So to get around unit testing Application.Current, I created a ResourceLocator referenced from this. This would, if I can figure out how to register it in Autofac, allow me to inject the resource which would allow me to unit test without the worry of Application.Current being null. My question is how can i register this locator in autofac without autofac actually creating a new instance of the app? The appliaction.current is already created for us so I don't want autofac injecting another instance of the Application into my viewmodels. Something like:
container.RegisterType<ResourceLocator>().As<IResourceLocator>().SingleInstance();
Yes this will return a single instance but I think autofac will sill try to create an instance in the very beginning. Any help is greatly appreciated.
Overlooking the fact that requiring Autofac and Application.Current means you are integration testing and not unit testing, you can see from running this test that Autofac does not appear to generate a new value for Application.Current
[Test]
public void RegisterResolver()
{
//Arrange
Application expected = Application.Current;
var mainBuilder = new ContainerBuilder();
mainBuilder.RegisterType<ResourceLocator>()
.As<IResourceLocator>()
.SingleInstance();
IContainer container = mainBuilder.Build();
//Act
IResourceLocator test1 = container.Resolve<IResourceLocator>();
IResourceLocator test2 = container.Resolve<IResourceLocator>();
//Assert
Assert.That(test1, Is.EqualTo(test2));
Assert.That((test1 as ResourceLocator).application, Is.EqualTo(expected));
Assert.That((test2 as ResourceLocator).application, Is.EqualTo(expected));
}
However, if you do want more control you can use the Register method to define the initialiser for the instance you want to be used.
mainBuilder.Register(c => new ResourceLocator(Application.Current))
.As<IResourceLocator>()
.SingleInstance();
Related
I want to unit test a view model which contains a registration like:
public SampleViewModel(IUnityContainer container)
{
...
Observable.FromEventPattern<PropertyChangedEventArgs>(gridViewModel, "PropertyChanged")
.**ObserveOnDispatcher()**
.Subscribe(_ => this.Update());
...
}
When I run the unit test it tells me that "The current thread has no Dispatcher associated with it." when reaching this code.
One solution would be to use a Scheduler but I don't want to modify the Viewmodel.
Is there a solution to make the unit test pass this statement without getting an error?
I would suggest that you provide you own IScheduler implementation to ObserveOn(IScheduler) instead of using the ObserveOnDispatcher() operator. I have used techniques for loading a DispatcherFrame or a Dispatcher but the problem is that you are still using a Dispatcher. Eventually I found that you just "fall off the cliff" especially once you have long running background threads involved. Following the guidelines of "No threading in Unit tests" just dont let the dispatcher get near your ViewModels! Your Unit tests will run much, much faster.
A far superior way to deal with this is to inject an interface that gives access to your Dispatcher Scheduler (via the IScheduler interface). This allows you to substitute in an implementation that exposes the TestScheduler. You now can control time in your unit test. You can control and validate which actions are marshalled to each scheduler.
This is a really old (pre-Rx) post on 'Unit' testing WPF with Dispatcher calls from early 2009. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
https://leecampbell.com/2009/02/17/responsive-wpf-user-interfaces-part-5/
More information on Testing with Rx and the TestScheduler is found in my other site on Rx
http://introtorx.com/Content/v1.0.10621.0/16_TestingRx.html
This works for me.
When setting up the unit test I create an application to simulate the environment for my VM:
static Application App;
static void BeforeTestRun()
{
var waitForApplicationRun = new ManualResetEventSlim();
Task.Run(() =>
{
App = new Application();
App.Startup += (s, e) => { waitForApplicationRun.Set(); };
App.Run();
});
waitForApplicationRun.Wait();
}
and this is how I use it to instanciate the view model.
App.Dispatcher.Invoke(() => { this.viewModel = new ViewModel(); });
To properly unit test your viewmodel, you really need to be able to supply all of its dependencies. In this case, your viewmodel has a dependency upon the dispatcher. Making your viewmodel take a IScheduler dependency is the ideal way. But if you really don't want to do that, then try looking at this duplicate question: Unit test IObservable<T> with ObserveOnDispatcher
I found a solution for avoiding the error, simply from Unit Test code instantiate the ViewModel by using a dispatcher like:
SampleViewModel sampleViewModel;
var dispatcher = Application.Current != null ? Application.Current.Dispatcher : Dispatcher.CurrentDispatcher;
dispatcher.Invoke((Action)(() => sampleViewModel = new SampleViewModel(this.container);
That's all and seems to work without modifying current code, maybe there are also better solutions.
gentlemens.
I have following definition in the Silverlight project, MainPage.xaml:
<UserControl
xmlns:model="clr-namespace:Engine.Silverlight.Web.Views;assembly=Engine.Login.Model"
d:DataContext="{d:DesignInstance Type=model:DesignTimeModel, IsDesignTimeCreatable=True}">...
