My app has a ProviderFactory static class that has static utility methods passing back static instances of things like a logger. The rest of my app then can just grab a/the reference to the logger from anywhere without having to pass in the logger (common design practice).
So, another part of my app, the DbCacheProvider, has methods that make calls to the logger so internally it gets a reference to the logger from the factory and then issues calls to it.
My question is that using Moq, I want to verify methods on the logger are being called by the methods within the DbCacheProvider. I can do this using dependency injection when I pass a mock logger into the DbCacheProvider as a parameter, but I'm not passing the logger in (not do I want to). So, how would I verify the DbCacheProvider is making calls to the logger?
If you don't want to pass the logger in through the constructor you'd need to change your ProviderFactory while running unit tests to return your mocked logger.
Anyway there are a couple of reasons it's often suggested to set up dependency injection:
Your tests are more straightforward and don't involve finagling with custom factories
IoC frameworks like Unity, Ninject and Autofac make it easy to create objects when their dependencies are set up this way. If you set up all of your objects this way, the framework will do all the heavy lifting of creating the right objects and passing them in for you. The dependency injection is done automatically and won't be a burden for you.
Old question without an answer, I had a similar problem and solved it like this:
I have the following sample code and need to verify that not only was a method called but was called with a specific value.
public interface ILog
{
void Info(string message);
}
public interface ILogFactory
{
ILog GetLogger();
}
This is the class being tested, where the interface items are being injected:
public class NewAction
{
readonly ILogFactory _logger;
public NewAction(ILogFactory logger)
{
_logger = logger;
}
public void Step1()
{
_logger.GetLogger().Info("Step 1");
}
public void Step2()
{
_logger.GetLogger().Info("Step 2");
}
}
This is obviously a very simplistic view of my actual code, but I needed to verify that Step1 and Step2 are behaving as expected and passed the correct values to the Log, this would mean I also needed to ensure they occurred in the right order. My test:
[TestClass]
public class UnitTest1
{
[TestMethod]
public void TestMethod1()
{
// Arrange
var log = new Mock<ILog>();
var factory = new Mock<ILogFactory>();
factory.Setup(l => l.GetLogger()).Returns(log.Object);
// Act
var action = new NewAction(factory.Object);
action.Step1();
action.Step2();
// Assert
factory.Verify(l => l.GetLogger());
log.Verify(l => l.Info(It.Is<string>(s => s == "Step 1")));
log.Verify(l => l.Info(It.Is<string>(s => s == "Step 2")));
}
}
Hope this helps.
Related
Given I have a factory class responsible for constructing instances of a certain service that has constructor parameters that can only be resolved at runtime, is there a way to leverage container-driven decoration?
Consider the following class which relies on a parameter that is only defined at runtime:
interface IFooService
{
void DoServicyStuff();
}
class MyFooService : IFooService
{
public MyFooService(string somePeskyRuntimeArgument)
{
this.peskyValue = somePeskyRuntimeArgument;
}
public void DoServicyStuff()
{
// do some stuff here with the peskyValue...
}
}
Since the value can only be provided at runtime, we need to move away from the constructor injection and into a method-level parameter passing. This is commonly achieved using a factory implementation like this:
interface IFooServiceFactory
{
IFooService CreateService(string heyItsNowAMethodLevelPeskyParameter);
}
class FooServiceFactory : IFooServiceFactory
{
public IFooService CreateService(string heyItsNowAMethodLevelPeskyParameter)
{
return new MyFooService(heyItsNowAMethodLevelPeskyParameter);
}
}
While this works fine if the intent is to just abstract away the construction of the service, it poses a challenge to decorate the IFooService instance.
For scenarios where no runtime parameter is involved, this can be easily achieved by tapping into the container to provide our service for us. The example below uses the Scrutor library to decorate the interface with a logging decorator implementation:
class FooServiceFactory : IFooServiceFactory
{
private readonly IServiceProvider serviceProvider;
public FooServiceFactory(IServiceProvider serviceProvider)
{
this.serviceProvider = serviceProvider
}
public IFooService CreateService(string heyItsNowAMethodLevelPeskyParameter)
{
return this.serviceProvider.GetRequiredInstance<IFooService>();
}
}
...
services
.AddTransient<IFooService, MyFooService>()
.AddTransient<IFooServiceFactory, FooServiceFactory>()
.Decorate<IFooService, LoggingFooService>();
But since MyFooService takes a primitive value as an argument, we cannot rely on GetRequiredService<T> to obtain the instance, as it will fail to find "a registration for string" when building the concrete class.
