ChatGPT解决这个技术问题 Extra ChatGPT

How to test the type of a thrown exception in Jest

I'm working with some code where I need to test the type of an exception thrown by a function (is it TypeError, ReferenceError, etc.?).

My current testing framework is AVA and I can test it as a second argument t.throws method, like here:

it('should throw Error with message \'UNKNOWN ERROR\' when no params were passed', (t) => {
  const error = t.throws(() => {
    throwError();
  }, TypeError);

  t.is(error.message, 'UNKNOWN ERROR');
});

I started rewriting my tests in Jest and couldn't find how to easily do that. Is it even possible?

Check out this one when async: stackoverflow.com/q/47144187/1505348

P
PeterDanis

In Jest you have to pass a function into expect(function).toThrow(<blank or type of error>).

Example:

test("Test description", () => {
  const t = () => {
    throw new TypeError();
  };
  expect(t).toThrow(TypeError);
});

Or if you also want to check for error message:

test("Test description", () => {
  const t = () => {
    throw new TypeError("UNKNOWN ERROR");
  };
  expect(t).toThrow(TypeError);
  expect(t).toThrow("UNKNOWN ERROR");
});

If you need to test an existing function whether it throws with a set of arguments, you have to wrap it inside an anonymous function in expect().

Example:

test("Test description", () => {
  expect(() => {http.get(yourUrl, yourCallbackFn)}).toThrow(TypeError);
});

Good one - may I ask why the anonimous function wrapper is needed? With the wrapper it works but not without it.
@rags2riches the anonymous function is required because expect(x).toThrow() requires x to be a reference to a function that throws. If you instead pass expect(x()).toThrow(), JavaScript will resolve x(), which would likely cause the error immediately, and most likely fail your test.
The snippet provided in the question is checking a property of the thrown exception. This answer solves only 50% of the problem. Unavoidably we will have to use a try-catch block.
@Mason - the person asking the question wanted to check the type of error (" I need to test the type of an exception thrown by a function..."), but I think its good idea to also include check for error message for those wanting to check that.
@GerasimosRagavanis when you're testing an async function you should await expect(yourAsyncFn(...)).rejects.toThrow(...), like answered by Douglas Caina here.
P
Paweł BB Drozd

It is a little bit weird, but it works and IMHO is good readable:

it('should throw Error with message \'UNKNOWN ERROR\' when no parameters were passed', () => {
  try {
      throwError();
      // Fail test if above expression doesn't throw anything.
      expect(true).toBe(false);
  } catch (e) {
      expect(e.message).toBe("UNKNOWN ERROR");
  }
});

The Catch block catches your exception, and then you can test on your raised Error. Strange expect(true).toBe(false); is needed to fail your test if the expected Error will be not thrown. Otherwise, this line is never reachable (Error should be raised before them).

@Kenny Body suggested a better solution which improve a code quality if you use expect.assertions():

it('should throw Error with message \'UNKNOWN ERROR\' when no parameters were passed', () => {
  expect.assertions(1);
  try {
      throwError();
  } catch (e) {
      expect(e.message).toBe("UNKNOWN ERROR");
  }
});

See the original answer with more explanations: How to test the type of a thrown exception in Jest

EDIT 2022:

To use this approach and not trigger no-conditional-expect rule (if you're using eslint-plugin-jest), documentation of this rule suggest to use error wrapper:

class NoErrorThrownError extends Error {}

const getError = async <TError>(call: () => unknown): Promise<TError> => {
  try {
    await call();

    throw new NoErrorThrownError();
  } catch (error: unknown) {
    return error as TError;
  }
};

describe('when the http request fails', () => {
  it('includes the status code in the error', async () => {
    const error = await getError(async () => makeRequest(url));

    // check that the returned error wasn't that no error was thrown
    expect(error).not.toBeInstanceOf(NoErrorThrownError);
    expect(error).toHaveProperty('statusCode', 404);
  });
});

See: no-conditional-expect docs


This is a very verbose way of testing for exceptions when Jest already has the expect.toThrow() way of checking for exceptions: jestjs.io/docs/en/expect.html#tothrowerror
Yes, but it tests only type, not message or other content and the question was about test message, not type.
@Valery or: expect('to be').not.toBe('to be') in Shakespeare style.
most underrated answer !
You don't need to make a fake assertion to fail - you can simply use fail(...) :)
P
Peter Mortensen

I use a slightly more concise version:

expect(() => {
  // Code block that should throw error
}).toThrow(TypeError) // Or .toThrow('expectedErrorMessage')

P
Peter Mortensen

From my (albeit limited) exposure to Jest, I have found that expect().toThrow() is suitable if you want to only test an error is thrown of a specific type:

expect(() => functionUnderTest()).toThrow(TypeError);

Or an error is thrown with a specific message:

expect(() => functionUnderTest()).toThrow('Something bad happened!');

If you try to do both, you will get a false positive. For example, if your code throws RangeError('Something bad happened!'), this test will pass:

expect(() => functionUnderTest()).toThrow(new TypeError('Something bad happened!'));

The answer by bodolsog which suggests using a try/catch is close, but rather than expecting true to be false to ensure the expect assertions in the catch are hit, you can instead use expect.assertions(2) at the start of your test where 2 is the number of expected assertions. I feel this more accurately describes the intention of the test.

