JUnit: how to avoid "no runnable methods" in test utils classes

Question

I have switched to JUnit4.4 from JUnit3.8. I run my tests using ant, all my tests run successfully but test utility classes fail with "No runnable methods" error. The pattern I am using is to include all classes with name *Test* under test folder.

I understand that the runner can't find any method annotated with @Test attribute. But they don't contain such annotation because these classes are not tests. Surprisingly when running these tests in eclipse, it doesn't complain about these classes.

In JUnit3.8 it wasn't a problem at all since these utility classes didn't extend TestCase so the runner didn't try to execute them.

I know I can exclude these specific classes in the junit target in ant script. But I don't want to change the build file upon every new utility class I add. I can also rename the classes (but giving good names to classes was always my weakest talent :-) )

Is there any elegant solution for this problem?

Does your tests work in Eclipse/NetBeans/your favourite IDE? — guerda, Mar 23 '09 at 07:42
I use eclipse. Actually there is no problem there, somehow eclipse doesn't try to run these classes. I wonder how? — LiorH, Mar 23 '09 at 07:55
I don't know if we understood your question. Please re-read your question and probably add some more information. — guerda, Mar 23 '09 at 08:02
@guerda: The question seems pretty clear to me. His Ant task is finding classes which don't contain tests, because the filter is picking up the utility class. Hence my answer, which I still believe is entirely relevant. — Jon Skeet, Mar 23 '09 at 08:07

score 144 · Answer 1 · answered Jun 11 '09 at 18:16

144

Annotate your util classes with @Ignore. This will cause JUnit not to try and run them as tests.

answered Jun 11 '09 at 18:16

JoelPM

1,752
2
11
7

7

Actually, no, it shouldn't. @Ignore is for temporarily disabling tests. – Alice Young Apr 19 '16 at 00:34
2

Sorry but that's a bad idea. You want to start annotating your production code with test related annotations just because they might match a test pattern? The proper answer is to fix the class names if they are triggering the pattern matching for tests. And make sure the pattern finds only classes that END with Test. That's a commonly accepted pattern – Kevin M Jan 03 '17 at 21:14
Yeah, this is bad and I didn't realize it until after contributing another upvote that i can't remove. Make your base class abstract, then JUnit will ignore it. See @gmoore's answer below. – Ryan Shillington Mar 21 '17 at 21:57

score 87 · Answer 2 · answered Jun 10 '10 at 16:34

My specific case has the following scenario. Our tests

public class VenueResourceContainerTest extends BaseTixContainerTest

all extend

BaseTixContainerTest

and JUnit was trying to run BaseTixContainerTest. Poor BaseTixContainerTest was just trying to setup the container, setup the client, order some pizza and relax... man.

As mentioned previously, you can annotate the class with

@Ignore

But that caused JUnit to report that test as skipped (as opposed to completely ignored).

Tests run: 4, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 1

That kind of irritated me.

So I made BaseTixContainerTest abstract, and now JUnit truly ignores it.

Tests run: 3, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0

I tried the @Ignore approach and thought, well that's good, then I read this answer and slapped myself in the forehead, "Of *course*!" — dnuttle, Oct 11 '17 at 20:25

score 52 · Accepted Answer · answered Mar 23 '09 at 07:45

52

Assuming you're in control of the pattern used to find test classes, I'd suggest changing it to match *Test rather than *Test*. That way TestHelper won't get matched, but FooTest will.

answered Mar 23 '09 at 07:45

Jon Skeet

1,421,763
867
9,128
9,194

1

I don't think it would help, because he moved to JUnit 4.4 and that should not matter. – guerda Mar 23 '09 at 07:46
2

You seem to have missed the point of my answer. He has a name filter to determine the classes to be considered as tests. If he changes the filter, he can easily exclude the helper classes. – Jon Skeet Mar 23 '09 at 08:04
1

Your suggestion is valid, however I checked out my tests classes and some start with Test and some end with Test. no clear distinction between utility classes and real test classes. Do you think the convention you suggested is a good practice? (i.e. utils start with Test, and tests end with Test) – LiorH Mar 23 '09 at 08:22
4

