I want to test a Shell that calls an API. The Shell has a function that sets the value for a protected var protected $_credential = [];
class ImportShell extends AppShell
{
protected $_credential = [];
public function sales() {
$credential = $this->Credential->find('first', [
'conditions' => [
'Credential.id' => $this->args[0]
]
]);
$this->_credential = $credential;
}
}
It uses the values in $this->args to find a Table entry and write that result into $_credential
How can I access/change $_credential in my test when I use it like this?
$ImportShell = $this->getMockBuilder('ImportShell')
->setMethods(array('find'))
->getMock();
$ImportShell->sales();
Also how can I access/change $this->args?
Use reflections
Reflections provide a mechanism to modify and interrogate code, and has a specific function to set a property value. The syntax is a little unwheildy but this allows you to modify the accessibility and value of class properties (and functions). Something like this would do what you want:
$class = new ReflectionClass("ImportShell");
$property = $class->getProperty("_credential");
$property->setAccessible(true);
$ImportShell = $this->getMockBuilder('ImportShell')
->setMethods(array('find'))
->getMock();
$ImportShell->_credential = ['stuff'];
There's a plugin for that
The Friends Of Cake Test Utilities plugin simplifies the syntax to achieve the same thing. The syntax using this plugin would be:
$this->setProtectedProperty('_credential', ['stuff'], $ImportShell);
Is it really necessary though?
args is a public property. Instead of manipulating a protected property, it is possible to simply set the public property that is used to populate it before calling the test function.
$ImportShell = $this->getMockBuilder('ImportShell')
->setMethods(array('find'))
->getMock();
$ImportShell->args = ['stuff'];
$ImportShell->sales();
Though given the way the question is phrased, it'd probably make more sense to mock the Credential model and add an expectation that it'll be called, and return what you want it to.
Related
Please explain the functional difference between Customize and Register, when to use one over the other. The TestCustomize example below fails and the TestRegister passes. I expected the customize script to work fine. It reads to me in English as:
"When generating an HttpClient, use a post-processing lambda on it before providing the specimen".
But what I get is an HTTP address with a GUID in it, clearly generated by AutoFixture.
[Fact]
public void TestCustomize()
{
var fixture = new Fixture();
fixture.Customize<HttpClient>(c =>
{
//c.OmitAutoProperties(); makes no difference
c.Do(x => x.BaseAddress = new Uri("http://myval"));
return c;
});
var client = fixture.Create<HttpClient>();
Assert.Equal("http://myval/", client.BaseAddress.ToString());
}
[Fact]
public void TestRegister()
{
var fixture = new Fixture();
fixture.Register(() => new HttpClient
{
BaseAddress = new Uri("http://myval")
});
var client = fixture.Create<HttpClient>();
Assert.Equal("http://myval/", client.BaseAddress.ToString());
}
This has nothing to do with Customize vs. Register. In fact, if you look at the source code for Register, you'll see that it's only a convenience method over Customize.
The problem lies in the use of Do. If you look at the signature of Do, you'll see that it has this type:
IPostprocessComposer<T> Do(Action<T> action)
Notice that the method returns a value. In Functional style, or, if you will, following Command-Query Separation, the method doesn't mutate the instance on which it's defined, but rather returns a new object with the changed behaviour.
When one writes:
c.Do(x => x.BaseAddress = new Uri("http://myval"));
one immediately discards the return value with the changed behaviour. In languages like F# or Haskell, you'd get a compile-time notification if you wrote code like that, telling you that you'd be ignoring the return value of a function call, but C# doesn't do that.
In any case, AutoFixture's APIs are designed as fluent interfaces. The intent is that you chain method calls together:
fixture.Customize<HttpClient>(c => c
.Without(x => x.BaseAddress)
.Do(x => x.BaseAddress = new Uri("http://myval")));
You still need Without (or, if you will, OmitAutoProperties) to turn off the default auto-property behaviour, because otherwise, BaseAddress will be overwritten by the auto-property feature.
This version of the test passes:
[Fact]
public void TestCustomize()
{
var fixture = new Fixture();
fixture.Customize<HttpClient>(c => c
.Without(x => x.BaseAddress)
.Do(x => x.BaseAddress = new Uri("http://myval")));
var client = fixture.Create<HttpClient>();
Assert.Equal("http://myval/", client.BaseAddress.ToString());
}
I just changed my [RegularExpression] validation and a third of my unit tests broke!
It turns out AutoFixture is generating values based on that regex, which is cool, but it doesn't understand all regexs, so I'd like to supply it with a simpler one:
Fixtures.Customize<Details>(c => c.With(d => d.PhoneNumber,
new SpecimenContext(Fixtures).Resolve(
new RegularExpressionRequest(#"[2-9]\d{2}-\d{3}-\d{4}"))));
This ends up giving me a generic LINQ error ("Sequence contains no elements.") at object creation time. What am I doing wrong?
Alternatively, is there any way I can just turn this feature off? Customize() is helpful, but it prevents me from using Build() without repeating all the same logic. (Doesn't it?)
You can't easily turn that feature off, but you can easily override it:
public class Details
{
[RegularExpression(#"?(?:\(\s*([2-9]1[02-9]|[2-9][02-8]1|[2-9][02-8][02-9])\s*\)|([2-9]1[02-9]|[2-9][02-8]1|[2-9][02-8][02-9]))\s*(?:[.-]\s*)?)?([2-9]1[02-9]|[2-9][02-9]1|[2-9][02-9]{2})\s*(?:[.-]\s*)?([0-9]{4})(?:\s*(?:#|x\.?|ext\.?|extension)\s*(\d+))?$")]
public string PhoneNumber { get; set; }
}
public class DetailsTests
{
[Fact]
public void OverridePhoneNumberRegularExpression()
{
var fixture = new Fixture();
var pattern = #"[2-9]\d{2}-\d{3}-\d{4}";
var phoneNumber =
new SpecimenContext(fixture).Resolve(
new RegularExpressionRequest(pattern));
fixture.Customize<Details>(c => c
.With(x => x.PhoneNumber, phoneNumber));
var sut = fixture.Create<Details>();
var actual = sut.PhoneNumber;
Assert.True(Regex.IsMatch(actual, pattern));
}
}
This test passes and looks similar to the one shown in the question. – What other members are defined in Details class?
We are familiar with Components and Helpers in CakePHP.
I have an ABC Component and XYZ helper and both have same function (around 2000 lines total 4000 lines).
there is any way to use same function in Controller and .CTP files. it's not good to use same function 2 time.
any method so i can use Component/Helper function in Helper/Component without rewrite ?
same method into component and helper >>
Component
class DATAComponent extends Component {
public $components = array('Session', 'THmail');
public function UsaStateList()
{ /********/}
Helper
class LabHelper extends AppHelper {
public function UsaStateList()
{ /********/}
}
Well, you will have to rewrite something, it's not going to solve itself.
CakePHP is still PHP, so you can easily apply common patterns to keeps things DRY. The most straight forward way would probably be to move the shared functionality into an utility class that your component and helper can both use internally while leaving their public API unchanged.
Some of CakePHPs helpers do something similar, check for example the time helper.
http://book.cakephp.org/2.0/en/core-libraries/helpers/time.html
http://book.cakephp.org/2.0/en/core-utility-libraries/time.html#CakeTime
Traits might be an option too, depending on the amount of functionality being shared and how much it is tied to the use in a component/helper.
I wanted to use a component inside a helper. So i came out with the following solution.
<?php
App::uses('AppHelper', 'View/Helper');
App::import('Component', 'MyComponent');
class MyHelperHelper extends AppHelper {
private $MyComponent = null;
public function __construct(View $View, $settings = array()) {
$collection = new ComponentCollection();
$this->MyComponent = new MyComponentComponent($collection);
parent::__construct($View, $settings);
}
public function myCustomFunction() {
return $this->MyComponent->myCustomFunction();
}
}
Simple Answer
For common functions across your application, add a Lib or Utility class.
app/Lib/MyClass.php
class MyClass {
public static function usaStateList() {
// ...
}
}
Then add this at the top of whichever file you want access to the function:
App::uses('MyClass', 'Lib');
And call your function wherever you like:
$myClass = new MyClass();
$states = $myClass::usaStateList();
Better Answer
It looks to me like your specific problem is that you want to be able to get a list of US states in both your controller and your view. The best way to do this is to have a database table of US states.
Create a table in your database called us_states.
Example SQL:
CREATE TABLE `us_states` (
`id` INT NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY,
`name` VARCHAR(20) NOT NULL,
`abbreviation` CHAR(2) NOT NULL
) ENGINE = MYISAM
Insert all the states as data in that table. You can find SQL dumps on the Internet which already have that for you (e.g. Like this one).
Create a UsState model in CakePHP.
/**
* Model for US States
*
* #package app.Model
*/
class UsState extends AppModel {
/**
* Default sort order
*
* #var string|array
*/
public $order = 'UsState.name';
}
What you can then do is access the states from your controller just by using the model.
/**
* Your Controller
*
* #package app.Controller
*/
class YourController extends AppController {
public function index() {
// Get a list of US states
$this->loadModel('UsState');
$states = $this->UsState->find('all');
}
}
And if you want to access those states in your View, then you should pass along that data as you normally would any other variables.
I imagine you would want to do that so you can have a select menu of US states, perhaps.
public function index() {
// Get a list of US states
$this->loadModel('UsState');
$states = $this->UsState->find('all');
// Make the states into an array we can use for a select menu
$stateOptions = array();
foreach ($states as $state) {
$stateOptions[$state['id']] = $state['name'];
}
// Send the options to the View
$this->set(compact('stateOptions'));
}
And in your view you can display a select menu for that like this:
echo $this->Form->select('us_state_id', $stateOptions);
I would go with a class in Lib folder. It is pretty clear how to deal with a library class that has only static methods. So, I omit this case. A workable solution for instantiating the class could be to create it in the controller and put it into the registry. If you really need to access CakeRequest, CakeResponse and CakeSession (take a note that CakeSession has many static methods, so you often do not need an instance of that class) from that class you can set it from the controller:
$MyLib = new MyLib();
$MyLib->setRequest($this->request); // optional
ClassRegistry::addObject('MyLib', $MyLib);
Then from the view or any other place you would just get an instance of MyLib from the registry:
ClassRegistry::getObject('MyLib');
or simply
$list = ClassRegistry::getObject('MyLib')->UsaStateList();
So, your class would be something like this:
// /Lib/MyLib.php
class MyLib {
public function setRequest(CakeRequest request) {...}
public function UsaStateList() {...}
}
ok you want to use a single function in component and helper, I can think of 3 things you can do:
Calling a function from the component in your helper.
Calling a function from a helper in your component.
Create a model or use an existing model where you put the function, and you can use this function in your component or your help.
Option numbre 3:
In your helper and component, you need import a model, assuming that your function be in a model "StateList":
how you call the funcion of the model "StateList" in your helper, so:
App::import("Model", "StateList");
$model = new StateList();
$model->UsaStateList();
how you call the funcion of the model "StateList" in your component, so:
$model = ClassRegistry::init('StateList');
$model->UsaStateList();
ans if you want use the same function in a controller just:
$this->loadModel('StateList');
$this->StateList->UsaStateList();
I have a class that uses a lot of database internally, so I built the constructor with a $db handle that I am supposed to pass to it.
I am just getting started with PHPUnit, and I am not sure how I should go ahead and pass the database handle through setup.
// Test code
public function setUp(/*do I pass a database handle through here, using a reference? aka &$db*/){
$this->_acl = new acl;
}
// Construct from acl class
public function __construct(Zend_Db_Adapter_Abstract $db, $config = array()){
You would do it like this:
public class TestMyACL extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase {
protected $adapter;
protected $config;
protected $myACL;
protected function setUp() {
$this->adapter = // however you create a new ZendDbADapter
$this->config = // however you create a new config array
$this->myACL = new ACL($this->adapter, $this->config); // This is the System Under Test (SUT)
}
}
IMHO, you need to work on your naming conventions. See Zend Framework Naming Conventions, for a start. An example would be the underscore, look up variables in the link. Also class naming.
You can do normally without reference same as constructor because this method is simplest.
I'm looking at using oData endpoints in my Silverlight client. Naturally, I'm doing MVVM and I want the project to be nice and "Blendable" (i.e. I must be able to cleanly use static data instead of the oData endpoints when in design mode.)
Now to the problem. I'd like to use the DataServiceCollection in my ViewModels, since it allows for nice bindable collections without having to worry too much with BeginExecute/EndExecute etc.
Now, let's look at some code. My Model interface looks like this:
public interface ITasksModel
{
IQueryable<Task> Tasks { get; }
}
The oData endpoint implementation of that interface:
public class TasksModel : ITasksModel
{
Uri svcUri = new Uri("http://localhost:2404/Services/TasksDataService.svc");
TaskModelContainer _container;
public TasksModel()
{
_container = new TaskModelContainer(svcUri);
}
public IQueryable<Task> Tasks
{
get
{
return _container.TaskSet;
}
}
}
And the "Blendable" design-time implementation:
public class DesignModeTasksModel : ITasksModel
{
private List<Task> _taskCollection = new List<Task>();
public DesignModeTasksModel()
{
_taskCollection.Add(new Task() { Id = 1, Title = "Task 1" });
_taskCollection.Add(new Task() { Id = 2, Title = "Task 2" });
_taskCollection.Add(new Task() { Id = 3, Title = "Task 3" });
}
public IQueryable<Task> Tasks
{
get {
return _taskCollection.AsQueryable();
}
}
}
However, when I try to use this last one in my ViewModel constructor:
public TaskListViewModel(ITasksModel tasksModel)
{
_tasksModel = tasksModel;
_tasks = new DataServiceCollection<Task>();
_tasks.LoadAsync(_tasksModel.Tasks);
}
I get an exception:
Only a typed DataServiceQuery object can be supplied when calling the LoadAsync method on DataServiceCollection.
First of all, if this is the case, why not make the input parameter of LoadAsync be typed as DataServiceQuery?
Second, what is the "proper" way of doing what I'm trying to accomplish?
The reason LoadAsync requires DataServiceQuery is that just plain IQueryable doesn't define asynchronous way of executing the query. The reason the method takes IQueryable type as its parameter is so that users don't have to cast the query object to DataServiceQuery explicitely (makes the code shorter) and since we assume that users will try to run their code at least once, they would see the error immediately (as you did).
LoadAsync only supports asynchronous operations, so it needs the DataServiceQuery. If you already have the results (without a need to execute async request) you can call the Load method instead. Which is the answer to your second question. Instead of calling LoadAsync for both desing time and run time, you could use Load for design time and LoadAsync for run time. But due to tracking constrains you might need to create the DataServiceCollection in different way.
Something like this:
DataServiceCollection<Task> dsc;
DataServiceQuery<Task> dsq = _tasksModel as DataServiceQuery<Task>;
if (dsq != null)
{
dsc = new DataServiceCollection<Task>();
dsc.LoadAsync(dsq);
}
else
{
dsc = new DataServiceCollection<Task>(myDataServiceContext);
dsc.Load(_tasksModel);
// Invoke the LoadAsyncCompleted handler here
}
If you pass the DataServiceContext to the constructor before caling Load the entities will be tracked (just like in the LoadAsync case). If you don't need that you can call the constructor which takes IEnumerable and TrackingMode and turn off tracking on it.