LeakCanary in Unit Test Artifact #143

linggom · 2015-05-22T09:58:10Z

Hi.

I got NPE when i run test using Unit Test build variants. Do you have any best practice to do this ?

java.lang.NullPointerException
    at com.squareup.leakcanary.internal.LeakCanaryInternals.isInServiceProcess(LeakCanaryInternals.java:130)
    at com.squareup.leakcanary.LeakCanary.isInAnalyzerProcess(LeakCanary.java:146)
    at com.squareup.leakcanary.LeakCanary.install(LeakCanary.java:48)
    at com.squareup.leakcanary.LeakCanary.install(LeakCanary.java:37)
    at com.vidio.android.VidioApplication.onCreate(VidioApplication.java:18)
    at org.robolectric.internal.ParallelUniverse.setUpApplicationState(ParallelUniverse.java:131)
    at org.robolectric.RobolectricTestRunner.setUpApplicationState(RobolectricTestRunner.java:431)
    at org.robolectric.RobolectricTestRunner$2.evaluate(RobolectricTestRunner.java:224)
    at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runLeaf(ParentRunner.java:325)
    at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:78)
    at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:57)
    at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:290)
    at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:71)
    at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:288)
    at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:58)
    at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:268)
    at org.robolectric.RobolectricTestRunner$1.evaluate(RobolectricTestRunner.java:168)
    at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:363)
    at org.gradle.api.internal.tasks.testing.junit.JUnitTestClassExecuter.runTestClass(JUnitTestClassExecuter.java:86)
    at org.gradle.api.internal.tasks.testing.junit.JUnitTestClassExecuter.execute(JUnitTestClassExecuter.java:49)
    at org.gradle.api.internal.tasks.testing.junit.JUnitTestClassProcessor.processTestClass(JUnitTestClassProcessor.java:69)
    at org.gradle.api.internal.tasks.testing.SuiteTestClassProcessor.processTestClass(SuiteTestClassProcessor.java:48)
    at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
    at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:62)
    at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
    at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:497)
    at org.gradle.messaging.dispatch.ReflectionDispatch.dispatch(ReflectionDispatch.java:35)
    at org.gradle.messaging.dispatch.ReflectionDispatch.dispatch(ReflectionDispatch.java:24)
    at org.gradle.messaging.dispatch.ContextClassLoaderDispatch.dispatch(ContextClassLoaderDispatch.java:32)
    at org.gradle.messaging.dispatch.ProxyDispatchAdapter$DispatchingInvocationHandler.invoke(ProxyDispatchAdapter.java:93)
    at com.sun.proxy.$Proxy2.processTestClass(Unknown Source)
    at org.gradle.api.internal.tasks.testing.worker.TestWorker.processTestClass(TestWorker.java:105)
    at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
    at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:62)
    at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
    at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:497)
    at org.gradle.messaging.dispatch.ReflectionDispatch.dispatch(ReflectionDispatch.java:35)
    at org.gradle.messaging.dispatch.ReflectionDispatch.dispatch(ReflectionDispatch.java:24)
    at org.gradle.messaging.remote.internal.hub.MessageHub$Handler.run(MessageHub.java:360)
    at org.gradle.internal.concurrent.DefaultExecutorFactory$StoppableExecutorImpl$1.run(DefaultExecutorFactory.java:64)
    at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1142)
    at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:617)
    at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:745)

Is it caused by multiple flavour on release ?

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

pyricau · 2015-05-22T14:43:00Z

No. You just need to read the code to figure it out. It's because you're using Robolectric, which doesn't set a processName on the serviceInfo returned by PackageManager.getServiceInfo().

Instead, you can let your application class have a method that can be overridden in unit tests:

public class VideoApplication extends Application {
  public void onCreate() {
    super.onCreate();
    if (!isInUnitTests()) {
      LeakCanary.install(this);
    }
  }

  protected boolean isInUnitTests() {
    return false;
  }
}

Then you just need to create a TestVideoApplication in your test code and the same package, and Robolectric will automatically use that instead:

public class TestVideoApplication extends VideoApplication {
    protected boolean isInUnitTests() {
    return true;
  }
}

pyricau · 2015-07-20T17:55:35Z

TODO: Update README to mention Robolectric

romainpiel · 2015-07-31T08:53:43Z

You can also disable leakCanary for unit tests:

testCompile "com.squareup.leakcanary:leakcanary-android-no-op:${leakCanaryVersion}"

ygnessin · 2015-10-16T18:17:01Z

If your tests run in debug mode like mine, to disable LeakCanary you'll need your testCompile declaration to be above debugCompile:

