Search Results

Search found 5 results on 1 pages for 'fakeiteasy'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

  • generated service mock: everything but RhinoMocks fails?

    - by hko
    I have the "quest" to search for the next Mocking Framework for my company, and basically it's down to NSubstitute (simplest syntax, but no strict mocks), FakeItEasy(best reviews, Roy Osherove bonus, and slightly better lib support than NSubstitute), Moq (best "other libs support", biggest featureset, downside: mock.Object). We definitely want to move on from RhinoMocks, e.g. because of the unusefull interactiontest error messages (it should tell me what the parameter was instead, when a verification fails). So I was pretty surprised the other day (that was yesterday) when I found out RhinoMocks could do a thing where every other mock framework fails at: Mocking an autogenerated SomethingService (a typical VS autogenerated service with a default construtor in a partial class). Please don't argue about the design.. I intend to write lightweight integration tests (and some unit tests), and I can't mess around with the service, the product is installed on too many customers system. See this code: // here the NSubstitute and FakeItEasy equivalents throw an exception.. see below TicketStoreService fakeTicketStoreService = MockRepository.GenerateMock<TicketStoreService>(); fakeTicketStoreService.Expect(service => service.DoSomething(Arg.Is(new Guid())).Return(new Guid()); fakeTicketStoreService.DoSomething(Arg.Is(new Guid())); fakeTicketStoreService.VerifyAllExpectations(); Note that DoSomething is a non-virtual methodcall in an autogenerated class. So it shouldn't work, according to common knowledge. But it does. Problem is that it's the only (non commercial) framework that can do this: Rhino.Mocks works, and verification works too FakeItEasy says it doesn't find a default constructor (probably just wrong exception message): No default constructor was found on the type SomeNamespace.TicketStoreService Moq gives something sane and understandable: Invalid setup on a non-virtual (overridable in VB) member: service=> service.DoSomething Nsubstitute gives a message System.NotSupportedException: Cannot serialize member System.ComponentModel.Component.Site of type System.ComponentModel.ISite because it is an interface. I'm really wondering what's going on here with the frameworks, except Moq. The "fancy new" frameworks seem to have an initial perf hit too, probably preparing some Type cache and serializing stuff, whilst RhinoMocks somehow manages to create a very "slim" mock without recursion. I have to admit I didn't like RhinoMocks very well, but here it shines.. unfortunately. So, is there a way to get that to work with newer (non-commercial!) mocking frameworks, or somehow get a sane error message out of Rhino.Mocks? And why can Rhino.Mocks achieve this, when clearly every Mocking framework states it can only work with virtual methods when given a concrete class? Let's not derail the discussion by talking about alternative approaches like Extract&Override or runtime-proxy Mocking frameworks like JustMock/TypeMock/Moles or the new Fakes framework, I know these, but that would be less ideal solutions, for reasons beyond this topic. Any help appreciated..

    Read the article

  • Free Pluralsight Videos for this week

    - by TATWORTH
    Pluralsight have issued two free videoshttp://blog.pluralsight.com/2012/09/05/video-end-the-global-pollution-crisis-in-javascript/http://blog.pluralsight.com/2012/08/31/video-fake-it-until-you-make-it-with-fakeiteasy/Their exact words were: Free Videos this Week End the Global Pollution Crisis... In Javascript Too many globally scoped variables and functions can make Javascript code difficult to work with, particularly on large projects. See how to simulate the concept of namespaces using objects. Fake it Until You Make It with FakeItEasy FakeItEasy is a .NET framework for easily creating mock objects in tests. See how easy it is to FakeItEasy with complex nested hierarchies.

    Read the article

  • Using Reflection Invoke static generic method passing a Lamba as parameter

    - by Nikos Baxevanis
    Is it possible to write the following code via Reflection? var fake = A.Fake<Foo>( o => o.WithArgumentsForConstructor(new[] { "Hello" })); Where o is: Action<IFakeOptionsBuilder<T>> Where WithArgumentsForConstructor is: IFakeOptionsBuilder<T> WithArgumentsForConstructor(IEnumerable<object> argumentsForConstructor); The Foo class is: class Foo { public Foo(string s) { } } What I did was: object fake = typeof(A) .GetMethod("Fake", new Type[] { }) .MakeGenericMethod(new[] { this.targetType }) .Invoke(null, /* Here I need to pass the lambda. */);

