We Keep Coding

How to instantiate outside of a constructor?

How to replicate this code with Autofac syntax?
public static class MenuConfig
{
public static void Initialize()
{
var _menuService = DependecyFactory.GetInstance<IMenuService>();
Parameters.Menu = _menuService.Menu();
}
}
Before calling this a "duplicate question" please note that I'm looking for an Autofac command. I CANNOT inject the interface anywhere and then call "Resolve". What I need to is perform an "InstancePerRequest" inline and uninjected so I don't have to do this:
var _service = new Service(new Dependency(new context()));
LightInject has a method that allows instantiation from an interface OUTSIDE of a constructor like this:
var _service = DependecyFactory.GetInstance<IService>();
What is the equivalent method for Autofac?

When calling containerBuilder.Build() you get back a container which implements IContainer and ILifetimeScope, whenever you get hold of one of these interfaces, you can resolve types from it:
container.Resolve<IService>();
If you want this container to be static, you could add the container as a static property to the Program or Startup class (depending if you're creating a Console or ASP.NET application).
Remember that the root container will be around for the entire duration of your application, so this can result in unwanted memory leaks when used incorrectly. Also see the warning in the documentation.
Still, it's perfectly possible to do the memory management yourself by resolving an Owned<> version from your interface:
using (var service = Program.Container.Resolve<Owned<IService>>())
{
service.Value.UseService();
}
Anyway, since you mention a static class in the comments, the best solution is to change that into a non-static class and register it as a singleton with Autofac. Then you can inject a Func<Owned<IService>> serviceFactory into that singleton and create/dispose an instance of the service wherever you need it.
using (var service = serviceFactory())
{
service.Value.UseService();
}

This is simply not possible with Autofac. All other solutions involving Autofac will require code refactoring which may potentially break software functionality. So unfortunately, the most elegant and least disruptive solution is this:
var _service = new Service(new Dependency(new context()));
Since this is an edge case addressing only one part of the software, this compromise is acceptable. It would be nice, however, if Autofac implemented this functionality in some future release.

Any way to use Moq to imitate properties of a real-world constructor automatically?

I've got a controller with a lot of constructor injection:
public MoviesController(ISession session, IClientContext clientContext, PManager pManager, ISegmentationService segmentationService, IGeoLocator geoLocator, IBus bus)
{
_session = session;
_clientContext = clientContext;
_pManager = pManager;
_segmentationService = segmentationService;
_geoLocator = geoLocator;
_bus = bus;
}
From my understanding (just read about Mocking), I've got a lot of Mock object properties to manually set if I wish to make a comprehensive test suite based on this controller.
For one method I'm only using one service (I'd even like to automate that with little effort if possible):
public object Show(Guid id)
{
var movie = _session.Get<movie>(id);
return movie;
}
But in another there are many services being used - is there any way to set those Moq objects up quickly? I could really use some examples as I'm new to testing. It's an asp.net mvc project with webapi 1 bundled in (testing the webapi controller here)

As has been said in the comments, if you have common setup code, you can put it in a Setup method that is called automatically from your testing framework before each test. It's decorated with a Setup attribute if you're using Nunit TestInitialize if you're using MStest. If you're using XUnit then it's a bit different.
So, your class might look like this:
public class SomeTests {
Mock<ISession> _sessionMock;
Mock<IClientContext> _clientContextMock;
[Setup]
public void Setup() {
_sessionMock = new Mock<ISession>();
_clientContextMock = new Mock <IClientContext();
}
MovieController CreateSut() {
return new MovieController(_sessionMock.Object, _clientContextMock.Object, ...);
}
[Test]
public void TestSomething() {
_sessionMock.Setup(x=>...);
//...
var sut = CreateSut();
//...
}
}
If you're trying to get away from completely creating the mocks manually, then you might want to look at something like AutoFixture with AutoMoq. Which will automatically supply mock instances when creating objects that accept interfaces. AutoFixture can be quite useful, but there is a learning curve to using it effectively so you might want to look at a tutorial / quickstart.
You could also configure an IOC container to supply mock instances for your test project, although I've never gone down that route myself.

For your example, you only need to mock the session, and can leave all the other dependencies null, since their behaviour should be irrelevant to the behaviour you are testing:
Mock<ISession> mockSession = new Mock<ISesssion>();
MoviesController controller = new MoviesController(mockSession.Object, null,null,null,null,null);
There is no need for you to set up any mocks other than the ones you need for this particular test

ObjectBuilder dependency injection and ASP.NET Web Services

I'm using Microsoft.Practices.ObjectBuilder in a web project to handle dependency injection (between view and presenter for example).
I've recently added an ASP.NET Web Service (.asmx) to handle ajax calls. I would like to use dependency injection with ObjectBuilder here as well, but I can't get it working.
I tried to just simply add something like this:
[CreateNew]
public MyClass MyClass
{
set
{
_myClass = value;
}
}
But this isn't working. The property setter of MyClass is never called. Is it even possible to get this working?

