We have developed a number of ASP.Net server controls and we need to test them. I want to instantiate a control, set some properties, call CreateChildControls and test the control-hierarchy.
I run into a number of problems:
The controls rely on HttpContext
CreateChildControls is private
Even adding a single child control to the controls collection calls the ResolveAdapter() method which relies on HttpContext.
How can I get around this?
p.s. I do not wish to test the controls on a page (!).
It sounds a lot like you don't care about the actual rendering of the control at all, but rather the logic contained within the control. For that I would suggest that you have another problem besides the inability to test the control outside the HttpContext.
If the logic only pertains to the control, then you should trust the framework to do it's job, and drop the control on a page to see if it works properly. If the logic you are attempting to test is business logic, then you need to refactor.
Pull out the business logic into a seperate Project/Dll somewhere, and think about implementing a MVP pattern with your server control. You don't have to go with a big heavy framework like WCSF either. Conceptually you can implement this with little effort.
Create an interface that represents the values on your view:
public interface IOrderView
{
Int32 ID{get; set;}
String Name{get; set;}
List<Item> Items {set;}
}
Once this is defined, you need a presenter that exercises this view:
public class OrderPresenter
{
public IOrderView View {get; set;}
public void InitializeView()
{
//Stuff that only happens when the page loads the first time
//This is only for an example:
var order = Orders.GetOrder(custId);
View.ID = order.ID;
View.Name = order.Name;
View.Items = order.Items;
}
public void LoadView()
{
//Stuff that happens every page load
}
}
Now your server control can implement this interface, and initialize itself with the OrderPresenter
public class OrderControl: Panel, IOrderView
{
private OrderPresenter Presenter{get; set;}
public OrderControl()
{
//Create new presenter and initialize View with reference
// to ourselves
Presenter = new OrderPresenter{View = this;}
}
protected override void OnLoad(EventArgs e)
{
if(Page.IsPostback)
{
_presenter.InitializeView();
}
_presenter.LoadView();
//Other normal onload stuff here...
}
//Now for the interface stuff
public Int32 ID
{
get{ return Int32.Parse(lblOrderId.Text); }
set{ lblOrderId.Text = value.ToString(); }
}
public String Name
{
get{ return lblOrderName.Text; }
set{ lblOrderName.Text = value; }
}
public List<Item> Items
{
set
{
gvItems.DataSource = value;
gvItems.DataBind();
}
}
}
And there you have it! You should be able to write unit tests against the OrderPresenter now using a stubbed out View. No HttpContext required, and you have cleaner seperation of concerns.
If you already have all your business logic seperated out then I appologize, but I can't think of any other reason to test a server control outside the ASP.Net runtime besides needing to verify actual business logic. If this is the case, then I would highly encourage you to refactor now before you realize the maintenance nightmare this will eventually cause via Leaky Abstractions.
Related
I have a project consisting of 2 parts:
ASP.NET API using Entity Framework
.NET MAUI Client App
I use DTOs for comunication from/to the API in order not to expose other properties of my entities. Thanks to this approach I was able to separate Entity data and data that are sent from the API.
At first I used these DTOs also in the MAUI UI. But after some time I started to notice that they contains UI-specific properties, attributes or methods that have no purpose for the API itself, so they are redundant in requests.
EXAMPLE:
1 - API will receive request from MAUI to get exercise based on it's name
2- ExerciseService returns: ExerciseEntity and ExerciseController use AutoMapper to Map ExerciseEntity -> ExerciseDto ommiting ExerciseId field (only admin can see this info in the DB) and returning it in the API response
3 - MAUI receives from the API ExerciseDto. But in the client side it also want to know if data from ExerciseDto are collapsed in the UI. So because of that I add IsCollapsed property into the ExerciseDto. But now this is a redundant property for the API, because I dont want to persist this information in the database.
QUESTIONS:
Should I map these DTOs to new objects on the client side ?
Or how to approach this problem ?
Is there an easier way how to achieve the separation ?
Because having another mapping layer will add extra complexity and a lot of duplicate properties between DTOs and those new client objects.
Normally if you use clean architecture approach your DTOs shoud contain no attributes and other specific data relevant just for some of your projects, to be freely usable by other projects in a form of dependency.
Then you'd have different approaches to consume DTOs in a xamarin/maui application, for example:
APPROACH 1.
