I refactored some tests in my solution from MSTest to xUnit. Even though all my tests passed using MSTest, there were some changes performed that made me wonder how everything was so easily passing during my refactor.
I put contradictory assertions at the end of a test and debugged. Even though the result looked like what I wanted it to look like (the object was null), it passed both Assertions. How is this possible? What am I doing wrong?
The following is my test. The naming is modified, because this is code I am working on at work, but the modifications end at simple replacing of words. I added comments to show some of my intentions as well as what happened when I debugged the test.
using AutoFixture.Xunit;
using Moq;
using My.Core.Project.Interfaces;
using My.Core.Project].Models;
using My.UI.Project.Factories.Sidebar;
using System;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
using Xunit;
using Xunit.Extensions;
[Theory, AutoData]
public async Task GetReturnedObject_NoReturnedObject_EmptyResult(Guid returnedObjectIdentifier, ReturnedObjectType setupObject)
{
//Arrange
var mockServiceClient = new Mock<IServiceClient>(MockBehavior.Strict);
var returnedObjectIdentifierParameter = returnedObjectIdentifier.ToString(); //Parse logic in the method exists, so I had to make sure the input was not just any string
setupObject = null; //I want the search in the method to not find anything.
mockServiceClient.Setup(c => c.GetReturnedObjectById(It.IsAny<Guid>())).ReturnsAsync(setupObject);
var factory = new Factory();
//Act
var returnedObject = await factory.GetReturnedObject(mockServiceClient.Object, returnedObjectIdentifierParameter); //returnedObject is NULL.
//Assert
Assert.Null(returnedObject); //Hovered over returnedObject. It's NULL.
Assert.NotNull(returnedObject); //Hovered over returnedObject, again. Still NULL. THIS SHOULD FAIL!
}
Related
I have a method in .NET (GetDataStationParts), which I declare with 2 parameters, I want to call it from a JavaScript, and I use the InvokeMethodAsyn function in this way:
const { data } = require("jquery");
function GetParteScrap()
{
var idestacionjs = document.getElementById('getestacion');
var idmodelojs = document.getElementById('getmodelo');
var tablascrap = DotNet.InvokeMethodAsyn("YMMScrapSystem", "GetDataStationParts", idestacionjs, idmodelojs);
console.log(tablascrap);
}
To do it, I base it on an example on the web but I'm not sure where it gets the DotNet object to then invoke the method, the intention of my code is that after selecting parameters of 2 , go to the database and execute a SQL-level function, which will return a table, with the function GetDataStationParts, I try to give it the functionality to execute my method at the DB level as follows
[JSInvokable]
public async Task<IEnumerable<GetEstacionParte>>GetDataStationParts(int modelo, int estacion)
{
var resul = await _context.Set<GetEstacionParte>().FromSqlInterpolated($"SELECT * FROM dbo.GetEstacionParte({modelo},{estacion})").ToArrayAsync();
return resul;
}
The SQL level function works correctly, but when running the application at the console level in the browser, it throws the following error, where it indicates that the function is not defined
Where could the error be? Thank you for reading
require() is not a feature that is built into the browser. Javascript environment does not understand how to handle require(), In Node.js by Default this function is available.
I suspect you most probably missing some reference here. You can either download require.js from here & link with your application or use below script tag.
<script src="https://requirejs.org/docs/release/2.3.5/minified/require.js"></script>
I've migrated concepts from a couple of CQRS frameworks I've seen and just started facing some issues.
