I want to override methods for specific commands on the IDatabase to modify the results.
FT.SEARCH should never return duplicate keys but it can when there is some sort of corruption.
I am using another library that calls FT.SEARCH in IDatabase so this part can only be done by changing IDatabase.
I can autogenerate a wrapper and then use this, but it would need to be maintained and updated every time the IDatabase interface changes. It would be unfortunate to need to update the wrapper class even when I didn't need to override the method that changed in IDatabase. Is there another option that would have similar performance that this wrapper does?
Assume I had a class called DatabaseWrapper all methods were virtual and that was in another package example code would look like:
public sealed class MyDatabaseOverrides: DatabaseWrapper
{
private const string RediSearchSearchCommandName = "FT.SEARCH";
public MyDatabaseOverrides(IDatabase wrapped) : base(wrapped)
{
}
public override Task<RedisResult> ExecuteAsync(string command, params object[] args)
{
var resultTask = base.ExecuteAsync(command, args);
if (string.Equals(RediSearchSearchCommandName, command, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase))
{
return SkipAndLogDuplicateKeys(resultTask);
}
return resultTask;
}
private async Task<RedisResult> SkipAndLogDuplicateKeys(Task<RedisResult> resultTask)
{
// implementation omitted for brevity
return await resultTask;
}
}
Related
I have a following problem. I register my components and initialize them in Unity like this (example is for a Console application):
public class SharePointBootstrapper : UnityBootstrapper
{
...
public object Initialize(Type type, object parameter) =>
Container.Resolve(type,
new DependencyOverride<IClientContext>(Container.Resolve<IClientContext>(parameter.ToString())),
new DependencyOverride<ITenantRepository>(Container.Resolve<ITenantRepository>(parameter.ToString())));
public void RegisterComponents()
{
Container
.RegisterType<IClientContext, SharePointOnlineClientContext>(SharePointClientContext.Online.ToString())
.RegisterType<IClientContext, SharePointOnPremiseClientContext>(SharePointClientContext.OnPremise.ToString())
.RegisterType<ITenantRepository, DocumentDbTenantRepository>(SharePointClientContext.Online.ToString())
.RegisterType<ITenantRepository, JsonTenantRepository>(SharePointClientContext.OnPremise.ToString());
}
}
public enum SharePointClientContext
{
Online,
OnPremise
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
...
bootstrap.RegisterComponents();
var bla = bootstrap.Initialize(typeof(ISharePointManager), SharePointClientContext.Online);
}
}
So, I register my components in MVC, WCF, Console etc. once with RegisterComponents() and initialize them with Initialize().
My question is, if I want to initialize specific named registration at runtime, from e.g. user input, can it be done otherwise as the code presented (with InjectionFactory or similar)?
This code works fine, but I'm not happy with its implementation. I have a feeling that it could be written in RegisterComponents() instead of Initialize() so that it accepts a parameter of some type, but I don't know how to do it.
Or, is maybe my whole concept wrong? If so, what would you suggest? I need to resolve named registration from a parameter that is only known at runtime, regardless of the technology (MVC, WCF, Console, ...).
Thanks!
Instead of doing different registrations, I would do different resolves.
Let's say that you need to inject IClientContext, but you want different implementations depending on a runtime parameter.
I wrote a similiar answer here. Instead of injecting IClientContext, you could inject IClientContextFactory, which would be responsible for returning the correct IClientContext. It's called Strategy Pattern.
public interface IClientContextFactory
{
string Context { get; } // Add context to the interface.
}
public class SharePointOnlineClientContext : IClientContextFactory
{
public string Context
{
get
{
return SharePointClientContext.Online.ToString();
}
}
}
// Factory for resolving IClientContext.
public class ClientContextFactory : IClientContextFactory
{
public IEnumerable<IClientContext> _clientContexts;
public Factory(IClientContext[] clientContexts)
{
_clientContexts = clientContexts;
}
public IClientContext GetClientContext(string parameter)
{
IClientContext clientContext = _clientContexts.FirstOrDefault(x => x.Context == parameter);
return clientContext;
}
}
Register them all, just as you did. But instead of injecting IClientContext you inject IClientContextFactor.
