We Keep Coding

Unti Test: Mock a method result

public void Pay()
{
// some insert db code
// ...
// Call Bank api
BankApi api = new BankApi();
int result = api.pay();
if(result == 1)
{
//...
}
else
{
//...
}
}
I dont want to call api in unit test. How to mock the pay method without modify inner code (such as the line new BankApi() code)?

Its possible to mock your BankApi class without changing any of your legacy code, you just need a unit testing framework that allows you to mock concrete classes.
for example a test for your method with Typemock :
[TestMethod]
public void ExampleTest()
{
//fakes the next BankApi instace
var handler = Isolate.Fake.NextInstance<BankApi>();
//change the pay method behavior
Isolate.WhenCalled(() => handler.pay()).WillReturn(1);
new ClassUnderTest().Pay();
}

First, as stated, you should create an Interface.
public interface IBankApi
{
int pay();
}
Then, what you can do is mock this interface like this (I'm using Moq "Mock you" here, you will need to add the NuGet package "Moq" as reference to your application, and you could use other mocking libraries of course)
apiMock = new Mock<IBankApi>();
just after that you will tell what this call should return (that would be actual mocking)
apiMock.Setup(x => x.pay()).Returns(1); //
Then, this api "pseudo object", can be used by using apiMock.Object
Now , this information I just gave you doesn't directly solve your problem.
As stated in the comments, you need a better uncoupling of your code.
You need, for example, some kind of "dependency injection" to allow for such a uncoupling.
Here is a simple example of how it can be done :
public class ClassThatUsesYourBankApi
{
private readonly IBankApi _api;
// the constructor will be given a reference to the interface
public ClassThatUsesYourBankApi (IBankApi api)
{
// here you could check for null parameter and throw exception as needed
this._api = api;
}
// this method can now be tested with the mock interface
public void MethodThatUseTheApi()
{
int result = this._api.pay();
if (result == 1)
{
// some things that happens
}
else
{
// some other thing
}
}
}
How to unit test that method :
using Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting;
using Moq;
[TestClass]
public class TestMyMethod
{
[TestMethod]
public void MyMethod_WithBankApiReturns1_ShouldHaveThingsThatHappens()
{
// Arrange
var apiMock = new Mock<IBankApi>();
apiMock.Setup(api => api.pay())
.Returns(1);
var myObject = new ClassThatUsesYourBankApi(apiMock.Object);
// Act
int result = myObject.MethodThatUseTheApi();
// Assert
// Here you test that the things that should have happened when the api returns 1 actually have happened.
}
}
The key thing to understand here, is that you must not instantiate the api you need to mock in the method you want to test
In other words, "uncoupling" your method with your api is done by programming to an interface, and code such as you don't have
var api = new BankApi()
directly in the method you want to unit test.
I showed a way to do that, and there are other.

