Search Results

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

Page 2/16 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Mocking using boost::shared_ptr and AMOP

    - by Edison Gustavo Muenz
    Hi, I'm trying to write mocks using amop. I'm using Visual Studio 2008. I have this interface class: struct Interface { virtual void Activate() = 0; }; and this other class which receives pointers to this Interface, like this: struct UserOfInterface { void execute(Interface* iface) { iface->Activate(); } }; So I try to write some testing code like this: amop::TMockObject<Interface> mock; mock.Method(&Interface::Activate).Count(1); UserOfInterface user; user.execute((Interface*)mock); mock.Verifiy(); It works! So far so good, but what I really want is a boost::shared_ptr in the execute() method, so I write this: struct UserOfInterface { void execute(boost::shared_ptr<Interface> iface) { iface->Activate(); } }; How should the test code be now? I tried some things, like: amop::TMockObject<Interface> mock; mock.Method(&Interface::Activate).Count(1); UserOfInterface user; boost::shared_ptr<Interface> mockAsPtr((Interface*)mock); user.execute(mockAsPtr); mock.Verifiy(); It compiles, but obviously crashes, since at the end of the scope the variable 'mock' gets double destroyed (because of the stack variable 'mock' and the shared_ptr). I also tried to create the 'mock' variable on the heap: amop::TMockObject<Interface>* mock(new amop::TMockObject<Interface>); mock->Method(&Interface::Activate).Count(1); UserOfInterface user; boost::shared_ptr<Interface> mockAsPtr((Interface*)*mock); user.execute(mockAsPtr); mock->Verifiy(); But it doesn't work, somehow it enters an infinite loop, before I had a problem with boost not finding the destructor for the mocked object when the shared_ptr tried to delete the object. Has anyone used amop with boost::shared_ptr successfully?

    Read the article

  • RSpec mocking a nested model in Rails - ActionController problem

    - by emson
    Hi All I am having a problem in RSpec when my mock object is asked for a URL by the ActionController. The URL is a Mock one and not a correct resource URL. I am running RSpec 1.3.0 and Rails 2.3.5 Basically I have two models. Where a subject has many notes. class Subject < ActiveRecord::Base validates_presence_of :title has_many :notes end class Note < ActiveRecord::Base validates_presence_of :title belongs_to :subject end My routes.rb file nests these two resources as such: ActionController::Routing::Routes.draw do |map| map.resources :subjects, :has_many => :notes end The NotesController.rb file looks like this: class NotesController < ApplicationController # POST /notes # POST /notes.xml def create @subject = Subject.find(params[:subject_id]) @note = @subject.notes.create!(params[:note]) respond_to do |format| format.html { redirect_to(@subject) } end end end Finally this is my RSpec spec which should simply post my mocked objects to the NotesController and be executed... which it does: it "should create note and redirect to subject without javascript" do # usual rails controller test setup here subject = mock(Subject) Subject.stub(:find).and_return(subject) notes_proxy = mock('association proxy', { "create!" => Note.new }) subject.stub(:notes).and_return(notes_proxy) post :create, :subject_id => subject, :note => { :title => 'note title', :body => 'note body' } end The problem is that when the RSpec post method is called. The NotesController correctly handles the Mock Subject object, and create! the new Note object. However when the NoteController#Create method tries to redirect_to I get the following error: NoMethodError in 'NotesController should create note and redirect to subject without javascript' undefined method `spec_mocks_mock_url' for #<NotesController:0x1034495b8> Now this is caused by a bit of Rails trickery that passes an ActiveRecord object (@subject, in our case, which isn't ActiveRecord but a Mock object), eventually to url_for who passes all the options to the Rails' Routing, which then determines the URL. My question is how can I mock Subject so that the correct options are passed so that I my test passes. I've tried passing in :controller = 'subjects' options but no joy. Is there some other way of doing this? Thanks...

