We Keep Coding

How can I test if a private method of a class is called or not with rhino mock?

I am quite new at C# and also rhino mocks. I searched and found similar topics with my question but couldnt find a proper solution.
I am trying to understand if the private method is called or not in my unit test. I am using rhino mock, read many files about it, some of them just say that change the access specifier of the method from private to public, but I can not change the source code. I tried to link source file to my test project but it doesnt change.
public void calculateItems()
{
var result = new Result(fileName, ip, localPath, remotePath);
calculateItems(result, nameOfString);
}
private void calculateItems(Result result, string nameOfString )
As you see from the code above, I have two methods have exactly same name, calculateItems, but public one has no parameter, private one has two parameters. I am trying to understand when I called public one in my unittest, is private method called?
private CalculateClass sut;
private Result result;
[SetUp]
public void Setup()
{
result = MockRepository.GenerateStub<Result>();
sut = new CalculateClass();
}
[TearDown]
public void TearDown()
{
}
[Test]
public void test()
{
sut.Stub(stub => stub.calculateItems(Arg<Result>.Is.Anything, Arg<string>.Is.Anything));
sut.calculateItems();
sut.AssertWasCalled(stub => stub.calculateItems(Arg<Result>.Is.Anything, Arg<string>.Is.Anything));
}
In my unittest, I am taking such an error which says "No overload method for calculateItems take two arguments". Is there a way to test it without any changing in source code?

You're testing the wrong thing. Private methods are private. They are of no concern to consuming code, and unit tests are consuming code like any other.
In your tests you test and validate the outward facing functionality of the component. Its inner implementation details aren't relevant to the tests. All the tests care about is whether the invoked operation produces the expected results.
So the question you must ask yourself is... What are the expected results when invoking this operation?:
calculateItems()
It doesn't return anything, so what does it do? What state does it modify in some way? That is what your test needs to observe, not the implementation details but the observable result. (And if the operation has no observable result, then there's no difference between "passed" or "failed" so there's nothing to test.)
We can't see the details of your code, but it's possible that the observable result is coupled to another component entirely. If that's the case then that other component is a dependency for this operation and the goal of the unit test is to mock that dependency so the operation can be tested independently of the dependency. The component may then need to be modified so that a dependency is provided rather than internally controlled. (This is referred to as the Dependency Inversion Principle.)
Also of note...
but I can not change the source code
That's a separate problem entirely. If you truly can't change the source code, then the value of these tests is drastically reduced and possibly eliminated entirely. If a test fails, what can you do about it? Nothing. Because you can't change the code. So what are you testing?
Keep in mind that it's not only possible but unfortunately very common for programmers to write code which can't be meaningfully unit tested. If this code was provided to you by someone else and you are forbidden to change it for some non-technical reason, then it will be the responsibility of that someone else to correct the code. "Correcting" may include "making it possible to meaningfully unit test". (Or, honestly, they should be unit testing it. Not you.)

If your public method calls your private one then the same thing will happen in your tests. Tests are nothing more than code that can be run and debugged and you can try that so see what happens.
Private methods can't be tested directly but they can be tested via their public callers which is what you are doing, so it's all good. Whether it's a good idea to have a setup like this well, that's a different story entirely but I am not going into that now.
Now, let's discuss what you are actually testing.
Unit tests should not have deep knowledge of the code they test. The reason is that you should have inputs and outputs and you shouldn't care what happens in between.
If you refactor the code and eliminate the private method then your test would break, even if your inputs and outputs to your public method remain the same. That's not a good position to be in, this is what we call brittle tests.
So add your functional tests around the public method, verify that you get hat you expect and don't worry whether it calls your private method or not.

