We Keep Coding

How can I inject primitive values using RhinoAutoMocker?

I have been using RhinoAutoMocker for unit testing, and it works very well in almost all cases. I'm currently having trouble figuring out is how to use it when the Class Under Test has primitive constructor arguments.
Let's say I have two classes defined as such:
public class AddAnswerValidator : BaseValidator
{
public AddAnswerValidator(Answer answerToAdd,
IAnswerRepository answerRepository)
{
...some code
}
public override bool Validates()
{
...some code
}
}
public class RemoveAnswerValidator : BaseValidator
{
public RemoveAnswerValidator(int answerIDToRemove,
IAnswerRepository answerRepository)
{
...some code
}
public override bool Validates()
{
...some code
}
}
An example test for each are as follows:
[Test]
public void AddAnswerValidatorTests_Validates_ValidInput_ReturnsTrue()
{
var autoMocker = new RhinoAutoMocker<AddAnswerValidator>();
var fakeAnswer = new Answer();
autoMocker.Inject<Answer>(fakeAnswer);
var result = autoMocker.ClassUnderTest.Validates();
Assert.IsTrue(result);
}
[Test]
public void RemoveAnswerValidatorTests_Validates_ValidInput_ReturnsTrue()
{
var autoMocker = new RhinoAutoMocker<RemoveAnswerValidator>();
var fakeAnswerID = 1;
autoMocker.Inject<int>(fakeAnswerID);
var result = autoMocker.ClassUnderTest.Validates();
Assert.IsTrue(result);
}
The first test (for AddAnswerValidator) works fine. The second test (for RemoveAnswerValidator) fails with a StructureMap 202 Error "No default instance defined for plugin family RemoveAnswerValidator" error. I'm working under the assumption that the second test is failing because StructureMap isn't resolving the integer constructor argument.
I've read through this post regarding RhinoAutoMocker Injection for collections and I've been tracing through the source code on GitHub, but I don't understand why the primitive value isn't being injected.
I've even tried substituting some of the overloaded Inject methods available on the container object such as:
autoMocker.Inject<int>(fakeAnswerID);
with
autoMocker.Container.Inject<int>("answerIDToRemove", fakeAnswerID);
but using the name of the constructor argument doesn't produce any different results.
--
In the long run, this isn't a huge problem since I can always just create an instance of the Class Under Test and create my own mocks, it would just be nice to be able to use a consistent methodology across all of my tests.

I know, it's a little bit too late, but i had the same problem and managed to solve it with integer parameter:
var autoMocker = new RhinoAutoMocker<RemoveAnswerValidator>();
automocker.Container.Configure(c=>
c.For<RemoveAnswerValidator>()
.Use<RemoveAnswerValidator>()
.Ctor<int>()
.Is(1));

While I never did find a way to inject a primitive using AutoMocker, I ended up working around the problem by creating a parameter object and injecting that instead.
The parameter object then includes the necessary primitives as a properties, in addition to the other (former) parameters. The example above would be changed to:
public class RemoveAnswerValidator : BaseValidator
{
public RemoveAnswerValidator(RemoveAnswerValidatorParameters parms)
{
...some code
}
public override bool Validates()
{
...some code
}
}
public class RemoveAnswerValidatorParameters
{
public int AnswerID { get; set; }
public IAnswerRepository AnswerRepository { get; set; }
}
(Then in the test class)
[Test]
public void RemoveAnswerValidatorTests_Validates_ValidInput_ReturnsTrue()
{
var autoMocker = new RhinoAutoMocker<RemoveAnswerValidator>();
var fakeAnswerParameters = new FakeAnswerParameters()
{
AnswerID = 1,
AnswerRepository = autoMocker.Get<IAnswerRepository>()
};
autoMocker.Inject<RemoveAnswerValidatorParameters>(fakeAnswer);
var result = autoMocker.ClassUnderTest.Validates();
Assert.IsTrue(result);
}

How to set the test case sequence in xUnit

I have written the xUnit test cases in C#. That test class contains so many methods. I need to run the whole test cases in a sequence. How can I set the test case sequence in xUnit?

