I have an existing ASP.NET MVC application with some sample data in the SQL Server database, which is working fine..
Assuming I have all of the necessary repositories and IOC in place, is there a tool that will extract the data from a group of tables, and "freeze-dry" it into a mock object (perhaps using an XML file to store the data), so that I can detach the database and use the mock data for my unit tests?
Depending on what exactly you are trying to test there might be different approaches.
If you want to test the data access logic then this is no longer unit test but integration test. For this kind of tests it is a good idea to be able to easily replace the real database with some lighter maybe even in-memory database like SQLite which will be reconstructed before running each test. If you are using an ORM this task is easy. All you need to do is to generate SQL scripts (INSERT INTO...) from your existing database, modify and adapt the dialect to SQLite (if necessary), read and inject into a SQLite file and finally all that's left is to instruct your data access layer to use SQLite dialect and connection string for the unit test.
Now if you are not using an ORM and your data access logic is tied to MSSQL things get uglier you will need a live database in order to perform those integration tests. In this case I would suggest you duplicate your real database which you would use for the tests by modifying only the connection string. Once again you will need to properly setup and teardown (preferably in a transaction) this test database in order to put it into a known state for the tests.
If you want to test code that depends on those repositories (such as your controllers for example) you don't need to even bother about mocking the data as your controllers depend on abstract repositories and not the real implementations (aren't they), so you could easily mock the methods of the repository in order to test the logic in the controllers.
This is actually a well known "test smell":
http://xunitpatterns.com/Obscure%20Test.html#General
From:
2098937: Proper way to Mock repository objects for unit tests using Moq and Unity
I don't know of a direct way to do what you're asking for, but MSSQL supports export to CSV, Access, and Excel. Although, this require you to change the Data Access Layer in your in your mid-tier, and furthermore, I don't feel this answers your question:
"freeze-dry" it into a mock object
This I'm not sure of. Is it feasible to just restore a backup of the database either on the same SQL server as a new database, or possibly on a dev SQL server?
Related
I need to write integration tests for my layer that exposes methods of service. But I need my database to be in a certain state for the tests to pass
For example for testing the GetStoreByID method, I need to have store 1 in my database but not store 2 (for the ko test)
The database is developed and deployed by a another team using a sql project (dacpac)
I use Entity Framework 6.1.3 with an Edmx
What is the best way, in this case, to setup the data in database before tests ?
This link https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dn314431(v=vs.113).aspx gives the Microsoft MSDN article on how to write tests using EF6 by faking out the database.
In summary the article covers the subject 'When writing tests for your application it is often desirable to avoid hitting the database. Entity Framework allows you to achieve this by creating a context – with behavior defined by your tests – that makes use of in-memory data.'
If your data access is separated by an interface (i.e. using something like IDBSet for each of the types), personally I'd avoid depending on the database completely where possible, and use either a fakedbsets (if you need to test repository/DAL code) or just mocking with moq or nsubstitute if you don't.
I know this doesn't specifically answer your question, but the best way to setup test data is do it in memory in my experience with as few external dependencies as possible. The database adds extra moving parts that you don't really want to have to depend on in unit/integration tests. This also adds complexities if you have a CI server etc... that you generally want to avoid.
I am implementing an interface into a C# class, whose entire job is basically just to call some T-SQL stored procedures and return the data. Other implementations of the interface may obtain data through web-services, reading files, etc, so to test this particular class I'd ideally mock an SQL Server database and its procedures.
I'm not sure if this is feasible. I've seen tools like RhinoMock used to mock database tables but since the entire purpose of my code is to talk to a DB, can I mock the entire DB or is that a bit of a waste of time? I'd ideally like a way to transparently provide a replacement for having a real DB so local testing can be done, making real stored-procedure calls against a fake DB.
If you are building unit tests then you should not execute the stored procedure and you should stub this interface.
If you are building integration tests then you must have it all working.
In both cases your class shouldn't do it directly, you should have an inner handler like IDbHandler and during your unit tests you should mock it and during the integration tests you should use your concrete implementation.
The purpose of having a mock is to verify that the other side (DB in your case) got a request with the expected parameters but a physical component can't be mocked so just by adding an interface between your code and the physical component will enable those validations.
BTW I would start with having the unit tests and just afterwards add the integration tests.
I have written a .Net application which has many components, some of those components are database access layers which abstract from the rest of the components where the data comes from.
I have unit tested the rest of the components by mocking the database access layer. One way I have of testing the database access layers is to use create new empty databases on the test servers. This can be slow, and most would argue that it is not a unit tests as I depend on the database server.
What I think I want, is a mocked database which I can use to test my database access layer. The mocked database can be given a schema and process SQL commands as if it were a remote database, but in fact it is all in-memory. Does this exists? Or how else can I test my SQL and database <-> data model code.
To solve my problem you may want to know I am using SQL Server, versions 2008 and later, and my code is written in C#, running with .Net 4.5 and using Visual Studio 2013
Note: I do not want to use Linq2SQL/EntityFramework to replace my database access layer, as in my experience it results difficult to debug issues and performance problems.
I tried to phrase my question carefully to avoid people lecturing me on their beliefs in what should be tested and how, but perhaps to be a little more blunt:
I want to unit test my SQL, small changes to that have a big impact on the outcome of the program. I do have integration tests, but it takes much longer to create a release for the test environment than it does to tweak code and run the unit tests.
