Send out email when Apex Queueable fails and test it
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
This question definitely is a duplicate of many questions here, but after reading most of them I am still somewhat clueless.
Question 1: why I can't just catch exceptions in the execute and send an email out? Would a) Batch help, or b) checking or c) writing a custom Error object?
public class MyQueue implements Queueable, Database.AllowsCallouts {
public void execute(QueueableContext context) {
try {
Integer invalid = 100 / 0;
}
catch(Exception ex) {
sendEmail(ex);
}
}
}
Question 2: Can I test it like this?
@IsTest
private class MyQueue_Test {
@IsTest
private static void sendsEmailOnError() {
// Exercise
Test.startTest();
System.enqueueJob(new MyQueue());
Test.stopTest();
// Verify
System.assertEquals(1, Limits. getEmailInvocations());
}
}
apex unit-test asynchronous queueable-interface
add a comment |
This question definitely is a duplicate of many questions here, but after reading most of them I am still somewhat clueless.
Question 1: why I can't just catch exceptions in the execute and send an email out? Would a) Batch help, or b) checking or c) writing a custom Error object?
public class MyQueue implements Queueable, Database.AllowsCallouts {
public void execute(QueueableContext context) {
try {
Integer invalid = 100 / 0;
}
catch(Exception ex) {
sendEmail(ex);
}
}
}
Question 2: Can I test it like this?
@IsTest
private class MyQueue_Test {
@IsTest
private static void sendsEmailOnError() {
// Exercise
Test.startTest();
System.enqueueJob(new MyQueue());
Test.stopTest();
// Verify
System.assertEquals(1, Limits. getEmailInvocations());
}
}
apex unit-test asynchronous queueable-interface
2
Can you elaborate "can not" please? Is that because it does not work (and what is an error), or is that because it is written somewhere not to do it or any other reason?
– kurunve
Apr 2 at 14:10
Sure, no email is "sent", not even an exception is thrown. In my logs I see a Script-Thrown Exception which is not caught by the catch().
– Robert Sösemann
Apr 2 at 14:23
add a comment |
This question definitely is a duplicate of many questions here, but after reading most of them I am still somewhat clueless.
Question 1: why I can't just catch exceptions in the execute and send an email out? Would a) Batch help, or b) checking or c) writing a custom Error object?
public class MyQueue implements Queueable, Database.AllowsCallouts {
public void execute(QueueableContext context) {
try {
Integer invalid = 100 / 0;
}
catch(Exception ex) {
sendEmail(ex);
}
}
}
Question 2: Can I test it like this?
@IsTest
private class MyQueue_Test {
@IsTest
private static void sendsEmailOnError() {
// Exercise
Test.startTest();
System.enqueueJob(new MyQueue());
Test.stopTest();
// Verify
System.assertEquals(1, Limits. getEmailInvocations());
}
}
apex unit-test asynchronous queueable-interface
This question definitely is a duplicate of many questions here, but after reading most of them I am still somewhat clueless.
Question 1: why I can't just catch exceptions in the execute and send an email out? Would a) Batch help, or b) checking or c) writing a custom Error object?
public class MyQueue implements Queueable, Database.AllowsCallouts {
public void execute(QueueableContext context) {
try {
Integer invalid = 100 / 0;
}
catch(Exception ex) {
sendEmail(ex);
}
}
}
Question 2: Can I test it like this?
@IsTest
private class MyQueue_Test {
@IsTest
private static void sendsEmailOnError() {
// Exercise
Test.startTest();
System.enqueueJob(new MyQueue());
Test.stopTest();
// Verify
System.assertEquals(1, Limits. getEmailInvocations());
}
}
apex unit-test asynchronous queueable-interface
apex unit-test asynchronous queueable-interface
asked Apr 2 at 14:07
Robert SösemannRobert Sösemann
13.2k1178225
13.2k1178225
2
Can you elaborate "can not" please? Is that because it does not work (and what is an error), or is that because it is written somewhere not to do it or any other reason?
– kurunve
Apr 2 at 14:10
Sure, no email is "sent", not even an exception is thrown. In my logs I see a Script-Thrown Exception which is not caught by the catch().
– Robert Sösemann
Apr 2 at 14:23
add a comment |
2
Can you elaborate "can not" please? Is that because it does not work (and what is an error), or is that because it is written somewhere not to do it or any other reason?