There also another solution where you use a Func-factory. Look at option 3, in this answer. One may argue that this is a wrapper for the service locator-pattern, but I'll leave that discussion for another time.
public class ClientContextFactory : IClientContextFactory
{
private readonly Func<string, IClientContext> _createFunc;
public Factory(Func<string, IClientContext> createFunc)
{
_createFunc = createFunc;
}
public IClientContext CreateClientContext(string writesTo)
{
return _createFunc(writesTo);
}
}
And use named registrations:
container.RegisterType<IClientContext, SharePointOnlineClientContext>(SharePointClientContext.Online.ToString());
container.RegisterType<IClientContext, SharePointOnPremiseClientContext>(SharePointClientContext.OnPremise.ToString());
container.RegisterType<IFactory, Factory>(
new ContainerControlledLifetimeManager(), // Or any other lifetimemanager.
new InjectionConstructor(
new Func<string, IClientContext>(
context => container.Resolve<IClientContext>(context));
Usage:
public class MyService
{
public MyService(IClientContextFactory clientContextFactory)
{
_clientContextFactory = clientContextFactory;
}
public void DoStuff();
{
var myContext = SharePointClientContext.Online.ToString();
IClientContextclientContext = _clientContextFactory.CreateClientContext(myContext);
}
}
Using AutoFixture with the AutoFixture.AutoMoq package, I sometimes find tests that weren't configured to correctly test the thing they meant to test, but the problem was never discovered because of the default (Loose) Mock behavior:
public interface IService
{
bool IsSomethingTrue(int id);
}
void Main()
{
var fixture = new Fixture()
.Customize(new AutoMoqCustomization());
var service = fixture.Freeze<Mock<IService>>();
Console.WriteLine(service.Object.IsSomethingTrue(1)); // false
}
I'd like to make Mocks get created with Strict behavior, so we're forced to call Setup() for the methods we expect to be called. I can do this for each individual mock like this:
fixture.Customize<Mock<IService>>(c => c.FromFactory(() => new Mock<IService>(MockBehavior.Strict)));
But after combing through source code for AutoMoqCustomization() and the various ISpecimenBuilder and other implementations, I'm pretty lost as to the best way to just make all Mocks get initialized with strict behavior. The framework appears to be very flexible and extensible, so I'm sure there's a simple way to do this--I just can't figure out how.
There's no simple built-in feature that will enable you to do something like that, but it shouldn't be that hard to do.
Essentially, you'd need to change MockConstructorQuery so that it invokes the constructor that takes a MockBehavior value, and pass in MockBehavior.Strict.
Now, you can't change that behaviour in MockConstructorQuery, but that class is only some 9-10 lines of code, so you should be able to create a new class that implements IMethodQuery by using MockConstructorQuery as a starting point.
Likewise, you'll also need to create a custom ICustomization that does almost exactly the same as AutoMoqCustomization, with the only exception that it uses your custom IMethodQuery with strict mock configuration instead of MockConstructorQuery. That's another 7 lines of code you'll need to write.
All that said, in my experience, using strict mocks is a bad idea. It'll make your tests brittle, and you'll waste a lot of time mending 'broken' tests. I can only recommend that you don't do this, but now I've warned you; it's your foot.
For those interested, down below you can find #MarkSeemann's reply translated into code. I am pretty sure it does not cover all use cases and it was not heavily tested. But it should be a good starting point.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Reflection;
using Moq;
using Ploeh.AutoFixture;
using Ploeh.AutoFixture.AutoMoq;
using Ploeh.AutoFixture.Kernel;
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
public class StrictAutoMoqCustomization : ICustomization
{
public StrictAutoMoqCustomization() : this(new MockRelay()) { }
public StrictAutoMoqCustomization(ISpecimenBuilder relay)
{
// TODO Null check params
Relay = relay;
}
public ISpecimenBuilder Relay { get; }
public void Customize(IFixture fixture)
{
// TODO Null check params
fixture.Customizations.Add(new MockPostprocessor(new MethodInvoker(new StrictMockConstructorQuery())));
fixture.ResidueCollectors.Add(Relay);
}
}
public class StrictMockConstructorMethod : IMethod
{
private readonly ConstructorInfo ctor;
private readonly ParameterInfo[] paramInfos;
public StrictMockConstructorMethod(ConstructorInfo ctor, ParameterInfo[] paramInfos)
{
// TODO Null check params
this.ctor = ctor;
this.paramInfos = paramInfos;
}
public IEnumerable<ParameterInfo> Parameters => paramInfos;
public object Invoke(IEnumerable<object> parameters) => ctor.Invoke(parameters?.ToArray() ?? new object[] { });
}
public class StrictMockConstructorQuery : IMethodQuery
{
public IEnumerable<IMethod> SelectMethods(Type type)
{
if (!IsMock(type))
{
return Enumerable.Empty<IMethod>();
}
if (!GetMockedType(type).IsInterface && !IsDelegate(type))
{
return Enumerable.Empty<IMethod>();
}
var ctor = type.GetConstructor(new[] { typeof(MockBehavior) });
return new IMethod[]
{
new StrictMockConstructorMethod(ctor, ctor.GetParameters())
};
}
private static bool IsMock(Type type)
{
return type != null && type.IsGenericType && typeof(Mock<>).IsAssignableFrom(type.GetGenericTypeDefinition()) && !GetMockedType(type).IsGenericParameter;
}
private static Type GetMockedType(Type type)
{
return type.GetGenericArguments().Single();
}
internal static bool IsDelegate(Type type)
{
return typeof(MulticastDelegate).IsAssignableFrom(type.BaseType);
}
}
}
Usage
var fixture = new Fixture().Customize(new StrictAutoMoqCustomization());
I have a method on an ApiController that looks like this:
public IEnumerable<Items> GetSlideSets() {
IServiceClass serviceClass = new ServiceClass();
//...
