Search Results

Search found 381 results on 16 pages for 'mocking'.

Page 14/16 | < Previous Page | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >

• Null Safe dereferencing in Java like ?. in Groovy using Maybe monad

  - by Sathish

  I'm working on a codebase ported from Objective C to Java. There are several usages of method chaining without nullchecks dog.collar().tag().name() I was looking for something similar to safe-dereferencing operator ?. in Groovy instead of having nullchecks dog.collar?.tag?.name This led to Maybe monad to have the notion of Nothing instead of Null. But all the implementations of Nothing i came across throw exception when value is accessed which still doesn't solve the chaining problem. I made Nothing return a mock, which behaves like NullObject pattern. But it solves the chaining problem. Is there anything wrong with this implementation of Nothing? [http://github.com/sathish316/jsafederef/blob/master/src/s2k/util/safederef/Nothing.java] As far as i can see 1. It feels odd to use mocking library in code 2. It doesn't stop at the first null. 3. How do i distinguish between null result because of null reference or name actually being null? How is it distinguished in Groovy code?

  Read the article

• What's the best practice to setup testing for ASP.Net MVC? What to use/process/etc?

  - by melaos

  hi there, i'm trying to learn how to properly setup testing for an ASP.Net MVC. and from what i've been reading here and there thus far, the definition of legacy code kind of piques my interests, where it mentions that legacy codes are any codes without unit tests. so i did my project in a hurry not having the time to properly setup unit tests for the app and i'm still learning how to properly do TDD and unit testing at the same time. then i came upon selenium IDE/RC and was using it to test on the browser end. it was during that time too that i came upon the concept of integration testing, so from my understanding it seems that unit testing should be done to define the test and basic assumptions of each function, and if the function is dependent on something else, that something else needs to be mocked so that the tests is always singular and can be run fast. Questions: so am i right to say that the project should have started with unit test with proper mocks using something like rhino mocks. then anything else which requires 3rd party dll, database data access etc to be done via integration testing using selenium? because i have a function which calls a third party dll, i'm not sure whether to write a unit test in nunit to just instantiate the object and pass it some dummy data which breaks the mocking part to test it or just cover that part in my selenium integration testing when i submit my forms and call the dll. and for user acceptance tests, is it safe to say we can just use selenium again? Am i missing something or is there a better way/framework? i'm trying to put in more tests for regression testing, and to ensure that nothing breaks when we put in new features. i also like the idea of TDD because it helps to better define the function, sort of like a meta documentation. thanks!! hope this question isn't too subjective because i need it for my case.

  Read the article

• How does MVC ViewData work?

  - by Matt

  I am toying around with an MVC application just to learn the technology. I am mocking up a check register application that keeps track of a checking account, what has cleared the bank and what has not. I am using EF for my model and everything seems to be working correctly insofar as Edit, Create, etc. However, I have a couple of totals at the top. One to show the bank's balance and another to show the actual balance. It works most of the time but when I do Edit's it does not always accurately reflect the new total and I need it to update everytime a change is made (i.e when something clears the bank): [Authorize(Roles = "admin, checkUser")] public ActionResult Index() { var resultSet = from myChecking in chk.tblCheckings orderby myChecking.id descending select myChecking; ViewData.Model = resultSet.Take(45).ToList(); //for balances var actualBalance = from theChecking in chk.tblCheckings select theChecking.deposit - theChecking.withdrawal; var bankBalance = from theChecking in chk.tblCheckings where theChecking.cleared == true select theChecking.deposit - theChecking.withdrawal; //get bank balance ViewData["bankBalance"] = bankBalance.Sum(); //get actual balance ViewData["actualBalance"] = actualBalance.Sum(); return View(); } I am showing the actual and other balance in the Index view as follows: <td colspan="9" style="text-align: center; font-size: 11pt; color: white;"> <%= string.Format("Bank Balance: {0:c}", ViewData["bankBalance"]) %> ------ <%= string.Format("Actual Balance: {0:c}", ViewData["actualBalance"]) %> </td>

  Read the article

• Ninject: Shared DI/IoC container

  - by joblot

  Hi I want to share the container across various layers in my application. I started creating a static class which initialises the container and register types in the container. public class GeneralDIModule : NinjectModule { public override void Load() { Bind().To().InSingletonScope(); } } public abstract class IoC { private static IKernel _container; public static void Initialize() { _container = new StandardKernel(new GeneralDIModule(), new ViewModelDIModule()); } public static T Get<T>() { return _container.Get<T>(); } } I noticed there is a Resolve method as well. What is the difference between Resolve and Get? In my unit tests I don’t always want every registered type in my container. Is there a way of initializing an empty container and then register types I need. I’ll be mocking types as well in unit test so I’ll have to register them as well. There is an Inject method, but it says lifecycle of instance is not managed? Could someone please set me in right way? How can I register, unregister objects and reset the container. Thanks

  Read the article

• Moq.Mock<T> - how to setup a method that takes an expression

  - by Paul

  I am Mocking my repository interface and am not sure how to setup a method that takes an expression and returns an object? I am using Moq and NUnit Interface: public interface IReadOnlyRepository : IDisposable { IQueryable<T> All<T>() where T : class; T Single<T>(Expression<Func<T, bool>> expression) where T : class; } Test with IQueryable already setup, but don't know how to setup the T Single: private Moq.Mock<IReadOnlyRepository> _mockRepos; private AdminController _controller; [SetUp] public void SetUp() { var allPages = new List<Page>(); for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++) { allPages.Add(new Page { Id = i, Title = "Page Title " + i, Slug = "Page-Title-" + i, Content = "Page " + i + " on page content." }); } _mockRepos = new Moq.Mock<IReadOnlyRepository>(); _mockRepos.Setup(x => x.All<Page>()).Returns(allPages.AsQueryable()); //Not sure what to do here??? _mockRepos.Setup(x => x.Single<Page>() //---- _controller = new AdminController(_mockRepos.Object); }

