We Keep Coding

How to mock a method inside the same class being tested?

I am creating some unit tests for a method ValidateObject in a service ObjectService. The ValidateObject method calls another method ValidateObjectPropertyB. I want to mock the calls to the last method.
The ObjectService and relevant method look like this:
public class ObjectService : IObjectService
{
public bool ValidateObject(object objectToValidate)
{
return
!String.IsNullOrEmpty(objectToValidate.PropertyA) &&
ValidateObjectPropertyB(objectToValidate.PropertyB, currentUserId);
}
public bool ValidateObjectPropertyB(long propertyB, long userId)
{
return validationResult;
}
}
Right now my Test class ObjectServiceTest contains the following code:
public class ObjectServiceTest
{
var objectToValidate = new Object(validPropertyA, validPropertyB);
using(var mock = new AutoMock.GetStrict())
{
var mockObjectService = new Mock<IObjectService>();
mockObjectService.callBase = true;
mockObjectService.Setup(s => s.ValidateObjectPropertyB(objectToValidate.PropertyB, _user.Id)).Returns(true);
var service = mock.Create<ObjectService>();
var result = service.ValidateObject(objectTovalidate);
Assert.IsTrue(result);
}
}
The above test fails because result is false, the for PropertyA succeeds
What am I doing wrong?

ValidateObject works in part by calling ValidateObjectPropertyB. I am presuming you are wanting to mock this second method so that you can demonstrate that ValidateObject does indeed call ValidateObjectPropertyB (provided !String.IsNullOrEmpty(objectToValidate.PropertyA) evaluates to true)
If this is the case then you are testing implementation detail, which generally you shouldn't do. Consider a function that took two integer values and returned their sum, you would want to verify that when this function was passed 3 and 5 it returned 8, you should not test that it arrived at this answer by using a particular method/class under the hood because this is not relevant to the desired outcome and should in future you decide you wished to refactor your code the test would likely start failing even if the code still returned the desired result.
Looking at your code, it seems that return value of ValidateObject is not directly dependent on the method call to ValidateObjectPropertyB but rather the value of validationResult. It is this value that you must set to properly test ValidateObject.
One way to achieve what you are asking would be to make ValidateObjectPropertyB virtual, then create a derived class that overrides this method to return what ever you want. However I do not recommend doing this purely for the sake of unit testing.

C# FakeItEasy and Method Chaining: Only First Call Is Recognized

I have a call to a factory interface that creates an IMachine in a command handler. This returned IMachine from the factory has methods that can be chained together to create itself inside of a builder class. The problem I am running into with FakeItEasy right now is that it only recognized the first call (which is WithSpeeds) unless I configure every method call to return a fake IMachine. Is there a way not to configure every single call or have FakeItEasy recognize every method call on the chain? I know I must be doing something incorrect because if i use OrderAssertions, and fail the order on purpose without setting up my fake machine, it shows calls were made to all the methods. Thanks for the help.
Part of the Command Handler's Method
public void Handle(FooCommand commandParm)
{
var entity = new Entity.Builder
{
Machine = _factory.CreateMachine(commandParm.MachineName)
.WithSpeeds(commandParm.ProcessingSpeed, commandParm.StartupSpeed, commandParm.ShutDownSpeed)
.WithOils(commandParm.Lubrication, commandParm.FinishingOil)
};
}
Test
[TestMethod]
public void HandleSetMachineSettings_should_build_machine()
{
// Arrange
var settings = CommandUtilities.ReturnFooCommand();
var _factory = A.Fake<IMachineFactory>();
var machine = A.Fake<IMachine>();
A.CallTo(() => _factory.CreateMachine(settings.MachineName)).Returns(machine);
// Act
_handler.Handle(settings);
// Assert
machine.Should().NotBeNull();
A.CallTo(machine).Where(x => x.Method.Name.Equals("set_MachineNumber")).WhenArgumentsMatch(arg => arg.Get<int>(0) == settings.MachineNumber).MustHaveHappened(Repeated.Exactly.Once);
A.CallTo(() => machine.WithSpeeds(commandParm.ProcessingSpeed, commandParm.StartupSpeed, commandParm.ShutDownSpeed)).MustHaveHappened(Repeated.Exactly.Once);
A.CallTo(() => machine.WithOils(commandParm.Lubrication, commandParm.FinishingOil)).MustHaveHappened(Repeated.Exactly.Once);
}

