How to unit test console output with mocha on nodejs?
Solution 1
I prefer mocha-sinon
over "plain" sinon because it integrates nicely with Mocha.
Example:
var expect = require('chai').expect;
require('mocha-sinon');
// Function to test, can also be in another file and as long as it's
// being called through some public interface it should be testable.
// If it's not in any way exposed/exported, testing will be problematic.
function privateFunction (time) {
if (time < 12) { console.log('Good morning'); }
if (time >= 12 && time <19) { console.log('Good afternoon'); }
else { console.log('Good night!'); }
}
describe('privateFunction()', function() {
beforeEach(function() {
this.sinon.stub(console, 'log');
});
it('should log "Good morning" for hours < 12', function() {
privateFunction(5);
expect( console.log.calledOnce ).to.be.true;
expect( console.log.calledWith('Good morning') ).to.be.true;
});
it('should log "Good afternoon" for hours >= 12 and < 19', function() {
privateFunction(15);
expect( console.log.calledOnce ).to.be.true;
expect( console.log.calledWith('Good afternoon') ).to.be.true;
});
it('should log "Good night!" for hours >= 19', function() {
privateFunction(20);
expect( console.log.calledOnce ).to.be.true;
expect( console.log.calledWith('Good night!') ).to.be.true;
});
});
One potential issue: some Mocha reporters use console.log
as well, so the tests that stub it may not yield any output.
There's a workaround, but it's not ideal either because it will intersperse Mocha output with the output from privateFunction()
. If that's not a problem, replace beforeEach()
with this:
beforeEach(function() {
var log = console.log;
this.sinon.stub(console, 'log', function() {
return log.apply(log, arguments);
});
});
Solution 2
ignoring the fact that it's a private function, i would take a couple of steps; refactor my code for better separation of concerns, and utilise this separation with test doubles.
-
take all the side effects outside to their own modules (the side effect here is writing to the console):
out.js
function log (message) { console.log(message); }; module.exports = {log};
app.js
const {log} = require('out'); function greeter (time) { if (time < 12) { log('Good morning'); } if (time >= 12 && time < 19) { log('Good afternoon'); } else { log('Good night!'); } }; module.exports = {greeter};
-
use some module proxy/spy, like proxyquire to replace the whole out writer when testing:
app.spec.js
describe('output writers', function(){ const fakeOut = { log: sinon.spy(), }; const app = proxyquire('./app', { 'out': fakeOut }); it('should log to the fake out', function(){ app.greeter(15); assert(fakeOut.log.calledOnce); }); });
Solution 3
If your purpose is solely to test console output, I would suggest instead of stubs / spies etc on method calls, to use something like:
monitor stdout/stderr instead, you can use ideas from this gist
Kemel Zaidan
Updated on July 29, 2022Comments
-
Kemel Zaidan almost 2 years
Take into account the following example Javascript code below:
function privateFunction (time) { if (time < 12) { console.log('Good morning'); } if (time >= 12 && time <19) { console.log('Good afternoon'); } else { console.log('Good night!'); } };
How should I unit test that on nodejs using mocha (and possibly sinonjs), noticing that this is a private function called inside a module? I need to pass in the argument and check if the function is logging the right thing to the console.
Can I do the same with
console.warn
andconsole.error
? -
TMG over 7 yearsIf you use spy instead of stub then the workaround is not needed.
-
robertklep over 7 years@TMG I'm actually starting to wonder if the workaround won't cause issues with calls to
console.log()
being made by reporters interfering with the call count of the stub/spy. Probably not, because I would think reporters only report after the test has run. In any case, using a spy is indeed a better solution.