  Read the article

• RhinoMocks: how to test if method was called when using PartialMock

  - by epitka

  I have a clas that is something like this public class MyClass { public virtual string MethodA(Command cmd) { //some code here} public void MethodB(SomeType obj) { // do some work MethodA(command); } } I mocked MyClass as PartialMock (mocks.PartialMock<MyClass>) and I setup expectation for MethodA var cmd = new Command(); //set the cmd to expected state Expect.Call(MyClass.MethodA(cmd)).Repeat.Once(); Problem is that MethodB calls actual implementation of MethodA instead of mocking it up. I must be doing something wrong (not very experienced with RhinoMocks). How do I force it to mock MetdhodA? Here is the actual code: var cmd = new SetBaseProductCoInsuranceCommand(); cmd.BaseProduct = planBaseProduct; var insuredType = mocks.DynamicMock<InsuredType>(); Expect.Call(insuredType.Code).Return(InsuredTypeCode.AllInsureds); cmd.Values.Add(new SetBaseProductCoInsuranceCommand.CoInsuranceValues() { CoInsurancePercent = 0, InsuredType = insuredType, PolicySupplierType = ppProvider }); Expect.Call(() => service.SetCoInsurancePercentages(cmd)).Repeat.Once(); mocks.ReplayAll(); //act service.DefaultCoInsurancesFor(planBaseProduct); //assert service.AssertWasCalled(x => x.SetCoInsurancePercentages(cmd),x=>x.Repeat.Once());

  Read the article

• Unit testing code which uses Umbraco v4 API

  - by Jason Evans

  I'm trying to write a suite of integration tests, where I have custom code which uses the Umbraco API. The Umbraco database lives in a SQL Server CE 4.0 database (*.sdf file) and I've managed to get that association working fine. My problem looks to be dependancies in the Umbraco code. For example, I would like to create a new user for my tests, so I try: var user = User.MakeNew("developer", "developer", "mypassword", "[email protected]", adminUserType); Now as you can see, I have pass a user type which is an object. I've tried two separate ways to create the user type, both of which fail due to a null object exception: var adminUserType = UserType.GetUserType(1); var adminUserType2 = new UserType(1); The problem is that in each case the UserType code calls it's Cache method which uses the HttpRuntime class, which naturally is null. My question is this: Can someone suggest a way of writing integration tests against Umbraco code? Will I have to end up using a mocking framework such as TypeMock or JustMock?

  Read the article

• How can I unit test a PHP class method that executes a command-line program?

  - by acoulton

  For a PHP application I'm developing, I need to read the current git revision SHA which of course I can get easily by using shell_exec or backticks to execute the git command line client. I have obviously put this call into a method of its very own, so that I can easily isolate and mock this for the rest of my unit tests. So my class looks a bit like this: class Task_Bundle { public function execute() { // Do things $revision = $this->git_sha(); // Do more things } protected function git_sha() { return `git rev-parse --short HEAD`; } } Of course, although I can test most of the class by mocking git_sha, I'm struggling to see how to test the actual git_sha() method because I don't see a way to create a known state for it. I don't think there's any real value in a unit test that also calls git rev-parse to compare the results? I was wondering about at least asserting that the command had been run, but I can't see any way to get a history of shell commands executed by PHP - even if I specify that PHP should use BASH rather than SH the history list comes up empty, I presume because the separate backticks executions are separate terminal sessions. I'd love to hear any suggestions for how I might test this, or is it OK to just leave that method untested and be careful with it when the app is being maintained in future?

  Read the article

• Python refuses text.replace() in one environment

  - by gx

  Hi fellow programmers, I've been mocking about with the following bit of dirty support-code for a pylons app, which works fine in a python-shell, a separate python file, or when running in paster. Now, we've put the application on-line through mod_wsgi and apache and this specific piece of code stopped working completely. First off, the code itself: def fixStyle(self, text): t = text.replace('<p>', '<p style="%s">' % (STYLEDEF,)) t = t.replace('class="wide"', 'style="width: 125px; %s"' % (DEFSTYLE,)) t = t.replace('<td>', '<td style="%s">' % (STYLEDEF,)) t = t.replace('<a ', '<a style="%s" ' % (LINKSTYLE,)) return t It seems pretty straightforward, and to be honest, it is. So what happens when I put a piece of text in it, for example: <table><tr><td>Test!</td></tr></table> The output should be: <table><tr><td style="stuff-from-styledef">Test!</td></tr></table> and it is, on most systems. When we put it through the app on Apache/mod_wsgi though, the following happens: <table><tr><td>Test!</td></tr></table> You guessed it. I'm currently at a loss and have no idea where to go next. Googling doesn't really work out, so I'm hoping on you guys to help out and perhaps point out a fundamental issue with using whatever-is-causing-this. If anything is missing I'll edit it in.

  Read the article

• Drools - Doing Complex Stuff inside a Rule Condition or Consequence

  - by mfcabrera

  Hello, In my company we are planning to use Drools a BRE for couple of projects. Now we trying to define some best-practices. My question is what should be and shouldn't be done inside a Rule Condition/Consequence. Given that we can write Java directly or call methods (for example From a Global object in the Working Memory). Example. Given a Rule that evaluates a generic Object (e.g. Person) have property set to true. Now, that specific propertie can only be defined for that Object going to the database and fetching that info. So we have two ways of implementing that: Alternative A: Go to the database and fetch the object property (true/false, a code) Insert the Object in the working memory Evaluate the rule Alternative B: Insert a Global Object that has a method that connects to the database and check for the property for the given object. Insert the Object to eval in Working Memory In the rule, call the Global Object and perform the access to the database Which of those is considered better? I really like A, but sometimes B is more straightforward, however what would happen if something like a Exception from the Database is raised? I have seen the alternative B implemented in the Drools 5.0 Book from Packt Publishing,however they are doing a mocking and they don't talk about the actual implications of going to the database at all. Thank you,

  Read the article

• Can anyone help why my mockery doesn't work?

