I am trying to Re-create my BeforeTestRun step to run my setup only once per whole execution not per thread.
I had a look a Custom Deployment steps I have implemented some already but For my setup i need to bring in some values from the app.config file I am trying something like this
my Default.srprofile file contains:
<DeploymentTransformation>
<GlobalSteps>
<Custom type="Test.CustomDeploymentStep, Test"></Custom>
</GlobalSteps>
</DeploymentTransformation>
and my CustomDeploymentStep.cs:
public class CustomDeploymentStep : IDeploymentTransformationStep
{
public static string baseUrl;
public void Apply(IDeploymentContext deploymentContext)
{
baseUrl = ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["URL"];
}
public void Restore(IDeploymentContext deploymentContext)
{
DoSomething();
}
}
My app config contains the following:
<add key="URL" value="http://google.com" />
But That does not work, The ConfigurationManager.AppSettings only returns one key and one value
"key" : "TestProjectRetargetTo35Allowed" "value":"true"
How can I load my configuration from app.config into the Apply() method in CustomDeploymentStep?
Also If there is a better/more efficient way of generating pre-defined data in specflow with thread safe execution, please do let me know
I ran into the same problem once I needed to use custom deployment steps in more than one project in a large solution. This appears to be a bug within the TechTalk.SpecRun.Framework. The error is likely "Error applying global deployment step. Global steps cannot contain test assembly specific settings." and if you look inside the TestAssembly while debugging you will see the TestAssemblyConfigFilePath is null and/or swallowing another exception.
It doesn't register a project specific configuration file. My workaround was to save the config file into debug and access what I need like so:
string appConfigFilePath = Path.GetDirectoryName(Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().Location) + "\\App.config";
ExeConfigurationFileMap configMap = new ExeConfigurationFileMap();
configMap.ExeConfigFilename = appConfigFilePath;
var config = ConfigurationManager.OpenMappedExeConfiguration(configMap, ConfigurationUserLevel.None);
var baseUrl = config.AppSettings.Settings["URL"].Value;
I am using .NET Core 3.1. Let's say that I have the following solution structure:
MySolution
ClassLibrary
Files
a.txt
b.txt
GetFile.cs
Project1
Project2
...
And let's say that GetFile.cs has a function ReadFile which reads the file from Files and returns its content.
public class FileReaderService : IFileReaderService
{
private readonly IHostEnvironment _env;
public FileReaderService(IHostEnvironment env)
{
_env = env;
}
public string ReadFile(string fileName)
{
var currentPath = _env.ContentRootPath; // not correct
return "";
}
}
However, when I try to get the current directory in ReadFile with _env.ContentRootPath, it returns the directory of calling project. I don't want it to be dependent on calling project.
How can I achieve that each project will be able to call ReadFile and that correct file from Files will be returned? I need to be able to add, remove and change these files while the app is running.
I have found some questions on SO but they all seem to be outdated. I need a solution which will work on .NET Core.
Instead of using the environment to determine the root file path, set it at the configuration level (ex appSettings.json ) and inject that path into the service itself. Either project can set its own path, use the same one, or both retrieve from some external configuration instead of appSettings.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/fundamentals/dependency-injection?view=aspnetcore-3.1
I am using NUnit to test one functionality where I need to load XML file to object. The XML file is in location of the Console Application.
I have Following method where configuration will be read :
public string GetConfiguration(TempFlexProcessor processor)
{
var exePath = Path.GetDirectoryName(System.Reflection.Assembly.GetEntryAssembly().Location);
var configPath = Path.Combine(Path.GetFullPath(exePath), "configuration");
var configFile = string.Format(#"{0}.xml", processor.GetType().Name);
}
Now in my NUnit Test I have test method where I test GetConfiguration :
[Test]
public void TempFlexProcessorExecuteTest()
{
#region Given
#endregion
#region When
var tempFlexProcessor = new TempFlexProcessor();
var actual = tempFlexProcessor.GetConfiguration(tempFlexProcessor);
#endregion
Assert.AreEqual("path of the file", actual);
}
But System.Reflection.Assembly.GetEntryAssembly() is null, please help.
I used AppDomain.CurrentDomain.BaseDirectory instead of System.Reflection.Assembly.GetEntryAssembly().Location
I suspect the problem is that NUnit is running your tests in a different AppDomain, but without using ExecuteAssembly. From the documentation for Assembly.GetEntryAssembly:
Gets the process executable in the default application domain. In other application domains, this is the first executable that was executed by AppDomain.ExecuteAssembly.
