Application Development Blog Posts
Learn and share on deeper, cross technology development topics such as integration and connectivity, automation, cloud extensibility, developing at scale, and security.
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Active Contributor
If you follow my activities, you know that I am getting into ABAP Unit, and sometimes I share my learnings and questions.

Those are some recent posts:

So, I kind of know for a long time that one should "program against an interface, not a class", but I never really did.
But recently I started to extract interfaces and see how working with them is.

Now I can share a benefit I experienced:
Of course my parameter class has no public methods to set or clear a parameter. And also, it should not have that (parameters a read from customizing tables).
But my mock parameter class I define in the unit test, can very well have such methods (and I can create another one, whenever needed).
And as the both implement the interface, I can use any of them.

[This is probably a textbook example, so it might be not much news to you - but for me, experiencing this in my own, real work is so much more impressive than reading or hearing about the theoretical concept. I think it really clicked]

In an effort of "don't repeat yourself" I tried putting what I want to tell about my test in comments. So the core of this blog post is this code block:
*There is a check, that the stock passed in has to have certain characteristics,
*e.g. a stock type (cat), that is defined as "available".
*The definition which stock types are "available" (e.g. F1, F2) is done in customizing-tables
*and read by and stored in the parameter object (zifewm_mon_stock_mover_params ), that is passed into
*the stock_mover (code under test = cut).
METHOD is_not_available_stock_cat.
mt_mock_data = VALUE #( ( cat = 'B6' ) ). "Data, simulating a line in /SCWM/MON: it has a certain value for stock type. (all other fields don't matter)
mref_mock_prameters->clear_stock_cat_available( ). "Make sure that stock type is not in the list of acceptable stock types.

"create the stock mover, passing in the mock data and the mock parameters object.
cut = NEW zclewm_mon_stock_mover( it_data = mt_mock_data
iref_parameters = mref_mock_prameters ).

*we can now call the public method that contains the check.
cut->check_and_move_stock( ).
CATCH zclewm_cx_input_false .
"if this check fails, an exception is thrown. This is the expected result, so the test passes: we are done here:
RETURN. "ok!

"only if for some reason there was NO exception, we reach this point. This is NOT what we expected. The test failed, so this is what we do:
cl_abap_unit_assert=>fail( ).

Questions / thoughts:

- how does this kind of presentation - code block with comments - work for you?
- how would I test the other way round? -> let the check pass? (Do I even need to test that ?)
- my public method is check_and_move_stock -> do some checks, and if all pass, create a warehouse task. Should that be 2 public methods instead ? ( I have more thoughts on that , but this is probably for another post)

Labels in this area