  - by user509550

  The test call real method(service) without mocking some expecations @Test public void testPropertyList() { Credentials creds = new Credentials(); creds.setUsername("someEmail"); creds.setPassword("somePassword"); creds.setReferrer("someReferrer"); final Collection<PropertyInfo> propertyInfoCollection = new LinkedList<PropertyInfo>(); final List<ListingInfo> listings = new ArrayList<ListingInfo>(); listings.add(listingInfoMock); listings.add(listingInfoMock); propertyInfoCollection.add(new PropertyInfo("c521bf5796274bd587c00bec80583c00", listings)); MultivaluedMap<String, String> params = new MultivaluedMapImpl(); params.add("page", "5"); params.add("size", "5"); instance.setPropertyListFacade(propertyListFacadeMock); mockery.checking(new Expectations() { { one(propertyListFacadeMock).getUserProperties(); will(returnValue(propertyInfoCollection)); one(listingInfoMock).getPropertyName(); allowing(listingInfoMock).getThumbnailURL(); one(listingInfoMock).getListingSystemId(); one(listingInfoMock).getPropertyURL(); one(listingInfoMock).getListingSystemId(); one(listingInfoMock).getPropertyURL(); } }); instance.setSessionManager(dashboardSessionManagerMock); testSuccessfulAuthenticate(); ClientResponse response = resource.path(PROPERTIES_PATH).queryParams(params).accept(MediaType.APPLICATION_XML) .get(ClientResponse.class); assertEquals(200, response.getStatus()); mockery.assertIsSatisfied(); }

  Read the article

• .net mvc2 custom HtmlHelper extension unit testing

  - by alex

  My goal is to be able to unit test some custom HtmlHelper extensions - which use RenderPartial internally. http://ox.no/posts/mocking-htmlhelper-in-asp-net-mvc-2-and-3-using-moq I've tried using the method above to mock the HtmlHelper. However, I'm running into Null value exceptions. "Parameter name: view" Anyone have any idea?? Thanks. Below are the ideas of the code: [TestMethod] public void TestMethod1() { var helper = CreateHtmlHelper(new ViewDataDictionary()); helper.RenderPartial("Test"); // supposingly this line is within a method to be tested Assert.AreEqual("test", helper.ViewContext.Writer.ToString()); } public static HtmlHelper CreateHtmlHelper(ViewDataDictionary vd) { Mock<ViewContext> mockViewContext = new Mock<ViewContext>( new ControllerContext( new Mock<HttpContextBase>().Object, new RouteData(), new Mock<ControllerBase>().Object), new Mock<IView>().Object, vd, new TempDataDictionary(), new StringWriter()); var mockViewDataContainer = new Mock<IViewDataContainer>(); mockViewDataContainer.Setup(v => v.ViewData) .Returns(vd); return new HtmlHelper(mockViewContext.Object, mockViewDataContainer.Object); }

  Read the article

• How do you unit test new code that uses a bunch of classes that cannot be instantiated in a test har

  - by trendl

  I'm writing a messaging layer that should handle communication with a third party API. The API has a bunch of classes that cannot be easily (if at all) instantiated in a test harness. I decided to wrap each class that I need in my unit tests with an adapter/wrapper and expose the members I need through this adapter class. Often I need to expose the wrapped type as well which I do by exposing it as an object. I have also provided an interface for for each or the adapter classes to be able to use them with a mocking framework. This way I can substitute the classes in test for whatever I need. The downside is that I have a bunch of adapter classes that so far server no other reason but testing. For me this is a good reason by itself but others may find this not enough. Possibly, when I write an implementation for another third party vendor's API, I may be able to reuse much of my code and only provide the adapters specific to the vendor's API. However, this is a bit of a long shot and I'm not actually sure it will work. What do you think? Is this approach viable or am I writing unnecessary code that serves no real purpose? Let me say that I do want to write unit tests for my messaging layer and I do now know how to do it otherwise.

  Read the article

• ASP.Net MVC TDD using Moq

  - by Nicholas Murray

  I am trying to learn TDD/BDD using NUnit and Moq. The design that I have been following passes a DataService class to my controller to provide access to repositories. I would like to Mock the DataService class to allow testing of the controllers. There are lots of examples of mocking a repository passed to the controller but I can't work out how to mock a DataService class in this scenerio. Could someone please explain how to implement this? Here's a sample of the relevant code: [Test] public void Can_View_A_Single_Page_Of_Lists() { var dataService = new Mock<DataService>(); var controller = new ListsController(dataService); ... } namespace Services { public class DataService { private readonly IKeyedRepository<int, FavList> FavListRepository; private readonly IUnitOfWork unitOfWork; public FavListService FavLists { get; private set; } public DataService(IKeyedRepository<int, FavList> FavListRepository, IUnitOfWork unitOfWork) { this.FavListRepository = FavListRepository; this.unitOfWork = unitOfWork; FavLists = new FavListService(FavListRepository); } public void Commit() { unitOfWork.Commit(); } } } namespace MyListsWebsite.Controllers { public class ListsController : Controller { private readonly DataService dataService; public ListsController(DataService dataService) { this.dataService = dataService; } public ActionResult Index() { var myLists = dataService.FavLists.All().ToList(); return View(myLists); } } }