Regarding to old legacy system, especially for those using static - stateless classes, I found this design to be the most fit:
public MyClass MyClass
{
get
{
if(_myClass == null){ _myClass = new DefaultMyClass(); }
return _myClass;
}
set
{
_myClass = value;
}
}
With this, I can still do dependency injection in unit test, using setter injection.
IMyClassUser m = new MyClassUser();
m.MyClass = new MockMyClass();
While, at the very point, does not change the existing code too much. And later when the times come, it can be modified using constructor DI.
It will also help your legacy colleague whom does not understand DI too much, to able to track the code faster (using Go to Definition). And it can survive even without interface/class documentation.

Best approach for breaking dependencies in C#?

We are looking at adding unit tests to our C# code base. I am finding it easy to add unit tests to simple classes, but classes that interact with other dependencies are more difficult. I have been looking at mocking frameworks, but was wondering about the best approach to write classes in the first place to break external dependencies, like file system, database and messaging system dependencies.
To give an example, a routine listens on a socket for a message in a certain format - say MessageA. This is decoded, some calculations are done, this is re-encoded into a different binary format and the resulting message then sent, MessageB.
My current testing approach is as follows. I extract an interface for all socket interactions, and create a mock interface. I set the interface in a singleton. Then run the class against hard coded inputs. The class under test will use the interface in the singleton to send/receive.
I do a similar thing to test database interactions.
This does not seem like the most flexible approach, how would you go about improving this to make it easier to test? If a mocking framework is the answer, how would I design the classes?
Example code :
[SetUp]
public void init()
{
// set message interface in singleton as mock interface
CommAdapter.Instance.MessageAdapter = new MockMessage();
// build reference message from hard coded test variables
initialiseMessageA();
// set input from mock message socket
((MockMessage) CommAdapter.Instance.MessageAdapter).MessageIn = m_messageA;
}
[Test]
public void test_listenMessage_validOutput()
{
// initialise test class
MessageSocket tS = new MessageSocket();
// read from socket
tS.listenMessage();
// extract mock interface from singleton
MockMessage mm = ((MockMessage) CommAdapter.Instance.MessageAdapter);
// assert sent message is in correct / correstpoinding format
Assert.AreEqual(1000001, mm.SentMessageB.TestField);
}

Instead of using Singletons to set your component implementations, use a Dependency Injection, and a DI library like Ninject. This is exactly the type of scenario they were designed for.
Not pushing you to Ninject specifically, but they have a good tutorial :) The concepts will transfer to other frameworks (like Unity).
https://github.com/ninject/ninject/wiki
With DI alone, the code will look something like this:
class Samurai {
private IWeapon _weapon;
public Samurai(IWeapon weapon) {
_weapon = weapon;
}
public void Attack(string target) {
_weapon.Hit(target);
}
}
class Shuriken : IWeapon {
public void Hit(string target) {
Console.WriteLine("Pierced {0}'s armor", target);
}
}
class Program {
public static void Main() {
Samurai warrior1 = new Samurai(new Shuriken());
Samurai warrior2 = new Samurai(new Sword());
warrior1.Attack("the evildoers");
warrior2.Attack("the evildoers");
}
}
This looks clean now, but wait until your dependencies have dependencies, or further :) You can use a DI library to solve that, though.
With a library to handle the wiring up for you, it will look something like:
class Program {
public static void Main() {
using(IKernel kernel = new StandardKernel(new WeaponsModule()))
{
var samurai = kernel.Get<Samurai>();
warrior1.Attack("the evildoers");
}
}
}
// Todo: Duplicate class definitions from above...
public class WarriorModule : NinjectModule {
public override void Load() {
Bind<IWeapon>().To<Sword>();
Bind<Samurai>().ToSelf().InSingletonScope();
}
}
With either of these approaches, plus a mock object framework like Moq, your unit tests look something like this:
[Test]
public void HitShouldBeCalledByAttack()
{
// Arrange all our data for testing
const string target = "the evildoers";
var mock = new Mock<IWeapon>();
mock.Setup(w => w.Hit(target))
.AtMostOnce();
IWeapon mockWeapon = mock.Object;
var warrior1 = new Samurai(mockWeapon);
// Act on our code under test
warrior1.Attack(target);
// Assert Hit was called
mock.Verify(w => w.Hit(target));
}
You'll notice you can just pass mock instances straight into the code under test, and you don't have to mess around with setting singletons. This will help you avoid problems like needing to set up the state multiple times, or in between calls. It means no hidden dependencies.
You'll also notice I didn't use the DI container in the tests. If your code is well factored, it will only be testing a single class (and as often as possible, only a single method), and you will only need to mock out the direct dependencies of that class.

