We Keep Coding

How to Mock Sealed class with RhinoMocks [duplicate]

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 :)

Is there a standard method for unit testing code where dependencies do not implement interfaces?

Is there a standard method for unit testing code where dependencies do not implement interfaces? For instance, the System.Net.Http namespace only exposes concrete classes. If I'm trying to unit test a class which relies upon one of the concrete classes in System.Net.Http, should I merely construct an instance of, say, HttpRequestMessage, set it's properties and then supply this newly constructed object to the system under test? Would it make sense to subclass HttpRequestMessage and have it implement a custom interface which could then be mocked/stubbed?

The recommended practice is to wrap this object in a class of your creation, which itself implements an interface. You would then use this wrapper class in your code, and you can then supply mocked versions of this wrapper in place of the real class. You would not subclass it using this method, but rather contain it and use delegation (not to be confused with delegates!) to forward each method.
For instance, you might create a class HttpRequestMessageWrapper that inherits from IHttpRequestMessage (that you define, including all the public properties of HttpRequestMessage.. although you could probably get by with only implementing the properties you use).
Alternatively, you can use a testing framework that supports shims, which is a framework that essentially does this wrapper for you and replaces calls to the objects with shim versions. Microsoft Fakes (introduced in VS 2012 MS Test) does this.
Shims are typically used to replace common framework calls, such as DateTime.Now so you can supply a specific value during tests.

I would suggest you have a look at: AutoFixture http://autofixture.codeplex.com/ It helps you construct the object in the way you want. In your example, HttpRequestMessage, you can customize the fixture: fixture.Customize<HttpRequestMessage>(c => {});
There are many examples out there using AutoFixture in Unit Testing. Or you can post the code you want to test here and i can try to help.

Another good tool for testing legacy code is Typemock

Is it recommended to mock concrete class?

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”.

Which is best in Java; Mocking interfaces or mocking classes?

Firstly, let me disclose that I'm NOT a Java developer, I currently develop in C#, so any assumptions or statements I make regarding Java may be incorrect or ill informed.
When writing unit tests in .Net with mocked objects, 99% of the time we mock interfaces. It's possible to mock classes but you're only going to be able to have control over the virtual (thus mockable) methods.
In Java, as methods are virtual by default then I imagine that mocking a class is going to be just the same as mocking an interface because everything is going to be overridden with mocking behaviour.
So, is it still best practice to have dependencies on interfaces (and consequently mock interfaces in unit tests) in Java, or do most Java developers use classes to reduce the number of types (no need for an interface)?

I'd mock interfaces in Java as well. I think that's the whole idea: clients only know about the interface reference type. You can inject in a mock implementation behind it and the client is none the wiser.

I've actually made the opposite transition--that is, mocking in java and then made the transition to csharp. The company I worked for traditionally still mocked up the interfaces, if the concrete indeed had one. Otherwise, we did mock the actual class which worked for the reasons you specified. So, from my experience, for the obvious dependency reasons, we did priority on the interfaces.
For java, we've chosen the Mockito mock framework, and I think it's worked beautifully.
http://code.google.com/p/mockito/

Another good framework which I recommend is EasyMock.
http://easymock.org/
It has a low learning curve and I didn't have any problem when I used it.

Try Mockito http://code.google.com/p/mockito/. Very simple and still powerful!

Mocking classes that aren't interfaces

I've been writing some providers in c# that inherit from the providerbase class. I've found that it's hard to write tests that use the providers as most mocking frameworks will only allow you to mock an interface.
Is there any way to mock a call to a provider that inherits from providerbase?
If not, is there a pattern that I can use to implement mocking of providers?

Mocking frameworks should be able to create for you a mock object based on a class, as long as it's got virtual members.
You may also want to take a look at Typemock

I know Rhino mocks can mock classes too, most other mocking frameworks should have no problems with this either.
Things too keep in mind: The class can't be sealed. You need to mark methods you want to mock virtual and the class needs a constructor with no arguments this can be protected, private won't work. (just tried this out)
Keep in mind that the mocking framework will just create a class that inherits from your class and creates an object of that type. So constructors will get called. This can cause unexpected behaviour in your tests.

RhinoMocks or Moq will create test doubles for classes as well as for interfaces. The type has to have virtual methods or be abstract though. The Typemock isolator gets around this.
I'd suggest that the objects you want to mock probably should be abstract (dependency inversion principle).