In xUnit 2.* this can be achieved using the TestCaseOrderer attribute to designate an ordering strategy, which can be used to reference an attribute that is annotated on each test to denote an order.
For example:
Ordering Strategy
[assembly: CollectionBehavior(DisableTestParallelization = true)]
public class PriorityOrderer : ITestCaseOrderer
{
public IEnumerable<TTestCase> OrderTestCases<TTestCase>(IEnumerable<TTestCase> testCases) where TTestCase : ITestCase
{
var sortedMethods = new SortedDictionary<int, List<TTestCase>>();
foreach (TTestCase testCase in testCases)
{
int priority = 0;
foreach (IAttributeInfo attr in testCase.TestMethod.Method.GetCustomAttributes((typeof(TestPriorityAttribute).AssemblyQualifiedName)))
priority = attr.GetNamedArgument<int>("Priority");
GetOrCreate(sortedMethods, priority).Add(testCase);
}
foreach (var list in sortedMethods.Keys.Select(priority => sortedMethods[priority]))
{
list.Sort((x, y) => StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase.Compare(x.TestMethod.Method.Name, y.TestMethod.Method.Name));
foreach (TTestCase testCase in list)
yield return testCase;
}
}
static TValue GetOrCreate<TKey, TValue>(IDictionary<TKey, TValue> dictionary, TKey key) where TValue : new()
{
TValue result;
if (dictionary.TryGetValue(key, out result)) return result;
result = new TValue();
dictionary[key] = result;
return result;
}
}
Attribute
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Method, AllowMultiple = false)]
public class TestPriorityAttribute : Attribute
{
public TestPriorityAttribute(int priority)
{
Priority = priority;
}
public int Priority { get; private set; }
}
Test Cases
[TestCaseOrderer("FullNameOfOrderStrategyHere", "OrderStrategyAssemblyName")]
public class PriorityOrderExamples
{
[Fact, TestPriority(5)]
public void Test3()
{
// called third
}
[Fact, TestPriority(0)]
public void Test2()
{
// called second
}
[Fact, TestPriority(-5)]
public void Test1()
{
// called first
}
}
xUnit 2.* ordering samples here

Testpriority: at the bottom of this page.
[PrioritizedFixture]
public class MyTests
{
[Fact, TestPriority(1)]
public void FirstTest()
{
// Test code here is always run first
}
[Fact, TestPriority(2)]
public void SeccondTest()
{
// Test code here is run second
}
}
BTW, I have the same problem right now. And yes, it is not the clean art.. but QA wanted a manual test.. so an automated test with a specific order already is a big leap for them.. (cough) and yes, it is not really unit testing..

If you really have the need to prioritize your tests (probably not your unit tests) you can use Xunit.Priority.
I have used it for some integration testing and works really well and simple without the overhead of having to write your prioritization classes, for simple case scenarios

For some reason, XUnit.Priority didn't work for me. In my test cases, it wasn't running the tests in the priority order specified.
So I tried XUnitPriorityOrderer, which is similar to use but was working (To quickly test it, save the following code in a text editor as OrderedXUnitTests.linq, then open it with LinqPad 6 and execute it. Alternatively, you can also copy the TestClass to Visual Studio and add XUnit, XUnit.Runner.VisualStudio and XUnitPriorityOrderer):
<Query Kind="Program">
<NuGetReference>XUnitPriorityOrderer</NuGetReference>
<Namespace>Xunit</Namespace>
<Namespace>XUnitPriorityOrderer</Namespace>
</Query>
#load "xunit"
// using XUnitPriorityOrderer
// see: https://github.com/frederic-prusse/XUnitPriorityOrderer
void Main()
{
RunTests(); // Call RunTests() or press Alt+Shift+T to initiate testing.
}
#region private::Tests
[TestCaseOrderer(CasePriorityOrderer.TypeName, CasePriorityOrderer.AssembyName)]
public class TestClass
{
static List<string> Order { get; set; }
public TestClass()
{
Order = Order ?? new List<string>();
}
[Fact, Order(2)]
void Test_Xunit_AnotherTest()
{
Order.Add("Test_Xunit_AnotherTest");
Assert.True(3 + 1 == 4);
}
[Fact, Order(1)]
void Test_Xunit()
{
Order.Add("Test_XUnit");
Assert.True(1 + 1 == 2);
}
[Fact, Order(99)]
void Print_Order()
{
Order.Add("Print_Order");
var strOrder = string.Join(", ", Order.ToArray());
strOrder.Dump("Execution Order");
Assert.True(true);
}
}
#endregion
This will run the tests in given order (Order(1), Order(2) and then Order(99)) and will dump the executed tests finally (test method Print_Order()).

You can't, by design. It's deliberately random in order to prevent anyone getting one of those either by desire or by accident.
The randomness is only for a given Test class, so you may be able to achieve your goals by wrapping items you want to control the order of inside a nested class - but in that case, you'll still end up with random order whenever you have more than two Test Methods in a class.
If you're trying to manage the building up of fixtures or context, the built-in IUseFixture<T> mechanism may be appropriate. See the xUnit Cheat Sheet for examples.
But you really need to tell us more about what you're trying to do or we'll just have to get speculative.

