Mocking sealed classes can be quite a pain. I currently favor an Adapter pattern to handle this, but something about just keeps feels weird.
So, What is the best way you mock sealed classes?
Java answers are more than welcome. In fact, I would anticipate that the Java community has been dealing with this longer and has a great deal to offer.
But here are some of the .NET opinions:
Why Duck Typing Matters for C#
Develoepers
Creating wrappers
for sealed and other types for
mocking
Unit tests for WCF (and Moq)
For .NET, you could use something like TypeMock, which uses the profiling API and allows you to hook into calls to nearly anything.
My general rule of thumb is that objects that I need to mock should have a common interface too. I think this is right design-wise and makes tests a lot easier (and is usually what you get if you do TDD). More about this can be read in the Google Testing Blog latest post (See point 9).
Also, I've been working mainly in Java in the past 4 years and I can say that I can count on one hand the number of times I've created a final (sealed) class. Another rule here is I should always have a good reason to seal a class, as opposed to sealing it by default.
I believe that Moles, from Microsoft Research, allows you to do that. From the Moles page:
Moles may be used to detour any .NET
method, including non-virtual/static
methods in sealed types.
UPDATE: there is a new framework called "Fakes" in the upcoming VS 11 release that is designed to replace Moles:
The Fakes Framework in Visual Studio 11 is the next generation of Moles & Stubs, and will eventually replace it. Fakes is different from Moles, however, so moving from Moles to Fakes will require some modifications to your code. A guide for this migration will be available at a later date.
Requirements: Visual Studio 11 Ultimate, .NET 4.5
The problem with TypeMock is that it excuses bad design. Now, I know that it is often someone else's bad design that it's hiding, but permitting it into your development process can lead very easily to permitting your own bad designs.
I think if you're going to use a mocking framework, you should use a traditional one (like Moq) and create an isolation layer around the unmockable thing, and mock the isolation layer instead.
I came across this problem recently and after reading / searching web, seems like there is no easy way around except to use another tool as mentioned above.
Or crude of handling things as I did:
Create instance of sealed class without getting constructor called.
System.Runtime.Serialization.FormatterServices.GetUninitializedObject(instanceType);
Assign values to your properties / fields via reflection
YourObject.GetType().GetProperty("PropertyName").SetValue(dto, newValue, null);
YourObject.GetType().GetField("FieldName").SetValue(dto, newValue);
I almost always avoid having dependencies on external classes deep within my code. Instead, I'd much rather use an adapter/bridge to talk to them. That way, I'm dealing with my semantics, and the pain of translating is isolated in one class.
It also makes it easier to switch my dependencies in the long run.
It is perfectly reasonable to mock a sealed class because many framework classes are sealed.
In my case I'm trying to mock .Net's MessageQueue class so that I can TDD my graceful exception handling logic.
If anyone has ideas on how to overcome Moq's error regarding "Invalid setup on a non-overridable member", please let me know.
code:
[TestMethod]
public void Test()
{
Queue<Message> messages = new Queue<Message>();
Action<Message> sendDelegate = msg => messages.Enqueue(msg);
Func<TimeSpan, MessageQueueTransaction, Message> receiveDelegate =
(v1, v2) =>
{
throw new Exception("Test Exception to simulate a failed queue read.");
};
MessageQueue mockQueue = QueueMonitorHelper.MockQueue(sendDelegate, receiveDelegate).Object;
}
public static Mock<MessageQueue> MockQueue
(Action<Message> sendDelegate, Func<TimeSpan, MessageQueueTransaction, Message> receiveDelegate)
{
Mock<MessageQueue> mockQueue = new Mock<MessageQueue>(MockBehavior.Strict);
Expression<Action<MessageQueue>> sendMock = (msmq) => msmq.Send(It.IsAny<Message>()); //message => messages.Enqueue(message);
mockQueue.Setup(sendMock).Callback<Message>(sendDelegate);
Expression<Func<MessageQueue, Message>> receiveMock = (msmq) => msmq.Receive(It.IsAny<TimeSpan>(), It.IsAny<MessageQueueTransaction>());
mockQueue.Setup(receiveMock).Returns<TimeSpan, MessageQueueTransaction>(receiveDelegate);
return mockQueue;
}
Although it's currently only available in beta release, I think it's worthwhile keeping in mind the shim feature of the new Fakes framework (part of the Visual Studio 11 Beta release).
