Has anyone tried this?
I like moq and i like what pex is doing, but haven't tried them together. I'd prefer to use moq over moles in most cases I think but am curious to see if anyone has hit roadblocks?
Do they play nice?
Although I haven't tried, Pex and Moq should get along like old friends.
While the interception techniques between Pex and Moq are different (Pex uses the ProfilerAPI to interpret MSIL instructions; Moq uses DynamicProxy to dynamically derive classes) there are references in the Moq source code that suggest it was designed to prevent re-entrance problems where Pex would interfere with Moq.
According to the original research paper for Pex, you can decorate your code with attributes that control when the Pex rewriter is used.
From the Moq source code:
internal static MethodCall<T> Setup<T>(Mock mock, Expression<Action<T>> expression, Func<bool> condition) where T : class
{
return PexProtector.Invoke(() =>
{
var methodCall = expression.ToMethodCall();
var method = methodCall.Method;
var args = methodCall.Arguments.ToArray();
ThrowIfNotMember(expression, method);
ThrowIfCantOverride(expression, method);
var call = new MethodCall<T>(mock, condition, expression, method, args);
var targetInterceptor = GetInterceptor(methodCall.Object, mock);
targetInterceptor.AddCall(call, SetupKind.Other);
return call;
});
}
PexProtector is defined as:
internal sealed class __ProtectAttribute : Attribute
{
}
namespace Moq
{
[__Protect]
[DebuggerStepThrough]
internal static class PexProtector
{
public static void Invoke(Action action)
{
action();
}
public static T Invoke<T>(Func<T> function)
{
return function();
}
}
}
i didnt get pex amd moq to work very well toghther, allthough that was a long time ago. Pex seemed to get lost in the Reflection.Emit / dynamic proxy stuff that moq creates.
i'd suggest looking at Moles if you need to do mocking in conjunction with pex. its a pretty nice mocking framework over all and is already bundled with pex
Related
We recently upgraded Microsoft's Unity in our project from version 3.5.1404 to 5.8.6. With only a few minor adjustments in our code this upgrade seemed to go pretty easy. It resolves all our registered instances without a problem. However, we also use Unity's Interception-mechanism to cache some results that a method returns in AOP-style. This cache mechanism is broken since the upgrade and we can't figure out why. Apparently, our attributes are no longer called when a decorated method is called.
It currently works as follows. We register the interception like this:
var container = new UnityContainer();
container.RegisterType<IService, Service>(some_lifetime);
container.AddNewExtension<Interception>();
container.Configure<Interception>()
.SetInterceptorFor(typeof(IService), new InterfaceInterceptor());
In the Service class, which implements IService we have a method that is decorated with a custom Cache attribute, like this:
public class Service : IService {
[Cache(..)]
public Result SomeMethod() {
// Some code
}
}
And lastly, our custom Cache attribute which inherits from Unity's HandlerAttribute:
public class CacheAttribute : HandlerAttribute
{
// ctor
public override ICallHandler CreateHandler(IUnityContainer container)
{
return new CacheCallHandler(container, and, some, more);
}
}
When method SomeMethod used to be called with version 3.5.1404 the attribute was called first, but since 5.8.6 it no longer calls this attribute. The code however, does compile. The changes we had to make to make it compile are mostly changes in usings. Like Microsoft.Practices.Unity.InterceptionExtension which changed to Unity.Interception.PolicyInjection.Policies.
We can't figure out why this mechanism is no longer working. And even after extensive research on the internet, we can't find a way to get this to work. Any suggesties would therefore be greatly appreciated!
I got in your exact same situation while trying to refresh some legacy code. I got it working with:
Changing:
config.SetInterceptorFor(myType, new InterfaceInterceptor()); for
config.SetInterceptorFor(myType, new TransparentProxyInterceptor());
Registering the class that inherits from HandlerAttribute
Container.RegisterType<MyHandlerAttribute>(new PerRequestLifeTimeManager());
Register each type to intercept with special InjectionMembers:
Container.RegisterType<MyClassToBeIntercepted>(
new Interceptor<TransparentProxyInterceptor>(),
new InterceptionBehavior<PolicyInjectionBehavior>()
);
I have the following method I need to test with Moq. The problem is that each method called in the switch statement is private, including the PublishMessage at the end. But this method (ProcessMessage) is public. How can I test this so that I can ensure the calls are made depending on the parameter? Note that I'm not testing the private methods, I just want to test the "calls". I'd like to mock these private methods and check if they are called using Setup, but Moq does not support mocking private methods.
