ChatGPT解决这个技术问题 Extra ChatGPT

How to test that no exception is thrown?

I know that one way to do it would be:

@Test
public void foo() {
   try {
      // execute code that you expect not to throw Exceptions.
   } catch(Exception e) {
      fail("Should not have thrown any exception");
   }
}

Is there any cleaner way of doing this? (Probably using Junit's @Rule?)

A JUnit test is judged to have failed if it throws any exception other than an expected exception. Usually no exceptions are expected.
Isn't there a distinction between failure and error in JUnit? The first means the test failed, the second means something unexpected happened.
@Vituel Yes, there is, and that distinction is very clear in NetBeans. Error is red and failure is yellow.
@Raedwald I would see it that way under the pressure of a deadline. But with all the time in the world, I would not want to go from red to green without a yellow in between.

J
Jeroen Vannevel

You're approaching this the wrong way. Just test your functionality: if an exception is thrown the test will automatically fail. If no exception is thrown, your tests will all turn up green.

I have noticed this question garners interest from time to time so I'll expand a little.

Background to unit testing

When you're unit testing it's important to define to yourself what you consider a unit of work. Basically: an extraction of your codebase that may or may not include multiple methods or classes that represents a single piece of functionality.

Or, as defined in The art of Unit Testing, 2nd Edition by Roy Osherove, page 11:

A unit test is an automated piece of code that invokes the unit of work being tested, and then checks some assumptions about a single end result of that unit. A unit test is almost always written using a unit testing framework. It can be written easily and runs quickly. It's trustworthy, readable, and maintainable. It's consistent in its results as long as production code hasn't changed.

What is important to realize is that one unit of work usually isn't just one method but at the very basic level it is one method and after that it is encapsulated by other unit of works.

https://i.stack.imgur.com/IPN6R.png

Ideally you should have a test method for each separate unit of work so you can always immediately view where things are going wrong. In this example there is a basic method called getUserById() which will return a user and there is a total of 3 unit of works.

The first unit of work should test whether or not a valid user is being returned in the case of valid and invalid input.
Any exceptions that are being thrown by the datasource have to be handled here: if no user is present there should be a test that demonstrates that an exception is thrown when the user can't be found. A sample of this could be the IllegalArgumentException which is caught with the @Test(expected = IllegalArgumentException.class) annotation.

Once you have handled all your usecases for this basic unit of work, you move up a level. Here you do exactly the same, but you only handle the exceptions that come from the level right below the current one. This keeps your testing code well structured and allows you to quickly run through the architecture to find where things go wrong, instead of having to hop all over the place.

Handling a tests' valid and faulty input

At this point it should be clear how we're going to handle these exceptions. There are 2 types of input: valid input and faulty input (the input is valid in the strict sense, but it's not correct).

When you work with valid input you're setting the implicit expectancy that whatever test you write, will work.

Such a method call can look like this: existingUserById_ShouldReturn_UserObject. If this method fails (e.g.: an exception is thrown) then you know something went wrong and you can start digging.

By adding another test (nonExistingUserById_ShouldThrow_IllegalArgumentException) that uses the faulty input and expects an exception you can see whether your method does what it is supposed to do with wrong input.

TL;DR

You were trying to do two things in your test: check for valid and faulty input. By splitting this into two method that each do one thing, you will have much clearer tests and a much better overview of where things go wrong.

By keeping the layered unit of works in mind you can also reduce the amount of tests you need for a layer that is higher in the hierarchy because you don't have to account for every thing that might have gone wrong in the lower layers: the layers below the current one are a virtual guarantee that your dependencies work and if something goes wrong, it's in your current layer (assuming the lower layers don't throw any errors themselves).