  Read the article

• TDD approach for complex function

  - by jamie

  I have a method in a class for which they are a few different outcomes (based upon event responses etc). But this is a single atomic function which is to used by other applications. I have broken down the main blocks of the functionality that comprise this function into different functions and successfully taken a Test Driven Development approach to the functionality of each of these elements. These elements however aren't exposed for other applications would use. And so my question is how can/should i easily approach a TDD style solution to verifying that the single method that should be called does function correctly without a lot of duplication in testing or lots of setup required for each test? I have considered / looked at moving the blocks of functionality into a different class and use Mocking to simulate the responses of the functions used but it doesn't feel right and the individual methods need to write to variables within the main class (it felt really heath robinson). The code roughly looks like this (i have removed a lot of parameters to make things clearer along with a fair bit of irrelevant code). public void MethodToTest(string parameter) { IResponse x = null; if (function1(parameter)) { if (!function2(parameter,out x)) { function3(parameter, out x); } } // ... // more bits of code here // ... if (x != null) { x.Success(); } }

  Read the article

• Please help! Delegate returns null via Dipendency Injection.

  - by Raj Aththanayake

  Can someone please help? I use Google code’s Moq framework for mocking within my Unit Tests and Unity for Dependency Injection. In my Test class private Mock<ICustomerSearchService> CustomerSearchServiceMock = null; private CustomerService customerService = null; private void SetupMainData() { CustomerSearchServiceMock = new Mock<ICustomerSearchService>(); customerService = new CustomerService (); // CustomerSearchService is a property in CustomerService and dependency is configuered via Unity customerService.CustomerSearchService = CustomerSearchServiceMock.Object; Customer c = new Customer () { ID = "AT" }; CustomerSearchServiceMock.Setup(s => s.GetCustomer(EqualsCondition)).Returns(c); } [TestMethod] public void GetCustomerData_Test_Method() { SetupMainData() var customer = customerService.GetCustomerData("AT"); } public static bool EqualsCondition(Customer customer) { return customer.ID.Equals("AT"); } In my Test class CustomerService class public class CustomerService : ICustomerService { [Dependency] public ICustomerSearchService CustomerSearchService { get; set; } public IEnumerable<SomeObject> GetCustomerData(string custID) { I GET Null for customer ?????} var customer = CustomerSearchService.GetCustomer (c => c.ID.Equals(custID)); //Do more things } } When I debug the code I can see CustomerSearchService has a proxy object, but the customer returns as null. Any ideas? Or is there something missing here? Note: ICustomerSearchService I have implemented below method. Customer GetCustomer(Func<Customer, bool> predicate);

  Read the article

• Is it an good idea to make a wrapper specifically for a DateTime that respresents Now?

  - by Dirk Boer

  I have been noticing lately that is really nice to use a DateTime representing 'now' as an input parameter for your methods, for mocking and testing purposes. Instead of every method calling DateTime.UtcNow themselves, I do it once in the upper methods and forward it on the lower ones. So a lot of methods that need a 'now', have an input parameter DateTime now. (I'm using MVC, and try to detect a parameter called now and modelbind DateTime.UtcNow to it) So instead of: public bool IsStarted { get { return StartTime >= DateTime.UtcNow; } } I usually have: public bool IsStarted(DateTime now) { return StartTime >= now; } So my convention is at the moment, if a method has a DateTime parameter called now, you have to feed it with the current time. Of course this comes down to convention, and someone else can easily just throw some other DateTime in there as a parameter. To make it more solid and static-typed I am thinking about wrapping DateTime in a new object, i.e. DateTimeNow. So in one of the most upper layers I will convert the DateTime to a DateTimeNow and we will get compile errors when, someone tries to fiddle in a normal DateTime. Of course you can still workaround this, but at least if feels more that you are doing something wrong at point. Did anyone else ever went into this path? Are there any good or bad results on the long term that I am not thinking about?

