Testing Classic Actors
Akka Classic pertains to the original Actor APIs, which have been improved by more type safe and guided Actor APIs. Akka Classic is still fully supported and existing applications can continue to use the classic APIs. It is also possible to use the new Actor APIs together with classic actors in the same ActorSystem, see coexistence. For new projects we recommend using the new Actor API.
For the new API see testing.
Module info
The Akka dependencies are available from Akka’s library repository. To access them there, you need to configure the URL for this repository.
- sbt
resolvers += "Akka library repository".at("https://repo.akka.io/maven")
- Maven
<project> ... <repositories> <repository> <id>akka-repository</id> <name>Akka library repository</name> <url>https://repo.akka.io/maven</url> </repository> </repositories> </project>
- Gradle
repositories { mavenCentral() maven { url "https://repo.akka.io/maven" } }
To use Akka Testkit, you must add the following dependency in your project:
- sbt
val AkkaVersion = "2.10.0" libraryDependencies += "com.typesafe.akka" %% "akka-testkit" % AkkaVersion % Test
- Maven
<properties> <scala.binary.version>2.13</scala.binary.version> </properties> <dependencyManagement> <dependencies> <dependency> <groupId>com.typesafe.akka</groupId> <artifactId>akka-bom_${scala.binary.version}</artifactId> <version>2.10.0</version> <type>pom</type> <scope>import</scope> </dependency> </dependencies> </dependencyManagement> <dependencies> <dependency> <groupId>com.typesafe.akka</groupId> <artifactId>akka-testkit_${scala.binary.version}</artifactId> <scope>test</scope> </dependency> </dependencies>
- Gradle
def versions = [ ScalaBinary: "2.13" ] dependencies { implementation platform("com.typesafe.akka:akka-bom_${versions.ScalaBinary}:2.10.0") testImplementation "com.typesafe.akka:akka-testkit_${versions.ScalaBinary}" }
Project Info: Akka Actor Testkit (classic) | |
---|---|
Artifact | com.typesafe.akka
akka-testkit
2.10.0
|
JDK versions | Eclipse Temurin JDK 11 Eclipse Temurin JDK 17 Eclipse Temurin JDK 21 |
Scala versions | 2.13.15, 3.3.4 |
JPMS module name | akka.actor.testkit |
License | |
Readiness level |
Since 2.0, 2012-03-06
|
Home page | https://akka.io/ |
API documentation | |
Forums | |
Release notes | akka.io blog |
Issues | Github issues |
Sources | https://github.com/akka/akka |
Introduction
As with any piece of software, automated tests are a very important part of the development cycle. The actor model presents a different view on how units of code are delimited and how they interact, which influences how to perform tests.
Akka comes with a dedicated module akka-testkit
for supporting tests.
Asynchronous Testing: TestKit
Testkit allows you to test your actors in a controlled but realistic environment. The definition of the environment depends very much on the problem at hand and the level at which you intend to test, ranging from simple checks to full system tests.
The minimal setup consists of the test procedure, which provides the desired stimuli, the actor under test, and an actor receiving replies. Bigger systems replace the actor under test with a network of actors, apply stimuli at varying injection points and arrange results to be sent from different emission points, but the basic principle stays the same in that a single procedure drives the test.
The TestKit
class contains a collection of tools which makes this common task easy.
- Scala
-
source
import akka.actor.ActorSystem import akka.testkit.{ ImplicitSender, TestActors, TestKit } import org.scalatest.BeforeAndAfterAll import org.scalatest.matchers.should.Matchers import org.scalatest.wordspec.AnyWordSpecLike class MySpec() extends TestKit(ActorSystem("MySpec")) with ImplicitSender with AnyWordSpecLike with Matchers with BeforeAndAfterAll { override def afterAll(): Unit = { TestKit.shutdownActorSystem(system) } "An Echo actor" must { "send back messages unchanged" in { val echo = system.actorOf(TestActors.echoActorProps) echo ! "hello world" expectMsg("hello world") } } }
- Java
-
source
import akka.actor.AbstractActor; import akka.actor.ActorRef; import akka.actor.ActorSystem; import akka.actor.Props; import akka.testkit.javadsl.TestKit; import java.time.Duration; import jdocs.AbstractJavaTest; import org.junit.AfterClass; import org.junit.Assert; import org.junit.BeforeClass; import org.junit.Test; public class TestKitSampleTest extends AbstractJavaTest { public static class SomeActor extends AbstractActor { ActorRef target = null; @Override public Receive createReceive() { return receiveBuilder() .matchEquals( "hello", message -> { getSender().tell("world", getSelf()); if (target != null) target.forward(message, getContext()); }) .match( ActorRef.class, actorRef -> { target = actorRef; getSender().tell("done", getSelf()); }) .build(); } } static ActorSystem system; @BeforeClass public static void setup() { system = ActorSystem.create(); } @AfterClass public static void teardown() { TestKit.shutdownActorSystem(system); system = null; } @Test public void testIt() { /* * Wrap the whole test procedure within a testkit constructor * if you want to receive actor replies or use Within(), etc. */ new TestKit(system) { { final Props props = Props.create(SomeActor.class); final ActorRef subject = system.actorOf(props); // can also use JavaTestKit “from the outside” final TestKit probe = new TestKit(system); // “inject” the probe by passing it to the test subject // like a real resource would be passed in production subject.tell(probe.getRef(), getRef()); // await the correct response expectMsg(Duration.ofSeconds(1), "done"); // the run() method needs to finish within 3 seconds within( Duration.ofSeconds(3), () -> { subject.tell("hello", getRef()); // This is a demo: would normally use expectMsgEquals(). // Wait time is bounded by 3-second deadline above. awaitCond(probe::msgAvailable); // response must have been enqueued to us before probe expectMsg(Duration.ZERO, "world"); // check that the probe we injected earlier got the msg probe.expectMsg(Duration.ZERO, "hello"); Assert.assertEquals(getRef(), probe.getLastSender()); // Will wait for the rest of the 3 seconds expectNoMessage(); return null; }); } }; } }
The TestKit
contains an actor named testActor
which is the entry point for messages to be examined with the various expectMsg...
assertions detailed below. When mixing in the trait ImplicitSender
this test actor is implicitly used as sender reference when dispatching messages from the test procedure. The test actor’s reference is obtained using the getRef()
method as demonstrated above. The testActor
may also be passed to other actors, as usual, usually subscribing it as notification listener. There is a whole set of examination methods, e.g. receiving all consecutive messages matching certain criteria, receiving a whole sequence of fixed messages or classes, receiving nothing for some time, etc.
