Search Results

Search found 2356 results on 95 pages for 'andrew mock'.

Page 1/95 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Returning a mock object from a mock object

    - by Songo
    I'm trying to return an object when mocking a parser class. This is the test code using PHPUnit 3.7 //set up the result object that I want to be returned from the call to parse method $parserResult= new ParserResult(); $parserResult->setSegment('some string'); //set up the stub Parser object $stubParser=$this->getMock('Parser'); $stubParser->expects($this->any()) ->method('parse') ->will($this->returnValue($parserResult)); //injecting the stub to my client class $fileHeaderParser= new FileWriter($stubParser); $output=$fileParser->writeStringToFile(); Inside my writeStringToFile() method I'm using $parserResult like this: writeStringToFile(){ //Some code... $parserResult=$parser->parse(); $segment=$parserResult->getSegment();//that's why I set the segment in the test. } Should I mock ParserResult in the first place, so that the mock returns a mock? Is it good design for mocks to return mocks? Is there a better approach to do this all?!

    Read the article

  • Doing your first mock with JustMock

    - by mehfuzh
    In this post, i will start with a  more traditional mocking example that  includes a fund transfer scenario between two different currency account using JustMock.Our target interface that we will be mocking looks similar to: public interface ICurrencyService {     float GetConversionRate(string fromCurrency, string toCurrency); } Moving forward the SUT or class that will be consuming the  service and will be invoked by user [provided that the ICurrencyService will be passed in a DI style] looks like: public class AccountService : IAccountService         {             private readonly ICurrencyService currencyService;               public AccountService(ICurrencyService currencyService)             {                 this.currencyService = currencyService;             }               #region IAccountService Members               public void TransferFunds(Account from, Account to, float amount)             {                 from.Withdraw(amount);                 float conversionRate = currencyService.GetConversionRate(from.Currency, to.Currency);                 float convertedAmount = amount * conversionRate;                 to.Deposit(convertedAmount);             }               #endregion         }   As, we can see there is a TransferFunds action implemented from IAccountService  takes in a source account from where it withdraws some money and a target account to where the transfer takes place using the provided conversion rate. Our first step is to create the mock. The syntax for creating your instance mocks is pretty much same and  is valid for all interfaces, non-sealed/sealed concrete instance classes. You can pass in additional stuffs like whether its an strict mock or not, by default all the mocks in JustMock are loose, you can use it as default valued objects or stubs as well. ICurrencyService currencyService = Mock.Create<ICurrencyService>(); Using JustMock, setting up your expectations and asserting them always goes with Mock.Arrang|Assert and this is pretty much same syntax no matter what type of mocking you are doing. Therefore,  in the above scenario we want to make sure that the conversion rate always returns 2.20F when converting from GBP to CAD. To do so we need to arrange in the following way: Mock.Arrange(() => currencyService.GetConversionRate("GBP", "CAD")).Returns(2.20f).MustBeCalled(); Here, I have additionally marked the mock call as must. That means it should be invoked anywhere in the code before we do Mock.Assert, we can also assert mocks directly though lamda expressions  but the more general Mock.Assert(mocked) will assert only the setups that are marked as "MustBeCalled()”. Now, coming back to the main topic , as we setup the mock, now its time to act on it. Therefore, first we create our account service class and create our from and to accounts respectively. var accountService = new AccountService(currencyService);   var canadianAccount = new Account(0, "CAD"); var britishAccount = new Account(0, "GBP"); Next, we add some money to the GBP  account: britishAccount.Deposit(100); Finally, we do our transfer by the following: accountService.TransferFunds(britishAccount, canadianAccount, 100); Once, everything is completed, we need to make sure that things were as it is we have expected, so its time for assertions.Here, we first do the general assertions: Assert.Equal(0, britishAccount.Balance); Assert.Equal(220, canadianAccount.Balance); Following, we do our mock assertion,  as have marked the call as “MustBeCalled” it will make sure that our mock is actually invoked. Moreover, we can add filters like how many times our expected mock call has occurred that will be covered in coming posts. Mock.Assert(currencyService); So far, that actually concludes our  first  mock with JustMock and do stay tuned for more. Enjoy!!

    Read the article

  • Cactus versus mock objects (jMock, Easy mock)

    - by Thomman
    I'm little confused with Cactus and mock objects (jMock, Easy mock). Could anyone please answer the following questions? When to use Cactus for testing? When not to use Cactus for testing? When to use mock objects for testing? When not to use mock objects for testing?