  Read the article

• Playing with aspx page cycle using JustMock

  - by mehfuzh

  In this post , I will cover a test code that will mock the various elements needed to complete a HTTP page request and  assert the expected page cycle steps. To begin, i have a simple enumeration that has my predefined page steps: public enum PageStep {     PreInit,     Load,     PreRender,     UnLoad } Once doing so, i  first created the page object [not mocking]. Page page = new Page(); Here, our target is to fire up the page process through ProcessRequest call, now if we take a look inside the method with reflector.net,  the call trace will go like : ProcessRequest –> ProcessRequestWithNoAssert –> SetInstrinsics –> Finallly ProcessRequest. Inside SetInstrinsics ,  it requires calls from HttpRequest, HttpResponse and HttpBrowserCababilities. Using this clue at hand, we can easily know the classes / calls  we need to mock in order to get through the expected call. Accordingly, for  HttpBrowserCapabilities our required mock code will look like: var browser = Mock.Create<HttpBrowserCapabilities>(); // Arrange Mock.Arrange(() => browser.PreferredRenderingMime).Returns("text/html"); Mock.Arrange(() => browser.PreferredResponseEncoding).Returns("UTF-8"); Mock.Arrange(() => browser.PreferredRequestEncoding).Returns("UTF-8"); Now, HttpBrowserCapabilities is get though [Instance]HttpRequest.Browser. Therefore, we create the HttpRequest mock: var request = Mock.Create<HttpRequest>(); Then , add the required get call : Mock.Arrange(() => request.Browser).Returns(browser); As, [instance]Browser.PerferrredResponseEncoding and [instance]Browser.PreferredResponseEncoding  are also set to the request object and to make that they are set properly, we can add the following lines as well [not required though]. bool requestContentEncodingSet = false; Mock.ArrangeSet(() => request.ContentEncoding = Encoding.GetEncoding("UTF-8")).DoInstead(() =>  requestContentEncodingSet = true); Similarly, for response we can write:  var response = Mock.Create<HttpResponse>();    bool responseContentEncodingSet = false;  Mock.ArrangeSet(() => response.ContentEncoding = Encoding.GetEncoding("UTF-8")).DoInstead(() => responseContentEncodingSet = true); Finally , I created a mock of HttpContext and set the Request and Response properties that will returns the mocked version. var context = Mock.Create<HttpContext>();   Mock.Arrange(() => context.Request).Returns(request); Mock.Arrange(() => context.Response).Returns(response); As, Page internally calls RenderControl method , we just need to replace that with our one and optionally we can check if  invoked properly: bool rendered = false; Mock.Arrange(() => page.RenderControl(Arg.Any<HtmlTextWriter>())).DoInstead(() => rendered = true); That’s  it, the rest of the code is simple,  where  i asserted the page cycle with the PageSteps that i defined earlier: var pageSteps = new Queue<PageStep>();   page.PreInit +=delegate { pageSteps.Enqueue(PageStep.PreInit); }; page.Load += delegate { pageSteps.Enqueue(PageStep.Load); }; page.PreRender += delegate { pageSteps.Enqueue(PageStep.PreRender);}; page.Unload +=delegate { pageSteps.Enqueue(PageStep.UnLoad);};   page.ProcessRequest(context);   Assert.True(requestContentEncodingSet); Assert.True(responseContentEncodingSet); Assert.True(rendered);   Assert.Equal(pageSteps.Dequeue(), PageStep.PreInit); Assert.Equal(pageSteps.Dequeue(), PageStep.Load); Assert.Equal(pageSteps.Dequeue(), PageStep.PreRender); Assert.Equal(pageSteps.Dequeue(), PageStep.UnLoad);   Mock.Assert(request); Mock.Assert(response); You can get the test class shown in this post here to give a try by yourself with of course JustMock :-). Enjoy!!

  Read the article

• Doing unit and integration tests with the Web API HttpClient

  - by cibrax

  One of the nice things about the new HttpClient in System.Net.Http is the support for mocking responses or handling requests in a http server hosted in-memory. While the first option is useful for scenarios in which we want to test our client code in isolation (unit tests for example), the second one enables more complete integration testing scenarios that could include some more components in the stack such as model binders or message handlers for example.   The HttpClient can receive a HttpMessageHandler as argument in one of its constructors. public class HttpClient : HttpMessageInvoker { public HttpClient(); public HttpClient(HttpMessageHandler handler); public HttpClient(HttpMessageHandler handler, bool disposeHandler); .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; } For the first scenario, you can create a new HttpMessageHandler that fakes the response, which you can use in your unit test. The only requirement is that you somehow inject an HttpClient with this custom handler in the client code. public class FakeHttpMessageHandler : HttpMessageHandler { HttpResponseMessage response; public FakeHttpMessageHandler(HttpResponseMessage response) { this.response = response; } protected override Task<HttpResponseMessage> SendAsync(HttpRequestMessage request, System.Threading.CancellationToken cancellationToken) { var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<HttpResponseMessage>(); tcs.SetResult(response); return tcs.Task; } } .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; } In an unit test, you can do something like this. var fakeResponse = new HttpResponse(); var fakeHandler = new FakeHttpMessageHandler(fakeResponse); var httpClient = new HttpClient(fakeHandler); var customerService = new CustomerService(httpClient); // Do something // Asserts .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; } CustomerService in this case is the class under test, and the one that receives an HttpClient initialized with our fake handler. For the second scenario in integration tests, there is a In-Memory host “System.Web.Http.HttpServer” that also derives from HttpMessageHandler and you can use with a HttpClient instance in your test. This has been discussed already in these two great posts from Pedro and Filip. 

  Read the article

• Adventures in Windows 8: Understanding and debugging design time data in Expression Blend

