Odysseus
Hello, I’m trying to test some code that fires off multiple external API calls in parallel using Task.async_stream(). I’m using Mox to mock these external api calls like you see below. They work 95% of the time, but sometimes the second item’s api call fires off first, which results in a failed test. It seems that Mox cares about the order it receives its calls. Is there a way around this?
code:
Task.async_stream(employee_ids, fn emp_id -> EmployeeClient.get(emp_id) end)
Mocks:
expect(Mock, :get, fn "/employees/1" ->
{:ok,
%HTTPoison.Response{
status_code: 200
}}
end)
expect(Mock, :get, fn "/employees/2" ->
{:ok,
%HTTPoison.Response{
status_code: 200
}}
end)
Error msg:
** (FunctionClauseError) no function clause matching in anonymous fn/1 in ----edited out file names----: anonymous fn("/employees/2") in ----edited out file names-----
Thanks!
Where Next?
Trending in Questions
Other Trending Topics
Latest on Elixir Forum
Sponsor Spotlight
Practical resources that improve the lives of professional developers.
Categories:
Sub Categories:
Forums
Popular Tags
- #ecto
- #liveview
- #troubleshooting
- #learning-elixir
- #library
- #deployment
- #erlang
- #testing
- #genserver
- #mix
- #absinthe
- #remote-other
- #otp
- #plug
- #how-to-question
- #macros
- #postgres
- #elixirconf
- #channels
- #exunit
- #discussion
- #code-sync
- #podcasts
- #javascript
- #onsite
- #dialyzer
- #docker
- #authentication
- #umbrella
- #full-time-contract
- #podcasts-by-brainlid
- #ecto-query
- #ai
- #elixirconf-us
- #blog-post
- #elixir-ls
- #phoenix_html
- #iex
- #graphql
- #genstage
- #websockets
- #supervisor
- #advent-of-code
- #distillery
- #processes
- #api
- #forms
- #hex
- #security
- #metaprogramming
Our Sponsors
Supporting innovation across the BEAM ecosystem.
We build reliable cloud platforms for business-critical systems.
Catch errors, track performance, monitor hosts and more.
Error tracking, logs, uptime, and Just Enough APM. Built for developers.
Elixir, Erlang & BEAM conferences from Code Sync - join us in 2026!
Practical resources that improve the lives of professional developers.
Master modern tools, write cleaner code, and tackle real-world challenges.
Bringing learning, work and compliance together since 1987.
The team behind Membrane, Popcorn, LiveDebugger. Available for hire.
Courses that'll move you from confusion to "Aha, now I get it!"
Showing Posts 1 to 4- Show Best Posts
- Show All (oldest first)
- Show All (newest first)
hauleth
Are you sure that you can mock it like that? Because I am pretty sure that the second call will override the first one, so call for
Mock.get("/employees/1")will obviously fail as there is no clause matching.benwilson512
Right as @hauleth notes, those definitions are clobbering each other. If you want to pattern match at the function level, do so at the function level:
Odysseus
Thanks @benwilson512. That is much cleaner than what I’ve been working with so I’m excited to refactor. I’m going to have to refactor a number of tests and run the suite 50+ times to verify for sure, but I think this solves my intermittent failure problem too. I’ll mark your answer as the solution as soon as I know.
Odysseus
I believe you can because I have 3 different routes mocked this way, and the others work without overwriting and pass 100% of the time. Its only this route that’s expecting concurrent calls that fails and its only failing about 5% of the time