When I save changes to DbContext, it doesn't update my database. No errors either.
Yes, the incoming form data is filled. Yes, the connection string is correct, I know this because I'm able to retrieve data from the database perfectly fine. If it's of relevance, it's a many-to-many relationship.
A roadmap is like an article as far as you're concerned which can be associated with many tags.
public static class RoadmapService
{
static ConkerDbEntities dbContext;
public static void createDbContext(ConkerDbEntities _dbContext)
{
dbContext = _dbContext;
}
public static void addToDatabase(Form form)
{
Roadmaps roadmap = new Roadmaps { RoadmapTitle = form.title,
RoadmapSummary = form.summary,
RoadmapBody = form.body };
var tags = new Tags[form.tags.Length];
for(int i = 0; i < tags.Length; i++)
{
tags[i] = new Tags();
tags[i].TagId = form.tags[i];
}
var roadmapTags = new RoadmapTags[form.tags.Length];
for(int i = 0; i < tags.Length; i++)
{
roadmapTags[i] = new RoadmapTags{Roadmap = roadmap, Tag = tags[i]};
}
dbContext.AddRange(roadmapTags);
dbContext.SaveChangesAsync();
}
}
}
Where dbcontext is created, this is the constructor of Startup.cs
public static SearchEngine engine;
public static ConkerDbEntities dbContext;
public Startup(IConfiguration configuration)
{
Configuration = configuration;
dbContext = new ConkerDbEntities();
RoadmapService.createDbContext(dbContext);
engine = new SearchEngine(dbContext);
}
I get no errors, and there's nothing added to the database. I'm probably doing something fundamentally wrong here. Thanks in advance.
You are using async programming, but your method is not async.
use dbContext.SaveChangesAsync(); when you have async methods, use dbContext.SaveChanges(); when is not async.
Also, you are using static classes, this should not be the case if you are using dependency injection. DI will handle the life cycle of your objects.
Your class is not defined as should be, you have some format errors, and should look something like this:
public class RoadmapService
{
private readonly ConkerDbEntities _dbContext;
public RoadmapService(ConkerDbEntities dbContext)
{
_dbContext = dbContext;
}
public async Task AddToDatabase(Form form)
{
Roadmaps roadmap = new Roadmaps {
RoadmapTitle = form.title,
RoadmapSummary = form.summary,
RoadmapBody = form.body
};
var tags = new Tags[form.tags.Length];
for(int i = 0; i < tags.Length; i++)
{
tags[i] = new Tags();
tags[i].TagId = form.tags[i];
}
var roadmapTags = new RoadmapTags[form.tags.Length];
for(int i = 0; i < tags.Length; i++)
{
roadmapTags[i] = new RoadmapTags{Roadmap = roadmap, Tag = tags[i]};
}
_dbContext.AddRange(roadmapTags);
_dbContext.SaveChangesAsync();
}
}
Then in your controller you can use your service as is
public class OrdersController : Controller
{
private readonly RoadmapService _roadmapService;
public OrdersController(RoadmapService roadmapService)
{
_roadmapService = roadmapService;
}
[HttpGet]
[Route("api/[controller]/{folio}")]
public async Task<IActionResult> Status(string folio)
{
await _roadmapService.AddToDatabase(something);
return Ok();
}
}
I also would recommend to study about linq and how you can avoid those foreach cycles using select, check the default net core coding standards.
Edit
I'm curious, would LINQ provide any performance benefits in this case
vs just a regular for loop?
It is more about the readability and maintainability of your code, in the answer I already put a link to a post where is better explained, you are creating technical debt in your code, you are initializing arrays and filling them, handling indices and more... , but it reduces to this:
What is more easy to read? this:
public async Task AddToDatabase(Form form)
{
Roadmaps roadmap = new Roadmaps {
RoadmapTitle = form.title,
RoadmapSummary = form.summary,
RoadmapBody = form.body
};
var tags = new Tags[form.tags.Length];
for(int i = 0; i < tags.Length; i++)
{
tags[i] = new Tags();
tags[i].TagId = form.tags[i];
}
var roadmapTags = new RoadmapTags[form.tags.Length];
for(int i = 0; i < tags.Length; i++)
{
roadmapTags[i] = new RoadmapTags{Roadmap = roadmap, Tag = tags[i]};
}
_dbContext.AddRange(roadmapTags);
_dbContext.SaveChangesAsync();
}
or this
public async Task AddToDatabase(Form form)
{
var roadmap = new Roadmap {
RoadmapTitle = form.title,
RoadmapSummary = form.summary,
RoadmapBody = form.body
};
var roadmapTags = form.Tags
.Select(tagId => new Tag // First we take our form.tags and convert it to Tag objects
{
TagId = tagId
})
.Select(tag => new RoadmapTags // Then we take the result of the previous conversion and we
{ // transform again to RoadmapTags, we even could do this in one pass
Roadmap = roadmap, // but this way is more clear what the transformations are
Tag = tag
})
.ToList();
_dbContext.AddRange(roadmapTags);
await _dbContext.SaveChangesAsync();
}
If you just started learning programming, you could ignore this until you are more confortable with the for, foreach, while and other control structures. This is structure programming, and it is a topic by itself.