I take it that WithSpeeds and WithOils both return an IMachine, yes?
The problem is:
_factory.CreateMachine returns one IMachine, machine from your setup
machine.WithSpeeds returns a fake IMachine that FakeItEasy makes up. This is not machine, but is a different fake, call it "machine2"
machine2.WithOils returns yet another fake machine
Your Assert block suggests that you expected the same machine to be returned at each step of the builder chain. Try inserting
A.CallTo(machine)
.WithReturnType<IMachine>()
.Returns(machine);
after A.CallTo(() => _factory.CreateMachine()).Returns(machine);
That way machine will keep returning itself, and the appropriate properties will be set on it and whatnot.

Moq Test error Null on Service Layer

How can the following test be corrected to work?
[TestMethod()]
public void GetEmployeeProductivityTest()
{
var mockHR = new Mock<IRepository<Employee>>();
var mockCMS = new Mock<ICMS_Repository>();
mockCMS.Setup(repos => repos.FindEmployeeByUsername(It.IsAny<string>())).Verifiable();
Employee newEmp = new Employee();
newEmp.User_Name = "testName";
var service = new EmployeeService(mockHR.Object,mockCMS.Object);
var createResult = service.GetEmployeeByUserName(newEmp);
Assert.AreEqual(newEmp, createResult);
mockCMS.VerifyAll();
}
I get the following:
Assert.AreEqual failed. Expected:<Employee>. Actual:<(null)>.
As Requested this is the GetEmployeeByUserName() function being called:
public Employee GetEmployeeByUserName(Employee employee)
{
return _employeeRespository.Find().ByUserName(employee); <------(Using Strict: Gives me the following: All invocations on the mock must have a corresponding setup.)
}

Since you edited your question to show the behaviour of the GetEmployeeByUserName, it's now easy to explain why your test was failing.
mockCMS.Setup(repos => repos.FindEmployeeByUsername(It.IsAny<string>()))
Here you set up an expectation that the FindEmployeeByUsername(string) overload would be called, but then you go on to use the FindEmployeeByUsername(Employee) overload. Moq setups are for specific overloads so when the method is called the mocked service finds no matching setup. If there is no matching setup, the mock either returns the default value for the Employee type (null), or throws an exception, depending on which MockBehavior you chose.
In your updated test, you fixed this by setting up the overload that you actually use.
mockCMS.Setup(repos => repos.FindEmployeeByUsername(It.IsAny<Employee>()))
With simple methods like your GetEmployeeByUserName, mocking the dependencies and unit testing it can seem like a lot of overhead. What your test says is basically,
"when someone calls the GetEmployeeByUserName method on the EmployeeService,
the service should call the correct method on its repository"
Is this an important thing to assert? That's up to you to decide. As the complexity of your service methods increases, however, being able to isolate the dependencies and test their interactions will become more and more valuable.

You need to seed the FindEmployeeByUsername() Method of your mock:
mockCMS.Setup(repos => repos.FindEmployeeByUsername(It.IsAny<string>())).Returns(newEmp);
otherwise it wont return the expected object, while called within the EmployeeService.

Instead of using multiple repositories which I think was confusing. I simplified it and it works now! Except I'm still not sure how this helps me code better. What did I accomplish with this? (I'm new to Testing/Moq/Integration Tests...etc..) I would really like an answer...to this..
public void GetEmployeeUsername_Using_EmployeeClass()
{
var mockCMS = new Mock<ICMS_Repository>(MockBehavior.Strict);
Employee newEmp = new Employee();
newEmp.User_Name = "testName";
mockCMS.Setup(repos => repos.FindEmployeeByUsername(It.IsAny<Employee>())).Returns(newEmp);
var service = new EmployeeService(mockCMS.Object);
var createResult = service.GetEmployeeByUserName(newEmp);
Assert.AreEqual(newEmp, createResult);
}