Access property by Index

I need to access a property by an index or something similar. The reason why is explained in this already answered question. That answer uses Linq and I prefer something without that dependency. I have no control over the class.
public class myClass
{
private string s = "some string";
public string S
{
get { return s; }
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
myClass c = new myClass();
// I would like something similar
// or same functionality
string s = c["S"];
}
}

As you have no control over the class you can use extension method and reflection to get property value by name:
static class ObjectExtensions
{
public static TResult Get<TResult>(this object #this, string propertyName)
{
return (TResult)#this.GetType().GetProperty(propertyName).GetValue(#this, null);
}
}
Usage:
class A
{
public string Z
{
get;
set;
}
public int X
{
get;
set;
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
A obj = new A();
obj.Z = "aaa";
obj.X = 15;
Console.WriteLine(obj.Get<string>("Z"));
Console.WriteLine(obj.Get<int>("X"));
Console.ReadLine();
}
}

use (EDIT - as per comment):
string s = c.GetType().GetProperty ("S").GetGetMethod().Invoke (c, null).ToString();
It gives you the value of the (public) property named S of the the instance c regardless of the type of c and doesn't use LINQ at all although I must admit that I don't see why LINQ should be a problem...

You can achieve the same thing by using a default property on your class and a collection. Provided that you will always want strings, you could use the Dictionary class as your default property.
Then in the constructor you could intialize myDictionary["s"] = "some string";
You could then use the myClass as a collection, so myClass["s"] would return "some string".
Reflection is usually an indicator that you haven't created an API to do the job you need, if you have the code to modify then I recommend you use the default property.
See this MSDN article:

Can generics improve this design?

The PartyRoleConstraints class in the model below (on the right) is the subject of this question.
The idea is that when a client tries to associate a Party with a RoleType, the RoleType sees if it has any Constraints that should prevent a given Party from being associated. A Party is a supertype for both Person and Organization.
Here is the totally generic interface I am after:
public interface IRoleConstraint<in T>
{
Func<T, bool> IsSatisfied { get; }
string UnsatisfiedDescription { get; }
bool CanAddRole(T instance);
}
A common constraint would be by Type. So if I have role type of "husband" then I want to make sure the Party instance is a Person. Here is some implementation and a test case proving I can do this:
public class RoleConstraint<T> : IRoleConstraint<T>
{
public RoleConstraint(Func<T, Boolean> isSatisfied, string unsatisfiedDescription) {
if (isSatisfied == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("isSatisfied");
if (unsatisfiedDescription == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("unsatisfiedDescription");
IsSatisfied = isSatisfied;
UnsatisfiedDescription = unsatisfiedDescription;
}
public Func<T, bool> IsSatisfied { get; protected set; }
public string UnsatisfiedDescription { get; protected set; }
public bool CanAddRole(T instance) { return IsSatisfied.Invoke(instance); }
}
public class PartyRoleConstraint : RoleConstraint<Party>
{
public PartyRoleConstraint(Func<Party, bool> isSatisfied, string unsatisfiedDescription) : base(isSatisfied, unsatisfiedDescription) { }
}
public class PartyRoleConstrainedToType<TRequired> : PartyRoleConstraint where TRequired : Party
{
private static readonly string _unsatisfiedDescription
= string.Format("This role requires a Party instance to be a {0}", typeof(TRequired).Name);
private static readonly Func<Party, bool> _isSatisfied = instance => instance.GetType().Equals(typeof(TRequired));
public PartyRoleConstrainedToType() : base(_isSatisfied, _unsatisfiedDescription) { }
}
[Test]
public void Constraints_IfTypeConstraint_and_InstanceDoesNotMatch_False()
{
var sony = new Organization("Sony Corporation");
var constraint = new PartyRoleConstrainedToType<Person>();
_husbandRoleType.AddConstraint(constraint);
Assert.That(_husbandRoleType.CanAddRole(sony), Is.False);
}
The problem I am hitting is if I want to set up a rule based on an attribute of a subtype of Party. For example, I want the gender of the husband to be Male. I can do this with a cast, as:
[Test]
public void Constraints_IfConstraintConditionIsNotMet_False()
{
_husbandRoleType.AddConstraint(new PartyRoleConstrainedToType<Person>());
Assert.That(_husbandRoleType.CanAddRole(_arthur), Is.True);
//**** here is the cast **** //
var mustBeMale = new PartyRoleConstraint(p => ((Person)p).Gender == Gender.Male, "the husband must be male.");
_husbandRoleType.AddConstraint(mustBeMale);
Assert.That(_husbandRoleType.CanAddRole(_arthur), Is.False);
_arthur.Gender = Gender.Male;
Assert.That(_husbandRoleType.CanAddRole(_arthur), Is.True);
}
The question (finally!) is: can I use generics to avoid that cast, and if so, how?

