My current project based in Asp .net makes considerable use of Http handlers to process various requests? So, is there any way by which I can test the functionality of each of the handlers using unit test cases? We are using Nunit and Moq framework to facilitate unit testing.
I think these blog entries from a while back are relevant:
http://www.kongsli.net/nblog/2009/05/03/aspnet-35-improving-testability-with-systemwebabstractions/
http://www.kongsli.net/nblog/2009/05/28/testability-with-systemwebabstractions-and-no-mock-framework/
See example #2 in the first post for an example on how to unit test an HttpHandler.
If you dont care about unit tests and want something quick and dirty you can use Fiddler
if you want a more integrated approach (Unit testing) you can use the WebRequest and WebResponse.
You sure can, although I haven't done myself "in anger".
Use a System.Net.WebClient to make HTTP calls against your handlers, and evaluate what comes back, that will allow you to test the public facing interface of the handler.
In this example I've hard-coded my target, and I'm using a method on the WebClient that will return a string.
The WebClient also gives you access to the ResponseHeaders, Encoding and other useful 'webby' stuff; you can also upload info as well.
using System.Net;
namespace UnitTestHttpHandler
{
public class TestHarness
{
public static string GetString()
{
WebClient myWebClient = new WebClient();
return myWebClient.DownloadString("http://localhost/Morphfolia.Web/ContentList.ashx");
}
}
}
You can then use the TestHarness to call the target HttpHandler and verify the results in your tests (or use a better approach to your testing if you know one - I'm not a unit testing guru).
[TestMethod]
public void TestMethod1()
{
string x = UnitTestHttpHandler.TestHarness.GetString();
Assert.IsTrue(x.Length > 5);
}
The default interface for IHttpHandler is not testable because the param for ProcessRequest(HttpContext context) is not mockable.
This answer is inspired by this post.
To make your IHttpHandler implementation testable you must first make a small change so we can use the mockable HttpContextBase:
From:
class YourHttpHandler : IHttpHandler
{
public bool IsReusable => true;
public void ProcessRequest(HttpContext context)
{
/* Your handler implementation */
}
}
To:
class YourHttpHandler : IHttpHandler
{
public bool IsReusable => true;
public void ProcessRequest(HttpContext context)
=> ProcessRequest(new HttpContextWrapper(context));
public virtual void ProcessRequest(HttpContextBase context)
{
/* Your handler implementation */
}
}
Your functionality needs to be moved from ProcessRequest(HttpContext context) to ProcessRequest(HttpContextBase context).
The ProcessRequest(HttpContextBase context) method can now be called in your tests with a mock object to verify the functionality within.
It's useful the create a helper class that can be used to quickly instantiate YourHttpHandler, send a mocked request, and get access to the response.
public class YourHttpHandlerTester : YourHttpHandler
{
public class Response
{
public HttpResponseBase HttpResponse { get; }
public string Body { get; }
public Response(HttpResponseBase httpResponse, string body)
{
HttpResponseBase = httpResponse;
Body = body;
}
}
public Response ProcessRequest(HttpRequestBase httpRequest)
{
var memoryStream = new MemoryStream();
var httpResponse = CreateHttpResponse(memoryStream);
var httpContext = CreateHttpContext(httpRequest, httpResponse);
base.ProcessRequest(httpContext);
var response = CreateResponse(httpResponse, memoryStream);
return response;
}
protected virtual HttpResponseBase CreateHttpResponse(MemoryStream memoryStream)
{
var httpResponseBaseMock = new Moq.Mock<HttpResponseBase>();
httpResponseBaseMock.Setup(x => x.OutputStream).Returns(memoryStream);
return httpResponseBaseMock.Object;
}
protected virtual HttpContextBase CreateHttpContext(HttpRequestBase httpRequest, HttpResponseBase httpResponse)
{
var httpContextBaseMock = new Moq.Mock<HttpContextBase>();
httpContextBaseMock.Setup(x => x.Request).Returns(httpRequest);
httpContextBaseMock.Setup(x => x.Response).Returns(httpResponse);
return httpContextBaseMock.Object;
}
protected virtual Response CreateResponse(HttpResponseBase httpResponse, MemoryStream memoryStream)
{
memoryStream.Position = 0;
var body = new StreamReader(memoryStream).ReadToEnd();
var response = new Response(httpResponse, body);
return response;
}
}
This class can be used to quickly create readable tests:
[Fact]
public void Test()
{
var httpHandler = new YourHttpHandlerTester();
var request = CreateHttpRequestFromString("test");
var response = testHandler.ProcessRequest(request);
Assert.NotEmpty(response.Body);
}
public HttpRequestBase CreateHttpRequestFromString(string body)
{
var httpRequestBaseMock = new Moq.Mock<HttpRequestBase>();
var stream = new MemoryStream(System.Text.Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes(body)))
httpRequestBaseMock.Setup(x => x.InputStream).Returns(stream);
return httpRequestBaseMock.Object;
}
YourHttpHandlerTester has plenty of virtual methods that can be overridden as necessary.