Similarly, changing the factory to rely on ActivatorUtilities's .CreateInstance or .CreateFactory methods will end up creating the objects while completely ignoring the container registrations, thus leaving us without any decorator.
I know I have at least 2 options to decorate the objects manually, namely:
Using the factory itself to manually create the decorator:
public IFooService CreateService(string heyItsNowAMethodLevelPeskyParameter)
{
return new LoggingService(
new MyFooService(heyItsNowAMethodLevelPeskyParameter));
}
Using a factory decorator to inject a decorator after the instance is created:
abstract class FooServiceFactoryDecorator : IFooServiceFactory
{
private readonly IFooServiceFactory fooServiceFactory;
protected FooServiceFactory(IFooServiceFactory fooServiceFactory)
{
this.fooServiceFactory = fooServiceFactory;
}
public virtual IFooService CreateService(string heyItsNowAMethodLevelPeskyParameter)
{
return this.fooServiceFactory.CreateService(heyItsNowAMethodLevelPeskyParameter);
}
}
class LoggingFooServiceFactory : FooServiceFactoryDecorator
{
private readonly IFooServiceFactory fooServiceFactory;
public FooServiceFactory(IFooServiceFactory fooServiceFactory)
{
this.fooServiceFactory = fooServiceFactory;
}
public override IFooService CreateService(string heyItsNowAMethodLevelPeskyParameter)
{
return new LoggingFooService(
this.fooServiceFactory.CreateService(heyItsNowAMethodLevelPeskyParameter));
}
}
...
services
.AddTransient<IFooServiceFactory, FooServiceFactory>()
.Decorate<IFooServiceFactory, LoggingFooServiceFactory>()
Neither of these allows me to directly use .Decorate on top of the service interface. The first option works but is heavily coupled (meaning I'd have to keep changing it if I want to add other decorators into the mix), while the second version is less coupled, but still forces me to writing one factory decorator per service decorator and thus leads into a much more complex solution.
Another pain point is dependencies on the decorators themselves (for example, ILogger<T> on the LoggingFooService), which I could potentially solve by leveraging ActivatorUtilities to create the decorators instead of newing them up manually.
I could also potentially generalize the "factory decorator" so that the decoration function is parameterized and thus the class can be reused, but it is still very convoluted and hard to maintain, while also not providing as good a syntax for consumers to add new decorators.
class DecoratedFooServiceFactory<TDecorator> : FooServiceFactoryDecorator
where TDecorator : IFooService
{
private readonly IFooServiceFactory fooServiceFactory;
private readonly IServiceProvider serviceProvider;
public FooServiceFactory(
IFooServiceFactory fooServiceFactory,
IServiceProvider serviceProvider)
{
this.fooServiceFactory = fooServiceFactory;
this.serviceProvider = serviceProvider;
}
public override IFooService CreateService(string heyItsNowAMethodLevelPeskyParameter)
{
return ActivatorUtilities.CreateInstance<TDecorator>(
this.serviceProvider,
this.fooServiceFactory.CreateService(heyItsNowAMethodLevelPeskyParameter));
}
}
...
services
.AddTransient<IFooServiceFactory, FooServiceFactory>()
.Decorate<IFooServiceFactory, DecoratedFooServiceFactory<LoggingFooService>>()
And finally, if I ever want to move away from using a factory and want to change to using the service directly, this will cause a significant setup change where I'd then have to configure all the decorators again in the container directly instead of just removing the factory registration as one normally would do.
How can I use a factory like this, while still keeping the capability of configuring decorators at the container level using the simple Scrutor syntax?
Ok, a couple of disclaimers first:
I agree with Steven here in that this looks like an anti-pattern and you will probably be better off redesigning your code to not require run-time values on service construction.
I additionally want to caution against using scrutor-like Decorate. While much less confident in this than in the first point, I believe hiding logging in decorators is much less convenient in the long run than it seems at first. Or at least that's what I saw after about a year of trying them out.
That said, let's see what can be done.
