I'm trying to access a native Wpf control property within the UI test framework (MS UI Tests). My specific issue is that, when I try accessing a WpfButton control property (e.g., IsVisible) using the function call WpfButtonObject.GetProperty("IsVisible"), the exception "System.NotSupportedExceptions" occurs. I'm able to see this WpfButton property using Snoop; so, I'm wondering if the GetProperty call is correct? Please see my related code below. Thanks for any insight.
UIMap.cs: Test function for a pressing a WpfButton. Please note the call uIButton.GetPropery("IsVisible"). This is where the exception occurs:
public void PressButtonTest()
{
WpfButton uIButton = this.UIMainWindowWindow.UIButtonButton;
object state = uIButton.GetProperty("IsVisible"); // Throws SystemNotSupportedException exception
bool stateBool = (bool)state;
Assert.IsTrue(stateBool, "Button is visible");
PressButton();
}
UIMap.Designer.cs: WpfButton property:
public WpfButton UIButtonButton
{
get
{
if ((this.mUIButtonButton == null))
{
this.mUIButtonButton = new WpfButton(this);
#region Search Criteria
this.mUIButtonButton.SearchProperties[WpfButton.PropertyNames.AutomationId] = "button";
this.mUIButtonButton.WindowTitles.Add("MainWindow");
#endregion
}
return this.mUIButtonButton;
}
}
Here's what I've done:
Point point;
bool isClickable = uIButton.TryGetClickablePoint(out point);
Assert.IsTrue(isClickable, "No clickable point was found, button not visible.");
By the way, your message in your Assert (2nd parameter) is inaccurate because it's only used on fail... in your case, when the button would not be visible. So in your output it would say "Button is visible" on failure when in fact it was not.
Related
I'm creating a WPF MVVM app using Caliburn Micro. I have a set of buttons in a menu (Ribbon) that live in the view for my shell view model, which is a ScreenConductor. Based on the currently active Screen view model, I would like to have the ribbon buttons be disabled/enabled if they are available for use with the active Screen, and call actions or commands on the active Screen.
This seems like a common scenario. Is there a pattern for creating this behavior?
Why don't you do the reverse thing, instead of checking which commands are supported by the current active screen, let the active screen populate the menu or ribbon tab with all the controls that it supports, (i would let it inject its own user control which might just be a complete menu or a ribbon tab all by itself), this will also enhance the user experience as it will only show the user the controls that he can work with for the current active screen.
EDIT: Just looking at your question again and I'm thinking that this is much simpler than it looks
The only issue I can see you having is that a lack of a handler (and guard) method on a child VM will mean that buttons that don't have an implementation on the currently active VM will still be enabled.
The default strategy for CM is to try and find a matching method name (after parsing the action text) and if one is not found, to leave the button alone. If you were to customise that behaviour so that the default is for buttons to be disabled, you could easily get it working by just implementing the command buttons in your shell, making sure to set the command target to the active item:
In the shell define your buttons, making sure they have a target that points to the active child VM
<Button cal:Message.Attach="Command1" cal:Action.TargetWithoutContext="{Binding ActiveItem}" />
Then just implement the method in your child VM as per usual
public void Command1() { }
and optionally a CanXX guard
public bool CanCommand1
{
get
{
if(someCondition) return false;
return true;
}
}
Assuming you don't get much more complex than this, it should work for you
I'm going to have a quick look at the CM source and see if I can come up with something that works for this
EDIT:
Ok you can customise the ActionMessage.ApplyAvailabilityEffect func to get the effect you want - in your bootstrapper.Configure() method (or somewhere at startup) use:
ActionMessage.ApplyAvailabilityEffect = context =>
{
var source = context.Source;
if (ConventionManager.HasBinding(source, UIElement.IsEnabledProperty))
{
return source.IsEnabled;
}
if (context.CanExecute != null)
{
source.IsEnabled = context.CanExecute();
}
// Added these 3 lines to get the effect you want
else if (context.Target == null)
{
source.IsEnabled = false;
}
// EDIT: Bugfix - need this to ensure the button is activated if it has a target but no guard
else
{
source.IsEnabled = true;
}
return source.IsEnabled;
};
This seems to work for me - there is no target for methods which couldn't be bound to a command, so in that case I just set IsEnabled to false. This activates buttons only when a method with a matching signature is found on the active child VM - obviously give it a good test before you use it :)
Create methods and accompanying boolean properties for each of your commands on your shell view model. (See code below for an example.) Caliburn.Micro's conventions will wire them up to the buttons for you automatically. Then simply raise property changed events for the boolean properties when you change views to have them be re-evaluated.