And class in the Engine.Login.Model project, which used for design-time data binding (everything works fine for pre-initialized properties, but):
public class DesignTimeModel : INotifyPropertyChanged
{
public DesignTimeModel()
{
var d = Deployment.Current.Dispatcher;
d.BeginInvoke(
() =>
{
CacheClient c = new CacheClient();
c.GetResourcesCompleted +=(s,e)=>
{
d.BeginInvoke(
() => this.Resources = e.Result);
};
c.GetResourcesAsync();
}
);
Unfortunately, I got a System.ObjectDisposedException after WCF request completed (I tried to debug using different instance of VS by attaching to 1st VS instance process, but it does not help - same error, no additional info):
System.ObjectDisposedException
Cannot access a disposed object.
Object name: 'Dispatcher'.
at System.ServiceModel.AsyncResult.End[TAsyncResult](IAsyncResult result)
at System.ServiceModel.Channels.ServiceChannel.EndCall(String action, Object[] outs, IAsyncResult result)
I assume the Dispatcher behavior different in the design mode.
Can you help me how to resolve the problem to get design-time data using WCF in VS2010 XAML designer?
First, I belive that making a WCF call in a design time class isn't really a best practice! You should instead put some static dummy data.
For your problem, try using Deployment.Current.Dispatcher directly instead of pointing a variable to it.
I wrote an overload for my DomainService class. Problem is, when I recompile, it's not showing up as an overload for my DomainContext. What's wrong? Here is a code sample:
[EnableClientAccess]
public class FoodDomainService : LinqToEntitiesDomainService<FoodEntities>
{
public FoodDomainService(CultureInfo cultureInfo)
{
Thread.CurrentThread.CurrentCulture = cultureInfo;
}
}
And this doesn't work:
FoodDomainContext _foodContext = new FoodDomainContext(Thread.CurrentThread.CurrentCulture);
I get an error that there is no overload matching that. Am I not allowed to do this? Do I need an attribute of some kind?
You are not allowed to do this. When newing up the context from your Silverlight client, you are not directly intantiating your service. Instead, you instantiate a proxy class that was generated by RIA Services, and that proxy class will then call your service. This is why you don't see your constructor: because RIA did not generate it in your proxy.
Doing what you're trying to do would also implicate that there is a round-trip to the server at the time of newing up that FoodDomainContext class, which is not going to happen, because you need to complete the initialisation of that object before you can do so.
Anyway, instead of that you can create a method called SetCurrentCulture() and then call it after initializing the proxy.
This will not work because DomainContext is generated on client code of silverlight, click on view all folders or jump to definition and you will see that code generated will not contain your extra constructor.
Instead you will have to create a method in your domain service and pass information to server.
public SetCultreInfo(int lang,...)
{
.. set culture info
}
On your client, inside constructor you should call,
public MyDomainContext()
{
this.SetCulture(....);
}
Up until this point, I have been learning IoC/DI with Castle.Windsor using ASP.NET MVC, but I have a side project that is being done in Windows Forms, and I was wondering if there is an effective way to use it for that.
My problem is in the creation of forms, services, etc. In ASP.NET MVC, there is a sort of 'Activator' that does this under the hood, but this isn't the case in Windows Forms. I have to create a new Form like var form = new fclsMain();, so a Form like ..
class fclsMain : System.Windows.Forms.Form
{
private readonly ISomeRepository<SomeClass> someRepository;
fclsMain(ISomeRepository<SomeClass> someRepository)
{
this.someRepository = someRepository;
}
}
Falls kind of short. I would basically have to do ...
var form = new fclsMain(IoC.Resolve<ISomeRepository<SomeClass>);
Which as I have had pointed out in at least three of my questions isn't smart, because it's supposedly not the 'correct' usage of IoC.
So how do I work with Castle.Windsor and Windows Forms? Is there some way to design a Form Activator or something? I'm really lost, if I can't make a static IoC container that I can resolve from, what can I do?
Here you are doing something that are not very "Dependency Injection"...
var form = new fclsMain(IoC.Resolve<ISomeRepository<SomeClass>);
The "new" is the problem...
You have to call
var form = IoC.Resolve<fcls>();
the form of type fcls must be correctly configured via Fluent Registration API o
In order to use the same Castle container throughout your entire application, create a static class like:
public static class CastleContainer {
private static IWindsorContainer container;
public static IWindsorContainer Instance {
get {
if (container == null) {
container = new WindsorContainer();
}
return container;
}
// exposing a setter alleviates some common component testing problems
set { container = value; }
}
// shortcut to make your life easier :)
public static T Resolve<T>() {
return Instance.Resolve<T>();
}
public static void Dispose() {
if (container != null)
container.Dispose();
container = null;
}
}
Then register/install all your components in the Main() method. You can also hook into the application shutdown event to call Dispose() (although this isn't critical).
Castle actually uses a Windows Forms app in their quick-start guide.