The ActorSystem passed to the constructor of TestKit is accessible via the system
membergetSystem()
method.
Remember to shut down the actor system after the test is finished (also in case of failure) so that all actors—including the test actor—are stopped.
Built-In Assertions
The above-mentioned expectMsg
expectMsgEquals
is not the only method for formulating assertions concerning received messages, the full set is this:
- Scala
-
source
val hello: String = expectMsg("hello") val any: String = expectMsgAnyOf("hello", "world") val all: immutable.Seq[String] = expectMsgAllOf("hello", "world") val i: Int = expectMsgType[Int] expectNoMessage(200.millis) val two: immutable.Seq[AnyRef] = receiveN(2)
- Java
-
source
final String hello = expectMsgEquals("hello"); final String any = expectMsgAnyOf("hello", "world"); final List<String> all = expectMsgAllOf("hello", "world"); final int i = expectMsgClass(Integer.class); final Number j = expectMsgAnyClassOf(Integer.class, Long.class); expectNoMessage(); final List<Object> two = receiveN(2);
In these examples, the maximum durations you will find mentioned below are left out, in which case they use the default value from the configuration item akka.test.single-expect-default
which itself defaults to 3 seconds (or they obey the innermost enclosing Within
as detailed below). The full signatures are:
expectMsg[T](d: Duration, msg: T): T
public <T> T expectMsgEquals(Duration max, T msg)
The given message object must be received within the specified time; the object will be returned.expectMsgPF[T](d: Duration)(pf: PartialFunction[Any, T]): T
public <T> T expectMsgPF(Duration max, String hint, Function<Object, T> f)
Within the given time, a message must be received and the given partial function must be defined for that message; the result from applying the partial function to the received message is returned. The duration may be left unspecified (empty parentheses are required in this case) to use the deadline from the innermost enclosing within block instead.expectMsgClass[T](d: Duration, c: Class[T]): T
public <T> T expectMsgClass(Duration max, Class<T> c)
An object which is an instance of the givenClass
must be received within the allotted time frame; the object will be returned. Note that this does a conformance check; if you need the class to be equal, have a look atexpectMsgAllClassOf
with a single given class argumentyou need to verify that afterwards.
expectMsgType[T: Manifest](d: Duration)
An object which is an instance of the given type (after erasure) must be received within the allotted time frame; the object will be returned. This method is approximately equivalent toexpectMsgClass(implicitly[ClassTag[T]].runtimeClass)
.
expectMsgAnyOf[T](d: Duration, obj: T*): T
public Object expectMsgAnyOf(Duration max, Object... msg)
An object must be received within the given time, and it must be equal ( compared with==
equals()
) to at least one of the passed reference objects; the received object will be returned.expectMsgAnyClassOf[T](d: Duration, obj: Class[_ <: T]*): T
public <T> T expectMsgAnyClassOf(Duration max, Class<? extends T>... c)
An object must be received within the given time, and it must be an instance of at least one of the suppliedClass
objects; the received object will be returned. Note that this does a conformance check, if you need the class to be equal you need to verify that afterwards.expectMsgAllOf[T](d: Duration, obj: T*): Seq[T]
public List<Object> expectMsgAllOf(Duration max, Object... msg)
Several objects matching the size of the supplied object array must be received within the given time, and for each of the given objects there must exist at least one among the received ones which equals (compared with==
equals()
) it. The full sequence of received objects is returned in the order received.
expectMsgAllClassOf[T](d: Duration, c: Class[_ <: T]*): Seq[T]
Several objects matching the size of the suppliedClass
array must be received within the given time, and for each of the given classes there must exist at least one among the received objects whose class equals (compared with==
) it (this is not a conformance check). The full sequence of received objects is returned.expectMsgAllConformingOf[T](d: Duration, c: Class[_ <: T]*): Seq[T]
Several objects matching the size of the suppliedClass
array must be received within the given time, and for each of the given classes there must exist at least one among the received objects which is an instance of this class. The full sequence of received objects is returned.
expectNoMessage(d: Duration)
public void expectNoMessage(Duration max)
No message must be received within the given time. This also fails if a message has been received before calling this method which has not been removed from the queue using one of the other methods.receiveN(n: Int, d: Duration): Seq[AnyRef]
List<Object> receiveN(int n, Duration max)
n
messages must be received within the given time; the received messages are returned.
fishForMessage(max: Duration, hint: String)(pf: PartialFunction[Any, Boolean]): Any
Keep receiving messages as long as the time is not used up and the partial function matches and returnsfalse
. Returns the message received for which it returnedtrue
or throws an exception, which will include the provided hint for easier debugging.
In addition to message reception assertions there are also methods which help with message flows:
receiveOne(d: Duration): AnyRef
Tries to receive one message for at most the given time interval and returnsnull
in case of failure. If the given Duration is zero, the call is non-blocking (polling mode).
-
receiveWhile[T](max: Duration, idle: Duration, messages: Int)(pf: PartialFunction[Any, T]): Seq[T]
public <T> List<T> receiveWhile(Duration max, Duration idle, Int messages, Function<Object, T> f)
Collect messages as long as- they are matching the given partial function
- the given time interval is not used up
- the next message is received within the idle timeout
- the number of messages has not yet reached the maximum All collected messages are returned. The maximum duration defaults to the time remaining in the innermost enclosing within block and the idle duration defaults to infinity (thereby disabling the idle-timeout feature). The number of expected messages defaults to
Int.MaxValue
, which effectively disables this limit.
-
awaitCond(p: => Boolean, max: Duration, interval: Duration)
public void awaitCond(Duration max, Duration interval, Supplier<Boolean> p)
Poll the given condition everyinterval
until it returnstrue
or themax
duration is used up. The interval defaults to 100 ms and the maximum defaults to the time remaining in the innermost enclosing within block. -
awaitAssert(a: => Any, max: Duration, interval: Duration)
public void awaitAssert(Duration max, Duration interval, Supplier<Object> a)
Poll the given assert function everyinterval
until it does not throw an exception or themax
duration is used up. If the timeout expires the last exception is thrown. The interval defaults to 100 ms and the maximum defaults to the time remaining in the innermost enclosing within block. The interval defaults to 100 ms and the maximum defaults to the time remaining in the innermost enclosing within block. Return an arbitrary value that would be returned from awaitAssert if successful, if not interested in such value you can return null. -
ignoreMsg(pf: PartialFunction[AnyRef, Boolean])
public void ignoreMsg(Function<Object, Boolean> f)
ignoreMsg
public void ignoreMsg()
There are also cases where not all messages sent to the test kit are actually relevant to the test, but removing them would mean altering the actors under test. For this purpose it is possible to ignore certain messages. The internaltestActor
contains a partial function for ignoring messages: it will only enqueue messages which do not match the function or for which the function returnsfalse
. This function can be set and reset using the methods given above; each invocation replaces the previous function, they are not composed. This feature is useful e.g. when testing a logging system, where you want to ignore regular messages and are only interested in your specific ones.
