How can I mole the DataContext that I'm using in a class to write messages to a table. I'd like to assert that the table LINQ is writing to has the expected count of messages. Here's what i have so far.
var context = new MJustTestingDataContext();
MyMessagewriter writer = new MyMessageWriter(context);
var messageList = new List<MIncmoingMessage>();
MTable<MIncomingMessage> messageTable = new MTable<MIncomingMessage>();
messageTable.Bind(messagesLinqList.AsQueryable());
If I use this code with xUnit in my class under test I'll get this exception
Microsoft.Moles.Framework.Moles.MoleNotImplementedException: DataContext.Dispose() was not moled.
What am I missing here and how to implement DataContext.Dispose() on the mole? I'm using moles standalone without Pex.
When you create a new Mole the default behavior for its methods and properties is to throw a MoleNotImplementedException whenever they are called.
To implement the mole you can do context.Dispose = () => {}; which means that nothing happens when the Dispose method gets called on the moled instance.
I reread the question and you probably are having a problem since Dispose is defined in a base class. To mole base method you need to do the following:
var context = new MJustTestingDataContext();
var baseContext = new MDataContext(context);
baseContext.Dispose = () => {};
You'll need to implement every property/method that gets called by the code under test or you can set the default behavior for the mole instance globally using the method BehaveAsDefaultValue. This way every method in the mole will do nothing and return the default value for it's return type if one exists instead of throwing a MoleNotImplementedException. However if you require this behavior it's better to use a stub than a mole.
I'm having trouble understanding what your test is doing. I had to do something similar yesterday, so I'll share my experience. First, it's important to understand that you don't need to use all the MoleTypes to test your code -- you just need to use Moles to redirect certain parts of your code to lambda expressions. Given a method that does this:
get a list of users to modify from the database
modify every user in the set
send the new set back to the database
I'd like to redirect 1 and 3 to not use the database. For instance, I can redirect the call to SubmitChanges (3) via this code:
bool hitSubmitChanges = false;
int changeCount = 0;
IList<object> updates = null;
// more code here...
// redirect DataContext.SubmitChanges() to a lambda to catch updates
MDataContext.AllInstances.SubmitChanges = (c) =>
{
changeCount = c.GetChangeSet().Updates.Count;
updates = c.GetChangeSet().Updates;
hitSubmitChanges = true;
};
That (and the call to get the users) would be the only Moletypes I'd use in the test. The rest of it would be normal. Then I can use assertions to check the values of changeCount, updates and hitSubmitChanges.
Related
this is my first time writing unit test, and I just have a few questions. Im using in memory database to test my services and I'am wondering if I'm doing it correctly. My first question is do I need multiple assert on all of my service call? like do i need assert for InsertProduct? Second, Am I over testing this for using new instance of context on every service call?
[Fact]
public void ProductService_DeleteProduct_Test()
{
// arrange
var options = new DbContextOptionsBuilder<ApplicationDbContext>()
.UseInMemoryDatabase(databaseName: "ProductService_DeleteProduct_Test")
.Options;
var product = new Product() { Id = Guid.NewGuid(), Name = "Product"};
// act
// insert
using (var context = new ApplicationDbContext(options))
{
var service = new Service(context);
service.ProductService.InsertProduct(product);
}
// delete
using (var context = new ApplicationDbContext(options))
{
var service = new Service(context);
service.ProductService.DeleteProducts(new List<Guid> { product.Id });
}
// assert
using (var context = new ApplicationDbContext(options))
{
var service = new Service(context);
Assert.Equal(0, service.ProductService.GetAllProducts().Count);
}
}
I would make an objection on the structure of your test. Namely, you are using the service (production code) to prepare the underlying database. And you are also using the production code to make the assertion.
If any part of the production code is incorrect, this test will fail. However, this test is designed to assert that the delete feature is doing right.
Therefore, I would rewrite entire test in the following way:
[Fact]
public void ProductService_DeleteProduct_Test()
{
// arrange
var options = new DbContextOptionsBuilder<ApplicationDbContext>()
.UseInMemoryDatabase(databaseName: "ProductService_DeleteProduct_Test")
.Options;
var product = new Product() { Id = Guid.NewGuid(), Name = "Product"};
// Insert object using other means, i.e. direct INSERT statement
// act
using (var context = new ApplicationDbContext(options))
{
var service = new Service(context);
service.ProductService.DeleteProducts(new List<Guid> { product.Id });
}
// assert
// Execute SELECT COUNT(*) instruction to fetch previously existing row
Assert.Equal(0, rowsCount);
}
In this way, you will only touch production code in the acting part of the test. That is the part in which you are using the service object to delete an object from the database.
Subsequent assertion is done against a scalar value count which is fetched as the result of a raw SELECT statement executed directly on the storage.