Edit:
The pattern I showed above is a variant of the service locator, which some people refer to as an anti-pattern. It has a bad reputation because, among other reasons, it liters your code base with references to Windsor. Ideally, you should only have a single call to container.Resolve<...>() to create your root form. All other services & forms are injected via constructors.
Realistically, you'll probably need a few more calls to Resolve, especially if you don't want to load every single corner of the application at startup. In the web world, the best practice is to hand off the container to the web framework. In the Windows Forms world you'll need to implement your own service locator, like above. (Yes, handing the container to the ASP.NET MVC framework is still a service locator pattern).
I've edited the above code example so that the static container is injectable; no resources are tied up in a static context. If you do end up creating your own service locator, you might also want to create a test utility like this one to make testing easier.
public static class TestUtilities
{
public static IContainer CreateContainer(Action<IContainer> extraConfig = null)
{
var container = new WindsorContainer();
// 1. Setup common mocks to override prod configuration
// 2. Setup specific mocks, when provided
if (extraConfig != null)
extraConfig(container);
// 3. Configure container with production installers
CastleContainer.Instance = container;
return container;
}
}
This makes a shortcut for creating a new container that looks a lot like the production version, but with some services replaced with mocks. Some example tests might look like:
[Test]
public void SubComponentWorksGreat()
{
using (var container = TestUtilities.CreateContainer())
{
var subComponent = container.Resolve<SubComponent>();
// test it...
}
}
[Test]
public void SubComponentWorksGreatWithMocks()
{
var repoMock = new Mock<IRepository>();
using (var container = TestUtilities.CreateContainer(c =>
c.Register(Component.For<IRepository>().Instance(repoMock.Object))))
{
var subComponent = container.Resolve<SubComponent>();
// test it with all IRepository instances mocked...
}
}
One last note. Creating a full container for every test can get expensive. Another option is to create the full container but only using nested containers for the actual tests.
You don't "have to" new-up a form, as you've said.
I use WinForms and never call "new FormName()". It's always a dependency itself. Otherwise I'd have to stuff the constructor full of service locator calls.
I might use a ServiceLocator (as in another answer) BUT only at the very top level.
For example I have a Command pattern implemented to intercept toolbar buttons.
Looks something like this:
public void Handle(string commandName)
{
var command = IoC.Resolve<ICommand>(RegisteredCommands[commandName]);
command.Execute();
}
Then, in a simplified case, this is the kind of code written everywhere else:
public class ShowOptionsCommand : Command, ICommand
{
private readonly IOptionsView _optionsView;
public ShowOptionsCommand(IOptionsView optionsView)
{
_optionsView = optionsView;
}
public void Execute()
{
_optionsView.Show();
}
}
Yes, I use a "service locator" but you will hardly ever see it.
That's important to me, because having service locator calls all throughout the code (eg in every class) defeats some of the point of using dependency inversion of control & needs extra work to be testable etc
I am developing a Silverlight 3 application and I would like to delegate all unexpected error handling in a single instance of a class I have named ErrorHandler. This class has one method named HandleApplicationException, plus a couple of other methods to handle more specialized errors.
In my application I am using Unity for dependency injection, but since I want the error handling object to be available even when the Unity container is not yet set up, I register the object as AppDomain global data in the App class constructor, this way:
public App()
{
this.Startup += this.Application_Startup;
this.Exit += this.Application_Exit;
this.UnhandledException += this.Application_UnhandledException;
AppDomain.CurrentDomain.SetData("ErrorHandler", new ErrorHandler());
InitializeComponent();
}
And in case of unhandled exception, I retrieve the error handler object and use it this way:
private void Application_UnhandledException(object sender, ApplicationUnhandledExceptionEventArgs e)
{
e.Handled = true;
var errorHandler = AppDomain.CurrentDomain.GetData("ErrorHandler") as ErrorHandler;
Debug.Assert(errorHandler != null, "No ErrorHandler registered.");
errorHandler.HandleApplicationException(e.ExceptionObject);
}
The problem is that the AppDomain.GetData method in the Application_UnhandledException method is throwing a MethodAccessException. I don't understand why, as I am just invoking a public method on the AppDomain class. I have used a similar approach in other applications and it worked fine (anyway these were not Silverlight applications).
So, what's going on? Am I doing something wrong?
Ok, I got it. From MSDN documentation:
This member has a
SecurityCriticalAttribute attribute,
which restricts it to internal use by
the .NET Framework for Silverlight
class library. Application code that
uses this member throws a
MethodAccessException.
I have resorted to storing the error handler in a public property in the App class, then I access it using ((App)Application.Current).ErrorHandler. I don't like doing things this way but I suppose it is ok in this special case.
Why can't you just use a static instance of ErrorHandler? I.e. have something like ErrorHandler.Current?
It looks like you're trying to manually construct a poor man's IoC framework to be honest.
Consider doing some research on Unity/Ninject and see for yourself why strongly-typed decoupling is better.