Expecting Log Messages
Since an integration test does not allow observing the internal processing of the participating actors, verifying expected exceptions cannot be done directly. Instead, use the logging system for this purpose: replacing the normal event handler with the TestEventListener
and using an EventFilter
allows assertions on log messages, including those which are generated by exceptions:
- Scala
-
source
import akka.testkit.EventFilter import com.typesafe.config.ConfigFactory implicit val system: ActorSystem = ActorSystem( "testsystem", ConfigFactory.parseString(""" akka.loggers = ["akka.testkit.TestEventListener"] """)) try { val actor = system.actorOf(Props.empty) EventFilter[ActorKilledException](occurrences = 1).intercept { actor ! Kill } } finally { shutdown(system) }
- Java
-
source
new TestKit(system) { { assertEquals("TestKitDocTest", system.name()); final ActorRef victim = system.actorOf(Props.empty(), "victim"); final int result = new EventFilter(ActorKilledException.class, system) .from("akka://TestKitDocTest/user/victim") .occurrences(1) .intercept( () -> { victim.tell(Kill.getInstance(), ActorRef.noSender()); return 42; }); assertEquals(42, result); } };
If the number of occurrences is specific—as demonstrated above—then intercept
will block until that number of matching messages have been received or the timeout configured in akka.test.filter-leeway
is used up (time starts counting after the passed-in block of code returns). In case of a timeout the test fails.
Be sure to exchange the default logger with the TestEventListener
in your application.conf
to enable this function:
akka.loggers = [akka.testkit.TestEventListener]
Overriding behavior
Sometimes you want to ‘hook into’ your actor to be able to test some internals. Usually, it is better to test an actors’ external interface, but for example if you want to test timing-sensitive behavior this can come in handy. Say for instance you want to test an actor that schedules a task:
- Scala
-
source
case class TriggerScheduling(foo: String) object SchedKey case class ScheduledMessage(foo: String) class TestTimerActor extends Actor with Timers { override def receive = { case TriggerScheduling(foo) => triggerScheduling(ScheduledMessage(foo)) } def triggerScheduling(msg: ScheduledMessage) = timers.startSingleTimer(SchedKey, msg, 500.millis) }
- Java
-
source
static class TestTimerActor extends AbstractActorWithTimers { private static Object SCHED_KEY = "SchedKey"; static final class TriggerScheduling {} static final class ScheduledMessage {} @Override public Receive createReceive() { return receiveBuilder().match(TriggerScheduling.class, msg -> triggerScheduling()).build(); } void triggerScheduling() { getTimers().startSingleTimer(SCHED_KEY, new ScheduledMessage(), Duration.ofMillis(500)); } }
You can override the method that does the scheduling in your test:
- Scala
-
source
import akka.testkit.TestProbe import akka.actor.Props val probe = TestProbe() val actor = system.actorOf(Props(new TestTimerActor() { override def triggerScheduling(msg: ScheduledMessage) = probe.ref ! msg })) actor ! TriggerScheduling("abc") probe.expectMsg(ScheduledMessage("abc"))
- Java
-
source
new TestKit(system) { { final TestKit probe = new TestKit(system); final ActorRef target = system.actorOf( Props.create( TestTimerActor.class, () -> new TestTimerActor() { @Override void triggerScheduling() { probe.getRef().tell(new ScheduledMessage(), getSelf()); } })); target.tell(new TestTimerActor.TriggerScheduling(), ActorRef.noSender()); probe.expectMsgClass(TestTimerActor.ScheduledMessage.class); } };
Timing Assertions
Another important part of functional testing concerns timing: certain events must not happen immediately (like a timer), others need to happen before a deadline. Therefore, all examination methods accept an upper time limit within the positive or negative result must be obtained. Lower time limits need to be checked external to the examination, which is facilitated by a new construct for managing time constraints:
- Scala
-
source
import akka.actor.Props import scala.concurrent.duration._ val worker = system.actorOf(Props[Worker]()) within(200 millis) { worker ! "some work" expectMsg("some result") expectNoMessage() // will block for the rest of the 200ms Thread.sleep(300) // will NOT make this block fail }
- Java
-
source
new TestKit(system) { { getRef().tell(42, ActorRef.noSender()); within( Duration.ZERO, Duration.ofSeconds(1), () -> { assertEquals((Integer) 42, expectMsgClass(Integer.class)); return null; }); } };
The block given toin within
must complete after a duration which is between min
and max
, where the former defaults to zero. The deadline calculated by adding the max
parameter to the block’s start time is implicitly available within the block to all examination methods, if you do not specify it, it is inherited from the innermost enclosing within
block.
It should be noted that if the last message-receiving assertion of the block is expectNoMessage
or receiveWhile
, the final check of the within
is skipped to avoid false positives due to wake-up latencies. This means that while individual contained assertions still use the maximum time bound, the overall block may take arbitrarily longer in this case.
All times are measured using System.nanoTime
, meaning that they describe wall time, not CPU time or system time.
Ray Roestenburg has written a great article on using the TestKit: https://web.archive.org/web/20180114133958/http://roestenburg.agilesquad.com/2011/02/unit-testing-akka-actors-with-testkit_12.html. His full example is also available here.
Accounting for Slow Test Systems
The tight timeouts you use during testing on your lightning-fast notebook will invariably lead to spurious test failures on the heavily loaded Jenkins server (or similar). To account for this situation, all maximum durations are internally scaled by a factor taken from the Configuration, akka.test.timefactor
, which defaults to 1.
You can scale other durations with the same factor by using the implicit conversion in akka.testkit
package object to add dilated function to Duration
dilated
method in TestKit
.
