The code below shows interface and remote object are coded in the same file How to separate them into two files ?
Current Code :
<s:RemoteObject id="ro"
destination="customerService"
source="customerService"
endpoint="http://localhost/amfphp/gateway.php"
showBusyCursor="true">
<s:method name="getCustomer" result="getCustomer_resultHandler(event)">
<s:arguments>
<CusOpt>{''}</CusOpt>
<option>{''}</option>
<idcompany>{2}</idcompany>
</s:arguments>
</s:method>
<s:method name="genPKID" result="genPKID_resultHandler(event)">
<s:arguments>
<idcompany>{2}</idcompany>
</s:arguments>
</s:method>
</s:RemoteObject>
Wrong way of doing :
import mx.rpc.remoting.RemoteObject;
public class CustomerRO extends RemoteObject
{
public function CustomerRO(destination:String=null)
{
super(destination);
this.destination = "customerService";
this.source = "customerService";
this.endpoint = "http://localhost/amfphp/gateway.php";
this.showBusyCursor = true;
}
}
You want to create a client-side service stub for your remote service. There's a few steps to get this set up properly.
Create the service interface
For brevity we'll create an interface with just one method, but you can add as many as you need.
package be.vmm.user.service {
import mx.rpc.AsyncToken;
public interface ICustomerService{
function getCustomerById(id:int):AsyncToken;
}
}
Create an implementation of the interface
In your example you are extending RemoteObject. I would suggest you encapsulate it: that would be a lot more flexible. Not to mention that in your code the connection information is hardcoded which requires you to recompile your application every time this info changes.
public class CustomerService implements ICustomerService {
private var ro:RemoteObject;
public function CustomerService(ro:RemoteObject) {
this.ro = ro;
}
public function getCustomerById(id:int):AsyncToken {
return ro.getCustomerById(id);
}
}
You also have the option to create another implementation of the interface. The most common use case consists of creating a mock service that doesn't really connect to the server but returns fake data directly. If you want to test your application without server connection you can now just substitute your real service stub with the mock service stub, since they both implement the same interface.
Use the implementation
var ro:RemotObject = new RemoteObject();
ro.destination = "customerService";
ro.source = "customerService";
ro.endpoint = "http://localhost/amfphp/gateway.php";
ro.showBusyCursor = true;
//these properties are best externalized in a configuration file
var service:ICustomerService = new CustomerService(ro);
var token:ASyncToken = service.getCustomerById(1);
token.addResponder(new Responder(handleResult, handleFault));
private function handleResult(event:ResultEvent):void {
//do what you need to do
trace(event.result as Customer);
}
private function handleFault(event:FaultEvent):void {
//show error message
}
Related
UPDATE 2: FIXED THE CODE at the end
I have the abp.io service below with 2 parameters in the constructor instantiated via DI.
One of them, IOutcomeWriter, has 2 implementations.
I'd like to define at runtime which of the implementations of IOutcomeWriter to use.
This is the main service:
public class UCManagerService
: DomainService, IUCManagerService, ITransientDependency {
private readonly IUCInputReader _inputReader;
// This field can have 2 or 3 implementations.
private readonly IOutcomeWriter _outcomeWriter;
public UCManagerService(
IUCInputReader inputReader, IOutcomeWriter outcomeWriter) {
_inputReader = inputReader;
_outcomeWriter = outcomeWriter;
}
public async Task ExecuteAsync() {
// start processing the input and generate the output
var input = _inputReader.GetInput());
// do something
// ...