First, let's put some constraints on where the value is coming from. Specifically, let's say we can have a service providing that value, that looks like this:
public interface IValueProvider
{
string Get();
}
This actually allows us to have quite a bit of range. Implementation of that interface can:
Get value from external API - once or periodically in the background. It can even call it every time Get is called, but this is a very bad idea, as it will make construction asynchronous.
Get value that is stored in memory and allow some other service to update it. Say, expose a 'configuration' endpoint where a user can set a new value every once in a while.
Calculate the value based on some algorithm of your choice.
Once you have this service, you can register it like this:
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
services.AddSingleton<IValueProvider, AwesomeValueProvider>();
services.AddSingleton<IFooServiceFactory, FooServiceFactory>();
services.AddTransient<IFooService>(sp =>
{
var factory = sp.GetRequiredService<IFooServiceFactory>();
var valueProvider = sp.GetRequiredService<IValueProvider>();
return factory.Create(valueProvider.Get());
});
}
Hope this helps
I'm studying blazor server.
Deployed a solution from a standard vs template.
Created two server-side services, TestService1 and TestService2.
In TestService1 i have task
GetMyData()
How can i call with task from TestService2?
If i trying
var serv1 = new TestService1()
i have to fill in all the variables of the constructor that is in TestService1.
What is easiest way?
In line with the comment on your question, the best way to go about this in Blazor is to utilize the built-in dependency injection mechanism.
I assume that your services look like the following:
public class TestService1
{
public object GetMyData()
{
}
}
public class TestService2
{
private readonly TestService1 _testService1 { get; set; }
public class TestService2(TestService1 ts1)
{
_testService1 = ts1;
}
public void DoesSomething()
{
var data = _testService1.GetMyData();
//...
}
}
First, you'd need to register these with Blazor at startup, so in your Startup.cs in the ConfigureServices method, add the following, assuming you have an empty constructor available for TestService1:
services.AddSingleton<TestService1>();
Because you'll need to instantiate an instance of TestService1 into TestService2 to call methods on it, you'll have to handle registration of TestService2 differently since you'll need to procure an instance of TestService1 from the DI service to instantiate it:
services.AddSingleton<TestService2>(s => {
var testService1 = s.GetService<TestService1>();
return new TestService2(testService1);
});
It's possible you may need to scope the services differently (e.g. used scoped instead of singletons). You can read about the differences here.
Now something is presumably calling TestService2 to kick all this off, so let's pretend it's running in a component in your Blazor app. You'd inject TestService2 into the component with the following:
#inject TestService2 _testService2
<h1>Hello!</h1>
#code {
protected override void OnInitialized()
{
_testService2.DoesSomething();
}
}
As part of the initialization then of this component, it'll automatically inject a TestService2 instance (based on the scoping you specified at DI initialization) to your component and will call the DoesSomething method on it. When injected, it looks to DI to instantiate the TestService1 service to the constructor as you've also specified, leaving it free to call that method and the call commences as intended.
Please let me know if you'd like any clarification somewhere!
I came across an interesting article: AOP Aspects as mocks in JUnit
Since I have requirement to mock multiple final and private static variables, I am planning to use AOP in place of reflection or PowerMockito as they are causing issues with SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.
Is there any way I can use #Aspect for test classes without using the annotation #EnableAspectJAutoProxy? (I want to use an aspect targeting class X only in one test case.)
This is a sample of what I want to do.
The question is answered(adding for discussion on what could be done)
//External class
public final class ABC(){
public void method1() throws Exception {}
}
#Service
public void DestClass() {
private static final ABC abc = new ABC();
public Object m() {
// code (...)
try {
abc.method1();
}
catch(Exception e) {
// do something (...)
return null;
}
// more code (...)
}
}
Spring framework allows to programmatically create proxies that advise target objects , without configuring through #EnableAspectJAutoProxy or <aop:aspectj-autoproxy>
Details can be found in the documentation section : Programmatic Creation of #AspectJ Proxies and the implementation is pretty simple.
Example code from the documentation.
// create a factory that can generate a proxy for the given target object
AspectJProxyFactory factory = new AspectJProxyFactory(targetObject);
// add an aspect, the class must be an #AspectJ aspect
// you can call this as many times as you need with different aspects
factory.addAspect(SecurityManager.class);
// you can also add existing aspect instances, the type of the object supplied must be an #AspectJ aspect
factory.addAspect(usageTracker);
// now get the proxy object...
