Search Results

Search found 20 results on 1 pages for 'expectedexception'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

  • MS Test : How do I enforce exception message with ExpectedException attribute

    - by CRice
    I thought these two tests should behave identically, in fact I have written the test in my project using MS Test only to find out now that it does not respect the expected message in the same way that nunit does. nunit (fails): [Test, ExpectedException(typeof(System.FormatException), ExpectedMessage = "blah")] public void Validate() { int.Parse("dfd"); } ms test (passes): [TestMethod, ExpectedException(typeof(System.FormatException), "blah")] public void Validate() { int.Parse("dfd"); } No matter what message I give the ms test, it will pass. Is there any way to get the ms test to fail if the message is not right? Can I even create my own exception attribute? I would rather not have to write a try catch block for every test where this occurs.

    Read the article

  • UnitTest ExpectedException with multiple Exceptions

    - by masterchris_99
    I want one TestMethod for multiple exceptions. The Problem ist that the Testmethod stops after the first thrown exception. I know that I can do something like that: try { sAbc.ToInteger(); Assert.Fail(); // If it gets to this line, no exception was thrown } catch (ArgumentException) { } But I want to use the following code-base: [TestMethod, ExpectedException(typeof(ArgumentException), "...")] public void StringToIntException() { sAbc.ToInteger(); // throws an exception and stops here sDecimal.ToInteger(); // throws theoretically a exception too... } And I don't want to create one testmethod for each possible exception like that: [TestMethod, ExpectedException(typeof(ArgumentException), "...")] public void StringToIntException() { sAbc.ToInteger(); } [TestMethod, ExpectedException(typeof(ArgumentException), "...")] public void StringToIntException() { sDecimal.ToInteger(); }

    Read the article

  • ExpectedException on TestMethod Visual Studio 2010

    - by Joop
    Today I upgraded my solution with all the underlying projects from VS2008 to VS2010. Everything went well except for my unit tests. First of all only the web projects had as target framework .NET 4. All the other projects still had .NET 3.5. I changed them all to .NET 4. Now when I debug my unit tests it breaks on every exception. In 2008 it just wouldn't pass and tell me that an exception occurred. Even when I have the ExpectedException attribute defined it stops debugging on every exception. And example of one of my tests: [TestMethod] [ExpectedException(typeof(EntityDoesNotExistException))] public void ConstructorTest() { AddressType type = new AddressType(int.MaxValue); } The EntityDoesNotExistException is a custom exception and inherits Exception.

    Read the article

  • Receiving an Expectedmessage differs error

    - by Mark
    I am quite new to TDD and am going with NUnit and Moq. I have got a method where I expect an exception, so I wanted to play a little with the frameworks features. My test code looks as follows: [Test] [ExpectedException(ExpectedException = typeof(MockException), ExpectedMessage = "Actual differs from expected")] public void Write_MessageLogWithCategoryInfoFail() { string message = "Info Test Message"; Write_MessageLogWithCategory(message, "Info"); _LogTest.Verify(writeMessage => writeMessage.Info("This should fail"), "Actual differs from expected" ); } But I always receive the errormessage that the error message that the actual exception message differs from the expected message. What am I doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • Code Contracts: Unit testing contracted code

