Is there a generic way to handle the behavior of AutoFixture for this scenario? I would like to customize the fixture under this test so each time I call fixture.Create<MyModel>(); I get a fully populated model with the string property setup rather than calling Build<MyModel>() and dealing with all the overhead each time.
When a model property of type int is decorated with the RangeAttribute, it is correctly mocked, however when the underlying type is string a AutoFixture.ObjectCreationException exception is thrown stating:
'AutoFixture was unable to create an instance from AutoFixture.Kernel.RangedNumberRequest, most likely because it has no public constructor, is an abstract or non-public type.
For example:
public class MyModel
{
[Required]
[Range(1, 65535)]
public string Port { get; set; }
}
var fixture = new Fixture();
var a = fixture.Create<MyModel>();
In 3.51.0 the first call the Create() worked, however subsequent calls threw an exception. Now in 4.0.0-rc1 (the version I am using), the first call throws.
Related
I'm writing a WPF application and I'm currently refactoring some reused code to a base ViewModel Class which my other viewmodels can inherit from.
One Property field on this base class is
public class MessageParentBase
{
MessageParentBase() {}
public string Name;
}
internal ObservableCollection<MessageParentBase> _GridData = new ObservableCollection<MessageParentBase>();
I have a subsequent property declaration
public ObservableCollection<MessageParentBase> GridData
{
get { return _GridData; }
set { _GridData = value; }
}
This works great and everything my issue is that the inerited classes actually use the follow class
Public class ChatMessage : MessageParentBase
{
public string Message;
}
and the view contains a grid of data which is bound to this GridData property but the column which should be bound to the Message field from the ChatMessage class is blank and the fields found in the MessageParentBase class are populated.
So I presume there is an issue with the view not knowing to cast up to the ChatMessage from the MessageParentBase class.
Can I inform the view that the objects will be of the type "ChatMessage".
I did try moving the property declaration up to the inherited viewmodel as
public ObservableCollection<ChatMessage> GridData
{
get { return _GridData; }
set { _GridData = value; }
}
but this gives me the following error:-
Cannot implicitly convert type 'System.Collections.ObjectModel.ObservableCollection' to 'System.Collections.ObjectModel.ObservableCollection'
Do I need to cast at the view level or can I change the viewmodels to implement this better?
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Emlyn
Change the collection to this:
public ObservableCollection<MessageParentBase> GridData { get; set; }
then add into your constructor
this.GridData = new ObservableCollection<MessageParentBase>();
Since WPF uses reflection to retrieve bound data from the data context it should be able to get the values of the derived classes stored in that collection.
Also when you run your application check the output window with Debug selected, the XAML engine will output any binding errors there.
Your ViewModel should contain a list with the type that your grid will show (in this case, the ChatMessage type). You can still use the inheritance to call common methods, but the binded list must be of the ChatMessage type
Id like to firstly apologise for what may appear to be a stupid question but im confused regarding the following.
Im writting a class library which will not be running on the UI thread. Inside the CL i need an array which im going populate with data received from a stored procedure call. I then need to pass this data back to the UI thread via an event.
Originally i was going to write the following.
public class ColumnInformation
{
public string[] columnHeaderNames;
public string[] columnDataTypes;
}
but im pretty sure that would be frowned upon and i instead should be using properties.
public class ColumnInformation
{
public string[] columnHeaderNames {get; set;}
public string[] columnDataTypes {get; set;}
}
but then i came across the following.
MSDN
so am i correct in assuming that i should actually declare this as follows:
public class ColumnInformation
{
private string[] _columnHeaderNames;
public Names(string[] headerNames)
{
_columnHeaderNames = headerNames;
}
public string[] GetNames()
{
// Need to return a clone of the array so that consumers
// of this library cannot change its contents
return (string[])_columnHeaderNames.Clone();
}
}
Thanks for your time.
If your concern is the guideline CA1819: Properties should not return arrays,
It will be same whether you are exposing Array as a Public Field, or Property (making readonly does not matter here). Once your original Array is exposed, its content can be modified.
To avoid this, as the link suggest, make Field private, and return Clone from the Getter.
However major concern is that there may be multiple copies of your array if retrieved many times. It is not good for performance and synchronization.
Better solution is ReadOnlyCollection.
Using ReadOnlyCollection, you can expose the collection as read only which cannot be modified. Also any changes to underlying collection will be reflected.
I'm using app engine datastore so I have entity like this.
#PersistenceCapable
public class Author {
#PrimaryKey
#Persistent(valueStrategy = IdGeneratorStrategy.IDENTITY)
#JsonProperty("id")
#JsonSerialize(using = JsonKeySerializer.class)
#JsonDeserialize(using = JsonKeyDeserializer.class)
private Key key;
....
}
When the model is sent to view, it will serialize the Key object as an Id value. Then, if I send data back from view I want to deserialize the Id back to Key object by using JsonKeyDeserializer class.
public class JsonKeyDeserializer extends JsonDeserializer<Key> {
#Override
public Key deserialize(JsonParser jsonParser, DeserializationContext deserializeContext)
throws IOException, JsonProcessingException {
String id = jsonParser.getText();
if (id.isEmpty()) {
return null;
}
// Here is the problem because I have several entities and I can't fix the Author class in this deserializer like this.
// I want to know what class is being deserialized at runtime.
// return KeyFactory.createKey(Author.class.getSimpleName(), Integer.parseInt(id))
}
}
I tried to debug the value in deserialize's parameters but I can't find the way to get the target deserialized class. How can I solve this?
You may have misunderstood the role of KeySerializer/KeyDeserializer: they are used for Java Map keys, and not as generic identifiers in database sense of term "key".
So you probably would need to use regular JsonSerializer/JsonDeserializer instead.