A full example of testing the type and message of an error:

describe('functionUnderTest', () => {
    it('should throw a specific type of error.', () => {
        expect.assertions(2);

        try {
            functionUnderTest();
        } catch (error) {
            expect(error).toBeInstanceOf(TypeError);
            expect(error).toHaveProperty('message', 'Something bad happened!');
        }
    });
});

If functionUnderTest() does not throw an error, the assertions will be be hit, but the expect.assertions(2) will fail and the test will fail.


D'oh. I always forget about the expecting multiple assertions feature of Jest (possibly I just don't personally find it the most intutitive, but it definitely works for such cases!) Cheers!
expect.hasAssertions() might a better alternative when the test doesn't have any assertions outside catch, because you don't have to update the number if you add/remove assertions.
Another way to test the type and message is using toThrowWithMessage(type, message) from the jest-extended project.
The solution is otherwise good, but what if functionUnderTest passes and expections under catch block are never tested? I'd recommend moving the expects under main functions so they'd always be tested
@IlmariKumpula That's why you have the first line which defines how many assertions you are expecting. If the functionUnderTest passes and the catch block is never entered then the expects don't get hit and the test fails because two assertions were not made.
S
Slava Baginov

Modern Jest allows you to make more checks on a rejected value. For example, you could test status code of http exception:

const request = Promise.reject({statusCode: 404})
await expect(request).rejects.toMatchObject({ statusCode: 500 });

will fail with error

Error: expect(received).rejects.toMatchObject(expected)

- Expected
+ Received

  Object {
-   "statusCode": 500,
+   "statusCode": 404,
  }

Re "more checks on a rejected value": Why is that useful? Can you elaborate? Preferably by editing your answer (without "Edit", "Update", or similar).
THANK YOU SO MUCH
D
Douglas Caina

I manage to combine some answers and end up with this:

it('should throw', async () => {
    await expect(service.methodName('some@email.com', 'unknown')).rejects.toThrow(
      HttpException,
    );
  });

This is for an exception or error based on a rejected promise. Exactly what I was looking for <3
You saved my day!
Nice clean syntax
P
Peter Mortensen

Further to Peter Danis' post, I just wanted to emphasize the part of his solution involving "[passing] a function into expect(function).toThrow(blank or type of error)".

In Jest, when you test for a case where an error should be thrown, within your expect() wrapping of the function under testing, you need to provide one additional arrow function wrapping layer in order for it to work. I.e.

Wrong (but most people's logical approach):

expect(functionUnderTesting();).toThrow(ErrorTypeOrErrorMessage);

Right:

expect(() => { functionUnderTesting(); }).toThrow(ErrorTypeOrErrorMessage);

It's very strange, but it should make the testing run successfully.


Thanks for the answer. And it's incredible how the Jest's documentation can make things difficult by hidden important infos about the functionality.
Even shorter is expect(functionUnderTesting).toThrow(ErrorTypeOrErrorMessage)
Ž
Željko Šević

In case you are working with Promises:

await expect(Promise.reject(new HttpException('Error message', 402)))
  .rejects.toThrowError(HttpException);

P
Peter Mortensen

I haven't tried it myself, but I would suggest using Jest's toThrow assertion. So I guess your example would look something like this:

it('should throw Error with message \'UNKNOWN ERROR\' when no parameters were passed', (t) => {
  const error = t.throws(() => {
    throwError();
  }, TypeError);

  expect(t).toThrowError('UNKNOWN ERROR');
  //or
  expect(t).toThrowError(TypeError);
});

Again, I haven't test it, but I think it should work.


P
Peter Mortensen

Jest has a method, toThrow(error), to test that a function throws when it is called.

So, in your case you should call it so:

expect(t).toThrowError(TypeError);

The documentation.


It wouldn't work for the case: jest.spyOn(service, 'create').mockImplementation(() => { throw new Error(); }); if the mocked method create is not async.
I
Igor Sukharev

Check out toThrow method.

You must wrap the code in an additional function callback!

You should check both: the error message and its type.