Unit Testing a controller that uses windows authentication

-------Please see updates below as I now have this set up for dependency injection and the use of the MOQ mocking framework. I'd still like to split up my repository so it doesn't directly depend on pulling the windowsUser within the same function.
I have a Web API in an intranet site that populates a dropdown. The query behind the dropdown takes the windows username as a parameter to return the list.
I realize I don't have all of this set up correctly because I'm not able to unit test it. I need to know how this "should" be set up to allow unit testing and then what the unit tests should look like.
Additional info: this is an ASP.NET MVC 5 application.
INTERFACE
public interface ITestRepository
{
HttpResponseMessage DropDownList();
}
REPOSITORY
public class ExampleRepository : IExampleRepository
{
//Accessing the data through Entity Framework
private MyDatabaseEntities db = new MyDatabaseEntities();
public HttpResponseMessage DropDownList()
{
//Get the current windows user
string windowsUser = HttpContext.Current.User.Identity.Name;
//Pass the parameter to a procedure running a select query
var sourceQuery = (from p in db.spDropDownList(windowsUser)
select p).ToList();
string result = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(sourceQuery);
var response = new HttpResponseMessage();
response.Content = new StringContent(result, System.Text.Encoding.Unicode, "application/json");
return response;
}
}
CONTROLLER
public class ExampleController : ApiController
{
private IExampleRepository _exampleRepository;
public ExampleController()
{
_exampleRepository = new ExampleRepository();
}
[HttpGet]
public HttpResponseMessage DropDownList()
{
try
{
return _exampleRepository.DropDownList();
}
catch
{
throw new HttpResponseException(new HttpResponseMessage(HttpStatusCode.NotFound));
}
}
}
UPDATE 1
I have updated my Controller based on BartoszKP's suggestion to show dependency injection.
UPDATED CONTROLLER
public class ExampleController : ApiController
{
private IExampleRepository _exampleRepository;
//Dependency Injection
public ExampleController(IExampleRepository exampleRepository)
{
_exampleRepository = exampleRepository;
}
[HttpGet]
public HttpResponseMessage DropDownList()
{
try
{
return _exampleRepository.DropDownList();
}
catch
{
throw new HttpResponseException(new HttpResponseMessage(HttpStatusCode.NotFound));
}
}
}
UPDATE 2
I have decided to use MOQ as a mocking framework for unit testing. I'm able to test something simple, like the following. This would test a simple method that doesn't take any parameters and doesn't include the windowsUser part.
[TestMethod]
public void ExampleOfAnotherTest()
{
//Arrange
var mockRepository = new Mock<IExampleRepository>();
mockRepository
.Setup(x => x.DropDownList())
.Returns(new HttpResponseMessage(HttpStatusCode.OK));
ExampleController controller = new ExampleController(mockRepository.Object);
controller.Request = new HttpRequestMessage();
controller.Configuration = new HttpConfiguration();
//Act
var response = controller.DropDownList();
//Assert
Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.OK, response.StatusCode);
}
I need help testing the DropDownList method (one that does include code to get the windowsUser). I need advice on how to break this method apart. I know both parts shouldn't been in the same method. I don't know how to arrange splitting out the windowsUser variable. I realize this really should be brought in as a parameter, but I can't figure out how.

You usually do not unit-test repositories (integration tests verify if they really persist the data in the database correctly) - see for example this article on MSDN:
Typically, it is difficult to unit test the repositories themselves, so it is often better to write integration tests for them.
So, let's focus on testing only the controller.
Change the controller to take IExampleRepository in its constructor as a parameter:
private IExampleRepository _exampleRepository;
public ExampleController(IExampleRepository exampleRepository)
{
_exampleRepository = exampleRepository;
}
Then, in your unit tests, use one of mocking frameworks (such as RhinoMock for example) to create a stub for the sole purpose of testing the controller.
[TestFixture]
public class ExampleTestFixture
{
private IExampleRepository CreateRepositoryStub(fake data)
{
var exampleRepositoryStub = ...; // create the stub with a mocking framework
// make the stub return given fake data
return exampleRepositoryStub;
}
[Test]
public void GivenX_WhenDropDownListIsRequested_ReturnsY()
{
// Arrange
var exampleRepositoryStub = CreateRepositoryStub(X);
var exampleController = new ExampleController(exampleRepositoryStub);
// Act
var result = exampleController.DropDownList();
// Assert
Assert.That(result, Is.Equal(Y));
}
}
This is just a quick&dirty example - CreateRepositoryStub method should be of course extracted to some test utility class. Perhaps it should return a fluent interface to make the test's Arrange section more readable on what is given. Something more like:
// Arrange
var exampleController
= GivenAController()
.WithFakeData(X);
(with better names that reflect your business logic of course).
In case of ASP.NET MVC, the framework needs to know how to construct the controller. Fortunately, ASP.NET supports the Dependency Injection paradigm and a parameterless constructor is not required when using MVC unity.
Also, note the comment by Richard Szalay:
You shouldn't use HttpContext.Current in WebApi - you can use base.User which comes from HttpRequestBase.User and is mockable. If you really want to continue using HttpContext.Current, take a look at Mock HttpContext.Current in Test Init Method