Likewise, the Response class can be improved so that it exposes methods from HttpResponseBase like the http status code, headers, and anything else you may want to check.
You can do INTEGRATION testing of the handler using the methods mentioned in the other answers, to do UNIT testing you will need to create some interfaces and extract the core functionality out of the handler, as well as create some mock objects.
You won't be able to unit test ALL parts of it because it relies upon outside resources (those you'll be mocking) - but that's fine, thats why we HAVE integration testing.
If you want to test the communication between your handlers and the Web UI then yes, integration testing is the way to go for that. In order to unit test your logic, could you not instead separate your business logic into other classes (I'd use a separate assembly for the business layer) and mock / unit test these classes instead outside of your presentation layer?
Once you have a structured (and unit tested) business layer that has been separated from the presentation layer your handlers can simply instantiate your concretes and invoke the provided methods. Once this is done, you can then move onto integration testing as your business logic will have been unit tested.
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'm using WebAPI 2.2 and Microsoft.AspNet.OData 5.7.0 to create an OData service that supports paging.
When hosted in the production environment, the WebAPI lives on a server that is not exposed externally, hence the various links returned in the OData response such as the #odata.context and #odata.nextLink point to the internal IP address e.g. http://192.168.X.X/<AccountName>/api/... etc.
I've been able to modify the Request.ODataProperties().NextLink by implementing some logic in each and every ODataController method to replace the internal URL with an external URL like https://account-name.domain.com/api/..., but this is very inconvenient and it only fixes the NextLinks.
Is there some way to set an external host name at configuration time of the OData service? I've seen a property Request.ODataProperties().Path and wonder if it's possible to set a base path at the config.MapODataServiceRoute("odata", "odata", GetModel()); call, or in the GetModel() implementation using for instance the ODataConventionModelBuilder?
UPDATE: The best solution I've come up with so far, is to create a BaseODataController that overrides the Initialize method and checks whether the Request.RequestUri.Host.StartsWith("beginning-of-known-internal-IP-address") and then do a RequestUri rewrite like so:
var externalAddress = ConfigClient.Get().ExternalAddress; // e.g. https://account-name.domain.com
var account = ConfigClient.Get().Id; // e.g. AccountName
var uriToReplace = new Uri(new Uri("http://" + Request.RequestUri.Host), account);
string originalUri = Request.RequestUri.AbsoluteUri;
Request.RequestUri = new Uri(Request.RequestUri.AbsoluteUri.Replace(uriToReplace.AbsoluteUri, externalAddress));
string newUri = Request.RequestUri.AbsoluteUri;
this.GetLogger().Info($"Request URI was rewritten from {originalUri} to {newUri}");
This perfectly fixes the #odata.nextLink URLs for all controllers, but for some reason the #odata.context URLs still get the AccountName part (e.g. https://account-name.domain.com/AccountName/api/odata/$metadata#ControllerName) so they still don't work.
Rewriting the RequestUri is sufficient to affect #odata.nextLink values because the code that computes the next link depends on the RequestUri directly. The other #odata.xxx links are computed via a UrlHelper, which is somehow referencing the path from the original request URI. (Hence the AccountName you see in your #odata.context link. I've seen this behavior in my code, but I haven't been able to track down the source of the cached URI path.)
Rather than rewrite the RequestUri, we can solve the problem by creating a CustomUrlHelper class to rewrite OData links on the fly. The new GetNextPageLink method will handle #odata.nextLink rewrites, and the Link method override will handle all other rewrites.
public class CustomUrlHelper : System.Web.Http.Routing.UrlHelper
{
public CustomUrlHelper(HttpRequestMessage request) : base(request)
{ }
// Change these strings to suit your specific needs.
private static readonly string ODataRouteName = "ODataRoute"; // Must be the same as used in api config
private static readonly string TargetPrefix = "http://localhost:8080/somePathPrefix";
private static readonly int TargetPrefixLength = TargetPrefix.Length;
private static readonly string ReplacementPrefix = "http://www.contoso.com"; // Do not end with slash
// Helper method.
