Testing TypeScript classes with Jasmine

Question

i would like to ask you how can i test class that takes in constructor instance of another class. For example i want to test method 'hasChildRoutes()':

    class Route implements ng.route.IRoute {
    public url: string;
    public config: RouteConfig;

    constructor(url: string, config: RouteConfig) {
                this.url = url;
                this.config = config;
            }

    public hasChildRoutes(): boolean {
                return this.config.childRoutes.length > 0;
            }
}

i wrote bad unit test for this (im creating new instances of another classes which is bad in my opinion):

 beforeEach(() => {
        routeSetting = new RouteSetting(1, '');
        routeConfig = new RouteConfig('', '', routeSetting, [], '');
    });


    describe('Methods test', () => {
        var childRoute: Route;

        beforeEach(() => {
            route = new Route('', routeConfig);
        });

        it('sould return false when Route has no child routes', () => {
            expect(route.hasChildRoutes()).toBeFalsy();
        });

        it('sould return true when Route has child routes', () => {
            routeConfig = new RouteConfig('', '', routeSetting, [route], '');
            route = new Route('', routeConfig);

            expect(route.hasChildRoutes()).toBeTruthy();
        });
    });

basarat · Accepted Answer · 2013-12-05 02:13:55Z

2

It is perfectly valid for you to provide instances of dependencies as a part of arrange within arrange/act/assert.

Having said that if you want to test a (which depends on b) in isolation you can provide a mock b e.g. using sinonjs : http://sinonjs.org/

answered Dec 5, 2013 at 2:13

basarat

278k60 gold badges475 silver badges528 bronze badges

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

Comments

blorkfish · Accepted Answer · 2013-12-05 02:25:30Z

0

Just a couple of thoughts on this one.

Your tests look fine, but it does not seem necessary to use beforeEach and afterEach in this way. It makes the tests confusing and un-readable. Rather like this:

it('should return false when Route has no child routes', () => {
// arrange
routeSetting = new RouteSetting(1, '');
routeConfig = new RouteConfig('', '', routeSetting, [], '');
// act
route = new Route('', routeConfig);
// assert
expect(route.hasChildRoutes()).toBeFalsy();
});

Also, shouldn't hasChildRoutes() be a property of RouteConfig? and not Route ?

answered Dec 5, 2013 at 2:25

blorkfish

23.1k4 gold badges35 silver badges24 bronze badges

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

Testing TypeScript classes with Jasmine

2 Answers 2

Comments

Comments

Your Answer

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

2 Answers 2

Comments

Comments

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Related