    Read the article

  • TechEd Video Chat: SharePoint 2010 with Andrew Connell

    Check out this video interview from TechEd 2010 with SharePoint MVP and guru, Andrew Connell: In the video, Andrew discusses: What is awesome about SharePoint 2010? Silverlight in SharePoint 2010 The SharePoint 2010 development experience Andrews CodeRush plugins that help solve SharePoint development pains Andrew's push to improve DevExpress' involvement in the SharePoint developer market SharePoint education and training from CriticalPath Is Andrew the best...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • Apps Script Developer Chat: Andrew Stillman

    Apps Script Developer Chat: Andrew Stillman Join us for a chat with Andrew Stillman, the developer of several popular scripts in the Script Gallery, such as formMule, formMutant, autoCrat, doctopus, and more. We'll talk with Andrew about his experiences with Apps Script and how he applies it to his work at New Visions for Public Schools and with youpd.org. From: GoogleDevelopers Views: 0 0 ratings Time: 00:00 More in Science & Technology

    Read the article

  • What functionality should a (basic) mock framework have?

    - by user1175327
    If i would start on writing a simple Mock framework, then what are the things that a basic mock framework MUST have? Obviously mocking any object, but what about assertions and perhaps other things? When I think of how I would write my own mock framework then I realise how much I really know (or don't know) and what I would trip up on. So this is more for educational purposes. Of course I did research and this is what i've come up with that a minimal mocking framework should be able to do. Now my question in this whole thing is, am I missing some important details in my ideas? Mocking Mocking a class: Should be able to mock any class. The Mock should preserve the properties and their original values as they were set in the original class. All method implementations are empty. Calls to methods of Mock: The Mock framework must be able to define what a mocked method must return. IE: $MockObj->CallTo('SomeMethod')->Returns('some value'); Assertions To my understanding mocking frameworks also have a set of assertions. These are the ones I think are most important (taken from SimpleTest). expect($method, $args) Arguments must match if called expectAt($timing, $method, $args) Arguments must match when called on the $timing'th time expectCallCount($method, $count) The method must be called exactly this many times expectMaximumCallCount($method, $count) Call this method no more than $count times expectMinimumCallCount($method, $count) Must be called at least $count times expectNever($method) Must never be called expectOnce($method, $args) Must be called once and with the expected arguments if supplied expectAtLeastOnce($method, $args) Must be called at least once, and always with any expected arguments And that's basically, as far as I understand, what a mock framework should be able to do. But is this really everything? Because it currently doesn't seem like a big deal to build something like this. But that's also the reason why I have the feeling that i'm missing some important details about such a framework. So is my understanding right about a mock framework? Or am i missing alot of details?

    Read the article

  • Assignments in mock return values

    - by zerkms
    (I will show examples using php and phpunit but this may be applied to any programming language) The case: let's say we have a method A::foo that delegates some work to class M and returns the value as-is. Which of these solutions would you choose: $mock = $this->getMock('M'); $mock->expects($this->once()) ->method('bar') ->will($this->returnValue('baz')); $obj = new A($mock); $this->assertEquals('baz', $obj->foo()); or $mock = $this->getMock('M'); $mock->expects($this->once()) ->method('bar') ->will($this->returnValue($result = 'baz')); $obj = new A($mock); $this->assertEquals($result, $obj->foo()); or $result = 'baz'; $mock = $this->getMock('M'); $mock->expects($this->once()) ->method('bar') ->will($this->returnValue($result)); $obj = new A($mock); $this->assertEquals($result, $obj->foo()); Personally I always follow the 2nd solution, but just 10 minutes ago I had a conversation with couple of developers who said that it is "too tricky" and chose 3rd or 1st. So what would you usually do? And do you have any conventions to follow in such cases?