Mapping (of course) into a class that is suitable for UI. Here you have some options, use manual mapping, write your own code that uses reflection or use some third party lib using same reflection. Personally using all of them, and when speaking of third party libs Mapster has shown very good to me for api and mobile clients.
APPROACH 2.
Subclass DTO. The basic idea is to deserialize dto into the derived class, then call Init(); if needed. All properties that you manually implemented as new with OnPropertyChanged will update bindings after being popupated by deserializer/mapper and you alse have a backup plan to call RaiseProperties(); for all of the props, even thoses who do not have OnPropertyChanged in place so they can update bindings if any.
Example:
our Api DTO
public class SomeDeviceDTO
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public int Port { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
Our derived class for usage in mobile client:
public class SomeDevice : SomeDeviceDTO, IFromDto
{
// we want to be able to change this Name property in run-time and to
// reflect changes so we make it bindable (other props will remain without
// OnPropertyChanged BUT we can always update all bindings in code if needed
// using RaiseProperties();):
private string _name;
public new string Name
{
get { return _name; }
set
{
if (_name != value)
{
_name = value;
OnPropertyChanged();
}
}
}
// ADD any properties you need for UI
// ...
#region IFromDto
public void Init()
{
//put any code you'd want to exec after dto's been imported
// for example to fill any new prop with data derived from what you received
}
public void RaiseProperties()
{
var props = this.GetType().GetProperties();
foreach (var property in props)
{
if (property.CanRead)
{
OnPropertyChanged(property.Name);
}
}
}
public event PropertyChangedEventHandler PropertyChanged;
protected void OnPropertyChanged([CallerMemberName] string propertyName = "")
{
PropertyChanged?.Invoke(this, new PropertyChangedEventArgs(propertyName));
}
#endregion
}
public interface IFromDto : INotifyPropertyChanged
{
//
// Summary:
// Can initialize model after it's being loaded from dto
void Init();
//
// Summary:
// Notify all properties were updated
void RaiseProperties();
}
We can get it like: var device = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<SomeDevice>(jsonOfSomeDeviceDTO);
We then can call Init(); if needed..
Feel free to edit this answer to add more approaches..
I'm coding a business layer for an ASP.NET application. I've created database methods in my BLL as static. I've created public static Func variables to be compiled and used in several different methods, like this:
namespace BLL
public class User
{
public static Func<Context, variable, result> selectUser;
private static void CompileQuery()
{
if(selectUser == null)
{
selectUser = CompiledQuery.Compile......
}
}
public static UserClass Select(int id)
{
CompileQuery();
//uses selectUser
}
public static SomethingElse DoSomethingElse()
{
CompileQuery();
//also uses selectUser
}
}
It'll be used in ASP.NET layer like this:
using BLL;
private void AddUser()
{
UserClass user = User.Select(id);
}
My question is, since static variables are not thread-safe, is this a bad design decision? I'm thinking of either implementing a locking mechanism, which makes me think if it'd slow down the application, or using instantiated class approach which makes me wonder if query compiling would be beneficial. I'd appreciate any advice on this.
It should at least be read-only - and initialized on type load, like this:
public static readonly Func<Context, variable, result> selectUser =
CompileQuery(); // Or inline this...
private static Func<Context, variable, result> CompileQuery()
{
return CompiledQuery.Compile(...);
}
I'd probably make it a property myself, but otherwise it should be okay. Delegates themselves are immutable and threadsafe, so that shouldn't be a problem.
Doing it on type initialization means you don't need to worry about locking: the CLR guarantees that a type initializer is executed once and only once.
I recently read Phil Haack's post where he gives an example of implementing Model View Presenter for ASP.NET. One of the code snippets shows how the code for the view class.
public partial class _Default : System.Web.UI.Page, IPostEditView
{
PostEditController controller;
public _Default()
{
this.controller = new PostEditController(this, new BlogDataService());
}
}
However, here the view constructs the instance of the BlogDataService and passes it along to the presenter. Ideally the view should not know about BlogDataService or any of the presenter's lower layer dependencies. But i also prefer to keep the BlogDataService as a constructor injected dependency of the presenter as it makes the dependencies of the presenter explicit.
This same question has been asked on stackoverflow here.
One of the answers suggests using a service locator to get the instance of the BlogDataService and passing it along to the presenter's constructor.This solution however does not solve the problem of the view knowing about the BlogDataService and needing to explicitly get a reference to it.