For example, let's say you have a Save button. The name of that button in your xaml would be Save, and in your view model, you would have a Save method along with a CanSave boolean property. See below:
public void Save()
{
var viewModelWithSave = ActiveItem as ISave;
if (viewModelWithSave != null) viewModelWithSave.Save();
}
public bool CanSave { get { return ActivateItem is ISave; } }
Then, in your conductor, whenever you change your active screen, you would call NotifyOfPropertyChange(() => CanSave);. Doing this will cause your button to be disabled or enabled depending upon if the active screen is capable of dealing with that command. In this example, if the active screen doesn't implement ISave, then the Save button would be disabled.
I would use the Caliburn.Micro event aggregation in this scenario, as follows:
Create a class named ScreenCapabilities with a bunch of Boolean attributes (e.g. CanSave, CanLoad, etc.)
Create a message named ScreenActivatedMessage with a property of type ScreenCapabilities
Create a view model for your ribbon that subscribes to (handles) the ScreenActivatedMessage
In the ribbon view model's Handle method, set the local CanXXX properties based on the supplied ScreenCapabilities.
It would look something like this (code typed by hand, not tested):
public class ScreenCapabilities
{
public bool CanSave { get; set; }
// ...
}
public class ScreenActivatedMessage
{
public ScreenCapabilities ScreenCapabilities { get; set; }
// ...
}
public class RibbonViewModel : PropertyChangedBase, IHandle<ScreenActivatedMessage>
{
private bool _canSave;
public bool CanSave
{
get { return _canSave; }
set { _canSave = value; NotifyPropertyChanged(() => CanSave); }
}
// ...
public void Handle(ScreenActivatedMessage message)
{
CanSave = message.ScreenCapabilities.CanSave;
// ...
}
}
Then, somewhere appropriate, when the screen changes, publish the message. See see Caliburn.Micro wiki for more info.
Define a property (let's say ActiveScreen) for the active screen in the shell view model.
And let's assume you have properties for the each button such as DeleteButton, AddButton.
Screen is a viewmodel for the screens.
private Screen activeScreen;
public Screen ActiveScreen
{
get
{
return activeScreen;
}
set
{
activeScreen= value;
if (activeScreen.Name.equals("Screen1"))
{
this.AddButton.IsEnabled = true;
this.DeleteButton.IsEnabled = false;
}
if else (activeScreen.Name.equals("Screen2"))
{
this.AddButton.IsEnabled = true;
this.DeleteButton.IsEnabled = true;
}
NotifyPropertyChanged("ActiveScreen");
}
}
hi i have this lines of code that i cant make it work
the goal is simple setting the form1 to visible = false
public static void DoActions(string Cmd){
if(Cmd == true)
{
MainForm.Visible = false;
}
}
but i keep on having this error
An object reference is required for
the non-static field, method, or
property
usually i set the called methond to static.. so the error will go away
but on this case how do i do it?
thanks for any help guys
'System.Windows.Forms.Control.Invoke(System.Delegate)'
This is happening because DoActions is a static method rather than an instance method, however MainForm is an instance field / property. The distinction is that instance methods operate on an instance of the class on which they are defined, wheras static methods do not.
This means that wheras instance methods are able to access properties, fields and methods of their containing class through the this keyword, for example:
// Instance field
Form1 MainForm;
void InstanceMethod()
{
Form1 frm = this.MainForm;
}
You cannot do the same thing from inside a static method (think about it, what instance would it operate on?). Note that C# will implicitly assume the use of the this keyword in places where it makes sense (so the above example could have been written as Form1 frm = MainForm).