– kurunve
Apr 2 at 14:10
Sure, no email is "sent", not even an exception is thrown. In my logs I see a Script-Thrown Exception which is not caught by the catch().
– Robert Sösemann
Apr 2 at 14:23
2
2
Can you elaborate "can not" please? Is that because it does not work (and what is an error), or is that because it is written somewhere not to do it or any other reason?
– kurunve
Apr 2 at 14:10
Can you elaborate "can not" please? Is that because it does not work (and what is an error), or is that because it is written somewhere not to do it or any other reason?
– kurunve
Apr 2 at 14:10
Sure, no email is "sent", not even an exception is thrown. In my logs I see a Script-Thrown Exception which is not caught by the catch().
– Robert Sösemann
Apr 2 at 14:23
Sure, no email is "sent", not even an exception is thrown. In my logs I see a Script-Thrown Exception which is not caught by the catch().
– Robert Sösemann
Apr 2 at 14:23
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
The problem is that Test.stopTest executes the asynchronous code, then resets the governor limits back to the state it was in immediately before Test.startTest is called. If you really wanted to verify the output, you'd need a static method to check:
public class MyQueue implements Queueable, Database.AllowsCallouts {
@TestVisible static Boolean emailSent = false;
public void execute(QueueableContext context) {
try {
Integer invalid = 100 / 0;
}
catch(Exception ex) {
sendEmail(ex);
emailSent = true;
}
}
}
And from there, test it in your unit test:
@IsTest
private class MyQueue_Test {
@IsTest
private static void sendsEmailOnError() {
// Exercise
Test.startTest();
System.enqueueJob(new MyQueue());
Test.stopTest();
// Verify
System.assert(MyQueue.emailSent);
}
}
This is one of those relatively rare conditions where the easiest way to perform a task is to inject test code to the actual code. You should do this minimally, of course, but as often as necessary.
Alternatively, a more idiomatic way to do this would be to use the Stub API. The idea here is that you'd mock out sendEmail by overriding it in the unit test. This is a bit complicated to use in practice, especially since you only need to add two lines of code.
Should I use Database Savepoints and rollbacks in the catch or does Apex care about this? I mean if I do some DML in the try...
– Robert Sösemann
Apr 2 at 21:46
1
@RobertSösemann for testing, it doesn't matter. For production code, if you perform multiple DML and do not roll back, you may leave your data in an inconsistent state. If you're at all concerned about this possibility, definitely roll back. This is on a case by case situation, though. You'll need to analyze each case separately, and determine if partial success should be allowed.
– sfdcfox
Apr 2 at 22:25
add a comment |
I usually take the route of storing results in a log object as opposed to email.
If you want, you can add a trigger to the log object to send out an email. You can enable activity tracking for the emails as well which would allow you to query for the existence of an activity as opposed to checking the governor limits.
The benefits being:
- logs are more permanent
- logs are less likely to get lost in email
- logs are not user specific meaning if there is an issue and the email recipient is out of office, the log can be viewed and the issue can be resolved
- you can report on logs/activities but not email
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%2f256225%2fsend-out-email-when-apex-queueable-fails-and-test-it%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
The problem is that Test.stopTest executes the asynchronous code, then resets the governor limits back to the state it was in immediately before Test.startTest is called. If you really wanted to verify the output, you'd need a static method to check:
public class MyQueue implements Queueable, Database.AllowsCallouts {
@TestVisible static Boolean emailSent = false;
public void execute(QueueableContext context) {
try {
Integer invalid = 100 / 0;
}
catch(Exception ex) {
sendEmail(ex);
emailSent = true;
}
}
}
And from there, test it in your unit test:
@IsTest
private class MyQueue_Test {
@IsTest
private static void sendsEmailOnError() {
// Exercise
Test.startTest();
System.enqueueJob(new MyQueue());
Test.stopTest();
// Verify
System.assert(MyQueue.emailSent);
}
}
This is one of those relatively rare conditions where the easiest way to perform a task is to inject test code to the actual code. You should do this minimally, of course, but as often as necessary.
Alternatively, a more idiomatic way to do this would be to use the Stub API. The idea here is that you'd mock out sendEmail by overriding it in the unit test. This is a bit complicated to use in practice, especially since you only need to add two lines of code.
Should I use Database Savepoints and rollbacks in the catch or does Apex care about this? I mean if I do some DML in the try...