For example:

expect(
  () => { // additional function wrap
    yourCodeToTest();
  }
).toThrow(
  new RangeError('duplicate prevArray value: A')
);

Because of additional callback wrap, the code will not be run immediately, so jest will be able to catch it.

You should always check the error message to be sure you are checking the correct throw case and not getting another error your code may throw.

It is also nice to check the error type, so the client code may rely on it.


P
Peter Mortensen

The documentation is clear on how to do this. Let's say I have a function that takes two parameters and it will throw an error if one of them is null.

function concatStr(str1, str2) {
  const isStr1 = str1 === null
  const isStr2 = str2 === null
  if(isStr1 || isStr2) {
    throw "Parameters can't be null"
  }
  ... // Continue your code

Your test

describe("errors", () => {
  it("should error if any is null", () => {
    // Notice that the expect has a function that returns the function under test
    expect(() => concatStr(null, "test")).toThrow()
  })
})

L
Liu Hantao

I have successfully used this

await expect(
      async () => await apiCalls()
    ).rejects.toThrow();

k
kpollock

I ended up writing a convenience method for our test-utils library

/**
 *  Utility method to test for a specific error class and message in Jest
 * @param {fn, expectedErrorClass, expectedErrorMessage }
 * @example   failTest({
      fn: () => {
        return new MyObject({
          param: 'stuff'
        })
      },
      expectedErrorClass: MyError,
      expectedErrorMessage: 'stuff not yet implemented'
    })
 */
  failTest: ({ fn, expectedErrorClass, expectedErrorMessage }) => {
    try {
      fn()
      expect(true).toBeFalsy()
    } catch (err) {
      let isExpectedErr = err instanceof expectedErrorClass
      expect(isExpectedErr).toBeTruthy()
      expect(err.message).toBe(expectedErrorMessage)
    }
  }

The same can be done using Jests own features. See my answer for how this can be done - stackoverflow.com/a/58103698/3361387
Also the separate jest-extended project has a toThrowWithMessage(type, message) matcher that's pretty great.
H
Hiran Júnior

There's a way to wait an error that comes from a async function, you just have to write your code like in the example bellow

await expect(yourAsyncFunction()).rejects.toThrowError();

S
Safi Habhab

You must wrap the code of the function that you are expecting in another arrow function, otherwise the error will not be caught and the assertion will fail.

the function you want to test :

const testThrowingError = () => {
    throw new Error();
  };

the test:

describe("error function should Throw Error", () => {
  expect(() =>testThrowingError()).toThrowError();
});

resource: https://jestjs.io/docs/expect#tothrowerror


O
Omar Omeiri

A good way is to create custom error classes and mock them. Then you can assert whatever you want.

MessedUpError.ts

type SomeCrazyErrorObject = {
  [key: string]: unknown,
}

class MessedUpError extends Error {
  private customErrorData: SomeCrazyErrorObject = {};

  constructor(err?: string, data?: SomeCrazyErrorObject) {
    super(err || 'You messed up');

    Object.entries(data ?? {}).forEach(([Key, value]) => {
      this.customErrorData[Key] = value;
    });
    Error.captureStackTrace(this, this.constructor);
  }

  logMe() {
    console.log(this.customErrorData);
  }
}

export default MessedUpError;

messedUpError.test.ts

import MessedUpError from './MessedUpError';

jest.mock('./MessedUpError', () => jest.fn().mockImplementation((...args: any[]) => ({
  constructor: args,
  log: () => {},
})));

type MessedUpErrorContructorParams = Expand<typeof MessedUpError['prototype']>
const MessedUpErrorMock = MessedUpError as unknown as jest.Mock<MessedUpError, [MessedUpErrorContructorParams]>;

const serverErrorContructorCall = (i = 0) => ({
  message: MessedUpErrorMock.mock.calls[i][0],
  ...MessedUpErrorMock.mock.calls[i][1] || {},
});

beforeEach(() => {
  MessedUpErrorMock.mockClear();
});

test('Should throw', async () => {
  try {
    await someFunctionThatShouldThrowMessedUpError();
  } catch {} finally {
    expect(MessedUpErrorMock).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1);
    const constructorParams = serverErrorContructorCall();
    expect(constructorParams).toHaveProperty('message', 'You messed up');
    expect(constructorParams).toHaveProperty('customErrorProperty', 'someValue');
  }
});

The assertions always go inside the finally clause. This way it will always be asserted. Even if the test does not throw any errors.


P
Peter Mortensen

Try:

expect(t).rejects.toThrow()

Why try? there is not try - but answer. If this is answer please elaborate more. what you adding to the existing answer?
I think @Razim was saying that you should try the solution, not use a try catch.