One trick that I find very useful when trying to make old code testable when said code is accessing some global static or other messy stuff that I can't easily just parameterize is to wrap access to the resource in a virtual method call. Then you can subclass your system under test and use that in the unit test instead.
Example, using a hard dependency in the System.Random class
public class Untestable
{
public int CalculateSomethingRandom()
{
return new Random().Next() + new Random().Next();
}
}
Now we replace var rng = new Random();
public class Untestable
{
public int CalculateSomethingRandom()
{
return GetRandomNumber() + GetRandomNumber();
}
protected virtual int GetRandomNumber()
{
return new Random().Next();
}
}
Now we can create a testable version of the class:
public class Testable : Untestable
{
protected override int GetRandomNumber()
{
// You can return whatever you want for your test here,
// it depends on what type of behaviour you are faking.
// You can easily inject values here via a constructor or
// some public field in the subclass. You can also add
// counters for times method was called, save the args etc.
return 4;
}
}
The drawback with this method is that you can't use (most) isolation frameworks to implement protected methods (easily), and for good reason, since protected methods are sort of internal and shouldn't be all that important to your unit tests. It's still a really handy way of getting things covered with tests so you can refactor them, instead of having to spend 10 hours without tests, trying to do major architectual changes to your code before you get to "safety".
Just another tool to keep in mind, I find it comes in handy from time to time!
EDIT: More concretely, in your case you might want to create a protected virtual string GetLoggedInUserName(). This will technically speaking keep the actual call to HttpContext.Current.User.Identity.Name untested, but you will have isolated it to the simplest smallest possible method, so you can test that the code is calling the correct method the right amount of times with the correct args, and then you simply have to know that HttpContext.Current.User.Identity.Name contains what you want. This can later be refactored into some sort of user manager or logged in user provider, you'll see what suits best as you go along.

Testing CRUD class.

I have some issue. Im writing some unit test in my project but i don't know how to test my CRUD methods.. Maybe they are not testable ;/
This is one of my methods:
public static void IncrementInvalidLoginColumn(string login)
{
User user;
using (DTContext context = new DTContext())
{
try
{
user = context.Users.Where(u => u.Login.CompareTo(login) == 0).FirstOrDefault();
if (user.InvalidLogins < 3)
{
user.InvalidLogins = user.InvalidLogins + 1;
}
context.SaveChanges();
}
catch
{
}
}
}
Maybe someone will have idea what should i do.

It depends on what you mean by "unit" test. If you don't want your test to hit the database then your method is not testable (or at least not without some refactoring).
If hitting the database is acceptable (which would actually be an integration test) then you can definitely test your method.
Here are some steps:
1. Arrange the initial data. You use an instance of the DTContext directly in the test to put the system in a predefined state (basically you write some user records in the database)
You run the method you want to test (which in fact uses its own instance of the DTContext)
You use DTContext again to read the user information directly from the database and assert that the InvalidLogins property has incremented.
You need to make sure you delete any data that you put in manually.
This is the gist of DI:
public class Example {
private IDatabaseGateway myDatabase;
public Example(IDatabaseGateway myDb) {
myDatabase = myDb;
}
public void DoStuff() {
...
myDatabase.GetData();
...
}
}
You give your business class an abstraction of the database via the constructor, that is you inject your dependencies in the class that needs them.
Once you have this in place, in production code you pass in the constructor a concrete instance of IDatabaseGateway that goes to the actual database.
In the case of a unit test you pass it a mock instance of the same interface. The mock is a special object that you can setup/configure to return what you want. Various libraries exist for mocking (an easy one is Moq).
However without modifying your code too much, it is better to stick with integration testing that hits the database. It will give you a simple and valid test.
Especially since there are some pitfalls in mocking the DbContext in EF (ex. some queries may not work when you will use them in production, testing updates in EF with mocks is a bit trickier).