– Robert Sösemann
Apr 2 at 21:46
1
@RobertSösemann for testing, it doesn't matter. For production code, if you perform multiple DML and do not roll back, you may leave your data in an inconsistent state. If you're at all concerned about this possibility, definitely roll back. This is on a case by case situation, though. You'll need to analyze each case separately, and determine if partial success should be allowed.
– sfdcfox
Apr 2 at 22:25
add a comment |
The problem is that Test.stopTest executes the asynchronous code, then resets the governor limits back to the state it was in immediately before Test.startTest is called. If you really wanted to verify the output, you'd need a static method to check:
public class MyQueue implements Queueable, Database.AllowsCallouts {
@TestVisible static Boolean emailSent = false;
public void execute(QueueableContext context) {
try {
Integer invalid = 100 / 0;
}
catch(Exception ex) {
sendEmail(ex);
emailSent = true;
}
}
}
And from there, test it in your unit test:
@IsTest
private class MyQueue_Test {
@IsTest
private static void sendsEmailOnError() {
// Exercise
Test.startTest();
System.enqueueJob(new MyQueue());
Test.stopTest();
// Verify
System.assert(MyQueue.emailSent);
}
}
This is one of those relatively rare conditions where the easiest way to perform a task is to inject test code to the actual code. You should do this minimally, of course, but as often as necessary.
Alternatively, a more idiomatic way to do this would be to use the Stub API. The idea here is that you'd mock out sendEmail by overriding it in the unit test. This is a bit complicated to use in practice, especially since you only need to add two lines of code.
Should I use Database Savepoints and rollbacks in the catch or does Apex care about this? I mean if I do some DML in the try...
– Robert Sösemann
Apr 2 at 21:46
1
@RobertSösemann for testing, it doesn't matter. For production code, if you perform multiple DML and do not roll back, you may leave your data in an inconsistent state. If you're at all concerned about this possibility, definitely roll back. This is on a case by case situation, though. You'll need to analyze each case separately, and determine if partial success should be allowed.
– sfdcfox
Apr 2 at 22:25
add a comment |
The problem is that Test.stopTest executes the asynchronous code, then resets the governor limits back to the state it was in immediately before Test.startTest is called. If you really wanted to verify the output, you'd need a static method to check:
public class MyQueue implements Queueable, Database.AllowsCallouts {
@TestVisible static Boolean emailSent = false;
public void execute(QueueableContext context) {
try {
Integer invalid = 100 / 0;
}
catch(Exception ex) {
sendEmail(ex);
emailSent = true;
}
}
}
And from there, test it in your unit test:
@IsTest
private class MyQueue_Test {
@IsTest
private static void sendsEmailOnError() {
// Exercise
Test.startTest();
System.enqueueJob(new MyQueue());
Test.stopTest();
// Verify
System.assert(MyQueue.emailSent);
}
}
This is one of those relatively rare conditions where the easiest way to perform a task is to inject test code to the actual code. You should do this minimally, of course, but as often as necessary.
Alternatively, a more idiomatic way to do this would be to use the Stub API. The idea here is that you'd mock out sendEmail by overriding it in the unit test. This is a bit complicated to use in practice, especially since you only need to add two lines of code.
The problem is that Test.stopTest executes the asynchronous code, then resets the governor limits back to the state it was in immediately before Test.startTest is called. If you really wanted to verify the output, you'd need a static method to check:
public class MyQueue implements Queueable, Database.AllowsCallouts {
@TestVisible static Boolean emailSent = false;
public void execute(QueueableContext context) {
try {
Integer invalid = 100 / 0;
}
catch(Exception ex) {
sendEmail(ex);
emailSent = true;
}
}
}
And from there, test it in your unit test:
@IsTest
private class MyQueue_Test {
@IsTest
private static void sendsEmailOnError() {
// Exercise
Test.startTest();
System.enqueueJob(new MyQueue());
Test.stopTest();
// Verify
System.assert(MyQueue.emailSent);
}
}
This is one of those relatively rare conditions where the easiest way to perform a task is to inject test code to the actual code. You should do this minimally, of course, but as often as necessary.
Alternatively, a more idiomatic way to do this would be to use the Stub API. The idea here is that you'd mock out sendEmail by overriding it in the unit test. This is a bit complicated to use in practice, especially since you only need to add two lines of code.
answered Apr 2 at 17:21
sfdcfoxsfdcfox
263k12209456
263k12209456
Should I use Database Savepoints and rollbacks in the catch or does Apex care about this? I mean if I do some DML in the try...