I have a common EntityDbContext subclass which I use in any consuming project without further extension to suit the domain of the application, rather I provide interfaces, IReadEntities and IWriteEntities which have methods like Query() and Get() which behind the scenes call Set() returning the DbSet() then allowing the standard LINQ expressions to be chained on as for any EF query. I'm facing issues around using Include() on my IQueryables as I'm using LinqKit with AsExpandable() at the end of all my calls. This is what my context Query methods look like
public new IQueryable<TEntity> Query<TEntity>() where TEntity : class, IEntity
{
// AsNoTracking returns entities that are not attached to the DbContext
return QueryUnfiltered<TEntity>().Where(_recordAuthority.Clause<TEntity>());
}
public IQueryable<TEntity> QueryUnfiltered<TEntity>() where TEntity : class, IEntity
{
// AsNoTracking returns entities that are not attached to the DbContext
return Set<TEntity>().AsNoTracking().AsExpandable();
}
A typical query handler looks like this:
public async Task<IEnumerable<GetCustomerView>> Handle(CustomersBy query, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
var customers = _db.Query<Customer>();
// Apply filters
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(query.FirstName))
customers = customers.Where(x => x.FirstName.Contains(query.FirstName));
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(query.LastName))
customers = customers.Where(x => x.LastName.Contains(query.LastName));
// Execute the query and return the results
var view = await customers.Select(x => new GetCustomerView
{
Id = x.Id,
FirstName = x.FirstName,
LastName = x.LastName,
EmailAddress = x.EmailAddress
}).ToListAsync(cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(false) as IEnumerable<GetCustomerView>;
return view;
}
This scenario works fine if I wanted to pull address details from a related table as I use projection on the database serve given I'm using the Select prior to execution. There are scenarios though where it makes sense to pull an object graph back and specify Include(...) statements but as it stands specifying _db.Query<Customer>().Include(c => c.Address) doesn't hydrate the Address navigation property. I've tried leaving the AsExpandable() off and then the results come back.
The question is, does anyone see a way to allow the Include statements to be provided maybe as a parameter to the method and then I loop through them and tack them on before calling AsExpandable()? I can't quite get my head around how to do it, if it's possible.
Maybe there's another approach?
Interestingly this apparently works fine on a version of this pattern a colleague uses where they are using EF 6. He says they specify Include after the AsExpandable without a problem.
This is known issue with EF Core and LinqKit AsExpandable (and in general with any extension library which uses custom IQueryProvider to perform its query expression tree preprocessing like LinqKit), because EF Core ignores all EF Core specific IQueryable extensions (Include / ThenInclude, AsNoTracking etc.) it the query provider is different (or does not inherit) the EF Core one (EF6 has no such requirements).
With that being said, currently there is no other solution than applying all EF Core specific extensions before calling AsExpandable.
Ok this works. I created an overload:
public IQueryable<TEntity> Query<TEntity, TProperty>(IEnumerable<Expression<Func<TEntity, TProperty>>> includes) where TEntity : class, IEntity
{
var query = Set<TEntity>().AsNoTracking();
foreach (var expression in includes)
{
query = query.Include(expression);
}
return query.AsExpandable();
}
From my handler I create a list of include expressions and pass to the Query:
var includes = new List<Expression<Func<Customer, object>>>
{
c => c.Address
};
var customers = _db.Query(includes);
var result = await customers.ToListAsync(cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(false);
Execution of the query has the navigation property populated:
Means I'm not 'Fluent'ly chaining them from the client code's perspective, but I don't think it's terrible.
Thoughts?
Below is a minimal example of the problem I am currently encountering:
using System.Net.WebSockets;
using AutoFixture;
using AutoFixture.AutoMoq;
using FluentAssertions;
using Xunit;
...
[Fact]
public void Test1()
{
var fixture = new Fixture().Customize(new AutoMoqCustomization() { ConfigureMembers = true });
var sut = fixture.Create<WebSocket>();
sut.Should().NotBeNull();
}
[Fact]
public void Test2()
{
var fixture = new Fixture().Customize(new AutoMoqCustomization() { ConfigureMembers = true });
var sut = new Mock<WebSocket>().Object;
fixture.Inject(sut);
sut.Should().NotBeNull();
}
...
When I run the first test, I get the following exception:
AutoFixture.ObjectCreationExceptionWithPath : AutoFixture was unable to create an instance from Moq.Mock`1[System.IO.Stream] because creation unexpectedly failed with exception. Please refer to the inner exception to investigate the root cause of the failure.
Inner exception messages:
System.BadImageFormatException: An attempt was made to load a program with an incorrect format. (Exception from HRESULT: 0x8007000B)
The second test succeeds.
I would like to be able to create an instance of a class using AutoFixture which takes a WebSocket as a constructor parameter, without the need to inject a mock object first (ultimately, so that I can use an AutoMoqData attribute, and get rid of some boilerplate). Have I got any misusage or misunderstanding going on here, or would this be better placed as a GitHub issue? In the interim, is there anything I can do to work around this issue?
You observe this issue because of the AutoFixture's factory discovery strategy. When you try to create an object of an abstract type, AutoFixture still inspects the type to find a static factory method to activate the object. In your particular case, the WebSocket type contains such methods, so some of them is used. It looks like it doesn't work well with auto-generated input values, so fails with an exception.
You can customize AutoFixture, to always mock the WebSocket type:
fixture.Register((Mock<WebSocket> m) => m.Object);
Just tested with the latest versions of products (AutoFixture 4.5.0, Moq 4.10.0) and it works like a charm.
here is the code of an alloy controller written in two different ways. Although the both work the same, Which one might be best practice?
example 1 of controller.js:
var currentState = true;
$.getState = function(){
return currentState;
}
example 2 of controller.js:
var currentState = true;
exports.getState = function(){
return currentState;
}
Titanium is based on the CommonJS framework. The exports variable is a special variable used typically to expose a public API in a class object. So when you want to expose a method of doSomething() on the MyModule.js class you would use the exports variable like this:
exports.doSomething() = function(args) {
//Some really cool method here
};
Then reference that class using
var myModule = require('MyModule');
myModule.doSomething();
However when referencing a view object the typical way to reference the is using the $. shortcut. You can see they prefer that method in the official documentation.
http://docs.appcelerator.com/platform/latest/#!/guide/Alloy_XML_Markup
The $ variable holds a reference to your controller instance. It also contains some references to all indexed views (understand, views for which you supplied an index in you xml markup).
Both ways are strictly equivalent as, during the compilation, Alloy will merge the content of the exports with your controller referenced in $. Adding them directly to the instance won't change a thing.
Neverthless, developers are used to see the public API as the set of functions exported via the special variable exports; Thus, I will recommend to keep using it in a clean and clear way (for instance, defining your functions in your module scope, and only expose them at the end or beginning of your controller).
function myFunction1 () { }
function myFunction2 () { }
function myFunction3 () { }
exports.myFunction1 = myFunction1;
exports.myFunction3 = myFunction3;
Thereby, your API is quite clear for people diving into your source code. (A readMe file is also highly recommended :) ).
I am testing a method which will call another method if certain parameters are certain values and not if they are other.
I was using Moq's Verify to test this. However when I use the xUnit to see if the method is not called when sending parameters with data which should not make the method call the 2nd method.
Problem is that I cannot do
mockObject.Verify();
Assert.Throws<Moq.MockVerificationException>(()=>mockObject.Method());
I changed from MSTest to xUnit because the support for throws was built in and I had to have the ExpectedException attribute decorating my test method before.
I tried to cast the Moq non-public exception to the public parent Moq.MoqException but that will throw an error.
so I think I may have to do:
try {moqObj.Verify();}
catch(Moq.Exception mve)
{
Assert.SomethingIsException();
}
As I understand, you're just trying to verify whether certain methods are called or not? If so, try this:
var theThing = new Mock<IThing> ();
theThing.Verify (x => x.DoSomething ("a"), Times.Never);
theThing.Verify (x => x.DoSomething ("b"), Times.Once);
If you need to invoke another method after the first method is called, you could use a callback:
theThing.Setup (x => x.DoSomething ("a")).Callback (() => {});