Yes, I am aware that this is not good design but I'm addressing this issue in a different iteration.
At a certain point in my application I need to call this functionality from within the project itself so I thought I could simply reuse the controller (and why not, I can pluck it out of my IoC container). The only problem is that in this case, I need to inject my own implementation of IServiceClass, easy enough:
public IEnumerable<Items> GetSlideSets(IServiceClass serviceClass = null) {
serviceClass = serviceClass ?? new ServiceClass();
//...
Except now I am getting errors when calling this via a regular Api call Optionalparameter 'serviceClass' is not supported by FormatterParameterBinding.
I know that there are various attributes that control bindings. Is there one that I can put on the parameter to say it shouldn't bind.
Like others have mentioned, it's probably a better idea to inject the dependency in the constructor.
But if you really must avoid binding an action parameter, there isn't a built-in attribute but you can create one pretty easily. Here's what it could look like:
public class DontBindAttribute : ParameterBindingAttribute
{
public override HttpParameterBinding GetBinding(HttpParameterDescriptor parameter)
{
return new DontBindParameterBinding(parameter);
}
private class DontBindParameterBinding : HttpParameterBinding
{
public DontBindParameterBinding(HttpParameterDescriptor parameter) : base(parameter)
{
}
public override Task ExecuteBindingAsync(ModelMetadataProvider metadataProvider, HttpActionContext actionContext, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
actionContext.ActionArguments.Add(Descriptor.ParameterName, Descriptor.DefaultValue);
var completedTaskSource = new TaskCompletionSource<object>();
completedTaskSource.SetResult(null);
return completedTaskSource.Task;
}
}
}
You just need to apply the attribute to the parameter afterwards:
public IEnumerable<Items> GetSlideSets([DontBind] IServiceClass serviceClass = null)
I searched a lot and still couldn't find a solid solution for this. Suppose you have methods in your application. This methods use "System.Web.Configuration.WebConfigurationManager.OpenWebConfiguration" to access some setting in the web.config. If you try to test these methods, your tests will fail because your test project doesn't have web.config.
What is the best way to solve this problem. For projects with simple config file, I usually use a method like this as facade method.
public class Config
{
public static String getKeyValue(String keyName)
{
if (keyName == String.Empty) return String.Empty;
String result = "";
System.Configuration.Configuration rootWebConfig1 =
System.Web.Configuration.WebConfigurationManager.OpenWebConfiguration(null);
if (rootWebConfig1.AppSettings.Settings.Count > 0)
{
System.Configuration.KeyValueConfigurationElement reportEngineKey =
rootWebConfig1.AppSettings.Settings[keyName];
if (reportEngineKey != null)
{
result = reportEngineKey.Value;
}
}
return result;
}
}
Every time I tried to set the path for OpenWebConfiguration( ), I got the error "The relative virtual path is not allowed"
To make that scenario more testable, I usually take the approach of making a "settings manager" of my own, and giving it an interface. So for example:
public interface IConfig
{
string GetSettingValue(string settingName);
}
Then I can have my "real" implementation:
public sealed class Config : IConfig
{
public string GetSettingValue(string settingName)
{
// your code from your getKeyValue() method would go here
}
}
Then my code that uses it would take in an instance of this (this is an example of the Dependency Inversion Principal):
public void DoStuff(IConfig configuration)
{
string someSetting = configuration.GetSettingValue("ThatThingINeed");
// use setting...
}
So now for my production code, I can call DoStuff and pass in an instance of Config.
When I need to test, I can use a mocking tool (Moq, JustMock, RhinoMocks, etc) to create a fake IConfig that returns a known value without hitting the actual .config file, or you can do it without a mocking framework by making your own mocks (and store them in your test project).
public class ConfigMock : IConfig
{
private Dictionary<string, string> settings;
public void SetSettingValue(string settingName, string value)
{
settings[settingName] = value;
}
public string GetSettingValue(string settingName)
{
return settings[settingName];
}
}
and
[Test]
public void SomeExampleTest()
{
var config = new ConfigMock();
config.SetSettingValue("MySetting", "SomeValue");
var underTest = new MyClass();
underTest.DoStuff(config);
}
The easiest way to do this is to use a mocking library such as moq. It takes a bit of time to figure it out, but once you do you can abstract away most of your plumbing to return the values you need for repeatable, consistent testing.