Yes, you can get rid of the cast, but you will have to specify "Person" somewhere. It's hard to propose a "best place" to do so, without knowing more about your requirements and constraints. One option would be something like:
var mustBeMale = PartyRoleConstraint.For<Person>( p => p.Gender == ...);
Another option would be to tweek PartyRoleConstrainedToType to allow further restrictions. And example might look like this:
var combinedConstraint = new PartyRoleConstrainedToType<Person>().MustSatisfy(p => p.Gender == ...);
As said before: You will have to specify Person somewhere, but there a different options to create a nice syntax. What nice means, depends on your requirements and use cases.

How to mock an interface that extends IEnumerable

I'm using Moq and I have the following interface:
public interface IGameBoard : IEnumerable<PieceType>
{
...
}
public class GameBoardNodeFactory
{
public virtual GameBoardNode Create (int row, int column, IGameBoard gameBoard)
{
...
}
}
Then I have a test like this:
var clonedGameBoardMock = new Mock<IGameBoard> (MockBehavior.Loose);
var gameBoardNodeFactoryMock = new Mock<GameBoardNodeFactory> ();
gameBoardNodeFactoryMock.Setup (x =>
x.Create (
position.Row,
position.Column,
clonedGameBoardMock.Object)).Returns (new GameBoardNode { Row = position.Row, Column = position.Column });
But then gameBoardNodeFactoryMock.Object.Create (position.Row, position.Column, clonedGameBoardMock.Object) throws a NullReferenceException. I tried to create a mock for the IGameBoard such that it doesn't extend IEnumerable<PieceType> interface and then it works.
Any help is appreciated.

You would need to create a Setup for GetEnumerator() if it's being called. Something like:
var mockPieces = new List<PieceType>;
clonedGameBoardMock.Setup(g => g.GetEnumerator()).Returns(mockPieces.GetEnumerator());
Note sure if that's the issue in this case, but worth noting if you ever need to mock IEnumerable<T>.

The answer by #DanBryant was also the key to our solution. However, the enumerator in that case might be accidentally reused. Instead, I suggest using:
clonedGameBoardMock.Setup(g => g.GetEnumerator()).Returns(() => mockPieces.GetEnumerator());
Here's a full repro (new class library using NUnit 2.6.4 and Moq 4.2):
public interface IMyThing<T> : IEnumerable<T>
{
string Name { get; set; }
IMyThing<T> GetSub<U>(U key);
}
public interface IGenericThing
{
string Value { get; set; }
}
public class Pet
{
public string AnimalName { get; set; }
}
public class Unit
{
public IEnumerable<Pet> ConvertInput(IMyThing<IGenericThing> input)
{
return input.GetSub("api-key-123").Select(x => new Pet { AnimalName = x.Value });
}
}
[TestFixture]
public class Class1
{
[Test]
public void Test1()
{
var unit = new Unit();
Mock<IMyThing<IGenericThing>> mock = new Mock<IMyThing<IGenericThing>>();
Mock<IMyThing<IGenericThing>> submock = new Mock<IMyThing<IGenericThing>>();
var things = new List<IGenericThing>(new[] { new Mock<IGenericThing>().Object });
submock.Setup(g => g.GetEnumerator()).Returns(() => things.GetEnumerator());
mock.Setup(x => x.GetSub(It.IsAny<string>())).Returns(submock.Object);
var result = unit.ConvertInput(mock.Object);
Assert.That(result, Is.Not.Null.And.Not.Empty);
Assert.That(result, Is.Not.Null.And.Not.Empty); // This would crash if the enumerator wasn't returned through a Func<>...
}
}
For what it's worth / to make this question pop up to that one lone Googler with the same problem I had: the above is an abstracted version of the Couchbase .NET client's IView<T> interface, which also implements IEnumerable<T>.

A null reference in this situation usually means your setup was never met. Meaning it was never called with the exact values you set it up for. To debug this I would make your match less constraining by using It.IsAny() and so on to make sure the test will match on any call to the mocked function. In most cases this is good enough. Any reason why your are trying to match on specific values?

Okay if anyone is interested, I updated Moq to version 4 and now everything works as expected.