Ok so i read all of your posts and they was very helpful.
I use MOQ framework and this is example how i do it.
This is how Liviu M. told me to do for example:
public class CRUDclass
{
private DTContext _context;
public CRUDclass(DTContext myObj)
{
_context = myObj;
}
}
We have CRUD Class which are doing operations directly on our database. We have constructor with one argument and private field. This our context :)
This is (for example) my method in CRUDclass:
public bool AddUser(User user)
{
try
{
_context.Users.Add(user);
_context.SaveChanges();
return true;
}
catch
{
return false;
}
}
Ovecourse he have our DTContext class witch DBSet becouse i using entity framework. And after that i am able to write some test method:
[TestMethod]
public void Should_Add_User()
{
var mockSet = new Mock<DbSet<User>>();
var mockContext = new Mock<DTContext>();
mockContext.Setup(m => m.Users).Returns(mockSet.Object);
var usrCRUD = new UserCRUD(mockContext.Object);
var usr = new User();
usr.Login = "Login_Name";
usr.Email = "loginName#test.com";
usr.Password = "***";
usr.InvalidLogins = 0;
usr.RememberID = 0;
usrCRUD.AddUser(usr);
mockSet.Verify(m => m.Add(It.Is<User>(arg => arg.Login == "Login_Name")));
mockContext.Verify(m => m.SaveChanges(), Times.Once());
}
At first a have to set my fake object (Mock>).
This test method checks if our user was added to Mock :)
I hope it can help somebody, if anything will be unclear please write a question :)

The idea of unit tests is to test your ifs, switches, etc., not the database operations.
In your case you need an interface that is an abstration of DTContext. In the simplest case it might look as the following.
public interface IObjectContext : IDisposable
{
IEnumerable<User> Users { get; }
}
In more complicated cases you may need to use IQueryable<T> or IObjectSet<T> instead of IEnumerable<T>.
Add a partial class declaration of DTContext and make it implement IObjectContext. Add a constructor to the class that contains the method IncrementInvalidLoginColumn with a parameter of type IObjectContext. Now you can inject any instance of IObjectContext instead of creating it in your class. This instance can be a DTContext or a mock for testing. Your class is ready to be tested without connection to a real database.
NB. In case of instances of IDisposable it's better to inject a Func<IObjectContext> instead of IObjectContext. Then you can create an instance for each operation and dispose it immediately after.

If there are CRUD operations in your code then I will recommend to use MOQ framework for unit testing. Below links are quite helpful:
Quick Start
Code Project

Ideally you would inject your DTContext rather than creating a new one every time that the method is called. That way you could mock that object in your unit test and verify that it is called as expected.
Your constructor would look something like:
private readonly IDTContext _context;
public CrudClass(IDTContext context)
{
_context = context
}
With your method now looking like
public static void IncrementInvalidLoginColumn(string login)
{
User user;
try
{
user = _context.Users.Where(u => u.Login.CompareTo(login) == 0).FirstOrDefault();
if (user.InvalidLogins < 3)
{
user.InvalidLogins = user.InvalidLogins + 1;
}
_context.SaveChanges();
}
catch
{
// Handle errors
}
}
And then in your test, if you were using a framework like Moq, you would basically script how that object would behave and test against that. For instance, setting up the mocked IDTContext to always return the same user for your Users collection and SaveChanges() method will write the number of invalid logins to a variable that you could then test against.

Unit Testing Interfaces with Moq

I'm new to Moq and unit testing. I have been doing a unit test and this is the following code:
private Mock<IServiceAdapter> repository;
[TestInitialize]
public void Initialize()
{
repository= new Mock<IServiceAdapter>();
}
[TestMethod()]
public void SaveTest()
{
//Setup
string Name = "Name1";
string Type = "1";
string parentID = null;
repository.Setup(x => x.Save(Name , Type, parentID)).Returns("Success").Verifiable();
//Do
var result = repository.Object.Save(Name , Type, parentID);
//Assert
repository.Verify();
}
My problem is that the test will always return the string that I put in the Returns parameter, in other words, it will always return "success" or whatever I write in its place. I guess thats not right because thats not the real behavior of the service. Anyone knows how I can mirror the real behavior of the "Save" service I'm trying to test? So lets say, if the return string is different from the service method,then the test should fail.
Edited
The ServiceAdapter interface its just a wrapper for a Web Service which I call like a REST Service. It's a Web Forms Project.
I'm doing something like in this post
How to mock a web service
Should I create something like a FakeController with Dependency Injection to make it work?