- Scala
-
source
import scala.concurrent.duration._ import akka.testkit._ 10.milliseconds.dilated
- Java
-
source
new TestKit(system) { { final Duration original = Duration.ofSeconds(1); final Duration stretched = dilated(original); assertTrue("dilated", stretched.compareTo(original) >= 0); } };
Resolving Conflicts with Implicit ActorRef
If you want the sender of messages inside your TestKit-based tests to be the testActor
mix in ImplicitSender
into your test.
sourceclass MySpec()
extends TestKit(ActorSystem("MySpec"))
with ImplicitSender
with AnyWordSpecLike
with Matchers
with BeforeAndAfterAll {
Using Multiple Probe Actors
When the actors under test are supposed to send various messages to different destinations, it may be difficult distinguishing the message streams arriving at the testActor
when using the TestKit
as a mixinshown until now. Another approach is to use it for the creation of simple probe actors to be inserted in the message flows. To make this more powerful and convenient, there is a concrete implementation called TestProbe
. The functionality is best explained using a small example:
- Scala
-
source
import scala.concurrent.duration._ import akka.actor._ import akka.testkit.TestProbe
source
class MyDoubleEcho extends Actor { var dest1: ActorRef = _ var dest2: ActorRef = _ def receive = { case (d1: ActorRef, d2: ActorRef) => dest1 = d1 dest2 = d2 case x => dest1 ! x dest2 ! x } }
source
val probe1 = TestProbe() val probe2 = TestProbe() val actor = system.actorOf(Props[MyDoubleEcho]()) actor ! ((probe1.ref, probe2.ref)) actor ! "hello" probe1.expectMsg(500 millis, "hello") probe2.expectMsg(500 millis, "hello")
- Java
-
source
new TestKit(system) { { // simple actor which only forwards messages class Forwarder extends AbstractActor { final ActorRef target; @SuppressWarnings("unused") public Forwarder(ActorRef target) { this.target = target; } @Override public Receive createReceive() { return receiveBuilder() .matchAny(message -> target.forward(message, getContext())) .build(); } } // create a test probe final TestKit probe = new TestKit(system); // create a forwarder, injecting the probe’s testActor final Props props = Props.create(Forwarder.class, this, probe.getRef()); final ActorRef forwarder = system.actorOf(props, "forwarder"); // verify correct forwarding forwarder.tell(42, getRef()); probe.expectMsgEquals(42); assertEquals(getRef(), probe.getLastSender()); } };
Here the system under test is simulated by MyDoubleEcho
, which is supposed to mirror its input to two outputs. Attaching two test probes enables verification of the (simplistic) behaviorThis simple test verifies an equally simple Forwarder actor by injecting a probe as the forwarder’s target. Another example would be two actors A and B which collaborate by A sending messages to B. To verify this message flow, a TestProbe
could be inserted as a target of A, using the forwarding capabilities or auto-pilot described below to include a real B in the test setup.
If you have many test probes, you can name them to get meaningful actor names in test logs and assertions:
- Scala
-
source
val worker = TestProbe("worker") val aggregator = TestProbe("aggregator") worker.ref.path.name should startWith("worker") aggregator.ref.path.name should startWith("aggregator")
- Java
-
source
new TestKit(system) { { final TestProbe worker = new TestProbe(system, "worker"); final TestProbe aggregator = new TestProbe(system, "aggregator"); assertTrue(worker.ref().path().name().startsWith("worker")); assertTrue(aggregator.ref().path().name().startsWith("aggregator")); } };
Probes may also be equipped with custom assertions to make your test code even more concise and clear:
- Scala
-
source
final case class Update(id: Int, value: String) val probe = new TestProbe(system) { def expectUpdate(x: Int) = { expectMsgPF() { case Update(id, _) if id == x => () } sender() ! "ACK" } }
- Java
-
source
new TestKit(system) { { class MyProbe extends TestKit { public MyProbe() { super(system); } public void assertHello() { expectMsgEquals("hello"); } } final MyProbe probe = new MyProbe(); probe.getRef().tell("hello", ActorRef.noSender()); probe.assertHello(); } };
You have complete flexibility here in mixing and matching the TestKit
facilities with your checks and choosing an intuitive name for it. In real life your code will probably be a bit more complicated than the example given above; just use the power!
Any message sent from a TestProbe
to another actor which runs on the CallingThreadDispatcher runs the risk of dead-lock if that other actor might also send to this probe. The implementation of TestProbe.watch
and TestProbe.unwatch
will also send a message to the actor being watched, which means that it is dangerous to try watching e.g. TestActorRef
from a TestProbe
.
Watching Other Actors from Probes
A TestProbe
TestKit
can register itself for DeathWatch of any other actor:
- Scala
-
source
val probe = TestProbe() probe.watch(target) target ! PoisonPill probe.expectTerminated(target)
- Java
-
source
new TestKit(system) { { final TestKit probe = new TestKit(system); probe.watch(target); target.tell(PoisonPill.getInstance(), ActorRef.noSender()); final Terminated msg = probe.expectMsgClass(Terminated.class); assertEquals(msg.getActor(), target); } };
Replying to Messages Received by Probes
The probes keep track of the communications channel for replies, if possible, so they can also replyThe probe stores the sender of the last dequeued message (i.e. after its expectMsg*
reception), which may be retrieved using the getLastSender()
method. This information can also implicitly be used for having the probe reply to the last received message:
- Scala
-
source
val probe = TestProbe() val future = probe.ref ? "hello" probe.expectMsg(0 millis, "hello") // TestActor runs on CallingThreadDispatcher probe.reply("world") assert(future.isCompleted && future.value.contains(Success("world")))
- Java
-
source
new TestKit(system) { { final TestKit probe = new TestKit(system); probe.getRef().tell("hello", getRef()); probe.expectMsgEquals("hello"); probe.reply("world"); expectMsgEquals("world"); assertEquals(probe.getRef(), getLastSender()); } };
Forwarding Messages Received by Probes
Given a destination actor dest
which in the nominal actor network would receive a message from actor source
. If you arrange for the message to be sent to a TestProbe
probe
instead, you can make assertions concerning volume and timing of the message flow while still keeping the network functioningThe probe can also forward a received message (i.e. after its expectMsg*
reception), retaining the original sender:
- Scala
-
source
class Source(target: ActorRef) extends Actor { def receive = { case "start" => target ! "work" } } class Destination extends Actor { def receive = { case x => // Do something.. } }
source
val probe = TestProbe() val source = system.actorOf(Props(classOf[Source], probe.ref)) val dest = system.actorOf(Props[Destination]()) source ! "start" probe.expectMsg("work") probe.forward(dest)
- Java
-
source
new TestKit(system) { { final TestKit probe = new TestKit(system); probe.getRef().tell("hello", getRef()); probe.expectMsgEquals("hello"); probe.forward(getRef()); expectMsgEquals("hello"); assertEquals(getRef(), getLastSender()); } };
The dest
actor will receive the same message invocation as if no test probe had intervened.
Auto-Pilot
Receiving messages in a queue for later inspection is nice, but to keep a test running and verify traces later you can also install an AutoPilot
in the participating test probes (actually in any TestKit
) which is invoked before enqueueing to the inspection queue. This code can be used to forward messages, e.g. in a chain A --> Probe -->
B
, as long as a certain protocol is obeyed.
