Testing AngularJS: Asynchrony

So far, we have looked at some techniques for testing simple AngularJS factories and directives. However, things are rarely simple when it comes to web development and one area that complicates things is that of asynchronous operations such as web requests, timeouts and promises.

Eventually, when writing AngularJS, you will rely on the $timeout, $interval, or $q services to defer an action by some interval or indefinitely using promises. I will not go very deep into their use here, you can read much of that on the AngularJS documentation, but since it is likely that you will use them, how do you test them? How do you test asynchronous code without horribly complex and unreliable tests?

$timeout

Consider this simple example where we have a controller that defers some action using $timeout.

Here we have a variable, started that is initialised to false and a deferred method that changes that value to true. A first stab at testing this might look a little like this:

Unfortunately, such a test will not pass because the deferred code would not execute until after the expectation was tested. We can mitigate this by using some AngularJS magic provided by the ngMock module.

The ngMock module adds the $timeout.flush() method so that code deferred using $timeout can be executed deterministically1. The test can therefore be modified such that it passes by adding the highlighted line below.

$q

For promises that were deferred using $q (including the promise returned from using $interval), we can use $scope.$apply() to complete a resolved or rejected promise and execute any code depending on that promise.

In the following contrived example, we have a controller with a start() method that returns a promise and a started() method that resolves that promise.

The preceding test validates our controller and its promise. If you delete the highlighted line, you would see that the test fails because the resolved promise is never completed.

Finally…

In this post, we have taken a brief look at how AngularJS supports the testing of asynchronous code execution deferred using $timeout, $interval, or $q. The ability to synchronously control otherwise asynchronous actions not only allows us to test that deferred code, but also to prevent it executing at all. This can be incredibly useful when isolating different parts of our code by reducing how much of it has to run to validate a specific method.

Of course, quite often, a promise is only resolved after an HTTP request responds or fails, such as when using $resource. When writing unit tests, you may not have nor want the luxury of a back-end server that responds appropriately to test requests. Instead, you either want to fake out $resource, or fake out and validate the HTTP requests and responses2. In upcoming posts, we'll look at a simple $resource fake for the former and the special $httpBackend service that AngularJS provides for the latter. Until then, please leave your comments.


  1. The flush() method even takes a delay parameter to control which timeouts will execute and a similar method exists for $interval 

  2. The requests that you expect your code to make and the responses that your code expects to receive – or doesn't, as the case may be 

Testing AngularJS: Directives

So far in this series of AngularJS-related posts, we have looked at some utility factories for tracking web requests and preventing navigation requests, whether in-app or not, and how to write tests for those factories using Jasmine. In this post, we will look at how I generally test directives and how that impacts their structure.

Directives

Directives are the things we write in AngularJS that allow us to extend and modify the HTML language. We provide a template, some code-behind, and data binding, and AngularJS performs its magic to create a new behavior or control that is inserted via tag, attribute or CSS class. However, directives can at first seem difficult to test.

Let's look at a convoluted example.

In this example we have a very simple directive. It specifies a template, some scope, and a controller where the business logic lives. It is used like this:

As it stands, there are a one or two things that either make this difficult to test or (I feel) could be clearer1. Let's refactor this directive with testing in mind.

Tests

When I have a working directive that I want to test, I tend to start writing tests. I realise this seems obvious, but it is worth noting as I do not tend to do much refactoring before writing tests and I don't tend to write tests before I have something to test. I find it much more useful to get a concept working and then think about what tests should be there and how I can implement those tests. When I find friction in authoring those tests, I identify my refactoring priorities.

Considering the directive presented above, what tests do we need? Here is the list of things that I think should be tested:

  • That the directive exists
  • That the directive compiles
  • That the alert shows when the button is clicked
  • That the alert mentions the field name
  • That the alert mentions the field value

Testing that the directive exists is easy (note that we have to add Directive to the end for the directive to be injected).

Checking it compiles is a little more convoluted, but not difficult.

The linking function that $compile returns is called because  $compile can succeed even if our fixture has a typo.