Bottom line is that none of the parts of your test are now depending on correctness of the production code, except the DeleteProducts method which is in fact the method under test.
And, consequently, the answer to your question is that there is only one assertion to write in this test.
Answering your first question, I'd say no. Since this is a unit test and you're testing the delete specifically. I consider the insert part of the setup since you're getting the system into a state where you want to test the delete. To Zoran Horvat's point, if you can, put a row in the database via some means other than the service itself.
To answer your second question, it seems unnecessary to have three using blocks where you're new'ing up the service three times. I'd put the insert, delete, and assert in the same using, making use of one instance of the SUT, or service.
However, if you have multiple tests that all require there to be a row in the database, consider moving the insert into a SetUp method with the [SetUp] attribute that every test can call before hand. In that case, you'd be using multiple instances of the context.
I am creating a custom native activity using workflow foundation 4.5. I want to set a bookmark for the activity and do some custom handling in the WorkflowApplication's PersistableIdle callback. Within that callback I want to read the data that was provided into the activity's InArgument<> and/or Properties before the workflow instance is persisted away. So essentially, I want to read these values from outside the context of the activity that executed and outside the run time as a pre-step before completing the persistence process.
I thought I might be able to do this with the WorkflowInspectionServices helper class but it's unclear if that works given I have to context to read from that activity instance's InArgument<>.
Is there another helper class that can make this happen with wf4.5 that I haven't discovered yet? Thanks.
wfApp.PersistableIdle += args =>
{
using (var scope = new TransactionScope(TransactionScopeOption.RequiresNew))
{
wfApp.Unload();
args.Bookmarks.ForEach(bookmark =>
{
var activityId = bookmark.BookmarkName;
//Doesn't seem this will really work?
var activityInfo = WorkflowInspectionServices.Resolve(activity, activityId) as MyCustomActivity;
var recipientId = activityInfo.RecipientId.Get(<I have no context>);
workflowSuspendedCallback.Invoke(activityId, recipientId));
});
scope.Complete();
}
return PersistableIdleAction.None;
};
The use of activity extensions did the trick.
Thanks Will.
How can the following test be corrected to work?
[TestMethod()]
public void GetEmployeeProductivityTest()
{
var mockHR = new Mock<IRepository<Employee>>();
var mockCMS = new Mock<ICMS_Repository>();
mockCMS.Setup(repos => repos.FindEmployeeByUsername(It.IsAny<string>())).Verifiable();
Employee newEmp = new Employee();
newEmp.User_Name = "testName";
var service = new EmployeeService(mockHR.Object,mockCMS.Object);
var createResult = service.GetEmployeeByUserName(newEmp);
Assert.AreEqual(newEmp, createResult);
mockCMS.VerifyAll();
}
I get the following:
Assert.AreEqual failed. Expected:<Employee>. Actual:<(null)>.
As Requested this is the GetEmployeeByUserName() function being called:
public Employee GetEmployeeByUserName(Employee employee)
{
return _employeeRespository.Find().ByUserName(employee); <------(Using Strict: Gives me the following: All invocations on the mock must have a corresponding setup.)
}
Since you edited your question to show the behaviour of the GetEmployeeByUserName, it's now easy to explain why your test was failing.
mockCMS.Setup(repos => repos.FindEmployeeByUsername(It.IsAny<string>()))
Here you set up an expectation that the FindEmployeeByUsername(string) overload would be called, but then you go on to use the FindEmployeeByUsername(Employee) overload. Moq setups are for specific overloads so when the method is called the mocked service finds no matching setup. If there is no matching setup, the mock either returns the default value for the Employee type (null), or throws an exception, depending on which MockBehavior you chose.
In your updated test, you fixed this by setting up the overload that you actually use.
mockCMS.Setup(repos => repos.FindEmployeeByUsername(It.IsAny<Employee>()))
With simple methods like your GetEmployeeByUserName, mocking the dependencies and unit testing it can seem like a lot of overhead. What your test says is basically,
"when someone calls the GetEmployeeByUserName method on the EmployeeService,
the service should call the correct method on its repository"
Is this an important thing to assert? That's up to you to decide. As the complexity of your service methods increases, however, being able to isolate the dependencies and test their interactions will become more and more valuable.
You need to seed the FindEmployeeByUsername() Method of your mock:
mockCMS.Setup(repos => repos.FindEmployeeByUsername(It.IsAny<string>())).Returns(newEmp);
otherwise it wont return the expected object, while called within the EmployeeService.