See C# Static Methods for an alternative explanation of static vs instance methods (this is an important concept in object oriented programming that you should take the time to understand properly).
In your example you probably want to change DoActions to an instance method (by removing the static declaration):
public void DoActions(string Cmd)
{
if(Cmd == true)
{
this.MainForm.Visible = false;
}
}
This will allow it to access the instance MainForm field / property, however this may cause problems elsewhere in your code in places where you attempt to call DoActions from another static method without supplying an object instance.
Set form opacity and showintaskbar property in property window:
this.Opacity = 0;
this.ShowInTaskbar = false;
Your method is static - and so cannot access MainForm.
Make your method non-static if it is not required to be so.
public void DoActions(string Cmd)
{
if(Cmd == true)
{
MainForm.Visible = false;
}
}
If it is required, then create a static field in your class and ensure it is set before this method runs.
I'm attempting to implement an adorner for a PasswordBox to add watermark functionality. I'm basing it on the project at http://sladorner.codeplex.com/. I've gotten the watermark implementation working in a sandbox application, but I'm running into issues when I attempt to add this to a class library.
When the line that sets _Popup.Child is executed, I get the exception "Error HRESULT E_FAIL has been returned from a call to a COM component." Is there a solution for this (or maybe a completely different way around the issue of watermarking a PasswordBox)?
public class PasswordBoxWatermarkAdorner : Control
{
private Border _ContentBorder;
private TextBlock _WatermarkTextBlock;
private PasswordBox _AssociatedElement;
private Popup _Popup;
private string _WatermarkText;
public PasswordBoxWatermarkAdorner(PasswordBox associatedElement, string watermarkText)
{
this.DefaultStyleKey = typeof(PasswordBoxWatermarkAdorner);
_AssociatedElement = associatedElement;
_WatermarkText = watermarkText;
_Popup = new Popup
{
Child = this,
IsOpen = true
};
_Popup.LayoutUpdated += _Popup_LayoutUpdated;
}
In MVVM it is normal to connect View to the ViewModel with data binding.
Therefore if the name of a properties changes on one of the Model objects that is databound to there is no compiler error.
When the compiler will not stop a bug, the next thing I think of is “UnitTest”, However
How do you unit test this without
spending forever writing a GUI test?
Is there a system that will check that all the properties that are bound to is valid, (without having to run the UI) that I can call in a unit test?
I am looking for something that will take the view, and then loop over all WPF controls, for each WPF control it will look at all the binding and check if they are valid.
By the way there have been a few good questions about how to make OnPropertyChanged safe, and/or how to test it (But done of these get down to the level of a WPF view.)
How to make Databinding type safe and support refactoring
Automatically INotifyPropertyChanged
workarounds for nameof() operator in C#: typesafe databinding
A Fluent Interface For Testing INotifyPropertyChanged
Automatic Class Tester will test all simple proptites and INotifyPropertyChanged
I have put a bounty on this question, as someone must have thought hard about the problem and come up with soltions.
I think I've come up with something that may work using simple reflection, and adapting some code I've used in the past (the code for the FindBindingsRecursively method was written by Martin Bennedik's as part of his Enterprise WPF Validation Control):
[TestMethod]
public void CheckWpfBindingsAreValid()
{
// instansiate the xaml view and set DataContext
var yourView = new YourView();
yourView.DataContext = YourViewModel;
FindBindingsRecursively(yourView,
delegate(FrameworkElement element, Binding binding, DependencyProperty dp)
{
var type = yourView.DataContext.GetType();
// check that each part of binding valid via reflection
foreach (string prop in binding.Path.Path.Split('.'))