– Robert Sösemann
Apr 2 at 21:46
1
@RobertSösemann for testing, it doesn't matter. For production code, if you perform multiple DML and do not roll back, you may leave your data in an inconsistent state. If you're at all concerned about this possibility, definitely roll back. This is on a case by case situation, though. You'll need to analyze each case separately, and determine if partial success should be allowed.
– sfdcfox
Apr 2 at 22:25
add a comment |
Should I use Database Savepoints and rollbacks in the catch or does Apex care about this? I mean if I do some DML in the try...
– Robert Sösemann
Apr 2 at 21:46
1
@RobertSösemann for testing, it doesn't matter. For production code, if you perform multiple DML and do not roll back, you may leave your data in an inconsistent state. If you're at all concerned about this possibility, definitely roll back. This is on a case by case situation, though. You'll need to analyze each case separately, and determine if partial success should be allowed.
– sfdcfox
Apr 2 at 22:25
Should I use Database Savepoints and rollbacks in the catch or does Apex care about this? I mean if I do some DML in the try...
– Robert Sösemann
Apr 2 at 21:46
Should I use Database Savepoints and rollbacks in the catch or does Apex care about this? I mean if I do some DML in the try...
– Robert Sösemann
Apr 2 at 21:46
1
1
@RobertSösemann for testing, it doesn't matter. For production code, if you perform multiple DML and do not roll back, you may leave your data in an inconsistent state. If you're at all concerned about this possibility, definitely roll back. This is on a case by case situation, though. You'll need to analyze each case separately, and determine if partial success should be allowed.
– sfdcfox
Apr 2 at 22:25
@RobertSösemann for testing, it doesn't matter. For production code, if you perform multiple DML and do not roll back, you may leave your data in an inconsistent state. If you're at all concerned about this possibility, definitely roll back. This is on a case by case situation, though. You'll need to analyze each case separately, and determine if partial success should be allowed.
– sfdcfox
Apr 2 at 22:25
add a comment |
I usually take the route of storing results in a log object as opposed to email.
If you want, you can add a trigger to the log object to send out an email. You can enable activity tracking for the emails as well which would allow you to query for the existence of an activity as opposed to checking the governor limits.
The benefits being:
- logs are more permanent
- logs are less likely to get lost in email
- logs are not user specific meaning if there is an issue and the email recipient is out of office, the log can be viewed and the issue can be resolved
- you can report on logs/activities but not email
add a comment |
I usually take the route of storing results in a log object as opposed to email.
If you want, you can add a trigger to the log object to send out an email. You can enable activity tracking for the emails as well which would allow you to query for the existence of an activity as opposed to checking the governor limits.
The benefits being:
- logs are more permanent
- logs are less likely to get lost in email
- logs are not user specific meaning if there is an issue and the email recipient is out of office, the log can be viewed and the issue can be resolved
- you can report on logs/activities but not email
add a comment |
I usually take the route of storing results in a log object as opposed to email.
If you want, you can add a trigger to the log object to send out an email. You can enable activity tracking for the emails as well which would allow you to query for the existence of an activity as opposed to checking the governor limits.
The benefits being:
- logs are more permanent
- logs are less likely to get lost in email
- logs are not user specific meaning if there is an issue and the email recipient is out of office, the log can be viewed and the issue can be resolved
- you can report on logs/activities but not email
I usually take the route of storing results in a log object as opposed to email.
If you want, you can add a trigger to the log object to send out an email. You can enable activity tracking for the emails as well which would allow you to query for the existence of an activity as opposed to checking the governor limits.
The benefits being:
- logs are more permanent
- logs are less likely to get lost in email
- logs are not user specific meaning if there is an issue and the email recipient is out of office, the log can be viewed and the issue can be resolved
- you can report on logs/activities but not email
edited Apr 2 at 17:50
answered Apr 2 at 17:44
gNerbgNerb
6,081834
6,081834
add a comment |
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%2f256225%2fsend-out-email-when-apex-queueable-fails-and-test-it%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
2
Can you elaborate "can not" please? Is that because it does not work (and what is an error), or is that because it is written somewhere not to do it or any other reason?
– kurunve
Apr 2 at 14:10
Sure, no email is "sent", not even an exception is thrown. In my logs I see a Script-Thrown Exception which is not caught by the catch().
– Robert Sösemann
Apr 2 at 14:23