I am creating a mock and a stub.
The stub is the following contract:
public interface IMailService
{
void SetCredentials(ICredentials credentials);
bool Connect();
}
My assert is the following:
"Passing the right credentials to IMailService, will connect succesfully".
So I have created my mock object:
var mockAdapter = new Mock<IMailService>();
Now I should prepare this adapter. If the SetCredentials method is called using the right credentials, then the Connect() method should return true. Otherwise it will return false.
I am just not sure how I can setup this behavior using Moq.
You need 2 tests to cover this, one in which Connect returns true and one in which it returns false.
[Fact] // or [Test] depending on your testing framework
public void MailServiceConnectsIfCredentialsAreValid()
{
var mockMailService = new Mock<IMailService>();
mockMailService.Setup(x => x.Connect()).Returns(true);
// The rest of your code which will use the mockMailService.Object...
}
[Fact]
public void MailServiceFailsToConnectIfCredentialsAreInvalid()
{
var mockMailService = new Mock<IMailService>();
mockMailService.Setup(x => x.Connect()).Returns(false);
// The rest of your code which will use the mockMailService.Object...
}
For the purpose of your test, you do not care what ICredentials are passed. You are just covering the 2 possibilities of IMailService.Connect() which are it returns true or false. The actual logic for determining which will happen will exist in your tests for the actual implementation of IMailService.
You could also potentially scrap the SetCredentials method and just pass the ICredentials to Connect.
bool Connect(ICredentials credentials);
Related
I'm trying to do integration testing against a MediatR Command whose handler depends on an IRequestClient injected into its constructor.
public class SayHelloCommand : IRequest<string>
{
}
public class SayHelloCommandHandler : IRequestHandler<SayHelloCommand, string>
{
private readonly IRequestClient<IGetProfileMessageResult> _profileClient;
public SayHelloCommandHandler(IRequestClient<IGetProfileMessageResult> profileClient)
{
_profileClient = profileClient;
}
public async Task<string> Handle(SayHelloCommand request, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
var profile = (await _profileClient.GetResponse<IGetProfileMessageResult>(new {ProfileId = 1})).Message;
return $"Hello {profile.FirstName}";
}
}
I've setup my test suite to use the InMemoryMassTransit but whenever I run my test it times out when it reaches the call using the IRequestClient<>. I've also tried to moq the IRequestClient to return a default response like this -
[Test]
public async Task ShouldSayHello()
{
var mockRequestClient = new Mock<IRequestClient<IGetProfileMessageResult>>();
mockRequestClient.Setup(x => x.GetResponse<IGetProfileMessageResult>(It.IsAny<Object>(), default, default)
.Result.Message).Returns(new GetProfileMessageResult
{
FirstName = "John"
});
serviceCollection.Add(new ServiceDescriptor(typeof(IRequestClient<IGetProfileMessageResult>), mockRequestClient.Object));
var result = await SendAsync(command);
result.Status.Should().BeFalse();
result.Message.Should().Contain("John");
}
but this still times out.
Is there a way I can set up the InMemoryMassTransit to return a default response when the requestclient is called?
You could use the in-memory test harness to setup a simple consumer that would respond to the request, instead of trying to mock IRequestClient. Though you should be able to mock it if you want, I just don’t know the syntax to properly configure your mock framework.
There are many samples using the test harness available, as well as all of the MassTransit unit tests.
I have these two methods in my service class
public class PatientService : IPatientService
{
private readonly IRestClient _restClient;
private readonly IAppSettings _appSettings;
public PatientService(IRestClient restClient, IAppSettings appSettings)
{
_restClient = restClient;
_appSettings = appSettings;
}
public async Task<IList<PatientViewModel>> GetPatients(int wardId)
{
var url = _appSettings.Server + _appSettings.PatientServiceEndPoint + wardId;
var token = _appSettings.Token;
return GetPatientList(await _restClient.GetAsync<List<PatientInfo>>(url, token));
}
public IList<PatientViewModel> GetPatientList(IList<PatientInfo> patientInfoList)
{
return patientInfoList.Select(p => new PatientViewModel(p)).ToList();
}
}
I need to add this code to my Xunit.cs. How to do it?
I've implemented this and I do not know how to proceed.
private readonly PatientListPageViewModel _patientListPageViewModel;
private readonly Mock<IPatientService> _patient;
public PatientServiceTests()
{
_patient = new Mock<IPatientService>();
_patientListPageViewModel = new PatientListPageViewModel(_patient.Object);
}
[Fact]
public void GetListByWard_PassingWardId_GetPatientsCountAccordingToWardId()
{
}
This is what I tried to do. How to convert those two methods in service to be testable?