_outcomeWriter.Write(something);
}
}
The main service is registered in the AbpModule together with with IUCInputReader and the 2 implementations of IOutcomeWriter:
[DependsOn(
typeof(SwiftConverterDomainModule),
typeof(AbpAutofacModule) // <= use Autofac in some way (I don't know how)
)]
public class ProgramAppModule : AbpModule {
public override void ConfigureServices(ServiceConfigurationContext context) {
context.Services.AddTransient<IUCManagerService, UCManagerService>();
context.Services.AddTransient<IUCInputReader, UCInputReader>();
// 2 implementations of IOutcomeWriter
context.Services.AddTransient<IOutcomeWriter, OutcomeWriter1>();
context.Services.AddTransient<IOutcomeWriter, OutcomeWriter2>();
}
}
What I would like is to instantiate UCManagerService sometimes with OutcomeWriter1 and sometimes with OutcomeWriter2, according to some values in appsettings.json:
IList<JobSetting> jobsToSet = _configuration.GetSection("Jobs")
.Get<List<JobSetting>>();
foreach (JobSetting jobToSet in jobsToSet) {
// If jobsToSet.SomeValue == 'MyValue1' following line should have to
// require a IUCManagerService using OutcomeWriter1. If it is
// 'MyValue2' it'd use OutcomeWriter2, and so on:
var service = abpApplication.ServiceProvider.GetRequiredService<IUCManagerService>(); // ???
// do something else with service
// ...
}
Finally, if a tomorrow I add an OutcomeWriter3 I would just like to register it in ProgramAppModule.ConfigureServices(...) and of course use a different key in appsettings.json.
If I understand correctly, you need the IOutcomeWriter to differ based on the currently executed job. In other words, that means that you need to dynamically switch the writer based on its context.
The fact that it you need to change it dynamically, it means that is not a problem that can be solved solely using your DI configuration, because DI configurations are best kept static.
Instead, you need to mix and match a few concepts. First of all, you need a way to set the used job in the context. For instance:
// DI configuration
services.AddScoped<JobContext>();
// Execution of a job
using (var scope = abpApplication.ServiceProvider.CreateScope())
{
var context = scope.GetRequiredService<JobContext>();
context.CurrentJob = typeof(MyFirstJob);
var job = scope.GetRequiredService<MyFirstJob>();
var job.Execute();
}
In this example, JobContext is a class that holds the data that is used during the execution of a certain job. It is registered as Scoped to allow this data to be available for multiple classes within the same scope.
Now using this new JobContext, you can build an adapter for IOutcomeWriter that can forward the incoming call to the right implementation based on its injected JobContext. This might look as follows:
public class JobSpecificOutcomeWriter : IOutcomeWriter
{
private readonly JobContext context;
private readonly IList<JobSetting> settings;
private readonly IEnumerable<IOutcomeWriter> writers;
public JobSpecificOutcomeWriter(
JobContext context,
IList<JobSetting> settings,
IEnumerable<IOutcomeWriter> writers)
{
this.context = context;
this.settings = settings;
this.writers = writers;
}
// Implement all IOutcomeWriter methods by forwarding them to the
// CurrentWriter.
object IOutcomeWriter.SomeMethod(object a) =>
this.CurrentWriter.SomeMethod(a);
private IOutcomeWriter CurrentWriter
{
get
{
// TODO: Based on the current context and the settings,
// select the proper outcome writer from the writers list.
}
}
}
When JobSpecificOutcomeWriter is injected into UCManagerService (or any component for that matter), it transparently allows the proper writer to be used, without the consuming class from knowing about this.
The tricky part, actually, is to now configure your DI container correctly using JobSpecificOutcomeWriter. Depending on which DI Container you use, your mileage might vary and with the MS.DI Container, this is actually quite complicated.
services.AddTransient<IOutcomeWriter>(c =>
new JobSpecificOutcomeWriter(
context: c.GetRequiredService<JobContext>(),
settings: jobsToSet,
writers: new IOutcomeWriter[]
{
c.GetRequiredService<MyFirstJob>(),
c.GetRequiredService<MySecondJob>(),
c.GetRequiredService<MyThirdJob>(),
});
services.AddTransient<MyFirstJob>();
services.AddTransient<MySecondJob>();
services.AddTransient<MyThirdJob>();
[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.