The thing is that I am trying to TDD and one of the collaborators that I use is throwing an exception. So I need to test the fact that I am consuming the exception thrown by the collaborator
Are you saying your functionality is dependent on the handling of an exception? That's a code smell: exceptions are there to elegantly let you catch issues; they're not used for flow control. If you want to test a scenario in which an exception should be thrown then you should use the expected annotation. If you want to test a scenario where your code fails and you want to see if the error is correctly handled: use expected and perhaps use asserts to determine if it's been resolved.
@JeroenVannevel it is perfectly valid to test that an error situation which cause an exception to be thrown is properly handled.
@dpk yes you can. You add throws IllegalArgumentException to your test. What you want in the end, is that your test turns red if there is an exception. Well, guess what? You do not need to write fail(). As @Jeroen Vannevel wrote: "if an exception is thrown the test will automatically fail."
@Nir made a relevant point. While testing to the core level that fails before testing higher levels, the principle breaks down when the lower level that fails in within an external package. From the perceptive of the application under test, 'that package fails when doing this' is all that matters, the internal tests need to be added within the package
S
Sven Döring

I stumbled upon this because of SonarQube's rule "squid:S2699": "Add at least one assertion to this test case."

I had a simple test whose only goal was to go through without throwing exceptions.

Consider this simple code:

public class Printer {

    public static void printLine(final String line) {
        System.out.println(line);
    }
}

What kind of assertion can be added to test this method? Sure, you can make a try-catch around it, but that is only code bloat.

The solution comes from JUnit itself.

In case no exception is thrown and you want to explicitly illustrate this behaviour, simply add expected as in the following example:

@Test(expected = Test.None.class /* no exception expected */)
public void test_printLine() {
    Printer.printLine("line");
}

Test.None.class is the default for the expected value.

If you import org.junit.Test.None, you can then write:

@Test(expected = None.class)

which you might find more readable.


I think this is the best answer. The accepted answer is great, and the author is correct to point out the code smell. However he didn't really answer the specific question.
it is interesting to note that the default value for the expected is None, so just annotating the method with @Test would do.
@oziomajnr Just annotating the method with @Test does nothing to help with the SonarQube problem.
This is exactly the same problem as I had. While I totally agree with @jeroen-vannevel 's answer I needed some sort of validation to make sure SonarQube does not raise any issues.
Adding same solution for Junit5: assertDoesNotThrow(() -> Printer.printLine("line"));
M
M-Razavi

JUnit 5 (Jupiter) provides three functions to check exception absence/presence:

● assertAll()

Asserts that all supplied executables
  do not throw exceptions.

● assertDoesNotThrow()

Asserts that execution of the
  supplied executable/supplier
does not throw any kind of exception.

  This function is available
  since JUnit 5.2.0 (29 April 2018).

● assertThrows()

Asserts that execution of the supplied executable
throws an exception of the expectedType
  and returns the exception.

Example

package test.mycompany.myapp.mymodule;

import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.*;

import org.junit.jupiter.api.Test;

class MyClassTest {

    @Test
    void when_string_has_been_constructed_then_myFunction_does_not_throw() {
        String myString = "this string has been constructed";
        assertAll(() -> MyClass.myFunction(myString));
    }
    
    @Test
    void when_string_has_been_constructed_then_myFunction_does_not_throw__junit_v520() {
        String myString = "this string has been constructed";
        assertDoesNotThrow(() -> MyClass.myFunction(myString));
    }

    @Test
    void when_string_is_null_then_myFunction_throws_IllegalArgumentException() {
        String myString = null;
        assertThrows(
            IllegalArgumentException.class,
            () -> MyClass.myFunction(myString));
    }

}

This is the best answer now. Other answers are discussing older versions of JUnit
Links have issues
this is best answer for spring boot 2.2.0+ and junit 5
You can now do: assertDoesNotThrow(myObject::myValidationFunction);
flawless answer!
d
denu

For JUnit versions before 5:

With AssertJ fluent assertions 3.7.0:

Assertions.assertThatCode(() -> toTest.method())
    .doesNotThrowAnyException();

Update:

JUnit 5 introduced assertDoesNotThrow() assertion, so I'd prefer to use it instead of adding an additional dependency to your project. See this answer for details.


Beautiful succinct answer.
G
Groostav

Java 8 makes this a lot easier, and Kotlin/Scala doubly so.