{
PropertyInfo info = type.GetProperty(prop);
Assert.IsNotNull(info);
type = info.PropertyType;
}
});
}
private delegate void FoundBindingCallbackDelegate(FrameworkElement element, Binding binding, DependencyProperty dp);
private void FindBindingsRecursively(DependencyObject element, FoundBindingCallbackDelegate callbackDelegate)
{
// See if we should display the errors on this element
MemberInfo[] members = element.GetType().GetMembers(BindingFlags.Static |
BindingFlags.Public |
BindingFlags.FlattenHierarchy);
foreach (MemberInfo member in members)
{
DependencyProperty dp = null;
// Check to see if the field or property we were given is a dependency property
if (member.MemberType == MemberTypes.Field)
{
FieldInfo field = (FieldInfo)member;
if (typeof(DependencyProperty).IsAssignableFrom(field.FieldType))
{
dp = (DependencyProperty)field.GetValue(element);
}
}
else if (member.MemberType == MemberTypes.Property)
{
PropertyInfo prop = (PropertyInfo)member;
if (typeof(DependencyProperty).IsAssignableFrom(prop.PropertyType))
{
dp = (DependencyProperty)prop.GetValue(element, null);
}
}
if (dp != null)
{
// Awesome, we have a dependency property. does it have a binding? If yes, is it bound to the property we're interested in?
Binding bb = BindingOperations.GetBinding(element, dp);
if (bb != null)
{
// This element has a DependencyProperty that we know of that is bound to the property we're interested in.
// Now we just tell the callback and the caller will handle it.
if (element is FrameworkElement)
{
callbackDelegate((FrameworkElement)element, bb, dp);
}
}
}
}
// Now, recurse through any child elements
if (element is FrameworkElement || element is FrameworkContentElement)
{
foreach (object childElement in LogicalTreeHelper.GetChildren(element))
{
if (childElement is DependencyObject)
{
FindBindingsRecursively((DependencyObject)childElement, callbackDelegate);
}
}
}
}
Really good question. Voted it up. I would like to know the answer too.
One of the best practices I know (suggested by Josh Smith, thanks Gishu for pointing to this) is having base view model class to check in the OnPropertyChanged() method whether property really exists. E.g.:
abstract class ViewModelBase
{
[Conditional("DEBUG")]
public void VerifyPropertyName(string propertyName)
{
// Verify that the property name matches a real,
// public, instance property on this object.
if (TypeDescriptor.GetProperties(this)[propertyName] == null)
{
if (this.ThrowOnInvalidPropertyName)
throw new ArgumentException(propertyName);
string msg = "Invalid property name: " + propertyName;
Debug.Fail(msg);
}
}
protected void OnPropertyChanged(string propertyName)
{
VerifyPropertyName(propertyName);
PropertyChangedEventHandler handler = this.PropertyChanged;
if (handler != null)
{
var e = new PropertyChangedEventArgs(propertyName);
handler(this, e);
}
}
}
But this wouldn't help you to find spelling problems in XAML. Hmm... I don't know any existing solution for this. Maybe guys from WPF Disciples could suggest something. I think I would go with PresentationTraceSources.DataBindingSource and add to his Listners collection instance of TextWriterTraceListener and then monitor output. As soon as we get an error or warning on our radar we should fail a test.
Found good example: WPF Snippet - Detecting Binding Errors
Hope this helps. At least a bit :).
Cheers, Anvaka.
I know that this is not the direct answer to your question.