You are testing mock here, which gives you nothing (because this mock is not used in your real application). In unit-testing you should create and test your real objects, which exist in your real application (i.e. interface implementations). Mocks used for mocking dependencies of objects under test.
So, mock of service adapter will be useful for tests of object, which uses that adapter, e.g. some controller tests:
private FooController _controller; // object under test, real object
private Mock<IServiceAdapter> _serviceAdapter; // dependency of controller
[TestInitialize]
public void Initialize()
{
_serviceAdapter = new Mock<IServiceAdapter>();
_controller = new FooController(_serviceAdapter.Object);
}
[TestMethod()]
public void SaveTest()
{
// Arrange
string name = "Name1";
string type = "1";
string parentID = null;
_serviceAdapter.Setup(x => x.Save(name , type, parentID))
.Returns("Success").Verifiable();
// Act on your object under test!
// controller will call dependency
var result = _controller.Bar(name , type, parentID);
// Assert
Assert.True(result); // verify result is correct
_serviceAdapter.Verify(); // verify dependency was called
}

Is it possible to unit test methods that rely on NHibernate Detached Criteria?

I have tried to use Moq to unit test a method on a repository that uses the DetachedCriteria class. But I come up against a problem whereby I cannot actually mock the internal Criteria object that is built inside. Is there any way to mock detached criteria?
Test Method
[Test]
[Category("UnitTest")]
public void FindByNameSuccessTest()
{
//Mock hibernate here
var sessionMock = new Mock<ISession>();
var sessionManager = new Mock<ISessionManager>();
var queryMock = new Mock<IQuery>();
var criteria = new Mock<ICriteria>();
var sessionIMock = new Mock<NHibernate.Engine.ISessionImplementor>();
var expectedRestriction = new Restriction {Id = 1, Name="Test"};
//Set up expected returns
sessionManager.Setup(m => m.OpenSession()).Returns(sessionMock.Object);
sessionMock.Setup(x => x.GetSessionImplementation()).Returns(sessionIMock.Object);
queryMock.Setup(x => x.UniqueResult<SopRestriction>()).Returns(expectedRestriction);
criteria.Setup(x => x.UniqueResult()).Returns(expectedRestriction);
//Build repository
var rep = new TestRepository(sessionManager.Object);
//Call repostitory here to get list
var returnR = rep.FindByName("Test");
Assert.That(returnR.Id == expectedRestriction.Id);
}
Repository Class
public class TestRepository
{
protected readonly ISessionManager SessionManager;
public virtual ISession Session
{
get { return SessionManager.OpenSession(); }
}
public TestRepository(ISessionManager sessionManager)
{
}
public SopRestriction FindByName(string name)
{
var criteria = DetachedCriteria.For<Restriction>().Add<Restriction>(x => x.Name == name)
return criteria.GetExecutableCriteria(Session).UniqueResult<T>();
}
}
Note I am using "NHibernate.LambdaExtensions" and "Castle.Facilities.NHibernateIntegration" here as well. Any help would be gratefully appreciated.
Essentially I am getting a null reference exception on the assert of the object returned. Thus I assume that I have not connected up the criteria correctly. But I don't think I can do this because the criteria is a private field of the Detached Criteria which is created inside my repository!

Honestly I gave up on trying to unit test anything that touches the database a long time ago.
It's so much easier to spin up an in memory Sqlite db and just run the actual tests. Or if you would rather run them against the real database then just move them into your integration tests that only get ran when you do a checkin to source control.

I think you're missing the point of using mocking in this situtation. What you want to mock is the method
public SopRestriction FindByName(string name)
{
...
}
So then you can return any type of SopRestriction you want and not worry about the fact it's querying NHibernate.
It's pointless to ever mock any type of datacontext because you'll never gain any value.
The easiest way to do this would be to extract an interface from TestRepository so like ITestRepository and then make the rest of your dependency graph dependent on ITestRepository and you can mock the repository itself easily in your unit tests.
Follow up: Regarding your response about wanting to verify method calls inside your repository what I would reccomend is wrapping all of the NHibernate specific usage into methods themselves that don't have any type of parameter or return that is NHibernate specific so then you can mock those methods and just expect them to work. This is why unit testing is less valuable at this stage because you don't gain much. With what you said I wouldn't mock them at all but would make them full "integration" tests that touch the database or do what they need to do. I still consider these to be unit tests even if TDD purists would say they're integration tests.