Unit test difference in mock and real object

Below is my unit test method(c#) :-
[TestMethod]
public void ShouldReturnDtosWhenProductsFound_GetProducts()
{
// Arrrange
var count = 0;
var name = "myproduct";
var description = "desc";
// setup mocked dal to return list of products
// when name and description passed to GetProducts method
_productDalMock.Setup(d => d.GetProducts(name, description)).Returns(_productList);
// Act
List<ProductDto> actual = _productService.GetProducts(name, description);
// Assert
Assert.IsNotNull(actual);
Assert.IsTrue(actual.Any());
Assert.AreEqual(_productList.Count, actual.Count);
foreach (var product in _productList)
{
Adapter.AssertAreEqual(product, actual[count]);
count++;
}
// verify all setups of mocked dal were called by service
_productDalMock.VerifyAll();
}
I am using Mock object to mocking the GetProducts method(dependency).And in mocking i am returning the already declared product list(_productList).
My problem is when i am debugging the test,i am not getting the same product list in actual object as i passed in mocking.And according to my exploration we will get the same list of objects in actual result which we pass in mock object.
Can any one suggest me what is going wrong here ?
Edit
I just want to know its necessary for mock object to return the same values with actual object or it can be change ?

When you initialize _productService, inject the _productDalMock you're setting up. This is typically done in the constructor of _productService, after you have initialized the _productDalMock instance.
_productService = new ProductService(_productDalMock);
In your debugging, verify that the _productService.GetProducts code finally hits the _productDal.GetProducts code line. i.e. there is no code before the DAL call which would make the _productService.GetProducts method return etc.
If you ensure the above 2 steps, then the actual products returned should be same as the one you're passing.

Rhino Mocks Restub function

Sometimes I stub dependencies in test class setup and then want to restub some of them in concrete test. But Rhino mocks remembers only the first stub value and it is a bit inconvenient.
someStub.Stub(x => x.SomeMethod(1)).Return(100);
var value1 = someStub.SomeMethod(1);
someStub.Stub(x => x.SomeMethod(1)).Return(200);
var value2 = someStub.SomeMethod(1);
value 2 will be equal to 100.
Is it a designed behaviour? Are there any workarounds?

I ran into a need to do this myself. I worked around it by using the WhenCalled function where you pass in an action to be executed when the function is called. This will give you more flexibility on what you can return at different points.
More info/activity on this stackoverflow thread:
Rhino Mocks: Re-assign a new result for a method on a stub and here:
Changing previously stubbed calls with Rhino Mocks.
I know this is old but hope it helps someone else.

You can work around it with inheritance. If you have a base test class and some test subclasses that run the tests, you can make the return value a protected property of the base test class, and set the value in the subclasses at a point before base. Initialize is called.
So (using MSTEST) you could have:
in your base class:
protected int ReturnVal{get; set;}
public void Init()
{
someStub = MockRepository.GenerateMock<ISomeStub>();
someStub.Stub(x => x.SomeMethod(1)).Return(ReturnVal);
}
in your subclass:
[TestInitialize]
public override Init()
{
ReturnVal = 200;
base.Init();
}

Yes, this is the designed behaviour.
The workaround I use most of the time is to create a helper method that will set up the stub for you, i.e.:
private X MockX()
{
return MockX(100);
}
private X MockX(int returnValue)
{
var x = MockRepository.GenerateStub<X>();
someStub.Stub(x => x.SomeMethod(1)).Return(returnValue);
return x;
}
and then in your test instead of using a mock created in SetUp, you call the appropriate function. The added benefit is that it is clear that your test is using some special values of the return values.

You can use mocks instead of stubs to record a scenario like that:
[Test]
public void Mytest()
{
var mocks = new MockRepository();
var someMock = mocks.DynamicMock<IFoo>();
someMock.SomeMethod(1);
LastCall.Return(100);
someMock.SomeMethod(1);
LastCall.Return(200);
mock.Replay(); // stop recording, go to replay mode
// actual test, normally you would test something which uses the mock here
int firstResult = someMock.SomeMethod(1);
int secondResult = someMock.SomeMethod(2);
// verify the expectations that were set up earlier
// (will fail if SomeMethod is not called as in the recorded scenario)
someMock.VerifyAll();
}
Mocks in Rhino Mocks are more complicated to set up than stubs. They also mix the definition of behavior with the creation of assertions (the record phase does both), and they rely on the ordering of method calls. This makes for brittle tests; stick to stubs unless you really need mocks.