Testing with Dagger

One of the benefits of using dependency injection frameworks like Dagger is that it makes testing your code easier. This document explores some strategies for testing applications built with Dagger.

Don’t use Dagger for unit testing

If you want to write a small unit test that tests one @Inject-annotated class, you don’t need to use Dagger in your test at all. Just call the @Inject-annotated constructor and methods and set the @Inject-annotated fields, if any, passing fake or mock dependencies directly.

final class ThingDoer {
  private final ThingGetter getter;
  private final ThingPutter putter;

  @Inject ThingDoer(ThingGetter getter, ThingPutter putter) {
    this.getter = getter;
    this.putter = putter;

  String doTheThing(int howManyTimes) { /* … */ }

public class ThingDoerTest {
  public void testDoTheThing() {
    ThingDoer doer = new ThingDoer(fakeGetter, fakePutter);
    assertEquals("done", doer.doTheThing(5));

Replace bindings for functional/integration/end-to-end testing

Functional/integration/end-to-end tests typically use the production application, but substitute fakes (don’t use mocks in large functional tests!) for persistence, backends, and auth systems, leaving the rest of the application to operate normally. That approach lends itself to having one (or maybe a small finite number) of test configurations, where the test configuration replaces some of the bindings in the prod configuration.

Option 1: Override bindings by subclassing modules (don’t do this!)

The simplest way to replace bindings in a testing component is to override modules’ @Provides methods in a subclass. (But see below for problems.)

When you create an instance of your Dagger component, you pass in instances of the modules it uses. (You do not have to pass instances for modules with no-arg constructors or those without instance methods, but you can.) That means that you can pass instances of subclasses of those modules, and those subclasses can override some @Provides methods to replace some bindings.

@Component(modules = {AuthModule.class, /* … */})
interface MyApplicationComponent { /* … */ }

class AuthModule {
  @Provides AuthManager authManager(AuthManagerImpl impl) {
    return impl;

class FakeAuthModule extends AuthModule {
  AuthManager authManager(AuthManagerImpl impl) {
    return new FakeAuthManager();

MyApplicationComponent testingComponent = DaggerMyApplicationComponent.builder()
    .authModule(new FakeAuthModule())

But there are limitations to this approach:

Option 2: Separate component configurations

Another approach requires more up-front design of the modules in your application. Each configuration of your application (production and testing) uses a different component configuration. The testing component type extends the production component type and installs a different set of modules.

@Component(modules = {
  OAuthModule.class, // real auth
  FooServiceModule.class, // real backend
  /* … */ })
interface ProductionComponent {
  Server server();

@Component(modules = {
  FakeAuthModule.class, // fake auth
  FakeFooServiceModule.class, // fake backend
  /* … */})
interface TestComponent extends ProductionComponent {
  FakeAuthManager fakeAuthManager();
  FakeFooService fakeFooService();

Now the main method for your test binary calls DaggerTestComponent.builder() instead of DaggerProductionComponent.builder(). Note that the test component interface can add provision handles to the fake instances (fakeAuthManager() and fakeFooService()) so that the test can access them to control the harness if necessary.

But how do you design your modules to make this pattern easy?

Organize modules for testability

Module classes are a kind of utility class: a collection of independent @Provides methods, each of which may be used by the injector to provide some type used by the application.

(Although several @Provides methods may be related in that one depends on a type provided by another, they typically do not explicitly call each other or rely on the same mutable state. Some @Provides methods do refer to the same instance field, in which case they are not in fact independent. The advice given here treats @Provides methods as utility methods anyway because it leads to modules that can be readily substituted for testing.)

So how do you decide which @Provides methods should go together into one module class?

One way to think about it is to classify bindings into published bindings and internal bindings, and then to further decide which of the published bindings has reasonable alternatives.

Published bindings are those that provide functionality that is used by other parts of the application. Types like AuthManager or User or DocDatabase are published: they are bound in a module so that the rest of the application can use them.

Internal bindings are the rest: bindings that are used in the implementation of some published type and that are not meant to be used except as part of it. For example, the bindings for the configuration for the OAuth client ID or the OAuthKeyStore are intended to be used only by the OAuth implementation of AuthManager, and not by the rest of the application. These bindings are usually for package-private types or are qualified with package- private qualifiers.

Some published bindings will have reasonable alternatives, especially for testing, and others will not. For example, there are likely to be alternative bindings for a type like AuthManager: one for testing, others for different authentication/authorization protocols.

But on the other hand, if the AuthManager interface has a method that returns the currently logged-in user, you might want to publish a binding that provides User by simply calling getCurrentUser() on the AuthManager. That published binding is unlikely to ever need an alternative.

Once you’ve classified your bindings into published bindings with reasonable alternatives, published bindings without reasonable alternatives, and internal bindings, consider arranging them into modules like this:

It’s a good idea to document each module by describing the published bindings it provides.

Here’s an example using the auth domain. If there is an AuthManager interface, it might have an OAuth implementation and a fake implementation for testing. As above, there might be an obvious binding for the current user that you wouldn’t expect to change among configurations.

 * Provides auth bindings that will not change in different auth configurations,
 * such as the current user.
class AuthModule {
  @Provides static User currentUser(AuthManager authManager) {
    return authManager.currentUser();
  // Other bindings that don’t differ among AuthManager implementations.

/** Provides a {@link AuthManager} that uses OAuth. */
@Module(includes = AuthModule.class) // Include no-alternative bindings.
class OAuthModule {
  @Provides static AuthManager authManager(OAuthManager authManager) {
    return authManager;
  // Other bindings used only by OAuthManager.

/** Provides a fake {@link AuthManager} for testing. */
@Module(includes = AuthModule.class) // Include no-alternative bindings.
class FakeAuthModule {
  @Provides static AuthManager authManager(FakeAuthManager authManager) {
    return authManager;
  // Other bindings used only by FakeAuthManager.

Then your production configuration will use the real modules, and the testing configuration the fake modules, as described above.