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
At WyeWorks, we believe great software is built by combining technical excellence with genuine human connection
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
- #ai
- #umbrella
- #full-time-contract
- #podcasts-by-brainlid
- #ecto-query
- #blog-post
- #elixirconf-us
- #elixir-ls
- #phoenix_html
- #iex
- #graphql
- #genstage
- #websockets
- #supervisor
- #advent-of-code
- #distillery
- #processes
- #elixirconf-eu
- #api
- #forms
- #security
- #hex
Our Sponsors
Build Elixir applications with speed and confidence.
Supporting innovation across the BEAM ecosystem.
We build reliable cloud platforms for business-critical systems.
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.
**Building the future of software with AI, trust, and human connection.**
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