It's almost a convention that you suffix the testcase classes with *Test. You might need to refactor by renaming test classes appropriately and also rename the helpers so they won't use that suffix convention. – Spoike Mar 23 '09 at 08:30
2

I agree with Spoike - if you can't tell from the name of the class whether it's a test or a helper, you should rename the class. The convention is more "the class is a test if and only if it ends with Test." Utility classes may or may not begin with Test - it doesn't matter. – Jon Skeet Mar 23 '09 at 09:56
we'll go with the convention. Thanks – LiorH Mar 23 '09 at 11:30
`testPattern { include '**/*Test.java' }` - added this but it does not seem to be working, am I missing something? – Taras Leskiv Jun 03 '16 at 08:56

score 39 · Answer 4 · answered May 22 '12 at 09:18

39

To prevent JUnit from instantiating your test base class just make it

public abstract class MyTestBaseClass { ... whatever... }

(@Ignore reports it as ignored which I reserve for temporarily ignored tests.)

answered May 22 '12 at 09:18

froh42

5,190
6
30
42

3

JUnit runners often try to instantiate abstract classes as well, and then fail with an instantiation error. – Holly Cummins Jul 18 '14 at 11:08
Works perfectly for my for base test classes – ruX Jan 18 '16 at 13:55
4

This is working because of the name (it doesn't end in Test), not because of the abstract modifier. Change the class name to MyBaseClassTest and it will try to instantiate as mentioned by @HollyCummins (and fail) – Hutch Sep 27 '16 at 15:56
In my case, it should be `protected abstract class`. – Mystic Lin Apr 27 '20 at 08:27

score 19 · Answer 5 · answered Feb 02 '16 at 22:45

19

If this is your base test class for example AbstractTest and all your tests extends this then define this class as abstract
If it is Util class then better remove *Test from the class rename it is MyTestUtil or Utils etc.

answered Feb 02 '16 at 22:45

Raghu K Nair

3,854
1
28
45

Sridhar Sarnobat · Answer 6 · 2018-03-03T20:25:30.433

15

Be careful when using an IDE's code-completion to add the import for @Test.

It has to be import org.junit.Test and not import org.testng.annotations.Test, for example. If you do the latter, you'll get the "no runnable methods" error.

edited Mar 03 '18 at 20:25

answered Aug 04 '15 at 00:03

Sridhar Sarnobat

25,183
12
93
106

This should be a comment rather than an answer. – Swaranga Sarma Nov 30 '16 at 14:01
3

I don't see why. It's a valid solution. – Sridhar Sarnobat Dec 03 '16 at 01:26
6

Intellij Idea 2017 was messing with my mind by importing `org.junit.jupiter.api.Test` instead! but thanks to you it is solved now – AmiNadimi Mar 03 '18 at 20:14
Thank you very much, I was confused during getting problem "no runnable methods". – Peter S. Dec 13 '18 at 17:30

mc1arke · Answer 7 · 2019-06-19T13:12:36.573

8

Ant now comes with the skipNonTests attribute which was designed to do exactly what you seem to be looking for. No need to change your base classes to abstract or add annotations to them.

edited Jun 19 '19 at 13:12

answered Mar 31 '14 at 21:44

mc1arke

1,030
10
22

2

It looks like the `skipNonTests` attribute is only available in ant 1.9+, which is a shame, since it looks incredibly useful. It will also exclude abstract test superclasses. – Holly Cummins Jul 18 '14 at 10:36

score 4 · Answer 8 · answered Mar 22 '18 at 13:38

4

In your test class if wrote import org.junit.jupiter.api.Test; delete it and write import org.junit.Test; In this case it worked me as well.

answered Mar 22 '18 at 13:38

illuminatos

51
4

1

amazingly, it worked. i executed manually in Windows command line. however, another problem is that `@BeforeAll` and `@AfterAll` are not run. – BingLi224 May 27 '19 at 18:13
seemingly, JUnit4 worked (with `@BeforeClass` and `@AfterClass`, but JUnit5's not. Reference: https://junit.org/junit5/docs/current/user-guide/#migrating-from-junit4 – BingLi224 May 27 '19 at 19:04

score 4 · Answer 9 · answered Mar 23 '09 at 09:31

4

What about adding an empty test method to these classes?

public void avoidAnnoyingErrorMessageWhenRunningTestsInAnt() {
    assertTrue(true); // do nothing;
}

answered Mar 23 '09 at 09:31

akuhn

27,477
2
76
91

8

but that falsely increases the number the tests we have :) not that its a big deal – Sudarshan Jan 25 '12 at 18:24

score 0 · Answer 10 · answered Apr 23 '13 at 20:01

I was also facing a similar issue ("no runnable methods..") on running the simplest of simple piece of code (Using @Test, @Before etc.) and found the solution nowhere. I was using Junit4 and Eclipse SDK version 4.1.2. Resolved my problem by using the latest Eclipse SDK 4.2.2. I hope this helps people who are struggling with a somewhat similar issue.

score 0 · Answer 11 · answered Oct 18 '22 at 06:15

I also faced the same issue once. In my case I was running my tests using Enclosed Runner of Junit. I created a class called SharedSetup to enable common features for my 2 test classes. But somehow facing the same issue.

@RunWith(Enclosed.class)
public class StructApprovalNodeTest {

abstract static class SharedSetup {

    StructApprovalNode sut;

    ExecutionContext ctx = mock(ExecutionContext.class);
    DTDDAOService dtd = mock(DTDDAOService.class);

    @Rule
    public ExpectedException expectedException = ExpectedException.none();

    @Before
    public void before() throws Exception {
        PowerMockito.mockStatic(ServiceHelper.class);

        when(ServiceHelper.getService("dtd")).thenReturn(dtd);
        when(ctx.getContextInstance()).thenReturn(mock(ContextInstance.class));

        when(dtd.getLatestStructures(Matchers.anyInt(), Matchers.anyString(), Matchers.anyString())).thenReturn(
                new ArrayList<Trade>());

        sut = new StructApprovalNode();
        spy(sut);
    }
}

@RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
@PrepareForTest({ ServiceHelper.class, StructApprovalNode.class })
@PowerMockIgnore("javax.management.*")
@PowerMockRunnerDelegate(Parameterized.class)
public static class ParamaterizedBatchTest extends SharedSetup {

    private String batchName;
    private String approvalStatus;

    public ParamaterizedBatchTest(String batchName, String approvalStatus) {
        this.batchName = batchName;
        this.approvalStatus = approvalStatus;
    }

    @Parameterized.Parameters
    public static Collection testValues() {
        return Arrays.asList(new Object[][] {
                { "SDC_HK_AUTOMATION_BATCH", Constants.APRVLSTATUS_APPROVED },
                { "SDC_PB_AUTOMATION_BATCH", Constants.APRVLSTATUS_APPROVED },
                { "SDC_FX_AUTOMATION_BATCH", Constants.APRVLSTATUS_APPROVED }
        });
    }

    @Test
    public void test1_SDCBatchSourceSystems() throws Exception {
        Trade trade = new Trade();
        String tradeXml = FileHelper.getResourceFromJar("/testdata/SDC_BATCH_TRADE_XML.xml");
        trade.setTradeXml(tradeXml);
        trade.setTradeDoc(XmlHelper.createDocument(trade.getTradeXml()));
        trade.setStatus(Constants.STATUS_LIVE);
        trade.setSourceSystem(this.batchName);

        when(ctx.getContextInstance().getVariable("trade")).thenReturn(trade);
        when(ctx.getContextInstance().getTransientVariable("prevTrade")).thenReturn(null);

        sut.execute(ctx);

        PowerMockito.verifyPrivate(sut, times(1)).invoke("resetApprovalDetails", trade);
        Assert.assertEquals(this.approvalStatus, trade.getApprovalStatus());
    }

}

@RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
@PrepareForTest({ ServiceHelper.class, StructApprovalNode.class })
@PowerMockIgnore("javax.management.*")
public static class NonParamaterizedBatchTest extends SharedSetup {

    @Test
    public void test2_PrevInvalidTrade() throws Exception {
        expectedException.expect(Exception.class);
        expectedException.expectMessage("External Id of STRUCTURE_TRADE cannot be changed.");

        Trade trade = new Trade();
        trade.setExternalId(123);
        PrevTrade prevTrade = new PrevTrade();
        prevTrade.setExternalId(1234);

        when(ctx.getContextInstance().getVariable("trade")).thenReturn(trade);
        when(ctx.getContextInstance().getTransientVariable("prevTrade")).thenReturn(prevTrade);

        sut.execute(ctx);
    }

    @Test
    public void test3_ValidPrevTrade() throws Exception {
        Trade trade = new Trade();
        String tradeXml = FileHelper.getResourceFromJar("/testdata/SDC_BATCH_TRADE_XML.xml");
        trade.setTradeXml(tradeXml);
        trade.setTradeDoc(XmlHelper.createDocument(trade.getTradeXml()));
        trade.setStatus(Constants.STATUS_LIVE);
        trade.setSourceSystem("BATCH");
        trade.setExternalId(1277402441);

        PrevTrade prevTrade = new PrevTrade();
        prevTrade.setExternalId(1277402441);

        when(ctx.getContextInstance().getVariable("trade")).thenReturn(trade);
        when(ctx.getContextInstance().getTransientVariable("prevTrade")).thenReturn(prevTrade);

        sut.execute(ctx);

        PowerMockito.verifyPrivate(sut, times(1)).invoke("resetApprovalDetails", trade);
        Assert.assertEquals("APPROVED", trade.getApprovalStatus());
    }

    @Test
    public void test4_ValidPrevTradeAutoApprpve() throws Exception {
        Trade trade = new Trade();
        String tradeXml = FileHelper.getResourceFromJar("/testdata/SDC_BATCH_TRADE_XML_AUTO_APPRV.xml");
        trade.setTradeXml(tradeXml);
        trade.setTradeDoc(XmlHelper.createDocument(trade.getTradeXml()));
        trade.setStatus(Constants.STATUS_LIVE);
        trade.setSourceSystem("BATCH");
        trade.setExternalId(1277402441);

        PrevTrade prevTrade = new PrevTrade();
        prevTrade.setExternalId(1277402441);
        prevTrade.setApprovalStatus(Constants.APRVLSTATUS_NOTAPPROVED);

        when(ctx.getContextInstance().getVariable("trade")).thenReturn(trade);
        when(ctx.getContextInstance().getTransientVariable("prevTrade")).thenReturn(prevTrade);

        sut.execute(ctx);

        PowerMockito.verifyPrivate(sut, times(1)).invoke("resetApprovalDetails", trade);
        Assert.assertEquals(prevTrade.getApprovalStatus(), trade.getApprovalStatus());
    }

    @Test
    public void test5_tradeStatusDraft() throws Exception {
        Trade trade = new Trade();
        String tradeXml = FileHelper.getResourceFromJar("/testdata/SDC_BATCH_TRADE_XML.xml");
        trade.setTradeXml(tradeXml);
        trade.setTradeDoc(XmlHelper.createDocument(trade.getTradeXml()));
        trade.setStatus(Constants.STATUS_DRAFT);
        trade.setSourceSystem("BATCH");
        trade.setExternalId(1277402441);

        when(ctx.getContextInstance().getVariable("trade")).thenReturn(trade);
        when(ctx.getContextInstance().getTransientVariable("prevTrade")).thenReturn(null);

        sut.execute(ctx);

        PowerMockito.verifyPrivate(sut, times(1)).invoke("resetApprovalDetails", trade);
        Assert.assertEquals(Constants.APRVLSTATUS_NONE, trade.getApprovalStatus());
    }

}

}

To solve the issue, I just removed the public modifier from the abstract super class SharedSetup and issue is fixed for good

JUnit: how to avoid "no runnable methods" in test utils classes

11 Answers11

Linked