    - by DigiMortal
    Code contracts and unit tests are not replacements for each other. They both have different purpose and different nature. It does not matter if you are using code contracts or not – you still have to write tests for your code. In this posting I will show you how to unit test code with contracts. In my previous posting about code contracts I showed how to avoid ContractExceptions that are defined in code contracts runtime and that are not accessible for us in design time. This was one step further to make my randomizer testable. In this posting I will complete the mission. Problems with current code This is my current code. public class Randomizer {     public static int GetRandomFromRangeContracted(int min, int max)     {         Contract.Requires<ArgumentOutOfRangeException>(             min < max,             "Min must be less than max"         );           Contract.Ensures(             Contract.Result<int>() >= min &&             Contract.Result<int>() <= max,             "Return value is out of range"         );           var rnd = new Random();         return rnd.Next(min, max);     } } As you can see this code has some problems: randomizer class is static and cannot be instantiated. We cannot move this class between components if we need to, GetRandomFromRangeContracted() is not fully testable because we cannot currently affect random number generator output and therefore we cannot test post-contract. Now let’s solve these problems. Making randomizer testable As a first thing I made Randomizer to be class that must be instantiated. This is simple thing to do. Now let’s solve the problem with Random class. To make Randomizer testable I define IRandomGenerator interface and RandomGenerator class. The public constructor of Randomizer accepts IRandomGenerator as argument. public interface IRandomGenerator {     int Next(int min, int max); }   public class RandomGenerator : IRandomGenerator {     private Random _random = new Random();       public int Next(int min, int max)     {         return _random.Next(min, max);     } } And here is our Randomizer after total make-over. public class Randomizer {     private IRandomGenerator _generator;       private Randomizer()     {         _generator = new RandomGenerator();     }       public Randomizer(IRandomGenerator generator)     {         _generator = generator;     }       public int GetRandomFromRangeContracted(int min, int max)     {         Contract.Requires<ArgumentOutOfRangeException>(             min < max,             "Min must be less than max"         );           Contract.Ensures(             Contract.Result<int>() >= min &&             Contract.Result<int>() <= max,             "Return value is out of range"         );           return _generator.Next(min, max);     } } It seems to be inconvenient to instantiate Randomizer now but you can always use DI/IoC containers and break compiled dependencies between the components of your system. Writing tests for randomizer IRandomGenerator solved problem with testing post-condition. Now it is time to write tests for Randomizer class. Writing tests for contracted code is not easy. The main problem is still ContractException that we are not able to access. Still it is the main exception we get as soon as contracts fail. Although pre-conditions are able to throw exceptions with type we want we cannot do much when post-conditions will fail. We have to use Contract.ContractFailed event and this event is called for every contract failure. This way we find ourselves in situation where supporting well input interface makes it impossible to support output interface well and vice versa. ContractFailed is nasty hack and it works pretty weird way. Although documentation sais that ContractFailed is good choice for testing contracts it is still pretty painful. As a last chance I got tests working almost normally when I wrapped them up. Can you remember similar solution from the times of Visual Studio 2008 unit tests? Cannot understand how Microsoft was able to mess up testing again. [TestClass] public class RandomizerTest {     private Mock<IRandomGenerator> _randomMock;     private Randomizer _randomizer;     private string _lastContractError;       public TestContext TestContext { get; set; }       public RandomizerTest()     {         Contract.ContractFailed += (sender, e) =>         {             e.SetHandled();             e.SetUnwind();               throw new Exception(e.FailureKind + ": " + e.Message);         };     }       [TestInitialize()]     public void RandomizerTestInitialize()     {         _randomMock = new Mock<IRandomGenerator>();         _randomizer = new Randomizer(_randomMock.Object);         _lastContractError = string.Empty;     }       #region InputInterfaceTests     [TestMethod]     [ExpectedException(typeof(Exception))]     public void GetRandomFromRangeContracted_should_throw_exception_when_min_is_not_less_than_max()     {         try         {             _randomizer.GetRandomFromRangeContracted(100, 10);         }         catch (Exception ex)         {             throw new Exception(string.Empty, ex);         }     }       [TestMethod]     [ExpectedException(typeof(Exception))]     public void GetRandomFromRangeContracted_should_throw_exception_when_min_is_equal_to_max()     {         try         {             _randomizer.GetRandomFromRangeContracted(10, 10);         }         catch (Exception ex)         {             throw new Exception(string.Empty, ex);         }     }       [TestMethod]     public void GetRandomFromRangeContracted_should_work_when_min_is_less_than_max()     {         int minValue = 10;         int maxValue = 100;         int returnValue = 50;           _randomMock.Setup(r => r.Next(minValue, maxValue))             .Returns(returnValue)             .Verifiable();           var result = _randomizer.GetRandomFromRangeContracted(minValue, maxValue);           _randomMock.Verify();         Assert.AreEqual<int>(returnValue, result);     }     #endregion       #region OutputInterfaceTests     [TestMethod]     [ExpectedException(typeof(Exception))]     public void GetRandomFromRangeContracted_should_throw_exception_when_return_value_is_less_than_min()     {         int minValue = 10;         int maxValue = 100;         int returnValue = 7;           _randomMock.Setup(r => r.Next(10, 100))             .Returns(returnValue)             .Verifiable();           try         {             _randomizer.GetRandomFromRangeContracted(minValue, maxValue);         }         catch (Exception ex)         {             throw new Exception(string.Empty, ex);         }           _randomMock.Verify();     }       [TestMethod]     [ExpectedException(typeof(Exception))]     public void GetRandomFromRangeContracted_should_throw_exception_when_return_value_is_more_than_max()     {         int minValue = 10;         int maxValue = 100;         int returnValue = 102;           _randomMock.Setup(r => r.Next(10, 100))             .Returns(returnValue)             .Verifiable();           try         {             _randomizer.GetRandomFromRangeContracted(minValue, maxValue);         }         catch (Exception ex)         {             throw new Exception(string.Empty, ex);         }           _randomMock.Verify();     }     #endregion        } Although these tests are pretty awful and contain hacks we are at least able now to make sure that our code works as expected. Here is the test list after running these tests. Conclusion Code contracts are very new stuff in Visual Studio world and as young technology it has some problems – like all other new bits and bytes in the world. As you saw then making our contracted code testable is easy only to the point when pre-conditions are considered. When we start dealing with post-conditions we will end up with hacked tests. I hope that future versions of code contracts will solve error handling issues the way that testing of contracted code will be easier than it is right now.

    Read the article

  • GuestPost: Unit Testing Entity Framework (v1) Dependent Code using TypeMock Isolator