Is there a way to automatically construct the presenter object using an IoC or DI container tool such that the view does not have to deal with explicitly creating the BlogDataService object and also injecting the view and service instances into the presenter's constructor. I prefer to use the constructor injection pattern as far as possible.
Or is there a better design available to solve the problem?. Can there be a better way to implement this If i am building a WinForms application instead of a ASP.NET WebForms application?
Thanks for any feedback.
Yes there is. For example using StructureMap in a webform constructor:
public partial class AttributeDetails : EntityDetailView<AttributeDetailPresenter>, IAttributeDetailView
{
public AttributeDetails()
{
_presenter = ObjectFactory.With<IAttributeDetailView>(this).GetInstance<AttributeDetailPresenter>();
}
....
}
and as you can see here presenter needs view and service injected
public AttributeDetailPresenter(IAttributeDetailView view, IAttributeService attributeService)
{
MyForm = view;
AppService = attributeService;
}
You can also use StructureMap BuildUp feature for webforms so that you can avoid using ObjectFactory directly in your view.
I did exactly this. The solution is based on Autofac, but can be implemented on top of any container.
First, define an interface representing the authority for presenting views in a request to the MVP system:
public interface IMvpRequest
{
void Present(object view);
}
Next, create a base page which has a property of that type:
public abstract class PageView : Page
{
public IMvpRequest MvpRequest { get; set; }
}
At this point, set up dependency injection for pages. Most containers have ASP.NET integration, usually in the form of HTTP modules. Because we don't create the page instance, we can't use constructor injection, and have to use property injection here only.
After that is set up, create event arguments representing a view which is ready to be presented:
public class PresentableEventArgs : EventArgs
{}
Now, catch the events in PageView and pass them to the request (present the page as well):
protected override bool OnBubbleEvent(object source, EventArgs args)
{
var cancel = false;
if(args is PresentableEventArgs)
{
cancel = true;
Present(source);
}
else
{
cancel = base.OnBubbleEvent(source, args);
}
return cancel;
}
protected override void OnLoad(EventArgs e)
{
base.OnLoad(e);
Present(this);
}
private void Present(object view)
{
if(MvpRequest != null && view != null)
{
MvpRequest.Present(view);
}
}
Finally, create base classes for each type of control you'd like to serve as a view (master pages, composite controls, etc.):
public abstract class UserControlView : UserControl
{
protected override void OnLoad(EventArgs e)
{
base.OnLoad(e);
EnsureChildControls();
RaiseBubbleEvent(this, new PresentableEventArgs());
}
}
This connects the control tree to the MVP system via IMvpRequest, which you'll now have to implement and register in the application-level container. The ASP.NET integration should take care of injecting the implementation into the page. This decouples the page entirely from presenter creation, relying on IMvpRequest to do the mapping.
The implementation of IMvpRequest will be container-specific. Presenters will be registered in the container like other types, meaning their constructors will automatically be resolved.
You will have some sort of map from view types to presenter types:
public interface IPresenterMap
{
Type GetPresenterType(Type viewType);
}
These are the types you will resolve from the container.
(The one gotcha here is that the view already exists, meaning the container doesn't create the instance or ever know about it. You will have to pass it in as a resolution parameter, another concept supported by most containers.)
A decent default mapping might look like this:
[Presenter(typeof(LogOnPresenter))]
public class LogOnPage : PageView, ILogOnView
{
// ...
}
I am trying to work out a way to use dependency injection with ASP.NET Web Forms controls.
I have got lots of controls that create repositories directly, and use those to access and bind to data etc.
I am looking for a pattern where I can pass repositories to the controls externally (IoC), so my controls remain unaware of how repositories are constructed and where they come from etc.
I would prefer not to have a dependency on the IoC container from my controls, therefore I just want to be able to construct the controls with constructor or property injection.
(And just to complicate things, these controls are being constructed and placed on the page by a CMS at runtime!)
Any thoughts?
UPDATE 2019:
With the introduction of Web Forms 4.7.2, there is now better support for DI. This invalidates the below. See: Wiring up Simple Injector in WebForms in .NET 4.7.2
You can use automatic constructor injection by replacing the default PageHandlerFactory with a custom one. This way you can use an overloaded constructor to load the dependencies. Your page might look like this:
public partial class HomePage : System.Web.UI.Page
{
private readonly IDependency dependency;
public HomePage(IDependency dependency)
{
this.dependency = dependency;
}
// Do note this protected ctor. You need it for this to work.
protected HomePage () { }
}
Configuring that custom PageHandlerFactory can be done in the web.config as follows:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<configuration>
<system.web>
<httpHandlers>
<add verb="*" path="*.aspx"
type="YourApp.CustomPageHandlerFactory, YourApp"/>
</httpHandlers>
</system.web>
</configuration>
Your CustomPageHandlerFactory can look like this:
public class CustomPageHandlerFactory : PageHandlerFactory
{
private static object GetInstance(Type type)
{
// TODO: Get instance using your favorite DI library.