    Read the article

  • Mock static method Activator.CreateInstance to return a mock of another class

    - by Jeep87c
    I have this factory class and I want to test it correctly. Let's say I have an abstract class which have many child (inheritance). As you can see in my Factory class the method BuildChild, I want to be able to create an instance of a child class at Runtime. I must be able to create this instance during Runtime because the type won't be know before runtime. And, I can NOT use Unity for this project (if so, I would not ask how to achieve this). Here's my Factory class that I want to test: public class Factory { public AnAbstractClass BuildChild(Type childType, object parameter) { AnAbstractClass child = (AnAbstractClass) Activator.CreateInstance(childType); child.Initialize(parameter); return child; } } To test this, I want to find a way to Mock Activator.CreateInstance to return my own mocked object of a child class. How can I achieve this? Or maybe if you have a better way to do this without using Activator.CreateInstance (and Unity), I'm opened to it if it's easier to test and mock! I'm currently using Moq to create my mocks but since Activator.CreateInstance is a static method from a static class, I can't figure out how to do this (I already know that Moq can only create mock instances of objects). I took a look at Fakes from Microsoft but without success (I had some difficulties to understand how it works and to find some well explained examples). Please help me! EDIT: I need to mock Activator.CreateInstance because I want to force this method to return another mocked object. The correct thing I want is only to stub this method (not to mock it). So when I test BuildChild like this: [TestMethod] public void TestBuildChild() { var mockChildClass = new Mock(AChildClass); // TODO: Stub/Mock Activator.CreateInstance to return mockChildClass when called with "type" and "parameter" as follow. var type = typeof(AChildClass); var parameter = "A parameter"; var child = this._factory.BuildChild(type, parameters); } Activator.CreateInstance called with type and parameter will return my mocked object instead of creating a new instance of the real child class (not yet implemented).

    Read the article

  • How to return a dynamic value from a Mocha mock in Ruby

    - by Vivek
    The gist of my problem is as follows:- I'm writing a Mocha mock in Ruby for the method represented as "post_to_embassy" below. It is not really our concern, for the purpose of describing the problem, what the actual method does. But I need the mock to return a dynamic value. The proc '&prc' below is executing rightly in place of the actual method. But the "with" method in Mocha only allows for boolean values to be returned. So the code below outputs nil. I need it to output the value being passed through orderInfoXml. Does anyone know of an alternate method I can use? require 'rubygems' require 'mocha' include Mocha::API class EmbassyInterface def post_to_embassy(xml) puts "This is from the original class:-" puts xml return xml end end orderInfoXml = "I am THE XML" mock = EmbassyInterface.new prc = Proc.new do |orderXml| puts "This is from the mocked proc:-" puts orderXml orderXml end mock.stubs(:post_to_embassy).with(&prc) mock_result = mock.post_to_embassy(orderInfoXml) p mock_result #p prc.call("asd") output:- This is from the mocked proc:- I am THE XML nil

    Read the article

  • Working with multiple interfaces on a single mock.

    - by mehfuzh
    Today , I will cover a very simple topic, which can be useful in cases we want to mock different interfaces on our expected mock object.  Our target interface is simple and it looks like:   public interface IFoo : IDisposable {     void Do(); } Now, as we can see that our target interface has implemented IDisposable and in normal cases if we have to implement it in class where language rules require use to implement that as well[no doubt about it] and whether or not there can be more complex cases, we want to ensure that rather having an extra call(..As()) or constructs to prepare it for us, we should do it in the simplest way possible. Therefore, keeping that in mind, first we create a mock of IFoo var foo = Mock.Create<IFooDispose>(); Then, as we are interested with IDisposable, we simply do: var iDisposable = foo as IDisposable;   Finally, we proceed with our existing mock code. Considering the current context, we I will check if the dispose method has invoked our mock code successfully.   bool called = false;   Mock.Arrange(() => iDisposable.Dispose()).DoInstead(() => called = true);     iDisposable.Dispose();   Assert.True(called);   Further, we assert our expectation as follows: Mock.Assert(() => iDisposable.Dispose(), Occurs.Once());   Hopefully that will help a bit and stay tuned. Enjoy!!

    Read the article

  • How can I make mock-0.6 return a sequence of values?

    - by Chris R
    I'm using the mock-0.6 library from http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/mock/mock.html to mock out a framework for testing, and I want to have a mock method return a series of values, each time it's called. Right now, this is what I figured should work: def returnList(items): def sideEffect(*args, **kwargs): for item in items: yield item yield mock.DEFAULT return sideEffect mock = Mock(side_effect=returnList(aListOfValues)) values = mock() log.info("Got %s", values) And the log output is this: subsys: INFO: Got <generator object func at 0x1021db500> So, the side effect is returning the generator, not the next value, which seems wrong. Where am I getting this wrong?

