I have two ViewModels, MainWindowShellViewModel(shellVm) and MainWindowContentViewModel(contentVm). The shellVm publishes an event and the contentVm subscribes to it.
The shell VM looks something like the following. I have omitted many details.
// ctor
public MainWindowShellViewModel(IEventAggregator eventAggregator)
{
_EventAggregator = eventAggregator ?? throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(IEventAggregator) + " service injected is null!!!");
_AppStartingClosingEventToken = _EventAggregator.GetEvent<AppStartingClosingEvent>();
}
private void MainWindowShellLoaded()
{
var payload = new AppStartingClosingEventData();
payload.Data = "MainWindowStarting";
_AppStartingClosingEventToken.Publish(payload);
}
The AppStartingClosingEvent is a no brainer type as follows.
public class AppStartingClosingEvent : PubSubEvent<AppStartingClosingEventData>
{ }
public class AppStartingClosingEventData
{
public string Data { get; set; }
}
And finally, the contentVm looks as follows.
public MainWindowContentViewModel(IEventAggregator eventAggregator)
{
_AppClosingEventToken.Subscribe(AppStartingClosing);
}
private void AppStartingClosing(AppStartingClosingEventData appStartingClosingEventData)
{
if (appStartingClosingEventData.Data == "MainWindowStarting")
LoadState(appStartingClosingEventData);
if (appStartingClosingEventData.Data == "MainWindowClosing")
SaveState(appStartingClosingEventData);
}
I want to test the that the method AppStartingClosing inside of contentVm is called with proper data. I am using Moq
I am running out of ideas. Please suggest. Tried the following but so far no success.
How do I test Prism event aggregator subscriptions, on the UIThread?
Using Moq to verify a Prism event subscription fails
Unit testing with Moq, Prism 6, and Event Aggregation
Moq Event Aggregator Is it possible
// Verifying a delegate was called with Moq
EDIT
Here is what I have tried.
// Arrange
var mockingKernel = new MoqMockingKernel();
var eventAggregatorMock = mockingKernel.GetMock<IEventAggregator>();
var eventBeingListenedTo = new AppStartingClosingEvent();
eventAggregatorMock.Setup(e => e.GetEvent<AppStartingClosingEvent>()).Returns(eventBeingListenedTo);
var vm = mockingKernel.Get<MainWindowContentViewModel>();
var evData = new AppStartingClosingEventData();
evData.Data = "MainWindowStarting";
// Act
eventBeingListenedTo.Publish(evData);
Now, what should I do? I am not even clear if I have approached correctly.
Now what should I do?
After eventBeingListenedTo.Publish(evData); look whether whatever effect SaveState should have is actually happening.
I am not even clear if I have approached correctly.
You do not want to test whether one method in a class is called by another method of that class.
So instead of trying to do
subjectUnderTest.DoStuff();
MagicallyVerifyThatThisGotCalled( () => subjectUnderTest.SomeEffect() );
you should do
var subjectUnderTest = new SubjectUnderTest( serviceMock.Object );
subjectUnderTest.DoStuff();
serviceMock.Verify( x => x.SomeEffectOnTheService(), Times.Once );
Assert.That( subjectUnderTest.SomePropertyThatsChanged, Is.EqualTo( newValue ) );
Whatever SubjectUnderTest does internally to achieve the desired effect, is not in the scope of the test. It's private to SubjectUnderTest, you don't care how it is done as long as it is done at all. When testing, look at the externally visible state of your subject under test, and what it does to its dependencies.
Related
We are transitioning from Xamarin.Forms to .Net MAUI but our project uses Prism.Unity.Forms. We have a lot of code that basically uses the IContainer.Resolve() passing in a collection of ParameterOverrides with some primitives but some are interfaces/objects. The T we are resolving is usually a registered View which may or may not be the correct way of doing this but it's what I'm working with and we are doing it in backend code (sometimes a service). What is the correct way of doing this Unity thing in DryIoC? Note these parameters are being set at runtime and may only be part of the parameters a constructor takes in (some may be from already registered dependencies).