// for instance using the Common Service Locator:
return Microsoft.Practices.ServiceLocation
.ServiceLocator.Current.GetInstance(type);
}
public override IHttpHandler GetHandler(HttpContext cxt,
string type, string vPath, string path)
{
var page = base.GetHandler(cxt, type, vPath, path);
if (page != null)
{
// Magic happens here ;-)
InjectDependencies(page);
}
return page;
}
private static void InjectDependencies(object page)
{
Type pageType = page.GetType().BaseType;
var ctor = GetInjectableCtor(pageType);
if (ctor != null)
{
object[] arguments = (
from parameter in ctor.GetParameters()
select GetInstance(parameter.ParameterType)
.ToArray();
ctor.Invoke(page, arguments);
}
}
private static ConstructorInfo GetInjectableCtor(
Type type)
{
var overloadedPublicConstructors = (
from constructor in type.GetConstructors()
where constructor.GetParameters().Length > 0
select constructor).ToArray();
if (overloadedPublicConstructors.Length == 0)
{
return null;
}
if (overloadedPublicConstructors.Length == 1)
{
return overloadedPublicConstructors[0];
}
throw new Exception(string.Format(
"The type {0} has multiple public " +
"ctors and can't be initialized.", type));
}
}
Downside is that this only works when running your side in Full Trust. You can read more about it here. But do note that developing ASP.NET applications in partial trust seems a lost cause.
Starting from .NET 4.7.2 (what's new), it is now easy for developers to use Dependency Injection in WebForms applications. With the UnityAdapter, you can add it to your existing WebForms application in 4 simple steps. See this blog.
Autofac supports fairly unobtrusive dependency injection in ASP.NET WebForms. My understanding is it just hooks into the ASP.NET page lifecycle using an http module and does property injection. The only catch is that for controls I don't think this happens until after the Init event.
The best way is to have a base class for the controls like:
public class PartialView : UserControl
{
protected override void OnInit(System.EventArgs e)
{
ObjectFactory.BuildUp(this);
base.OnInit(e);
}
}
That will inject any control that inherits from that base class (uses structuremap). Combining that with a property based config, you will be able to have controls like:
public partial class AdminHeader : PartialView
{
IMyRepository Repository{get;set;}
}
Update 1: If you can't have the controls inherit, perhaps the CMS has a hook right after creating the controls, in there you can call the BuildUp. Also if the CMS allows you to hook something to fetch the instance you could use constructor based injection, but I prefer BuildUp on this specific scenario as asp.net doesn't have a hook for this.
You could also create some singleton instances in the Application_Start global.asax event and have them available as public static readonly properties.
This is a solution I recently used to avoid hooking into the pipeline (I find that confuses everyone that looks at my code in the future, but yes, I see its benefits as well):
public static class TemplateControlExtensions
{
static readonly PerRequestObjectManager perRequestObjectManager = new PerRequestObjectManager();
private static WIIIPDataContext GetDataContext(this TemplateControl templateControl)
{
var dataContext = (WIIIPDataContext) perRequestObjectManager.GetValue("DataContext");
if (dataContext == null)
{
dataContext = new WIIIPDataContext();
perRequestObjectManager.SetValue("DataContext", dataContext);
}
return dataContext;
}
public static IMailer GetMailer(this TemplateControl templateControl)
{
return (IMailer)IoC.Container.Resolve(typeof(IMailer));
}
public static T Query<T>(this TemplateControl templateControl, Query<T> query)
{
query.DataContext = GetDataContext(templateControl);
return query.GetQuery();
}
public static void ExecuteCommand(this TemplateControl templateControl, Command command)
{
command.DataContext = GetDataContext(templateControl);
command.Execute();
}
private class PerRequestObjectManager
{
public object GetValue(string key)
{
if (HttpContext.Current != null && HttpContext.Current.Items.Contains(key))
return HttpContext.Current.Items[key];
else
return null;
}
public void SetValue(string key, object newValue)
{
if (HttpContext.Current != null)
HttpContext.Current.Items[key] = newValue;
}
}
}
This shows how you can create your own life time manager pretty easily as well as hook into an IoC container if you so desire. Oh, and I am also using a query/command structure which is sort of unrelated, but more on the reasoning behind that can be found here:
Limit your abstractions: Refactoring toward reduced abstractions
Being new to RhinoMocks and Unit Testing, I have come accross an issue that I cannot seem to find a resolution to (no matter how much documentation I read).