You did get mocking a bit wrong. It is not the component under test that is mocked, but its dependencies. When unit-testing you'd like to test a unit in isolation. Your case of mocking would be kind of correct if you unit-tested the PatientListPageViewModel, but since your test class is named PatientServiceTests I assume that you really wanted to test PatientService. If you wanted to test the former, you would be quite right to mock IPatientService, but when testing PatientService, IRestClient and IAppSettings shall be mocked
public PatientServiceTests()
{
_restClientMock = new Mock<IRestClient>();
_appSettingsMock = new Mock<IAppSettings>();
_patientService = new PatientService(_restClientMock.Object, _appSettingsMock.Object);
}
And your test could be something like
[Fact]
public async Task ReturnsCorrectPatientList() // async supported as of xUnit 1.9
{
// set up the mock
_restClientMock.SetUp(restClient => restClient.GetAsync<List<Patient>>(It.IsAny<string>(), It.IsAny<string>())
.Returns(() => Task.FromResult(/* what patients it shall return */));
var result = await _patientService.GetPatients(0);
// compare whether the returned result matches your expectations
}
If you wanted to test whether the URL is formed correctly, you could use Verify
[Theory]
[InlineData("SERVER", "ENDPOINT", 12, "1234", "SERVERENDPOINT12")]
[InlineData("https://localhost:65000", "/patients/", 5, https://localhost:65000/patients/5")]
public void TestWhetherCorrectUrlIsCalled(string server, string endpoint, int wardId, string token, string expectedUrl)
{
_appSettingsMock.SetupGet(appSettings => appSettings.Server).Returns(server);
_appSettingsMock.SetupGet(appSettings => appSettings.PatientServiceEndPoint).Returns(endpoint);
_appSettingsMock.SetupGet(appSettings => appSettings.Token).Returns(token);
_restClientMock.SetUp(restClient => restClient.GetAsync<List<Patient>>(It.IsAny<string>(), It.IsAny<string>())
.Returns(() => Task.FromResult(new List<Patient>()));
// we do not need the result
await _patientService.GetPatients(wardId);
_restClientMock.Verify(restClient => restClient.GetAsync<List<Patient>>(exptectedUrl, token), Times.Once);
}
We are setting up the IRestClient in this case, since it would return null otherwise. And await null would cause your test to fail. After GetPatients has been called we are using Verify to verify that GetAsync has been called with the correct parameters. If it has not been called, Verify will throw and your test will fail. Times.Once means, that GetAsync shall have been called once and only once.
On a side note: Viewmodels shall have a meaning in the context of your user interface only. Services shall be independent and hence not return viewmodels, as you did, but POCOs (or maybe domain models). In this case the interface of your service should be
public interface IPatientService
{
public async Task<IList<Patient>> GetPatients(int wardId);
// ...
}
I'm trying to migrate my app to work with RxJava.
I already use Retrofit and therefore I'm trying to use a Retrofit interface which methods return Observables.
However I'm now having issues with coding tests against it, as I can't get the Observable to run on the main thread; I'm trying to use Scheduler.immediate() for it.
It seems that Retrofit doesn't allow to override it's behaviour, which makes totally sense for the real execution flow, but it makes testing very difficult.
As I've just started with RxJava + Retrofit I just hope I'm doing something wrong instead.
Below is what the code looks like:
#Test
public void shouldCompleteRequest() {
SomeRestRequest request = new SomeRestRequest(arg1, arg2);
TestSubscriber<SomeRestResponse> testSubscriber = new TestSubscriber<>();
new SomeRestCommand(mRestApi,
arg1, arg2
Schedulers.immediate(),
Schedulers.immediate(),
mMockEventBus).execute(request, testSubscriber);
testSubscriber.assertCompleted();
}
where
public void execute(T request, Observer<S> observer) {
getCommand(request)
.observeOn(mObserveOnScheduler) //The test injects Schedulers.immediate()
.subscribeOn(mSubscribeOnScheduler) //The test injects Schedulers.immediate()
.subscribe(observer);
}
,
#Override
protected Observable<SomeRestResponse> getCommand(SomeRestRequest request) {
return mRestApi.restCommand(arg1, arg2);
}
and
public interface RestApi {
#GET("/someEndPoint")
Observable<SomeRestResponse> restCommand(#Query("arg1") String arg1, #Query("arg2") String arg2);
}
If you modify your test to add testSubscriber.awaitTerminalEvent();, then your test will wait for the call to complete and hence the test will pass. You will still have to do an assertCompleted() as the terminal event can be either of successful completion or error.