public void ProcessMessage(DispenserMessageDataContract dispenserMessage)
{
var transOptions = new TransactionOptions { IsolationLevel = IsolationLevel.ReadCommitted };
using (var scope = new TransactionScope(TransactionScopeOption.RequiresNew, transOptions))
{
switch (dispenserMessage.Type)
{
case DispenserMessageType.AckNack:
UpdateAckNackMessageQueue(dispenserMessage);
break;
case DispenserMessageType.FillRequest:
CreateFillRequestMessageQueue(dispenserMessage);
break;
case DispenserMessageType.FillEvent:
UpdateFillEventMessageQueue(dispenserMessage);
break;
case DispenserMessageType.RequestInventory:
CreateRequestInventoryMessageQueue(dispenserMessage);
break;
case DispenserMessageType.ReceiveInventory:
CreateReceiveInventoryMessageQueue(dispenserMessage);
break;
}
scope.Complete();
}
PublishMessage(dispenserMessage);
}
You will have to change those private methods to atleast protected virtual to mock them and then use mock.Protected to mock them(http://blogs.clariusconsulting.net/kzu/mocking-protected-members-with-moq/). You can't mock private methods.
Moq (and few other frameworks) uses Castle Project's DynamicProxy to generate proxies on the fly at run-time so that members of an object can be intercepted without modifying the code of the class. That interception can only be done on public virtual and protected virtual methods.
See below URL for more information:
http://www.castleproject.org/projects/dynamicproxy/
You could extract the private method in another class and make them public, then mock those with Moq and verify that they have been called.
Moq is for mocking properties and methods declared in interfaces and or abstract properties and methods in classes.
The idea behind Moq-testing is that you test the interactions between your class-under-test and the rest of the world (its dependencies). Moq does this by creating a "mocked" implementation of the interface or a derivative of the abstract class with the abstract methods implemented.
Moq cannot override existing implementation like your private methods. This is not how Moq works.
Either you should test "ProcessMessage" with all possible input and expected output or you should refactor your class to delegate the calls to interface methods that you can mock with Moq. Testing private methods is a bad concept anyway. They are kept private for a reason, which is to hide the implementation such that it can change at will.
I prefer to add additional class (*Helper) and move on all my private methods to public. Then you can easily test your methods directly. I didn't find more elegant way to do that.
In some cases, you may need to alter the behavior of private method inside the class you are unit testing. You will need to mock this private method and make it return what needed for the particular case. Since this private method is inside your class under test then mocking it is little more specific. You have to use spy object.
Spy object
A spy is a real object which mocking framework has access to. Spied objects are partially mocked objects. Some their methods are real some mocked. I would say use spy object with great caution because you do not really know what is happening underneath and whether are you actually testing your class or mocked version of it.
public class PowerMockDemo
{
public Point callPrivateMethod() {
return privateMethod(new Point(1, 1));
}
private Point privateMethod(Point point) {
return new Point(point.getX() + 1, point.getY() + 1);
}
}
Then you will mock the Spy object
Hope that will help you,
Best wishes
Based on this article, I've written a custom class which implements the Watin.Core.interfaces.IFindByDefaultFactory, but I don't think I'm correctly assigning it to the watin settings, because it is never used.
Basically, Where/when should I assign to the Settings.FindByDefaultFactory? I've tried in my test Setup, and the text fixture's constructor, but neither seem to cause my custom class to be used. The tests still run and work, but I have to use the full asp.net ID's.
I'm using Watin 2.0.15.928 in VS2008 from nUnit 2.5.2.9222. I am running visual studio as administrator, and tests run sucessfully as long as I don't rely on my custom find logic.
Here's what the start of my text fixture looks like, where I set the FindByDefaultFactory
namespace Fundsmith.Web.Main.BrowserTests
{
[TestFixture]
class WatinHomepageTests
{
private IE _ie;
[SetUp]
public void Setup()
{
Settings.FindByDefaultFactory = new FindByAspIdFactory();
_ie = new IE("http://localhost/somepage.aspx");
}
//etc etc...