- Scala
-
source
val probe = TestProbe() probe.setAutoPilot(new TestActor.AutoPilot { def run(sender: ActorRef, msg: Any): TestActor.AutoPilot = msg match { case "stop" => TestActor.NoAutoPilot case x => testActor.tell(x, sender); TestActor.KeepRunning } })
- Java
-
source
new TestKit(system) { { final TestKit probe = new TestKit(system); // install auto-pilot probe.setAutoPilot( new TestActor.AutoPilot() { public AutoPilot run(ActorRef sender, Object msg) { sender.tell(msg, ActorRef.noSender()); return noAutoPilot(); } }); // first one is replied to directly ... probe.getRef().tell("hello", getRef()); expectMsgEquals("hello"); // ... but then the auto-pilot switched itself off probe.getRef().tell("world", getRef()); expectNoMessage(); } };
The run
method must return the auto-pilot for the next message, which can be KeepRunning
to retain the current one or NoAutoPilot
to switch it offwrapped in an Option
; setting it to None
terminates the auto-pilot.
Caution about Timing Assertions
The behavior of within
blocks when using test probes might be perceived as counter-intuitive: you need to remember that the nicely scoped deadline as described above is local to each probe. Hence, probes do not react to each other’s deadlines or the deadline set in an enclosing TestKit
instance:
- Scala
-
source
val probe = TestProbe() within(1 second) { probe.expectMsg("hello") }
- Java
-
source
new TestKit(system) { { final TestKit probe = new TestKit(system); within(Duration.ofSeconds(1), () -> probe.expectMsgEquals("hello")); } };
Here, the expectMsg
expectMsgEquals
call will use the default timeout.
Testing parent-child relationships
The parent of an actor is always the actor that created it. At times this leads to a coupling between the two that may not be straightforward to test. There are several approaches to improve the testability of a child actor that needs to refer to its parent:
- when creating a child, pass an explicit reference to its parent
- create the child with a
TestProbe
as parent - create a fabricated parent when testing
Conversely, a parent’s binding to its child can be lessened as follows:
- when creating a parent, tell the parent how to create its child
For example, the structure of the code you want to test may follow this pattern:
- Scala
-
source
class Parent extends Actor { val child = context.actorOf(Props[Child](), "child") var ponged = false def receive = { case "pingit" => child ! "ping" case "pong" => ponged = true } } class Child extends Actor { def receive = { case "ping" => context.parent ! "pong" } }
- Java
-
source
static class Parent extends AbstractActor { final ActorRef child = getContext().actorOf(Props.create(Child.class), "child"); boolean ponged = false; @Override public Receive createReceive() { return receiveBuilder() .matchEquals("pingit", message -> child.tell("ping", getSelf())) .matchEquals("pong", message -> ponged = true) .build(); } } static class Child extends AbstractActor { @Override public Receive createReceive() { return receiveBuilder() .matchEquals( "ping", message -> { getContext().getParent().tell("pong", getSelf()); }) .build(); } }
Introduce a child to its parent
The first option is to avoid the use of the context.parent
function and create a child with a custom parent by passing an explicit reference to its parent instead.
- Scala
-
source
class DependentChild(parent: ActorRef) extends Actor { def receive = { case "ping" => parent ! "pong" } }
- Java
-
source
class DependentChild extends AbstractActor { private final ActorRef parent; public DependentChild(ActorRef parent) { this.parent = parent; } @Override public Receive createReceive() { return receiveBuilder() .matchEquals("ping", message -> parent.tell("pong", getSelf())) .build(); } }
Create the child using TestProbeTestKit
The TestProbe
TestKit
class can create actors that will run with the test probe as a parent. This will cause any messages the child actor sends to context.parentgetContext().getParent() to end up in the test probe.
- Scala
-
source
"A TestProbe serving as parent" should { "test its child responses" in { val parent = TestProbe() val child = parent.childActorOf(Props(new Child)) parent.send(child, "ping") parent.expectMsg("pong") } }
- Java
-
source
TestKit parent = new TestKit(system); ActorRef child = parent.childActorOf(Props.create(Child.class)); parent.send(child, "ping"); parent.expectMsgEquals("pong");
Using a fabricated parent
If you prefer to avoid modifying the parent or child constructor you can create a fabricated parent in your test. This, however, does not enable you to test the parent actor in isolation.
- Scala
-
source
"A fabricated parent" should { "test its child responses" in { val proxy = TestProbe() val parent = system.actorOf(Props(new Actor { val child = context.actorOf(Props(new Child), "child") def receive = { case x if sender() == child => proxy.ref.forward(x) case x => child.forward(x) } })) proxy.send(parent, "ping") proxy.expectMsg("pong") } }
- Java
-
source
class FabricatedParentCreator implements Creator<Actor> { private final TestProbe proxy; public FabricatedParentCreator(TestProbe proxy) { this.proxy = proxy; } @Override public Actor create() throws Exception { return new AbstractActor() { final ActorRef child = getContext().actorOf(Props.create(Child.class), "child"); @Override public Receive createReceive() { return receiveBuilder() .matchAny( message -> { if (getSender().equals(child)) { proxy.ref().forward(message, getContext()); } else { child.forward(message, getContext()); } }) .build(); } }; } }
source
TestProbe proxy = new TestProbe(system); ActorRef parent = system.actorOf(Props.create(Actor.class, new FabricatedParentCreator(proxy))); proxy.send(parent, "ping"); proxy.expectMsg("pong");
Externalize child making from the parent
Alternatively, you can tell the parent how to create its child. There are two ways to do this: by giving it a Props
object or by giving it a function which takes care of creating the child actor:
- Scala
-
source
class DependentParent(childProps: Props, probe: ActorRef) extends Actor { val child = context.actorOf(childProps, "child") def receive = { case "pingit" => child ! "ping" case "pong" => probe ! "ponged" } } class GenericDependentParent(childMaker: ActorRefFactory => ActorRef) extends Actor { val child = childMaker(context) var ponged = false def receive = { case "pingit" => child ! "ping" case "pong" => ponged = true } }
- Java
-
source
class DependentParent extends AbstractActor { final ActorRef child; final ActorRef probe; public DependentParent(Props childProps, ActorRef probe) { child = getContext().actorOf(childProps, "child"); this.probe = probe; } @Override public Receive createReceive() { return receiveBuilder() .matchEquals("pingit", message -> child.tell("ping", getSelf())) .matchEquals("pong", message -> probe.tell("ponged", getSelf())) .build(); } }
source
class GenericDependentParent extends AbstractActor { final ActorRef child; boolean ponged = false; public GenericDependentParent(Function<ActorRefFactory, ActorRef> childMaker) throws Exception { child = childMaker.apply(getContext()); } @Override public Receive createReceive() { return receiveBuilder() .matchEquals("pingit", message -> child.tell("ping", getSelf())) .matchEquals("pong", message -> ponged = true) .build(); } }
Creating the Props
Actor
is straightforward and the function may look like this in your test code:
- Scala
-
source
val maker = (_: ActorRefFactory) => probe.ref val parent = system.actorOf(Props(new GenericDependentParent(maker)))
- Java
-
source
Function<ActorRefFactory, ActorRef> maker = param -> probe.ref(); ActorRef parent = system.actorOf(Props.create(GenericDependentParent.class, maker));
And like this in your application code:
- Scala
-
source
val maker = (f: ActorRefFactory) => f.actorOf(Props(new Child)) val parent = system.actorOf(Props(new GenericDependentParent(maker)))
- Java
-
source
Function<ActorRefFactory, ActorRef> maker = f -> f.actorOf(Props.create(Child.class)); ActorRef parent = system.actorOf(Props.create(GenericDependentParent.class, maker));
Which of these methods is the best depends on what is most important to test. The most generic option is to create the parent actor by passing it a function that is responsible for the Actor creation, but theusing TestProbe
or having a fabricated parent is often sufficient.
