或任何 Iterable 是否包含两个 MyItem 实例,它们的 "name" 属性具有值 "foo" 和 "bar"。如果任何其他属性不匹配,我真的不关心这个测试的目的。如果名称匹配,则测试......" /> 或任何 Iterable 是否包含两个 MyItem 实例,它们的 "name" 属性具有值 "foo" 和 "bar"。如果任何其他属性不匹配,我真的不关心这个测试的目的。如果名称匹配,则测试......"> 或任何 Iterable 是否包含两个 MyItem 实例,它们的 "name" 属性具有值 "foo" 和 "bar"。如果任何其他属性不匹配,我真的不关心这个测试的目的。如果名称匹配,则测试......" />
ChatGPT解决这个技术问题 Extra ChatGPT

How do I assert an Iterable contains elements with a certain property?

Assume I want to unit test a method with this signature:

List<MyItem> getMyItems();

Assume MyItem is a Pojo that has many properties, one of which is "name", accessed via getName().

All I care about verifying is that the List<MyItem>, or any Iterable, contains two MyItem instances, whose "name" properties have the values "foo" and "bar". If any other properties don't match, I don't really care for the purposes of this test. If the names match, it's a successful test.

I would like it to be one-liner if possible. Here is some "pseudo-syntax" of the kind of thing I would like to do.

assert(listEntriesMatchInAnyOrder(myClass.getMyItems(), property("name"), new String[]{"foo", "bar"});

Would Hamcrest be good for this type of thing? If so, what exactly would be the hamcrest version of my pseudo-syntax above?


P
PiroXXI

Thank you @Razvan who pointed me in the right direction. I was able to get it in one line and I successfully hunted down the imports for Hamcrest 1.3.

the imports:

import static org.hamcrest.CoreMatchers.is;
import static org.hamcrest.Matchers.contains;
import static org.hamcrest.MatcherAssert.assertThat;
import static org.hamcrest.beans.HasPropertyWithValue.hasProperty;

the code:

assertThat( myClass.getMyItems(), contains(
    hasProperty("name", is("foo")), 
    hasProperty("name", is("bar"))
));

If you don't know the order the items are use containsInAnyOrder (from same parent class) instead :)
d
davidxxx

AssertJ provides an excellent feature in extracting() : you can pass Functions to extract fields. It provides a check at compile time.
You could also assert the size first easily.

It would give :

import static org.assertj.core.api.Assertions;

Assertions.assertThat(myClass.getMyItems())
          .hasSize(2)
          .extracting(MyItem::getName)
          .containsExactlyInAnyOrder("foo", "bar"); 

containsExactlyInAnyOrder() asserts that the list contains only these values whatever the order.

To assert that the list contains these values whatever the order but may also contain other values use contains() :

.contains("foo", "bar"); 

As a side note : to assert multiple fields from elements of a List , with AssertJ we do that by wrapping expected values for each element into a tuple() function :

import static org.assertj.core.api.Assertions;
import static org.assertj.core.groups.Tuple;

Assertions.assertThat(myClass.getMyItems())
          .hasSize(2)
          .extracting(MyItem::getName, MyItem::getOtherValue)
          .containsExactlyInAnyOrder(
               tuple("foo", "OtherValueFoo"),
               tuple("bar", "OtherValueBar")
           ); 

Don't get why this has no upvotes. I think, this is the best answer, by far.
The assertJ library is much more readable then JUnit assertion API.
@Sangimed Agreed and also I prefer it to hamcrest.
In my opinion this is slightly less readable as it takes apart the "actual value" from the "expected value" and puts them in an order that needs to match.
M
Mario Eis

Its not especially Hamcrest, but I think it worth to mention here. What I use quite often in Java8 is something like:

assertTrue(myClass.getMyItems().stream().anyMatch(item -> "foo".equals(item.getName())));

(Edited to Rodrigo Manyari's slight improvement. It's a little less verbose. See comments.)

It may be a little bit harder to read, but I like the type and refactoring safety. Its also cool for testing multiple bean properties in combination. e.g. with a java-like && expression in the filter lambda.