    Read the article

  • Fake It Easy On Yourself

    - by Lee Brandt
    I have been using Rhino.Mocks pretty much since I started being a mockist-type tester. I have been very happy with it for the most part, but a year or so ago, I got a glimpse of some tests using Moq. I thought the little bit I saw was very compelling. For a long time, I had been using: 1: var _repository = MockRepository.GenerateMock<IRepository>(); 2: _repository.Expect(repo=>repo.SomeCall()).Return(SomeValue); 3: var _controller = new SomeKindaController(_repository); 4:  5: ... some exercising code 6: _repository.AssertWasCalled(repo => repo.SomeCall()); I was happy with that syntax. I didn’t go looking for something else, but what I saw was: 1: var _repository = new Mock(); And I thought, “That looks really nice!” The code was very expressive and easier to read that the Rhino.Mocks syntax. I have gotten so used to the Rhino.Mocks syntax that it made complete sense to me, but to developers I was mentoring in mocking, it was sometimes to obtuse. SO I thought I would write some tests using Moq as my mocking tool. But I discovered something ugly once I got into it. The way Mocks are created makes Moq very easy to read, but that only gives you a Mock not the object itself, which is what you’ll need to pass to the exercising code. So this is what it ends up looking like: 1: var _repository = new Mock<IRepository>(); 2: _repository.SetUp(repo=>repo.SomeCall).Returns(SomeValue); 3: var _controller = new SomeKindaController(_repository.Object); 4: .. some exercizing code 5: _repository.Verify(repo => repo.SomeCall()); Two things jump out at me: 1) when I set up my mocked calls, do I set it on the Mock or the Mock’s “object”? and 2) What am I verifying on SomeCall? Just that it was called? that it is available to call? Dealing with 2 objects, a “Mock” and an “Object” made me have to consider naming conventions. Should I always call the mock _repositoryMock and the object _repository? So I went back to Rhino.Mocks. It is the most widely used framework, and show other how to use it is easier because there is one natural object to use, the _repository. Then I came across a blog post from Patrik Hägne, and that led me to a post about FakeItEasy. I went to the Google Code site and when I saw the syntax, I got very excited. Then I read the wiki page where Patrik stated why he wrote FakeItEasy, and it mirrored my own experience. So I began to play with it a bit. So far, I am sold. the syntax is VERY easy to read and the fluent interface is super discoverable. It basically looks like this: 1: var _repository = A.Fake<IRepository>(); 2: a.CallTo(repo=>repo.SomeMethod()).Returns(SomeValue); 3: var _controller = new SomeKindaController(_repository); 4: ... some exercising code 5: A.CallTo(() => _repository.SOmeMethod()).MustHaveHappened(); Very nice. But is it mature? It’s only been around a couple of years, so will I be giving up some thing that I use a lot because it hasn’t been implemented yet? I doesn’t seem so. As I read more examples and posts from Patrik, he has some pretty complex scenarios. He even has support for VB.NET! So if you are looking for a mocking framework that looks and feels very natural, try out FakeItEasy!

    Read the article

  • Adding changes from one Mercurial repository to another

    - by Patrik Hägne
    When changing the VCS for my project FakeItEasy from SVN to Mercurial on Google Code I was a bit too eager (I'm funny like that). What I did was just checking the latest version out of SVN and then commiting that checkout as the first revision of the new Mercurial repo. This obviously has the effect that all history is lost. Later when getting a bit better acustomed to Mercurial I realized that there is such a thing as a "convert extension" that allows you to convert a SVN repo into a Mercurial repo. Now what I want to do is to convert the old SVN repo and then have all change sets from the currently existing Mercurial repo imported into this converted repo except the very first commit to Mercurial. I've converted the SVN repo to a local Mercurial repo but now is when I'm stuck. I thought I'd be able to use the convert extension to bring the current Mercurial repository into the converted one and having a splice map remove the first commit but I can not seem to get this to work. I've also tried to just use convert without splice map to get all change sets from the current Mercurial repo into the converted one and the rebase the second version in the current to the last commit from the old SVN repository but I can't get that to work either. To make this clearer lets say I have these two repositories: A: revA1-revA2 B: revB1-revB2-revB3 (Where revB1 is actually a copy of revA2) Now I want to combine these two into the new repository containing this: C: revA1-revA2-revB2-revB3

    Read the article

1