When you say you need to know whether your private methods are called, this can have two different interpretations:
You want to ensure that the private method is called within one particular test, making it a success criterion for that very test.
You want to know if the private method is called at all, by any of your test cases. You might be interested in this because you want to be sure if the private method is covered by your test suite, or as you said, just to form an understanding of what is actually going on in your code.
Regarding the second interpretation: If you want to understand what is going on in the code, a good approach is to use a debugger and just step through the code to see what function is called. As I am not a C# expert here, I can not recommend any specific debugging tool, but finding some recommendations about this on the web should not be difficult. This approach would fulfill your requirements not to require changes to the source code
Another possibility, in particular if you are interested in whether your private function is covered by the tests, is to use a test coverage tool for C#. The coverage tool would show you whether or not the private method was called or not. Again, this would not require to make any changes to the source code.
Regarding the first interpretation of your question: If you want to test that some privat function is called as part of your test's success criterion, you preferrably do this with tests that use the public API. Then, in these tests, you should be able to judge if the private function is called because of the effect that the private function has on the test result.
And, in contrast to other opinions, you should test the implementation. The primary goal of unit-testing is to find the bugs in the code. Different implementations have different bugs. This is why people also use coverage tools, to see if they have covered the code of their implementation. And, coverage is not enough, you also need to check boundary cases of expressions etc. Certainly, having maintainable tests and tests that do not break unnecessarily in case of refactorings are good goals (why testing through the public API is typically a good approach - but not always), but they are secondary goals compared to the goal to find all bugs.

Do we lie to ourselves when creating a mock for a unit test

I have just started learning all about unit testing since yesterday and today was reading about Mocks and NSub in particular.
The problem I have is that I don't get the philosophy and way of thinking behind it. So for example reading my book came to this:
[Test]
public void Returns_ByDefault_WorksForHardCodedArgument()
{
IFileNameRules fakeRules = Substitute.For<IFileNameRules>();
fakeRules.IsValidLogFileName(Arg.Any<String>())
.Returns(true);
Assert.IsTrue(fakeRules.IsValidLogFileName("anything.txt"));
}
OK so first we make a fake object to represent the interface of the actual class that we have a actual method in it that does some actual work. Then we call that method but we also tell it to return true.
Then we assert it to see if it is returning true ? Well we just told it one line before that return true! now we test it is returning true! they we say ok good passed?
I don't get it! To me feel like this: Teacher tell the kid in order to pass the exam answer yes to this question if asked, then goes and asks that question and kid says yes and exam is passed?

As per the comments on this question, this test is likely demonstrating how the mocking library works. For our test code we are extremely unlikely (partial mocks being a potential exception) to mock out the class we want to test. Instead we may want to mock out some things the code uses, in order to get more deterministic tests, or faster tests, or tests that simulate rare events, etc.
To your direct question, yes I guess we are sort lying to ourselves when we mock out dependencies for a test. We are saying "let's pretend that our dependency does X, then check our code does Y". Now it is possible the dependency never actually does "X". To me, the aim of mocking is to start off with this fiction, then test our dependency and make sure it actually does do "X", to the point where the fiction ends up matching reality.

The purpose of testing is to check every single way a method could possibly behave. If you tell the method a true statement and it returns false. Obviously something is wrong with the method you wrote. Sometimes the most complex issues can be solved by finding simple mistakes in your code. (In this case checking to see if the method will actually return true when asked to return true.) IF it fails to do so. You done messed up.

Unit testing retrieval methods - redundant?

I have the following method in my service layer
public ModuleResponse GetModules(ModuleRequest request)
{
var response = new ModuleResponse(request.RequestId);
try
{
response.Modules = Mapper.ToDataTransferObjects(ModuleDao.GetModules());
return response;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Log.Error(ex);
response.Acknowledge = AcknowledgeType.Failure;
response.Message = "An error occured.";
return response;
}
}
And I have a unit test written in xUnit like this:
[Fact]
public void GetModulesTest()
{
//Arrange
var mockModuleDao = Mock.Create<IModuleDao>();
var mockLog = Mock.Create<ILog>();
var mockAuditDao = Mock.Create<IAuditDao>();
var moduleList = new List<ModuleItem>
{
new ModuleItem {Id = 100, Category = "User Accounts", Feature = "Users"},
new ModuleItem {Id = 101, Category = "User Accounts", Feature = "Roles Permissions"}
};
mockModuleDao.Arrange(dao => dao.GetModules()).Returns(moduleList);
IUserManagementService userService = new UserManagementService(mockModuleDao, mockLog, mockAuditDao);
var request = new ModuleRequest().Prepare();
//Act
var actualResponse = userService.GetModules(request);
//Assert
Assert.Equal(AcknowledgeType.Success, actualResponse.Acknowledge);
Assert.Equal(2, actualResponse.Modules.Count);
}
Now I have a whole other bunch of retrieval methods in my code similar to the one above.
Are testing such methods redundant? I mean, they are almost a sure pass test, unless I mess up the logic of my Mapping or something.
Also, when testing retrieval methods, what is it that I should be testing for? In my scenario above, I have 2 assert statements, 1 to check if the response is a success, and the 2nd is to check the count of the list.
Is this sufficient? or how can this be further improved to enhance the value of such a unit test?