I am modifiying a class method which formats some input paramater dates which are subsequently used as params in a method call into the base class (which lives in another assembly).
I want to verify that the dates i pass in to my method are in the correct format when they are passed to the base class method so i would like to Moq the base class method call. Is this possible with Moq?
As of 2013 with latest Moq you can. Here is an example
public class ViewModelBase
{
public virtual bool IsValid(DateTime date)
{
//some complex shared stuff here
}
}
public class MyViewModel : ViewModelBase
{
public void Save(DateTime date)
{
if (IsValid(date))
{
//do something here
}
}
}
public void MyTest()
{
//arrange
var mockMyViewModel = new Mock<MyViewModel>(){CallBase = true};
mockMyViewModel.Setup(x => x.IsValid(It.IsAny<DateTime>())).Returns(true);
//act
mockMyViewModel.Object.Save();
//assert
//do your assertions here
}
If I understand your question correctly, you have a class A defined in some other assembly, and then an class B implemented more or less like this:
public class B : A
{
public override MyMethod(object input)
{
// Do something
base.MyMethod(input);
}
}
And now you want to verify that base.MyMethod is called?
I don't see how you can do this with a dynamic mock library. All dynamic mock libraries (with the exception of TypeMock) work by dynamically emitting classes that derive from the type in question.
In your case, you can't very well ask Moq to derive from A, since you want to test B.
This means that you must ask Moq to give you a Mock<B>. However, this means that the emitted type derives from B, and while it can override MyMethod (which is still virtual) and call its base (B.MyMethod), it has no way of getting to the original class and verify that B calls base.MyMethod.
Imagine that you have to write a class (C) that derives from B. While you can override MyMethod, there's no way you can verify that B calls A:
public class C : B
{
public override MyMethod(object input)
{
// How to verify that base calls its base?
// base in this context means B, not A
}
}
Again with the possible exception of TypeMock, dynamic mock libraries cannot do anything that you cannot do manually.
However, I would assume that calling the base method you are trying to verify has some observable side effect, so if possible, can you use state-based testing instead of behaviour-based testing to verify the outcome of calling the method?
In any case, state-based testing ought to be your default approach in most cases.
Agree with Mark, it's not possible using Moq.
Depending on your situation you may consider swithcing from inheritance to composition. Then you'll be able to mock the dependency and verify your method. Of course in some cases it just might not worth it.
wrap the base class method in a method and setup that method
e.g.
public class B : A
{
public virtual BaseMyMethod(object input)
{
// Do something
base.MyMethod(input);
}
public override MyMethod(object input)
{
// Do something
BaseMyMethod(input);
}
}
and now Setup the BaseMyMethod
It is quite possible mocking base class. But you will have to modify target class.
For ex. DerivedClass extends BaseClass.
BaseClass has methods MethodA(), MethodB(), MethodC()...
The DerivedClass has this method:
void MyMethod() {
this.MethodA();
this.MethodB();
this.MethodC();
}
You want to mock base class in order to validate that all MethodA(), MethodB(), MethodC() are being called inside MyMethod().
You have to create a field in the DerivedClass:
class DerivedClass {
private BaseClass self = this;
...
}
And also You have to modify the MyMethod():
void MyMethod() {
self.MethodA();
self.MethodB();
self.MethodC();
}
Also add a method, which can inject the this.self field with Mock object
public void setMock(BaseClass mock) {
this.self = mock;
}
Now you can mock:
DerivedClass target = new DerivedClass ();
BaseClass mock = new Mock(typeof(BaseClass));
target.setMock(mock);
target.MyMethod();
mock.verify(MethodA);
mock.verify(MethodB);
mock.verify(MethodC);
Using this technic, you can also mock nested method calls.
I found this solution - ugly but it could work.
var real = new SubCoreClass();
var mock = new Mock<SubCoreClass>();
mock.CallBase = true;
var obj = mock.Object;
mock
.Setup(c => c.Execute())
.Callback(() =>
{
obj.CallBaseMember(typeof(Action), real, "Execute");
Console.WriteLine(obj.GetHashCode());
}
);
public static Delegate CreateBaseCallDelegate(object injectedInstance, Type templateDelegate, object instanceOfBase, string methodName)
{
var deleg = Delegate.CreateDelegate(templateDelegate, instanceOfBase, methodName);
deleg.GetType().BaseType.BaseType.GetField("_target", BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.NonPublic).SetValue(deleg, injectedInstance);
return deleg;
}
public static object CallBaseMember(this object injectedInstance, Type templateDelegate, object instanceOfBase, string methodName, params object[] arguments)
{
return CreateBaseCallDelegate(injectedInstance, templateDelegate, instanceOfBase, methodName).DynamicInvoke(arguments);
}