Example of the scenario:
//Called from service into custom resolver method
var parameterOverrides = new[]
{
new ParameterOverride("productID", 8675309),
new ParameterOverride("objectWithData", IObjectWithData)
};
//Custom resolver method example
var resolverOverrides = new List<ResolverOverride>();
foreach(var parameterOverride in parameterOverrides)
{
resolverOverrides.Add(parameterOverride);
}
return _container.Resolve<T>(resolverOverrides.ToArray());
You've found out why you don't use the container outside of the resolution root. I recommend not trying to replicate this error with another container but rather fixing it - use handcoded factories:
internal class SomeFactory : IProductViewFactory
{
public SomeFactory( IService dependency )
{
_dependency = dependency ?? throw new ArgumentNullException( nameof(dependency) );
}
#region IProductViewFactory
public IProductView Create( int productID, IObjectWithData objectWithData ) => new SomeProduct( productID, objectWithData, _dependency );
#endregion
#region private
private readonly IService _dependency;
#endregion
}
See this, too:
For dependencies that are independent of the instance you're creating, inject them into the factory and store them until needed.
For dependencies that are independent of the context of creation but need to be recreated for each created instance, inject factories into the factory and store them.
For dependencies that are dependent on the context of creation, pass them into the Create method of the factory.
Also, be aware of potential subtle differences in container behaviours: Unity's ResolverOverride works for the whole call to resolve, i.e. they override parameters of dependencies, too, whatever happens to match by name. This could very well be handled very differently by DryIOC.
First, I would agree with the #haukinger answer to rethink how do you pass the runtime information into the services. The most transparent and simple way in my opinion is by passing it via parameters into the consuming methods.
Second, here is a complete example in DryIoc to solve it head-on + the live code to play with.
using System;
using DryIoc;
public class Program
{
record ParameterOverride(string Name, object Value);
record Product(int productID);
public static void Main()
{
// get container somehow,
// if you don't have an access to it directly then you may resolve it from your service provider
IContainer c = new Container();
c.Register<Product>();
var parameterOverrides = new[]
{
new ParameterOverride("productID", 8675309),
new ParameterOverride("objectWithData", "blah"),
};
var parameterRules = Parameters.Of;
foreach (var po in parameterOverrides)
{
parameterRules = parameterRules.Details((_, x) => x.Name.Equals(po.Name) ? ServiceDetails.Of(po.Value) : null);
}
c = c.With(rules => rules.With(parameters: parameterRules));
var s = c.Resolve<Product>();
Console.WriteLine(s.productID);
}
}
[Route("api/[controller]")]
public class DigitalDocumentController : Controller
{
private IDigitalDocumentService digitalDocumentService;
private IDatabaseInitializer databaseInitializer;
public DigitalDocumentController(IDigitalDocumentService digitalDocumentService)
{
this.digitalDocumentService = digitalDocumentService;
}
public DigitalDocumentController(IDatabaseInitializer databaseInitializer)
{
this.databaseInitializer = databaseInitializer;
}
i want two controller constructor in my project to Mock in xUnit Testing, but there was an error in my swagger interface {
"error": "Multiple constructors accepting all given argument types have been found in type 'i2ana.Web.Controllers.DigitalDocumentController'. There should only be one applicable constructor."
}
can anybody help me how i can do it ?
…
what i am try to do , is to test Uniquness of the Name Field in my database
My testing code:
[Fact]
public void AddNotUniqueName_ReturnsNotFoundObjectResult()
{
var digitalDocument = new DigitalDocument
{
Image = new byte[] { 0x20, 0x20, 0x20, 0x20, 0x20, 0x20, 0x20 },
CreatedOn = DateTime.Today,
Id = 6,
Location = "temp",
Name = "Flower",
Tages = new List<Tag> { new Tag { Id = 1, Value = "Tag 1" }, new Tag { Id = 1, Value = "Tag 2" } }
};
// Arrange
var mockRepo = new Mock<IDatabaseInitializer>();
mockRepo.Setup(repo => repo.SeedAsync()).Returns(Task.FromResult(AddUniqueDigitalDocument(digitalDocument)));
var controller = new DigitalDocumentController(mockRepo.Object);
// Act
var result = controller.Add(digitalDocument);
// Assert
var viewResult = Assert.IsType<NotFoundObjectResult>(result);
var model = Assert.IsAssignableFrom<int>(viewResult.Value);
Assert.NotEqual(6, model);
}
the "AddUniqueDigitalDocument" returns 6 only to test that the new digitaldocumet is not the same id of my initialize data.
When using dependency injection, you should only have one constructor where all dependencies can be satisfied. Otherwise, how is the DI container to know which constructor to utilize? That's your issue here. Using the Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection package, and since this is a controller you're injecting into, there's only one reasonable way to solve this: don't register one or the other of the services, IDigitalDocumentService or IDatatabaseInitializer. If only one is registered, the service collection will simply use the constructor it has a registered service for.
It's possible with a more featured DI container, you might be able to configure something to allow it choose the proper constructor. How to do that would be entirely dependent on the DI container you end up going with, though, so not much more can be said on the subject at this point. Just realize that the default container (Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection) is intentionally simplistic, so if you needs are more complex, you should sub in a full DI container.
UPDATE
You should be doing integration testing with the test host and an in-memory database. The basic approach is:
public MyTests()
{
_server = new TestServer(new WebHostBuilder().UseStartup<TestStartup>());
_context = _server.Host.Services.GetRequiredService<MyContext>();
_client = _server.CreateClient();
}
In your app's Startup, create a virtual method:
public virtual void ConfigureDatabase(IServiceCollection services)
{
// normal database setup here, e.g.
services.AddDbContext<MyContext>(o =>
o.UseSqlServer(Configuration.GetConnectionString("Foo")));
}
Then, in ConfigureServices, replace your database setup with a call to this method.
Finally, in your test project, create a TestStartup class and override the ConfigureDatabase method:
public class TestStartup : Startup
{
public override void ConfigureDatabase(IServiceCollection services)
{
var databaseName = Guid.NewGuid().ToString();
services.AddDbContext<MyContext>(o =>
o.UseInMemoryDatabase(databaseName));
}
}
Now, in your tests you just make requests against the test client (which is just an HttpClient instance, so it works like any other HttpClient). You start by setting up your database with appropriate test data, and then ensure that the correct response is returned:
// Arrange
_context.Add(new DigitalDocument { Name = "Foo" });
await _context.SaveChanges();
// Act
// Submit a `DigitalDocument` with the same name via `_client`
// Assert
// Inspect the response body for some indication that it was considered invalid. Or you could simply assert that no new `DigitalDocument` was created by querying `_context` (or both)
This is admittedly a lot easier with an API, as with a web application, you're going to invariably need to do some HTML parsing. However, the docs and corresponding sample app help you with that.
Additionally, in actual practice, you'd want to use a test fixture to prevent having to bootstrap a test server for every test. Again, the docs have you covered there. One thing to note, though, is that once you switch to using a fixture, your database will then be persisted between tests. To segregate your test data, make sure that you call EnsureDeleted() on your context before each test. This can be easily done in the test class' constructor:
public class MyTests : IClassFixture<WebApplicationFactory<Startup>>
{
private readonly HttpClient _client;
private readonly MyContext _context;
public MyTests(WebApplicationFactory<Startup> factory)
{
factory = factory.WithWebHostBuilder(builder => builder.UseStartup<TestStartup>());
_client = factory.CreateClient();
_context = factory.Server.Host.Services.GetRequiredService<MyContext>();
_context.EnsureDeleted();
}
I don't even like this much bootstrapping code in my tests, though, so I usually inherit from a fixture class instead:
public class TestServerFixture : IClassFixture<WebApplicationFactory<Startup>>
{
protected readonly HttpClient _client;
protected readonly MyContext _context;
public TestServerFixture(WebApplicationFactory<Startup> factory)
{
factory = factory.WithWebHostBuilder(builder => builder.UseStartup<TestStartup>());
_client = factory.CreateClient();
_context = factory.Server.Host.Services.GetRequiredService<MyContext>();
_context.EnsureDeleted();
}
}
Then, for each test class:
public class MyTests : TestServerFixture
{
public MyTests(WebApplicationFactory<Startup> factory)
: base(factory)
{
}
This may seem like a lot, but most of it is one-time setup. Then, your tests will be much more accurate, more robust, and even easier in many ways.
I have a method like this:
public int InsertOrUpdateCustomer(Customer customer)
{
var result = default(int);
try
{
using (var customerContext = new Customer())
{
var customerResult = customerContext.UpdateGraph(coupon, map => map.OwnedCollection(p => p.CustomerPoints));
couponsContext.SaveChanges();
result = customerResult.CustomerTypeID;
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
// Log the Exception
}
return result;
}
It creates an instance of CustomerContext, Saves, and returns the new CustomerID.