    Read the article

  • Unit testing and mocking email sender in Python with Google AppEngine

    - by CVertex
    I'm a newbie to python and the app engine. I have this code that sends an email based on request params after some auth logic. in my Unit tests (i'm using GAEUnit), how do I confirm an email with specific contents were sent? - i.e. how do I mock the emailer with a fake emailer to verify send was called? class EmailHandler(webapp.RequestHandler): def bad_input(self): self.response.set_status(400) self.response.headers['Content-Type'] = 'text/plain' self.response.out.write("<html><body>bad input </body></html>") def get(self): to_addr = self.request.get("to") subj = self.request.get("subject") msg = self.request.get("body") if not mail.is_email_valid(to_addr): # Return an error message... # self.bad_input() pass # authenticate here message = mail.EmailMessage() message.sender = "[email protected]" message.to = to_addr message.subject = subj message.body = msg message.send() self.response.headers['Content-Type'] = 'text/plain' self.response.out.write("<html><body>success!</body></html>") And the unit tests, import unittest from webtest import TestApp from google.appengine.ext import webapp from email import EmailHandler class SendingEmails(unittest.TestCase): def setUp(self): self.application = webapp.WSGIApplication([('/', EmailHandler)], debug=True) def test_success(self): app = TestApp(self.application) response = app.get('http://localhost:8080/[email protected]&body=blah_blah_blah&subject=mySubject') self.assertEqual('200 OK', response.status) self.assertTrue('success' in response) # somehow, assert email was sent

    Read the article

  • Mocking Autofac's "Resolve" extension method with TypeMock

    - by Lockshopr
    I'm trying to mock an Autofac resolve, such as: using System; using Autofac; using TypeMock.ArrangeActAssert; class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { var inst = Isolate.Fake.Instance<IContainer>(); Isolate.Fake.StaticMethods(typeof(ResolutionExtensions), Members.ReturnNulls); Isolate.WhenCalled(() => inst.Resolve<IRubber>()).WillReturn(new BubbleGum()); Console.Out.WriteLine(inst.Resolve<IRubber>()); } } public interface IRubber {} public class BubbleGum : IRubber {} Coming from Moq, the syntax and exceptions from TypeMock confuse me a great deal. Having initially run this in a TestMethod, I kept getting an exception resembling "WhenCalled cannot be run without a complementing behavior". I tried defining behaviors for everyone and their mothers, but to no avail. Then I debug stepped through the test run, and saw that an actual exception was fired from Autofac: IRubber has not been registered. So it's obvious that the static Resolve function isn't being faked, and I can't get it to be faked, no matter how I go about hooking it up. Isolate.WhenCalled(() => ResolutionExtensions.Resolve<IRubber>(null)).WillReturn(new BubbleGum()); ... throws an exception from Autofac complaining that the IComponentContext cannot be null. Feeding it the presumably faked IContainer (or faking an IComponentContext instead) gets me back to the "IRubber not registered" error.

    Read the article

  • Mocking a non-settable child property with Rhino Mocks

    - by Marcus
    I currently have interfaces much like the following: interface IService { void Start(); IHandler ServiceHandler { get; } } interface IHandler { event EventHandler OnMessageReceived; } Using Rhino Mocks, it's easy enough to mock IService, but it doesn't assign any IHandler instance to the ServiceHandler property. Therefore when my method under test adds an event handler to _mockedService.ServiceHandler.OnMessageReceived, I get an 'Object reference not set' error. How can I ensure that ServiceHandler is assigned a value in the mocked IService instance? This is likely Rhino Mocks 101, but I'm just getting up to speed on it...

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Mocking digest authentication in RestEasy

    - by Ralph
    I am using RestEasy to develop a REST server and using the mock dispatcher (org.jboss.resteasy.mockMockDispatcherFactory) for testing the service in my unit tests. My service requires digest authentication and I would to make that part of my testing. Each of my services accepts a @Context SecurityContext securityContext parameter. Is there any way is inject a fake SecurityContext in the dispatcher so that I can test that my security methods function properly?