  - by Laurent Bugnion

  One of my favorite features in Expression Blend is the ability to attach a Visual Studio debugger to Blend. First let’s start by answering the question: why exactly do you want to do that? Note: If you are familiar with the creation and usage of design time data, feel free to scroll down to the paragraph titled “When design time data fails”. Creating design time data for your app When a designer works on an app, he needs to see something to design. For “static” UI such as buttons, backgrounds, etc, the user interface elements are going to show up in Blend just fine. If however the data is fetched dynamically from a service (web, database, etc) or created dynamically, most probably Blend is going to show just an empty element. The classical way to design at that stage is to run the application, navigate to the screen that is under construction (which can involve delays, need to log in, etc…), to measure what is on the screen (colors, margins, width and height, etc) using various tools, going back to Blend, editing the properties of the elements, running again, etc. Obviously this is not ideal. The solution is to create design time data. For more information about the creation of design time data by mocking services, you can refer to two talks of mine “Deep dive MVVM” and “MVVM Applied From Silverlight to Windows Phone to Windows 8”. The source code for these talks is here and here. Design time data in MVVM Light One of the main reasons why I developed MVVM Light is to facilitate the creation of design time data. To illustrate this, let’s create a new MVVM Light application in Visual Studio. Install MVVM Light from here: http://mvvmlight.codeplex.com (use the MSI in the Download section). After installing, make sure to read the Readme that opens up in your favorite browser, you will need one more step to install the Project Templates. Start Visual Studio 2012. Create a new MvvmLight (Win8) app. Run the application. You will see a string showing “Welcome to MVVM Light”. In the Solution explorer, right click on MainPage.xaml and select Open in Blend. Now you should see “Welcome to MVVM Light [Design]” What happens here is that Expression Blend runs different code at design time than the application runs at runtime. To do this, we use design-time detection (as explained in a previous article) and use that information to initialize a different data service at design time. To understand this better, open the ViewModelLocator.cs file in the ViewModel folder and see how the DesignDataService is used at design time, while the DataService is used at runtime. In a real-life applicationm, DataService would be used to connect to a web service, for instance. When design time data fails Sometimes however, the creation of design time data fails. It can be very difficult to understand exactly what is happening. Expression Blend is not giving a lot of information about what happened. Thankfully, we can use a trick: Attaching a debugger to Expression Blend and debug the design time code. In WPF and Silverlight (including Windows Phone 7), you could simply attach the debugger to Blend.exe (using the “Managed (v4.5, v4.0) code” option even for Silverlight!!) In Windows 8 however, things are just a bit different. This is because the designer that renders the actual representation of the Windows 8 app runs in its own process. Let’s illustrate that: Open the file DesignDataService in the Design folder. Modify the GetData method to look like this: public void GetData(Action<DataItem, Exception> callback) { throw new Exception(); // Use this to create design time data var item = new DataItem("Welcome to MVVM Light [design]"); callback(item, null); } Go to Blend and build the application. The build succeeds, but now the page is empty. The creation of the design time data failed, but we don’t get a warning message. We need to investigate what’s wrong. Close MainPage.xaml Go to Visual Studio and select the menu Debug, Attach to Process. Update: Make sure that you select “Managed (v4.5, v4.0) code” in the “Attach to” field. Find the process named XDesProc.exe. You should have at least two, one for the Visual Studio 2012 designer surface, and one for Expression Blend. Unfortunately in this screen it is not obvious which is which. Let’s find out in the Task Manager. Press Ctrl-Alt-Del and select Task Manager Go to the Details tab and sort the processes by name. Find the one that says “Blend for Microsoft Visual Studio 2012 XAML UI Designer” and write down the process ID. Go back to the Attach to Process dialog in Visual Studio. sort the processes by ID and attach the debugger to the correct instance of XDesProc.exe. Open the MainViewModel (in the ViewModel folder) Place a breakpoint on the first line of the MainViewModel constructor. Go to Blend and open the MainPage.xaml again. At this point, the debugger breaks in Visual Studio and you can execute your code step by step. Simply step inside the dataservice call, and find the exception that you had placed there. Visual Studio gives you additional information which helps you to solve the issue. More info and Conclusion I want to thank the amazing people on the Expression Blend team for being very fast in guiding me in that matter and encouraging me to blog about it. More information about the XDesProc.exe process can be found here. I had to work on a Windows 8 app for a few days without design time data because of an Exception thrown somewhere in the code, and it was really painful. With the debugger, finding the issue was a simple matter of stepping into the code until it threw the exception.   Laurent Bugnion (GalaSoft) Subscribe | Twitter | Facebook | Flickr | LinkedIn

  Read the article

• Playing with http page cycle using JustMock

  - by mehfuzh

  In this post , I will cover a test code that will mock the various elements needed to complete a HTTP page request and  assert the expected page cycle steps. To begin, i have a simple enumeration that has my predefined page steps: public enum PageStep {     PreInit,     Load,     PreRender,     UnLoad } Once doing so, i  first created the page object [not mocking]. Page page = new Page(); Here, our target is to fire up the page process through ProcessRequest call, now if we take a look inside the method with reflector.net,  the call trace will go like : ProcessRequest –> ProcessRequestWithNoAssert –> SetInstrinsics –> Finallly ProcessRequest. Inside SetInstrinsics ,  it requires calls from HttpRequest, HttpResponse and HttpBrowserCababilities. With this clue at hand, we can easily know the classes / calls  we need to mock in order to get through the expected call. Accordingly, for  HttpBrowserCapabilities our required test code will look like: Mock.Arrange(() => browser.PreferredRenderingMime).Returns("text/html"); Mock.Arrange(() => browser.PreferredResponseEncoding).Returns("UTF-8"); Mock.Arrange(() => browser.PreferredRequestEncoding).Returns("UTF-8"); Now, HttpBrowserCapabilities is get though [Instance]HttpRequest.Browser. Therefore, we create the HttpRequest mock: var request = Mock.Create<HttpRequest>(); Then , add the required get call : Mock.Arrange(() => request.Browser).Returns(browser); As, [instance]Browser.PerferrredResponseEncoding and [instance]Browser.PreferredResponseEncoding  are also set to the request object and to make that they are set properly, we can add the following lines as well [not required though]. bool requestContentEncodingSet = false; Mock.ArrangeSet(() => request.ContentEncoding = Encoding.GetEncoding("UTF-8")).DoInstead(() =>  requestContentEncodingSet = true); Similarly, for response we can write:  var response = Mock.Create<HttpResponse>();    bool responseContentEncodingSet = false;  Mock.ArrangeSet(() => response.ContentEncoding = Encoding.GetEncoding("UTF-8")).DoInstead(() => responseContentEncodingSet = true); Finally , I created a mock of HttpContext and set the Request and Response properties that will returns the mocked version. var context = Mock.Create<HttpContext>();   Mock.Arrange(() => context.Request).Returns(request); Mock.Arrange(() => context.Response).Returns(response); As, Page internally calls RenderControl method , we just need to replace that with our one and optionally we can check if  invoked properly: bool rendered = false; Mock.Arrange(() => page.RenderControl(Arg.Any<HtmlTextWriter>())).DoInstead(() => rendered = true); That’s  it, the rest of the code is simple,  where  i asserted the page cycle with the PageSteps that i defined earlier: var pageSteps = new Queue<PageStep>();   page.PreInit +=      delegate      {          pageSteps.Enqueue(PageStep.PreInit);      }; page.Load +=      delegate      {          pageSteps.Enqueue(PageStep.Load);      };   page.PreRender +=      delegate      {          pageSteps.Enqueue(PageStep.PreRender);      };   page.Unload +=      delegate      {          pageSteps.Enqueue(PageStep.UnLoad);      };   page.ProcessRequest(context);    Assert.True(requestContentEncodingSet);  Assert.True(responseContentEncodingSet);  Assert.True(rendered);    Assert.Equal(pageSteps.Dequeue(), PageStep.PreInit);  Assert.Equal(pageSteps.Dequeue(), PageStep.Load);  Assert.Equal(pageSteps.Dequeue(), PageStep.PreRender);  Assert.Equal(pageSteps.Dequeue(), PageStep.UnLoad);    Mock.Assert(request);  Mock.Assert(response);   You can get the test class shown in this post here to give a try by yourself with of course JustMock :-).   Enjoy!!

