I'm looking to write unit tests for a method such as this one:
public override bool ChangePasswordQuestionAndAnswer(string username, string password, string newPasswordQuestion, string newPasswordAnswer)
{
ISPMembershipUserDao userDao = GetISPMembershipUserDao();
if (ValidateUser(username, password))
{
SPMembershipUser user = userDao.GetUserByUserName(username);
user.PasswordQuestion = newPasswordQuestion;
user.PasswordAnswer = newPasswordAnswer;
userDao.Save(user);
return true;
}
return false;
}
It's a fairly straight-forward method to test. I'm using the Rhino Mocks framework. But one aspect has me questioning myself. I stub the DAO object and its save method, and I'm wondering how deeply I should test that user object that is passed to the save method. Should I assert that every property of that object is as I expect it to be? Or should I only assert that the PasswordQuestion and PasswordAnswer properites have the correct values? The former seems right to me, as I should make sure that only those two properties have been modified, and the others haven't been touched.
I was hoping some people could give their opinions on this. Is there a rule of thumb or pattern to keep in mind for these types of situations?
Warning: personal opinion ahead
Ok, now that that's out of the way.... for me, it comes down to what I need to do to feel that my code properly implements the needed logic. In this case? I'd have two test cases:
Dealing with ValidateUser returning false
Should return false
Save should not have been called
Dealing with ValidateUser returning true
Should return true
Save should have been called
Object passed to save has the modified question and answer
No checks of other properties on user object
However, if/when I got a bug filed that affected this part of the code, I'd add whatever (initially failing) tests were needed to cover the bug, fix the bug, and leave the tests.
Since it's so easy to set up a constraint here, why not test it to ensure there are no side-effects to your method?
stubbedUserDao.AssertWasCalled(x => x.Save(null), o => {
o.IgnoreArguments();
o.Constraints(Property.AllPropertiesMatch(expectedMatchingUser));
});
Related
I want some kind of mechanism to have more information about a caught exception. (Specifically exceptions I throw myself to abort transactions) I've looked around and pretty much the only thing I could find was "Use the info log". This to me does not seem like a good idea. For one it is cumbersome to access and find the last message. And it is limited in size so at some point the new messages won't even show up.
So my idea is the following: Create a class NuException and pass an instance of that through all methods store an instance in the class where the work methods are located. When I need to throw an exception I call a method on it similar to Global::error() but this one takes an identifier and a message.
Once I reach my catch block I can access those from my object the class that contains the work methods similarly to how CLRExceptions work.
class NuException
{
"public" str identifier;
"public" str message;
public Exception error(str _id, str _msg)
{
//set fields
return Exception::Error;
}
}
class Worker
{
"public" NuException exception;
void foo()
{
throw this.exception.error("Foo", "Record Foo already exists");
}
void bar()
{
this.foo();
}
}
void Job()
{
Worker w = new Worker();
try
{
w.bar(ex);
}
catch (Exception::Error)
{
info(w.exception().message());
}
}
It works but isn't there a better way? Surely someone must have come up with a solution to work around this shortcoming in AX?
Short answer: yes.
While your "brilliant" scheme "works", it gets boring pretty fast, as you now must transport your NuException object deep down 20 level from the listener (job) to the thrower (foo). Your bar method and other middle men has no interest or knowledge about your exception scheme but must pass it on anyway.
This is no longer the case after the update.
There are several ways to go.
Use an observer pattern like the Event broker or in AX 2012 and newer use delegates.
Stick to the infolog system and you use an InfoAction class to peggy bag your information to be used later. It can be used to display a stack trace or other interesting information.
Use a dedicated table for logging.
The third way may seem impractical, as any errors will undo the insert in the log. This is the default behavior but can be circumvented.
MyLogTable log;
Connection con = new UserConnection();
con.ttsBegin();
log.setConnection(con);
... // Set your fields
log.insert();
con.ttsCommit();
Your way to go depends on circumstances you do not mention.
I'd like to explore wether we can save time by setting that all Moq-mocks created by AutoMoq should by default return Fixture-created values as method return values.
This would be beneficial when doing a test like the following:
[TestMethod]
public void Client_Search_SendsRestRequest()
var client = fixture.Create<Client>();
// Could be removed by implementing the mentioned functionality
Mock.Of(JsonGenerator).Setup(j => j.Search(It.IsAny<string>())).Returns(create("JsonBody")));
client.Search(fixture.Create("query"));
Mock.Of(client.RestClient).Verify(c => c.Execute(It.IsAny<RestRequest>()));
Mock.Of(client.RestClient).Verify(c => c.Execute(It.Is<RestRequest>(r => record(r.Body) == record(client.JsonGenerator.Search(query)))));
}
Note that the generated values must be cached inside (?) the proxies, we want the same value "frozen" in order to check. Also, setting up the mock with Setup should override the created value.