    Read the article

  • Need help mocking a ASP.NET Controller in Rhino Mocks

    - by Pure.Krome
    Hi folks, I'm trying to mock up a fake ASP.NET Controller. I don't have any concrete controllers, so I was hoping to just mock a Controller and it will work. This is what I currently have: _fakeRequestBase = MockRepository.GenerateMock<HttpRequestBase>(); _fakeRequestBase.Stub(x => x.HttpMethod).Return("GET"); _fakeContextBase = MockRepository.GenerateMock<HttpContextBase>(); _fakeContextBase.Stub(x => x.Request).Return(_fakeRequestBase); var controllerContext = new ControllerContext(_fakeContextBase, new RouteData(), MockRepository.GenerateMock<ControllerBase>()); _fakeController = MockRepository.GenerateMock<Controller>(); _fakeController.Stub(x => x.ControllerContext).Return(controllerContext); Everything works except the last line, which throws a runtime error and is asking me for some Rhino.Mocks source code or something (which I don't have). See how I'm trying to mock up an abstract Controller - is that allowed? Can someone help me?

    Read the article

  • Unit testing, mocking - simple case: Service - Repository

    - by rafek
    Consider a following chunk of service: public class ProductService : IProductService { private IProductRepository _productRepository; // Some initlization stuff public Product GetProduct(int id) { try { return _productRepository.GetProduct(id); } catch (Exception e) { // log, wrap then throw } } } Let's consider a simple unit test: [Test] public void GetProduct_return_the_same_product_as_getProduct_on_productRepository() { var product = EntityGenerator.Product(); _productRepositoryMock.Setup(pr => pr.GetProduct(product.Id)).Returns(product); Product returnedProduct = _productService.GetProduct(product.Id); Assert.AreEqual(product, returnedProduct); _productRepositoryMock.VerifyAll(); } At first it seems that this test is ok. But let's change our service method a little bit: public Product GetProduct(int id) { try { var product = _productRepository.GetProduct(id); product.Owner = "totallyDifferentOwner"; return product; } catch (Exception e) { // log, wrap then throw } } How to rewrite a given test that it'd pass with the first service method and fail with a second one? How do you handle this kind of simple scenarios? HINT: A given test is bad coz product and returnedProduct is actually the same reference.

    Read the article

  • C# Visual Studio Unit Test, Mocking up a client IP address

    - by Jimmy
    Hey guys, I am writing some unit tests and I'm getting an exception thrown from my real code when trying to do the following: string IPaddress = HttpContext.Current.Request.UserHostName.ToString(); Is there a way to mock up an IP address without rewriting my code to accept IP address as a parameter? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Trouble mocking on cucumber + rails

    - by Lucas d. Prim
    I'm having a lot of trouble trying to define a mock for a rails models on cucumber. It seems like the method is creating a bunch of message expectations and i keep getting errors like these: Given I have only a product named "Sushi de Pato" # features/step_definitions/product_ steps.rb:19 unexpected invocation: #<Mock:ProductCategory_1001>.__mock_proxy() unsatisfied expectations: - expected exactly once, not yet invoked: #<Mock:ProductCategory_1001>.errors(any_pa rameters) - expected exactly once, not yet invoked: #<Mock:ProductCategory_1001>.id(any_parame ters) - expected exactly once, not yet invoked: #<Mock:ProductCategory_1001>.to_param(any_ parameters) - expected exactly once, not yet invoked: #<Mock:ProductCategory_1001>.new_record?(a ny_parameters) - expected exactly once, not yet invoked: #<Mock:ProductCategory_1001>.destroyed?(an y_parameters) satisfied expectations: - allowed any number of times, not yet invoked: #<Mock:errors>.count(any_parameters) (Mocha::ExpectationError) I haven't yet implemented the ProductCategory class and I just want it to return an ID and a 'name' attribute. This is my step definition: Given /^I have only a product named "([^\"]*)"$/ do |name| @product = Product.create!(:name => name, :description => 'Foo', :price => 100, :points => 100, :category => mock_model(ProductCategory)) end And this is my env.rb file: $: << File.join(File.dirname(__FILE__),"..") require 'spec\spec_helper I am using RSPec 1.3.0, cucumber 0.6.3 and webrat 0.7.0 I've tried to use stubs as well but got some other errors instead...