// WORKS
androidTestCompile 'com.squareup.leakcanary:leakcanary-android-no-op:1.3.1'
debugCompile 'com.squareup.leakcanary:leakcanary-android:1.3.1'

// DOESN'T WORK
debugCompile 'com.squareup.leakcanary:leakcanary-android:1.3.1'
androidTestCompile 'com.squareup.leakcanary:leakcanary-android-no-op:1.3.1'

Ran into this issue today so thought I'd share in case anyone else is confused

ylogx · 2015-11-16T09:20:19Z

Propose to close based on PR above

pyricau · 2016-01-04T16:56:16Z

@ygnessin @shubhamchaudhary I don't recall: which one works by default on a new Android project, androidTestCompile or testCompile? I'd like the README to mention the most standard one.

ygnessin · 2016-01-05T03:44:31Z

@pyricau I think testCompile is for unit tests, which is probably the closest thing to "default" there is. I use androidTestCompile for the test API that I wrote which runs on a device; probably less common. Sorry for the confusion!

pyricau · 2016-01-05T06:33:16Z

thx!

Add indication to using no-op in unit test | #143

jaredsburrows · 2016-04-12T16:28:55Z

@ygnessin This works for me in all of my projects:

debugCompile 'com.squareup.leakcanary:leakcanary-android:1.3.1' // We only want leakcanary in debug builds

dogfoodCompile 'com.squareup.leakcanary:leakcanary-android-no-op:1.3.1' // no-op

releaseCompile 'com.squareup.leakcanary:leakcanary-android-no-op:1.3.1' // no-op

testCompile 'com.squareup.leakcanary:leakcanary-android-no-op:1.3.1' // no-op

pyricau · 2016-09-18T22:57:31Z

The readme now has this:

 dependencies {
   debugCompile 'com.squareup.leakcanary:leakcanary-android:1.4'
   releaseCompile 'com.squareup.leakcanary:leakcanary-android-no-op:1.4'
   testCompile 'com.squareup.leakcanary:leakcanary-android-no-op:1.4'
 }

So we can close this issue.

installing leakcanary causes the robolectric unit tests to throw a `NullPointerException` when running from within android studio (running from the command-line seem fine). as a, hopefully temporary, work-around the leakcanary installation is excluded when running the unit tests. ref: square/leakcanary#143 (comment)

caarmen · 2017-10-26T12:38:18Z

I'm seeing this NPE now in unit tests, that I've updated my environment (android gradle plugin 3.0.0)

I have this in my gradle file:

    debugImplementation 'com.squareup.leakcanary:leakcanary-android:1.5.4'
    releaseImplementation 'com.squareup.leakcanary:leakcanary-android-no-op:1.5.4'
    testImplementation 'com.squareup.leakcanary:leakcanary-android-no-op:1.5.4'
    androidTestImplementation 'com.squareup.leakcanary:leakcanary-android-no-op:1.5.4'

I tried changing the order of these statements, but so far haven't had luck getting rid of the NPE in unit tests, by trying to use the no-op version of the lib for tests.

Note: the same issue occurs if i keep the old testCompile syntax instead of the new testImplementation.

Note: tests run fine from within Android Studio. The error occurs running tests on the command line with ./gradlew clean testDebugUnitTest

Update: ok, if I RTFM and create a test application class, and override the setupLeakCanary() as described, the tests now work on the command line. :)

However, it would be nice to just not use leak canary in tests by using the no-op version of the lib.

Kisty · 2018-01-29T11:09:59Z

As per @JakeWharton's #907 PR, it suggests to do the following without subclassing Application (win!):

Taken from README.md

To disable LeakCanary in unit tests, add the following to your build.gradle:

// Ensure the no-op dependency is always used in JVM tests.
configurations.all { config ->
  if (config.name.contains('UnitTest')) {
    config.resolutionStrategy.eachDependency { details ->
      if (details.requested.group == 'com.squareup.leakcanary' && details.requested.name == 'leakcanary-android') {
        details.useTarget(group: details.requested.group, name: 'leakcanary-android-no-op', version: details.requested.version)
      }
    }
  }
}

AndreSand · 2018-02-05T06:25:45Z

@Kisty Thanks for the answer! it works :)

Gloix · 2018-05-10T15:23:13Z

Adding @JakeWharton's suggestion still causes NPEs in my setup. I added the config lines after the dependencies block in my app module's build.gradle, as well as adding the no-op version directly using testImplementation.
Using Gradle 4.6, Leak Canary 1.5.4, Android Studio 3.1.2 on High Sierra and Robolectric 3.8.

java.lang.NullPointerException
	at com.squareup.leakcanary.internal.LeakCanaryInternals.isInServiceProcess(LeakCanaryInternals.java:112)
	at com.squareup.leakcanary.LeakCanary.isInAnalyzerProcess(LeakCanary.java:145)
	...

Kisty · 2018-05-10T15:33:14Z

@Gloix can you post your dependency configuration with just the leak canary dependencies + the snippet Jake posted? Perhaps somethings in the wrong order.

Gloix · 2018-05-10T15:51:51Z

@Kisty Nevermind. After a couple of rebuilds it is working now :D, but thanks anyway.

Gloix · 2018-05-11T15:58:48Z

@Kisty I don't know what happened yesterday but my setup failed again, but this time I went deeper and pinpointed the set of possible configurations my test is running on:

prodDebugCompile, prodDebugApk, prodDebugProvided, prodDebugApi, prodDebugImplementation, prodDebugRuntimeOnly, prodDebugCompileOnly, prodDebugWearApp, prodDebugAnnotationProcessor, prodDebugCompileClasspath, prodDebugAnnotationProcessorClasspath, prodDebugRuntimeClasspath, prodDebugWearBundling, prodDebugBundleElements, prodDebugRuntimeElements, prodDebugApiElements, prodDebugMetadataElements

none of them contains the substring AndroidTest or UnitTest, but all of them contain the substring prodDebug. It seems my tests are not running with a test-like gradle config and I'm kind of lost as to what I can do to tell Android Studio to run my tests using a test-like gradle config.

kschults · 2018-06-21T14:33:05Z

@Gloix Were you ever able to resolve this? Adding the configurations block fixed it for me, but only for running from the command line. If I run tests from within the IDE, it still doesn't use the no-op artifact, and the tests fail.

Gloix · 2018-06-21T14:47:26Z

@kschults I never tried running it through the command line. I fixed it by killing leakcanary until I need it again.

kschults · 2018-06-21T17:54:06Z

@Kisty Here's a shortened version of my build.gradle. This version works fine when running from the command line ./gradlew :app:test<build type + flavor>UnitTest, but not when running from the buttons in the IDE.

buildscript { ... }
configurations.all { config ->
    // Ensure the no-op leak canary dependency is always used in tests.
    if (config.name.contains('UnitTest') || config.name.contains("AndroidTest")) {
        config.resolutionStrategy.eachDependency { details ->
            if (details.requested.group == 'com.squareup.leakcanary' && details.requested.name == 'leakcanary-android') {
                details.useTarget(group: details.requested.group, name: 'leakcanary-android-no-op', version: details.requested.version)
            }
        }
    }
}

...

android { ... }
dependencies {
...
    testImplementation 'com.squareup.leakcanary:leakcanary-android-no-op:1.5.4'
    debugImplementation 'com.squareup.leakcanary:leakcanary-android:1.5.4'
    qaImplementation 'com.squareup.leakcanary:leakcanary-android-no-op:1.5.4'
    releaseImplementation 'com.squareup.leakcanary:leakcanary-android-no-op:1.5.4'
}

Overriding my application in test works, but it would definitely be better if I could just use the no-op version. I've looked at the dependency graph generated by ./gradlew :app:dependences, and it looks like it should be using the no-op version, but when I run it, it still uses the full artifact.

Kisty · 2018-06-21T18:18:39Z

Try swapping the dependency line for test and debug so that the test dependency comes after debug. I wonder if the debug line is overwriting the test dependency. It's worth a try.

kschults · 2018-06-21T18:51:18Z

No luck. Same issue

Kisty · 2018-06-21T21:00:11Z

Ok, how about trying the Canary build of Android Studio (download and install separately http://d.android.com/studio/preview). I know the team are aware of unit test issues in Android Studio 3.1 with Robolectric. Do you have Robolectric in unit tests?

kschults · 2018-06-21T21:08:58Z

Yeah, it's Robolectric. I'll give that a try (probably tomorrow) and get back to you

kschults · 2018-06-22T13:43:21Z

@Kisty Unfortunately, I'm getting the same results on the Canary build (3.2 Beta 1)

IgorGanapolsky · 2018-08-07T19:31:33Z

It is still the same issue in Android Studio 3.3 Canary 5

mikehc · 2019-04-06T07:58:30Z

@Kisty Here's a shortened version of my build.gradle. This version works fine when running from the command line ./gradlew :app:test<build type + flavor>UnitTest, but not when running from the buttons in the IDE.
buildscript { ... }
configurations.all { config ->
    // Ensure the no-op leak canary dependency is always used in tests.
    if (config.name.contains('UnitTest') || config.name.contains("AndroidTest")) {
        config.resolutionStrategy.eachDependency { details ->
            if (details.requested.group == 'com.squareup.leakcanary' && details.requested.name == 'leakcanary-android') {
                details.useTarget(group: details.requested.group, name: 'leakcanary-android-no-op', version: details.requested.version)
            }
        }
    }
}

...

android { ... }
dependencies {
...
    testImplementation 'com.squareup.leakcanary:leakcanary-android-no-op:1.5.4'
    debugImplementation 'com.squareup.leakcanary:leakcanary-android:1.5.4'
    qaImplementation 'com.squareup.leakcanary:leakcanary-android-no-op:1.5.4'
    releaseImplementation 'com.squareup.leakcanary:leakcanary-android-no-op:1.5.4'
}
Overriding my application in test works, but it would definitely be better if I could just use the no-op version. I've looked at the dependency graph generated by ./gradlew :app:dependences, and it looks like it should be using the no-op version, but when I run it, it still uses the full artifact.

Having the same issues when upgrading from version 1.6.1. When I use 1.6.2 or 1.6.3 I get the NPE, and when debugging seems to be using the full artifact and not the no-op ones. This happens using Robolectric 4.0.1 and 4.2.1 (latests available to date).

Kisty · 2019-04-08T08:27:58Z

OK, perhaps it's favouring the debug artefact over the test one for testDebug. Have you tried:

testDebugImplementation 'com.squareup.leakcanary:leakcanary-android-no-op:1.5.4'

mikehc · 2019-04-08T17:22:12Z

@Kisty same result.

I ran the test in console with ./gradlew test and they run just fine but not on Android Studio. If I downgrade to version 1.6.1 they can run on Android Studio too.

Kisty · 2019-04-09T11:02:50Z

@mikehc Sounds like the classpath resolution is different on AS from Gradle. Tried editing the run config so it uses JAR manifest or something else?

Another few things to try from Android Studio:

Build->Clean Project then Build->Make project (try doing two separate actions because I've had files locked and thus doesn't do a complete clean)
File->Invalidate cache and restart

mikehc · 2019-04-10T07:22:50Z

Tried editing the run config so it uses JAR manifest

@Kisty Can you give me some pointers of how to do that?

Kisty · 2019-04-11T10:15:13Z

@mikehc

Click dropdown for run list and select Edit configurations
Find unit test run task in popup
Ensure that JRE is selected to Java 1.8 JRE not Android API...
Select an option from Shorten command line and try running again.

renetik · 2022-07-20T18:41:04Z

I was wrong probably :)

linggom changed the title ~~LeakCanary in Unit Test Build Variants~~ LeakCanary in Unit Test Artifact May 22, 2015

pyricau added the type: documentation label Jul 20, 2015

ylogx added a commit to ylogx/leakcanary that referenced this issue Nov 16, 2015

Add indication to using no-op in unit test | square#143

0fe62c6

pyricau mentioned this issue Jan 4, 2016

Add indication to using no-op in unit test | #143 #327

Merged

pyricau added the status: needs more info label Jan 4, 2016

pyricau removed the status: needs more info label Jan 5, 2016

jrodbx mentioned this issue Jan 11, 2016

NPE com.squareup.leakcanary.internal.LeakCanaryInternals.isInServiceProcess #385

Closed

ylogx added a commit to ylogx/leakcanary that referenced this issue Jan 14, 2016

Add indication to using no-op in unit test | square#143

ad9bb91

ylogx added a commit to ylogx/leakcanary that referenced this issue Jan 14, 2016

Add indication to using no-op in unit test | square#143

66e2365

pyricau added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 18, 2016

Merge pull request #327 from shubhamchaudhary/patch-1

4950e17

Add indication to using no-op in unit test | #143

Harlber mentioned this issue Jan 21, 2016

Travis build failed Harlber/Moose#16

Closed

tobrun mentioned this issue Sep 8, 2016

Disable strictmode and leak canary for CI testing mapbox/mapbox-gl-native#6277

Closed

pyricau closed this as completed Sep 18, 2016

raulccabreu mentioned this issue Oct 15, 2016

Add LeakCanary and Strictmode for development builds Catbag/redux-android-sample#21

Closed

JakeWharton mentioned this issue Nov 30, 2017

Correct testing recommendation to not rely on subclassing. #907

Merged

ekager mentioned this issue Feb 6, 2018

match to leakCanary related gradle line to the leakCanary wiki mozilla-mobile/focus-android#2071

Closed

dr0pdb mentioned this issue Mar 26, 2018

Fix build kiwix/kiwix-android#674

Closed

pyricau modified the milestone: 1.6 Jun 18, 2018

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

LeakCanary in Unit Test Artifact #143

LeakCanary in Unit Test Artifact #143

linggom commented May 22, 2015

pyricau commented May 22, 2015

pyricau commented Jul 20, 2015

romainpiel commented Jul 31, 2015

ygnessin commented Oct 16, 2015

ylogx commented Nov 16, 2015

pyricau commented Jan 4, 2016

ygnessin commented Jan 5, 2016

pyricau commented Jan 5, 2016

jaredsburrows commented Apr 12, 2016

pyricau commented Sep 18, 2016

caarmen commented Oct 26, 2017 •

edited

Loading

Kisty commented Jan 29, 2018

AndreSand commented Feb 5, 2018

Gloix commented May 10, 2018 •

edited

Loading

Kisty commented May 10, 2018

Gloix commented May 10, 2018 •

edited

Loading

Gloix commented May 11, 2018

kschults commented Jun 21, 2018

Gloix commented Jun 21, 2018

kschults commented Jun 21, 2018

Kisty commented Jun 21, 2018

kschults commented Jun 21, 2018

Kisty commented Jun 21, 2018 •

edited

Loading

kschults commented Jun 21, 2018

kschults commented Jun 22, 2018

IgorGanapolsky commented Aug 7, 2018

mikehc commented Apr 6, 2019

Kisty commented Apr 8, 2019

mikehc commented Apr 8, 2019

Kisty commented Apr 9, 2019 •

edited

Loading

mikehc commented Apr 10, 2019

Kisty commented Apr 11, 2019

renetik commented Jul 20, 2022 •

edited

Loading

LeakCanary in Unit Test Artifact #143

LeakCanary in Unit Test Artifact #143

Comments

linggom commented May 22, 2015

pyricau commented May 22, 2015

pyricau commented Jul 20, 2015

romainpiel commented Jul 31, 2015

ygnessin commented Oct 16, 2015

ylogx commented Nov 16, 2015

pyricau commented Jan 4, 2016

ygnessin commented Jan 5, 2016

pyricau commented Jan 5, 2016

jaredsburrows commented Apr 12, 2016

pyricau commented Sep 18, 2016

caarmen commented Oct 26, 2017 • edited Loading

Kisty commented Jan 29, 2018

AndreSand commented Feb 5, 2018

Gloix commented May 10, 2018 • edited Loading

Kisty commented May 10, 2018

Gloix commented May 10, 2018 • edited Loading

Gloix commented May 11, 2018

kschults commented Jun 21, 2018

Gloix commented Jun 21, 2018

kschults commented Jun 21, 2018

Kisty commented Jun 21, 2018

kschults commented Jun 21, 2018

Kisty commented Jun 21, 2018 • edited Loading

kschults commented Jun 21, 2018

kschults commented Jun 22, 2018

IgorGanapolsky commented Aug 7, 2018

mikehc commented Apr 6, 2019

Kisty commented Apr 8, 2019

mikehc commented Apr 8, 2019

Kisty commented Apr 9, 2019 • edited Loading

mikehc commented Apr 10, 2019

Kisty commented Apr 11, 2019

renetik commented Jul 20, 2022 • edited Loading

caarmen commented Oct 26, 2017 •

edited

Loading

Gloix commented May 10, 2018 •

edited

Loading

Gloix commented May 10, 2018 •

edited

Loading

Kisty commented Jun 21, 2018 •

edited

Loading

Kisty commented Apr 9, 2019 •

edited

Loading

renetik commented Jul 20, 2022 •

edited

Loading