So, how can we modify AutoMoq mocks to do this?
A simple test verifying that it works could be:
[TestMethod]
public void MockMethodsShouldReturnCreatedValues()
{
Guid.Parse(new Fixture().Create<ITest>().Test());
}
public interface ITest
{
string Test();
}
Definitely possible, just use the AutoConfiguredMoqCustomization instead of the AutoMoqCustomization. The mocks will use the fixture to generate returns values for all its methods, properties and indexers (*).
Properties will be evaluated eagerly, whereas indexers/methods' return values will be evaluated and cached when invoked for this first time.
(*) There are two exceptions to this rule - the customization cannot automatically setup generic methods or methods with ref parameters, as explained here. You'll have to set those up manually, with the help of the .ReturnsUsingFixture method.
I am very confused with properties in asp.net.
I just don't understand why we use properties and when I should use them. Could anybody elaborate a little on this.
public class Customer
{
private int m_id = -1;
public int ID
{
set
{
m_id = value;
}
}
private string m_name = string.Empty;
public string Name
{
set
{
m_name = value;
}
}
public void DisplayCustomerData()
{
Console.WriteLine("ID: {0}, Name: {1}", m_id, m_name);
}
}
Properties provide the opportunity to protect a field in a class by reading and writing to it through the property. In other languages, this is often accomplished by programs implementing specialized getter and setter methods. C# properties enable this type of protection while also letting you access the property just like it was a field.
Another benefit of properties over fields is that you can change their internal implementation over time. With a public field, the underlying data type must always be the same because calling code depends on the field being the same. However, with a property, you can change the implementation. For example, if a customer has an ID that is originally stored as an int, you might have a requirements change that made you perform a validation to ensure that calling code could never set the ID to a negative value. If it was a field, you would never be able to do this, but a property allows you to make such a change without breaking code. Now, lets see how to use properties.
Taken From CSharp-Station
There are a couple of good reasons for it. The first is that you might need to add validation logic in your setter, or actually calculate the value in the getter.
Another reason is something to do with the IL code generated. If you are working on a large project that is spread over multiple assemblies then you can change the code behind your property without the application that uses your assembly having to recompile. This is because the "access point" of the property stays the same while allowing the implementation code behind it to be altered. I first read about this when I was looking into the point of automatic properties as I didnt see the point between those and a normal public variable.
It's easy.
All fields in class MUST be private (or protected). To show fields to another class yyou can use properties or get/set methods. Properties a shorter.
P.S. Don't declare write-only properties. It is worst practices.
Properties are a convenient way to encapsulate your classes' data.
Quoting from MSDN:
A property is a member that provides a flexible mechanism to read,
write, or compute the value of a private field. Properties can be used
as if they are public data members, but they are actually special
methods called accessors. This enables data to be accessed easily and
still helps promote the safety and flexibility of methods.
Let's consider two common scenarios:
1) You want to expose the Name property without making it changeable from outside the class:
private string m_name = string.Empty;
public string Name
{
get
{
return m_name;
}
}
2) You want to perform some checks, or run some code every time the data is accessed or set:
private string m_name = string.Empty;
public string Name
{
get
{
return m_name;
}
set
{
m_name = (String.IsNullOrEmpty(value)) ? "DefaultName" : value;
}
}
see:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/x9fsa0sw.aspx
The most important reason is for validation purpose in setter and manipulation part can be implemented in get part.
For Ex.
Storing weekdays, which should be from 1-7, if we take normal variable and declare it as public, anyone can assign any value.
But in Properties setter you can control and validate.
The next one you can use it for tracking. That means, you can know how many times set and get functions has been called by clients (statistical purpose, may be not useful frequently).
Finally, you can control read only, write only and read/write for the properties according to your requirements.
Pardon me if this question has already been asked. HttpContext.Current.Session["key"] returns an object and we would have to cast it to that particular Type before we could use it. I was looking at various implementations of typed sessions
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/aspnet/typedsessionstate.aspx
http://weblogs.asp.net/cstewart/archive/2008/01/09/strongly-typed-session-in-asp-net.aspx
http://geekswithblogs.net/dlussier/archive/2007/12/24/117961.aspx
and I felt that we needed to add some more code (correct me if I was wrong) to the SessionManager if we wanted to add a new Type of object into session, either as a method or as a separate wrapper. I thought we could use generics
public static class SessionManager<T> where T:class
{
public void SetSession(string key,object objToStore)
{
HttpContext.Current.Session[key] = objToStore;
}
public T GetSession(string key)
{
return HttpContext.Current.Session[key] as T;
}
}
Is there any inherent advantage in
using
SessionManager<ClassType>.GetSession("sessionString")
than using
HttpContext.Current.Session["sessionString"] as ClassType
I was also thinking it would be nice
to have something like
SessionManager["sessionString"] = objToStoreInSession,
but found that a static class cannot have an indexer. Is there any other way to achieve this ?