We can write a little utility class

class MyAssertions{
  public static void assertDoesNotThrow(FailingRunnable action){
    try{
      action.run()
    }
    catch(Exception ex){
      throw new Error("expected action not to throw, but it did!", ex)
    }
  }
}

@FunctionalInterface interface FailingRunnable { void run() throws Exception }

and then your code becomes simply:

@Test
public void foo(){
  MyAssertions.assertDoesNotThrow(() -> {
    //execute code that you expect not to throw Exceptions.
  }
}

If you dont have access to Java-8, I would use a painfully old java facility: aribitrary code blocks and a simple comment

//setup
Component component = new Component();

//act
configure(component);

//assert 
/*assert does not throw*/{
  component.doSomething();
}

And finally, with kotlin, a language I've recently fallen in love with:

fun (() -> Any?).shouldNotThrow() 
    = try { invoke() } catch (ex : Exception){ throw Error("expected not to throw!", ex) }

@Test fun `when foo happens should not throw`(){

  //...

  { /*code that shouldn't throw*/ }.shouldNotThrow()
}

Though there is a lot of room to fiddle with exactly how you want to express this, I was always a fan of fluent assertions.

Regarding

You're approaching this the wrong way. Just test your functionality: if an exception is thrown the test will automatically fail. If no exception is thrown, your tests will all turn up green.

This is correct in principle but incorrect in conclusion.

Java allows exceptions for flow of control. This is done by the JRE runtime itself in APIs like Double.parseDouble via a NumberFormatException and Paths.get via a InvalidPathException.

Given you've written a component that validates Number strings for Double.ParseDouble, maybe using a Regex, maybe a hand-written parser, or perhaps something that embeds some other domain rules that restricts the range of a double to something specific, how best to test this component? I think an obvious test would be to assert that, when the resulting string is parsed, no exception is thrown. I would write that test using either the above assertDoesNotThrow or /*comment*/{code} block. Something like

@Test public void given_validator_accepts_string_result_should_be_interpretable_by_doubleParseDouble(){
  //setup
  String input = "12.34E+26" //a string double with domain significance

  //act
  boolean isValid = component.validate(input)

  //assert -- using the library 'assertJ', my personal favourite 
  assertThat(isValid).describedAs(input + " was considered valid by component").isTrue();
  assertDoesNotThrow(() -> Double.parseDouble(input));
}

I would also encourage you to parameterize this test on input using Theories or Parameterized so that you can more easily re-use this test for other inputs. Alternatively, if you want to go exotic, you could go for a test-generation tool (and this). TestNG has better support for parameterized tests.

What I find particularly disagreeable is the recommendation of using @Test(expectedException=IllegalArgumentException.class), this exception is dangerously broad. If your code changes such that the component under test's constructor has if(constructorArgument <= 0) throw IllegalArgumentException(), and your test was supplying 0 for that argument because it was convenient --and this is very common, because good generating test data is a surprisingly hard problem--, then your test will be green-bar even though it tests nothing. Such a test is worse than useless.


(regarding the use of expected exception) Since JUnit 4.13, you can use Assert.assertThrows to check that some code throws an exception.
B
Ben Tennyson

If you are unlucky enough to catch all errors in your code. You can stupidly do

class DumpTest {
    Exception ex;
    @Test
    public void testWhatEver() {
        try {
            thisShouldThrowError();
        } catch (Exception e) {
            ex = e;
        }
        assertEquals(null,ex);
    }
}

Just a small suggestion, Exception ex should be = null; before you can test it.
This isn't a great solution. If the method that shouldn't throw an exception does throw, you won't get a useful error message. Just call the method that shouldn't throw an exception, and test it's return value (or side effects, like logging the exception). If it later unexpectedly throws an exception, the test will fail.
Or just put Assert.fail() in the catch, easier and prettier IMO.
Yes, I agree with you. One more way is add an annotation on top of method @Test (expected = InvalidRequestException.class)
This is very useful for me, thank you. In my situation i am asserting inside Awaitility's untilAsserted(ThrowingRunnable assertion). The method I call does always throw an exception at first, but I want to assert that it will stop doing so eventually (according to Awaitility's parameters)
D
Dinesh Arora

Although this post is 6 years old now, however, a lot has changed in the Junit world. With Junit5, you can now use

org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertDoesNotThrow()

Ex:

public void thisMethodDoesNotThrowException(){
   System.out.println("Hello There");
}

@Test
public void test_thisMethodDoesNotThrowException(){
  org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertDoesNotThrow(
      ()-> thisMethodDoesNotThrowException()
    );
}

