I'm just getting started in the exciting world of WPF development, having been a C++ developer for many years.
Testing applications with rich user interfaces has of course, always been hard. One of the problems compounding this has traditionally been that in most Windows apps, the UI, the UI logic and the App logic are all completely interdependent, and cannot be tested in isolation.
I'm very drawn to the MVVM approach that will allow me to separate the UI from the application, and run large amounts of automated tests on my view models, underneath which all my logic will be, with the view being a fairly dumb client of the view model.
That's all well and good, and neatly separates out testing of the application logic from the application UI. BUT, it provides no solution for actually testing the UI itself. Even though the view will typically contain very little logic, it will still have the potential to contain a huge amount of bugs of various kinds.
What's the current state of the art in testing the view itself?
Thanks
Tom
This is always a double edged sword. I see it as attempting to grab the low hanging fruit and build from there.
In theory the MVVM purist would state that absolutely no logic exists in the View's code behind. Making use of Prism for instance can help alleviate this as well as other varying frameworks out there. So coming at it from this angle it begins to get to the point of no logic existing in the View...fair enough, are we then going to begin testing the bindings? You could, however depending on the sizing of the app what is the return on that investment?
What I think this boils down to is where do you draw the line? For instance, even if you are testing the View, you will most likely be hooking into the code, you're white box testing at that point. You then can argue the black box angle, that only testing without internal hooks is valid. You can see that it becomes a circular nightmare.
In general I have focused on the big ticket items and went from there, testing what was possible with the time allotted.
Think of it this way...with a UI you can begin this fiasco of testing the coloring on every button, along with the placement, etc... That's silly to me. Automate the bulk of UI testing at the Model, ViewModel, layer and if you so desire test the bindings of your View. Other then that I would suggest the ad-hoc manual effort every UI developer should be doing at their workstation.
WPF and MVVM doesn't change the process of testing an application's UI. It just radically reduces the number of defects you'll find while doing so, because so much of the stuff you'd normally find and fix during UI testing is now found and fixed during view model testing.
Related
When I first learned about Microsoft's then-new framework for developing desktop applications, WPF, I thought that one of the biggest benefits of it would be its efficiency. After all, I already know what the GUI controls and elements were that I wanted to use--I just have to slap them all on the page and then wire up all my bindings right, and I'll be done. After that, I learned about the MVVM pattern, which promised clean separation of concern within my WPF app.
I thought this was going to be great! I got into creating several different admin and data entry WPF apps with my team at work, and thus I began to crank out working software with robust but simple GUIs, right?
Not so fast, there, cowboy coder. My experience is that writing WPF is S-L-O-W.
Well, at least the way I do it. You see, after I have a picture of my GUI on a whiteboard, I code up the XAML with the controls that I want. This part, as expected, is fast--laying out the whole of a window is pretty quick. After that, its all the little stuff you want these elements to do takes awhile. I always seem to want to make this text bold in some cases; show a red error box in these other cases.
Then things unravel: this binding isn't working right over here--I have to write a converter and adjust the layout for the right values. Whoops, I forgot that extra NotifyPropertyChanged there. Oh, and I want to use a different template in this state vs. that, so I have to figure out what I can use to swap the templates in certain situation. This data is coming in asynchronously, so I need to make sure the right thing is happening on the right thread and that Property gets NotifyChanged as well. Crap, when I maximize my window, it doesn't stretch like I thought it would--must be because its container height isn't defined, but I don't want to define that, so I have to make it stretch in its parent. Oh, now I really want to make a user control out of this stuff over here, so I better implement some dependency properties...
On and on I go, spending hours and days on stuff that just feels so small and minor. I soon resort to cutting usability features and look-and-feel enhancements because this is taking just too darn long.
Does anyone have any tips or principles I need to try in order to write WPF efficiently?
A couple of things that have saved a lot of time for me:
Use DockPanel as your default panel for layout unless you have a good reason not to.
Keep a folder full of useful classes: a ViewModelBase class that implements INotifyPropertyChanged, a RelayCommand class, etc. There's no need to get fancy and try to make this a separate assembly that you build into your project; just write reasonably good implementations and copy/paste them into your new projects.
Get Resharper and use it. Use templates for creating dependency properties, properties that do change notification, and commands.
Find or build a good library for asynchronous task management.
I find that even for very simple applications I get more done faster with WPF than I did with Windows Forms. For applications that aren't very simple, there's absolutely no comparison.
For the most part, WPF applications are a lot of work to develop because it's harder to make the case for cutting out UI features. You can't just say, "Oh, that's not possible," because it probably is possible (whatever "it" is).
Write your own library, or find an existing one.
WPF is great, but out of the box it is missing some things that would make coding faster. I got tired of writing the same things repeatedly, so I ended up creating my own library full of things like converters, visual tree helpers, attached properties, custom controls, etc., and since then, my development time has sped up considerably.
In addition to my own library, I've also started using Microsoft's Prism and Galasoft's MVVM Light Toolkit. Both contain useful objects that I use all the time and are better than what I could code on my own. (Most used are NotificationObject from Prism, RelayCommand from MVVM Light Toolkit, and EventAggregator or Messenger from either one depending on the project, etc.)
Another thing I've done to speed up coding time is to take advantage of Visual Studio's macros. For example, to create a property with Change notification, I write the private property, hit Ctrl+E, Ctrl+R which generates the public version, then run a macro which automatically sets up the PropertyChanged notification in the setter method.
I almost never change the setter methods from the default macro'd one, and instead use the PropertyChanged event to handle any changes that should occur on the setter. This not only makes it easier to track application flow, but also greatly reduces the time I used to waste browsing through my public properties to alter a setter method.
I believe the right answer isn't for WPF at all, but it can fit what you're looking for.
Most of the times, when you want to leverage a new technology there's a time while you're not efficient, productive and your solutions aren't that impressive, innovative or just doesn't look like others.
What will give you more efficiency is working with WPF itself.
It's more about project management topics than programming. After finishing some project, your team and you should go to some room and discuss:
Success stories.
Problems during development.
Pros and cons.
Fails in the application architecture.
Communication problems within the team and customer.
... and so on.
If everyone shares their knowledge, project manager or team leader does a good job documenting each project story, finally everyone will have a "know-how".
In addition, it's important that you won't need to reinvent the wheel for every new project: if some pattern worked fine, do the same way next time, even if it's not the best way of doing it. And try to enhance it, if possible.
Design patterns, technologies, paradigms, languages, companies, colleagues and nothing are a silver bullet: Microsoft said WPF is a step-forward in Windows client developments, and it is that: a more modern approach to provide shinny user interfaces and a programming paradigm that fits nowadays' desired approaches, easing the relation between coders and designers, as WPF has XAML, which allows not only separation of concerns, but separation of professionals by area (designers, UI programmers, business programmers, ...).
Finally, as I said above, WPF won't be your silver bullet: learn from your own success and read a lot, see sample applications, download open source solutions, listen your colleagues, drink a coffee and, after all, after some headaches, some day in the near future, you'll leverage these technologies (and many others).
EDIT
I'd like to add that a good way of using the know-how is creating a Visual Studio guidance pack, so you can automate a lot of tasks like creating managers, views, models and other things just in the way your team would do by hand.
For example, you can create a guidance pack for a WPF CRM-like application and you can automate module creation. When you want to add a new module, guidance pack starts a process which adds all the necessary classes to start development this new module, and it can create a sample form already associated with a navigation manager, controller or whatever (it's just an example).
Guidance pack and T4 would be both good tools for automating tedious or repetitive tasks in everyday's tasks:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff631854.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb126445.aspx
I have been using WPF since 2008 and can honestly say to do it right and clean does take more time than the same thing in WinForms would take to develop. I have written a lot more WPF than Winforms. That being said - if I need a simple internal utility - it is ALWAYS Winforms. If I have something forward facing to a client - it is always WPF. Why? Winforms are cheap and dirty and you get a lot for free. What you don't get is the fit and polish that WPF can provide. The flexibility with WPF does come at a cost - but in the longer run it's worth it for public facing software.
Yes WPF is a hurdle but it also has rewards. You are on the right track with a design pattern such as MVVM. Sounds like you have not even gotten to the "rewards" of dependency properties or event bubbling. But the control over the UI is great. Almost everything is a content control. In forms I was always writing custom controls to get the UI I wanted. In WFP I have never had to write a custom control for UI and doubt I ever will. The syntax is new but it is compact - I rewrote a Form app in WPF and the WPF has 1/3 the lines and more features. Read a whole book on WPF just to get grounded - I like PRO WPF in C# 2010. You could also say LINQ is complex but man does it do a lot in just a few key strokes. WPF is not something you just pick up on the fly as you next application.
I'm very much new to Test Automation kind of thing. Recently I've been assigned to a project where I have to write an application (or, a script may be, I'm not sure) that will automate the UI testing of a CAD-like WPF application which misses lots of AutomationIds.
After doing a little searching on MSDN and other sources I'm a bit confused about whether I should use the Microsoft UI Automation Library or the new Coded UI Test feature included in VS2010. I'm not getting the clear picture of which one of these two applies in which scenarios, what advantages one has over the other and which one suits my purpose.
Please shade some light if you have experience/knowledge on the matter. Thanks in advance.
Basically Microsoft UIA is the new accesibility library in .Net 4.0. WPF applications and controls have built-in support for UIA through the AutomationPeer class.
Coded-UI test is a Record & Play automation tool which uses the Microsoft UIA Library underneath. Since being a tool compared to writing code in C# it improves QA productivity for recording more test cases.
For applications with automation support planned into it, Coded-Ui should be sufficient. If the AutomationIDs are missing make sure the controls have some unique property like Name. Use UIVerify or Inspect to check for this.
If NO unique property is avialble, there are the other below mentioned techniques you can use in combination with Coded-UI.
From an Event
When your application receives a UI Automation event, the source object passed to your event handler is an AutomationElement. For example, if you have subscribed to focus-changed events, the source passed to your AutomationFocusChangedEventHandler is the element that received the focus. For more information, see Subscribe to UI Automation Events.
From a Point:
If you have screen coordinates (for example, a cursor position), you can retrieve an AutomationElement by using the static FromPoint method.
From a Window Handle:
To retrieve an AutomationElement from an HWND, use the static FromHandle method.
From the Focused Control:
You can retrieve an AutomationElement that represents the focused control from the static FocusedElement property.
If you can leverage and use the Coded UI Test then go that route. Make sure to verify that your given configuration is supported.
The UI Automation Library resolves everything in the code behind. This then forces you to use a tool like UISpy to gain access to the controls internals so that you can then build out your test.
A Coded UI Test on the other hand still has code behind however it allows for the recording of steps through the given application which you are testing which will greatly increase the number of tests you can create.
UI Automation library is a low-level library. Usually, you don't want to write tests against it directly as it requires a pretty decent amount of work.
I would recommend looking at more high-level libraries. You mentioned one of them - Coded UI; another good choice would be White from TestStack. They both suits different kinds of projects. Coded UI is good when you don't want to invest a lot of efforts into your test suite. At the same time, it doesn't scale much so if you are going to write a lot of tests, you are better of choosing White.
Here I compare the two frameworks in more detail: Coded UI vs White
To complement the above responses, please look at CUITE that helps quite a bit and may be an appropriate approach for you.
I began 'rolling-my-own' 'semi-framework' using the CodedUITest library and devised a paradigm for separating the details of automation from the (C#) code.
Basically, I am creating a driver that reads what needs to be done from spreadsheet(s) where each line in it is a test step (or a pointer to a scenario in a different worksheet).
At present, incomplete, but promising, I have it working against a WPF application with partial success.
One of the main problems is that the developers neglected to identify controls uniquely and consistently.
Bey
We were building out the next version of an in-house thick-client application using WPF/Prism (Composite Application Library). As we were nearly done with the client our team was put under new management and shortly thereafter:
We were then directed to drop the Prism framework to keep things simple. This includes not using any type of Inversion of Control.
We were directed to build out the WPF application without using MVVM or similar; and more along the lines of a traditional WinForm application. The idea is that if a developer sees a control in Visual Studio’s designer view, then (s)he should be able to click on the control and see exactly what it's doing without having to traverse through a view-model (or similar).
We have now been tasked with building out the WPF application using one primary Window, use a Frame Control to contain the content, and use a Ribbon outside of the frame for the menu items. Reason we were provided to use Frame Control:
a. We will show a view in the Frame with a Page (not a user control) and then load the page in the Frame.
b. When a new view is to be shown in the Frame, the current view (Page) will be closed/disposed and the new view (Page) will take its place in the Frame.
c. When a developer looks at the Page in design view, (s)he will be able to click on any control and see exactly what is being done.
Given the restrictions of 1 and 2 above, we’d like to present another method of building out the application that:
Can be presented as an alternative to using the “Frame Methodology” (item 3 above) but still provides the same type of functionality.
Does not use MVVM (see #1 and #2 above).
Provided the direction we’ve been given, any suggestions as to an alternative we can present? I’d request that the responses be kept on the professional level and thank you in advance.
I'd personally try to argue to use Martin Fowler's Presentation Model. (That's a joke, btw...)
Basically, you're being given a restriction that says "Use WPF, but don't use any of the features that make WPF usable." It really sounds like your requirements are such that you would be much better off explaining, reasonably, the advantages of patterns like MVVM.
It sounds like the weird requirements are really boiling down to this:
The idea is that if a developer sees a control in Visual Studio’s designer view, then (s)he should be able to click on the control and see exactly what it's doing
If that's the main issue, and the reason you're avoiding MVVM and other similar patterns, I would seriously take the time to educate the management. Looking at a Command, by name, instead of an event, by name (which is what you see in the designer) is really no more difficult.
However, in a large scale application, the separation of concerns is key. Even a properly designed Windows Forms application requires a clean separation of concerns - but with event based programming, this becomes much more difficult, especially from the designer. If you try to develop a large scale, clean, application using an event approach, you'll have event handlers, but those event handlers will all eventually need to delegate their work to a separate component.
This is actually adding an extra level of effort, from an understandability and maintenance point of view, on top of what you get with MVVM. With MVVM, you only look to the ViewModel, which is very discoverable.
BTW - The "rationale" for using a Page instead of a UserControl doesn't make any sense. You can do exactly the same thing you're describing with UserControls... The only reason to use a Frame and Page is if you want to take advantage of navigation, in which case, you can't dispose the old pages directly (or they get regenerated constantly). Also, the navigation tools probably wouldn't be used with a ribbon - the two conceptual models are quite different.
There are criticisms of MVVM which may be applicable to your project; however having unreasonable dictates of programming methodology is always a recipe for disaster.
One of the reasons that we have frameworks and spending time building layers and separation is to avoid the coding mess that always results when you can "simply click on the button in visual studio to see the code that is being executed".
There may not be a way of achieving what you've been asked to do without something similar to MVVM, because anything that has an architecture may well be labelled as being too similar.
However I have been using a system for many years that provides simple inter-object plumbing currently called Emesary you may want to read my C# .NET Emesary walkthrough.
But basically it allows my buttons to be implemented thus:
private void addButton_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
GlobalTransmitter.NotifyAll(new Notification(NotificationType.CreateRecipe));
}
This may be an answer to your problem. It's under hyped, small and so simple but it just works well.
I've achieved a solution to the second question by using a Window, a user control for the ribbon bar (the user control contains the listview), and another user control for the Frame part. This second user control obvious is built using other user controls using a very simple view class. All views and controls are connected using Emesary.
As a school project I had to develop a WPF client which allowed for multiple people to make use of it at the same time. And I used Pages. My verdict: Save yourself a huge amount of effort, and use UserControls instead.
Sometimes the Page Navigator (which you'll use to scroll through) tends to bug out and cause you a lot of problems. Maybe it was my crappy coding, but who knows?
Though I must say, the control being called "Pages" is somewhat misleading... I went "Eureka!" when I found them, and swore at them thereafter.
I totally agree with #2 (MS bigs take note!). It would be cool if you could double-click a Control and it would take you straight to its command (or event if its command is lacking). However till then, make sure that you organize your Views and ViewModels in separate folders.
Having a dual screen (or a very wide one) will allow you to have two instances of VS open on the project, one focused around the View and the other around the ViewModel (my personal choice was having Expression Blend on the View).
Although not a very big application, I managed to convert my project to proper MVVM (ie. ViewModel for every UI element, RelayCommands and Mediator) in a matter of days, so once you understand it it's not too complicated to implement. Plus, there are tools out there (such as Josh Smith's RelayCommand and Marlon Grech's Mediator - totally free, by the way) which make MVVM half as difficult, and twice as powerful.
Using WPF without MVVM is like trying to eat rice without a fork. You'd be better off using WinForms if you're not going to take advantage of what WPF has to offer. My 2 cents.
I wish I could say your management is totally wrong.. but I cannot say that as it will not be the most accurate truth. I guess that the main reason to the changes you described is either because the new manager is not comfortable with the concept of MVVM being the new messiah of UI development or/and another reason could be the cost of educated sophisticated developers vs. cheap developers which can be instructed to get the things done as fast as possible, a concept which is widely known as lean development.
So, putting all I wrote so far under "not what you asked for", here is what I suggest:
you can still use object oriented pure approach, meaning you can have a model object which already have method to show UI information. so every object will be a window derived object, that way you will loose on SOC but you still going to be OOP/OOD.
But LOL, The next phase will bring you to seperation of model from view in order to not repeat the same code in many derrived windows which relay on the same data... so your management will endorse MVC/MVP as good solution .. and the distance from it to MVVM is kinda of short if they want WPF.
Conclusion: you will have to teach your manager why it is better to go for MVVM, unless the project is very short.
I've currently noticed that many people start using this model very often. Anyways, I think it's very correct to separate logic from presentation.
What more, some functionalities cannot be accomplished without it, or just very hardly.
Consider a Tree that is selectable, has search capabilities etc..
But in some cases, you don't need to implement this MVVM model, although people do it.
Do you think it's correct? Wasn't the purpose of WPF to simplify coding - try to do the majority of work in XAML?
I have a feeling, that this model is often misused just for the elegance of the design, but breaks the WPF efforts.
Or am I completely wrong?
imho WPF is designed to use MVVM, so if you writing your code without this pattern will lead you sooner or later into a situation where you have to do some hacks to solve problems.
For me there are very few reason not to use MVVM, like private projects, tryout's, ...
In larger projects, everything should be written in MVVM because of the capabilities of this design pattern (enabling unit tests, prevent miss-use of UI, ...)
The main purpose of seperating logic from UI is for the testability. Since you are putting all logic under ViewModel, you can write the test script for testing your logic without UI.
The issue is that there is a lack of tools so it hard to pitch wvvm when someone has to write half a page of code to throw a messagebox when a button is clicked.
I also have a desktop application written in Windows Forms that is a middling size (a couple dozen major forms backed by 46 tables in the database). I'm thinking about rewriting the UI in WPF, but before I go there I was curious if there were any war stories about doing such a conversion.
I use LLBLGen to generate my low level data access objects, and I have a business logic layer above that. The forms are databound to the business logic objects, although the main form uses caching objects to minimize round trips on the more common navigation routes. The UI never speaks directly to the database: always through the UI -> business logic -> low level -> datastore path.
One control that I use heavily is the TreeView, which acts as a visual guide and short range navigation tool. The tree has been heavily customized with icons, highlight colors and it is the control I worry most about porting.
Is there a story that might convince me to go ahead and convert (or conversely, wait until Microsoft is closer to pulling the rug out from under Windows Forms)?
EDIT: I was asked in a comment what motivation for conversion I have. I have some concern about future proofing: I have 500,000 lines of code that were originally ASP and VBScript. We have been porting the functionality over time to ASP.NET and C#, but only as we make changes to the code. The upside is we have kept costs minimized, the downside is half the code remains ASP and VBScript. I'm concerned about a similar situation arising with Windows Forms applications.
Am I worried today about Windows Forms going away? Not even close to it... but the application is moving from ASP and VBScript to ASP.NET and C#, has nine years of history behind it, and probably won't be replaced this decade (instead, simply it will evolve). The desktop application is likewise a long term project with years of history.
For me, the WinForms vs. WPF decision is a simple one - if normal people are going to use it, the user interface can make the difference between a winner and a loser.
It is definitely a steep learning curve. But I have NEVER gotten done with a nice looking WPF application and said "Man, I should have used WinForms".
I'd say invest in the effort to make your UI better whenever possible for your customers, so yes to WPF if that's the case.
WPF has a ridiculously large learning curve. It will most likely require you to rewrite a lot more than you think for just changing the UI. Also, a lot of features that would make WPF nicer to use just aren't implemented or included in WPF yet. Unlike routeNpingme, I have written nice looking WPF applications and have said, "What a waste of time, I should have used Windows Forms and completed in 70% less time".
EDIT:
Also, unless Microsoft figures out a way to make WPF easier to learn, I don't see it catching on to the masses at all. WPF can do some very cool things, but a little effort to make it easy to understand instead of throwing stuff over the wall would have gone a long way. It would not surprise me in the slightest to see Microsoft drop WPF for something easier to work with in the not too distant future. So don't go changing your Windows Forms application just for the sake of changing it.
Pros:
Ridiculously easy data-binding (most of the time)
Ridiculously easy customization of look and feel
Cons:
Very steep learning curve
Some obvious bugs or issues. Similar to .NET 1.0 Windows Forms
Little or no tool support
In my opinion, WPF will definitely replace Windows Forms at some point. However, right now the tools are the main thing keeping it back. I disagree with Dunk that Microsoft will drop it for something else. Change it yes, but I think it's here to stay.
Should you change your application to use WPF now? No. Feel free to learn WPF but if your application works fine currently, then WPF won't give you anything extra. It just makes doing what is possible in Windows Forms much easier.
WPF is great. It is particularly good for extending controls like TreeView with customisations. You can add a string as an item in a TreeControl. You can also add a small panel containing an image and some text in various fonts and colours. Or you can add buttons, or anything you like. It has a completely general composability system. Same goes for ListBox, ComboBox, Button, etc. All their content or child items can be as simple as a string or as complex as a multipage document viewer with zoom buttons (if you want).
But the only way to find out is to try porting one of your forms. It shouldn't be too hard to make a WPF Window open from within your existing app. I started using WPF by making new GUI panels that were hosted inside a C++ Win32 application. Eventually it was so obvious that WPF was the way to go that we switched it around and made the outer shell WPF, with some ancient dialog boxes still implemented by the old C++ code where we couldn't be bothered to rewrite them (probably exactly what will happen with Visual Studio 2010).
Porting is a tough decision. So just some thoughts to help you decide.
WinForms is OK while you work by the rules and keep everything drawn as is. But even redrawing a border on some controls may require complex and precise work and skill, as you already know from tree customization. The same tasks can be done in a very elegant way in WPF.
Also, the data-binding in WPF saves me a lot of time. In the long term, you end up thinking about data-binding scenarios that could not be remotely possible in WinForms without special-case coding.
I do not even consider WinForms for new development -- there is no excuse for customization costs.
I have started introducing WPF elements within my WinForms application and so far have had a lot of success.
The application's main component is a grid control and I haven't yet found the text rendering of WPF sharp enough to present a table of important textual data.
But the application has several additional panels, and the majority of these are implemented using WPF. So, I'm going for a hybrid of WinForms and WPF via the ElementHost control.
I have found the flexibility of WPF to allow for a much more attractive and usable UI, and my users seem very happy with it. In my case, it's also been politically easier to introduce WPF one panel at a time.
WPF's main value to me is in the binding, not in the cooler UI. The worst WPF I've ever seen is when people use WPF just because it's newer, and put all the work in the code-behind, including not using binding. What you get is WinForms data management. So be sure you're going to use the wonderful binding when you do WPF.
I would port the OP's business logic to a business layer for ease of maintenance and conversion. I wouldn't port the WinForms to Xaml at all unless new Xaml functionality was needed, and preferably not until after the functionality was ported.