javascriptjasmineaureliaes6-promise

Unit testing logic inside promise callback


I have an ES6 / Aurelia app that I am using jasmine to test. The method I am trying to test looks something like this:

update() {
    let vm = this;
    vm.getData()
        .then((response) => {
            vm.processData(response);
        });
}

Where this.getData is a function that returns a promise.

My spec file looks something like this:

describe('my service update function', () => {
    it('it will call the other functions', () => { 
        myService = new MyService();
        spyOn(myService, 'getData').and.callFake(function() {
            return new Promise((resolve) => { resolve(); });
        });
        spyOn(myService, 'processData').and.callFake(function() { return; });
        myService.update();

        // this one passes
        expect(myService.getData).toHaveBeenCalled();

        // this one fails
        expect(myService.processData).toHaveBeenCalled();
    });
});

I understand why this fails - promises are asynchronous and it hasn't been resolved by the time it hits the expect.

How can I push the promises to resolve from my test so that I can test the code inside the call back?

jsfiddle of failed test: http://jsfiddle.net/yammerade/2aap5u37/6/


Solution

  • I got a workaround running by returning an object that behaves like a promise instead of an actual promise

    describe('my service update function', () => {
        it('it will call the other functions', () => { 
            myService = new MyService();
            spyOn(myService, 'getData').and.returnValue({
                then(callback) {
                    callback();
                }
            });
            spyOn(myService, 'processData').and.callFake(function() { return; });
            myService.update();
    
            // this one passes
            expect(myService.getData).toHaveBeenCalled();
    
            // this one fails
            expect(myService.processData).toHaveBeenCalled();
        });
    });
    

    Fiddle here: http://jsfiddle.net/yammerade/9rLrzszm/2/

    Is there anything wrong with doing it this way?