Also how would I pass the roadmapService object to the Controller
constructor, I've just never seen that.
That is the magic of dependency injection, just let the system create the object for you, you just have to ask for the type.
This is also a big topic, you should check my previous link to the microsoft documentation, but basically, all you have to do is to define classes as dependencies, so, when you ask for one, the system itself check the dependencies, and the dependencies of that objects, until resolves all the tree of dependencies.
With this, if you need one more dependency latter in your class, you can add directly but you do not need to modify all the classes that uses that class.
To use this in the controller, please check the official docs, you just have to add you dependencies to the constructor, and win!, basically two parts:
Add in your Startup.class
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
...
services.AddTransient<MySpecialClassWithDependencies>();
...
}
Then in your controller:
public class HomeController : Controller
{
private readonly MySpecialClassWithDependencies _mySpecialClassWithDependencies;
public HomeController(MySpecialClassWithDependencies mySpecialClassWithDependencies)
{
_mySpecialClassWithDependencies = mySpecialClassWithDependencies;
}
public IActionResult Index()
{
// Now i can use my object here, the framework already initialized for me!
return View();
}
Related
What I need to do
I need to start different instances of a class in a synchronous context using an async method.
Application structure
In my console application I've declared a List<Bot> class:
private List<Bot> _bots = new List<Bot>(new Bot[10]);
the class Bot contains some methods that takes data from internet, so these methods need to be waited. The method structure looks like this:
public class Bot
{
Competition Comp { get; set; }
public async Task StartAsync(int instance)
{
string url = "";
//based on the instance I take the data from different source.
switch(instance)
{
case 0:
url = "www.google.com";
break;
case 1:
url = "www.bing.com";
break;
}
//Comp property contains different groups.
Comp.Groups = await GetCompetitionAsync(Comp, url);
if(Comp.Groups.Count > 0)
{
foreach(var gp in group)
{
//add data inside database.
}
}
}
}
the Competition class have the following design:
public class Competition
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public List<string> Groups { get; set; }
}
I start all the instances of Bot class using the following code:
for(int i = 0; i < _bots.Count - 1; i++)
{
_bots[i].StartAsync(i);
}
this code will call different times StartAsync of Bot class, in this way, I can manage each instance of the bot, and I can eventually stop or start a specific instance in a separate method.
The problem
The method GetCompetitionAsync create a List<string>:
public async Task<List<string>> GetCompetitionAsync(Competition comp, string url)
{
if(comp == null)
comp = new Competition();
List<string> groups = new List<string();
using (var httpResonse = await httpClient.GetAsync(url))
{
string content = await httpResponse.Content.ReadAsStringAsync();
//fill list groups
}
return groups;
}
essentially this method will fill the List<string> available in Comp. Now, if I execute a single instance of StartAsync all works well, but when I run multiple instances (as the for above), the Comp object (which contains the Competition) have all the properties NULL.
So seems that when I have multiple Task running the synchronous context doesn't wait the async context, which in this case fill the List<string>.
When the code reach this line: if(Competition.Groups.Count > 0) I get a NULL exception, because Groups is null, and other Comp properties are NULL.
How can I manage this situation?
UPDATE
After other attempts, I though to create a List<Task> instead of a List<Bot>:
List<Task> tasks = new List<Task>(new Task[10]);
then instead of:
for(int i = 0; i < _bots.Count - 1; i++)
{
_bots[i].StartAsync(i);
}
I did:
for (int i = 0; i < tasks.Count - 1; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine("Starting " + i);
if (tasks[i] == null)
tasks[i] = new Task(async () => await new Bot().StartAsync(i));
apparently all is working well, I got no errors. The problem is: why? I though to something like a deadlock, that I can't even solve using ConfigureAwait(false);.