Using knowledge of our directive template, we can verify that the linking worked without going so far as to validate every aspect of the magic Angular does for us. In fact, since this is really intended to test the code that gets called inside the directive when it is linked to a scope, the template for the directive could be as simple as <div></div> (we will take a closer look in a future post at how we can make the directive template replaceable).

Testing the Alert

Testing that the directive exists, compiles and links is relatively straightforward when compared with testing that the alert is shown and shows the right thing. In order to test the alert, we need to be able to invoke showField, the method that shows it. We also need to check that showField actually shows the alert as we would like.

To invoke showField, we might try using the scope that is passed to the link method returned from $compile. Since the method is added to the scope in the controller, this should work, right? Of course not; this directive has an isolate scope and as such the method has been added to its own copy of the passed scope. We can get to that isolate scope from the compiled element using the isolateScope() method;

…but I feel like such a test involves too much setup ceremony just to get to the test2 and it relies on too many things outside of just the bit we want to validate. Instead, what if we could get at the controller independently of the directive?

Now our controller is completely separate from the directive, which refers to the controller by name. This means we can write what I feel are clearer directive tests. Using a fake for the controller, we isolate the directive from the real thing and any side-effects it may have;

…and now the controller can have its own tests too;

$window

However, we are not quite finished. How do we know that the alert is shown when our showField method is called? We could spy on the global window object, but that's not really very Angular-y and our alert will get shown during testing (goodness knows what other side-effects we might face by using the global window object). What we need is an injectable version of window that we can replace with a fake during our tests. Not unsurprisingly, AngularJS has us covered with the $window service.

Now with our controller rewritten to use $window, we can tidy up and complete its test cases.

And there you have it. Some simple steps that make unit testing directives a little easier.

Finally…

In this post, we have taken a very brief look at how to structure a directive to simplify unit testing by separating the directive declaration from its controller and taking advantage of Angular services such as $window.

Although we have not covered some of the more complex directive concepts such as the link function and DOM manipulation3, these simple steps should take you a long way towards providing better test coverage of your AngularJS widgets.

Until next time, take care and don't forget to leave a comment.


  1. Not unexpected since I wrote it to discuss these things 

  2. we have to compile a fixture with a scope and then get the isolate scope from the element 

  3. I may cover that in a future post if there is interest or the whim takes me 

Testing AngularJS: inject, spies and $provide

Testing is an important part of software development. To a software developer, automating that testing is an important part of software development, that is because to a software developer (at least one like me) testing is boring…unless we can make it seem like software development.

In my last few posts on AngularJS we looked at a way to monitor HTTP activity and guard against page navigation when requests were pending. However, we didn't validate that the code actually worked. Fortunately, the great ways to encapsulate client-side business logic and isolate it from the user experience that AngularJS provides, coupled with excellent support from angular-mocks, make testing AngularJS easy. In this post, we will take a glimpse at how.

Jasmine, CoffeeScript and Chutzpah

There are a few approaches to JavaScript testing, but they usually involve the same general components; a test framework, a test runner, and a test language. Thankfully (for me and you), this post is not an exhaustive discussion of testing options or their pros and cons. Instead, I will be stating what I use and assuming that they are the best choice1. A great place to start is the JavaScript Testing Tactics presentation from Justin Searls, which can be found here along with other talks he has given.

Based on Justin's testing tactics, which I saw at SEMjs, I write all my tests using Jasmine, CoffeeScript and jasmine-given.  The outcome is a terse testing DSL2 that is low on ceremony and high on readability3.

Chutzpah

While it is common on greenfield projects to use a test runner such as Karma launched by Gulp or Grunt, I started my work on a legacy project where the build process was maintained using Visual Studio and MSBuild. Chutzpah is a suite of tools that fits this development process nicely, including a test runner as a NuGet package and some simple Visual Studio integration via extensions.

In addition, Chutzpah supports multiple testing frameworks4, multiple languages5 and code coverage metrics using Blanket.js. Basically, Chutzpah is awesome; fact.