protected string ReplaceTargetPrefix(string link)
{
if (link.StartsWith(TargetPrefix))
{
if (link.Length == TargetPrefixLength)
{
link = ReplacementPrefix;
}
else if (link[TargetPrefixLength] == '/')
{
link = ReplacementPrefix + link.Substring(TargetPrefixLength);
}
}
return link;
}
public override string Link(string routeName, IDictionary<string, object> routeValues)
{
var link = base.Link(routeName, routeValues);
if (routeName == ODataRouteName)
{
link = this.ReplaceTargetPrefix(link);
}
return link;
}
public Uri GetNextPageLink(int pageSize)
{
return new Uri(this.ReplaceTargetPrefix(this.Request.GetNextPageLink(pageSize).ToString()));
}
}
Wire-up the CustomUrlHelper in the Initialize method of a base controller class.
public abstract class BaseODataController : ODataController
{
protected abstract int DefaultPageSize { get; }
protected override void Initialize(System.Web.Http.Controllers.HttpControllerContext controllerContext)
{
base.Initialize(controllerContext);
var helper = new CustomUrlHelper(controllerContext.Request);
controllerContext.RequestContext.Url = helper;
controllerContext.Request.ODataProperties().NextLink = helper.GetNextPageLink(this.DefaultPageSize);
}
Note in the above that the page size will be the same for all actions in a given controller class. You can work around this limitation by moving the assignment of ODataProperties().NextLink to the body of a specific action method as follows:
var helper = this.RequestContext.Url as CustomUrlHelper;
this.Request.ODataProperties().NextLink = helper.GetNextPageLink(otherPageSize);
The answer by lencharest is promising, but I found an improvement on his method. Rather than using the UrlHelper, I created a class derived from System.Net.Http.DelegatingHandler. This class is inserted (first) into the message handling pipeline and thus has a crack at altering the incoming HttpRequestMessage. It's an improvement over the above solution because in addition to altering the controller-specific URLs (as the UrlHelper does, e,g, https://data.contoso.com/odata/MyController), it also alters the url that appears as the xml:base in the OData service document (e.g., https://data.contoso.com/odata).
My particular application was to host an OData service behind a proxy server, and I wanted all the URLs presented by the server to be the externally-visible URLs, not the internally-visible ones. And, I didn't want to have to rely on annotations for this; I wanted it to be fully automatic.
The message handler looks like this:
public class BehindProxyMessageHandler : DelegatingHandler
{
protected async override Task<HttpResponseMessage> SendAsync(
HttpRequestMessage request, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
var builder = new UriBuilder(request.RequestUri);
var visibleHost = builder.Host;
var visibleScheme = builder.Scheme;
var visiblePort = builder.Port;
if (request.Headers.Contains("X-Forwarded-Host"))
{
string[] forwardedHosts = request.Headers.GetValues("X-Forwarded-Host").First().Split(new char[] { ',' });
visibleHost = forwardedHosts[0].Trim();
}
if (request.Headers.Contains("X-Forwarded-Proto"))
{
visibleScheme = request.Headers.GetValues("X-Forwarded-Proto").First();
}
if (request.Headers.Contains("X-Forwarded-Port"))
{
try
{
visiblePort = int.Parse(request.Headers.GetValues("X-Forwarded-Port").First());
}
catch (Exception)
{ }
}
builder.Host = visibleHost;
builder.Scheme = visibleScheme;
builder.Port = visiblePort;
request.RequestUri = builder.Uri;
var response = await base.SendAsync(request, cancellationToken);
return response;
}
}
You wire the handler up in WebApiConfig.cs:
config.Routes.MapODataServiceRoute(
routeName: "odata",
routePrefix: "odata",
model: builder.GetEdmModel(),
pathHandler: new DefaultODataPathHandler(),
routingConventions: ODataRoutingConventions.CreateDefault()
);
config.MessageHandlers.Insert(0, new BehindProxyMessageHandler());
There is another solution, but it overrides url for the entire context.
What I'd like to suggest is:
Create owin middleware and override Host and Scheme properties inside
Register the middleware as the first one
Here is an example of middleware
public class RewriteUrlMiddleware : OwinMiddleware
{
public RewriteUrlMiddleware(OwinMiddleware next)
: base(next)
{
}
public override async Task Invoke(IOwinContext context)
{
context.Request.Host = new HostString(Settings.Default.ProxyHost);
context.Request.Scheme = Settings.Default.ProxyScheme;
await Next.Invoke(context);
}
}
ProxyHost is the host you want to have. Example: test.com
ProxyScheme is the scheme you want: Example: https
Example of middleware registration
public class Startup
{
public void Configuration(IAppBuilder app)
{
app.Use(typeof(RewriteUrlMiddleware));
var config = new HttpConfiguration();
WebApiConfig.Register(config);
app.UseWebApi(config);
}
}
A couple of years later, using ASP.NET Core, I figured that the easiest way to apply it in my service was to just create a filter that masquerades the host name. (AppConfig is a custom configuration class that contains the host name, among other things.)
public class MasqueradeHostFilterAttribute : ActionFilterAttribute
{
public override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext context)
{
var appConfig = context.HttpContext.RequestServices.GetService<AppConfig>();
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(appConfig?.MasqueradeHost))
context.HttpContext.Request.Host = new HostString(appConfig.MasqueradeHost);
}
}
Apply the filter to the controller base class.