I appreciate people taking the time to read my question and respond anyhow.
I don't know if it's going to be the best answer, but. The way we're doing is that we're using SQLite, which is an in-memory database. There are a number of different ways to set it up, we use NHibernate as an ORM, and for that it is fairly easy to set up using FluentNHibernate, but I don't think it's much harder using any other framework either:
Fluently.Configure()
.Database(SQLiteConfiguration.Standard.InMemory())
.Mappings(m => ... )
.BuildConfiguration()
.BuildSessionFactory();
I think you can run queries against a SQLite database without any ORMs as well, e.g. using the base SqlConnection class.
This database can accept migrations, schemas, etc. It behaves very close to a proper MsSql database, we can run any DDL an DML statements against it, and it works fine. Since it's all in-memory, it's also pretty fast.
We are trying to add unit testing into our Business layer. The technology stack is asp.net web forms, WCF, ADO.Net calling stored procedures). The business layer is calling static methods on data classes, so it makes it difficult to introduce DI without making a lot of changes.
It may not be a conventional way to do it, but I'm thinking of keeping the DB in the unit test (dependency), but using it as a Test Db... either using an existing frozen db or having mocked data in tables. I was wondering about the feasibility of using a test db where the stored procedures are used like Mocks. Instead of duplicating the entire db, just create table names, named by the stored procedure.
The stored procedure would just call one table, and return static data... essentially, trying to emulate the functionality of Mocking data with something like Moq but from a DB perspective.
Can anyone recommend any designs that would include the DB in testing, that are still deterministic?
if you want to use the DB in the tests and have everything be deterministic then you need each test to have its own DB, which means creating (and potentially populating) a new db for each test.
Depending on how your DB layer creates its connection this is feasible. I have done similar by generating a DB using localDb in test setup with a GUID for the name and then deleting the DB again at the end of the test in the tear down.
It ends up being reasonably slow (not surprisingly) but having the DBs created on a Ram disk drive helped with that.
This worked ok for empty dbs, that then had schemas created by EF, but if you need a fixed set of data in the DB then you might need to restore it from a backup in the setup of the test
It seems to me that it's going to be a lot of work setting up your stored procedures to do what you want them to do when they are called for each test, and you still end up with the speed problems that databases always present. I'd recommend you do one or both of the following instead:
Use TypeMock, which has a powerful isolator tool. It basically changes your compilation to make it so that your unit test can mock even static methods.
Instead of just unit tests, try creating "acceptance tests," which focus on mimicking a complete user experience: log in, create object, view object (verify object looks right), update object, view object again (ditto), delete object (verify object is deleted). Begin each of these tests by setting up all the objects you'll need for this particular test, and end by deleting all those objects, so that other tests can run based on an assumed starting state.
The first approach gives you the speed and mockability of true "unit" tests, whereas the second one allows you to exercise much more of your code, increasing the likelihood that you'll catch bugs, even in things like stored procedures.
I am still having a issue getting over a small issue when it comes to TDD.
I need a method that will get a certain record set of filtered data from the data layer (linq2SQL). Please note that i am using the linq generated classes from that are generated from the DBML. Now the problem is that i want to write a test for this.
do i:
a) first insert the records in the test and then execute the method and test the results
b) use data that might be in the database. Not to keen on this logic cause it could cause things to break.
c) what ever you suggest?
You should choose option a).
A unit test should be repeatable and has to be fully under your control. So for the test to be meaningful it is absolutely necessary that the test itself prepares the data for its execution - only this way you can rely on the test outcome.
Use a testdatabase and clean it each time you run the tests. Or you might try to create a mock object.
When I run tests using a database, I usually use an in-memory SQLite database.
Using an in memory db generally makes the tests quicker.
Also it is easy to maintain, because the database is "gone" after you close the connection to it.
In the test setup, I set up the db connection and I create the database schema.
In the test, I insert the data needed by the test. (your option a))
In the test teardown, I close the connection to the db.
I used this approach successfully for my NHibernate applications (howto 1 | howto 2 + nice summary), but I'm not that familiar with Linq2SQL.
Some pointers on running SQLite and Linq2SQL are on SO (link 1 | link 2).
Some people argue that a test using a database isn't a unit test. Regardless, I belief that there are situations where you want automated testing using a database:
You can have an architecture / design, where the database is hard to mock out, for instance when using an ActiveRecord pattern, or when you're using Linq2SQL (although there is an interesting solution in one of the comments to Peter's answer)
You want to run integration tests, with the complete system of application and database
What I have done in the past:
Start a transaction
Delete all data from all the tables in the database
Setup the reference data all your tests need
Setup the test data you need in database tables
Run your test
Abort the transaction
This works well provided your database does not have much data in it, otherwise it is slow. So you will wish to use a test database. If you have a test database that is well controlled, you could just run the test in the transaction without the need to delete all data first.
Try to design your system, so you get mock the data access layer for most of your tests. It is valid (and often useful) to unit test database code, however the unit tests for your other code should not need to touch the database.
You should consider if you would get more benefits from “end to end” system tests, with unit tests only for your “logic” code. This depend to an large extent on other factors within the project.