  Read the article

• Clean way to use mutable implementation of Immutable interfaces for encapsulation

  - by dsollen

  My code is working on some compost relationship which creates a tree structure, class A has many children of type B, which has many children of type C etc. The lowest level class, call it bar, also points to a connected bar class. This effectively makes nearly every object in my domain inter-connected. Immutable objects would be problematic due to the expense of rebuilding almost all of my domain to make a single change to one class. I chose to go with an interface approach. Every object has an Immutable interface which only publishes the getter methods. I have controller objects which constructs the domain objects and thus has reference to the full objects, thus capable of calling the setter methods; but only ever publishes the immutable interface. Any change requested will go through the controller. So something like this: public interface ImmutableFoo{ public Bar getBar(); public Location getLocation(); } public class Foo implements ImmutableFoo{ private Bar bar; private Location location; @Override public Bar getBar(){ return Bar; } public void setBar(Bar bar){ this.bar=bar; } @Override public Location getLocation(){ return Location; } } public class Controller{ Private Map<Location, Foo> fooMap; public ImmutableFoo addBar(Bar bar){ Foo foo=fooMap.get(bar.getLocation()); if(foo!=null) foo.addBar(bar); return foo; } } I felt the basic approach seems sensible, however, when I speak to others they always seem to have trouble envisioning what I'm describing, which leaves me concerned that I may have a larger design issue then I'm aware of. Is it problematic to have domain objects so tightly coupled, or to use the quasi-mutable approach to modifying them? Assuming that the design approach itself isn't inherently flawed the particular discussion which left me wondering about my approach had to do with the presence of business logic in the domain objects. Currently I have my setter methods in the mutable objects do error checking and all other logic required to verify and make a change to the object. It was suggested that this should be pulled out into a service class, which applies all the business logic, to simplify my domain objects. I understand the advantage in mocking/testing and general separation of logic into two classes. However, with a service method/object It seems I loose some of the advantage of polymorphism, I can't override a base class to add in new error checking or business logic. It seems, if my polymorphic classes were complicated enough, I would end up with a service method that has to check a dozen flags to decide what error checking and business logic applies. So, for example, if I wanted to have a childFoo which also had a size field which should be compared to bar before adding par my current approach would look something like this. public class Foo implements ImmutableFoo{ public void addBar(Bar bar){ if(!getLocation().equals(bar.getLocation()) throw new LocationException(); this.bar=bar; } } public interface ImmutableChildFoo extends ImmutableFoo{ public int getSize(); } public ChildFoo extends Foo implements ImmutableChildFoo{ private int size; @Override public int getSize(){ return size; } @Override public void addBar(Bar bar){ if(getSize()<bar.getSize()){ throw new LocationException(); super.addBar(bar); } My colleague was suggesting instead having a service object that looks something like this (over simplified, the 'service' object would likely be more complex). public interface ImmutableFoo{ ///original interface, presumably used in other methods public Location getLocation(); public boolean isChildFoo(); } public interface ImmutableSizedFoo implements ImmutableFoo{ public int getSize(); } public class Foo implements ImmutableSizedFoo{ public Bar bar; @Override public void addBar(Bar bar){ this.bar=bar; } @Override public int getSize(){ //default size if no size is known return 0; } @Override public boolean isChildFoo return false; } } public ChildFoo extends Foo{ private int size; @Override public int getSize(){ return size; } @Override public boolean isChildFoo(); return true; } } public class Controller{ Private Map<Location, Foo> fooMap; public ImmutableSizedFoo addBar(Bar bar){ Foo foo=fooMap.get(bar.getLocation()); service.addBarToFoo(foo, bar); returned foo; } public class Service{ public static void addBarToFoo(Foo foo, Bar bar){ if(foo==null) return; if(!foo.getLocation().equals(bar.getLocation())) throw new LocationException(); if(foo.isChildFoo() && foo.getSize()<bar.getSize()) throw new LocationException(); foo.setBar(bar); } } } Is the recommended approach of using services and inversion of control inherently superior, or superior in certain cases, to overriding methods directly? If so is there a good way to go with the service approach while not loosing the power of polymorphism to override some of the behavior?