If you know the name of the control element, that you expect to be bound against you can do something like the test below (using nunit). This is the rough version. But here you use expressions and explicitly test that the property is in a binding
[Test]
public void TestBindings()
{
TestBinding<IndividualSolutionViewModel, string>(x => x.Name, "Name", TextBlock.TextProperty);
}
private void TestBinding<TViewModel,TResult>(Expression<Func<TViewModel, TResult>> property, string elementName,
DependencyProperty dependencyProperty)
{
string memberName = ExpressionHelper.GetPropertyName(property); // f.ex v => v.Name will return Name
TestBinding(memberName, elementName, dependencyProperty);
}
private void TestBinding(string memberName, string elementInControlName, DependencyProperty dependencyProperty)
{
//object viewModel = new IndividualSolutionViewModel();
var view = new IndividualSolutionView();
//Assert.That(view.DataContext, Is.EqualTo(viewModel));
var element = view.FindName(elementInControlName);
Assert.That(element, Is.Not.Null, string.Format("Unable to find the element {0} in view {1}", elementInControlName, view.Name));
Assert.That(element, Is.InstanceOf(typeof(DependencyObject)));
var binding = BindingOperations.GetBinding(element as DependencyObject, dependencyProperty);
Assert.That(binding, Is.Not.Null, string.Format("Could not find a binding for the control {0}", elementInControlName));
Assert.That(binding.Path.Path, Is.EqualTo(memberName));
}
Ps. You have to add this to the app.config
<configSections>
<sectionGroup name="NUnit">
<section type="System.Configuration.NameValueSectionHandler"
name="TestRunner"></section>
</sectionGroup>
</configSections>
<NUnit>
<TestRunner>
<add value="STA" key="ApartmentState"></add>
</TestRunner>
</NUnit>
There is also this possibility, that might give you some ideas. THe gist of the idea is property names that you would be binding to are exposed as static string properties. If a binding property name changed you would get a compilation error.
I have not had the opportunity to actually test this technique myself - but it does look interesting:
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/42036/Project-Metadata-Generation-using-T4
As Anvaka points out, using a base class for your view model that checks property names can help avoid this particular problem (though it won't tell you when your VM class does its own property-change notification and ignores the method in the base class, not that I've ever seen anything like that happen in my code).
And you can (and should) instrument your code so that things that aren't working fail in a way that's visible to you. The thing that's kind of paradoxical about this is that if you know what things may fail and you watch them, they won't, because the fact that you're watching them will keep you from making the mistakes that lead them to fail (like writing a template selector that doesn't always return a template).
But fundamentally, the view is the UI, so I would be pretty surprised to find methods of testing it that weren't also methods for testing the UI.
I am trying to unit test my WPF databindings using the test suit provided by Microsoft Team System. I would like to be able to test the bindings without showing the window because most of my tests will be for user controls and not actually on a window. Is this possible or is there a better way to do it? The code below works if I show the window, but if I don't, the bindings don't update.
Window1_Accessor target = new Window1_Accessor();
UnitTestingWPF.Window1_Accessor.Person p = new UnitTestingWPF.Window1_Accessor.Person() { FirstName = "Shane" };
Window1 window = (target.Target as Window1);
window.DataContext = p;
//window.Show(); //Only Works when I actually show the window
//Is it possible to manually update the binding here, maybe? Is there a better way?
Assert.AreEqual("Shane", target.textBoxFirstName.Text); //Fails if I don't Show() the window because the bindings aren't updated
While looking for a solution to convert WPF binding errors into exception, I figured out that it can also be used in a unit test project.
The technique is very simple:
Derive a TraceListener that throws instead of logging
Add that listener to PresentationTraceSources.DataBindingSource
Please see the complete solution on GitHub, it includes a unit test project.
Shane, if what you're really worried about is a binding breaking silently, you should look at redirecting the binding traces to somewhere you can examine. I'd start here:
http://blogs.msdn.com/mikehillberg/archive/2006/09/14/WpfTraceSources.aspx
Other than that, I agree with Gishu that bindings aren't good candidates for unit testing, mainly due to the automagic going on that Gishu mentioned in the "Epilogue". Instead focus on making sure the underlying class behaves correctly.
Note, too, that you can get even more robust traces using the PresentationTraceSources class:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.diagnostics.presentationtracesources.aspx
Hope that helps!
Eyeball it.
This kind of declarative markup rarely breaks.. unless someone goes in manual and screws it up. Even then, you can fix it within minutes. IMHO the cost of writing such tests far outweigh the benefits.
Update[Dec3,08]: Alrighty then.
The test is just testing that the textbox has the value "FirstName" as the Path property of the binding. If I change/refactor FirstName to JustName in the actual data source object, the test would still pass since it is testing against an anonymous type. (Green test when code broken - TDD Antipattern: The Liar)
If your aim is to verify that FirstName has been specified in XAML,
Assert.AreEqual("FirstName", txtBoxToProbe.GetBindingExpression(TextBox.TextProperty).ParentBinding.Path.Path);
If you really must catch broken bindings via unit tests (and don't want to show the UI), use the real data source... struggled for a while and came up with this.