In our project I have modules scout.client, scout.server, scout.shared and backend.
Backend has no dependencies to scout.server and scout.shared, but scout.server has dependencies to backend.
Inside backend project I have all business logic and calling all outside services.
My problem is when I try to test scout services that use some service from backend.
Because scout provide some great tool for mocking beans, we defined our service inside backend as beans as :
BEANS.getBeanManager().registerClass(CarService.class);
BEANS.getBeanManager().registerClass(PartnerService.class);
Both, CarService.class and PartnerService.class are in backend.
When I try to write some tests and I add #BeanMock to service in test
#BeanMock
private IPartnerService partnerService;
I get mock, but then every return every function is null, even if I write
doReturn(PartnerBuilder.standardPartnerListWithOneElement()).when(this.partnerService)
.getPartners(any(Set.class));
If I debug in my test, before this test is called with debugger I can get :
partnerService.getPartners(...) -> return a list of person
what is right, but when class that is tested calles this service it return null.
I understand that this could be due to missing annotation on interface #ApplicationScoped. Without this there is no guarantee that only one bean is created, and when statement react on another copy of that bean...?
I could not add annotation on interface because backend has no dependencies to scout modules.
How could I handle this kind of cases?
Tested class is :
public class UtilityPartner {
/**
* Method return service bean for getting partners by ids.
*
* #return
*/
private static IPartnerService getPartnerService() {
return BEANS.get(IPartnerService.class);
}
public static String getPartnerName(final Long partnerId) {
if (partnerId == null) {
return "";
}
final List<Partner> partners =
(List<Partner>) getPartnerService().getPartners(Sets.newHashSet(partnerId));
if (partners == null || partners.isEmpty()) {
return "";
}
final Partner partner = partners.get(0);
return LookupUtil.createLookupDescription(partner.getId(), partner.getName());
}
}
test class is :
#RunWith(ServerTestRunner.class)
#RunWithSubject("anonymous")
#RunWithServerSession(ServerSession.class)
public class TestUtilityPartner {
#BeanMock
private IPartnerService partnerService;
#Before
public void init() {
doReturn(PartnerBuilder.standardPartnerListWithOneElement()).when(this.partnerService).getPartners(any(Set.class));
}
#Test
public void getPartnerName() {
final String name = UtilityPartner.getPartnerName(10L);
Assert.assertEquals("My name", name); // NAME IS ""
}
}
Using #BeanMock does not help here, because you are not using an application scoped service:
In the init method you are changing the local field partnerService. However, in your test you call UtilityPartner.getPartnerService, which is creating a new instance (with BEANS.get(IPartnerService.class)).
#BeanMock is more useful for convenience for mocking application scoped beans.
You can always register your beans manually as shown by Jmini. Please do not forget to unregister the bean again after the test!
We recommend using org.eclipse.scout.rt.testing.shared.TestingUtility.registerBean(BeanMetaData), which is automatically adding a testing order and removing #TunnelToServer annotations.