In addition to a DI container (I'm using MS Unity 2.0 currently but there are many to choose from) you will need a good mocking framework, my preference is MOQ. A common pattern/process for breaking concrete dependencies is:
define the dependency via an interface; you may luck out and already have an interface, like IDbConnection or you may need to use Proxy to wrap a concrete type and define your own interface.
resolve the concrete implementation via your DI container
inject your mock implementations into your DI container at test setup time (inject real impls. at system startup)

What really interceptors do with my c# class?

I was asked to implement castle dynamic proxy in my asp.net web application and i was going through couple of articles which i got from Castle Project and Code Project about castle dynamic proxy in asp.net web application....
Both articles delt with creating interceptors but i can't get the idea why interceptors are used with classes.... Why should i intercept my class which is behaving properly?

Let's say that your class needs to do 3 things for a certain operation:
Perform a security check;
Log the method call;
Cache the result.
Let's further assume that your class doesn't know anything about the specific way you've configured your security, logging, or caching. You need to depend on abstractions of these things.
There are a few ways to go about it. One way would be to set up a bunch of interfaces and use constructor injection:
public class OrderService : IOrderService
{
private readonly IAuthorizationService auth;
private readonly ILogger logger;
private readonly ICache cache;
public OrderService(IAuthorizationService auth, ILogger logger,
ICache cache)
{
if (auth == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("auth");
if (logger == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("logger");
if (cache == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("cache");
this.auth = auth;
this.logger = logger;
this.cache = cache;
}
public Order GetOrder(int orderID)
{
auth.AssertPermission("GetOrder");
logger.LogInfo("GetOrder:{0}", orderID);
string cacheKey = string.Format("GetOrder-{0}", orderID);
if (cache.Contains(cacheKey))
return (Order)cache[cacheKey];
Order order = LookupOrderInDatabase(orderID);
cache[cacheKey] = order;
return order;
}
}
This isn't horrible code, but think of the problems we're introducing:
The OrderService class can't function without all three dependencies. If we want to make it so it can, we need to start peppering the code with null checks everywhere.
We're writing a ton of extra code to perform a relatively simple operation (looking up an order).
All this boilerplate code has to be repeated in every method, making for a very large, ugly, bug-prone implementation.
Here's a class which is much easier to maintain:
public class OrderService : IOrderService
{
[Authorize]
[Log]
[Cache("GetOrder-{0}")]
public virtual Order GetOrder(int orderID)
{
return LookupOrderInDatabase(orderID);
}
}
In Aspect Oriented Programming, these attributes are called Join Points, the complete set of which is called a Point Cut.
Instead of actually writing dependency code, over and over again, we leave "hints" that some additional operations are supposed to be performed for this method.
Of course, these attributes have to get turned into code sometime, but you can defer that all the way up to your main application code, by creating a proxy for the OrderService (note that the GetOrder method has been made virtual because it needs to be overridden for the service), and intercepting the GetOrder method.
Writing the interceptor might be as simple as this:
public class LoggingInterceptor : IInterceptor
{
public void Intercept(IInvocation invocation)
{
if (Attribute.IsDefined(invocation.Method, typeof(LogAttribute))
{
Console.Writeline("Method called: "+ invocation.Method.Name);
}
invocation.Proceed();
}
}
And creating the proxy would be:
var generator = new ProxyGenerator();
var orderService = (IOrderService)generator.CreateClassProxy(typeof(OrderService),
new LoggingInterceptor());
This is not only a lot less repetitive code, but it completely removes the actual dependency, because look what we've done - we don't even have an authorization or caching system yet, but the system still runs. We can just insert the authorization and caching logic later by registering another interceptor and checking for AuthorizeAttribute or CacheAttribute.
Hopefully this explains the "why."
Sidebar: As Krzysztof Koźmic comments, it's not a DP "best practice" to use a dynamic interceptor like this. In production code, you don't want to have the interceptor running for unnecessary methods, so use an IInterceptorSelector instead.

The reason you would use Castle-DynamicProxy is for what's called Aspect Orientated Programming. It lets you interject code into the standard operation flow of your code without the need to become dependent on the code itself.
A simple example is as always, logging. That you would create a DynamicProxy around a class that you have errors from that it logs the data going into the method and catches any exceptions and then logs the exception.
Using the intercepter your current code has no idea it exists (assuming you have your software built in a decoupled way with interfaces correctly) and you can change the registration of your classes with an inversion of control container to use the proxied class instead without having to change a single line else where in code. Then when you solve the bug you can turn off the proxying.
More advanced usage of proxying can be seen with NHibernate where all of the lazy loading is handled through proxies.