[Test]
public void TestTextBoxBinding()
{
MyWindow w = new MyWindow();
TextBox txtBoxToProbe = w.TextBox1;
Object obDataSource = w; // use 'real' data source
BindingExpression bindingExpr = BindingOperations.GetBindingExpression(txtBoxToProbe, TextBox.TextProperty);
Binding newBind = new Binding(bindingExpr.ParentBinding.Path.Path);
newBind.Source = obDataSource;
txtBoxToProbe.SetBinding(TextBox.TextProperty, newBind);
Assert.AreEqual("Go ahead. Change my value.", txtBoxToProbe.Text);
}
Epilogue:
There's some real covert stuff happening in the call to Window.Show(). It somehow magically sets up the DataItem property after which data binding starts working.
// before show
bindingExpr.DataItem => null
bindingExpr.Status => BindingStatus.Unattached
// after show
bindingExpr.DataItem => {Actual Data Source}
bindingExpr.Status => BindingStatus.Active
Once the Binding is Active, I guess you can force textbox updates via code like this..
txtBoxToProbe.GetBindingExpression(TextBox.TextProperty).UpdateTarget();
Once again, I voice my reluctance against this approach. Getting NUnit to run in STA was a pain..
Combining advice I came across in a number of SO posts I wrote the following class which works very well to test WPF bindings.
public static class WpfBindingTester
{
/// <summary>load a view in a hidden window and monitor it for binding errors</summary>
/// <param name="view">a data-bound view to load and monitor for binding errors</param>
public static void AssertBindings(object view)
{
using (InternalTraceListener listener = new InternalTraceListener())
{
ManualResetEventSlim mre = new ManualResetEventSlim(false);
Window window = new Window
{
Width = 0,
Height = 0,
WindowStyle = WindowStyle.None,
ShowInTaskbar = false,
ShowActivated = false,
Content = view
};
window.Loaded += (_, __) => mre.Set();
window.Show();
mre.Wait();
window.Close();
Assert.That(listener.ErrorMessages, Is.Empty, listener.ErrorMessages);
}
}
/// <summary>Is the test running in an interactive session. Use with Assume.That(WpfBindingTester.IsAvailable) to make sure tests only run where they're able to</summary>
public static bool IsAvailable { get { return Environment.UserInteractive && Process.GetCurrentProcess().SessionId != 0; } }
private class InternalTraceListener : TraceListener
{
private readonly StringBuilder _errors = new StringBuilder();
private readonly SourceLevels _originalLevel;
public string ErrorMessages { get { return _errors.ToString(); } }
static InternalTraceListener() { PresentationTraceSources.Refresh(); }
public InternalTraceListener()
{
_originalLevel = PresentationTraceSources.DataBindingSource.Switch.Level;
PresentationTraceSources.DataBindingSource.Switch.Level = SourceLevels.Error;
PresentationTraceSources.DataBindingSource.Listeners.Add(this);
}
public override void Write(string message) {}
public override void WriteLine(string message) { _errors.AppendLine(message); }
protected override void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
PresentationTraceSources.DataBindingSource.Listeners.Remove(this);
PresentationTraceSources.DataBindingSource.Switch.Level = _originalLevel;
base.Dispose(disposing);
}
}
}
you can try Guia.
With it you can unit-test your UserControl and check if the data binding is correct. You have to show the window though.
Here is an example. It starts a new instance of your UserControl and sets its DataContext and then checks if the textbox is set to the right value.
[TestMethod]
public void SimpleTest()
{
var viewModel = new SimpleControlViewModel() {TextBoxText = "Some Text"};
customControl = CustomControl.Start<SimpleUserControl>((control) => control.DataContext = viewModel);
Assert.AreEqual("Some Text", customControl.Get<TextBox>("textbox1").Value);
customControl.Stop();
}