In this post, I will present some practical approaches to test an application that uses thunks from the library. redux-thunk While browsing the web looking for ways and good practices to test redux state, many times I came across tests that check implementation details, not logic. I don’t see much sense in such an approach, which will almost certainly be expensive to maintain - testing will become sensitive to change. What should be of interest to us is the effect of dispatched action on the state and possible check of selectors, if we have any. Thunk implementations test store = mockStore(initialState); store.dispatch(someThunkFunction(requestPayload)); expectedActions = [ someImplementedFunction_1( ), someImplementedFunction_2( ), someImplementedFunction_3( ), ]; actions = store.getActions(); expect(actions).toEqual(expectedActions); // Arrange const // Act await // Assert const true // expectation of implementation details "some param" 123 const The above example checks the actions executed by someThunkFunction. The mockStore function used in the example comes from the library. redux-mock-store Imagine you are doing refactoring and changing the implementation of someThunkFunction. From now on, calling two instead of three functions will set the appropriate state of the application. someImplementedFunction_1(true), + someImplementedFunction_2('some param', 123), - someImplementedFunction_3(123) If we change its implementation details, e.g. it will contain 2 actions instead of 3, but the effect on the state remains the same - the test will not pass. The information from this test is, in my opinion, useless. State test after thunk dispatch In this post, I will focus on testing async thunk action. We skip testing actions and action-creators because they should not contain anything worth testing (the example presented at the end of the post is based on the , which manages them itself). Single actions and selectors should be trivial. Redux Toolkit We dispatch the thunk and check the state of the application we are interested in with the appropriate selectors (if we have any). Otherwise, we compare individual elements of the obtained state with expectations (never add additional selectors only for testing!). This allows us to freely modify someThunkFunction. As long as the state is correct - we have a green test and we do not bother with it. If the result is different after the changes, we will get valuable information. We will see what the state after the dispatch looks like and decide whether to fix the implementation or adapt the test to the new state. store = mockStore(initialState); store.dispatch(someThunkFunction(requestPayload)); expectedState = { : { : , : , : , }, }; state = store.getState(); expect(state).toEqual(expectedState); // Arrange const // Act await // Assert const app someBoolean true someString "some param" someNumber 123 const Example of redux-thunk test To write tests as shown, you must enable state creation with an initial value of preloadedState. rootReducer = combineReducers({ : epicsReducer, : tasksReducer, }); getStore = configureStore({ : rootReducer, : [thunk], preloadedState, }); // getStore.ts const epics tasks export const ( ) => preloadedState reducer middleware // configureStore with preloadedState In our simple example, we have an array of Epic and Task objects. Tasks have an epicId field indicating the Epic they belong to. We will try to write test that removes epic with id === 0 and tasks with epicId === 0. preloadedState = { : { : [ { : , : }, { : , : }, ], }, : { : [ { : , : , : }, { : , : , : }, { : , : , : }, { : , : , : }, ], }, }; // epicsSlice.ts const epics list id 0 name "epic 0" // epic to remove id 1 name "epic 1" tasks list id 0 epicId 0 name "epic 0 first task" // task to remove (epicId: 0) id 1 epicId 0 name "epic 0 second task" // task to remove (epicId: 0) id 2 epicId 1 name "epic 1 first task" id 3 epicId 1 name "epic 1 second task" Let’s create the method removeEpicAndItsTasksThunk that removes an Epic and all Tasks pointing to that Epic based on the given id. To complicate the example a bit, we will add a Promise that returns ids of Tasks to delete. removeEpicAndItsTasksThunk = createAsyncThunk( , (epicId, { getState, dispatch }) => { state = getState(); tasksId = ( { .log( ); setTimeout( { ids = state.tasks.list .filter( task.epicId === epicId) .map( task.id); .log( ); resolve(ids); }, ); }); dispatch(removeTasksById(tasksId)); dispatch(removeEpicById(epicId)); } ); export const "removeEpicAndItsTasks" async const const await new Promise ( ) => resolve console "Waiting for some async action." => () const ( ) => task ( ) => task console "Async action resolved after (at least) 2000ms." 2000 Arrange Thanks to preloadedState we can initialize the state the way we need. As I mentioned - we want to be sure, that the Epic and all Tasks in this Epic will be removed. Thanks to preloadedState we can initialize the state the way we need. As I mentioned - we want to be sure, that the Epic and all Tasks Epic will be removed. preloadedState = { : { : [ { : , : }, { : , : }, ], }, : { : [ { : , : , : }, { : , : , : }, { : , : , : }, { : , : , : }, ], }, }; expectedEpicList = [{ : , : }]; expectedTaskList = [ { : , : , : }, { : , : , : }, ]; store = getStore(preloadedState); in this // Arrange const epics list id 0 name "epic 0" // epic to remove id 1 name "epic 1" tasks list id 0 epicId 0 name "epic 0 first task" // task to remove (epicId: 0) id 1 epicId 0 name "epic 0 second task" // task to remove (epicId: 0) id 2 epicId 1 name "epic 1 first task" id 3 epicId 1 name "epic 1 second task" const id 1 name "epic 1" const id 2 epicId 1 name "epic 1 first task" id 3 epicId 1 name "epic 1 second task" const Act The only thing Act does is call removeEpicAndItsTasksThunk with some id (0 in our case). Additionally, we cover removeTasksById and removeEpicById methods. store.dispatch(removeEpicAndItsTasksThunk( )); // Act await 0 Assert In this section, we check if the state after calling removeEpicAndItsTasksThunk method is correct. Besides, we test two selectors: getEpicsList and getTasksList. state = store.getState(); epicList = getEpicsList(state); taskList = getTasksList(state); expect(epicList).toEqual(expectedEpicList); expect(taskList).toEqual(expectedTaskList); // Assert const const const Summary The presented approach of thunk testing provides high code coverage. We do not check implementation details, only the result. We increase the resistance of tests to change in the code that do not affect the resulting state of the application Check out a . repository with described example Originally published at https://lukaszwozniak.dev on March 30, 2021.