The last solution also doesn't allow me to access to Bot method because is now a Task.
UPDATE 2
Okay maybe I gotcha the issue. Essentially the await inside the asynchronous method StartAsync is trying to comeback on the main thread, meanwhile the main thread is busy waiting the task to complete, and this will create a deadlock.
That's why moving the StartAsync() inside a List<Task> has worked, 'cause now the async call is now running on a thread pool thread, it doesn't try to comeback to the main thread, and everything seems to works. But I can't use this solution for the reasons explained above.
I'm prefer use Threads instead of Tasks. IMHO, Threads more simple for understanding.
Note: seems that property Bot.Comp in your code is NOT initialized! I fix this issue.
My version of your code:
public class Bot
{
Competition Comp { get; set; }
System.Thread _thread;
private int _instance;
public Bot()
{
Comp = new Competition ();
}
public void Start(int instance)
{
_instance = instance;
_thread = new Thread(StartAsync);
_thread.Start();
}
private void StartAsync()
{
string url = "";
//based on the instance I take the data from different source.
switch(_instance)
{
case 0:
url = "www.google.com";
break;
case 1:
url = "www.bing.com";
break;
}
//Comp property contains different groups.
GetCompetitionAsync(Comp, url);
if(Comp.Groups.Count > 0)
{
foreach(var gp in group)
{
//add data inside database.
}
}
}
public List<string> GetCompetitionAsync(Competition comp, string url)
{
if(comp.groups == null) comp.groups = new List<string>();
using (var httpResonse = httpClient.GetAsync(url))
{
string content = await httpResponse.Content.ReadAsStringAsync();
//fill list groups
}
return groups;
}
}
Then we run threads:
for(int i = 0; i < _bots.Count - 1; i++)
{
_bots[i].Start(i);
}
Each instance of Bot starts method private void StartAsync() in it's own thread.
Note a implementation of method Bot.Start():
public void Start(int instance)
{
_instance = instance;
_thread = new Thread(StartAsync); //At this line: set method Bot.StartAsync as entry point for new thread.
_thread.Start();//At this line: call of _thread.Start() starts new thread and returns **immediately**.
}
This sort of thing is far simpler if you think in terms of lists and "pure" functions-- functions that accept input and return output. Don't pass in something for them to fill or mutate.
For example, this function accepts a string and returns the groups:
List<string> ExtractGroups(string content)
{
var list = new List<string>();
//Populate list
return list;
}
This function accepts a URL and returns its groups.
async Task<List<string>> GetCompetitionAsync(string url)
{
using (var httpResponse = await httpClient.GetAsync(url))
{
string content = await httpResponse.Content.ReadAsStringAsync();
return ExtractGroups(content);
}
}
And this function accepts a list of URLs and returns all of the groups as one list.
async Task<List<string>> GetAllGroups(string[] urls)
{
var tasks = urls.Select( u => GetCompetitionAsync(u) );
await Task.WhenAll(tasks);
return tasks.SelectMany( t => t.Result );
}
You can then stuff the data into the database as you had planned.
var groups = GetAllGroups( new string[] { "www.google.com", "www.bing.com" } );
foreach(var gp in groups)
{
//add data inside database.
}
See how much simpler it is when you break it down this way?
I am building an application on top of Entity Framework Core and I want to, sort of, apply a migration at runtime.
My intended approach is to have the current database model in memory and create a new model, then calculate the difference between the two models using IMigrationsModelDiffer.GetDifferences().
From there, instead of printing the differences into a Migration class, I want to create the MigrationCommands directly and apply those commands to my database.
The above sounds fairly straightforward but I'm having a lot of issues with the Dependency Injection system.
This is the code I have right now:
static DbContextOptions GetOptions(IModel model)
{
var builder = new DbContextOptionsBuilder();
builder
.UseSqlServer(connStr)
.UseModel(model);
return builder.Options;
}
class Test1ModelAEntity
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string StrProp { get; set; }
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var sqlServerServices = new ServiceCollection()
.AddEntityFrameworkSqlServer()
.BuildServiceProvider();
var conventions = new ConventionSet();
sqlServerServices.GetRequiredService<IConventionSetBuilder>().AddConventions(conventions);
var emptyModelBuilder = new ModelBuilder(conventions);
var emptyModel = emptyModelBuilder.Model;
var test1ModelBuilder = new ModelBuilder(conventions);
test1ModelBuilder.Entity<Test1ModelAEntity>()
.ToTable("ModelA");
var test1Model = test1ModelBuilder.Model;
using (TestContext ctx = new TestContext(GetOptions(emptyModel)))
{
var migrationServices = new ServiceCollection()
.AddDbContextDesignTimeServices(ctx)
.AddEntityFrameworkSqlServer()
.BuildServiceProvider();
var operations = migrationServices.GetRequiredService<IMigrationsModelDiffer>().GetDifferences(emptyModel, test1Model);
var commands = migrationServices.GetRequiredService<IMigrationsSqlGenerator>().Generate(operations, test1Model);
var connection = migrationServices.GetRequiredService<IRelationalConnection>();
migrationServices.GetRequiredService<IMigrationCommandExecutor>().ExecuteNonQuery(commands, connection);
}
}
This code throws a NullReferenceException with this stack trace:
at Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Metadata.Internal.TableMapping.<>c.<GetRootType>b__10_0(IEntityType t)
at System.Linq.Enumerable.SingleOrDefault[TSource](IEnumerable`1 source, Func`2 predicate)
at Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Migrations.Internal.MigrationsModelDiffer.GetSortedProperties(TableMapping target)
at Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Migrations.Internal.MigrationsModelDiffer.<Add>d__37.MoveNext()
at Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Migrations.Internal.MigrationsModelDiffer.<DiffCollection>d__73`1.MoveNext()
at System.Linq.Enumerable.ConcatIterator`1.MoveNext()
at Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Migrations.Internal.MigrationsModelDiffer.Sort(IEnumerable`1 operations, DiffContext diffContext)
at Sandbox.Program.Main(String[] args) in D:\Sandbox\Program.cs:line 108
I have inspected the source code and it appears that there's an issue with the way EFCore is interpreting my model. I am using EFCore version 2.1 preview 2.
Really I'm mostly trying random configurations on my IServiceCollections because I have no idea how to set this up. I am also trying to stay away from EFCore internal classes but if needed be I may use one or two for the time being.
Is there a way to take advantage of EFCore's built-in capabilities to generate some SQL given a pair of IModels? If so, how do I set up DI to have all the required services?
Thank you for the comments which pointed me in the correct direction.
In summary, I was trying to create my models using an empty convention set. This obviously leads to all sorts of problems as you have to generate the entire model explicitly, which is very complex.
To use the expected convention set I had to get it from my context using ConventionSet.CreateConventionSet. I also had to manually validate my model before being able to use it in queries and insert commands. The rest of the logic is pretty much the same.
Here's my final code including the tests I ran to ensure everything worked as expected:
static DbContextOptions GetOptions(IModel model)
{
var builder = new DbContextOptionsBuilder();
builder
.UseSqlServer(connStr)
.UseModel(model);
return builder.Options;
}
//Test 1
class Test1EntityA
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string StrProp { get; set; }
}
//Test 2
class Test2EntityA
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string StrProp { get; set; }
public ICollection<Test2ModelBEntity> Children { get; set; }
}
class Test2EntityB
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public int EntityAId { get; set; }
public Test2EntityA EntityA { get; set; }
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var emptyModelBuilder = new ModelBuilder(new ConventionSet());
var emptyModel = emptyModelBuilder.Model;
using (var baseCtx = new TestContext(GetOptions(emptyModel)))
{
//Get all services we need from the base context
var conventions = ConventionSet.CreateConventionSet(baseCtx);
var migrationServices = new ServiceCollection()
.AddDbContextDesignTimeServices(baseCtx)
.AddEntityFrameworkSqlServer()
.BuildServiceProvider();
//Test 1
var test1ModelBuilder = new ModelBuilder(conventions);
test1ModelBuilder.Entity<Test1EntityA>()
.ToTable("EntityA");
var test1Model = test1ModelBuilder.GetInfrastructure().Metadata;
test1Model.Validate();
var operations = migrationServices.GetRequiredService<IMigrationsModelDiffer>().GetDifferences(emptyModel, test1Model);
var commands = migrationServices.GetRequiredService<IMigrationsSqlGenerator>().Generate(operations, test1Model);
var connection = migrationServices.GetRequiredService<IRelationalConnection>();
migrationServices.GetRequiredService<IMigrationCommandExecutor>().ExecuteNonQuery(commands, connection);
using (TestContext ctx = new TestContext(GetOptions(test1Model)))
{
ctx.Set<Test1EntityA>().Add(new Test1EntityA
{
StrProp = "test1",
});
ctx.SaveChanges();
}
//Test 2
var test2ModelBuilder = new ModelBuilder(conventions);
test2ModelBuilder.Entity<Test2EntityA>()
.ToTable("EntityA");
test2ModelBuilder.Entity<Test2EntityB>()
.ToTable("EntityB");
var test2Model = test2ModelBuilder.GetInfrastructure().Metadata;
test2Model.Validate();
operations = migrationServices.GetRequiredService<IMigrationsModelDiffer>().GetDifferences(test1Model, test2Model);
commands = migrationServices.GetRequiredService<IMigrationsSqlGenerator>().Generate(operations, test2Model);
migrationServices.GetRequiredService<IMigrationCommandExecutor>().ExecuteNonQuery(commands, connection);
using (TestContext ctx = new TestContext(GetOptions(test2Model)))
{
var e = new Test2EntityA
{
StrProp = "test2",
};
ctx.Set<Test2EntityA>().Add(e);
ctx.Set<Test2EntityB>().Add(new Test2EntityB
{
EntityA = e,
});
ctx.SaveChanges();
Console.WriteLine(ctx.Set<Test2EntityB>().Where(b => b.EntityA.StrProp == "test2").Count());
}
}
}
I have the code below which I would like to test, but I'm not sure whether it is possible or not.
I have EF repositories and they are put together to a class as public properties. I don't know exactly whether it is bad solution or not, but it is easier to manage the code and its dependencies. Only the testability is still a question.
Purpose of my test is injecting data via
administrationRepository.ModuleScreen.GetAll()
method and catch the result. I know that it can be tested once it is deployed, but I want the tests in build time in order to have as fast feedback as possible.
I went through questions and answers here, but I cannot find answers. In my code I got to the point where the property is set up, but when I call the administrationRepoMock.Object.ModuleScreen.GetAll() ReSharper offers only the methods coming from Entitiy Framework and not the Moq related functions.
It is possible what I want? If so, how? Is my design suitable for this? If not can you give me articles, urls where I can see examples?
Repository:
public interface IModuleScreen
{
IEnumerable<DomainModel.Administration.ModuleScreen> GetAll();
}
public interface IAdministrationRepository
{
IModuleScreen ModuleScreen { get; }
}
public partial class AdministrationRepository : IAdministrationRepository
{
public virtual IModuleScreen ModuleScreen { get; private set; }
public AdministrationRepository( IModuleScreen moduleScreen )
{
this.ModuleScreen = moduleScreen;
}
}
Application:
public partial class DigitalLibraryApplication : IDigitalLibraryApplication
{
private IAdministrationRepository _administrationRepository;
private IMapper.IMapper.IMapper _mapper;
private IDiLibApplicationHelper _dilibApplicationHelper;
#region Ctor
public DigitalLibraryApplication( IAdministrationRepository administrationRepository, IMapper.IMapper.IMapper mapper, IDiLibApplicationHelper diLibApplicationHelper)
{
_administrationRepository = administrationRepository;
_mapper = mapper;
_dilibApplicationHelper = diLibApplicationHelper;
}
#endregion
public IEnumerable<ModuleScreenContract> GetModuleScreens()
{
//inject data here
IEnumerable<ModuleScreen> result = _administrationRepository.ModuleScreen.GetAll();
List<ModuleScreenContract> mappedResult = _mapper.MapModuleScreenToModuleScreenContracts(result);
return mappedResult;
}
}
Test code:
[Test]
public void ItCalls_ModuleRepository_Get_Method()
{
List<SayusiAndo.DiLib.DomainModel.Administration.ModuleScreen> queryResult = new List<SayusiAndo.DiLib.DomainModel.Administration.ModuleScreen>()
{
new DomainModel.Administration.ModuleScreen()
{
Id = 100,
},
};
var moduleScreenMock = new Mock<IModuleScreen>();
moduleScreenMock.Setup(c => c.GetAll()).Returns(queryResult);
administrationRepoMock.SetupProperty(c => c.ModuleScreen, moduleScreenMock.Object);
var mapperMock = new Mock<IMapper.IMapper.IMapper>();
var dilibApplicationHerlperMock = new Mock<IDiLibApplicationHelper>();
IDigitalLibraryApplication app = new DigitalLibraryApplication( administrationRepoMock.Object, mapperMock.Object, dilibApplicationHerlperMock.Object );
app.GetModules();
//issue is here
administrationRepoMock.Object.ModuleScreen.GetAll() //???
}
Here is a refactoring of your test that passes when run. You can update the pass criteria to suit you definition of a successful test.
[Test]
public void ItCalls_ModuleRepository_Get_Method() {
// Arrange
List<ModuleScreen> queryResult = new List<ModuleScreen>()
{
new ModuleScreen()
{
Id = 100,
},
};
//Building mapped result from query to compare results later
List<ModuleScreenContract> expectedMappedResult = queryResult
.Select(m => new ModuleScreenContract { Id = m.Id })
.ToList();
var moduleScreenMock = new Mock<IModuleScreen>();
moduleScreenMock
.Setup(c => c.GetAll())
.Returns(queryResult)
.Verifiable();
var administrationRepoMock = new Mock<IAdministrationRepository>();
administrationRepoMock
.Setup(c => c.ModuleScreen)
.Returns(moduleScreenMock.Object)
.Verifiable();
var mapperMock = new Mock<IMapper>();
mapperMock.Setup(c => c.MapModuleScreenToModuleScreenContracts(queryResult))
.Returns(expectedMappedResult)
.Verifiable();
//NOTE: Not seeing this guy doing anything. What's its purpose
var dilibApplicationHerlperMock = new Mock<IDiLibApplicationHelper>();
IDigitalLibraryApplication app = new DigitalLibraryApplication(administrationRepoMock.Object, mapperMock.Object, dilibApplicationHerlperMock.Object);
//Act (Call the method under test)
var actualMappedResult = app.GetModuleScreens();
//Assert
//Verify that configured methods were actually called. If not, test will fail.
moduleScreenMock.Verify();
mapperMock.Verify();
administrationRepoMock.Verify();
//there should actually be a result.
Assert.IsNotNull(actualMappedResult);
//with items
CollectionAssert.AllItemsAreNotNull(actualMappedResult.ToList());
//There lengths should be equal
Assert.AreEqual(queryResult.Count, actualMappedResult.Count());
//And there should be a mapped object with the same id (Assumption)
var expected = queryResult.First().Id;
var actual = actualMappedResult.First().Id;
Assert.AreEqual(expected, actual);
}
I am new to testing and have never used MSpec. I looked at tutorials and the only examples is "lite", like 1 + 1 should be 2. I need to test this real method and I don't know where to start.
public ILineItem CreateLineItem(BaseVariationContent sku, int quantityToAdd)
{
var price = sku.GetDefaultPrice();
var parent = sku.GetParentProducts().FirstOrDefault() != null ? _contentLoader.Get<ProductContent>(sku.GetParentProducts().FirstOrDefault()).Code : string.Empty;
return new LineItem
{
Code = sku.Code,
DisplayName = sku.DisplayName,
Description = sku.Description,
Quantity = quantityToAdd,
PlacedPrice = price.UnitPrice.Amount,
ListPrice = price.UnitPrice.Amount,
Created = DateAndTime.Now,
MaxQuantity = sku.MaxQuantity ?? 100,
MinQuantity = sku.MinQuantity ?? 1,
InventoryStatus = sku.TrackInventory ? (int)InventoryStatus.Enabled : (int)InventoryStatus.Disabled,
WarehouseCode = string.Empty, // TODO: Add warehouse id
ParentCatalogEntryId = parent,
};
}
BaseVariationContent is just a class with a lot of properties and that has an extension.
The MSpec github repo has a pretty nice README that explains the basic syntax components of an MSpec test class and test case.
https://github.com/machine/machine.specifications#machinespecifications
I won't fill in the details of your test, but I will show you the important parts to setup an mspec test.
[Subject("Line Item")]
public class When_creating_a_basic_line_item_from_generic_sku()
{
Establish context = () =>
{
// you would use this if the Subject's constructor
// required more complicated setup, mocks, etc.
}
Because of = () => Subject.CreateLineItem(Sku, Quantity);
It should_be_in_some_state = () => Item.InventoryStatus.ShouldEqual(InventoryStatus.Enabled);
private static Whatever Subject = new Whatever();
private static BaseVariationContent Sku = new GenericSku();
private static int Quantity = 1;
private static ILineItem Item;
}
You'll want to run these tests, so use the command-line tool
https://github.com/machine/machine.specifications#command-line-reference
or one of the integrations
https://github.com/machine/machine.specifications#resharper-integration
Let me navigate to you with a real implementation.