[MasqueradeHostFilter]
public class AppODataController : ODataController
{
}
The result is a nicely formatted output:
{ "#odata.context":"https://app.example.com/odata/$metadata" }
Just my two cents.
Using system.web.odata 6.0.0.0.
Setting the NextLink property too soon is problematic. Every reply will then have a nextLink in it. The last page should of course be free of such decorations.
http://docs.oasis-open.org/odata/odata-json-format/v4.0/os/odata-json-format-v4.0-os.html#_Toc372793048 says:
URLs present in a payload (whether request or response) MAY be
represented as relative URLs.
One way that I hope will work is to override EnableQueryAttribute:
public class myEnableQueryAttribute : EnableQueryAttribute
{
public override IQueryable ApplyQuery(IQueryable queryable, ODataQueryOptions queryOptions)
{
var result = base.ApplyQuery(queryable, queryOptions);
var nextlink = queryOptions.Request.ODataProperties().NextLink;
if (nextlink != null)
queryOptions.Request.ODataProperties().NextLink = queryOptions.Request.RequestUri.MakeRelativeUri(nextlink);
return result;
}
}
ApplyQuery() is where the "overflow" is detected. It basically asks for pagesize+1 rows and will set NextLink if the result set contains more than pagesize rows.
At this point it is relatively easy to rewrite NextLink to a relative URL.
The downside is that every odata method must now be adorned with the new myEnableQuery attribute:
[myEnableQuery]
public async Task<IHttpActionResult> Get(ODataQueryOptions<TElement> options)
{
...
}
and other URLs embedded elsewhere remains problematic. odata.context remains a problem. I want to avoid playing with the request URL, because I fail to see how that is maintainable over time.
Your question boils down to controlling the service root URI from within the service itself. My first thought was to look for a hook on the media type formatters used to serialize responses. ODataMediaTypeFormatter.MessageWriterSettings.PayloadBaseUri and ODataMediaTypeFormatter.MessageWriterSettings.ODataUri.ServiceRoot are both settable properties that suggest a solution. Unfortunately, ODataMediaTypeFormatter resets these properties on every call to WriteToStreamAsync.
The work-around is not obvious, but if you dig through the source code you'll eventually reach a call to IODataPathHandler.Link. A path handler is an OData extension point, so you can create a custom path handler that always returns an absolute URI which begins with the service root you desire.
public class CustomPathHandler : DefaultODataPathHandler
{
private const string ServiceRoot = "http://example.com/";
public override string Link(ODataPath path)
{
return ServiceRoot + base.Link(path);
}
}
And then register that path handler during service configuration.
// config is an instance of HttpConfiguration
config.MapODataServiceRoute(
routeName: "ODataRoute",
routePrefix: null,
model: builder.GetEdmModel(),
pathHandler: new CustomPathHandler(),
routingConventions: ODataRoutingConventions.CreateDefault()
);
I would like to capture and save in a log file all the requests that my WebAPI should handle.
Just tried to save the Request.Content from the controller constructor but unfortunately,
the request object is null from the controller constructor scope.
Hope to learn an efficient way to do it.
I would just hook into web api tracing...
http://www.asp.net/web-api/overview/testing-and-debugging/tracing-in-aspnet-web-api
From the above article, you can implement ITraceWriter like so. This example uses System.Diagnostics.Trace.WriteLine, but you could plug in writing to a file here as well.
public class SimpleTracer : ITraceWriter
{
public void Trace(HttpRequestMessage request, string category, TraceLevel level,
Action<TraceRecord> traceAction)
{
TraceRecord rec = new TraceRecord(request, category, level);
traceAction(rec);
WriteTrace(rec);
}
protected void WriteTrace(TraceRecord rec)
{
var message = string.Format("{0};{1};{2}",
rec.Operator, rec.Operation, rec.Message);
System.Diagnostics.Trace.WriteLine(message, rec.Category);
}
}
As you can see from the Trace method, you get access to the HttpRequestMessage here.
I ended up implementing middleware to deal with it.
public class GlobalRequestLogger : OwinMiddleware
{
public override Task Invoke(IOwinContext context)
{
// Implement logging code here
}
}
Then in your Startup.cs:
app.Use<GlobalRequestLogger>();
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.