#Test
public void shouldCompleteRequest() {
SomeRestRequest request = new SomeRestRequest(arg1, arg2);
TestSubscriber<SomeRestResponse> testSubscriber = new TestSubscriber<>();
new SomeRestCommand(mRestApi,
arg1, arg2
Schedulers.immediate(),
Schedulers.immediate(),
mMockEventBus).execute(request, testSubscriber);
testSubscriber.awaitTerminalEvent(); // add this line here
testSubscriber.assertCompleted();
}
I looked up the source code of Retrofit 1.9.0 and as per RxSupport class, the call is always executed in a separate thread provided by the httpExecutor. Hence using Schedulers.immediate() did not cause the call to happen in the main thread.
SignalR does not have the ability to have client methods which returns a value. So I am trying to create a helper class to make this possible.
So this is what I am trying to do:
Server side: Call client method and provide unique request id Client(clientId).GetValue(requestId)
Server side: Save requestId and wait for answer using ManualResetEvent
Client side: Inside void GetValue(Guid requestId) call server method hubProxy.Invoke("GetValueFinished", requestId, 10)
Server side: find waiting method by requestId => set return value => set signal
Server side: Method not longer waiting vor ManualResetEvent and returns retrieved value.
I am able to get it work unfortunately. Here is my code:
public static class MethodHandler
{
private static ConcurrentDictionary<Guid, ReturnWaiter> runningMethodWaiters = new ConcurrentDictionary<Guid,ReturnWaiter>();
public static TResult GetValue<TResult>(Action<Guid> requestValue)
{
Guid key = Guid.NewGuid();
ReturnWaiter returnWaiter = new ReturnWaiter(key);
runningMethodWaiters.TryAdd(key, returnWaiter);
requestValue.Invoke(key);
returnWaiter.Signal.WaitOne();
return (TResult)returnWaiter.Value;
}
public static void GetValueResult(Guid key, object value)
{
ReturnWaiter waiter;
if (runningMethodWaiters.TryRemove(key, out waiter))
{
waiter.Value = value;
}
}
}
internal class ReturnWaiter
{
private ManualResetEvent _signal = new ManualResetEvent(false);
public ManualResetEvent Signal { get { return _signal; } }
public Guid Key {get; private set;}
public ReturnWaiter(Guid key)
{
Key = key;
}
private object _value;
public object Value
{
get { return _value; }
set
{
_value = value;
Signal.Set();
}
}
}
Using this MethodHandler class I need to have two method server side:
public int GetValue(string clientId)
{
return MethodHandler.GetValue<int>(key => Clients(clientId).Client.GetValue(key));
}
public void GetValueResult(Guid key, object value)
{
MethodHandler.GetValueResult(key, value);
}
Client side implementation is like this:
// Method registration
_hubProxy.On("GetValue", new Action<Guid>(GetValue));
public void GetValue(Guid requestId)
{
int result = 10;
_hubConnection.Invoke("GetValueResult", requestId, result);
}
PROBLEM:
if I call server side GetValue("clientid"). The client method will not be invoked. If I comment out returnWaiter.Signal.WaitOne();, client side GetValue is called and server side GetValueResult is called. But of course this time the method has already returned.
I thought is has to do with the ManualResetEvent but even using while(!returnWaiter.HasValue) Thread.Sleep(100); will not fix this issue.
Any ideas how to fix this issue?
Thanks in advance!
First, I think that, rather than asking for help in how to make it synchronous, it would be best if you just told us what it is you're trying to do so we could suggest a proper approach to do it.
You don't show your MethodHandler::Retrieve method, but I can guess pretty much what it looks like and it's not even the real problem. I have to tell you in the nicest possible way that this is a really bad idea. It will simply never scale. This would only work with a single SignalR server instance because you're relying on machine specific resources (e.g. kernel objects behind the ManualResetEvent) to provide the blocking. Maybe you don't need to scale beyond one server to meet your requirements, but this still a terrible waste of resources even on a single server.
You're actually on the right track with the client calling back with the requestId as a correlating identifier. Why can't you use that correlation to resume logical execution of whatever process you are in the middle of on the server side? That way no resources are held around while waiting for the message to be delivered to the client, processed and then the follow up message, GetValueResult in your sample, to be sent back a the server instance.
Problem solved:
The problem only occured in Hub.OnConnected and Hub.OnDisconnected. I don't have an exact explanation why, but probably these methods must be able to finish before it will handle your method call to the client.
So I changed code:
public override Task OnConnected()
{
// NOT WORKING
Debug.Print(MethodHandler.GetValue<int>(key => Clients(Context.ConnectionId).Client.GetValue(key)));
// WORKING
new Thread(() => Debug.Print(MethodHandler.GetValue<int>(key => Clients(Context.ConnectionId).Client.GetValue(key)))).Start();
return base.OnConnected();
}
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.