Let's assume you have a service called SiteService and it returns the current siteId (you have multiple siteIds for your application).
you want to write a test case, when requesting the current site it should return the site id definition in configuration.
you will need to create a test class (standard class file), let's give a meaningful name like "SiteServiceSpec.cs"
Next, you will need to mock the ISiteConfiguration so that it can get the site id from the SiteConfiguration
public abstract class SiteServiceContext : WithFakes
{
Establish context = () =>
{
var siteConfiguration = An<ISiteConfiguration>();
siteConfiguration.WhenToldTo(x => x.Id)
.Return(CurrentSiteId);
Repository = An<IRepository<WebSite.Domain.Site.Site>>();
SUT = new SiteService(siteConfiguration, Repository);
};
protected const short CurrentSiteId = 1;
protected static SiteService SUT;
protected static IRepository<WebSite.Domain.Site.Site> Repository;
}
Now, here comes the example of the test class.
[Subject(typeof(SiteService))]
public class When_requesting_current_site : SiteServiceContext
{
It should_return_site_with_id_defined_in_configuration = () =>
Result.Id.ShouldEqual(CurrentSiteId);
Establish context = () =>
{
var site = An<WebSite.Domain.Site.Site>();
site.WhenToldTo(x => x.Id)
.Return(CurrentSiteId);
Repository.WhenToldTo(x => x.GetById(CurrentSiteId))
.Return(site);
};
Because of = () =>
Result = SUT.GetCurrentSite();
static WebSite.Domain.Site.Site Result;
}
I hope it will help you to get an idea of how it works. Besides, follow the structure provided by #anthony-mastrean
I am trying to experiment with RhinoMocks, where I have to say I am a newbie and probably I don't get some obvious thing here. What I'm doing is something like :
[TestMethod]
public void SaveResponsibleUserFromChangeset()
{
var action = mocks.StrictMock<GenomeAction>();
var changeset = new ActionChangeset();
changeset.ResponsibleUser = new ChangeableProperty<UserIdentity>("Administrator") {IsChanged = true};
changeset.MarkAll(true);
using(mocks.Record())
{
Expect.Call(action.ResponsibleUser).SetPropertyAndIgnoreArgument();
}
using(mocks.Playback())
{
var persistor = new ActionPersistor(new MockIdentityResolver());
persistor.SaveActionChanges(changeset, action);
}
action.VerifyAllExpectations();
}
private class MockIdentityResolver : IIdentityResolver
{
public GenomeUser GetUser(UserIdentity identity)
{
var user = mocks.DynamicMock<GenomeUser>();
user.Username = identity.Username;
return user;
}
}
The intention is to have a very simple test which checks whether the SaveActionChanges method sets the ResponsibleUser property. As a part of this, it needs to resolve the user identity using the resolver, for which I have provided a mock implementation. Unfortunately, it seems I can't just return back another mock within the Playback mode, because it says (on the closing bracket of the second using) that The action is invalid when the object (of type GenomeUser) is in record state.
Any ideas of what is causing the trouble and how to overcome it ?
I think you need to create you new MockIdentityResolver() outside the mocks.Playback().
[TestMethod]
public void SaveResponsibleUserFromChangeset()
{
var action = mocks.StrictMock<GenomeAction>();
var changeset = new ActionChangeset();
var identityResolver;
changeset.ResponsibleUser = new ChangeableProperty<UserIdentity>("Administrator") {IsChanged = true};
changeset.MarkAll(true);
using(mocks.Record())
{
Expect.Call(action.ResponsibleUser).SetPropertyAndIgnoreArgument();
identityResolver = new MockIdentityResolver()
}
using(mocks.Playback())
{
var persistor = new ActionPersistor(identityResolver);
persistor.SaveActionChanges(changeset, action);
}
action.VerifyAllExpectations();
}
private class MockIdentityResolver : IIdentityResolver
{
public GenomeUser GetUser(UserIdentity identity)
{
var user = mocks.DynamicMock<GenomeUser>();
user.Username = identity.Username;
return user;
}
}
you should look at using the AAA syntax, it seems to be generally accepted that it's a clearer way of using stuff.