Hope it will help people who are using newer version of Junit5


I wish there was a way to specify concrete exception class here. I have to do this inside Awaitility's untilAsserted(ThrowingRunnable assertion). System under test is currently throwing a specific exception on the ThrowingRunnable I provide, but I want to give it some time until it stops doing so. However if it would throw a different exception I would like the test to fail instantly.
r
razalghul

JUnit5 adds the assertAll() method for this exact purpose.

assertAll( () -> foo() )

source: JUnit 5 API


p
pirho

To test a scenario with a void method like

void testMeWell() throws SomeException {..}

to not throw an exception:

Junit5

assertDoesNotThrow(() -> {
    testMeWell();
});

Y
Yugang Zhou

If you want to test that whether your test target consumes the exception. Just leave the test as (mock collaborator using jMock2):

@Test
public void consumesAndLogsExceptions() throws Exception {

    context.checking(new Expectations() {
        {
            oneOf(collaborator).doSth();
            will(throwException(new NullPointerException()));
        }
    });

    target.doSth();
 }

The test would pass if your target does consume the exception thrown, otherwise the test would fail.

If you want to test your exception consumption logic, things get more complex. I suggest delegating the consumption to a collaborator which could be mocked. Therefore the test could be:

@Test
public void consumesAndLogsExceptions() throws Exception {
    Exception e = new NullPointerException();
    context.checking(new Expectations() {
        {
            allowing(collaborator).doSth();
            will(throwException(e));

            oneOf(consumer).consume(e);
        }
    });

    target.doSth();
 }

But sometimes it's over-designed if you just want to log it. In this case, this article(http://java.dzone.com/articles/monitoring-declarative-transac, http://blog.novoj.net/2008/09/20/testing-aspect-pointcuts-is-there-an-easy-way/) may help if you insist tdd in this case.


M
Mike Rapadas

Use assertNull(...)

@Test
public void foo() {
    try {
        //execute code that you expect not to throw Exceptions.
    } catch (Exception e){
        assertNull(e);
    }
}

I'd say this is misleading. The catch block is never reached, so the assertNull is never executed either. However the quick reader gets the impression that an assertion is made that really verifies the non-throwing case. In other words: if the catch block is reached, the exception is always non-null - it can thus be replaced by a simple fail.
misleading indeed, ..... but wait, ... oh I see ... assertNull(e) will report the test as failed, as as stated e can't be null in the catch block ... Mike this is just weird programming :-/ ... yes at least use fail() like Andreas says
Weird indeed! Please ignore.
M
MLS

This may not be the best way but it definitely makes sure that exception is not thrown from the code block that is being tested.

import org.assertj.core.api.Assertions;
import org.junit.Test;

public class AssertionExample {

    @Test
    public void testNoException(){
        assertNoException();
    }    

    private void assertException(){
        Assertions.assertThatThrownBy(this::doNotThrowException).isInstanceOf(Exception.class);
    }

    private void assertNoException(){
        Assertions.assertThatThrownBy(() -> assertException()).isInstanceOf(AssertionError.class);
    }

    private void doNotThrowException(){
        //This method will never throw exception
    }
}

Y
Yair Landmann

I faced the same situation, I needed to check that exception is thrown when it should, and only when it should. Ended up using the exception handler to my benefit with the following code:

    try {
        functionThatMightThrowException()
    }catch (Exception e){
        Assert.fail("should not throw exception");
    }
    RestOfAssertions();

The main benefit for me was that it is quite straight forward and to check the other way of the "if and only if" is really easy in this same structure


Welcome to SO. Your question was flagged for 'Late Answer' review as the question is 7 years old and has 17 other answers. Whilst your answer may provide some value, very late answers will often be downvoted.
Furthermore, it is (almost) identical to the solution that the OP proposed in the first place ... asking for improvements.
L
LazerBanana

You can expect that exception is not thrown by creating a rule.