It's not clear which assembly you really want to get - even if this did return something "appropriate" for NUnit, that's likely to be the NUnit executable, which would be well away from any configuration directories you happen to have.
Basically, I think that you should at least provide an alternative way of specifying the configuration directory - and you might want to reconsider whether using GetEntryAssembly is a good idea anyway. (Aside from anything else, it's slightly odd that you're calling GetConfiguration on a processor and passing in another processor... that may be suitable for your design, but it's at least somewhat unusual, given that in your test case you're passing in a reference to the same object.)
I'm trying to write a unit test for my project, but it will not let me use the Configuration Manager. Right now my project is set up like
ASP.Net application (all aspx pages)
ProjectCore (all C# files - model)
ProjectTest (all tests)
in my ProjectCore, I am able to access the ConfigurationManager object from System.Configuration and pass information onto the project. However, when I ran a test where the ConfigurationManager is involved, I get the error
System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.
Here is an example of the test
using System.Configuration;
[TestMethod]
public void TestDatabaseExists()
{
//Error when I declare ConfigurationManager
Assert.IsNotNull(ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["ConnectionString"].ConnectionString
}
in my other tests, ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["ConnectionString"].ConnectionString is what I set my data adapter's configuration string to, and returns a null error on the tests but not when I actually use the website. Any ideas?
It could be one of several issues:
You didn't add app.config to your ProjectTest project.
You didn't add connection string in your app.config.
You are doing a unit test and in unit test your concentration should be the particular method trying to test and should remove extraneous dependencies. in this case, try mocking/moleing(use Microsoft Mole and Pex) system.configuration class; that will give a solution for sure.
What I am saying, once you install MS moles-and-pex -> in your test project solution -> right-click the system assembly and choose create mole.
That will give you a mole'ed version of configuration class which in turn will have a mocked version of configuration class -- using which you can bypass the problem you are facing.
You also can use special configuration paths with the ExeConfigurationFileMap:
// Get the machine.config file.
ExeConfigurationFileMap fileMap = new ExeConfigurationFileMap();
// You may want to map to your own exe.config file here.
fileMap.ExeConfigFilename = #"C:\test\ConfigurationManager.exe.config";
// You can add here LocalUserConfigFilename, MachineConfigFilename and RoamingUserConfigFilename, too
System.Configuration.Configuration config = ConfigurationManager.OpenMappedExeConfiguration(fileMap, ConfigurationUserLevel.None);
It is related to the /noisolation parameter in the command line of mstest.exe.
Omitting the /noisolation parameter, it works.
first of all you must make sure that you have an app.config file in your nunit tests project.
To add it, you can open the project properties (right click on the project)
Enter the details of your connection, it will generate a app.config file or add the right section within :
In your Test class, add the reference to : System.Configuration;
=> using System.Configuration;
For example you could use your connectionString by this way :
[TestFixture]
public class CommandesDALUnitTest
{
private string _connectionString = ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["ConnectionString"].ConnectionString;
[Test]
public void Method_Test()
{
string test = _connectionString;
....
}
}
I have an integration test LoadFile_DataLoaded_Successfully(). And I want to refactor it to the unit test for breaking dependency with filesytem.