    - by Eric Nelson
    Time for another guest post (check out others in the series), this time bringing together the world of mocking with the world of Entity Framework. A big thanks to Moses for agreeing to do this. Unit Testing Entity Framework Dependent Code using TypeMock Isolator by Muhammad Mosa Introduction Unit testing data access code in my opinion is a challenging thing. Let us consider unit tests and integration tests. In integration tests you are allowed to have environmental dependencies such as a physical database connection to insert, update, delete or retrieve your data. However when performing unit tests it is often much more efficient and productive to remove environmental dependencies. Instead you will need to fake these dependencies. Faking a database (also known as mocking) can be relatively straight forward but the version of Entity Framework released with .Net 3.5 SP1 has a number of implementation specifics which actually makes faking the existence of a database quite difficult. Faking Entity Framework As mentioned earlier, to effectively unit test you will need to fake/simulate Entity Framework calls to the database. There are many free open source mocking frameworks that can help you achieve this but it will require additional effort to overcome & workaround a number of limitations in those frameworks. Examples of these limitations include: Not able to fake calls to non virtual methods Not able to fake sealed classes Not able to fake LINQ to Entities queries (replace database calls with in-memory collection calls) There is a mocking framework which is flexible enough to handle limitations such as those above. The commercially available TypeMock Isolator can do the job for you with less code and ultimately more readable unit tests. I’m going to demonstrate tackling one of those limitations using MoQ as my mocking framework. Then I will tackle the same issue using TypeMock Isolator. Mocking Entity Framework with MoQ One basic need when faking Entity Framework is to fake the ObjectContext. This cannot be done by passing any connection string. You have to pass a correct Entity Framework connection string that specifies CSDL, SSDL and MSL locations along with a provider connection string. Assuming we are going to do that, we’ll explore another limitation. The limitation we are going to face now is related to not being able to fake calls to non-virtual/overridable members with MoQ. I have the following repository method that adds an EntityObject (instance of a Blog entity) to Blogs entity set in an ObjectContext. public override void Add(Blog blog) { if(BlogContext.Blogs.Any(b=>b.Name == blog.Name)) { throw new InvalidOperationException("Blog with same name already exists!"); } BlogContext.AddToBlogs(blog); } The method does a very simple check that the name of the new Blog entity instance doesn’t exist. This is done through the simple LINQ query above. If the blog doesn’t already exist it simply adds it to the current context to be saved when SaveChanges of the ObjectContext instance (e.g. BlogContext) is called. However, if a blog with the same name exits, and exception (InvalideOperationException) will be thrown. Let us now create a unit test for the Add method using MoQ. [TestMethod] [ExpectedException(typeof(InvalidOperationException))] public void Add_Should_Throw_InvalidOperationException_When_Blog_With_Same_Name_Already_Exits() { //(1) We shouldn't depend on configuration when doing unit tests! But, //its a workaround to fake the ObjectContext string connectionString = ConfigurationManager .ConnectionStrings["MyBlogConnString"] .ConnectionString; //(2) Arrange: Fake ObjectContext var fakeContext = new Mock<MyBlogContext>(connectionString); //(3) Next Line will pass, as ObjectContext now can be faked with proper connection string var repo = new BlogRepository(fakeContext.Object); //(4) Create fake ObjectQuery<Blog>. Will be used to substitute MyBlogContext.Blogs property var fakeObjectQuery = new Mock<ObjectQuery<Blog>>("[Blogs]", fakeContext.Object); //(5) Arrange: Set Expectations //Next line will throw an exception by MoQ: //System.ArgumentException: Invalid setup on a non-overridable member fakeContext.SetupGet(c=>c.Blogs).Returns(fakeObjectQuery.Object); fakeObjectQuery.Setup(q => q.Any(b => b.Name == "NewBlog")).Returns(true); //Act repo.Add(new Blog { Name = "NewBlog" }); } This test method is checking to see if the correct exception ([ExpectedException(typeof(InvalidOperationException))]) is thrown when a developer attempts to Add a blog with a name that’s already exists. On (1) a connection string is initialized from configuration file. To retrieve the full connection string. On (2) a fake ObjectContext is being created. The ObjectContext here is MyBlogContext and its being created using this var fakeContext = new Mock<MyBlogContext>(connectionString); This way a fake context is being created using MoQ. On (3) a BlogRepository instance is created. BlogRepository has dependency on generate Entity Framework ObjectContext, MyObjectContext. And so the fake context is passed to the constructor. var repo = new BlogRepository(fakeContext.Object); On (4) a fake instance of ObjectQuery<Blog> is being created to use as a substitute to MyObjectContext.Blogs property as we will see in (5). On (5) setup an expectation for calling Blogs property of MyBlogContext and substitute the return result with the fake ObjectQuery<Blog> instance created on (4). When you run this test it will fail with MoQ throwing an exception because of this line: fakeContext.SetupGet(c=>c.Blogs).Returns(fakeObjectQuery.Object); This happens because the generate property MyBlogContext.Blogs is not virtual/overridable. And assuming it is virtual or you managed to make it virtual it will fail at the following line throwing the same exception: fakeObjectQuery.Setup(q => q.Any(b => b.Name == "NewBlog")).Returns(true); This time the test will fail because the Any extension method is not virtual/overridable. You won’t be able to replace ObjectQuery<Blog> with fake in memory collection to test your LINQ to Entities queries. Now lets see how replacing MoQ with TypeMock Isolator can help. Mocking Entity Framework with TypeMock Isolator The following is the same test method we had above for MoQ but this time implemented using TypeMock Isolator: [TestMethod] [ExpectedException(typeof(InvalidOperationException))] public void Add_New_Blog_That_Already_Exists_Should_Throw_InvalidOperationException() { //(1) Create fake in memory collection of blogs var fakeInMemoryBlogs = new List<Blog> {new Blog {Name = "FakeBlog"}}; //(2) create fake context var fakeContext = Isolate.Fake.Instance<MyBlogContext>(); //(3) Setup expected call to MyBlogContext.Blogs property through the fake context Isolate.WhenCalled(() => fakeContext.Blogs) .WillReturnCollectionValuesOf(fakeInMemoryBlogs.AsQueryable()); //(4) Create new blog with a name that already exits in the fake in memory collection in (1) var blog = new Blog {Name = "FakeBlog"}; //(5) Instantiate instance of BlogRepository (Class under test) var repo = new BlogRepository(fakeContext); //(6) Acting by adding the newly created blog () repo.Add(blog); } When running the above test method it will pass as the Add method of BlogRepository is going to throw an InvalidOperationException which is the expected behaviour. Nothing prevents us from faking out the database interaction! Even faking ObjectContext  at (2) didn’t require a connection string. On (3) Isolator sets up a faking result for MyBlogContext.Blogs when its being called through the fake instance fakeContext created on (2). The faking result is just an in-memory collection declared an initialized on (1). Finally at (6) action we call the Add method of BlogRepository passing a new Blog instance that has a name that’s already exists in the fake in-memory collection which we set up at (1). As expected the test will pass because it will throw the expected exception defined on top of the test method - InvalidOperationException. TypeMock Isolator succeeded in faking Entity Framework with ease. Conclusion We explored how to write a simple unit test using TypeMock Isolator for code which is using Entity Framework. We also explored a few of the limitations of other mocking frameworks which TypeMock is successfully able to handle. There are workarounds that you can use to overcome limitations when using MoQ or Rhino Mock, however the workarounds will require you to write more code and your tests will likely be more complex. For a comparison between different mocking frameworks take a look at this document produced by TypeMock. You might also want to check out this open source project to compare mocking frameworks. I hope you enjoyed this post Muhammad Mosa http://mosesofegypt.net/ http://twitter.com/mosessaur Screencast of unit testing Entity Framework Related Links GuestPost: Introduction to Mocking GuesPost: Typemock Isolator – Much more than an Isolation framework

    Read the article

  • Factorial function - design and test.