    Read the article

  • Soapui mocking services which return json

    - by eeek
    Microsoft Ajax can expose webservices which respond with json or xml depending on configuration. I would like to mock these services using soap ui. Using the wsdl I can do this to mock the services in the case where xml is returned, however how can I mock the response when JSON is returned?

    Read the article

  • Need help mocking a ASP.NET Controller in RhinoMocks

    - by Pure.Krome
    Hi folks, I'm trying to mock up a fake ASP.NET Controller. I don't have any concrete controllers, so I was hoping to just mock a Controller and it will work. This is what I have, currently. _fakeRequestBase = MockRepository.GenerateMock<HttpRequestBase>(); _fakeRequestBase.Stub(x => x.HttpMethod).Return("GET"); _fakeContextBase = MockRepository.GenerateMock<HttpContextBase>(); _fakeContextBase.Stub(x => x.Request).Return(_fakeRequestBase); var controllerContext = new ControllerContext(_fakeContextBase, new RouteData(), MockRepository.GenerateMock<ControllerBase>()); _fakeController = MockRepository.GenerateMock<Controller>(); _fakeController.Stub(x => x.ControllerContext).Return(controllerContext); Everything works except the last line, which throws a runtime error and is asking me for some Rhino.Mocks source code or something (which I don't have). See how I'm trying to mock up an abstract Controller - is that allowed? Can someone help me?

    Read the article

  • RSpec - mocking a class method

    - by Chris Kilmer
    I'm trying to mock a class method with rspec: lib/db.rb class Db def self.list(options) Db::Payload.list(options) end end lib/db/payload.rb class Db::Payload def self.list(options={}) end end In my spec, I'm trying to setup the expectation Db::Payload.list will be called when I call Db.list: describe Db do before(:each) do @options = {} Db::Payload.should_receive(:list).with(@options) end it 'should build the LIST payload' do Db.list(@options) end end The problem is that I am always receiving the following error: undefined method `should_receive' for Db::Payload:Class Any help understanding this error would be most appreciated :-)

    Read the article

  • not using partial mocking? do they also mean in web-app?

    - by 01
    Im learning Mockito and in chapter 16 they say you should not use partial mocking in new system. I disagree, for example in one of my actions i use partial mocking for static framework methods, sql calls, etc. I extracted the stuff into methods and then mock it in tests. Most of those methods are specific to this action and wont be call from other actions, so it not worth to extract special components. I agree that you shouldn't using partial mocking in frameworks, but not in hard to mock actions. What are minuses of using partial mocking in web-app?

    Read the article

  • Why do we need mocking frameworks like Easymock , JMock or Mockito?

    - by Praneeth
    Hi, We use hand written stubs in our unit tests and I'm exploring the need for a Mock framework like EasyMock or Mockito in our project. I do not find a compelling reason for switching to Mocking frameworks from hand written stubs. Can anyone please answer why one would opt for mocking frameworks when they are already doing unit tests using hand written mocks/stubs. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Mocking non-virtual methods in C++ without editing production code?

    - by wk1989
    Hello, I am a fairly new software developer currently working adding unit tests to an existing C++ project that started years ago. Due to a non-technical reason, I'm not allowed to modify any existing code. The base class of all my modules has a bunch of methods for Setting/Getting data and communicating with other modules. Since I just want to unit testing each individual module, I want to be able to use canned values for all my inter-module communication methods. I.e. for a method Ping() which checks if another module is active, I want to have it return true or false based on what kind of test I'm doing. I've been looking into Google Test and Google Mock, and it does support mocking non-virtual methods. However the approach described (http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/CookBook#Mocking_Nonvirtual_Methods) requires me to "templatize" the original methods to take in either real or mock objects. I can't go and templatize my methods in the base class due to the requirement mentioned earlier, so I need some other way of mocking these virtual methods Basically, the methods I want to mock are in some base class, the modules I want to unit test and create mocks of are derived classes of that base class. There are intermediate modules in between my base Module class and the modules that I want to test. I would appreciate any advise! Thanks, JW EDIT: A more concrete examples My base class is lets say rootModule, the module I want to test is leafModule. There is an intermediate module which inherits from rootModule, leafModule inherits from this intermediate module. In my leafModule, I want to test the doStuff() method, which calls the non virtual GetStatus(moduleName) defined in the rootModule class. I need to somehow make GetStatus() to return a chosen canned value. Mocking is new to me, so is using mock objects even the right approach?