I am trying to use Moq for this and have this method where the test needs to check for a integer value being returned.
[TestMethod]
public void Inserting_A_Customer_Should_Return_A_IntegerValue(Customer customer)
{
var mock = new Mock<ICustomerRepository>();
int customerId = 1;
mock.Setup(c => c.InsertOrUpdateCustomer(customer)).Returns(new Customer() { Id = customerId });
}
That gives this error:
cannot convert from 'Entities.Commerce.Customer' to 'System.Func<int>'
I am also new to Moq.
What I would like to know from this question is, if one has a code like above, how does one proceed with writing Unit Tests.
It would be of great help if some pointers are given in getting to know that process.
Thanks in advance.
The error itself is because the method you are setting up is of this signature:
public int InsertOrUpdateCustomer(Customer customer)
Whereas your setup is trying to return a customer
mock.Setup(c => c.InsertOrUpdateCustomer(customer))
.Returns(new Customer() { Id = customerId });
Changing this to return a fake int such as .Returns(42); will avoid the error.
The not so good news is if the purpose of the test is Inserting_A_Customer_Should_Return_A_IntegerValue that you will be mocking the very thing you are trying to test (you would just be testing Moq).
What you need to do is Moq out your DbContext, which makes this line problematic, given its tight coupling:
using (var customerContext = new CustomerContext())
The suggestion here is to either allow the DbContext to be injected into the constructor of your class you are testing (or inject a factory interface which can create a DbContext).
You can then Mock the DbContext and the relevant IDbSets (Customers) as per this MSDN article here, which you can then inject into your class being tested, and test any logic / branching in your class.
I have a test where I pass in an object like so:
var repo = new ActualRepo();
var sut = new Sut(repo);
In my test, Repo has one method that I need to actually execute, whilst another method I want to mock out and not execute.
So for example, take this pseudocode:
var repo = new Mock<IRepo>();
repo.Setup(m => m.MethodIWantToCall()).WillBeExecuted();
repo.Setup(m => m.MethodIWantToMock()).Returns(false);
Using Moq, is this possible and how can it be done?
EDIT:
I've used TypeMock in the past and you can do something like.
Isolator.When(() => repo.MethodToIgnore()).WillBeIgnored();
Isolator.When(() => repo.MethodToActuallyRun()).WillBeExecuted();
Not too sure from the question if this is useful but it is possible to partially mock an object if the method that you want to mock is virtual.
public class Foo {
public string GetLive() {
return "Hello";
}
public virtual string GetMock() {
return "Hello";
}
}
public class Snafu {
private Foo _foo;
public Snafu(Foo foo) {
_foo = foo;
}
public string GetMessage() {
return string.Format("{0} {1}", _foo.GetLive(), _foo.GetMock());
}
}
[TestMethod]
public void NotMocked() {
var snafu = new Snafu(new Foo());
Assert.AreEqual("Hello Hello", snafu.GetMessage());
}
[TestMethod]
public void Mocked() {
var mockFoo = new Mock<Foo>();
mockFoo.Setup(mk => mk.GetMock()).Returns("World");
var snafu = new Snafu(mockFoo.Object);
Assert.AreEqual("Hello World", snafu.GetMessage());
}
You can't do this with Moq if you use the same object unless one of the method is virtual and you are basing your mock on a type rather than an interface.
That's because when you are passing a mock object based on an interface, you aren't passing a real object so it does not have access to the real methods of the object.
You are passing a dynamic proxy which will respond to methods it has been setup to respond to.
I believe TypeMock rewrites the assemblies at runtime to achieve this, something Moq definitively doesn't do.
If you want to achieve similar results with Moq:
You could mock both methods
You would have to extract both methods to different dependencies so as to mock one dependency and not the other.
You could have the method you need mocked be virtual, which would be the solution I would prefer.
EDIT : I edited my answer for correctness after reading AlanT's answer.
I'm testing some event dispatch code in a Flex app, using FlexUnit's addAsync method for testing that events are dispatched. Great so far, I can ensure that at least one event was fired. However, I want to be a bit more detailed; I want to ensure that exactly the set of events I'm expecting are dispatched. Is there a useful test pattern (or, even, different test framework -- I'm flexible!) to accomplish this?