    - by lukas
    I'm trying to nail down some interview questions, so I stared with a simple one. Design the factorial function. This function is a leaf (no dependencies - easly testable), so I made it static inside the helper class. public static class MathHelper { public static int Factorial(int n) { Debug.Assert(n >= 0); if (n < 0) { throw new ArgumentException("n cannot be lower that 0"); } Debug.Assert(n <= 12); if (n > 12) { throw new OverflowException("Overflow occurs above 12 factorial"); } //by definition if (n == 0) { return 1; } int factorialOfN = 1; for (int i = 1; i <= n; ++i) { //checked //{ factorialOfN *= i; //} } return factorialOfN; } } Testing: [TestMethod] [ExpectedException(typeof(OverflowException))] public void Overflow() { int temp = FactorialHelper.MathHelper.Factorial(40); } [TestMethod] public void ZeroTest() { int factorialOfZero = FactorialHelper.MathHelper.Factorial(0); Assert.AreEqual(1, factorialOfZero); } [TestMethod] public void FactorialOf5() { int factOf5 = FactorialHelper.MathHelper.Factorial(5); Assert.AreEqual(120,factOf5); } [TestMethod] [ExpectedException(typeof(ArgumentException))] public void NegativeTest() { int factOfMinus5 = FactorialHelper.MathHelper.Factorial(-5); } I have a few questions: Is it correct? (I hope so ;) ) Does it throw right exceptions? Should I use checked context or this trick ( n 12 ) is ok? Is it better to use uint istead of checking for negative values? Future improving: Overload for long, decimal, BigInteger or maybe generic method? Thank you

    Read the article

  • NUnit vs. MsTest: NUnit wins for Unit Testing.

    People are still wondering what are the differences between the two most popular unit testing frameworks in the .NET world: the open source NUnit and the commercial MsTest). Heres a short list of what i remember instantly: Nunit contains a [TestCase] attribute that allows implementing parametrized tests. this does not exist in msTest MsTest's ExpectedException attribute has a bug where the expected message is never really asserted even if it's wrong - the test will pass. Nunit has an...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

  • ExpectedExceptionAttribute is not working in MSTest

    - by Micah
    This is wierd, but all of a sudden the `ExpectedExceptionAttribute' quit working for me the other day. Not sure what's gone wrong. I'm running VS 2010 and VS 2005 side-by-side. It's not working in VS 2010. This test should pass, however it is failing: [TestMethod] [ExpectedException(typeof(ArgumentNullException))] public void Test_Exception() { throw new ArgumentNullException("test"); } Any ideas? This really sux.

    Read the article

  • Jump to the start of next statement

    - by Borek
    Say that I'm writing a test and my caret is here (indicated by "|"): [ExpectedException(typeof(InvalidOperationException|))] In Visual Studio 2010, I'd like to press some shortcut that would take me to the next line so that I could start typing "public void Etc()". Right now, I need to press Right arrow Right arrow Right arrow Enter Which is too many key presses IMO. Is there a VS2010 / ReSharper shortcut to aid this operation?

    Read the article

  • How come you cannot catch Code Contract exceptions?

    - by Finglas
    System.Diagnostics.Contracts.ContractException is not accessiable in my test project. Note this code is purely myself messing around with my shiney new copy of Visual Studio, but I'd like to know what I'm doing wrong. I'm using the professional edition of VS, therefore I do not have static checking. In order to still use code contracts (which I like) I figured the only way my method can work is to catch the exception that is thrown at runtime, but I'm not finding this possible. TestMethod [TestMethod, ExpectedException(typeof(System.Diagnostics.Contracts.ContractException))] public void returning_a_value_less_than_one_throws_exception() { var person = new Person(); person.Number(); } Method public int Number() { Contract.Ensures(Contract.Result<int>() >= 0); return -1; } Error Error 1 'System.Diagnostics.Contracts.ContractException' is inaccessible due to its protection level.

    Read the article

  • How to validate Data Annotations with a MetaData class

    - by Micah
    I'm trying to validate a class using Data Annotations but with a metadata class. [MetadataType(typeof(TestMetaData))] public class Test { public string Prop { get; set; } internal class TestMetaData { [Required] public string Prop { get; set; } } } [Test] [ExpectedException(typeof(ValidationException))] public void TestIt() { var invalidObject = new Test(); var context = new ValidationContext(invalidObject, null, null); context.MemberName = "Prop"; Validator.ValidateProperty(invalidObject.Prop, context); } The test fails. If I ditch the metadata class and just decorated the property on the actual class it works fine. WTH am I doing wrong? This is putting me on the verge of insanity. Please help.

    Read the article

  • JPA DAO integration test not throwing exception when duplicate object saved?

    - by HDave
    I am in the process of unit testing a DAO built with Spring/JPA and Hibernate as the provider. Prior to running the test, DBUnit inserted a User record with username "poweruser" -- username is the primary key in the users table. Here is the integration test method: @Test @ExpectedException(EntityExistsException.class) public void save_UserTestDataSaveUserWithPreExistingId_EntityExistsException() { User newUser = new UserImpl("poweruser"); newUser.setEmail("[email protected]"); newUser.setFirstName("New"); newUser.setLastName("User"); newUser.setPassword("secret"); dao.persist(newUser); } I have verified that the record is in the database at the start of this method. Not sure if this is relevant, but if I do a dao.flush() at the end of this method I get the following exception: javax.persistence.PersistenceException: org.hibernate.exception.ConstraintViolationException: Could not execute JDBC batch update

    Read the article

  • How do I pass a function to NUnit Throws.Constraints?