CallingThreadDispatcher
The CallingThreadDispatcher
runs invocations on the current thread only. This dispatcher does not create any new threads.
It is possible to use the CallingThreadDispatcher
in unit testing, as described above, but originally it was conceived to allow uninterrupted stack traces to be generated in case of an error. As this special dispatcher runs everything which would normally be queued directly on the current thread, the full history of a message’s processing chain is recorded on the call stack, so long as all intervening actors run on this dispatcher.
How to use it
Just set the dispatcher as you normally would:
- Scala
-
source
import akka.testkit.CallingThreadDispatcher val ref = system.actorOf(Props[MyActor]().withDispatcher(CallingThreadDispatcher.Id))
- Java
-
source
system.actorOf(Props.create(MyActor.class).withDispatcher(CallingThreadDispatcher.Id()));
How it works
When receiving an invocation, the CallingThreadDispatcher
checks whether the receiving actor is already active on the current thread. The simplest example of this situation is an actor which sends a message to itself. In this case, processing cannot continue immediately as that would violate the actor model, so the invocation is queued and will be processed when the active invocation on that actor finishes its processing; thus, it will be processed on the calling thread, but after the actor finishes its previous work. In the other case, the invocation is processed immediately on the current thread. Futures scheduled via this dispatcher are also executed immediately.
This scheme makes the CallingThreadDispatcher
work like a general purpose dispatcher for any actors which never block on external events.
In the presence of multiple threads, it may happen that two invocations of an actor running on this dispatcher happen on two different threads at the same time. In this case, both will be processed directly on their respective threads, where both compete for the actor’s lock and the loser has to wait. Thus, the actor model is left intact, but the price is the loss of concurrency due to limited scheduling. In a sense, this is equivalent to traditional mutex style concurrency.
The other remaining difficulty is correct handling of suspend and resume: when an actor is suspended, subsequent invocations will be queued in thread-local queues (the same ones used for queuing in the normal case). The call to resume
, however, is done by one specific thread, and all other threads in the system will probably not be executing this specific actor, which leads to the problem that the thread-local queues cannot be emptied by their native threads. Hence, the thread calling resume
will collect all currently queued invocations from all threads into its queue and process them.
Limitations
In case the CallingThreadDispatcher is used for top-level actors, without going through TestActorRef, then there is a time window during which the actor is awaiting construction by the user guardian actor. Sending messages to the actor during this time will result in them being enqueued and then executed on the guardian’s thread instead of the caller’s thread. To avoid this, use TestActorRef.
If an actor’s behavior blocks on something which would normally be affected by the calling actor after having sent the message, this will dead-lock when using this dispatcher. This is a common scenario in actor tests based on CountDownLatch
for synchronization:
val latch = new CountDownLatch(1)
actor ! startWorkAfter(latch) // actor will call latch.await() before proceeding
doSomeSetupStuff()
latch.countDown()
The example would hang indefinitely within the message processing initiated on the second line and never reach the fourth line, which would unblock it on a normal dispatcher.
Thus, keep in mind that the CallingThreadDispatcher
is not a general-purpose replacement for the normal dispatchers. If you are looking for a tool to help you debug dead-locks, the CallingThreadDispatcher
may help with some error scenarios, but keep in mind that it may give false negatives as well as false positives.
Thread Interruptions
If the CallingThreadDispatcher sees that the current thread has its isInterrupted()
flag set when message processing returns, it will throw an InterruptedException
after finishing all its processing (i.e. all messages which need processing as described above are processed before this happens). As tell
cannot throw exceptions due to its contract, this exception will then be caught and logged, and the thread’s interrupted status will be set again.
If during message processing an InterruptedException
is thrown then it will be caught inside the CallingThreadDispatcher’s message handling loop, the thread’s interrupted flag will be set and processing continues normally.
In summary, if the current thread is interrupted while doing work under the CallingThreadDispatcher, then that will result in the isInterrupted
flag to be true
when the message send returns and no InterruptedException
will be thrown.
Benefits
To summarize, these are the features that CallingThreadDispatcher
has to offer:
- Deterministic execution of single-threaded tests while retaining nearly full actor semantics
- Full message processing history leading up to the point of failure in exception stack traces
- Exclusion of certain classes of dead-lock scenarios
Tracing Actor Invocations
The testing facilities described up to this point were aiming at formulating assertions about a system’s behavior. If a test fails, it is usually your job to find the cause, fix it and verify the test again. This process is supported by debuggers as well as logging, where the Akka toolkit offers the following options:
- Logging of exceptions thrown within Actor instances It is always on; in contrast to the other logging mechanisms, this logs at
ERROR
level.
- Logging of message invocations on certain actors This is enabled by a setting in the Configuration — namely
akka.actor.debug.receive
— which enables theloggable
statement to be applied to an actor’sreceive
function:
sourceimport akka.event.LoggingReceive
def receive = LoggingReceive {
case msg => // Do something ...
}
def otherState: Receive = LoggingReceive.withLabel("other") {
case msg => // Do something else ...
}
If the aforementioned setting is not given in the Configuration, this method will pass through the given Receive
function unmodified, meaning that there is no runtime cost unless enabled.
The logging feature is coupled to this specific local mark-up because enabling it uniformly on all actors is not usually what you need, and it would lead to endless loops if it were applied to event bus logger listeners.