P.S. I am new in TDD:
Here are my production class :
public class LocalizationData
{
private bool IsValidFileName(string fileName)
{
if (fileName.ToLower().EndsWith("xml"))
{
return true;
}
return false;
}
public XmlDataProvider LoadFile(string fileName)
{
if (IsValidFileName(fileName))
{
XmlDataProvider provider =
new XmlDataProvider
{
IsAsynchronous = false,
Source = new Uri(fileName, UriKind.Absolute)
};
return provider;
}
return null;
}
}
and my test class (Nunit)
[TestFixture]
class LocalizationDataTest
{
[Test]
public void LoadFile_DataLoaded_Successfully()
{
var data = new LocalizationData();
string fileName = "d:/azeri.xml";
XmlDataProvider result = data.LoadFile(fileName);
Assert.IsNotNull(result);
Assert.That(result.Document, Is.Not.Null);
}
}
Any idea how to refactor it to break filesystem dependency
What you're missing here is inversion of control. For instance, you can introduce the dependency injection principle into your code:
public interface IXmlDataProviderFactory
{
XmlDataProvider Create(string fileName);
}
public class LocalizationData
{
private IXmlDataProviderFactory factory;
public LocalizationData(IXmlDataProviderFactory factory)
{
this.factory = factory;
}
private bool IsValidFileName(string fileName)
{
return fileName.ToLower().EndsWith("xml");
}
public XmlDataProvider LoadFile(string fileName)
{
if (IsValidFileName(fileName))
{
XmlDataProvider provider = this.factory.Create(fileName);
provider.IsAsynchronous = false;
return provider;
}
return null;
}
}
In the code above the creation of the XmlDataProvider is abstracted away using an IXmlDataProviderFactory interface. An implementation of that interface can be supplied in the constructor of the LocalizationData. You can now write your unit test as follows:
[Test]
public void LoadFile_DataLoaded_Succefully()
{
// Arrange
var expectedProvider = new XmlDataProvider();
string validFileName = CreateValidFileName();
var data = CreateNewLocalizationData(expectedProvider);
// Act
var actualProvider = data.LoadFile(validFileName);
// Assert
Assert.AreEqual(expectedProvider, actualProvider);
}
private static LocalizationData CreateNewLocalizationData(
XmlDataProvider expectedProvider)
{
return new LocalizationData(FakeXmlDataProviderFactory()
{
ProviderToReturn = expectedProvider
});
}
private static string CreateValidFileName()
{
return "d:/azeri.xml";
}
The FakeXmlDataProviderFactory looks like this:
class FakeXmlDataProviderFactory : IXmlDataProviderFactory
{
public XmlDataProvider ProviderToReturn { get; set; }
public XmlDataProvider Create(string fileName)
{
return this.ProviderToReturn;
}
}
Now in your test environment you can (and probably should) always create the class under test manually. However, you want to abstract the creation away in factory methods to prevent you having to change many tests when the class under test changes.
In your production environment however, it can become very cumbersome very soon when you manually have to create the class. Especially when it contains many dependencies. This is where IoC / DI frameworks shine. They can help you with this. For instance, when you want to use the LocalizationData in your production code, you might write code like this:
var localizer = ServiceLocator.Current.GetInstance<LocalizationData>();
var data = data.LoadFile(fileName);
Note that I'm using the Common Service Locator as an example here.
The framework will take care of the creation of that instance for you. Using such a dependency injection framework however, you will have to let the framework know which 'services' your application needs. For instance, when I use the Simple Service Locator library as an example (shameless plug that is), your configuration might look like this:
var container = new SimpleServiceLocator();
container.RegisterSingle<IXmlDataProviderFactory>(
new ProductionXmlDataProviderFactory());
ServiceLocator.SetLocatorProvider(() => container);
This code will usually go in the startup path of your application. Of course the only missing piece of the puzzle is the actual ProductionXmlDataProviderFactory class. Here is it:
class ProductionXmlDataProviderFactory : IXmlDataProviderFactory
{
public XmlDataProvider Create(string fileName)
{
return new XmlDataProvider
{
Source = new Uri(fileName, UriKind.Absolute)
};
}
}
Please also not that you will probably don't want to new up your LocalizationData in your production code yourself, because this class is probably used by other classes that depend on this type. What you would normally do is ask the framework to create the top most class for you (for instance the command that implements a complete use case) and execute it.
I hope this helps.
The problem here is that you are not doing TDD. You wrote the production code first, and now you want to test it.
Erase all that code and start again. Write a test first, and then write the code that passes that test. Then write the next test, etc.
What is your goal? Given a string that ends in "xml" (why not ".xml"?) you want an XML data provider based upon a file whose name is that string. Is that your goal?
The first tests would be the degenerate case. Given a string like "name_with_wrong_ending" your function should fail. How should it fail? Should it return null? Or should it throw an exception? You get to think about this and decide in your test. Then you make the test pass.
Now, what about a string like this: "test_file.xml" but in the case where no such file exists? What do you want the function to do in that case? Should it return null? Should it throw an exception?
The simplest way to test this, of course, is to actually run the code in a directory that does not have that file in it. However, if you'd rather write the test so that it does not use the file system (a wise choice) then you need to be able to ask the question "Does this file exist", and then your test needs to force the answer to be "false".
You can do that by creating a new method in your class named "isFilePresent" or "doesFileExist". Your test can override that function to return 'false'. And now you can test that your 'LoadFile' function works correctly when the file doesn't exist.