My thought was create a SessionObject which would store the Type and the object, then add this object to Session (using a SessionManager), with the key. When retrieving, cast all objects to SessionObject ,get the type (say t) and the Object (say obj) and cast obj as t and return it.
public class SessionObject { public Type type {get;set;} public Object obj{get;set;} }
this would not work as well (as the return signature would be the same, but the return types will be different).
Is there any other elegant way of saving/retrieving objects in session in a more type safe way
For a very clean, maintainable, and slick way of dealing with Session, look at this post. You'll be surprised how simple it can be.
A downside of the technique is that consuming code needs to be aware of what keys to use for storage and retrieval. This can be error prone, as the key needs to be exactly correct, or else you risk storing in the wrong place, or getting a null value back.
I actually use the strong-typed variation, since I know what I need to have in the session, and can thus set up the wrapping class to suit. I've rather have the extra code in the session class, and not have to worry about the key strings anywhere else.
You can simply use a singleton pattern for your session object. That way you can model your entire session from a single composite structure object. This post refers to what I'm talking about and discusses the Session object as a weakly typed object: http://allthingscs.blogspot.com/2011/03/documenting-software-architectural.html
Actually, if you were looking to type objects, place the type at the method level like:
public T GetValue<T>(string sessionKey)
{
}
Class level is more if you have the same object in session, but session can expand to multiple types. I don't know that I would worry about controlling the session; I would just let it do what it's done for a while, and simply provide a means to extract and save information in a more strongly-typed fashion (at least to the consumer).
Yes, indexes wouldn't work; you could create it as an instance instead, and make it static by:
public class SessionManager
{
private static SessionManager _instance = null;
public static SessionManager Create()
{
if (_instance != null)
return _instance;
//Should use a lock when creating the instance
//create object for _instance
return _instance;
}
public object this[string key] { get { .. } }
}
And so this is the static factory implementation, but it also maintains a single point of contact via a static reference to the session manager class internally. Each method in sessionmanager could wrap the existing ASP.NET session, or use your own internal storage.
I posted a solution on the StackOverflow question is it a good idea to create an enum for the key names of session values?
I think it is really slick and contains very little code to make it happen. It needs .NET 4.5 to be the slickest, but is still possible with older versions.
It allows:
int myInt = SessionVars.MyInt;
SessionVars.MyInt = 3;
to work exactly like:
int myInt = (int)Session["MyInt"];
Session["MyInt"] = 3;
Say I have a property like...
public object MyObject
{
get { return (object)ViewState["myobject"]; }
set { ViewState["myobject"] = value; }
}
I modify the object like so...
object myObjCopy = MyObject;
myObjCopy.ChangeSomething();
MyObject = myObjCopy;
Is this the correct method? It just feels really clunky and I wonder if I'm missing something. Is there some clever paradigm which enables modifying viewstate more intuitively without using temporary copys everywhere in my code.
With the property you have defined, you should not need to do any copying like what you have. I'm not sure what ChangeSomething() does, but you should be able to call it directly on the property. I would normally not pull it out as an object... It's been a while since I did pure webforms development, but my ViewState helper properties usually looked more like:
public string CurrentUsername
{
get
{
if (ViewState["Username"] is string)
return (string)ViewState["Username"];
return null;
}
set { ViewState["Username"] = value; }
}
Edit: Thinking about it, I guess the copy is probably there just to remove the potential performance overhead of casting every time you reference the property. I don't think this is a valid optimization in most cases, but if you feel strongly about it, you could hide it with something like this:
private string m_CurrentUsername;
public string CurrentUsername
{
get
{
if (m_CurrentUsername == null && ViewState["Username"] is string)
m_CurrentUsername = (string)ViewState["Username"];
return m_CurrentUsername;
}
set { ViewState["Username"] = m_CurrentUsername = value; }
}
Like I said though - I wouldn't recommend this.
The correct answer is that you shouldn't be modifying viewstate at all. Your controller should create the models and populate the viewstate only just before returning the view. If you're writing this code in the view, you've got an even bigger problem. in general, the view should contain little (if any) code that changes or does things.
Edit: Oops, I think I just got ViewData (in asp.net mvc) confused with viewdata. sorry ... to answer your real question, yes, that is just about the only way :-) it's not really clunky when you are dealing with a "bag" API like the viewstate is.