    - by Serge Belov
    I'm trying to write some NUnit tests in F# and having trouble passing a function to the ThrowsConstraint. A distilled (non)working sample is below. open System.IO open NUnit.Framework [<TestFixture>] module Example = [<Test>] let foo() = let f = fun () -> File.GetAttributes("non-existing.file") Assert.That(f, Throws.TypeOf<FileNotFoundException>()) This compiles just fine but I get the following from the NUnit test runner: FsTest.Tests.Example.foo: System.ArgumentException : The actual value must be a TestDelegate but was f@11 Parameter name: actual While I'm able to work around the problem using ExpectedException attribute, my question is what is the correct way of using an F# function in this situation?

    Read the article

  • Catch a generic exception in Java?

    - by Alex Baranosky
    We use JUnit 3 at work and there is no ExpectedException annotation. I wanted to add a utility to our code to wrap this: try { someCode(); fail("some error message"); } catch (SomeSpecificExceptionType ex) { } So I tried this: public static class ExpectedExceptionUtility { public static <T extends Exception> void checkForExpectedException(String message, ExpectedExceptionBlock<T> block) { try { block.exceptionThrowingCode(); fail(message); } catch (T ex) { } } } However, Java cannot use generic exception types in a catch block, I think. How can I do something like this, working around the Java limitation? Is there a way to check that the ex variable is of type T?

    Read the article

  • Java application return codes

    - by doele
    I have a Java program that processes one file at a time. This Java program is called from a wrapper script which logs the return code from the Java program. There are 2 types of errors. Expected errors and unexpected errors. In both cases I just need to log them. My wrapper knows about 3 different states. 0-OK, 1-PROCESSING_FAILED, 2- ERROR. Is this a valid approach? Here is my approach: enum ReturnCodes {OK,PROCESSING_FAILED,ERROR}; public static void main(String[] args) { ... proc.processMyFile(); ... System.exit(ReturnCodes.OK.ordinal()); } catch (Throwable t) { ... System.exit(ReturnCodes.ERROR.ordinal()); } private void processMyFile() { try { ... }catch( ExpectedException e) { ... System.exit(ReturnCodes.PROCESSING_FAILED.ordinal()); } }

    Read the article

  • String literal recognition problem

    - by helicera
    Hello! I'm trying to recognize string literal by reading string per symbol. Here is a sample code: #region [String Literal (")] case '"': // {string literal ""} { // skipping '"' ChCurrent = Line.ElementAtOrDefault<Char>(++ChPosition); while(ChCurrent != '"') { Value.Append(ChCurrent); ChCurrent = Line.ElementAtOrDefault<Char>(++ChPosition); if(ChCurrent == '"') { // "" sequence only acceptable if(Line.ElementAtOrDefault<Char>(ChPosition + 1) == '"') { Value.Append(ChCurrent); // skip 2nd double quote ChPosition++; // move position next ChCurrent = Line.ElementAtOrDefault<Char>(++ChPosition); } } else if(default(Char) == ChCurrent) { // message: unterminated string throw new ScanningException(); } } ChPosition++; break; } #endregion When I run test: [Test] [ExpectedException(typeof(ScanningException))] public void ScanDoubleQuotedStrings() { this.Scanner.Run(@"""Hello Language Design""", default(System.Int32)); this.Scanner.Run(@"""Is there any problems with the """"strings""""?""", default(System.Int32)); this.Scanner.Run(@"""v#:';?325;.<>,|+_)""(*&^%$#@![]{}\|-_=""", default(System.Int32)); while(0 != this.Scanner.TokensCount - 1) { Assert.AreEqual(Token.TokenClass.StringLiteral, this.Scanner.NextToken.Class); } } It passes with success.. while I'm expecting to have an exception according to unmatched " mark in this.Scanner.Run(@"""v#:';?325;.<>,|+_)""(*&^%$#@![]{}\|-_=""", default(System.Int32)); Can anyone explain where is my mistake or give an advice on algorithm.

    Read the article

  • Invariant code contracts – using class-wide contracts

    - by DigiMortal
    It is possible to define invariant code contracts for classes. Invariant contracts should always hold true whatever member of class is called. In this posting I will show you how to use invariant code contracts so you understand how they work and how they should be tested. This is my randomizer class I am using to demonstrate code contracts. I added one method for invariant code contracts. Currently there is one contract that makes sure that random number generator is not null. public class Randomizer {     private IRandomGenerator _generator;       private Randomizer() { }       public Randomizer(IRandomGenerator generator)     {         _generator = generator;     }       public int GetRandomFromRangeContracted(int min, int max)     {         Contract.Requires<ArgumentOutOfRangeException>(             min < max,             "Min must be less than max"         );           Contract.Ensures(             Contract.Result<int>() >= min &&             Contract.Result<int>() <= max,             "Return value is out of range"         );           return _generator.Next(min, max);     }       [ContractInvariantMethod]     private void ObjectInvariant()     {         Contract.Invariant(_generator != null);     } } Invariant code contracts are define in methods that have ContractInvariantMethod attribute. Some notes: It is good idea to define invariant methods as private. Don’t call invariant methods from your code because code contracts system does not allow it. Invariant methods are defined only as place where you can keep invariant contracts. Invariant methods are called only when call to some class member is made! The last note means that having invariant method and creating Randomizer object with null as argument does not automatically generate exception. We have to call at least one method from Randomizer class. Here is the test for generator. You can find more about contracted code testing from my posting Code Contracts: Unit testing contracted code. There is also explained why the exception handling in test is like it is. [TestMethod] [ExpectedException(typeof(Exception))] public void Should_fail_if_generator_is_null() {     try     {         var randomizer = new Randomizer(null);         randomizer.GetRandomFromRangeContracted(1, 4);     }     catch (Exception ex)     {         throw new Exception(ex.Message, ex);     } } Try out this code – with unit tests or with test application to see that invariant contracts are checked as soon as you call some member of Randomizer class.