Shim types provide a mechanism to detour any .NET method to a user defined delegate. Shim types are code-generated by the Fakes generator, and they use delegates, which we call shim types, to specify the new method implementations. Under the hood, shim types use callbacks that were injected at runtime in the method MSIL bodies.
Personally, I was looking at using this to mock the methods on sealed framework classes such as DrawingContext.
I generally take the route of creating an interface and adaptor/proxy class to facilitate mocking of the sealed type. However, I've also experimented with skipping creation of the interface and making the proxy type non-sealed with virtual methods. This worked well when the proxy is really a natural base class that encapsulates and users part of the sealed class.
When dealing with code that required this adaptation, I got tired of performing the same actions to create the interface and proxy type so I implemented a library to automate the task.
The code is somewhat more sophisticated than the sample given in the article you reference, as it produces an assembly (instead of source code), allows for code generation to be performed on any type, and doesn't require as much configuration.
For more information, please refer to this page.
Is there a way to implement a sealed class from an interface... and mock the interface instead?
Something in me feels that having sealed classes is wrong in the first place, but that's just me :)
Related
I am developing a set of classes that implement a common interface. A consumer of my library shall expect each of these classes to implement a certain set of static functions. Is there anyway that I can decorate these class so that the compiler will catch the case where one of the functions is not implemented.
I know it will eventually be caught when building the consuming code. And I also know how to get around this problem using a kind of factory class.
Just curious to know if there is any syntax/attributes out there for requiring static functions on a class.
Ed Removed the word 'interface' to avoid confusion.
No, there is no language support for this in C#. There are two workarounds that I can think of immediately:
use reflection at runtime; crossed fingers and hope...
use a singleton / default-instance / similar to implement an interface that declares the methods
(update)
Actually, as long as you have unit-testing, the first option isn't actually as bad as you might think if (like me) you come from a strict "static typing" background. The fact is; it works fine in dynamic languages. And indeed, this is exactly how my generic operators code works - it hopes you have the static operators. At runtime, if you don't, it will laugh at you in a suitably mocking tone... but it can't check at compile-time.
No. Basically it sounds like you're after a sort of "static polymorphism". That doesn't exist in C#, although I've suggested a sort of "static interface" notion which could be useful in terms of generics.
One thing you could do is write a simple unit test to verify that all of the types in a particular assembly obey your rules. If other developers will also be implementing the interface, you could put that test code into some common place so that everyone implementing the interface can easily test their own assemblies.
This is a great question and one that I've encountered in my projects.
Some people hold that interfaces and abstract classes exist for polymorphism only, not for forcing types to implement certain methods. Personally, I consider polymorphism a primary use case, and forced implementation a secondary. I do use the forced implementation technique fairly often. Typically, it appears in framework code implementing a template pattern. The base/template class encapsulates some complex idea, and subclasses provide numerous variations by implementing the abstract methods. One pragmatic benefit is that the abstract methods provide guidance to other developers implementing the subclasses. Visual Studio even has the ability to stub the methods out for you. This is especially helpful when a maintenance developer needs to add a new subclass months or years later.
The downside is that there is no specific support for some of these template scenarios in C#. Static methods are one. Another one is constructors; ideally, ISerializable should force the developer to implement the protected serialization constructor.
The easiest approach probably is (as suggested earlier) to use an automated test to check that the static method is implemented on the desired types. Another viable idea already mentioned is to implement a static analysis rule.
A third option is to use an Aspect-Oriented Programming framework such as PostSharp. PostSharp supports compile-time validation of aspects. You can write .NET code that reflects over the assembly at compile time, generating arbitrary warnings and errors. Usually, you do this to validate that an aspect usage is appropriate, but I don't see why you couldn't use it for validating template rules as well.