As always, whether or not a test like that is valuable depends on your motivation for testing.
Is this piece of code mission-critical?
What is the cost if that code fails?
How easily can you address errors, should they occur?
The higher the cost of failure, the more important it is to test a piece of code.
The GetModules method does at least four things:
It returns the modules from the DAO.
It maps the modules from the DAO into the desired return types.
It returns an error message if something goes wrong.
It logs any errors that may occur.
The GetModulesTest tests a single of these four responsibilities, which means that three other tests are still required to fully cover the GetModules method.
Writing small-grained unit tests are valuable, because it enables you do decompose a complex piece of production code into a set of simple, easy-to-understand unit tests. Sometimes, these unit tests become almost inanely simple, to the point where you'll begin to doubt the value of it, but the value isn't in a single unit test - it's in the accumulation of simple tests, which, together, specify how the entire system ought to work.

Now I have a whole other bunch of retrieval methods in my code similar to the one above.
Really? Don't they feel a little... repetitive?
I think Lilshieste made a very appropriate point, that one intrinsic value of unit tests is that they highlight maintainability issues like this. You might say they make code smells more pungent.
Mark Seemann identified four individual responsibilities for this one method you showed us. The Single Responsibility Principle would dictate that you should only have one.
You could conceivably turn this method (and all its kin) into something more like this:
public ModuleResponse GetModules(ModuleRequest request)
{
return _responder.CreateMappedDtoResponse(
request,
ModuleDao.GetModules,
modules => new ModuleResponse {Modules = modules}));
}
Now, at this point, I think you could make a decent argument against unit-testing this method. You'd pretty much be testing the implementation of this method, rather than its behavior. Your unit test would be testing that you call a given method with given arguments, and that's it!
But even if you decided to be a purist and unit test this, there's really only one unit test that you could conceivably write, as opposed to the four that you would have needed to fully cover this method before. Then you write the appropriate unit tests for the CreateMappedDtoResponse methods (and whatever methods it may delegate parts of its work to), and you've got a DRY, well-tested system with a fraction of the number of tests. And if you change a common responsibility like your exception-logging strategy, you can change it in one place, change one unit test, and be done.
So even if your unit tests never catch a bug for you, being a purist helped you to avoid a maintainability issue that would have forced you to write just as much extra code in the first place, and be likely to re-write just as much code later on. Of course, this only happens if you know to listen to your unit tests and change your design accordingly.

Test does not fail at first run

I have the following test:
[Test]
public void VerifyThat_WhenProvidingAServiceOrderWithALinkedAccountGetSerivceProcessWithStatusReasonOfEndOfEntitlementToUpdateStatusAndStopReasonForAccountGetServiceProcessesAndServiceOrders_TheProcessIsUpdatedWithAStatusReasonOfEndOfEntitlement()
{
IFixture fixture = new Fixture()
.Customize(new AutoMoqCustomization());
Mock<ICrmService> crmService = new Mock<ICrmService>();
fixture.Inject(crmService);
var followupHandler = fixture.CreateAnonymous<FollowupForEndOfEntitlementHandler>();
var accountGetService = fixture.Build<EndOfEntitlementAccountGetService>()
.With(handler => handler.ServiceOrders, new HashedSet<EndOfEntitlementServiceOrder>
{
{
fixture.Build<EndOfEntitlementServiceOrder>()
.With(order => order.AccountGetServiceProcess, fixture.Build<EndOfEntitlementAccountGetServiceProcess>()
.With(process => process.StatusReason, fixture.Build<StatusReason>()
.With(statusReason=> statusReason.Id == MashlatReasonStatus.Worthiness)
.CreateAnonymous())
.CreateAnonymous())
.CreateAnonymous()
}
})
.CreateAnonymous();
followupHandler.UpdateStatusAndStopReasonForAccountGetServiceProcessesAndServiceOrders(accountGetService);
crmService.Verify(svc => svc.Update(It.IsAny<DynamicEntity>()), Times.Never());
}
My problem is that it will never fail on the first run, like TDD specifies that it should.
What it should test is that whenever there is a certain value to a status for a process of a service order, perform no updates.
Is this test checking what it should?