MyInterfaceType proxy = factory.getProxy();
Please note that with Spring AOP , only method executions can be adviced. Excerpt from the documentation
Spring AOP currently supports only method execution join points
(advising the execution of methods on Spring beans). Field
interception is not implemented, although support for field
interception could be added without breaking the core Spring AOP APIs.
If you need to advise field access and update join points, consider a
language such as AspectJ.
The document shared with the question is about aspectj and without providing the sample code to be adviced it is hard to conclude if the requriement can acheived through Spring AOP. The document mentions this as well.
One example of the integration of AspectJ is the Spring framework,
which now can use the AspectJ pointcut language in its own AOP
implementation. Spring’s implementation is not specifically targeted
as a test solution.
Hope this helps.
--- Update : A test case without using AOP ---
Consider the external Class
public class ABCImpl implements ABC{
#Override
public void method1(String example) {
System.out.println("ABC method 1 called :"+example);
}
}
And the DestClass
#Service
public class DestClass {
private static final ABC service = new ABCImpl();
protected ABC abc() throws Exception{
System.out.println("DestClass.abc() called");
return service;
}
public Object m() {
Object obj = new Object();
try {
abc().method1("test");
} catch (Exception e) {
System.out.println("Exception : "+ e.getMessage());
return null;
}
return obj;
}
}
Following test class autowires the DestClass bean with overridden logic to throw exception . This code can be modified to adapt to your requirement.
#RunWith(SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.class)
#ContextConfiguration(classes = { DestClassSpringTest.TestConfiguration.class })
public class DestClassSpringTest {
#Configuration
static class TestConfiguration {
#Bean
public DestClass destClass() {
return new DestClass() {
protected ABC abc() throws Exception {
// super.abc(); // not required . added to demo the parent method call
throw new Exception("Custom exception thrown");
}
};
}
}
#Autowired
DestClass cut;
#Test
public void test() {
Object obj = cut.m();
assertNull(obj);
}
}
Following will be the output log
DestClass.abc() called // this will not happen if the parent method call is commented in DestClassSpringTest.TestConfiguration
Exception : Custom exception thrown
The article you are referring to is using full AspectJ, not Spring AOP. Thus, you do not need any #EnableAspectJAutoProxy for that, just
either the AspectJ load-time weaver on the command line when running your test via -javaagent:/path/to/aspectjweaver.jar
or the AspectJ compiler activated when compiling your tests (easily done via AspectJ Maven plugin if you use Maven)
Both approaches are completely independent of Spring, will work in any project and even when using Spring also work when targeting execution of third party code because no dynamic proxies are needed unlike in Spring AOP. So there is no need to make the target code into a Spring bean or to create a wrapper method in your application class for it. When using compile-time weaving you can even avoid weaving into the third party library by using call() instead of execution() pointcut. Spring AOP only knows execution(), AspectJ is more powerful.
By the way: Unfortunately both your question and your comment about the solution you found are somewhat fuzzy and I do not fully understand your requirement. E.g. you talked about mocking final and private static variables, which would also be possible in other ways with AspectJ by using set() and/or get() pointcuts. But actually it seems you do not need to mock the field contents, just stub the results of method calls upon the objects assigned to those fields.
When using spring-data-rest there is a post processing of Resource classes returned from Controllers (e.g. RepositoryRestControllers). The proper ResourceProcessor is called in the post processing.
The class responsible for this is ResourceProcessorHandlerMethodReturnValueHandler which is part of spring-hateoas.
I now have a project that only uses spring-hateoas and I wonder how to configure ResourceProcessorHandlerMethodReturnValueHandler in such a scenario. It looks like the auto configuration part of it still resides in spring-data-rest.
Any hints on how to enable ResourceProcessorHandlerMethodReturnValueHandler in a spring-hateoas context?
I've been looking at this recently too, and documentation on how to achieve this is non-existent. If you create a bean of type ResourceProcessorInvokingHandlerAdapter, you seem to lose the the auto-configured RequestMappingHandlerAdapter and all its features. As such, I wanted to avoid using this bean or losing the WebMvcAutoConfiguration, since all I really wanted was the ResourceProcessorHandlerMethodReturnValueHandler.