    Read the article

  • Enterprise Library Logging / Exception handling and Postsharp

    - by subodhnpushpak
    One of my colleagues came-up with a unique situation where it was required to create log files based on the input file which is uploaded. For example if A.xml is uploaded, the corresponding log file should be A_log.txt. I am a strong believer that Logging / EH / caching are cross-cutting architecture aspects and should be least invasive to the business-logic written in enterprise application. I have been using Enterprise Library for logging / EH (i use to work with Avanade, so i have affection towards the library!! :D ). I have been also using excellent library called PostSharp for cross cutting aspect. Here i present a solution with and without PostSharp all in a unit test. Please see full source code at end of the this blog post. But first, we need to tweak the enterprise library so that the log files are created at runtime based on input given. Below is Custom trace listner which writes log into a given file extracted out of Logentry extendedProperties property. using Microsoft.Practices.EnterpriseLibrary.Common.Configuration; using Microsoft.Practices.EnterpriseLibrary.Logging.Configuration; using Microsoft.Practices.EnterpriseLibrary.Logging.TraceListeners; using Microsoft.Practices.EnterpriseLibrary.Logging; using System.IO; using System.Text; using System; using System.Diagnostics;   namespace Subodh.Framework.Logging { [ConfigurationElementType(typeof(CustomTraceListenerData))] public class LogToFileTraceListener : CustomTraceListener {   private static object syncRoot = new object();   public override void TraceData(TraceEventCache eventCache, string source, TraceEventType eventType, int id, object data) {   if ((data is LogEntry) & this.Formatter != null) { WriteOutToLog(this.Formatter.Format((LogEntry)data), (LogEntry)data); } else { WriteOutToLog(data.ToString(), (LogEntry)data); } }   public override void Write(string message) { Debug.Print(message.ToString()); }   public override void WriteLine(string message) { Debug.Print(message.ToString()); }   private void WriteOutToLog(string BodyText, LogEntry logentry) { try { //Get the filelocation from the extended properties if (logentry.ExtendedProperties.ContainsKey("filelocation")) { string fullPath = Path.GetFullPath(logentry.ExtendedProperties["filelocation"].ToString());   //Create the directory where the log file is written to if it does not exist. DirectoryInfo directoryInfo = new DirectoryInfo(Path.GetDirectoryName(fullPath));   if (directoryInfo.Exists == false) { directoryInfo.Create(); }   //Lock the file to prevent another process from using this file //as data is being written to it.   lock (syncRoot) { using (FileStream fs = new FileStream(fullPath, FileMode.Append, FileAccess.Write, FileShare.Write, 4096, true)) { using (StreamWriter sw = new StreamWriter(fs, Encoding.UTF8)) { Log(BodyText, sw); sw.Close(); } fs.Close(); } } } } catch (Exception ex) { throw new LoggingException(ex.Message, ex); } }   /// <summary> /// Write message to named file /// </summary> public static void Log(string logMessage, TextWriter w) { w.WriteLine("{0}", logMessage); } } }   The above can be “plugged into” the code using below configuration <loggingConfiguration name="Logging Application Block" tracingEnabled="true" defaultCategory="Trace" logWarningsWhenNoCategoriesMatch="true"> <listeners> <add listenerDataType="Microsoft.Practices.EnterpriseLibrary.Logging.Configuration.CustomTraceListenerData, Microsoft.Practices.EnterpriseLibrary.Logging, Version=4.1.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31bf3856ad364e35" traceOutputOptions="None" filter="All" type="Subodh.Framework.Logging.LogToFileTraceListener, Subodh.Framework.Logging, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null" name="Subodh Custom Trace Listener" initializeData="" formatter="Text Formatter" /> </listeners> Similarly we can use PostSharp to expose the above as cross cutting aspects as below using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Text; using System.Reflection; using PostSharp.Laos; using System.Diagnostics; using GC.FrameworkServices.ExceptionHandler; using Subodh.Framework.Logging;   namespace Subodh.Framework.ExceptionHandling { [Serializable] public sealed class LogExceptionAttribute : OnExceptionAspect { private string prefix; private MethodFormatStrings formatStrings;   // This field is not serialized. It is used only at compile time. [NonSerialized] private readonly Type exceptionType; private string fileName;   /// <summary> /// Declares a <see cref="XTraceExceptionAttribute"/> custom attribute /// that logs every exception flowing out of the methods to which /// the custom attribute is applied. /// </summary> public LogExceptionAttribute() { }   /// <summary> /// Declares a <see cref="XTraceExceptionAttribute"/> custom attribute /// that logs every exception derived from a given <see cref="Type"/> /// flowing out of the methods to which /// the custom attribute is applied. /// </summary> /// <param name="exceptionType"></param> public LogExceptionAttribute( Type exceptionType ) { this.exceptionType = exceptionType; }   public LogExceptionAttribute(Type exceptionType, string fileName) { this.exceptionType = exceptionType; this.fileName = fileName; }   /// <summary> /// Gets or sets the prefix string, printed before every trace message. /// </summary> /// <value> /// For instance <c>[Exception]</c>. /// </value> public string Prefix { get { return this.prefix; } set { this.prefix = value; } }   /// <summary> /// Initializes the current object. Called at compile time by PostSharp. /// </summary> /// <param name="method">Method to which the current instance is /// associated.</param> public override void CompileTimeInitialize( MethodBase method ) { // We just initialize our fields. They will be serialized at compile-time // and deserialized at runtime. this.formatStrings = Formatter.GetMethodFormatStrings( method ); this.prefix = Formatter.NormalizePrefix( this.prefix ); }   public override Type GetExceptionType( MethodBase method ) { return this.exceptionType; }   /// <summary> /// Method executed when an exception occurs in the methods to which the current /// custom attribute has been applied. We just write a record to the tracing /// subsystem. /// </summary> /// <param name="context">Event arguments specifying which method /// is being called and with which parameters.</param> public override void OnException( MethodExecutionEventArgs context ) { string message = String.Format("{0}Exception {1} {{{2}}} in {{{3}}}. \r\n\r\nStack Trace {4}", this.prefix, context.Exception.GetType().Name, context.Exception.Message, this.formatStrings.Format(context.Instance, context.Method, context.GetReadOnlyArgumentArray()), context.Exception.StackTrace); if(!string.IsNullOrEmpty(fileName)) { ApplicationLogger.LogException(message, fileName); } else { ApplicationLogger.LogException(message, Source.UtilityService); } } } } To use the above below is the unit test [TestMethod] [ExpectedException(typeof(NotImplementedException))] public void TestMethod1() { MethodThrowingExceptionForLog(); try { MethodThrowingExceptionForLogWithPostSharp(); } catch (NotImplementedException ex) { throw ex; } }   private void MethodThrowingExceptionForLog() { try { throw new NotImplementedException(); } catch (NotImplementedException ex) { // create file and then write log ApplicationLogger.TraceMessage("this is a trace message which will be logged in Test1MyFile", @"D:\EL\Test1Myfile.txt"); ApplicationLogger.TraceMessage("this is a trace message which will be logged in YetAnotherTest1Myfile", @"D:\EL\YetAnotherTest1Myfile.txt"); } }   // Automatically log details using attributes // Log exception using attributes .... A La WCF [FaultContract(typeof(FaultMessage))] style] [Log(@"D:\EL\Test1MyfileLogPostsharp.txt")] [LogException(typeof(NotImplementedException), @"D:\EL\Test1MyfileExceptionPostsharp.txt")] private void MethodThrowingExceptionForLogWithPostSharp() { throw new NotImplementedException(); } The good thing about the approach is that all the logging and EH is done at centralized location controlled by PostSharp. Of Course, if some other library has to be used instead of EL, it can easily be plugged in. Also, the coder ARE ONLY involved in writing business code in methods, which makes code cleaner. Here is the full source code. The third party assemblies provided are from EL and PostSharp and i presume you will find these useful. Do let me know your thoughts / ideas on the same. Technorati Tags: PostSharp,Enterprize library,C#,Logging,Exception handling

    Read the article

  • Creating a Dynamic DataRow for easier DataRow Syntax

    - by Rick Strahl
    I've been thrown back into an older project that uses DataSets and DataRows as their entity storage model. I have several applications internally that I still maintain that run just fine (and I sometimes wonder if this wasn't easier than all this ORM crap we deal with with 'newer' improved technology today - but I disgress) but use this older code. For the most part DataSets/DataTables/DataRows are abstracted away in a pseudo entity model, but in some situations like queries DataTables and DataRows are still surfaced to the business layer. Here's an example. Here's a business object method that runs dynamic query and the code ends up looping over the result set using the ugly DataRow Array syntax:public int UpdateAllSafeTitles() { int result = this.Execute("select pk, title, safetitle from " + Tablename + " where EntryType=1", "TPks"); if (result < 0) return result; result = 0; foreach (DataRow row in this.DataSet.Tables["TPks"].Rows) { string title = row["title"] as string; string safeTitle = row["safeTitle"] as string; int pk = (int)row["pk"]; string newSafeTitle = this.GetSafeTitle(title); if (newSafeTitle != safeTitle) { this.ExecuteNonQuery("update " + this.Tablename + " set safeTitle=@safeTitle where pk=@pk", this.CreateParameter("@safeTitle",newSafeTitle), this.CreateParameter("@pk",pk) ); result++; } } return result; } The problem with looping over DataRow objecs is two fold: The array syntax is tedious to type and not real clear to look at, and explicit casting is required in order to do anything useful with the values. I've highlighted the place where this matters. Using the DynamicDataRow class I'll show in a minute this code can be changed to look like this:public int UpdateAllSafeTitles() { int result = this.Execute("select pk, title, safetitle from " + Tablename + " where EntryType=1", "TPks"); if (result < 0) return result; result = 0; foreach (DataRow row in this.DataSet.Tables["TPks"].Rows) { dynamic entry = new DynamicDataRow(row); string newSafeTitle = this.GetSafeTitle(entry.title); if (newSafeTitle != entry.safeTitle) { this.ExecuteNonQuery("update " + this.Tablename + " set safeTitle=@safeTitle where pk=@pk", this.CreateParameter("@safeTitle",newSafeTitle), this.CreateParameter("@pk",entry.pk) ); result++; } } return result; } The code looks much a bit more natural and describes what's happening a little nicer as well. Well, using the new dynamic features in .NET it's actually quite easy to implement the DynamicDataRow class. Creating your own custom Dynamic Objects .NET 4.0 introduced the Dynamic Language Runtime (DLR) and opened up a whole bunch of new capabilities for .NET applications. The dynamic type is an easy way to avoid Reflection and directly access members of 'dynamic' or 'late bound' objects at runtime. There's a lot of very subtle but extremely useful stuff that dynamic does (especially for COM Interop scenearios) but in its simplest form it often allows you to do away with manual Reflection at runtime. In addition you can create DynamicObject implementations that can perform  custom interception of member accesses and so allow you to provide more natural access to more complex or awkward data structures like the DataRow that I use as an example here. Bascially you can subclass DynamicObject and then implement a few methods (TryGetMember, TrySetMember, TryInvokeMember) to provide the ability to return dynamic results from just about any data structure using simple property/method access. In the code above, I created a custom DynamicDataRow class which inherits from DynamicObject and implements only TryGetMember and TrySetMember. Here's what simple class looks like:/// <summary> /// This class provides an easy way to turn a DataRow /// into a Dynamic object that supports direct property /// access to the DataRow fields. /// /// The class also automatically fixes up DbNull values /// (null into .NET and DbNUll to DataRow) /// </summary> public class DynamicDataRow : DynamicObject { /// <summary> /// Instance of object passed in /// </summary> DataRow DataRow; /// <summary> /// Pass in a DataRow to work off /// </summary> /// <param name="instance"></param> public DynamicDataRow(DataRow dataRow) { DataRow = dataRow; } /// <summary> /// Returns a value from a DataRow items array. /// If the field doesn't exist null is returned. /// DbNull values are turned into .NET nulls. /// /// </summary> /// <param name="binder"></param> /// <param name="result"></param> /// <returns></returns> public override bool TryGetMember(GetMemberBinder binder, out object result) { result = null; try { result = DataRow[binder.Name]; if (result == DBNull.Value) result = null; return true; } catch { } result = null; return false; } /// <summary> /// Property setter implementation tries to retrieve value from instance /// first then into this object /// </summary> /// <param name="binder"></param> /// <param name="value"></param> /// <returns></returns> public override bool TrySetMember(SetMemberBinder binder, object value) { try { if (value == null) value = DBNull.Value; DataRow[binder.Name] = value; return true; } catch {} return false; } } To demonstrate the basic features here's a short test: [TestMethod] [ExpectedException(typeof(RuntimeBinderException))] public void BasicDataRowTests() { DataTable table = new DataTable("table"); table.Columns.Add( new DataColumn() { ColumnName = "Name", DataType=typeof(string) }); table.Columns.Add( new DataColumn() { ColumnName = "Entered", DataType=typeof(DateTime) }); table.Columns.Add(new DataColumn() { ColumnName = "NullValue", DataType = typeof(string) }); DataRow row = table.NewRow(); DateTime now = DateTime.Now; row["Name"] = "Rick"; row["Entered"] = now; row["NullValue"] = null; // converted in DbNull dynamic drow = new DynamicDataRow(row); string name = drow.Name; DateTime entered = drow.Entered; string nulled = drow.NullValue; Assert.AreEqual(name, "Rick"); Assert.AreEqual(entered,now); Assert.IsNull(nulled); // this should throw a RuntimeBinderException Assert.AreEqual(entered,drow.enteredd); } The DynamicDataRow requires a custom constructor that accepts a single parameter that sets the DataRow. Once that's done you can access property values that match the field names. Note that types are automatically converted - no type casting is needed in the code you write. The class also automatically converts DbNulls to regular nulls and vice versa which is something that makes it much easier to deal with data returned from a database. What's cool here isn't so much the functionality - even if I'd prefer to leave DataRow behind ASAP -  but the fact that we can create a dynamic type that uses a DataRow as it's 'DataSource' to serve member values. It's pretty useful feature if you think about it, especially given how little code it takes to implement. By implementing these two simple methods we get to provide two features I was complaining about at the beginning that are missing from the DataRow: Direct Property Syntax Automatic Type Casting so no explicit casts are required Caveats As cool and easy as this functionality is, it's important to understand that it doesn't come for free. The dynamic features in .NET are - well - dynamic. Which means they are essentially evaluated at runtime (late bound). Rather than static typing where everything is compiled and linked by the compiler/linker, member invokations are looked up at runtime and essentially call into your custom code. There's some overhead in this. Direct invocations - the original code I showed - is going to be faster than the equivalent dynamic code. However, in the above code the difference of running the dynamic code and the original data access code was very minor. The loop running over 1500 result records took on average 13ms with the original code and 14ms with the dynamic code. Not exactly a serious performance bottleneck. One thing to remember is that Microsoft optimized the DLR code significantly so that repeated calls to the same operations are routed very efficiently which actually makes for very fast evaluation. The bottom line for performance with dynamic code is: Make sure you test and profile your code if you think that there might be a performance issue. However, in my experience with dynamic types so far performance is pretty good for repeated operations (ie. in loops). While usually a little slower the perf hit is a lot less typically than equivalent Reflection work. Although the code in the second example looks like standard object syntax, dynamic is not static code. It's evaluated at runtime and so there's no type recognition until runtime. This means no Intellisense at development time, and any invalid references that call into 'properties' (ie. fields in the DataRow) that don't exist still cause runtime errors. So in the case of the data row you still get a runtime error if you mistype a column name:// this should throw a RuntimeBinderException Assert.AreEqual(entered,drow.enteredd); Dynamic - Lots of uses The arrival of Dynamic types in .NET has been met with mixed emotions. Die hard .NET developers decry dynamic types as an abomination to the language. After all what dynamic accomplishes goes against all that a static language is supposed to provide. On the other hand there are clearly scenarios when dynamic can make life much easier (COM Interop being one place). Think of the possibilities. What other data structures would you like to expose to a simple property interface rather than some sort of collection or dictionary? And beyond what I showed here you can also implement 'Method missing' behavior on objects with InvokeMember which essentially allows you to create dynamic methods. It's all very flexible and maybe just as important: It's easy to do. There's a lot of power hidden in this seemingly simple interface. Your move…© Rick Strahl, West Wind Technologies, 2005-2011Posted in CSharp  .NET   Tweet (function() { var po = document.createElement('script'); po.type = 'text/javascript'; po.async = true; po.src = 'https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(po, s); })();

    Read the article

1