Of course now you'll have to test that the normal implementation of "isFilePresent" works correctly. And for that you'll have to use the real file system. However, you can keep file system tests out of your LocalizationData tests by creating a new class named FileSystem and moving your 'isFilePresent' method into that new class. Then your LocalizationData test can create a derivative of that new FileSystem class and override 'isFilePresent' to return false.
You still have to test the regular implementation of FileSystem, but that's in a different set of tests, that only get run once.
OK, what's the next test? What does your 'loadFile' function do when the file does exist, but does not contain valid xml? Should it do anything? Or is that a problem for the client? You decide. But if you decide to check it, you can use the same strategy as before. Make a function named isValidXML and have the test override it to return false.
Finally we need to write the test that actually returns the XMLDataProvider. So the final function that 'loadData' should call, after all those other function is, createXmlDataProvider. And you can override that to return an empty or dummy XmlDataProvider.
Notice that in your tests you have never gone to the real file system and really created an XMLDataProvider based on a file. But what you have done is to check every if statement in your loadData function. You've tested the loadData function.
Now you should write one more test. A test that uses the real file system and a real valid XML file.
When I look at the following code:
public class LocalizationData
{
private static bool IsXML(string fileName)
{
return (fileName != null && fileName.ToLower().EndsWith("xml"));
}
public XmlDataProvider LoadFile(string fileName)
{
if (!IsXML(fileName)) return null*;
return new XmlDataProvider{
IsAsynchronous = false,
Source = new Uri(fileName, UriKind.Absolute)
};
}
}
(* I'm not thrilled about the return null. Yuck! that smells.)
Anyway, I would ask the following questions to myself:
What could possibly break with this code? Are there any complex logic or fragile code that I should safe-guard myself against?
Is there anything complicated to understand or worth highlighting via a test that the code is not able to communicate?
Once I've written this code, how frequently do I think I'll revisit (change) it?
The IsXML function is extremely trivial. Probably does not even belong to this class.
The LoadFile function creates a synchronous XmlDataProvide if it gets a valid XML filename.
I would first search who uses LoadFile and from where fileName is being passed. If its external to our program, then we need some validation. If its internal and somewhere else we are already doing the validation, then we are good to go. As Martin suggested, I would recommend refactoring this to take Uri as the parameter instead of a string.
Once we address that, then all we need to know is if there is any special reason why the XMLDataProvider is in the synchronous mode.
Now, is there anything worth testing? XMLDataProvider is not a class we built, we expect it to work fine when we give a valid Uri.
So frankly, I would not waste my time writing test for this. In the future, if we see more logic creeping in, we might revisit this again.
In one of my (Python) projects, I assume that all unit tests are run in a special directory that contains the folders "data" (input files) and "output" (output files). I'm using a test script that first checks whether those folders exists (i.e. if the current working directory is correct) and then runs the tests. My unit tests can then use relative filenames like "data/test-input.txt".
I don't know how to do this in C#, but maybe you can test for existence of the file "data/azeri.xml" in the test SetUp method.
It has nothing to do with your testing (x), but consider using Uri instead of String as parameter type for your API.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.uri(v=VS.100).aspx
x: I think Steven covered that topic pretty very well.
Why do you use the XmlDataProvider? I don't think that it's a valuable unit test, as it stands now. Instead, why don't you test whatever you would do with that data provider?
For example, if you use the XML data to load out a list of Foo objects, make an interface:
public interface IFooLoader
{
IEnumerable<Foo> LoadFromFile(string fileName);
}
You can then test your implementation of this class using a test file you generate during a unit test. In this way you can break your dependency on the filesystem. Delete the file when your test exits (in a finally block).
And as for collaborators that use this type, you can pass in a mock version. You can either hand code the mock, or use a mocking framework such as Moq, Rhino, TypeMock or NMock. Mocking is great, but if you're new to TDD then it's fine to hand code your mocks while you learn what they're useful for. Once you have that, then you are in a good position to understand the good, bad and ugly of mocking frameworks. They can be a bit gnarly to work with when you're starting TDD. Your mileage may vary.
Best of luck.
In this case, you are basically at the lower level of dependency. You are testing that a file exist and that an xmlprovider can be created with the file as source.