I'm struggling a bit to understand the question here...
Is your problem that this test passes on the first try?
If yes, that means one of two things
your test has an error
you have already met this spec/requirement
Since the first has been ruled out, Green it is. Off you go to the next one on the list..
Somewhere down the line I assume, you will implement more functionality that results in the expected method being called. i.e. when the status value is different, perform an update.
The fix for that test must ensure that both tests pass.
If not, give me more information to help me understand.

Following TDD methodology, we only write new tests for functionality that doesn't exist. If a test passes on the first run, it is important to understand why.
One of my favorite things about TDD is its subtle ability to challenge our assumptions, and knock our egos flat. The practice of "Calling your Shots" is not only a great way to work through tests, but it's also a lot of fun. I love when a test fails when I expect it to pass - many great learning opportunities come from this; Time after time, evidence of working software trumps developer ego.
When a test passes when I think it shouldn't, the next step is to make it fail.
For example, your test, which expects that something doesn't happen, is guaranteed to pass if the implementation is commented out. Tamper with the logic that you think you are implementing by commenting it out or by altering the conditions of the implementation and verify if you get the same results.
If after doing this, and you're confident that the functionality is correct, write another test that proves the opposite. Will Update get called with different state or inputs?
With both sets in place, you should be able to comment out that feature and have the ability to know in advance which test will be impacted. (8-ball, corner pocket)
I would also suggest that you add another assertion to the above test to ensure that the subject and functionality under test is actually being invoked.

change the Times.Never() to Times.AtLeastOnce() and you got a good start for tdd.
Try to find nothing in nothing, well that's a good test ,but not they way to start tdd, first go with the simple specification, the naive operation the user could do (from your view point of course).
As you done some work, keep it for later, when it fails.

Unit testing a class that generates distinct strings

I'm trying to write a unit test for a class that generates distinct strings. My initial reaction was the following:
public void GeneratedStringsShouldBeDistinct()
{
UniqueStringCreator stringCreator = new UniqueStringCreator();
HashSet<string> generatedStrings = new HashSet<string>();
string str;
for (int i = 0; i < 10000; i++)
{
str = stringCreator.GetNext();
if (!generatedStrings.Add(str))
{
Assert.Fail("Generated {0} twice", str);
}
}
}
I liked this approach because I knew the underlying algorithm wasn't using any randomness so I'm not in a situation where it might fail one time but succeed the next - but that could be swapped out underneath by someone in the future. OTOH, testing of any randomized algorithm would cause that type of test inconsistency, so why not do it this way?
Should I just get 2 elements out and check distinctness (using a 0/1/Many philosophy)?
Any other opinions or suggestions?

I would keep using your approach; it's probably the most reliable option.
By the way, you don't need the if statement:
Assert.IsTrue(generatedStrings.Add(str), "Generated {0} twice", str);

If I wanted to test code that relied on random input, I would try to stub out the random generation (say, ITestableRandomGenerator) so that it could be mocked for testing. You can then inject different 'random' sequences that appropriately trigger the different execution pathways of your code under test and guarantee the necessary code coverage.
The particular test you've shown is basically a black box test, as you're just generating outputs and verifying that it works for at least N cycles. Since the code does not have any inputs, this is a reasonable test, though it might be better if you know what different conditions may impact your algorithm so that you can test those particular inputs. This may mean somehow running the algorithm with different 'seed' values, choosing the seeds so that it will exercise the code in different ways.

If you passed the algorithm into UniqueStringCreator's constructor, you could use a stub object in your unit testing to generate psuedo-random (predictable) data. See also the strategy pattern.

If there's some kind of check inside the class, you can always separate out the part which checks for distinctness with the part that generates the strings.
Then you mock out the checker, and test the behaviour in each of the two contexts; the one in which the checker thinks a string has been created, and the one in which it doesn't.
You may find similar ways to split up the responsibilities, whatever the underlying implementation logic.
Otherwise, I agree with SLaks - stick with what you have. The main reason for having tests is so that the code stays easy to change, so as long as people can read it and think, "Oh, that's what it's doing!" you're probably good.