Testing an Angular Factory

With our test framework, test runner and test language selected, we can look at our first test.  We are going to test saHttpActivityInterceptor and the very first thing we should test is that saHttpActivityInterceptor actually exists. The following test does exactly that.

Just as with AngularJS implementations, AngularJS tests start with some setup: a reference path to the file under test (other files such as the Jasmine framework, AngularJS and angular-mocks are included via the Chutzpah configuration file), a describe call under which to group all tests for  saHttpActivityInterceptor, and a Given call that ensures the somewhatabstract module is loaded at the start of each child test (the module method is provided by Angular Mocks).

The actual unit test is declared starting at line 7 with describe 'exists', ->. This test is very simple; it states that when we try to inject our factory, we should get something other than undefined. The => syntax in CoffeeScript (also known as "fat arrow" syntax6) ensures that the When and Then calls share the same this context so that the @saHttpActivityInterceptor variable is shared between them (the @ symbol preceeding a variable in CoffeeScript indicates a context-level variable). The value stored in the @saHttpActivityInterceptor variable is obtained by asking AngularJS to inject it using the inject function, a helpful utility from angular-mocks.

This test works, you can verify it easily by commenting out the interceptor declaration in the JavaScript file we referenced7, but it is not a great test. If saNavigationGuard  does not exist, this test will fail, yet our interceptor still exists. What we have done is create a simple integration test instead of a unit test; we need to isolate the thing under test, saHttpActivityInterceptor, from its dependency, saNavigationGuard.

inject and $provide

To isolate our item under test, we need to provide our own version of saNavigationGuard . We can do this using a fake; an object that pretends to be the real thing. We will use a Jasmine spy as a fake to represent saNavigationGuard and then provide it to AngularJS using the $provide  service8. Because AngularJS uses the most recent definition when injecting dependencies and because our newly created spy is the most recent definition of saNavigationGuard, it is that spy which ultimately gets injected into saHttpActivityInterceptor when the test runs.

Not only are we now isolating saHttpActivityInterceptor , but because our fake is being used in place of the real saNavigationGuard, we can check that any guardian registered with our fake works properly9.

And there we have it, a little test suite that validates the saHttpActivityInterceptor, almost. You may note that to test the guardian, we had to actually use one of the factory functions, request, but how do we know that the request function works if we haven't tested it? We should add some tests, but since we can only check the functionality of request, response, and responseError via the guardian call and we can only check the guardian call via the functionality of those other methods, we don't have a good way to gain high confidence in the functionality of any of these methods. Therefore, if we really wanted to test this effectively, we need to refactor the count functionality into its own factory. That way we can inject and validate the count state independently of the thing under test. For now, that's an exercise for another time.

Finally…

In this post, I have shown how we can test a simple AngularJS factory using Jasmine, Jasmine-Given and the built-in testing support of the AngularJS framework via Angular Mocks; specifically, module, inject and $provide.

While not exhaustive, I hope this look at testing Angular-based code encourages you to begin testing your own applications. Code discussed in this and earlier related posts can be found in a repository on GitHub.  The repository includes a Visual Studio solution and project to run the tests, including NuGet and Bower restore to get the appropriate packages for running the tests. I intend to expand the code in GitHub as I write more blogs on AngularJS and AngularJS testing.

In the next post, we will take a look at how I structure directives to simplify testing and what that testing looks like. We might even see some of the cooler testing tricks for AngularJS that enable us to synchronously test asynchronous operations and validate web requests. Until then, feel free to ask questions in the comments and carry on coding.