You can't just add a ResourceProcessorHandlerMethodReturnValueHandler via WebMvcConfigurer.addReturnValueHandlers, because what we need to do is actually override the entire list, as is what happens in ResourceProcessorInvokingHandlerAdapter.afterPropertiesSet:
#Override
public void afterPropertiesSet() {
super.afterPropertiesSet();
// Retrieve actual handlers to use as delegate
HandlerMethodReturnValueHandlerComposite oldHandlers = getReturnValueHandlersComposite();
// Set up ResourceProcessingHandlerMethodResolver to delegate to originally configured ones
List<HandlerMethodReturnValueHandler> newHandlers = new ArrayList<HandlerMethodReturnValueHandler>();
newHandlers.add(new ResourceProcessorHandlerMethodReturnValueHandler(oldHandlers, invoker));
// Configure the new handler to be used
this.setReturnValueHandlers(newHandlers);
}
So, without a better solution available, I added a BeanPostProcessor to handle setting the List of handlers on an existing RequestMappingHandlerAdapter:
#Component
#RequiredArgsConstructor
#ConditionalOnBean(ResourceProcessor.class)
public class ResourceProcessorHandlerMethodReturnValueHandlerConfigurer implements BeanPostProcessor {
private final Collection<ResourceProcessor<?>> resourceProcessors;
#Override
public Object postProcessAfterInitialization(Object bean, String beanName)
throws BeansException {
if (bean instanceof RequestMappingHandlerAdapter) {
RequestMappingHandlerAdapter requestMappingHandlerAdapter = (RequestMappingHandlerAdapter) bean;
List<HandlerMethodReturnValueHandler> handlers =
requestMappingHandlerAdapter.getReturnValueHandlers();
HandlerMethodReturnValueHandlerComposite delegate =
handlers instanceof HandlerMethodReturnValueHandlerComposite ?
(HandlerMethodReturnValueHandlerComposite) handlers :
new HandlerMethodReturnValueHandlerComposite().addHandlers(handlers);
requestMappingHandlerAdapter.setReturnValueHandlers(Arrays.asList(
new ResourceProcessorHandlerMethodReturnValueHandler(delegate,
new ResourceProcessorInvoker(resourceProcessors))));
return requestMappingHandlerAdapter;
}
else return bean;
}
}
This has seemed to work so far...
I am creating a small proof of concept asp.net web api 2 service with entity framework code first. The controller's constructor looks like
public AccountController: ApiController
{
private readonly DbContext context;
public AccountController(DbContext _context){
context = _context;
}
public AccountController(){context = new ApplicationContext();}
}
I need to unit test my controllers. How can I mock the DbContext class. Is there a simple way of doing this? I want to avoid all that repository pattern with lot of interfaces. Because it will be a way overkill for this prototype.
Its usually something like this if you use Nunit and Moq.
[TestFixture]
public class AccountControllerTest
{
private Mock<DbContext> mockContext;
private AccountController sut;
[SetUp]
public void TestSetup()
{
mockContext = new Mock<DbContext>();
var account = new Account() { Id = 123, Name = "Test Account" };
mockContext.SetUp(x => x.GetAccountOnContext()).Returns(account);
sut = new Controller(mockContext.Object) { Request = new HttpRequestMessage() };
sut.Request.Properties.Add(HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, new HttpConfiguration());
}
[Test]
public void ControllerMethod_GetLogin_Test()
{
// assuming GetLogin calls GetAccount on DbContext()
var response = sut.GetLogin(someAccount);
Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.OK, response.StatusCode);
mockContext.Verify();
}
}
You basically want to mock out your external dependencies and test just what the SUT (System Under Test) is supposed to do. I would also strongly encourage to look at Fakes instead of mocks. In general fakes result in less brittle tests.
So in this case, you could have a FakeDbContext() that you can pass to the tests. The FakeDbContext() will behave more like the actual DbContext() but will do all those operations in-memory, so that your tests don't have a dependency with a real database.
Depending on the database you use, you can also look at starting an embedded version of the real database as a part of your tests. Just have to make sure to do the necessary stopping and clean up of the test database records after the test run is complete in the TearDown() method.