    Read the article

  • ASP/NET MVC: Test Controllers w/Sessions? Mocking?

    - by Codewerks
    I read some of the answers on here re: testing views and controllers, and mocking, but I still can't figure out how to test an ASP.NET MVC controller that reads and sets Session values (or any other context based variables.) How do I provide a (Session) context for my test methods? Is mocking the answer? Anybody have examples? Basically, I'd like to fake a session before I call the controller method and have the controller use that session. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Why should I use mock objects (Java)? Do all mocking frameworks serve the same purpose?

    - by Mehmet Yesin
    I'm preparing a presentation and I need to get a better understanding of what mocking is, what is the purpose of using it, what are the common situations that I should use mock objects? I found out that there are a bunch of mocking frameworks out there. Do they all do the same thing or do I use a specific framework for specific testing purpose? What are the differences between these frameworks? Which one would you recommend for testing Java? here are some stuff that I found: 1.MockingToolkitComparisonMatrix which seems biased. 2.What are mock objects in Java? This is a year old. I thought there might be some better answer today. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Talks Submitted for Ann Arbor Day of .NET 2010

    - by PSteele
    Just submitted my session abstracts for Ann Arbor's Day of .NET 2010.   Getting up to speed with .NET 3.5 -- Just in time for 4.0! Yes, C# 4.0 is just around the corner.  But if you haven't had the chance to use C# 3.5 extensively, this session will start from the ground up with the new features of 3.5.  We'll assume everyone is coming from C# 2.0.  This session will show you the details of extension methods, partial methods and more.  We'll also show you how LINQ -- Language Integrated Query -- can help decrease your development time and increase your code's readability.  If time permits, we'll look at some .NET 4.0 features, but the goal is to get you up to speed on .NET 3.5.   Go Ahead and Mock Me! When testing specific parts of your application, there can be a lot of external dependencies required to make your tests work.  Writing fake or mock objects that act as stand-ins for the real dependencies can waste a lot of time.  This is where mocking frameworks come in.  In this session, Patrick Steele will introduce you to Rhino Mocks, a popular mocking framework for .NET.  You'll see how a mocking framework can make writing unit tests easier and leads to less brittle unit tests.   Inversion of Control: Who's got control and why is it being inverted? No doubt you've heard of "Inversion of Control".  If not, maybe you've heard the term "Dependency Injection"?  The two usually go hand-in-hand.  Inversion of Control (IoC) along with Dependency Injection (DI) helps simplify the connections and lifetime of all of the dependent objects in the software you write.  In this session, Patrick Steele will introduce you to the concepts of IoC and DI and will show you how to use a popular IoC container (Castle Windsor) to help simplify the way you build software and how your objects interact with each other. If you're interested in speaking, hurry up and get your submissions in!  The deadline is Monday, April 5th! Technorati Tags: .NET,Ann Arbor,Day of .NET