The only way that you could break the dependency, would be to inject something to create the XmlDataProvider. You could then mock it to return a XmlDataProvider that you created (as opposed to read). As simplistic example would be:
class XmlDataProviderFactory
{
public virtual XmlDataProvider NewXmlDataProvider(string fileName)
{
return new XmlDataProvider
{
IsAsynchronous = false,
Source = new Uri(fileName, UriKind.Absolute)
};
}
class XmlDataProviderFactoryMock : XmlDataProviderFactory
{
public override XmlDataProvider NewXmlDataProvider(string fileName)
{
return new XmlDataProvider();
}
}
public class LocalizationData
{
...
public XmlDataProvider LoadFile(string fileName, XmlDataProviderFactory factory)
{
if (IsValidFileName(fileName))
{
return factory.NewXmlDataProvider(fileName);
}
return null;
}
}
[TestFixture]
class LocalizationDataTest
{
[Test]
public void LoadFile_DataLoaded_Succefully()
{
var data = new LocalizationData();
string fileName = "d:/azeri.xml";
XmlDataProvider result = data.LoadFile(fileName, new XmlDataProviderFactoryMock());
Assert.IsNotNull(result);
Assert.That(result.Document, Is.Not.Null);
}
}
Using an injection framework could simplify the call to LoadFile by injecting the factory in the class constructor or elsewhere.
I Like #Steven's answer except I think He didn't go far enough:
public interface DataProvider
{
bool IsValidProvider();
void DisableAsynchronousOperation();
}
public class XmlDataProvider : DataProvider
{
private string fName;
private bool asynchronousOperation = true;
public XmlDataProvider(string fileName)
{
fName = fileName;
}
public bool IsValidProvider()
{
return fName.ToLower().EndsWith("xml");
}
public void DisableAsynchronousOperation()
{
asynchronousOperation = false;
}
}
public class LocalizationData
{
private DataProvider dataProvider;
public LocalizationData(DataProvider provider)
{
dataProvider = provider;
}
public DataProvider Load()
{
if (provider.IsValidProvider())
{
provider.DisableAsynchronousOperation();
return provider;
}
return null;
}
}
By not going far enough I mean that he didn't follow the Last Possible Responsible Moment. Push as much down into the implemented DataProvider class as possible.
One thing I didn't do with this code, is drive it with unit tests and mocks. That is why you're still checking the state of the provider to see if it is valid.
Another thing is that I tried to remove the dependencies on having the LocalizationData know that the provider is using a file. What if it was a web service or database?
So first of all let us understand what we need to test. We need to verify that given a valid filename, your LoadFile(fn) method returns an XmlDataProvider, otherwise it returns null.
Why is the LoadFile() method difficult to test ? Because it creates a XmlDataProvider with a URI created from the filename. I have not worked much with C#, but am assuming that if the file does not actually exist on the system, we will get an Exception. The real problem is, your production method LoadFile() is creating something which is difficult to fake. Not being able to fake it is a problem because we cannot ensure the existence of a certain file in all test environments, without having to enforce implicit guidelines.
So the solution is - we should be able to fake the collaborators (XmlDataProvider) of the loadFile method. However, if a method creates it's collaborators it cannot fake them, hence a method should never create it's collaborators.
If a method does not create it's collaborators, how does it get them ? - In one of these two ways:
They should be injected into the method
They should be obtained from some factory
In this case it does not make sense for the XmlDataProvider to be injected into the method, since that is exactly what it is returning. So we should get it from a global Factory - XmlDataProviderFactory.
Here comes the interesting part. When your code is running in production, the factory should return an XmlDataProvider, and when your code is running in a test environment, the factory should return a fake object.
Now the only part of the puzzle is, how to ensure that the factory behaves in different ways in different environments ? One way is to use some properties which have different values in both environments, and the other way is to configure the factory for what it should return. I personally prefer the former way.
Hope this helps.
This time, don't try to break your dependency on the file system. This behavior clearly depends on the file system, and appears to be at the integration point with the file system, so test it with the file system.
Now, I second Bob's advice: throw this code away and try test-driving it. It makes for great practice and is exactly how I trained myself to do it. Good luck.
Instead of returning XmlDataProvider which ties you a specific tech, hide this implementation detail. It looks like you need a repository Role to
LocalizationData GetLocalizationData(params)
You can have an implementation for this Role, which internally uses Xml. You'd need to write integration tests to test whether XmlLocalizationDataRepository can read actual Xml data stores. (Slow).
The rest of your code can mock out GetLocalizationData()