I think that you should register your mock instance in the Bean manager (See bean registration in the Scout Architecture Document). You should use a small order (-10 000 is recommended for tests), in order for your mock to win over the productive registration. The best approach is to use the TestingUtility class to register/unregister your mock. Do not forget to call the unregisterBean() method (in the method annotated with #After):
import java.util.Collections;
import org.eclipse.scout.rt.platform.BeanMetaData;
import org.eclipse.scout.rt.platform.IBean;
import org.eclipse.scout.rt.testing.shared.TestingUtility;
import org.junit.After;
import org.junit.Assert;
import org.junit.Before;
import org.junit.Test;
import org.mockito.Mockito;
public class TestUtilityPartner {
private IBean<?> beanRegistration;
#Before
public void init() {
partnerService = Mockito.mock(IPartnerService.class);
// Register the mock using the Bean meta information:
BeanMetaData beanData = new BeanMetaData(IPartnerService.class)
.withInitialInstance(partnerService)
.withApplicationScoped(true);
this.beanRegistration = TestingUtility.registerBean(beanData);
// Mockito behavior:
Mockito.doReturn(Collections.singletonList(new Partner(34L, "John Smith")))
.when(partnerService).getPartners(Mockito.any(Set.class));
}
#After
public void after() {
// Unregister the mocked services:
TestingUtility.unregisterBean(this.beanRegistration);
}
#Test
public void getPartnerName() {
String name = UtilityPartner.getPartnerName(10L);
Assert.assertEquals("10 - John Smith", name);
}
}
I am not sure what #BeanMock (org.eclipse.scout.rt.testing.platform.mock.BeanMock) is doing, but according to Judith Gull's answer it will not work:
Using #BeanMock does not help here, because you are not using an application scoped service:
In the init method you are changing the local field partnerService. However, in your test you call UtilityPartner.getPartnerService, which is creating a new instance (with BEANS.get(IPartnerService.class)).
#BeanMock is more useful for convenience for mocking application scoped beans.
My app flow is as follows (simplified for clarity):
User GETs a page from "/page1"
User performs actions on the page (adds text, clicks, etc..), while Signalr communicates this data to the server, which performs heavy calculations in the background, and the results of those are returned to the page (lets call those "X").
When the user is finished with the page, he clicks a link to "/page2", that is returned by Nancy. This page is built using a Model that is dependent on X.
So, how do I build that Model based on X? How can signalr write to the user session in a way that Nancy can pick up on?
(I'm looking for a "clean" way)
Pending formal integration of Signalr & Nancy, this is what I came with. Basically, I share an IOC container between the two, and use an object (singleton lifetime) that maps users to state.
How to share an IOC container using the built in TinyIOC:
Extend Signalr's DefaultDependencyResolver
public class TinyIoCDependencyResolver : DefaultDependencyResolver
{
private readonly TinyIoCContainer m_Container;
public TinyIoCDependencyResolver(TinyIoCContainer container)
{
m_Container = container;
}
public override object GetService(Type serviceType)
{
return m_Container.CanResolve(serviceType) ? m_Container.Resolve(serviceType) : base.GetService(serviceType);
}
public override IEnumerable<object> GetServices(Type serviceType)
{
var objects = m_Container.CanResolve(serviceType) ? m_Container.ResolveAll(serviceType) : new object[] { };
return objects.Concat(base.GetServices(serviceType));
}
}
Replace Signalr's default DependencyResolver with our new one
public class Bootstrapper : DefaultNancyBootstrapper
{
protected override void ApplicationStartup(TinyIoCContainer container, IPipelines pipelines)
{
CookieBasedSessions.Enable(pipelines);
// Replace UserToStateMap with your class of choice
container.Register<IUserToStateMap, UserToStateMap>();
GlobalHost.DependencyResolver = new TinyIoCDependencyResolver(container);
RouteTable.Routes.MapHubs();
}
}
Add IUserToStateMap as a dependency in your hubs and Nancy modules
public class MyModule : NancyModule
{
public MyModule(IUserToStateMap userToStateMap)
{
Get["/"] = o =>
{
var userId = Session["userId"];
var state = userToStateMap[userId];
return state.Foo;
};
}
}
public class MyHub : Hub
{
private readonly IUserToStateMap m_UserToStateMap;
public MyHub(IUserToStateMap userToStateMap)
{
m_UserToStateMap = userToStateMap;
}
public string MySignalrMethod(string userId)
{
var state = userToStateMap[userId];
return state.Bar;
}
}
What I would really want, is a way to easily share state between the two based on the connection ID or something like that, but in the meantime this solution works for me.
Did you arrive hear looking for a simple example of how to integrate Nancy and SignalR? I know I did.
Try this question instead (I self-answered it).
SignalR plus NancyFX : A simple but well worked example
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.