  1. I recommend that you investigate for yourself before choosing what works best for you and your development processes 

  2. Domain-specific Language 

  3. IMHO YMMV 

  4. Jasmine, QUnit and Mocha 

  5. CoffeeScript, TypeScript or plain old JavaScript 

  6. Be careful when using this "fat arrow" syntax – sharing context across unit tests can cause side-effects including false pass and fail results 

  7. Go on, try it. The code is on GitHub 

  8. Make sure to use $provide before any calls to inject 

  9. Though we could also have done this by spying on the real saNavigationGuard.registerGuardian function using Jasmine's spyOn function, such an approach assumes the remainder of saNavigationGuard has no unwanted side-effects, which is not necessarily true 

Track pending web requests with AngularJS

Navigation Guard

In the previous two posts (here and here), I covered the AngularJS factory, saNavigationGuard that I had created. This factory provides a simple way to guard against inconvenient page navigation in our Angular applications. However, up until now, I have not demonstrated one of the coolest uses for this. Before we look at this awesome use of saNavigationGuard, let us take a short trip into late last year.

I was getting started on my first big project with AngularJS and I had added a busy indicator to my user experience. To control when the indicator was active, I used a counter. This counter was incremented and decremented before and after using Angular resources. It was a nest of promises and error handlers, just to make sure the counter worked properly. I was not entirely happy with it but it was the best I could work out from my knowledge of Angular and JavaScript, so I submitted a pull request. My colleague reviewed the work and, looking at the busy indicator and the code to control the counter, stated, "there must be a better way."

I did not know at the time, but he was right, there is a better way and it uses an Angular feature called "interceptors".

Interceptors

Interceptors provide hooks into web requests, responses and their errors allowing us to modify or handle them in different ways. They are provided via an AngularJS provider such as a factory or service and injected into the $httpProvider using config as follows.

In this snippet, the name of the interceptor, saHttpActivityInterceptor, is added to the array of interceptors on $httpProvider.

The interceptor itself is a little more complex.

The interceptor factory returns an object that, in this case, has three methods: request, response and responseError. A fourth method, requestError, can also be included in interceptors if needed. Before returning our interceptor, the interceptor factory registers a guardian with saNavigationGuard that will guard against navigation if the pendingRequestsCounter is greater than zero.

The interceptor monitors requests and responses. On each request, the request method is checked, if it is POST, PUT or DELETE, the pendingRequestsCounter variable is incremented by one and the request is tagged to indicate it is being tracked. We flag it so that we know to pay attention when the corresponding response or response error occurs. In the response and response error handlers, we decrement our counter based on the tracking flag and the method.

Finally…

The outcome of using this interceptor is that if the user tries to navigate away from the page after a request has been made but before its response has been received, they will see a message asking them to consider postponing the navigation.

In the next post, we will look at testing both this interceptor and the saNavigationGuard functionality using my preferred combination of jasmine, CoffeeScript and jasmine-given.

As always, please consider leaving a comment if you have found this post useful or have any alternatives.

Navigation guard using AngularJS: $locationChangeStart

Where were we?

In the last post, I introduced saNavigationGuard, an AngularJS factory that provided a mechanism for different components to guard against the user navigating away from the page when it was not desirable. This used the $window.onbeforeunload event and therefore, only works when navigating outside of the AngularJS application. For in-app navigation, we need to monitor a different event that Angular provides called $locationChangeStart.

$locationChangeStart

In the following code I have expanded saNavigationGuard to include support for $locationChangeStart.

In this new version of saNavigationGuard, the getGuardMessage method has been introduced that is responsible for querying the guardians for a reason not to allow navigation. In addition, an event handler has been added on $rootScope to handle $locationChangeStart. This handler is then used to query the guardians and display a confirmation message.

To display the confirmation message, I settled on using $window.confirm. Originally, I had thought about allowing a custom experience instead, but I felt that, due to any alternative experience being non-modal, the state management to allow a navigation to continue would be overly complicated.

Finally…

I was expecting the modifications to support $locationChangeStart to be more difficult than it turned out, though there are certainly some improvements that can be made1.

In the next post, I am going to show how we can track pending web requests and prevent navigation accordingly. In the meantime, please comment and let me know if you have other uses for saNavigationGuard or even alternative implementations.


  1. For example, the old and new URLs that are given as arguments to the $locationChangeStart handler could be passed to the guardians in order for them to make more informed decisions.