Instead of using multiple repositories which I think was confusing. I simplified it and it works now! Except I'm still not sure how this helps me code better. What did I accomplish with this? (I'm new to Testing/Moq/Integration Tests...etc..) I would really like an answer...to this..
public void GetEmployeeUsername_Using_EmployeeClass()
{
var mockCMS = new Mock<ICMS_Repository>(MockBehavior.Strict);
Employee newEmp = new Employee();
newEmp.User_Name = "testName";
mockCMS.Setup(repos => repos.FindEmployeeByUsername(It.IsAny<Employee>())).Returns(newEmp);
var service = new EmployeeService(mockCMS.Object);
var createResult = service.GetEmployeeByUserName(newEmp);
Assert.AreEqual(newEmp, createResult);
}
Using Microsoft Test Framework and Moq I'm trying to verify if a log4net method was called.
[TestMethod()]
public void Log_Info_When_Stuff_Is_Done()
{
SampleClass sampleObject = new SampleClass();
Mock<log4net.ILog> logMockObject = new Mock<log4net.ILog>();
sampleObject.Log = logMockObject.Object;
sampleObject.DoStuffAndLogInfo();
logMockObject.Verify(moqLog => moqLog.Info("do stuff got called"), Times.AtLeastOnce());
}
I get an exception on Verify call saying that
Expected invocation on the mock at least once, but was never
performed: moqLog => moqLog.Info("do stuff got called") No setups
configured. No invocations performed.
What am I doing wrong?
update the problem was with a getter for SampleClas.Log property. I was always returning LogManager.GetLogger(...); even when the property was already set to a ILogProxy. I was under impression that the property's get accessor won't be called because I've set up a proxy like so sampleObject.Log = logMockObject.Object;
Right now Moq is verifying that DoStuffAndLogInfo calls Info with the exact string "do stuff got called". If it's actually calling Info with a different argument, and you don't care what the actual argument is, use the following instead:
logMockObject.Verify(moqLog => moqLog.Info(It.IsAny<string>()), Times.AtLeastOnce());
The test is correctly set up.
Check your sut to see if Log.Info actually gets called inside the DoStuffAndLogInfo method.
This doesn't look to be the original poster's problem, but in my case I had a very similar error message. It was due to my .Verify() call before the actual execution. For example, this is wrong:
SampleClass sampleObject = new SampleClass();
Mock<log4net.ILog> logMockObject = new Mock<log4net.ILog>();
logMockObject.Verify(moqLog => moqLog.Info(It.IsAny<string>()), Times.AtLeastOnce());
sampleObject.Log = logMockObject.Object;
sampleObject.DoStuffAndLogInfo();
....but this is right:
SampleClass sampleObject = new SampleClass();
Mock<log4net.ILog> logMockObject = new Mock<log4net.ILog>();
sampleObject.Log = logMockObject.Object;
sampleObject.DoStuffAndLogInfo();
logMockObject.Verify(moqLog => moqLog.Info(It.IsAny<string>()), Times.AtLeastOnce());
The following code gets all the rows from my Activities table that have not already been posted on Twitter. It then loops through and posts Twitter updates for each of those row. In the process, I would like to update the database to indicate these rows have now been "twittered".
However, I'm getting an error (indicated below) when I try and update this value. I assume this is because I'm using an anonymous type. However, if I use the full type, that will require pulling a lot of unnecessary data from the database.
Is there a way to accomplish this efficiently? Or is this yet another case where EF forces me to make compromises in performance?
using (MyEntities context = new MyEntities())
{
var activities = from act in context.Activities
where act.ActTwittered == false
select new { act.ActID, act.ActTitle, act.Category,
act.ActDateTime, act.Location, act.ActTwittered };
foreach (var activity in activities)
{
twitter.PostUpdate("...");
activity.ActTwittered = true; // <== Error: ActTwittered is read-only
}
}
You could try a "fake object approach" like this:
using (MyEntities context = new MyEntities())
{
var activities = from act in context.Activities
where act.ActTwittered == false
select new { act.ActID, act.ActTitle, act.Category,
act.ActDateTime, act.Location, act.ActTwittered };
foreach (var activity in activities)
{
twitter.PostUpdate("...");
// Create fake object with necessary primary key
var act = new Activity()
{
ActID = activity.ActID,
ActTwittered = false
};
// Attach to context -> act is in state "Unchanged"
// but change-tracked now
context.Activities.Attach(act);
// Change a property -> act is in state "Modified" now
act.ActTwittered = true;
}
// all act are sent to server with sql-update statements
// only for the ActTwittered column
context.SaveChanges();
}
It's "theoretical" code, not sure if it would work.
Edit
Not "theoretical" anymore. I've tested this with DbContext of EF 4.1 and it works as described in the sample code above. (Because DbContext is only a wrapper API around ObjectContext it's almost safe to assume that it also will work in EF 4.0.)
If you simply select 'act', then it should work. Don't forget to submit after editing.
Why are you calling select new instead of returning entire object. Entity framework will only be able to update property if it is correctly defined in schema resources which certainly is not case with anonymous type.
Entity framework will never be able to determine which table and which field the property is mapped to.