Unfortunately, no, there's nothing like this built into the language.
While there is no language support for this, you could use a static analysis tool to enforce it. For example, you could write a custom rule for FxCop that detects an attribute or interface implementation on a class and then checks for the existence of certain static methods.
The singleton pattern does not help in all cases. My example is from an actual project of mine. It is not contrived.
I have a class (let's call it "Widget") that inherits from a class in a third-party ORM. If I instantiate a Widget object (therefore creating a row in the db) just to make sure my static methods are declared, I'm making a bigger mess than the one I'm trying to clean up.
If I create this extra object in the data store, I've got to hide it from users, calculations, etc.
I use interfaces in C# to make sure that I implement common features in a set of classes.
Some of the methods that implement these features require instance data to run. I code these methods as instance methods, and use a C# interface to make sure they exist in the class.
Some of these methods do not require instance data, so they are static methods. If I could declare interfaces with static methods, the compiler could check whether or not these methods exist in the class that says it implements the interface.
No, there would be no point in this feature. Interfaces are basically a scaled down form of multiple inheritance. They tell the compiler how to set up the virtual function table so that non-static virtual methods can be called properly in descendant classes. Static methods can't be virtual, hence, there's no point in using interfaces for them.
The approach that gets you closer to what you need is a singleton, as Marc Gravell suggested.
Interfaces, among other things, let you provide some level of abstraction to your classes so you can use a given API regardless of the type that implements it. However, since you DO need to know the type of a static class in order to use it, why would you want to enforce that class to implement a set of functions?
Maybe you could use a custom attribute like [ImplementsXXXInterface] and provide some run time checking to ensure that classes with this attribute actually implement the interface you need?
If you're just after getting those compiler errors, consider this setup:
Define the methods in an interface.
Declare the methods with abstract.
Implement the public static methods, and have the abstract method overrides simply call the static methods.
It's a little bit of extra code, but you'll know when someone isn't implementing a required method.
I have this large legacy WPF application that has no unit testing being done, and huge amount of dependencies all over the place. I'm trying to use Moq to create unit tests, but it doesn't help me much, when so many (=almost all) classes create dependencies internally, so I have no way to inject my mock objects instead of real references.
In C++ you could just write your own fake classes and make sure they are included before the real ones in the test project --> that way all references throughout the project could be made to refer the fake object, including all internally made references.
Is there no way in .NET to accomplish the same?
Thanks in advance for any advice!
-Seppo
P.S. This is a follow-up on an earlier question NUnit/Moq: I have mocked a class but real contructor is executed, why?.
Microsoft Shims and Fakes should do what you want it to do, but it's only available on Visual Studio Ultimate and Premium.
Beyond MS Fakes/Shims, there isn't anything in C# out of the box (or any free libraries I'm aware of) that would do what you want.
What you can do is use a "partial mock". Say your class A creates an instance of class B internally in a test unfriendly construct, for example a private method.
You can move that new ClassB() to a factory method protected virtual method CreateClassB(...) and then use Moq's CallBase.
So if you are testing ClassA's MethodA
[Test]
public void MethodA_StateThatYouAreTesting_ExpectedResult()
{
var partialMockA = new Mock<ClassA>{CallBase=true};
var stubB = new Mock<ClassB>();
stubB.Setup(b => b.SomeMethod()).Returns(SomeValue);
parialMockA.Setup(a => a.CreateClassB()).Returns(stubB.Object);
var result = partialMock.MethodA();
Assert.AreEqual(someExpectedValue, result);
}
This saves you the extra step of creating an interface for ClassB. I believe this is reasonable in situations where the code you inherited is not well structured, and ClassB should actually be broken down in several classes and corresponding interfaces (i.e., does not follow the single responsibility principle). I like to think of this as a first step in re-factoring.
Also, an alternative to Fakes is TypeMock. Never used it, but since it's from Roy Osherove (the guy that wrote The Art of Unit Testing) it is probably a safe bet.
Most of the examples given in mocking framework website is to mock Interface. Let say NSubstitute that I'm currently using, all their mocking examples is to mock interface.
But in reality, I saw some developer mock concrete class instead. Is it recommended to mock concrete class?
In theory there is absolutely no problem mocking a concrete class; we are testing against a logical interface (rather than a keyword interface), and it does not matter whether that logical interface is provided by a class or interface.
In practice .NET/C# makes this a bit problematic. As you mentioned a .NET mocking framework I'm going to assume you're restricted to that.
In .NET/C# members are non-virtual by default, so any proxy-based methods of mocking behaviour (i.e. derive from the class, and override all the members to do test-specific stuff) will not work unless you explicitly mark the members as virtual. This leads to a problem: you are using an instance of a mocked class that is meant to be completely safe in your unit test (i.e. won't run any real code), but unless you have made sure everything is virtual you may end up with a mix of real and mocked code running (this can be especially problematic if there is constructor logic, which always runs, and is compounded if there are other concrete dependencies to be new'd up).
There are a few ways to work around this.
Use interfaces. This works and is what we advise in the NSubstitute documentation, but has the downside of potentially bloating your codebase with interfaces that may not actually be needed. Arguably if we find good abstractions in our code we'll naturally end up with neat, reusable interfaces we can test to. I haven't quite seen it pan out like that, but YMMV. :)
Diligently go around making everything virtual. An arguable downside to this is that we're suggesting all these members are intended to be extension points in our design, when we really just want to change the behaviour of the whole class for testing. It also doesn't stop constructor logic running, nor does it help if the concrete class requires other dependencies.
Use assembly re-writing via something like the Virtuosity add-in for Fody, which you can use to modify all class members in your assembly to be virtual.
Use a non-proxy based mocking library like TypeMock (paid), JustMock (paid), Microsoft Fakes (requires VS Ultimate/Enterprise, though its predecessor, Microsoft Moles, is free) or Prig (free + open source). I believe these are able to mock all aspects of classes, as well as static members.
A common complaint lodged against the last idea is that you are testing via a "fake" seam; we are going outside the mechanisms normally used for extending code to change the behaviour of our code. Needing to go outside these mechanisms could indicate rigidity in our design. I understand this argument, but I've seen cases where the noise of creating another interface/s outweighs the benefits. I guess it's a matter of being aware of the potential design issue; if you don't need that feedback from the tests to highlight design rigidity then they're great solutions.
A final idea I'll throw out there is to play around with changing the size of the units in our tests. Typically we have a single class as a unit. If we have a number of cohesive classes as our unit, and have interfaces acting as a well-defined boundary around that component, then we can avoid having to mock as many classes and instead just mock over a more stable boundary. This can make our tests a more complicated, with the advantage that we're testing a cohesive unit of functionality and being encouraged to develop solid interfaces around that unit.
Hope this helps.
Update:
3 years later I want to admit that I changed my mind.
In theory I still do not like to create interfaces just to facilitate creation of mock objects. In practice ( I am using NSubstitute) it is much easier to use Substitute.For<MyInterface>() rather than mock a real class with multiple parameters, e.g. Substitute.For<MyCLass>(mockedParam1, mockedParam2, mockedParam3), where each parameter should be mocked separately. Other potential troubles are described in NSubstitute documentation
In our company the recommended practice now is to use interfaces.
Original answer:
If you don't have a requirement to create multiple implementations of the same abstraction, do not create an interface.
As it pointed by David Tchepak, you don't want to bloating your codebase with interfaces that may not actually be needed.
From http://blog.ploeh.dk/2010/12/02/InterfacesAreNotAbstractions.aspx
Do you extract interfaces from your classes to enable loose
coupling? If so, you probably have a 1:1 relationship between your
interfaces and the concrete classes that implement them.
That’s probably not a good sign, and violates the Reused Abstractions
Principle (RAP).
Having only one implementation of a given interface is a code smell.
If your target is the testability, i prefer the second option from David Tchepak's answer above.
However I am not convinced that you have to make everything virtual. It's sufficient to make virtual only the methods, that you are going to substitute.
I also will add a comment next to the method declaration that method is virtual only to make it substitutable for unit test mocking.
However note that substitution of concrete classes instead of interfaces has some limitations.
E.g. for NSubstitute
Note: Recursive substitutes will not be created for classes, as
creating and using classes can have potentially unwanted side-effects
.
The question is rather: Why not?
I can think of a couple of scenarios where this is useful, like:
Implementation of a concrete class is not yet complete, or the guy who did it is unreliable. So I mock the class as it is specified and test my code against it.
It can also be useful to mock classes that do things like database access. If you don't have a test database you might want to return values for your tests that are always constant (which is easy by mocking the class).
Its not that it is recommended, it's that you can do this if you have no other choice.
Usually well designed project rely on defining interfaces for your separate components so you can tests each of them in isolation by mocking the other ones. But if you are working with legacy code /code that you are not allowed to change and still want to test your classes then you have no choice and you cannot be criticized for it (assuming you made the effort to try to switch these components to interfaces and were denied the right to).
Supposed we have:
class Foo {
fun bar() = if (someCondition) {
“Yes”
} else {
“No”
}
}
There’s nothing preventing us to do the following mocking in the test code:
val foo = mock<Foo>()
whenever(foo.bar()).thenReturn(“Maybe”)
The problem is it is setting up incorrect behavior of class Foo. The real instance of class Foo will never be able to return “Maybe”.
I am new to mocking so I might have it totally wrong here but I believe that most mocking frameworks are interface dependent. Unfortunately most of our code is not using an interface. Now the other day I saw a Mocking framework in Java that reproduced the byte code of a class\object as to not call its internal methods but you could still test that it WAS calling these methods.
My question is: does .Net have any mocking frameworks that can do a similar thing? I am looking for something free and I don't want something that requires methods to be virtual or abstract.
Microsoft Research has developed Moles for this, which is a part of Pex but can be installed independently. And it's free. There's a good introductory article (pdf) on the website that explains how to mock a static method. It takes some time before they get to the stuff you want (page 16, Task 3).
Here and here (Channel 9) you can find an example on how to stub DateTime.Now. Using Moles, you can mock anything you want.
TypeMock Isolator can mock any .NET class, but it's not free (or cheap, even). I'm not sure how it works exactly, but it achieves the same end result.
But most of the mocking frameworks don't depend exclusively on interfaces; they should be able to handle concrete classes just as well, although they'll only be able to override virtual or abstract methods.
You can use classes instead of interfaces with both Moq and Rhino.Mocks, but the mocked methods must be virtual. Mark Rushakoff's answer on TypeMock is correct (+1).
The best option is to refactor your existing code for testability (which may take time). I'd recommend reading Working Effectively with Legacy Code by Michael Feathers.
A lot of .NET mocking frameworks use Castle Dynamic Proxy to create mocks at runtime. Hence the limitation of only allowing interface/virtual methods to be mocked comes from Castle and I think is rooted in CLR. Both MOQ and RhinoMocks are able to mock virtual methods, which is as good as it gets.
Both classes and interfaces can be
proxied, however only virtual members
can be intercepted.
My advice would be to start creating abstract bases for those classes that need to be mocked and have the concrete class extend it. Then the abstract base can be passed around and mocked. It really is a refactoring exercise that is not overly complex.
I am developing a set of classes that implement a common interface. A consumer of my library shall expect each of these classes to implement a certain set of static functions. Is there anyway that I can decorate these class so that the compiler will catch the case where one of the functions is not implemented.
I know it will eventually be caught when building the consuming code. And I also know how to get around this problem using a kind of factory class.
Just curious to know if there is any syntax/attributes out there for requiring static functions on a class.
Ed Removed the word 'interface' to avoid confusion.
No, there is no language support for this in C#. There are two workarounds that I can think of immediately:
use reflection at runtime; crossed fingers and hope...
use a singleton / default-instance / similar to implement an interface that declares the methods
(update)
Actually, as long as you have unit-testing, the first option isn't actually as bad as you might think if (like me) you come from a strict "static typing" background. The fact is; it works fine in dynamic languages. And indeed, this is exactly how my generic operators code works - it hopes you have the static operators. At runtime, if you don't, it will laugh at you in a suitably mocking tone... but it can't check at compile-time.
No. Basically it sounds like you're after a sort of "static polymorphism". That doesn't exist in C#, although I've suggested a sort of "static interface" notion which could be useful in terms of generics.
One thing you could do is write a simple unit test to verify that all of the types in a particular assembly obey your rules. If other developers will also be implementing the interface, you could put that test code into some common place so that everyone implementing the interface can easily test their own assemblies.
This is a great question and one that I've encountered in my projects.
Some people hold that interfaces and abstract classes exist for polymorphism only, not for forcing types to implement certain methods. Personally, I consider polymorphism a primary use case, and forced implementation a secondary. I do use the forced implementation technique fairly often. Typically, it appears in framework code implementing a template pattern. The base/template class encapsulates some complex idea, and subclasses provide numerous variations by implementing the abstract methods. One pragmatic benefit is that the abstract methods provide guidance to other developers implementing the subclasses. Visual Studio even has the ability to stub the methods out for you. This is especially helpful when a maintenance developer needs to add a new subclass months or years later.
The downside is that there is no specific support for some of these template scenarios in C#. Static methods are one. Another one is constructors; ideally, ISerializable should force the developer to implement the protected serialization constructor.
The easiest approach probably is (as suggested earlier) to use an automated test to check that the static method is implemented on the desired types. Another viable idea already mentioned is to implement a static analysis rule.
A third option is to use an Aspect-Oriented Programming framework such as PostSharp. PostSharp supports compile-time validation of aspects. You can write .NET code that reflects over the assembly at compile time, generating arbitrary warnings and errors. Usually, you do this to validate that an aspect usage is appropriate, but I don't see why you couldn't use it for validating template rules as well.
Unfortunately, no, there's nothing like this built into the language.
While there is no language support for this, you could use a static analysis tool to enforce it. For example, you could write a custom rule for FxCop that detects an attribute or interface implementation on a class and then checks for the existence of certain static methods.
The singleton pattern does not help in all cases. My example is from an actual project of mine. It is not contrived.
I have a class (let's call it "Widget") that inherits from a class in a third-party ORM. If I instantiate a Widget object (therefore creating a row in the db) just to make sure my static methods are declared, I'm making a bigger mess than the one I'm trying to clean up.
If I create this extra object in the data store, I've got to hide it from users, calculations, etc.
I use interfaces in C# to make sure that I implement common features in a set of classes.
Some of the methods that implement these features require instance data to run. I code these methods as instance methods, and use a C# interface to make sure they exist in the class.
Some of these methods do not require instance data, so they are static methods. If I could declare interfaces with static methods, the compiler could check whether or not these methods exist in the class that says it implements the interface.
No, there would be no point in this feature. Interfaces are basically a scaled down form of multiple inheritance. They tell the compiler how to set up the virtual function table so that non-static virtual methods can be called properly in descendant classes. Static methods can't be virtual, hence, there's no point in using interfaces for them.
The approach that gets you closer to what you need is a singleton, as Marc Gravell suggested.
Interfaces, among other things, let you provide some level of abstraction to your classes so you can use a given API regardless of the type that implements it. However, since you DO need to know the type of a static class in order to use it, why would you want to enforce that class to implement a set of functions?
Maybe you could use a custom attribute like [ImplementsXXXInterface] and provide some run time checking to ensure that classes with this attribute actually implement the interface you need?
If you're just after getting those compiler errors, consider this setup:
Define the methods in an interface.
Declare the methods with abstract.
Implement the public static methods, and have the abstract method overrides simply call the static methods.
It's a little bit of extra code, but you'll know when someone isn't implementing a required method.