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to set properties on a Mock Object in Simpletest

    - by JW
    I normally use getter and setter methods on my objects and I am fine with testing them as mock objects in SimpleTest by manipulating them with code like: Mock::generate('MyObj'); $MockMyObj->setReturnValue('getPropName', 'value') However, I have recently started to use magic interceptors (__set() __get()) and access properties like so: $MyObj->propName = 'blah'; But I am having difficulty making a mock object have a particular property accessed by using that technique. So is there some special way of setting properties on MockObjects. I have tried doing: $MockMyObj->propName = 'test Value'; but this does not seem to work. Not sure if it is my test Subject, Mock, magic Interceptors, or SimpleTest that is causing the property to be unaccessable. Any advice welcome.

    Read the article

  • Adding custom interfaces to your mock instance.

    - by mehfuzh
    Previously, i made a post  showing how you can leverage the dependent interfaces that is implemented by JustMock during the creation of mock instance. It could be a informative post that let you understand how JustMock behaves internally for class or interfaces implement other interfaces into it. But the question remains, how you can add your own custom interface to your target mock. In this post, i am going to show you just that. Today, i will not start with a dummy class as usual rather i will use two most common interfaces in the .NET framework  and create a mock combining those. Before, i start i would like to point out that in the recent release of JustMock we have extended the Mock.Create<T>(..) with support for additional settings though closure. You can add your own custom interfaces , specify directly the real constructor that should be called or even set the behavior of your target. Doing a fast forward directly to the point,  here goes the test code for create a creating a mock that contains the mix for ICloneable and IDisposable using the above mentioned changeset. var myMock = Mock.Create<IDisposable>(x => x.Implements<ICloneable>()); var myMockAsClonable = myMock as ICloneable; bool isCloned = false;   Mock.Arrange(() => myMockAsClonable.Clone()).DoInstead(() => isCloned = true);   myMockAsClonable.Clone();   Assert.True(isCloned);   Here, we are creating the target mock for IDisposable and also implementing ICloneable. Finally, using the “as” for getting the ICloneable reference accordingly arranging it, acting on it and asserting if the expectation is met properly. This is a very rudimentary example, you can do the same for a given class: var realItem = Mock.Create<RealItem>(x => {     x.Implements<IDisposable>();     x.CallConstructor(() => new RealItem(0)); }); var iDispose = realItem as IDisposable;     iDispose.Dispose(); Here, i am also calling the real constructor for RealItem class.  This is to mention that you can implement custom interfaces only for non-sealed classes or less it will end up with a proper exception. Also, this feature don’t require any profiler, if you are agile or running it inside silverlight runtime feel free to try it turning off the JM add-in :-). TIP :  Ability to  specify real constructor could be a useful productivity boost in cases for code change and you can re-factor the usage just by one click with your favorite re-factor tool.   That’s it for now and hope that helps Enjoy!!

    Read the article

  • Unit testing with serialization mock objects in C++

    - by lhumongous
    Greetings, I'm fairly new to TDD and ran across a unit test that I'm not entirely sure how to address. Basically, I'm testing a couple of legacy class methods which read/write a binary stream to a file. The class functions take a serializable object as a parameter, which handles the actual reading/writing to the file. For testing this, I was thinking that I would need a serialization mock object that I would pass to this function. My initial thought was to have the mock object hold onto a (char*) which would dynamically allocate memory and memcpy the data. However, it seems like the mock object might be doing too much work, and might be beyond the scope of this particular test. Is my initial approach correct, or can anyone think of another way of correctly testing this? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Transcript: Andrew Tridgell on Patent Defence

    <b>ESP Software Patents News:</b> "The following is a transcript of a talk given in New Zealand, 2010. Andrew Tridgell discusses why reading patents is usually a good idea, how to read a patent, and how to work through it with a lawyer to build a solid defence."

    Read the article

  • Creating Mock object of Interface with type-hint in method fails on PHPUnit

    - by Mark
    I created the following interface: <?php interface Action { public function execute(\requests\Request $request, array $params); } Then I try to make a Mock object of this interface with PHPUnit 3.4, but I get the following error: Fatal error: Declaration of Mock_Action_b389c0b1::execute() must be compatible with that of Action::execute() in D:\Xampp\xampp\php\PEAR\PHPUnit\Framework\TestCase.php(1121) : eval()'d code on line 2 I looked through the stack trace I got from PHPUnit and found that it creates a Mock object that implements the interface Action, but creates the execute method in the following way: <?php public function execute($request, array $params) As you can see, PHPUnit takes over the array type-hint, but forgets about \requests\Request. Which obviously leads to an error. Does anyone knows a workaround for this error? I also tried it without namespaces, but I still get the same error.