  Read the article

• Rx Reactive extensions: Unit testing with FromAsyncPattern

  - by Andrew Anderson

  The Reactive Extensions have a sexy little hook to simplify calling async methods: var func = Observable.FromAsyncPattern<InType, OutType>( myWcfService.BeginDoStuff, myWcfService.EndDoStuff); func(inData).ObserveOnDispatcher().Subscribe(x => Foo(x)); I am using this in an WPF project, and it works great at runtime. Unfortunately, when trying to unit test methods that use this technique I am experiencing random failures. ~3 out of every five executions of a test that contain this code fails. Here is a sample test (implemented using a Rhino/unity auto-mocking container): [TestMethod()] public void SomeTest() { // arrange var container = GetAutoMockingContainer(); container.Resolve<IMyWcfServiceClient>() .Expect(x => x.BeginDoStuff(null, null, null)) .IgnoreArguments() .Do( new Func<Specification, AsyncCallback, object, IAsyncResult>((inData, asyncCallback, state) => { return new CompletedAsyncResult(asyncCallback, state); })); container.Resolve<IRepositoryServiceClient>() .Expect(x => x.EndRetrieveAttributeDefinitionsForSorting(null)) .IgnoreArguments() .Do( new Func<IAsyncResult, OutData>((ar) => { return someMockData; })); // act var target = CreateTestSubject(container); target.DoMethodThatInvokesService(); // Run the dispatcher for everything over background priority Dispatcher.CurrentDispatcher.Invoke(DispatcherPriority.Background, new Action(() => { })); // assert Assert.IsTrue(my operation ran as expected); } The problem that I see is that the code that I specified to run when the async action completed (in this case, Foo(x)), is never called. I can verify this by setting breakpoints in Foo and observing that they are never reached. Further, I can force a long delay after calling DoMethodThatInvokesService (which kicks off the async call), and the code is still never run. I do know that the lines of code invoking the Rx framework were called. Other things I've tried: I have attempted to modify the second last line according to the suggestions here: Reactive Extensions Rx - unit testing something with ObserveOnDispatcher No love. I have added .Take(1) to the Rx code as follows: func(inData).ObserveOnDispatcher().Take(1).Subscribe(x = Foo(x)); This improved my failure rate to something like 1 in 5, but they still occurred. I have rewritten the Rx code to use the plain jane Async pattern. This works, however my developer ego really would love to use Rx instead of boring old begin/end. In the end I do have a work around in hand (i.e. don't use Rx), however I feel that it is not ideal. If anyone has ran into this problem in the past and found a solution, I'd dearly love to hear it.

  Read the article

• Correct way of using/testing event service in Eclipse E4 RCP

  - by Thorsten Beck

  Allow me to pose two coupled questions that might boil down to one about good application design ;-) What is the best practice for using event based communication in an e4 RCP application? How can I write simple unit tests (using JUnit) for classes that send/receive events using dependency injection and IEventBroker ? Let’s be more concrete: say I am developing an Eclipse e4 RCP application consisting of several plugins that need to communicate. For communication I want to use the event service provided by org.eclipse.e4.core.services.events.IEventBroker so my plugins stay loosely coupled. I use dependency injection to inject the event broker to a class that dispatches events: @Inject static IEventBroker broker; private void sendEvent() { broker.post(MyEventConstants.SOME_EVENT, payload) } On the receiver side, I have a method like: @Inject @Optional private void receiveEvent(@UIEventTopic(MyEventConstants.SOME_EVENT) Object payload) Now the questions: In order for IEventBroker to be successfully injected, my class needs access to the current IEclipseContext. Most of my classes using the event service are not referenced by the e4 application model, so I have to manually inject the context on instantiation using e.g. ContextInjectionFactory.inject(myEventSendingObject, context); This approach works but I find myself passing around a lot of context to wherever I use the event service. Is this really the correct approach to event based communication across an E4 application? how can I easily write JUnit tests for a class that uses the event service (either as a sender or receiver)? Obviously, none of the above annotations work in isolation since there is no context available. I understand everyone’s convinced that dependency injection simplifies testability. But does this also apply to injecting services like the IEventBroker? This article describes creation of your own IEclipseContext to include the process of DI in tests. Not sure if this could resolve my 2nd issue but I also hesitate running all my tests as JUnit Plug-in tests as it appears impractible to fire up the PDE for each unit test. Maybe I just misunderstand the approach. This article speaks about “simply mocking IEventBroker”. Yes, that would be great! Unfortunately, I couldn’t find any information on how this can be achieved. All this makes me wonder whether I am still on a "good path" or if this is already a case of bad design? And if so, how would you go about redesigning? Move all event related actions to dedicated event sender/receiver classes or a dedicated plugin?

  Read the article

• Dependency Injection: I don't get where to start!

  - by Andy

  I have several articles about Dependency Injection, and I can see the benefits, especially when it comes to unit testing. The units can me loosely coupled, and mocking of dependencies can be made. The trouble is - I just don't get where to start. Consider this snippet below of (much edited for the purpose of this post) code that I have. I am instantiating a Plc object from the main form, and passing in a communications mode via the Connect method. In it's present form it becomes hard to test, because I can't isolate the Plc from the CommsChannel to unit test it. (Can I?) The class depends on using a CommsChannel object, but I am only passing in a mode that is used to create this channel within the Plc itself. To use dependancy injection, I should really pass in an already created CommsChannel (via an 'ICommsChannel' interface perhaps) to the Connect method, or maybe via the Plc constructor. Is that right? But then that would mean creating the CommsChannel in my main form first, and this doesn't seem right either, because it feels like everything will come back to the base layer of the main form, where everything begins. Somehow it feels like I am missing a crucial piece of the puzzle. Where do you start? You have to create an instance of something somewhere, but I'm struggling to understand where that should be. public class Plc() { public bool Connect(CommsMode commsMode) { bool success = false; // Create new comms channel. this._commsChannel = this.GetCommsChannel(commsMode); // Attempt connection success = this._commsChannel.Connect(); return this._connected; } private CommsChannel GetCommsChannel(CommsMode mode) { CommsChannel channel; switch (mode) { case CommsMode.RS232: channel = new SerialCommsChannel( SerialCommsSettings.Default.ComPort, SerialCommsSettings.Default.BaudRate, SerialCommsSettings.Default.DataBits, SerialCommsSettings.Default.Parity, SerialCommsSettings.Default.StopBits); break; case CommsMode.Tcp: channel = new TcpCommsChannel( TCPCommsSettings.Default.IP_Address, TCPCommsSettings.Default.Port); break; default: // Throw unknown comms channel exception. } return channel; } }

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >