Automated testing of chained Queueable jobs in Salesforce
I am currently writing a queueable class for asynchronous processing in my triggers since triggers do not allow callouts. I am going achieve it by calling a class which implements the queueable interface.
When reading the documentation I found out that you can have 50 queueable in one transaction but can call only one queueable from a queueable class.
https://developer.salesforce.com/docs/atlas.en-us.apexcode.meta/apexcode/apex_queueing_jobs.htm
Also, I can not chain the queueable jobs in apex test.
Example of working class / method:
Below class will work in its own transaction.
EventTriggerHandler.afterInsert(){
Boolean bDoACallout = isCalloutNecessary();
if(bDoACallout){
System.enqueueJob(new EventTriggerHandlerCallout((Map<Id, Event>)Trigger.newMap));
}
Boolean bSecondCondition = isSecondConditionTrue();
if(bSecondCondition){
System.enqueueJob(new Trial1Queueable((Map<Id, Event>)Trigger.newMap));
}
Boolean bThirdCondition = isThirdConditionTrue();
if(bThirdCondition){
System.enqueueJob(new Trial2Queueable((Map<Id, Event>)Trigger.newMap));
}
}
Now, Salesforce documentation says, above mentioned code will work but wont be testable and I need to wrap it around Test.isRunningTest() and I may be wrong but what I understood from that is, these queueables needs to be tested separately and not in the test of EventTriggerHandler itself.
EventTriggerHandler.afterInsert(){
Boolean bDoACallout = isCalloutNecessary();
if(bDoACallout){
System.enqueueJob(new EventTriggerHandlerCallout((Map<Id, Event>)Trigger.newMap));
}
Boolean bSecondCondition = isSecondConditionTrue();
if(bSecondCondition){
System.enqueueJob(new Trial1Queueable((Map<Id, Event>)Trigger.newMap));
}
Boolean bThirdCondition = isThirdConditionTrue();
if(bThirdCondition){
System.enqueueJob(new Trial2Queueable((Map<Id, Event>)Trigger.newMap));
}
}
This was working on its own as expected all the unit tests were working too per my understanding of queueable class and apex tests. Above code will not work when Event is being created from a queueable itself. We did a clean up exercise to consolidate all the logic in one queueable class.
But, I am not sure how to code a smoke test / automated tests so that we catch these beforehand without manual tests of entire org.
queueable-interface queueable-apex asynchronous-testing queueable
add a comment |
I am currently writing a queueable class for asynchronous processing in my triggers since triggers do not allow callouts. I am going achieve it by calling a class which implements the queueable interface.
When reading the documentation I found out that you can have 50 queueable in one transaction but can call only one queueable from a queueable class.
https://developer.salesforce.com/docs/atlas.en-us.apexcode.meta/apexcode/apex_queueing_jobs.htm
Also, I can not chain the queueable jobs in apex test.
Example of working class / method:
Below class will work in its own transaction.
EventTriggerHandler.afterInsert(){
Boolean bDoACallout = isCalloutNecessary();
if(bDoACallout){
System.enqueueJob(new EventTriggerHandlerCallout((Map<Id, Event>)Trigger.newMap));
}
Boolean bSecondCondition = isSecondConditionTrue();
if(bSecondCondition){
System.enqueueJob(new Trial1Queueable((Map<Id, Event>)Trigger.newMap));
}
Boolean bThirdCondition = isThirdConditionTrue();
if(bThirdCondition){
System.enqueueJob(new Trial2Queueable((Map<Id, Event>)Trigger.newMap));
}
}
Now, Salesforce documentation says, above mentioned code will work but wont be testable and I need to wrap it around Test.isRunningTest() and I may be wrong but what I understood from that is, these queueables needs to be tested separately and not in the test of EventTriggerHandler itself.
EventTriggerHandler.afterInsert(){
Boolean bDoACallout = isCalloutNecessary();
if(bDoACallout){
System.enqueueJob(new EventTriggerHandlerCallout((Map<Id, Event>)Trigger.newMap));
}
Boolean bSecondCondition = isSecondConditionTrue();
if(bSecondCondition){
System.enqueueJob(new Trial1Queueable((Map<Id, Event>)Trigger.newMap));
}
Boolean bThirdCondition = isThirdConditionTrue();
if(bThirdCondition){
System.enqueueJob(new Trial2Queueable((Map<Id, Event>)Trigger.newMap));
}
}
This was working on its own as expected all the unit tests were working too per my understanding of queueable class and apex tests. Above code will not work when Event is being created from a queueable itself. We did a clean up exercise to consolidate all the logic in one queueable class.
But, I am not sure how to code a smoke test / automated tests so that we catch these beforehand without manual tests of entire org.
queueable-interface queueable-apex asynchronous-testing queueable
if response of 1st condition triggers queuebale of second, why not make callouuts first and then do DML?
– user3209853
Feb 20 at 18:46
add a comment |
I am currently writing a queueable class for asynchronous processing in my triggers since triggers do not allow callouts. I am going achieve it by calling a class which implements the queueable interface.
When reading the documentation I found out that you can have 50 queueable in one transaction but can call only one queueable from a queueable class.
https://developer.salesforce.com/docs/atlas.en-us.apexcode.meta/apexcode/apex_queueing_jobs.htm
Also, I can not chain the queueable jobs in apex test.
Example of working class / method:
Below class will work in its own transaction.
EventTriggerHandler.afterInsert(){
Boolean bDoACallout = isCalloutNecessary();
if(bDoACallout){
System.enqueueJob(new EventTriggerHandlerCallout((Map<Id, Event>)Trigger.newMap));
}
Boolean bSecondCondition = isSecondConditionTrue();
if(bSecondCondition){
System.enqueueJob(new Trial1Queueable((Map<Id, Event>)Trigger.newMap));
}
Boolean bThirdCondition = isThirdConditionTrue();
if(bThirdCondition){
System.enqueueJob(new Trial2Queueable((Map<Id, Event>)Trigger.newMap));
}
}
Now, Salesforce documentation says, above mentioned code will work but wont be testable and I need to wrap it around Test.isRunningTest() and I may be wrong but what I understood from that is, these queueables needs to be tested separately and not in the test of EventTriggerHandler itself.
EventTriggerHandler.afterInsert(){
Boolean bDoACallout = isCalloutNecessary();
if(bDoACallout){
System.enqueueJob(new EventTriggerHandlerCallout((Map<Id, Event>)Trigger.newMap));
}
Boolean bSecondCondition = isSecondConditionTrue();
if(bSecondCondition){
System.enqueueJob(new Trial1Queueable((Map<Id, Event>)Trigger.newMap));
}
Boolean bThirdCondition = isThirdConditionTrue();
if(bThirdCondition){
System.enqueueJob(new Trial2Queueable((Map<Id, Event>)Trigger.newMap));
}
}
This was working on its own as expected all the unit tests were working too per my understanding of queueable class and apex tests. Above code will not work when Event is being created from a queueable itself. We did a clean up exercise to consolidate all the logic in one queueable class.
But, I am not sure how to code a smoke test / automated tests so that we catch these beforehand without manual tests of entire org.
queueable-interface queueable-apex asynchronous-testing queueable
I am currently writing a queueable class for asynchronous processing in my triggers since triggers do not allow callouts. I am going achieve it by calling a class which implements the queueable interface.
When reading the documentation I found out that you can have 50 queueable in one transaction but can call only one queueable from a queueable class.
https://developer.salesforce.com/docs/atlas.en-us.apexcode.meta/apexcode/apex_queueing_jobs.htm
Also, I can not chain the queueable jobs in apex test.
Example of working class / method:
Below class will work in its own transaction.
EventTriggerHandler.afterInsert(){
Boolean bDoACallout = isCalloutNecessary();
if(bDoACallout){
System.enqueueJob(new EventTriggerHandlerCallout((Map<Id, Event>)Trigger.newMap));
}
Boolean bSecondCondition = isSecondConditionTrue();
if(bSecondCondition){
System.enqueueJob(new Trial1Queueable((Map<Id, Event>)Trigger.newMap));
}
Boolean bThirdCondition = isThirdConditionTrue();
if(bThirdCondition){
System.enqueueJob(new Trial2Queueable((Map<Id, Event>)Trigger.newMap));
}
}
Now, Salesforce documentation says, above mentioned code will work but wont be testable and I need to wrap it around Test.isRunningTest() and I may be wrong but what I understood from that is, these queueables needs to be tested separately and not in the test of EventTriggerHandler itself.
EventTriggerHandler.afterInsert(){
Boolean bDoACallout = isCalloutNecessary();
if(bDoACallout){
System.enqueueJob(new EventTriggerHandlerCallout((Map<Id, Event>)Trigger.newMap));
}
Boolean bSecondCondition = isSecondConditionTrue();
if(bSecondCondition){
System.enqueueJob(new Trial1Queueable((Map<Id, Event>)Trigger.newMap));
}
Boolean bThirdCondition = isThirdConditionTrue();
if(bThirdCondition){
System.enqueueJob(new Trial2Queueable((Map<Id, Event>)Trigger.newMap));
}
}
This was working on its own as expected all the unit tests were working too per my understanding of queueable class and apex tests. Above code will not work when Event is being created from a queueable itself. We did a clean up exercise to consolidate all the logic in one queueable class.
But, I am not sure how to code a smoke test / automated tests so that we catch these beforehand without manual tests of entire org.
queueable-interface queueable-apex asynchronous-testing queueable
queueable-interface queueable-apex asynchronous-testing queueable
asked Feb 20 at 18:25
Json Bourne ShellJson Bourne Shell
137111
137111
if response of 1st condition triggers queuebale of second, why not make callouuts first and then do DML?
– user3209853
Feb 20 at 18:46
add a comment |
if response of 1st condition triggers queuebale of second, why not make callouuts first and then do DML?
– user3209853
Feb 20 at 18:46
if response of 1st condition triggers queuebale of second, why not make callouuts first and then do DML?
– user3209853
Feb 20 at 18:46
if response of 1st condition triggers queuebale of second, why not make callouuts first and then do DML?
– user3209853
Feb 20 at 18:46
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
When you need more than one execution, but you want to test the asynchronous code independently, you can cheat by rolling them back. Here's an example in a unit test:
Test.startTest();
SavePoint sp = Database.setSavePoint();
// Replace this with real code
executeTheTrigger();
// Do any asserts, etc...
// Roll back the transaction
Database.rollback(sp);
Test.stopTest();
Then, you can get a natural 100% coverage of your trigger code without this error. Note that you should prefer to do any assertions before you roll back the state, since any modifications will disappear. Also remember you'll need to unit test your Queueables independently.
add a comment |
A quick note to start off, the code you've provided right now doesn't display chaining of queueable classes. Chaining would be that you set up the execution of a queueable class from inside the execute()
method of another queueable class. Rather, you have shown us a sequence of queueable calls.
A class that implements the Queueable
interface, and the execute(QueueableContext ctx)
method required to be in it, aren't really that different from any other class/method.
The QueueableContext
parameter, which has official documentation, doesn't end up doing much of anything for you. It contains a job id, and nothing else (from what I can tell).
You can call the execute()
method synchronously by simply passing in null
as the argument for the execute()
method (provided that you aren't actually using the job id).
So, in this case, testing your chained queueable methods breaks down to simply testing each method one at a time (likely in different test methods). You'll need to set up your test environment appropriately so that you are guaranteed to take the code path(s) that you want to test, but that's no different from your ordinary, run-of-the-mill unit test.
You may need to keep the chained calls behind a check against test.isRunningTest()
, but that's about it.
You could possibly write a test that calls your queueable class from your trigger handler (not sure if you can call more than one per test), but that'd be less of a unit test, and more like an integration test.
+edit:
To write a test for your trigger handler that is closer to being a unit test, you should look into the Stub API to mock your calls to your queueable classes. The idea here is that you'll only care that the queueable class has its execute()
method called (and not the result of running the actual code, which would be a unit test of the queueable classes themselves)
Thank you for the response. I have queueable because I want to make callouts in the after triggers. By calling the execute() synchronously, I wont be able to make callouts to outside systems in the trigger.
– Json Bourne Shell
Feb 20 at 18:42
@JsonBourneShell you can make at least one (maybe more, I'm not 100% sure right now) call to a queueable class in a unit test if you make use ofTest.startTest()
andTest.stopTest()
as part of your test method. The point still stands, though, that testing the functionality of your queueable classes in your test for your trigger handler is closer to integration testing than unit testing.
– Derek F
Feb 20 at 18:47
Yes, you've hit the nail on the head here. I am looking for a way to write automated smoke / integration test so that I will be able to catch it beforehand.
– Json Bourne Shell
Feb 20 at 18:51
N.B. GITHUB apexmocks being a more leveraged approach IMHO than building the stub API framework for one use case
– cropredy
Feb 20 at 20:33
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "459"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsalesforce.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f251054%2fautomated-testing-of-chained-queueable-jobs-in-salesforce%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
When you need more than one execution, but you want to test the asynchronous code independently, you can cheat by rolling them back. Here's an example in a unit test:
Test.startTest();
SavePoint sp = Database.setSavePoint();
// Replace this with real code
executeTheTrigger();
// Do any asserts, etc...
// Roll back the transaction
Database.rollback(sp);
Test.stopTest();
Then, you can get a natural 100% coverage of your trigger code without this error. Note that you should prefer to do any assertions before you roll back the state, since any modifications will disappear. Also remember you'll need to unit test your Queueables independently.
add a comment |
When you need more than one execution, but you want to test the asynchronous code independently, you can cheat by rolling them back. Here's an example in a unit test:
Test.startTest();
SavePoint sp = Database.setSavePoint();
// Replace this with real code
executeTheTrigger();
// Do any asserts, etc...
// Roll back the transaction
Database.rollback(sp);
Test.stopTest();
Then, you can get a natural 100% coverage of your trigger code without this error. Note that you should prefer to do any assertions before you roll back the state, since any modifications will disappear. Also remember you'll need to unit test your Queueables independently.
add a comment |
When you need more than one execution, but you want to test the asynchronous code independently, you can cheat by rolling them back. Here's an example in a unit test:
Test.startTest();
SavePoint sp = Database.setSavePoint();
// Replace this with real code
executeTheTrigger();
// Do any asserts, etc...
// Roll back the transaction
Database.rollback(sp);
Test.stopTest();
Then, you can get a natural 100% coverage of your trigger code without this error. Note that you should prefer to do any assertions before you roll back the state, since any modifications will disappear. Also remember you'll need to unit test your Queueables independently.
When you need more than one execution, but you want to test the asynchronous code independently, you can cheat by rolling them back. Here's an example in a unit test:
Test.startTest();
SavePoint sp = Database.setSavePoint();
// Replace this with real code
executeTheTrigger();
// Do any asserts, etc...
// Roll back the transaction
Database.rollback(sp);
Test.stopTest();
Then, you can get a natural 100% coverage of your trigger code without this error. Note that you should prefer to do any assertions before you roll back the state, since any modifications will disappear. Also remember you'll need to unit test your Queueables independently.
answered Feb 20 at 18:46
sfdcfoxsfdcfox
261k12207452
261k12207452
add a comment |
add a comment |
A quick note to start off, the code you've provided right now doesn't display chaining of queueable classes. Chaining would be that you set up the execution of a queueable class from inside the execute()
method of another queueable class. Rather, you have shown us a sequence of queueable calls.
A class that implements the Queueable
interface, and the execute(QueueableContext ctx)
method required to be in it, aren't really that different from any other class/method.
The QueueableContext
parameter, which has official documentation, doesn't end up doing much of anything for you. It contains a job id, and nothing else (from what I can tell).
You can call the execute()
method synchronously by simply passing in null
as the argument for the execute()
method (provided that you aren't actually using the job id).
So, in this case, testing your chained queueable methods breaks down to simply testing each method one at a time (likely in different test methods). You'll need to set up your test environment appropriately so that you are guaranteed to take the code path(s) that you want to test, but that's no different from your ordinary, run-of-the-mill unit test.
You may need to keep the chained calls behind a check against test.isRunningTest()
, but that's about it.
You could possibly write a test that calls your queueable class from your trigger handler (not sure if you can call more than one per test), but that'd be less of a unit test, and more like an integration test.
+edit:
To write a test for your trigger handler that is closer to being a unit test, you should look into the Stub API to mock your calls to your queueable classes. The idea here is that you'll only care that the queueable class has its execute()
method called (and not the result of running the actual code, which would be a unit test of the queueable classes themselves)
Thank you for the response. I have queueable because I want to make callouts in the after triggers. By calling the execute() synchronously, I wont be able to make callouts to outside systems in the trigger.
– Json Bourne Shell
Feb 20 at 18:42
@JsonBourneShell you can make at least one (maybe more, I'm not 100% sure right now) call to a queueable class in a unit test if you make use ofTest.startTest()
andTest.stopTest()
as part of your test method. The point still stands, though, that testing the functionality of your queueable classes in your test for your trigger handler is closer to integration testing than unit testing.
– Derek F
Feb 20 at 18:47
Yes, you've hit the nail on the head here. I am looking for a way to write automated smoke / integration test so that I will be able to catch it beforehand.
– Json Bourne Shell
Feb 20 at 18:51
N.B. GITHUB apexmocks being a more leveraged approach IMHO than building the stub API framework for one use case
– cropredy
Feb 20 at 20:33
add a comment |
A quick note to start off, the code you've provided right now doesn't display chaining of queueable classes. Chaining would be that you set up the execution of a queueable class from inside the execute()
method of another queueable class. Rather, you have shown us a sequence of queueable calls.
A class that implements the Queueable
interface, and the execute(QueueableContext ctx)
method required to be in it, aren't really that different from any other class/method.
The QueueableContext
parameter, which has official documentation, doesn't end up doing much of anything for you. It contains a job id, and nothing else (from what I can tell).
You can call the execute()
method synchronously by simply passing in null
as the argument for the execute()
method (provided that you aren't actually using the job id).
So, in this case, testing your chained queueable methods breaks down to simply testing each method one at a time (likely in different test methods). You'll need to set up your test environment appropriately so that you are guaranteed to take the code path(s) that you want to test, but that's no different from your ordinary, run-of-the-mill unit test.
You may need to keep the chained calls behind a check against test.isRunningTest()
, but that's about it.
You could possibly write a test that calls your queueable class from your trigger handler (not sure if you can call more than one per test), but that'd be less of a unit test, and more like an integration test.
+edit:
To write a test for your trigger handler that is closer to being a unit test, you should look into the Stub API to mock your calls to your queueable classes. The idea here is that you'll only care that the queueable class has its execute()
method called (and not the result of running the actual code, which would be a unit test of the queueable classes themselves)
Thank you for the response. I have queueable because I want to make callouts in the after triggers. By calling the execute() synchronously, I wont be able to make callouts to outside systems in the trigger.
– Json Bourne Shell
Feb 20 at 18:42
@JsonBourneShell you can make at least one (maybe more, I'm not 100% sure right now) call to a queueable class in a unit test if you make use ofTest.startTest()
andTest.stopTest()
as part of your test method. The point still stands, though, that testing the functionality of your queueable classes in your test for your trigger handler is closer to integration testing than unit testing.
– Derek F
Feb 20 at 18:47
Yes, you've hit the nail on the head here. I am looking for a way to write automated smoke / integration test so that I will be able to catch it beforehand.
– Json Bourne Shell
Feb 20 at 18:51
N.B. GITHUB apexmocks being a more leveraged approach IMHO than building the stub API framework for one use case
– cropredy
Feb 20 at 20:33
add a comment |
A quick note to start off, the code you've provided right now doesn't display chaining of queueable classes. Chaining would be that you set up the execution of a queueable class from inside the execute()
method of another queueable class. Rather, you have shown us a sequence of queueable calls.
A class that implements the Queueable
interface, and the execute(QueueableContext ctx)
method required to be in it, aren't really that different from any other class/method.
The QueueableContext
parameter, which has official documentation, doesn't end up doing much of anything for you. It contains a job id, and nothing else (from what I can tell).
You can call the execute()
method synchronously by simply passing in null
as the argument for the execute()
method (provided that you aren't actually using the job id).
So, in this case, testing your chained queueable methods breaks down to simply testing each method one at a time (likely in different test methods). You'll need to set up your test environment appropriately so that you are guaranteed to take the code path(s) that you want to test, but that's no different from your ordinary, run-of-the-mill unit test.
You may need to keep the chained calls behind a check against test.isRunningTest()
, but that's about it.
You could possibly write a test that calls your queueable class from your trigger handler (not sure if you can call more than one per test), but that'd be less of a unit test, and more like an integration test.
+edit:
To write a test for your trigger handler that is closer to being a unit test, you should look into the Stub API to mock your calls to your queueable classes. The idea here is that you'll only care that the queueable class has its execute()
method called (and not the result of running the actual code, which would be a unit test of the queueable classes themselves)
A quick note to start off, the code you've provided right now doesn't display chaining of queueable classes. Chaining would be that you set up the execution of a queueable class from inside the execute()
method of another queueable class. Rather, you have shown us a sequence of queueable calls.
A class that implements the Queueable
interface, and the execute(QueueableContext ctx)
method required to be in it, aren't really that different from any other class/method.
The QueueableContext
parameter, which has official documentation, doesn't end up doing much of anything for you. It contains a job id, and nothing else (from what I can tell).
You can call the execute()
method synchronously by simply passing in null
as the argument for the execute()
method (provided that you aren't actually using the job id).
So, in this case, testing your chained queueable methods breaks down to simply testing each method one at a time (likely in different test methods). You'll need to set up your test environment appropriately so that you are guaranteed to take the code path(s) that you want to test, but that's no different from your ordinary, run-of-the-mill unit test.
You may need to keep the chained calls behind a check against test.isRunningTest()
, but that's about it.
You could possibly write a test that calls your queueable class from your trigger handler (not sure if you can call more than one per test), but that'd be less of a unit test, and more like an integration test.
+edit:
To write a test for your trigger handler that is closer to being a unit test, you should look into the Stub API to mock your calls to your queueable classes. The idea here is that you'll only care that the queueable class has its execute()
method called (and not the result of running the actual code, which would be a unit test of the queueable classes themselves)
edited Feb 20 at 18:51
answered Feb 20 at 18:36
Derek FDerek F
20.7k52253
20.7k52253
Thank you for the response. I have queueable because I want to make callouts in the after triggers. By calling the execute() synchronously, I wont be able to make callouts to outside systems in the trigger.
– Json Bourne Shell
Feb 20 at 18:42
@JsonBourneShell you can make at least one (maybe more, I'm not 100% sure right now) call to a queueable class in a unit test if you make use ofTest.startTest()
andTest.stopTest()
as part of your test method. The point still stands, though, that testing the functionality of your queueable classes in your test for your trigger handler is closer to integration testing than unit testing.
– Derek F
Feb 20 at 18:47
Yes, you've hit the nail on the head here. I am looking for a way to write automated smoke / integration test so that I will be able to catch it beforehand.
– Json Bourne Shell
Feb 20 at 18:51
N.B. GITHUB apexmocks being a more leveraged approach IMHO than building the stub API framework for one use case
– cropredy
Feb 20 at 20:33
add a comment |
Thank you for the response. I have queueable because I want to make callouts in the after triggers. By calling the execute() synchronously, I wont be able to make callouts to outside systems in the trigger.
– Json Bourne Shell
Feb 20 at 18:42
@JsonBourneShell you can make at least one (maybe more, I'm not 100% sure right now) call to a queueable class in a unit test if you make use ofTest.startTest()
andTest.stopTest()
as part of your test method. The point still stands, though, that testing the functionality of your queueable classes in your test for your trigger handler is closer to integration testing than unit testing.
– Derek F
Feb 20 at 18:47
Yes, you've hit the nail on the head here. I am looking for a way to write automated smoke / integration test so that I will be able to catch it beforehand.
– Json Bourne Shell
Feb 20 at 18:51
N.B. GITHUB apexmocks being a more leveraged approach IMHO than building the stub API framework for one use case
– cropredy
Feb 20 at 20:33
Thank you for the response. I have queueable because I want to make callouts in the after triggers. By calling the execute() synchronously, I wont be able to make callouts to outside systems in the trigger.
– Json Bourne Shell
Feb 20 at 18:42
Thank you for the response. I have queueable because I want to make callouts in the after triggers. By calling the execute() synchronously, I wont be able to make callouts to outside systems in the trigger.
– Json Bourne Shell
Feb 20 at 18:42
@JsonBourneShell you can make at least one (maybe more, I'm not 100% sure right now) call to a queueable class in a unit test if you make use of
Test.startTest()
and Test.stopTest()
as part of your test method. The point still stands, though, that testing the functionality of your queueable classes in your test for your trigger handler is closer to integration testing than unit testing.– Derek F
Feb 20 at 18:47
@JsonBourneShell you can make at least one (maybe more, I'm not 100% sure right now) call to a queueable class in a unit test if you make use of
Test.startTest()
and Test.stopTest()
as part of your test method. The point still stands, though, that testing the functionality of your queueable classes in your test for your trigger handler is closer to integration testing than unit testing.– Derek F
Feb 20 at 18:47
Yes, you've hit the nail on the head here. I am looking for a way to write automated smoke / integration test so that I will be able to catch it beforehand.
– Json Bourne Shell
Feb 20 at 18:51
Yes, you've hit the nail on the head here. I am looking for a way to write automated smoke / integration test so that I will be able to catch it beforehand.
– Json Bourne Shell
Feb 20 at 18:51
N.B. GITHUB apexmocks being a more leveraged approach IMHO than building the stub API framework for one use case
– cropredy
Feb 20 at 20:33
N.B. GITHUB apexmocks being a more leveraged approach IMHO than building the stub API framework for one use case
– cropredy
Feb 20 at 20:33
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Salesforce Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsalesforce.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f251054%2fautomated-testing-of-chained-queueable-jobs-in-salesforce%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
if response of 1st condition triggers queuebale of second, why not make callouuts first and then do DML?
– user3209853
Feb 20 at 18:46