I tried this code, but it doesn't seem to get invoked the second time:
protected function expectResultPropertyChange(event: Event, numberOfEvents: int = 1): void {
trace("Got event " + event + " on " + event.target + " with " + numberOfEvents + " traces left...");
assertTrue(event.type == ResponseChangedEvent.RESPONSE_CHANGED);
if (numberOfEvents > 1) {
event.target.addEventListener(ResponseChangedEvent.RESPONSE_CHANGED, addAsync(expectResultPropertyChange, 1000, numberOfEvents - 1));
}
}
public function testSomething(): void {
requiredQuestion.addEventListener(ResponseChangedEvent.RESPONSE_CHANGED, addAsync(expectResultPropertyChange, 1000, 2));
requiredQuestion.responseSelected("1", true);
requiredQuestion.responseSelected("2", true);
}
In response to the comment...
What if the event is dispatched
directly? responseSelected doesn't
trigger an asynchronous event on a
composite object, it simply dispatched
the RESPONSE_CHANGED event itself
directly. I'm not seeing how this
approach can be mocked using your
method. Mind you, I'm fuzzy on the
mock testing practice as-is, so I'm
probably missing a simple solution
here.
..in that case you don't need to use a mock or addAsync. Something like this will do:
public function testSomething(): void
{
var requiredQuestion : RequiredQuestion = new RequiredQuestion();
var callCount : int = 0;
requiredQuestion.addEventListener(ResponseChangedEvent.RESPONSE_CHANGED, function(event : ResponseChangedEvent)
{
callCount++;
});
requiredQuestion.responseSelected("1", true);
requiredQuestion.responseSelected("2", true);
assertEquals(2, callCount);
}
This is going to be a high level example of how a similar problem could be solved using a mocked out object of whatever it is that's doing the asynchronous call. Obviously i can't see your code so i can't give you a precise example.
So, as i said in the comment, you can mock out a dependency in a class to fake asynchronous calls so that they become synchronous. Take the below class
public class RequiredQuestion extends EventDispatcher
{
private var someAsynchronousObject : IAsynchronousObject;
public function RequiredQuestion(someAsynchronousObject : IAsynchronousObject = null)
{
someAsynchronousObject = someAsynchronousObject || new AsynchronousObject();
someAsynchronousObject.addEventListener(Event.COMPLETE, asyncCallComplete);
}
public function responseSelected(id : String, flag : Boolean) : void
{
//Will asynchronously fire the Event.COMPLETE event
someAsynchronousObject.startAsynchrounsCall();
}
protected function asyncCallComplete(event : Event) : void
{
dispatchEvent(new ResponseChangedEvent(ResponseChangedEvent.RESPONSE_CHANGED));
}
}
So by default you are using the concrete class that you want to use unless someAsynchronousObjec is injected into the class via the constructor. AsycnhronousObject probably has it's own unit tests or it's in an external class so you don't really want, or need to be testing its functionality. What you can now do is create a mock object that implements IAsynchronousObject that can be used to fake its behavior. Using the ASMock framework the test could look something like this:
public function testSomething(): void
{
var mockIAsycnhronousObject : IAsynchronousObject =
IAsynchronousObject(mockRepository.createStrict( IAsynchronousObject));
SetupResult.forEventDispatcher(mockIAsycnhronousObject);
SetupResult.forCall(mockIAsycnhronousObject.startAsynchronousCall())
.dispatchEvent(new Event(Event.COMPLETE)); // all calls to the startAsynchronousCall method and dispatch the complete event everytime it's called.
mockRepository.replayAll();
var requiredQuestion : RequiredQuestion = new RequiredQuestion(mockIAsycnhronousObject);
var callCount : int = 0;
requiredQuestion.addEventListener(ResponseChangedEvent.RESPONSE_CHANGED, function(event : ResponseChangedEvent)
{
callCount++;
});
requiredQuestion.responseSelected("1", true);
requiredQuestion.responseSelected("2", true);
assertEquals(2, callCount);
mockRepository.verifyAll();
}
This is just one example of how mocking can help you unit tests. There's a whole wealth of info out there on mocking although it is still very new to ActionScript (released in December). ASMock is based on the .net Rhino mocks so searching for Rhino mocks should throw up a lot more results if you need help.
Definitely a different way of thinking but once you get into it you tend to wonder how you got by in unit testing without them.