- Logging of special messages Actors handle certain special messages automatically, e.g.
Kill
,PoisonPill
, etc. Tracing of these message invocations is enabled by the settingakka.actor.debug.autoreceive
, which enables this on all actors. - Logging of the actor lifecycle Actor creation, start, restart, monitor start, monitor stop and stop may be traced by enabling the setting
akka.actor.debug.lifecycle
; this, too, is enabled uniformly on all actors.
Logging of these messages is at DEBUG
level. To summarize, you can enable full logging of actor activities using this configuration fragment:
akka {
loglevel = "DEBUG"
actor {
debug {
receive = on
autoreceive = on
lifecycle = on
}
}
}
Different Testing Frameworks
Akka’s test suite is written using ScalaTest, which also shines through in documentation examples. However, the TestKit and its facilities do not depend on that framework, so you can essentially use whichever suits your development style best.
This section contains a collection of known gotchas with some other frameworks, which is by no means exhaustive and does not imply an endorsement or special support.
When you need it to be a trait
If for some reason it is a problem to inherit from TestKit
due to it being a concrete class instead of a trait, there’s TestKitBase
:
sourceimport akka.testkit.TestKitBase
class MyTest extends TestKitBase {
implicit lazy val system: ActorSystem = ActorSystem()
val probe = TestProbe()
probe.send(testActor, "hello")
try expectMsg("hello")
catch { case NonFatal(e) => system.terminate(); throw e }
shutdown(system)
}
The implicit lazy val system
must be declared exactly like that (you can of course pass arguments to the actor system factory as needed) because trait TestKitBase
needs the system during its construction.
Warning: use of the trait is discouraged because of potential issues with binary backwards compatibility in the future, use at own risk.
Specs2
Some Specs2 users have contributed examples of how to work around some clashes which may arise:
- Mixing TestKit into
org.specs2.mutable.Specification
results in a name clash involving theend
method (which is a private variable in TestKit and an abstract method in Specification); if mixing in TestKit first, the code may compile but might then fail at runtime. The workaround—which is beneficial also for the third point—is to apply the TestKit together withorg.specs2.specification.Scope
. - The Specification traits provide a
Duration
DSL which uses partly the same method names asscala.concurrent.duration.Duration
, resulting in ambiguous implicits ifscala.concurrent.duration._
is imported. There are two workarounds:- either use the Specification variant of Duration and supply an implicit conversion to the Akka Duration. This conversion is not supplied with the Akka distribution because that would mean that our JAR files would depend on Specs2, which is not justified by this little feature.
- or mix
org.specs2.time.NoTimeConversions
into the Specification.
- Specifications are by default executed concurrently, which requires some care when writing the tests or the
sequential
keyword.
Configuration
There are several configuration properties for the TestKit module, please refer to the reference configuration.
Example
Ray Roestenburg’s example code from his blog, which unfortunately is only available on web archive, adapted to work with Akka 2.x.
sourceimport scala.util.Random
import org.scalatest.BeforeAndAfterAll
import org.scalatest.wordspec.AnyWordSpecLike
import org.scalatest.matchers.should.Matchers
import com.typesafe.config.ConfigFactory
import akka.actor.Actor
import akka.actor.ActorRef
import akka.actor.ActorSystem
import akka.actor.Props
import akka.testkit.{ DefaultTimeout, ImplicitSender, TestActors, TestKit }
import scala.concurrent.duration._
import scala.collection.immutable
/**
* a Test to show some TestKit examples
*/
class TestKitUsageSpec
extends TestKit(ActorSystem("TestKitUsageSpec", ConfigFactory.parseString(TestKitUsageSpec.config)))
with DefaultTimeout
with ImplicitSender
with AnyWordSpecLike
with Matchers
with BeforeAndAfterAll {
import TestKitUsageSpec._
val echoRef = system.actorOf(TestActors.echoActorProps)
val forwardRef = system.actorOf(Props(classOf[ForwardingActor], testActor))
val filterRef = system.actorOf(Props(classOf[FilteringActor], testActor))
val randomHead = Random.nextInt(6)
val randomTail = Random.nextInt(10)
val headList = immutable.Seq().padTo(randomHead, "0")
val tailList = immutable.Seq().padTo(randomTail, "1")
val seqRef =
system.actorOf(Props(classOf[SequencingActor], testActor, headList, tailList))
override def afterAll(): Unit = {
shutdown()
}
"An EchoActor" should {
"Respond with the same message it receives" in {
within(500 millis) {
echoRef ! "test"
expectMsg("test")
}
}
}
"A ForwardingActor" should {
"Forward a message it receives" in {
within(500 millis) {
forwardRef ! "test"
expectMsg("test")
}
}
}
"A FilteringActor" should {
"Filter all messages, except expected messagetypes it receives" in {
var messages = Seq[String]()
within(500 millis) {
filterRef ! "test"
expectMsg("test")
filterRef ! 1
expectNoMessage()
filterRef ! "some"
filterRef ! "more"
filterRef ! 1
filterRef ! "text"
filterRef ! 1
receiveWhile(500 millis) {
case msg: String => messages = msg +: messages
}
}
messages.length should be(3)
messages.reverse should be(Seq("some", "more", "text"))
}
}
"A SequencingActor" should {
"receive an interesting message at some point " in {
within(500 millis) {
ignoreMsg {
case msg: String => msg != "something"
}
seqRef ! "something"
expectMsg("something")
ignoreMsg {
case msg: String => msg == "1"
}
expectNoMessage()
ignoreNoMsg()
}
}
}
}
object TestKitUsageSpec {
// Define your test specific configuration here
val config = """
akka {
loglevel = "WARNING"
}
"""
/**
* An Actor that forwards every message to a next Actor
*/
class ForwardingActor(next: ActorRef) extends Actor {
def receive = {
case msg => next ! msg
}
}
/**
* An Actor that only forwards certain messages to a next Actor
*/
class FilteringActor(next: ActorRef) extends Actor {
def receive = {
case msg: String => next ! msg
case _ => None
}
}
/**
* An actor that sends a sequence of messages with a random head list, an
* interesting value and a random tail list. The idea is that you would
* like to test that the interesting value is received and that you cant
* be bothered with the rest
*/
class SequencingActor(next: ActorRef, head: immutable.Seq[String], tail: immutable.Seq[String]) extends Actor {
def receive = {
case msg => {
head.foreach { next ! _ }
next ! msg
tail.foreach { next ! _ }
}
}
}
}
Synchronous Testing: TestActorRef
Testing the business logic inside Actor
classes can be divided into two parts: first, each atomic operation must work in isolation, then sequences of incoming events must be processed correctly, even in the presence of some possible variability in the ordering of events. The former is the primary use case for single-threaded unit testing, while the latter can only be verified in integration tests.
Normally, the ActorRef
shields the underlying Actor
instance from the outside, the only communications channel is the actor’s mailbox. This restriction impedes unit testing, which led to the inception of the TestActorRef
. This special type of reference is designed specifically for test purposes and allows access to the actor in two ways: either by obtaining a reference to the underlying actor instance or by invoking or querying the actor’s behavior (receive
). Each one warrants its section below.
It is highly recommended to stick to traditional behavioral testing (using messaging to ask the Actor to reply with the state you want to run assertions against), instead of using TestActorRef
whenever possible.
Due to the synchronous nature of TestActorRef
, it will not work with some support traits that Akka provides as they require asynchronous behaviors to function properly. Examples of traits that do not mix well with test actor refs are PersistentActor and AtLeastOnceDelivery provided by Akka Persistence.
Obtaining a Reference to an Actor
Having access to the actual Actor
object allows the application of all traditional unit testing techniques on the contained methods. Obtaining a reference is done like this:
- Scala
-
source
import akka.testkit.TestActorRef val actorRef = TestActorRef[MyActor] val actor = actorRef.underlyingActor
- Java
-
source
static class MyActor extends AbstractActor { @Override public Receive createReceive() { return receiveBuilder() .matchEquals( "say42", message -> { getSender().tell(42, getSelf()); }) .match( Exception.class, (Exception ex) -> { throw ex; }) .build(); } public boolean testMe() { return true; } } @Test public void demonstrateTestActorRef() { final Props props = Props.create(MyActor.class); final TestActorRef<MyActor> ref = TestActorRef.create(system, props, "testA"); final MyActor actor = ref.underlyingActor(); assertTrue(actor.testMe()); }
Since TestActorRef
is generic in the actor type it returns the underlying actor with its proper static type. From this point on you may bring any unit testing tool to bear on your actor as usual.
Testing Finite State Machines
If your actor under test is an FSM
, you may use the special TestFSMRef
which offers all features of a normal TestActorRef
and besides allows access to the internal state:
sourceimport akka.testkit.TestFSMRef
import scala.concurrent.duration._
val fsm = TestFSMRef(new TestFsmActor)
val mustBeTypedProperly: TestActorRef[TestFsmActor] = fsm
assert(fsm.stateName == 1)
assert(fsm.stateData == "")
fsm ! "go" // being a TestActorRef, this runs also on the CallingThreadDispatcher
assert(fsm.stateName == 2)
assert(fsm.stateData == "go")
fsm.setState(stateName = 1)
assert(fsm.stateName == 1)
assert(fsm.isTimerActive("test") == false)
fsm.startTimerWithFixedDelay("test", 12, 10 millis)
assert(fsm.isTimerActive("test") == true)
fsm.cancelTimer("test")
assert(fsm.isTimerActive("test") == false)
Due to a limitation in Scala’s type inference, there is only the factory method shown above, so you will probably write code like TestFSMRef(new MyFSM)
instead of the hypothetical ActorRef
-inspired TestFSMRef[MyFSM]
. All methods shown above directly access the FSM state without any synchronization; this is perfectly alright if the CallingThreadDispatcher
is used and no other threads are involved, but it may lead to surprises if you were to exercise timer events, because those are executed on the Scheduler
thread.
Testing the Actor’s Behavior
When the dispatcher invokes the processing behavior of an actor on a message, it calls apply
on the current behavior registered for the actor. This starts with the return value of the declared receive
method, but it may also be changed using become
and unbecome
in response to external messages. All of this contributes to the overall actor behavior and it does not lend itself to easy testing on the Actor
itself. Therefore the TestActorRef
offers a different mode of operation to complement the Actor
testing: it supports all operations also valid on normal ActorRef
. Messages sent to the actor are processed synchronously on the current thread and answers may be sent back as usual. This trick is made possible by the CallingThreadDispatcher
described below (see CallingThreadDispatcher); this dispatcher is set implicitly for any actor instantiated into a TestActorRef
.
- Scala
-
source
import akka.testkit.TestActorRef import akka.pattern.ask val actorRef = TestActorRef(new MyActor) // hypothetical message stimulating a '42' answer val future: Future[Any] = actorRef ? Say42 future.futureValue should be(42)
- Java
-
source
final Props props = Props.create(MyActor.class); final TestActorRef<MyActor> ref = TestActorRef.create(system, props, "testB"); final CompletableFuture<Object> future = Patterns.ask(ref, "say42", Duration.ofMillis(3000)).toCompletableFuture(); assertTrue(future.isDone()); assertEquals(42, future.get());
As the TestActorRef
is a subclass of LocalActorRef
with a few special extras, also aspects like supervision and restarting work properly, but beware that execution is only strictly synchronous as long as all actors involved use the CallingThreadDispatcher
. As soon as you add elements which include more sophisticated scheduling you leave the realm of unit testing as you then need to think about asynchronicity again (in most cases the problem will be to wait until the desired effect had a chance to happen).
One more special aspect which is overridden for single-threaded tests is the receiveTimeout
, as including that would entail asynchronous queuing of ReceiveTimeout
messages, violating the synchronous contract.
To summarize: TestActorRef
overwrites two fields: it sets the dispatcher to CallingThreadDispatcher.global
and it sets the receiveTimeout
to None.
The Way In-Between: Expecting Exceptions
If you want to test the actor behavior, including hot swapping, but without involving a dispatcher and without having the TestActorRef
swallow any thrown exceptions, then there is another mode available for you: use the receive
method on TestActorRef
, which will be forwarded to the underlying actor:
- Scala
-
source
import akka.testkit.TestActorRef val actorRef = TestActorRef(new Actor { def receive = { case "hello" => throw new IllegalArgumentException("boom") } }) intercept[IllegalArgumentException] { actorRef.receive("hello") }
- Java
-
source
final Props props = Props.create(MyActor.class); final TestActorRef<MyActor> ref = TestActorRef.create(system, props, "myActor"); try { ref.receive(new Exception("expected")); Assert.fail("expected an exception to be thrown"); } catch (Exception e) { assertEquals("expected", e.getMessage()); }
Use Cases
You may mix and match both modi operandi of TestActorRef
as suits your test needs:
- one common use case is setting up the actor into a specific internal state before sending the test message
- another is to verify correct internal state transitions after having sent the test message
Feel free to experiment with the possibilities, and if you find useful patterns, don’t hesitate to let the Akka forums know about them! Who knows, common operations might even be worked into nice DSLs.