The issue is this: I have created an Interface that exposes 5 Events (to be used for a view in ASP.NET and the MVP Supervisory Controller pattern..... I know, I should be using MVC, but that's a whole other issue). Anyway, I want to test that when a certain event fires on the view, we'll call it "IsLoaded", that a method inside of my Presenter is called and, using Dependency Injection, a value is returned from the Dependency and set to the view. Here is where the problem starts: when I use Expect.Call(Dependency.GetInfo()).Return(SomeList), the Call never executes (without the mock.ReplayAll() method being invoked). Well, when I invoke the ReplayAll method, I get ExpectationExceptions because of the Subscription by the Presenter object to the other Events exposed by the View Interface.
So, for me to test that IView.IsLoaded has fired, I want to verify that IView.ListOfSomething has been updated to match the list I passed in via the Expect.Call(). However, when I set the expectation, the other Event subscriptions (which occur straight out of the constructor for the Presenter) fail the #0 Expectations of the test. What I get is, view.Save += this.SaveNewList tosses up a RhinoMocks ExpectationViolationException.
My million dollar question is this: Is it necessary I set expectations for ALL of my events (via [Setup]), or is there something that I'm missing/not understanding about how Unit Testing or RhinoMocks works?
Please bear in mind I am extremely new to Unit Testing, and therefore RhinoMocks. If it appears I don't know what I'm talking about, please feel free to point that out.
I'm working on a project where we used MVP and rhino mocks as well. What we did was simply expect all event subscriptions in every test.
private void SetupDefaultExpectations()
{
_mockView.Initializing += null; LastCall.IgnoreArguments();
_mockView.SavingChanges += null; LastCall.IgnoreArguments();
}
Then we built a extension method on IMockedObject (from RhinoMocks) to trigger events in the unit tests and un-wrap exceptions so that they can be expected in the standard NUnit way.
static class IMockedObjectExtension
{
public static void RaiseEvent(this IMockedObject mockView, string eventName, EventArgs args)
{
EventRaiser eventraiser = new EventRaiser(mockView, eventName);
try
{
eventraiser.Raise(mockView, args);
}
catch (TargetInvocationException ex)
{
throw ex.InnerException;
}
}
public static void RaiseEvent(this IMockedObject mockView, string eventName)
{
RaiseEvent(mockView, eventName, EventArgs.Empty);
}
}
This could then be used from the unit test like this
using(_mocks.Record())
{
Expect.Call(dependency.GetInfo()).Return(someList);
}
using(_mocks.Playback())
{
Presenter presenter = new Presenter(_mockView, dependency);
(_mockView as IMockedObject).RaiseEvent("SavingChanges");
}
To eliminate duplication between presenter tests we have refactored this to a BasePresenterTest base class which sets up this basic structure for all presenter tests and exposes helper methods to the sub class.
public abstract class BasePresenterTest<VIEW> where VIEW : IBaseView
{
protected MockRepository _mocks;
protected VIEW View { get; private set; }
protected abstract void SetUp();
protected abstract void TearDown();
protected abstract void SetupDefaultExpectations();
[SetUp]
public virtual void BaseSetUp()
{
_mocks = new MockRepository();
View = _mocks.CreateMock<VIEW>();
SetUp();
}
[TearDown]
public virtual void BaseTearDown()
{
TearDown();
View = null;
_mocks = null;
}
protected virtual void BaseSetupDefaultExpectations()
{
//Setup default expectations that are general for all views
SetupDefaultExpectations();
}
protected virtual IDisposable Record()
{
IDisposable mocksRecordState = _mocks.Record();
BaseSetupDefaultExpectations();
return mocksRecordState;
}
protected virtual IDisposable Playback()
{
return _mocks.Playback();
}
protected void RaiseEventOnView(string eventName)
{
(View as IMockedObject).RaiseEvent(eventName);
}
}
This eliminates alot of code from the tests in our project.
We still use a old version of RhinoMocks but I will try to update this once we move to a later version.