Slight improvement: assertTrue(myClass.getMyItems().stream().anyMatch(item -> "foo".equals(item.getName()));
@RodrigoManyari, closing parenthesis missing
This solution waste the possibility to show an appropriate error message.
@GiulioCaccin I don't think it does. If you use JUnit, you could/should use the overloaded assertion methods and write assertTrue(..., "My own test failure message"); See more on junit.org/junit5/docs/current/api/org/junit/jupiter/api/…
I mean, if you do the assertion against a Boolean, you lose the ability to print automatically the actual/expected difference. It is possible to assert using a matcher, but you need to modify this response to be similar to other in this page to do it.
a
acdcjunior

Try:

assertThat(myClass.getMyItems(),
                          hasItem(hasProperty("YourProperty", is("YourValue"))));

just as a side node - this is a hamcrest solution (not assertj)
F
Frank Neblung

Assertj is good at this.

import static org.assertj.core.api.Assertions.assertThat;

    assertThat(myClass.getMyItems()).extracting("name").contains("foo", "bar");

Big plus for assertj compared to hamcrest is easy use of code completion.


One more way Frank : assertThat(list) .containsAll(Arrays.asList(id1,id2));
B
Brad

As long as your List is a concrete class, you can simply call the contains() method as long as you have implemented your equals() method on MyItem.

// given 
// some input ... you to complete

// when
List<MyItems> results = service.getMyItems();

// then
assertTrue(results.contains(new MyItem("foo")));
assertTrue(results.contains(new MyItem("bar")));

Assumes you have implemented a constructor that accepts the values you want to assert on. I realise this isn't on a single line, but it's useful to know which value is missing rather than checking both at once.


I really like your solution, but should he mod all that code for a test?
I figure that every answer here will require some test setup, execution of the method to test, and then assert the properties. There's no real overhead to my answer from what I can see, only that I have two assertions on seaprate lines so that a failed assertion can clearly identify what value is missing.
It would be best to also include a message within assertTrue so that the error message is more intelligible. Without a message, if it fails, JUnit will just throw a AssertionFailedError without any error message. So best to include something like "results should contain new MyItem(\"foo\")".
Yes you are right. I'd recommend Hamcrest in any case, and I never use assertTrue() these days
To a side note your POJO or DTO should define the equals method
T
Tomáš Záluský

AssertJ 3.9.1 supports direct predicate usage in anyMatch method.

assertThat(collection).anyMatch(element -> element.someProperty.satisfiesSomeCondition())

This is generally suitable use case for arbitrarily complex condition.

For simple conditions I prefer using extracting method (see above) because resulting iterable-under-test might support value verification with better readability. Example: it can provide specialized API such as contains method in Frank Neblung's answer. Or you can call anyMatch on it later anyway and use method reference such as "searchedvalue"::equals. Also multiple extractors can be put into extracting method, result subsequently verified using tuple().


s
seregamorph

Alternatively to hasProperty you can try hamcrest-more-matchers where matcher with extracting function. In your case it will look like:

import static com.github.seregamorph.hamcrest.MoreMatchers.where;

assertThat(myClass.getMyItems(), contains(
    where(MyItem::getName, is("foo")), 
    where(MyItem::getName, is("bar"))
));

The advantages of this approach are:

It is not always possible to verify by field if the value is computed in get-method

In case of mismatch there should be a failure message with diagnostics (pay attention to resolved method reference MyItem.getName:

Expected: iterable containing [Object that matches is "foo" after call
MyItem.getName, Object that matches is "bar" after call MyItem.getName]
     but: item 0: was "wrong-name"

It works in Java 8, Java 11 and Java 14


W
WesternGun

With Stream you can also do:

List<String> actual = myList.stream().map(MyClass::getName).collect(toList());
assertThat(actual, hasItem("expectedString1"));

Because with anyMatch() or allMatch(), you know some values in your list are in the list, but there is possibility that your actual list only contains 5 values while in anyMatch() you have 6; you don't know if all values are present or not. With hasItem(), you indeed check every value you want.