directly into the test right before they're used.
Most real-world examples actually involve getting ahold of a mock function on a dependent component and configuring that, but the technique is the same.
In these cases, try to avoid the temptation to implement logic inside of any function that's not directly being tested. Suppose we have a class that fetches users from our API. The class uses axios to call the API then returns the data attribute which contains all the users:. Now, in order to test this method without actually hitting the API and thus creating slow and fragile testswe can use the jest. Once we mock the module we can provide a mockResolvedValue for.
In effect, we are saying that we want axios. Still, there are cases where it's useful to go beyond the ability to specify return values and full-on replace the implementation of a mock function. This can be done with jest. The mockImplementation method is useful when you need to define the default implementation of a mock function that is created from another module:. When you need to recreate a complex behavior of a mock function such that multiple function calls produce different results, use the mockImplementationOnce method:.
When the mocked function runs out of implementations defined with mockImplementationOnceit will execute the default implementation set with jest.Manual mocks are used to stub out functionality with mock data. For example, instead of accessing a remote resource like a website or a database, you might want to create a manual mock that allows you to use fake data.
This ensures your tests will be fast and not flaky. For example, to mock a module called user in the models directory, create a file called user. When we require that module in our tests, explicitly calling jest. If the module you are mocking is a Node module e. There's no need to explicitly call jest.
Scoped modules can be mocked by creating a file in a directory structure that matches the name of the scoped module. Warning: If we want to mock Node's core modules e. When a manual mock exists for a given module, Jest's module system will use that module when explicitly calling jest. However, when automock is set to truethe manual mock implementation will be used instead of the automatically created mock, even if jest.
To opt out of this behavior you will need to explicitly call jest. Note: In order to mock properly, Jest needs jest. Here's a contrived example where we have a module that provides a summary of all the files in a given directory. In this case we use the core built in fs module. Since we'd like our tests to avoid actually hitting the disk that's pretty slow and fragilewe create a manual mock for the fs module by extending an automatic mock. Our manual mock will implement custom versions of the fs APIs that we can build on for our tests:.
The Jest Handbook is for you. The example repository is available at github. From simple Import interceptionto how to approach stubbing out an internal function call or Mocking only part of a module by spying…. These are methods that work in more specific cases than what the Jest official documentation shows. A default export can only be imported with a default import: import whateverIsDefault from '. Theses 2 types of imports can also be mixed and matched, see import docs on MDN. In Jest, this is done with jest.
There are a few general gotchas.
Second, if you want to reference a variable from the parent scope of jest. For example:. Finally, you should call jest. Testing its functionality is the responsibility of the tests of the function s that consume said helper. In that situation we were testing expect mockDb. The key point is around exporting a lib object and referencing that same object when calling makeKey. Warning: this will cause you to change the way you write your code just to accomodate a specific type of testing.
Note how the db module is imported without destructuring and how any calls to it are done using db. Assuming our db. We leverage mockImplementationOnce to avoid calling the real function which you might not always want to do. The calls to db. Returns the actual module instead of a mock, bypassing all checks on whether the module should receive a mock implementation or not.
The repository with examples is at github. See more Testing and Jest posts on Code with Hugo. Find out more. Curious about Advanced Jest Testing Features? I want this. This post goes through how to achieve different types of module mocking scenarios with Jest.GitHub is home to over 40 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community. Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account. I'm struggling with something that I think should be both easy and obvious, but for whatever reason I can't figure it out.
However, I need to mock foobecause it makes ajax calls to my backend. I want every function in this file to remain unmocked, expect for foowhich I want to be mocked. And the functions bar and baz make calls internally to fooso when my test calls barthe unmocked bar will call the mocked foo.
It appears in the jest documentation that calls to unmock and mock operate on the entire module. How can I mock a specific function? Arbitrarily breaking up my code into separate modules so they can be tested properly is ridiculous. This is a fundamental testing concept. I highly recommend the ability to mock a portion of a module. I think that jest-mock should be changed to conditionally ignore exports from mocking, and reference the original implementation. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how require works.
When you call requireyou don't get an instance of the module. You get an object with references to the module's functions. If you overwrite a value in the required module, your own reference is overwritten, but the implementation keeps the original references.
In your example, if you call myModule. But if you call myModule. If you don't believe me, you can test it out. Therefore, the example you described is inadequate for the problem I have.
Do you know something I don't? I do believe I understand this quite well. The way babel compiles modules however doesn't make this easier to understand and I understand your confusion. I don't know exactly how this would behave in a real ES environment with modules, mainly because no such environment exists right now except maybe latest versions of Chrome Canary, which I haven't tried yet.
In order to explain what happens, we have to look at the compiled output of your babel code. It will look something like this:. In this case, it is indeed correct that you cannot mock foo and I apologize for not reading your initial issue correctly, however it did not make any assumption on how foo was called, so I assumed it was exports.
While ES modules may have immutable bindings for what they export, the underlying compiled code that babel compiles to right now doesn't enforce any such constraints. I see no way currently to support exactly what you are asking in a strict ES module environment with natively supported modules. The way that jest-mock works is that it runs the module code in isolation and then retrieves the metadata of a module and creates mock functions.
Again, in this case it won't have any way to modify the local binding of foo. If you do have ideas on how to effectively implement this, please contribute here or with a pull request.