    Read the article

  • EF4 - possible to mock ObjectContext for unit testing?

    - by steve.macdonald
    Can it be done without using TypeMock Islolator? I've found a few suggestions online such as passing in a metadata only connection string, however nothing I've come across besides TypeMock seems to truly allow for a mock ObjectContext that can be injected into services for unit testing. Do I plunk down the $$ for TypeMock, or are there alternatives? Has nobody managed to create anything comparable to TypeMock that is open source?

    Read the article

  • DotNetOpenAuth: Mock ClaimsResponse

    - by Pickels
    Hello, I was wondering how I can mock the ClaimseReponse class in DotNetOpenAuth? This is the class(remove a few properties): [Serializable] public sealed class ClaimsResponse : ExtensionBase, IClientScriptExtensionResponse, IExtensionMessage, IMessageWithEvents, IMessage { public static bool operator !=(ClaimsResponse one, ClaimsResponse other); public static bool operator ==(ClaimsResponse one, ClaimsResponse other); [MessagePart("email")] public string Email { get; set; } [MessagePart("fullname")] public string FullName { get; set; } public override bool Equals(object obj); public override int GetHashCode(); } This is what I tried: ClaimsResponse MockCR = new ClaimsResponse(); MockCR.Email = "[email protected]"; MockCR.FullName = "Mister T"; I get the following error: '...ClaimsResponse(string)' is inaccessible due to its protection level. Kind regards, Pickels

    Read the article

  • How do you mock a Sealed class?

    - by Brett Veenstra
    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)

    Read the article

  • How to mock a file with EasyMock?

    - by Todd
    Hello, I have recently been introduced to EasyMock and have been asked to develop some unit tests for a FileMonitor class using it. The FileMonitor class is based on a timed event that wakes up and checks for file modification(s) in a defined list of files and directories. I get how to do this using the actual file system, write a test that writes to a file and let the FileMonitor do its thing. So, how do I do this using EasyMock? I just don't get how to have EasyMock mock the file system. Thanks, Todd

    Read the article

  • How to mock a RIA service

    - by Budda
    Is there any ability to mock methods that are provided with RIA Services? I would like to test my Silverlight App without communication to the server side... I see a following approach: create a separate interface; add it to "base classes" for my RiaService; define each autogenerated RIA-method in this interface; insert dependency so that my "functionality" will depend not from the RiaService, but from the interface that is implemented with RiaService. But for this case I see a problem: how to keep my interface in the auto-generated files? ANy thoughts are welcome.

    Read the article

  • Should mock objects for tests be created at a high or low level

    - by Danack
    When creating unit tests for those other objects, what is the best way to create mock objects that provide data to other objects. Should they be created at a 'high level' and intercept the calls as soon as possible, or should they be done at a 'low level' and so make as much as the real code still be called? e.g. I'm writing a test for some code that requires a NoteMapper object that allows Notes to be loaded from the DB. class NoteMapper { function getNote($sqlQueryFactory, $noteID) { // Create an SQL query from $sqlQueryFactory // Run that SQL // if null // return null // else // return new Note($dataFromSQLQuery) } } I could either mock this object at a high level by creating a mock NoteMapper object, so that there are no calls to the SQL at all e.g. class MockNoteMapper { function getNote($sqlQueryFactory, $noteID) { //$mockData = {'Test Note title', "Test note text" } // return new Note($mockData); } } Or I could do it at a very low level, by creating a MockSQLQueryFactory that instead of actually querying the database just provides mock data back, and passing that to the current NoteMapper object. It seems that creating mocks at a high level would be easier in the short term, but that in the long term doing it at a low level would be more powerful and possibly allow more automation of tests e.g. by recording data in an out of a DB and then replaying that data for tests. Is there a recommended way of creating mocks? Are there any hard and fast rules about which are better, or should they both be used where appropriate?

    Read the article

  • How to mock a dynamic object

    - by Daniel Cazzulino
    Someone asked me how to mock a dynamic object with Moq, which might be non-obvious. Given the following interface definition: public interface IProject { string Name { get; } dynamic Data { get; } } When you try to setup the mock for the dynamic property values, you get:   What’s important to realize is that a dynamic object is just a plain object, whose properties happen to be resolved at runtime. Kinda like reflection, if you will: all public properties of whatever object happens to be the instance, will be resolved just fine at runtime. Therefore, one way to mock this dynamic is to just create an anonymous type with the properties we want, and set the dynamic property to return that:...Read full article

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >