I'm looking for some basic examples of using NMock2 to mock database calls for a CRUD application.
Thanks,
Chris
Setup:
[SetUp]
public void SetUp()
{
mocks = new Mockery();
mockDBLayer = _mocks.NewMock<IDBLayer>();
//Inject the dependency somehow
sut = new SUT(_mockDBLayer );
}
Test:
[Test]
public void testMethodName_TestCase()
{
var dbRetrunValue = //whatever type
Expect.Once.On(mockDBLayer).Method("dbMethod").Will(Return.Value(dbRetrunValue));
//exercise
var actual = sut.methodName();
//Assert
...
}
Verification if you want it
[TearDown]
public void TearDown()
{
mocks.VerifyAllExpectationsHaveBeenMet();
}
I like Moq better however:
http://code.google.com/p/moq/
"database calls" is a rough term to guess at - do you mean testing your DAL, or testing a layer above that?
If you mean testing your DAL, you need to look at how you're getting the actual DataReader or DataTable, or whatever, so that you can replace it with the mock.
See blog posts like this that covers IoC and mocking data access , or posts like this that cover mocking a datareader for getting started.
Related
I'm going to do some unit tests and I am struggling with a MessageBox. I have a MessageBox that is showing a text and an "Ok" button in my code. When I trying to unit test the method that contains the MessageBox.Show("Text"), it pops up in the unit test, too, and I have to click "Ok" before it can pass through, which is a bad.
Does anyone know how to go around it? I think I need some kind of code that fakes this MessageBox and clicking "Ok", but I dont know how to do this. I'm a junior programmer, so please explain it as easy as you can ;) and gladly with some code examples.
This is my code for the MessageBox:
public void GetPopUpWithErrorMessage()
{
MessageBox.Show("Error Message", "text",
MessageBoxButton.OK);
}
Edit
I just realised that Fluent Assertions is used in the project. Does anyone know how to implement that in the test code? is it the same way as #thatguy showed?
You have to create a service that implements an interface that you can mock in your tests.
public interface IMessageBoxService
{
void ShowMessageBox(string title, string message);
}
public class MessageBoxService : IMessageBoxService
{
public void ShowMessageBox(string title, string message)
{
MessageBox.Show(message, title, MessageBoxButton.OK);
}
}
In the class where you use it, you would pass this service by its interface, e.g. in the constructor, so the class only knows its contract, but not its implementation.
public class MyClass
{
private IMessageBoxService _messageBoxService;
public MyClass(IMessageBoxService messageBoxService)
{
_messageBoxService = messageBoxService;
}
public void GetPopUpWithErrorMessage()
{
_messageBoxService.ShowMessageBox("text", "Error Message");
}
}
In the test class, you need to use a mocking framework like Moq that creates a mock object from an interface, which is just a stub that you can use to inject the behavior for any method or property that you use in your test.
In this example using NUnit and Moq, messageBoxService is created as a mock object that implements the IMessageBoxService interface. All methods do nothing unless you specify what they should do or return via Setup, but that is another topic. The last line shows how you could check if a sepcific method on the mock was invoked during the test.
[TestFixture]
public class MyClassTest
{
[Test]
public void MyTest()
{
var messageBoxService = Mock.Of<IMessageBoxService>();
var myClass = new MyClass(messageBoxService);
// ...your test code.
// Checks if the "ShowMessageBox" method in the service was called with any strings
Mock.Get(messageBoxService).Verify(mock => mock.ShowMessageBox(It.IsAny<string>(), It.IsAny<string>()));
}
}
Creating a service and an interface is not just useful for mocking, but also for separating view and logic, as you can extract the calling of a message box to a service which has an implementation hidden behind an interface. Moreover you can easily implement dependency injection via constructors.
I am using entity framework to persist data in a N-tier Wpf application. My dbcontext is shared amongst all repositories and is never disposed. When I persist data I mark an object as modifed and try to save changes. If an error accurs while persisting the object the object is still markted as modifed and if the user aborts the current opperation he will get the same error when saving another object.
I have solved this by overriding SaveChanges in my dbcontext and if any error accurs I accept all changes(see code below). So if an error accurs the object and all objects are marked unchanged even if theyr'e not persited.
This doesn't feel right...
Does anyone agree with this solution?
Another solution would be to new the dbcontext in each method in my repositores and disposing of them right away. That will make my repositories more complicated and "noicy" and I will also lose the ability to lazy load data...
Does anyone have a different solution for me?
//In my repositories
public void UpdateObject(Object object)
{
dbContext.Entry(object).State = EntityState.Modified;
dbContext.SaveChanges();
}
//In my dbcontext class
private ObjectContext ObjectContext()
{
return (this as IObjectContextAdapter).ObjectContext;
}
public override int SaveChanges()
{
try
{
return base.SaveChanges();
}
catch (Exception)
{
ObjectContext().AcceptAllChanges();
throw;
}
}
Our team uses an approach similar to below:
Repository:
public class StudentRepository
{
private readonly MyEntities _context;
public StudentRepository(MyEntities context)
{
_context = context;
}
// Basic CRUD methods etc
}
Business Logic:
public AddStudent(Student student)
{
using( var context = new MyEntities())
{
var studentrepo = new StudentRepository(context);
studentrepo.Add(student);
context.SaveChanges();
}
}
This is an oversimplified example, but should give you an idea. To reduce code, we also use a base generic repository class for the CRUD methods.
If the project we are working on includes a web service, we instantiate the dbcontext in the API Controller and override the Dispose method to get rid of it.
Having such a long lived context is not a good idea. It will get large and slow with all the entities and changes being tracked, concurrency related issues may arise and exceptions thrown by your context can impact your entire application.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/data/jj729737
Another solution would be to new the dbcontext in each method in my
repositores and disposing of them right away. That will make my
repositories more complicated and "noicy" and I will also lose the
ability to lazy load data
In a disconnected scenario I would create and dispose with each request/unit of work. Concerned about your repos getting complicated? Then don't use this extra layer of abstraction. Are the repos really necessary? What do you gain over using the DbContext directly?
As for lazy loading I think in a disconnected n-tier scenario that lazy loading is not really appropriate. You should probably use eager loading of required data for your view or have separate method calls to get the related data.
I am new to rhino mocks and unit testing in general. I am starting to write some tests for my wpf mvvm app. Here is a sample scenario I am trying to test:
The view model:
List<DataItems> _theData = new List<DataItems>();
public MyViewModel(IServer server)
{
_server = server;
InitializeData();
}
private void InitializeData()
{
_server.GetData(MyCallback);
}
private void MyCallback()
{
_theData = _server.TheData;
}
public List<DataItems> VMData
{
get
{
return _theData;
}
}
Server:
public List<DataItems> TheData
{
get
{
return _cachedData;
}
}
public void GetData(Action callBack)
{
//Populate cached data
...
if(callBack != null)
{
callBack();
}
}
In my test, I want to verify that viewModel.VMData.Count == server.TheData.Count. I tried using rhino mocks to stub the server, pre-poulating TheData with some values. The I called the view model constructor, and then tried to compare the counts.
My problem is that I do not know how to get my server to actually call back into my view model. After the vm constructor is called, InitializeData() is called as expected but the stub server's GetData call is not made.
How can I make this simple test work?
if you are stubbing IServer and expecting that the calling a method on the stub will invoke the implementation in your concrete class, that is your misconception. the GetData method on the stub instance will only return what you tell it to, and not execute any code in the concrete dependency. remember that the only thing your stub IServer object has in common with your concrete implemetation of IServer is that they both implement IServer. expecting that the side effects in the method in your concrete implemenation will happen when calling the method on the stub is just faulty.
as to how to make it work: there's not really a good way to do this test as you are stating with the design of these classes as is. you are trying to test that a side effect occurred in the dependency that you are stubbing out of participation. to really test what you want here and if you want to keep these classes with this relationship, i'd suggest that you don't mock server at all and use the real object. redesign the server so that it depends on another component that loads from the cache so you can stub that thing instead.
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 writing my first Android database backend and I'm struggling to unit test the creation of my database.
Currently the problem I am encountering is obtaining a valid Context object to pass to my implementation of SQLiteOpenHelper. Is there a way to get a Context object in a class extending TestCase? The solution I have thought of is to instantiate an Activity in the setup method of my TestCase and then assigning the Context of that Activity to a field variable which my test methods can access...but it seems like there should be an easier way.
You can use InstrumentationRegistry methods to get a Context:
InstrumentationRegistry.getTargetContext() - provides the application Context of the target application.
InstrumentationRegistry.getContext() - provides the Context of this Instrumentation’s package.
For AndroidX use InstrumentationRegistry.getInstrumentation().getTargetContext() or InstrumentationRegistry.getInstrumentation().getContext().
New API for AndroidX:
ApplicationProvider.getApplicationContext()
You might try switching to AndroidTestCase. From looking at the docs, it seems like it should be able to provide you with a valid Context to pass to SQLiteOpenHelper.
Edit:
Keep in mind that you probably have to have your tests setup in an "Android Test Project" in Eclipse, since the tests will try to execute on the emulator (or real device).
Your test is not a Unit test!!!
When you need
Context
Read or Write on storage
Access Network
Or change any config to test your function
You are not writing a unit test.
You need to write your test in androidTest package
Using the AndroidTestCase:getContext() method only gives a stub Context in my experience. For my tests, I'm using an empty activity in my main app and getting the Context via that. Am also extending the test suite class with the ActivityInstrumentationTestCase2 class. Seems to work for me.
public class DatabaseTest extends ActivityInstrumentationTestCase2<EmptyActivity>
EmptyActivity activity;
Context mContext = null;
...
#Before
public void setUp() {
activity = getActivity();
mContext = activity;
}
... //tests to follow
}
What does everyone else do?
You can derive from MockContext and return for example a MockResources on getResources(), a valid ContentResolver on getContentResolver(), etc. That allows, with some pain, some unit tests.
The alternative is to run for example Robolectric which simulates a whole Android OS. Those would be for system tests: It's a lot slower to run.
You should use ApplicationTestCase or ServiceTestCase.
Extending AndroidTestCase and calling AndroidTestCase:getContext() has worked fine for me to get Context for and use it with an SQLiteDatabase.
The only niggle is that the database it creates and/or uses will be the same as the one used by the production application so you will probably want to use a different filename for both
eg.
public static final String NOTES_DB = "notestore.db";
public static final String DEBUG_NOTES_DB = "DEBUG_notestore.db";
First Create Test Class under (androidTest).
Now use following code:
public class YourDBTest extends InstrumentationTestCase {
private DBContracts.DatabaseHelper db;
private RenamingDelegatingContext context;
#Override
public void setUp() throws Exception {
super.setUp();
context = new RenamingDelegatingContext(getInstrumentation().getTargetContext(), "test_");
db = new DBContracts.DatabaseHelper(context);
}
#Override
public void tearDown() throws Exception {
db.close();
super.tearDown();
}
#Test
public void test1() throws Exception {
// here is your context
context = context;
}}
Initialize context like this in your Test File
private val context = mock(Context::class.java)