@Rule
public ExpectedException expectedException = ExpectedException.none();

ExpectedExceptions are used to assert thrown exceptions. The code you provide is just to initialise the rule so you can add your requirements for the assertions. This code itself does not add any value at all. The javadoc also states this: " /** * Returns a {@linkplain TestRule rule} that expects no exception to * be thrown (identical to behavior without this rule). */" So it will have the exact same result as without it.
I agree with you, and would not use it that way, but it is possible to assert that no exception has been thrown. If the test passes there should be enough to say that the exception has not been thrown, but in other hand if there is a question there must be a need for it. And rarely but still sometimes is good to have it visible. What if code and circumstances changed and we have no test for some particular edge case?
I'm curious to see how you would assert that with expected exception. And yes, if requirements change and you have no test for a particular edge case you're screwed ;-) always cover all corner cases.
what do you mean? you don't assert on it, you expect it. In this case, you expect no exception. Not sure what you on about.
C
Crenguta S

You can do it by using a @Rule and then call method reportMissingExceptionWithMessage as shown below: This is Scala code.

https://i.stack.imgur.com/Vchwf.png


private val? What is this language? Clearly not Java ;p And please, do not provide code as a screenshot, it is not welcomed.
I see you've mentioned it is Scala, but saying that it can be easily done in Java is not a strong argument, I am sorry
I removed the part that bothered you. I will try to replace the image also. Haven't figured out how to add code yet..
ExpectedException.none() is deprecated.
W
Werner Diwischek

Stumbled over this issue since I created some generic methods like

@Test
void testSomething() {
   checkGeneric(anComplexObect)
}

In https://newbedev.com/sonarqube-issue-add-at-least-one-assertion-to-this-test-case-for-unit-test-with-assertions some annotation stuff is proposed.

The solution is much more simple. It's enough to rename the "checkGeneric" method to "assertGeneric".

@Test
void testSomething() {
  assertGeneric(anComplexObect)
}

a
armagedescu

You can create any kind of your own assertions based on assertions from junit, because these are especially designed for creating user defined asserts intendet to work exactly like junit ones:

static void assertDoesNotThrow(Executable executable) {
    assertDoesNotThrow(executable, "must not throw");
}
static void assertDoesNotThrow(Executable executable, String message) {
    try {
        executable.execute();
    } catch (Throwable err) {
        fail(message);
    }
}

Now testing the so called scenario methodMustNotThrow and log all failures in a junit style:

//test and log with default and custom messages
//the following will succeed
assertDoesNotThrow(()->methodMustNotThrow(1));
assertDoesNotThrow(()->methodMustNotThrow(1), "custom facepalm");
//the following will fail
assertDoesNotThrow(()->methodMustNotThrow(2));
assertDoesNotThrow(()-> {throw new Exception("Hello world");}, "message");
//See implementation of methodMustNotThrow below

Generally speaking there is possibility to instantly fail anything the test in any scenarios, in any place where it makes sense by calling fail(someMessage), which is designed exactly for this purpose. For instance use it in a try/catch block to fail if anything is thrown in the test case:

try{methodMustNotThrow(1);}catch(Throwable e){fail("must not throw");}
try{methodMustNotThrow(1);}catch(Throwable e){Assertions.fail("must not throw");}

This is the sample of the method we test, supposing we have such a method that must not fail under specific circumstances, but it can fail:

void methodMustNotThrow(int x) throws Exception {
    if (x == 1) return;
    throw new Exception();
}

The above method is a simple sample. But this works for complex situations, where the failure is not so obvious. There are the imports:

import org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions;
import org.junit.jupiter.api.Test;
import org.junit.jupiter.api.function.Executable;
import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.*;

There are fairly better option to check that assertion haven't been thrown which don't involve creating custom code. @Rule is one of them
@Vargan I've pointed the method to create your own assertions in the way it is Designed By JUnit especially for the purposes to create your own assertions. JUnit provides that by design, especially for that purpose, to create your own rules, extend the behavior of JUnit with asserts that are not yet implemented. Because not everything is implemented in this world These assertions work identically as JUnit assertion works in terms of passing or failing as well as reporting failures.
D
Douglas Caina

I end up doing like this

@Test
fun `Should not throw`() {
    whenever(authService.isAdmin()).thenReturn(true)

    assertDoesNotThrow {
        service.throwIfNotAllowed("client")
    }
}

R
Rocky Inde

The following fails the test for all exceptions, checked or unchecked:

@Test
public void testMyCode() {

    try {
        runMyTestCode();
    } catch (Throwable t) {
        throw new Error("fail!");
    }
}