Javascript

Testing ES6 React components with Enzyme's shallow rendering

I ran into a strange issue today when writing some assertions using the Enzyme testing library for React.

Whenever I create a new component, I like to use ES6 class notation and export the class anonymously like this:

// MyChildComponent.js
import React from 'react';

export default class extends React.Component {
  render() {
    return (<div>MyChildComponent</div>)
  }
}

Then, I'll render it in another component like this:

// MyParentComponent.js
import React from 'react';
import MyChildComponent from './MyChildComponent';

export default class extends React.Component {
  render() {
    return (
      <div>
        <MyChildComponent />
      </div>
    )
  }
}

When testing for the presence of MyChildComponent within MyParentComponent in Enzyme, I'll typically produce a test that looks like this:

import { shallow } from 'enzyme';
import { expect } from 'chai';

import MyParentComponent from './MyParentComponent';

describe("<MyParentComponent />", () => {

  const wrapper = shallow(<MyParentComponent />);

  it("renders a MyChildComponent", () => {
    expect(wrapper.find('MyChildComponent')).to.have.length(1);
  });

});

But this fails! It's as if MyChildComponent isn't being rendered at all.

If I dump wrapper.debug() (doc) to the console, I get this output in place of MyChildComponent:

<div>
<_class />
</div>

It's as if Enzyme doesn't know the component is called MyChildComponent!

Solutions

There are two ways to solve this.

Import the component itself and assert on it instead

Below, we import MyChildComponent and then, in the assertion, use the class constant instead of the string literal "MyChildComponent":

import { shallow } from 'enzyme';
import { expect } from 'chai';

import MyParentComponent from './MyParentComponent';
import MyChildComponent from './MyChildComponent';

describe("<MyParentComponent />", () => {

  const wrapper = shallow(<MyParentComponent />);

  it("renders a MyChildComponent", () => {
    expect(wrapper.find(MyChildComponent)).to.have.length(1);
  });

});

Export the named class from within the child component

As much as we should strive to write code that doesn't repeat itself, this was the solution I ultimately chose. It turns out React is able to determine the class name so long as you define it in the class statement. Modifying MyChildComponent.js to produce a named class and then exporting it allows Enzyme to find it in the string literal assertion:

// MyChildComponent.js
import React from 'react';

class MyChildComponent extends React.Component {
  render() {
    return (<div>MyChildComponent</div>)
  }
}

export default MyChildComponent;

If you can't seem to get an Enzyme assertion to find a component you know is there, make sure Enzyme knows what sort of component it is!

How to set up a test runner for modern JavaScript using Webpack, Mocha, and Chai

We've all been there: You're about to build another front-end feature. You know you want to start unit testing your JavaScript. You know that because React employs one-way data binding, it means writing tests is made easier than the Backbone MVC days of yore. But the setup... oh my, the setup. It's painful. There are so many tools, so much boilerplate. So you say to yourself, we'll do it next sprint.

But then the regressions start mounting. Your team is frustrated when QA sends back your work and tells you the new thing works, but that you broke 2 old things. And so now you're back to the grind, trying to ship a working build before the end of the week.

We've all been there, but let's put our procrastination to rest once and for all. The truth is, JavaScript testing is more awesome than ever. It might not be as distilled as say, Rails testing. But after reading this guide, you'll be able to go back to your team and proudly say this is the week you start testing your JavaScript.

If you've already read the guide, or just want to play around with some real, working code, I've prepared an example app here: Webpack+Mocha+Chai Example

Tools

Right now, the landscape of tools for testing JavaScript is large. In this guide, we're going to focus on what I've found to be the most productive combination:

  • Mocha to run our tests.
  • Chai to make assertions.
  • Webpack to glue everything together.

Install Packages

I'll assume you're already familiar with npm, have created a package.json file, and are using it in your project. If not, here's a tutorial to get you started. The npm command installs packages you want to use in your application and provides an interface for working with them. We're going to install the packages that will support our tests. Because these packages are for our development use only, we use the --save-dev option when running npm:

npm install --save-dev webpack mocha chai mocha-webpack

Create a Webpack Configuration

Webpack is a module bundler for the web. You might have used Browserify or CommonJS in the past to modularize your JavaScript. Webpack takes this paradigm a step further and lets you produce a dependency for just about any type of file. A full explanation of the tool is outside the scope of this tutorial, but Ryan Christiani has a great Introduction to Webpack tutorial to get you started.

For now, create a file webpack.config.js and fill it with the following:

var webpack = require('webpack');

module.exports = {
    module: {
        loaders: [
            {
                test: /.*\.js$/,
                exclude: /node_modules/,
                loaders: ['babel']
            }
        ]
    },
    entry: 'index.js',
    resolve: {
        root: [ __dirname, __dirname + '/lib' ],
        extensions: [ '', '.js' ]
    },
    output: {
        path: __dirname + '/output',
        filename: 'app.bundle.js'
    }
};

Configure Babel

Babel is a JavaScript compiler that allows us to use next generation JavaScript (ES6, ES7, etc) in browsers that only support ES5. As you'll see when we begin writing tests, having ES6 import statements and fat arrow function notation (() => { }) will make our tests more readable and require less typing.

You'll notice, in the loaders section above, we're using the babel loader to process our JavaScript. This will allow us to write our application and test code in ES6. However, Babel requires that we configure it with presets, which will tell Babel how it should process our input code.

For our example, we need just one preset: es2015. This tells Babel we want to use the ECMAScript 2015 standard so we can use things like the import and export statements, class declarations, and fat arrow (() => {}) function syntax.

To use the preset, we'll first install its package using npm:

npm install --save-dev babel-preset-es2015

Then, we'll tell Babel to use it by creating a .babelrc file:

{
    "presets": [
        "es2015"
    ]
}

Create the entry file and test Webpack configuration

Our Webpack configuration states that our entry file, the JavaScript module Webpack will run when our bundle is included in the page, is index.js. So let's create that file now. For now, let's just alert "Hello, World!". We're not going to run this code anyway, since we're really just using this entry file to be sure Webpack is configured properly.

// index.js

alert("Hello, World!");

Then we'll create an output directory. This is where we've configured Webpack to write our bundle file:

mkdir output

If we've configured everything properly, running Webpack should spit out our bundle file:

webpack

If the file output/app.bundle.js is present and you can locate our alert("Hello, World!") code in its contents, then you've configured Webpack successfully!

Set up the Mocha runner command

NPM has a scripts configuration option that allows creating macros for running common commands. We'll use this to create a command that will run our test suite on the command line.

In your package.json file, add the following key to the JSON hash:

{
  "scripts": {
    "test": "mocha-webpack --webpack-config webpack.config.test.js \"spec/**/*.spec.js\" || true"
  }
}

For an actual example of this command in a real package.json file, see the package.json file in the example code.

Dang though, that is one hefty command. Let's go through this piece by piece.

First, we're assigning this to the test command. That means that when we run npm run test, NPM will execute the mocha-webpack --webpack-config ... command for us.

The mocha-webpack executable is a module that precompiles your Webpack bundles before running Mocha, which actually runs your tests. Now, mocha-webpack is designed for server-side code, but so far I haven't had any problems using it for client-side JavaScript. Your mileage may vary.

When we call the mocha-webpack command, we pass it the --webpack-config option with the argument webpack.config.test.js. This tells mocha-webpack where to find the Webpack configuration file to use when precompiling our bundle. Notice that the file has a .test suffix and that we haven't created it yet. We'll do that in the next step.

After that, we pass mocha-webpack a glob of our test files. In this case, we're passing it spec/**/*.spec.js, which means we'll run all the test files contained within the spec folder and all folders within it.

And finally, we append || true to the end of the command. This tells NPM that in the event of an error (non-zero) exit code from the mocha-webpack command, we shouldn't assume something horrific went wrong and print a lengthy error message explaining that something probably did. Most of the time we run tests, a test or few will fail, resulting in a non-zero exit status. This addition cleans up our output a bit so we don't have to read a nagging error message each time. I'm sure the NPM team meant well when they added this message, but I think it's a bit silly we have to resort to this to remove it. If you know a better way, leave a comment!

Create our test Webpack configuration

Because we're running our tests on the command line and not in the browser, we need to be sure to tell Webpack that our target environment is Node and not browser JavaScript. To do this, we'll create a specialized test Webpack configuration which targets Node in webpack.config.test.js:

var config = require('./webpack.config');
config.target = 'node';
module.exports = config;

I also want to point out how nice it is that Webpack configurations are just plain JavaScript objects. We're able to require our base configuration, set the target property, and then export the modified configuration. This pattern is especially useful when producing production configuration files, but that's a topic for another guide.

Write a basic test

It's the moment we've been waiting for! We've laid the foundation for testing in our project. Now let's write a basic (failing) test to see Mocha in action!

Create the spec directory in your project if you haven't already. Before we get testing React components, let's just try our hand at testing a plain old function. Let's call that function sum, and test that it does indeed sum two numbers. I know, it's real exciting. But it'll give us confidence our test setup is working.

Create a file spec/sum.spec.js with the following:

import sum from 'sum';
import { expect } from 'chai';

describe("sum", () => {
    context("when both arguments are valid numbers", () => {
        it("adds the numbers together", () => {
            expect(sum(1,2)).to.equal(3);
        });
    });
});

Let's go over that one line at a time.

First, we import a function called sum from a module called 'sum'. You probably guessed we're going to need to create that file. You guessed right.

Create the file lib/sum.js:

export default function() { }

Note that we're creating the file inside the lib folder. Way back in step 2, we told Webpack that we should resolve modules in both the root folder as well as the /lib folder. We use lib because it indicates to other developers that this file is part of our application library code, as opposed to a test, or configuration, or our build system, etc.

Assertion Styles

The second line in our test file imports a function expect from the Chai module. Chai has a couple different assertion styles which dictate how tests will be written. Without going too far into the details, it means your tests could either read like this:

Assert that x is 10.

Or like this:

Expect x to be 10.

Or like this:

x should be 10.

This is largely a matter of developer preference. In my time as a developer, I've seen the Ruby community shift its consensus from assert, toward should, and now toward expect. So let's settle on expect for now.

Run our test suite

Now that we've created our spec/sum.spec.js file, let's go ahead and run our npm run test command:

npm run test

> react-webpack-testing-example@1.0.0 test /Users/teejayvanslyke/src/react-webpack-testing-example
> mocha-webpack --webpack-config webpack.config.test.js "spec/**/*.spec.js" || true

sum
  when both arguments are valid numbers
    1) adds the numbers together


0 passing (7ms)
1 failing

1) sum when both arguments are valid numbers adds the numbers together:
  AssertionError: expected undefined to equal 3
    at Context.<anonymous> (.tmp/mocha-webpack/01b73f0d4e3c95d9c729f459c86e1fc4/01b73f0d4e3c95d9c729f459c86e1fc4-output.js:93:61)

Success! Well, sort of. Our test runs, but it looks like it's failing because we never implemented the sum function. Let's do that now.

Make the test pass

Let's make our sum function take two arguments, a and b. We'll return the result of adding both of them together, like so:

export default function(a, b) { return a + b; }

Now run our test again. It passes!

npm run test

> react-webpack-testing-example@1.0.0 test /Users/teejayvanslyke/src/react-webpack-testing-example
> mocha-webpack --webpack-config webpack.config.test.js "spec/**/*.spec.js" || true

sum
  when both arguments are valid numbers
    ✓ adds the numbers together


1 passing (6ms)

Watch for changes to streamline your workflow

Now that we've written a passing test, we'll want to iterate on our math.js library. But rather than running npm run test every time we want to check the pass/fail status of our tests, wouldn't it be nice if it ran automatically whenever we modified our code?

Mocha includes a --watch option which does exactly this. When we pass mocha-webpack the --watch option, Mocha will re-run our test suite whenever we modify a file inside our working directory.

To enable file watching, let's add another NPM script to our package.json:

{
  "scripts": {
    "test": "mocha-webpack --webpack-config webpack.config.test.js \"spec/**/*.spec.js\" || true",
    "watch": "mocha-webpack --webpack-config webpack.config.test.js --watch \"spec/**/*.spec.js\" || true"
  }
}

Notice how the watch script just runs the same command as the test script, but adds the --watch option. Now run the watch script:

npm run watch

Your test suite will run, but you'll notice the script doesn't exit. With the npm run watch command still running, add another test to spec/sum.spec.js:

import sum from 'sum';
import { expect } from 'chai';

describe("sum", () => {
    context("when both arguments are valid numbers", () => {
        it("adds the numbers together", () => {
            expect(sum(1,2)).to.equal(3);
        });
    });

    context("when one argument is undefined", () => {
        it("throws an error", () => {
            expect(sum(1,2)).to.throw("undefined is not a number");
        });
    });
});

Save the file. Mocha will have re-run your suite, and it should now report that your new test fails.

Reduce duplication in package.json

In the previous step, we copied and pasted the test script into the watch script. While this works fine, copy and paste should bother every developer just a little bit.

Luckily, mocha-webpack provides a way to specify the default options to the command so we needn't include them in each line of our package.json's scripts section.

Create a new file called mocha-webpack.opts in your project's root directory:

--webpack-config webpack.config.test.js
"spec/**/*.spec.js"

And now, your package.json file can be shortened like this:

{
  "scripts": {
    "test": "mocha-webpack || true",
    "watch": "mocha-webpack --watch || true"
  }
}

Helpful links

Using Gulp to generate image thumbnails in a Middleman app

var gulp = require('gulp');
var imageResize = require('gulp-image-resize');

var paths = {
  images: "source/images/**/*"
}

gulp.task('images', function() {

    gulp.src(['source/images/**/*.png', 'source/images/**/*.jpg'])
        .pipe(imageResize({
            width: 538,
            height: 538
        }))
        .pipe(gulp.dest('tmp/dist/assets/images/538x538'));

    gulp.src(['source/images/**/*.png', 'source/images/**/*.jpg'])
        .pipe(imageResize({
            width: 1076,
            height: 1076
        }))
        .pipe(gulp.dest('tmp/dist/assets/images/1076x1076'));

});

gulp.task('watch', function() {
  gulp.watch(paths.images, ['images']);
});

gulp.task('default', ['watch', 'images']);
gulp.task('build', ['images']);

Naming conventions for modern JavaScript

If you're like me, you've struggled to come up with a reasonable scheme for naming things in JavaScript. I'd like to share the conventions I use, with the hope that you can put them to use in your project and never think about it again.

In my mind, there are three main types of JavaScript files:

  • Collections of functions
  • Single functions
  • Classes

Collections of functions

Let's say you have a couple utility functions called add and subtract, each exported from a single file:

export function add(a, b) {
  return a + b;
}

export function subtract(a, b) {
  return a - b;
}

When I have a group of functions like this, I name the file using drunkenCamelCase, (lowercase first letter) with a name that suggests the library's contents. This module I'd probably call math.js.

When I go to use one of the functions from another file, now I can refer to it like so:

import { subtract } from 'math';

console.log(subtract(5, 1));

Single functions

What if you have a single helper function you want to use from a few places in your codebase that you'd like to give its own file?

For instance, let's say you have a function that generates a fully-qualified URL from a URL path:

export default function(path) {
  return "http://www.guilded.co" + path;
}

In this case, I'd name the file using drunken camel case, but would name the file explicitly after the exported function. That way, when I go to import it from another file, I can refer to it thusly:

import urlFor from 'urlFor';

console.log(urlFor('/about.html'));

Classes

Now that ES6 has support for classes built into the language, there's a good chance you'll use them to represent the stateful objects in your codebase.

I like to make it clear that classes are distinct from functions, so I name them using CamelCase (capital first letter) notation:

class MyClass {
  // ...
}

When producing a new file for a class, export the class directly, omitting its name:

export default class {
  // ...
}

File names for classes should be CamelCased as well. So our MyClass class would be in MyClass.js.

If you use React, you probably know you're required to name React components in the same CamelCased format. If you use ES6 classes to construct your React components, this convention will come in handy.

How to bind React component event handlers in ES6

When creating React components using ES6 class notation, you'll need to bind event handlers passed as props to this, or you'll find that the handlers will be bound instead to the DOM element.

There are a few ways to do this. You can reassign the bound handler in the constructor:

class MyComponent extends React.Component {
  render() {
    return (
      <div>
        <button onClick={this.onClick.bind(this)}>Click Me</button>
      </div>
    );
  }

  onClick(event) {
    alert("You clicked me!");
  }
}

This works fine, but now you have .bind(this) littering your otherwise elegant JSX.

To remedy that, you can use the fat arrow prototype method syntax:

class MyComponent extends React.Component {
  render() {
    return (
      <div>
        <button onClick={this.onClick.bind(this)}>Click Me</button>
      </div>
    );
  }

  onClick = (event) => {
    alert("You clicked me!");
  }
}

Except... now you have two separate syntaxes for declaring methods, which could make your code less readable and more confusing.

I think the most elegant way is to use the new double-colon (::) notation, which is a shortcut for calling .bind(this) on a given handler:

class MyComponent extends React.Component {
  render() {
    return (
      <div>
        <button onClick={::this.onClick}>Click Me</button>
      </div>
    );
  }

  onClick(event) {
    alert("You clicked me!");
  }
}

Now your caller is binding the method to this without an ugly .bind(this) call, and the method body isn't unnecessarily decorated with fat arrow notation.

Why doesn't React immediately mutate state when calling setState?

When setting the state on a React component within an event handler, you'll find that the state isn't updated if you dump the state to the console immediately after:

The React documentation warns:

setState() does not immediately mutate this.state but creates a pending state transition. Accessing this.state after calling this method can potentially return the existing value.

There is no guarantee of synchronous operation of calls to setState and calls may be batched for performance gains.

I learned today that setState accepts a callback in this scenario. So modifying handleChange to the following will result in the console receiving the updated state:

Using jQuery Deferred to wait for multiple Backbone models to save

Backbone's Model implementation is great for most things, but one thing I've had a hard time with is waiting for multiple models to save before proceeding. Backbone offers a success callback like this:

model.save
  success: ->
    alert("We did it!")

You could also use the sync callback like this:

model.on 'sync', ->
  alert("We did it!")
model.save()

But what about when you want to wait for multiple models to finish saving, all with their own asynchronous requests?

Don't Nest It. Chain It!

The jQuery Deferred object is a chainable utility object that can register multiple callbacks to relay the success or failure state of an asynchronous operation. Lucky for us, Backbone's model.save() method returns a jqXHR object, which implements the Deferred API. This means that instead of writing this:

model.save
  success: ->
    alert("We did it!")

We can write this:

model.save().done(-> alert("We did it!"))

That's a nice bit of syntactic sugar, but it still doesn't address our original problem: How can we wait for multiple models to save, and then fire the callback to alert the user?

Tell Me When You're All Done

jQuery.when allows us to combine multiple Deferred objects into one aggregate Deferred object, such that we can chain callbacks to be executed only when all the objects have resolved.

For sake of example, let's say we have a collection of 3 Backbone models we'd like to save:

collection = new MyCollection([{name: "Steve"}, {name: "Dave"}, {name: "Tom"}])

Remember that Backbone's model.save() returns a jqXHR object, which acts as a Deferred. So we can run:

xhrs = collection.map (model) -> model.save()

This will create an array xhrs containing the jqXHR objects for each individual save operation. To alert the user when all of them complete, we can use jQuery.when:

jQuery.when(xhrs...).done(-> alert("All of them are saved!"))

Note: The splat (...) syntax above is required to split the xhrs array into separate arguments. This had me stumped---without the splat, jQuery treats the array as a single Deferred object, which obviously doesn't execute the callbacks in the same manner as multiple jqXHR objects.

And Tell Me When One of You Failed

We can also use Deferred's fail() method to alert the user that one or more of the save operations failed:

jQuery.when(xhrs...).
  done(-> alert("We succeeded!")).
  fail(-> alert("We failed."))

Conclusion

The jQuery Deferred API is a powerful way to elegantly wait for the completion of asynchronous operations in your Backbone application. While it's tempting to resort to workarounds like using setTimeout to wait an arbitrary amount of time for operations to complete, using jQuery.when means you don't introduce race conditions into your application.

If you have any questions or if something isn't working as described above, please leave me a comment. I'll try my best to answer as soon as I can.

A Jasmine matcher for Backbone.js Event Expectations

I wanted to be able to eloquently test Backbone.js event chains, so I wrote a custom matcher.