As to type: it is assumed that handlers are constructed for specific types, and no extra type information is passed during serialization or deserialization process: expected type (if handlers are used for different types) must be passed during construction.
When registering general serializers or deserializers, you can do this when implementing Module, as one of the arguments is type for which (de)serializer is requested.
When defining handlers directly for properties (like when using annotations), this information is available on createContextual() callback of interface ContextualSerializer (and -Deserializer), if your handler implements it: BeanProperty is passed to specify property (in this case field with annotation), and you can access its type. This information needs to be stored to be used during (de)serialization.
EDIT: as author pointed out, I actually misread the question: KeySerializer is the class name, not annotation.
Trying to implement a domain service in a SL app and getting the following error:
Parameter 'spFolderCreate' of domain method 'CreateSharePointFolder' must be an entity type exposed by the DomainService.
[EnableClientAccess()]
public class FileUploadService : DomainService
{
public void CreateSharePointFolder(SharePointFolderCreate spFolderCreate)
{
SharePointFolder spf = new SharePointFolder();
spf.CreateFolder_ClientOM(spFolderCreate.listName, spFolderCreate.fileName);
}
[OperationContract]
void CreateSharePointFolder(SharePointFolderCreate spFolderCreate);
[DataContract]
public class SharePointFolderCreate
{
private string m_listName;
private string m_fileName;
[DataMember]
public string listName
{
get { return m_listName; }
set { m_listName = value; }
}
[DataMember]
public string fileName
{
get { return m_fileName; }
set { m_fileName = value; }
}
}
So am I missing something simple here to make this all work?
It may be that the framework is inferring the intended operation because you have the word "Create" prefixing the function name (CreateSharePointFolder). Details of this behaviour can be found here
Although that is all fine for DomainServices and EntityFramework, following the information in that article, it can be inferred that methods beginning "Delete" will be performing a delete of an entity, so must accept an entity as a parameter. The same is true for "Create" or "Insert" prefixed methods. Only "Get" or "Select" methods can take non-entity parameters, making it possible to pass a numeric id (for example) to a "Get" method.
Try changing your method name temporarily to "BlahSharePointFolder" to see if it is this convention of inferrance that's causing your problem.
Also, as there is no metadata defined for your SharePointFolderCreate DC, you might need to decorate the class (in addition to the [DataContract] attribute) with the [MetadataType] attribute. You will see how to implement this if you used the DomainServiceClass wizard and point to an EF model. There is a checkbox at the bottom for generating metadata. Somewhere in your solution.Web project you should find a domainservice.metadata.cs file. In this file, you will find examples of how to use the [MetadataType] attribute.
For the RIA WCF service to work correctly with your own methods, you need to ensure that all entities existing on the parameter list have at least one member with a [Key] attribute defined in their metadata class, and that the entity is returned somewhere on your DomainService in a "Get" method.
HTH
Lee
I've got a CustomersModule.cs with the following Initialize() method:
public void Initialize()
{
container.RegisterType<ICustomersRepository, CustomersRepository>(new ContainerControlledLifetimeManager());
CustomersPresenter customersPresenter = this.container.Resolve<CustomersPresenter>();
}
The class I resolve from the container looks like this:
class CustomersPresenter
{
private CustomersView view;
private ICustomersRepository customersRespository;
public CustomersPresenter(CustomersView view,
ICustomersRepository customersRepository,
TestWhatever testWhatever)
{
this.view = view;
this.customersRespository = customersRepository;
}
}
The TestWhatever class is just a dummy class I created:
public class TestWhatever
{
public string Title { get; set; }
public TestWhatever()
{
Title = "this is the title";
}
}
Yet the container happily resolves CustomersPresenter even though I never registered it, and also the container somehow finds TestWhatever, instantiates it, and injects it into CustomersPresenter.
I was quite surprised to realize this since I couldn't find anywhere in the Prism documentation which explicitly stated that the container was so automatic.
So this is great, but it what else is the container doing that I don't know about i.e. what else can it do that I don't know about? For example, can I inject classes from other modules and if the modules happen to be loaded the container will inject them, and if not, it will inject a null?
There is nothing magical going on. You are specifying concrete types, so naturally they are resolvable, because if we have the Type object, we can call a constructor on it.
class Fred { };
Fred f1 = new Fred();
Type t = typeof(Fred);
Fred f2 = (Fred)t.GetConstructor(Type.EmptyTypes).Invoke(null);
The last line above is effectively what happens, the type t having been found by using typeof on the type parameter you give to Resolve.
If the type cannot be constructed by new (because it's in some unknown separate codebase) then you wouldn't be able to give it as a type parameter to Resolve.
In the second case, it is constructor injection, but it's still a known concrete constructable type. Via reflection, the Unity framework can get an array of all the Types of the parameters to the constructor. The type TestWhatever is constructable, so there is no ambiguity or difficulty over what to construct.
As to your concern about separate modules (assemblies), if you move TestWhatever to another assembly, that will not change the lines of code you've written; it will just mean that you have to add a reference to the other assembly to get this one to build. And then TestWhatever is still an unambiguously refeferenced constructable type, so it can be constructed by Unity.
In other words, if you can refer to the type in code, you can get a Type object, and so at runtime it will be directly constructable.
Response to comment:
If you delete the class TestWhatever, you will get a compile-time error, because you refer to that type in your code. So it won't be possible to get a runtime by doing that.
The decoupling is still in effect in this arrangement, because you could register a specific instance of TestWhatever, so every call to Resolve<TestWhatever>() will get the same instance, rather than constructing a new one.
The reason this works is because Unity is designed for it. When you Resolve with a concrete type, Unity looks to see if it can resolve from the container. If it cannot, then it just goes and instantiates the type resolving it's dependencies. It's really quite simple.