And this is what my custom Find By Default factory looks like (simplified), unfortunately, it's never called.
using System.Text.RegularExpressions;
using WatiN.Core;
using WatiN.Core.Constraints;
using WatiN.Core.Interfaces;
namespace Fundsmith.Web.Main.BrowserTests
{
public class FindByAspIdFactory : IFindByDefaultFactory
{
public Constraint ByDefault(string value)
{
// This code is never called :(
// My custom find by id code to cope with asp.net webforms ids...
return Find.ById(value);
}
public Constraint ByDefault(Regex value)
{
return Find.ById(value);
}
}
}
Edit: Extra information after the fact.
Based on me fuguring this out, (see answer below), It turns out that the way I was consuming Watin to find the elements was wrong. I was explicitly calling Find.ById, rather than letting the default action occur. So I'd reassigned the default but was then failing to use it!
[Test]
public void StepOneFromHomepageShouldRedirectToStepTwo()
{
_ie.TextField(Find.ById("textBoxId")).TypeText("100");
//Other test stuff...
}
Right, I've figured this one out, and it was me being an idiot and explicitly calling the Find.ById method, rather than letting the default action occur. It seems the test setup is a fine place to set the FindByDefaultFactory.
ie, I was doing this (wrong):
[Test]
public void StepOneFromHomepageShouldRedirectToStepTwo()
{
_ie.TextField(Find.ById("textBoxId")).TypeText("100");
//Other test stuff...
}
When I should have been simply doing this. (Without the explicit "Find.ById")
[Test]
public void StepOneFromHomepageShouldRedirectToStepTwo()
{
_ie.TextField("textBoxId").TypeText("100");
//Other test stuff...
}
Not only was this me being stupid, but I didn't include this in my original question, so it would have been impossible for anyone else to figure it out for certain. Double slaps for me.
I'm looking for the equivalent of Python decorators / Lisp macros / Java annotations (yes, I know that these are not necessarily equivalent themselves) in Actionscript. Tools that provide similar features would also be great (I'm using the Flex Builder plugin for Eclipse on Linux).
I'm writing a Flex application and here's what I want to accomplish:
I have encapsulated various sets of remote functionality in separate classes (this is sometimes called "Messaging Gateways" or "Remote Proxies"), where each method mirrors a method on the server, like so:
class UserManagementService extends MyHttpService {
//...
private final _urlBase:String = "http://example.com/services/users"
//...
public function usrGet(ix:int):User
{
url = urlBase + "/get";
mp:Dictionary = new Dictionary();
mp["ix"] = ix;
result:User = this._service.varSend(url, this.sEncodeParams(mp), Class("User"));
return result;
}
//...
}
Since I have the parameters and the return type of the remote function already in the function declaration, it would be nice to just add the URL suffix, like this (Python-inspired pseudocode):
#remotify("/get")
public function usrGet(ix:int):User { }
Now, wouldn't that be neat? ;-)
You can add what is called "metadata" in ActionScript like so:
[Remotify(prop="value")]
More information is here:
http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/communityengine/index.cfm?event=showdetails&productId=2&postId=11907
I am using a Cairngorm MVC architecture for my current project.
I have several commands which use the same type of function that returns a value. I would like to have this function in one place, and reuse it, rather than duplicate the code in each command. What is the best way to do this?
Create a static class or static method in one of your Cairngorm classes.
class MyStatic
{
public static function myFunction(value:String):String
{
return "Returning " + value;
}
}
Then where you want to use your function:
import MyStatic;
var str:String = MyStatic.myFunction("test");
Another option is to create a top level function (a la "trace"). Check out this post I wrote here.
You have lots of options here -- publicly defined functions in your model or controller, such as:
var mySharedFunction:Function = function():void
{
trace("foo");
}
... static methods on new or existing classes, etc. Best practice probably depends on what the function needs to do, though. Can you elaborate?
Create an abstract base class for your commands and add your function in the protected scope. If you need to reuse it anywhere else, refactor it into a public static method on a utility class.