    Read the article

  • Mocking the Unmockable: Using Microsoft Moles with Gallio

    - by Thomas Weller
    Usual opensource mocking frameworks (like e.g. Moq or Rhino.Mocks) can mock only interfaces and virtual methods. In contrary to that, Microsoft’s Moles framework can ‘mock’ virtually anything, in that it uses runtime instrumentation to inject callbacks in the method MSIL bodies of the moled methods. Therefore, it is possible to detour any .NET method, including non-virtual/static methods in sealed types. This can be extremely helpful when dealing e.g. with code that calls into the .NET framework, some third-party or legacy stuff etc… Some useful collected resources (links to website, documentation material and some videos) can be found in my toolbox on Delicious under this link: http://delicious.com/thomasweller/toolbox+moles A Gallio extension for Moles Originally, Moles is a part of Microsoft’s Pex framework and thus integrates best with Visual Studio Unit Tests (MSTest). However, the Moles sample download contains some additional assemblies to also support other unit test frameworks. They provide a Moled attribute to ease the usage of mole types with the respective framework (there are extensions for NUnit, xUnit.net and MbUnit v2 included with the samples). As there is no such extension for the Gallio platform, I did the few required lines myself – the resulting Gallio.Moles.dll is included with the sample download. With this little assembly in place, it is possible to use Moles with Gallio like that: [Test, Moled] public void SomeTest() {     ... What you can do with it Moles can be very helpful, if you need to ‘mock’ something other than a virtual or interface-implementing method. This might be the case when dealing with some third-party component, legacy code, or if you want to ‘mock’ the .NET framework itself. Generally, you need to announce each moled type that you want to use in a test with the MoledType attribute on assembly level. For example: [assembly: MoledType(typeof(System.IO.File))] Below are some typical use cases for Moles. For a more detailed overview (incl. naming conventions and an instruction on how to create the required moles assemblies), please refer to the reference material above.  Detouring the .NET framework Imagine that you want to test a method similar to the one below, which internally calls some framework method:   public void ReadFileContent(string fileName) {     this.FileContent = System.IO.File.ReadAllText(fileName); } Using a mole, you would replace the call to the File.ReadAllText(string) method with a runtime delegate like so: [Test, Moled] [Description("This 'mocks' the System.IO.File class with a custom delegate.")] public void ReadFileContentWithMoles() {     // arrange ('mock' the FileSystem with a delegate)     System.IO.Moles.MFile.ReadAllTextString = (fname => fname == FileName ? FileContent : "WrongFileName");       // act     var testTarget = new TestTarget.TestTarget();     testTarget.ReadFileContent(FileName);       // assert     Assert.AreEqual(FileContent, testTarget.FileContent); } Detouring static methods and/or classes A static method like the below… public static string StaticMethod(int x, int y) {     return string.Format("{0}{1}", x, y); } … can be ‘mocked’ with the following: [Test, Moled] public void StaticMethodWithMoles() {     MStaticClass.StaticMethodInt32Int32 = ((x, y) => "uups");       var result = StaticClass.StaticMethod(1, 2);       Assert.AreEqual("uups", result); } Detouring constructors You can do this delegate thing even with a class’ constructor. The syntax for this is not all  too intuitive, because you have to setup the internal state of the mole, but generally it works like a charm. For example, to replace this c’tor… public class ClassWithCtor {     public int Value { get; private set; }       public ClassWithCtor(int someValue)     {         this.Value = someValue;     } } … you would do the following: [Test, Moled] public void ConstructorTestWithMoles() {     MClassWithCtor.ConstructorInt32 =            ((@class, @value) => new MClassWithCtor(@class) {ValueGet = () => 99});       var classWithCtor = new ClassWithCtor(3);       Assert.AreEqual(99, classWithCtor.Value); } Detouring abstract base classes You can also use this approach to ‘mock’ abstract base classes of a class that you call in your test. Assumed that you have something like that: public abstract class AbstractBaseClass {     public virtual string SaySomething()     {         return "Hello from base.";     } }      public class ChildClass : AbstractBaseClass {     public override string SaySomething()     {         return string.Format(             "Hello from child. Base says: '{0}'",             base.SaySomething());     } } Then you would set up the child’s underlying base class like this: [Test, Moled] public void AbstractBaseClassTestWithMoles() {     ChildClass child = new ChildClass();     new MAbstractBaseClass(child)         {                 SaySomething = () => "Leave me alone!"         }         .InstanceBehavior = MoleBehaviors.Fallthrough;       var hello = child.SaySomething();       Assert.AreEqual("Hello from child. Base says: 'Leave me alone!'", hello); } Setting the moles behavior to a value of  MoleBehaviors.Fallthrough causes the ‘original’ method to be called if a respective delegate is not provided explicitly – here it causes the ChildClass’ override of the SaySomething() method to be called. There are some more possible scenarios, where the Moles framework could be of much help (e.g. it’s also possible to detour interface implementations like IEnumerable<T> and such…). One other possibility that comes to my mind (because I’m currently dealing with that), is to replace calls from repository classes to the ADO.NET Entity Framework O/R mapper with delegates to isolate the repository classes from the underlying database, which otherwise would not be possible… Usage Since Moles relies on runtime instrumentation, mole types must be run under the Pex profiler. This only works from inside Visual Studio if you write your tests with MSTest (Visual Studio Unit Test). While other unit test frameworks generally can be used with Moles, they require the respective tests to be run via command line, executed through the moles.runner.exe tool. A typical test execution would be similar to this: moles.runner.exe <mytests.dll> /runner:<myframework.console.exe> /args:/<myargs> So, the moled test can be run through tools like NCover or a scripting tool like MSBuild (which makes them easy to run in a Continuous Integration environment), but they are somewhat unhandy to run in the usual TDD workflow (which I described in some detail here). To make this a bit more fluent, I wrote a ReSharper live template to generate the respective command line for the test (it is also included in the sample download – moled_cmd.xml). - This is just a quick-and-dirty ‘solution’. Maybe it makes sense to write an extra Gallio adapter plugin (similar to the many others that are already provided) and include it with the Gallio download package, if  there’s sufficient demand for it. As of now, the only way to run tests with the Moles framework from within Visual Studio is by using them with MSTest. From the command line, anything with a managed console runner can be used (provided that the appropriate extension is in place)… A typical Gallio/Moles command line (as generated by the mentioned R#-template) looks like that: "%ProgramFiles%\Microsoft Moles\bin\moles.runner.exe" /runner:"%ProgramFiles%\Gallio\bin\Gallio.Echo.exe" "Gallio.Moles.Demo.dll" /args:/r:IsolatedAppDomain /args:/filter:"ExactType:TestFixture and Member:ReadFileContentWithMoles" -- Note: When using the command line with Echo (Gallio’s console runner), be sure to always include the IsolatedAppDomain option, otherwise the tests won’t use the instrumentation callbacks! -- License issues As I already said, the free mocking frameworks can mock only interfaces and virtual methods. if you want to mock other things, you need the Typemock Isolator tool for that, which comes with license costs (Although these ‘costs’ are ridiculously low compared to the value that such a tool can bring to a software project, spending money often is a considerable gateway hurdle in real life...).  The Moles framework also is not totally free, but comes with the same license conditions as the (closely related) Pex framework: It is free for academic/non-commercial use only, to use it in a ‘real’ software project requires an MSDN Subscription (from VS2010pro on). The demo solution The sample solution (VS 2008) can be downloaded from here. It contains the Gallio.Moles.dll which provides the here described Moled attribute, the above mentioned R#-template (moled_cmd.xml) and a test fixture containing the above described use case scenarios. To run it, you need the Gallio framework (download) and Microsoft Moles (download) being installed in the default locations. Happy testing…

    Read the article

  • When should I stub out a type by manually creating a "stub" version, rather than using a mocking fra

    - by Ben Aston
    Are there any circumstances where it is favourable to manually create a stub type, as opposed to using a mocking framework (such as Rhino Mocks) at the point of test. We take both these approaches in our projects. My gut feel when I look at the long list of stub versions of objects is that it will add maintenance overhead, and moves the implementation of the stub away from the point of test.

    Read the article

  • How to populate a private container for unit test?

    - by Sardathrion
    I have a class that defines a private (well, __container to be exact since it is python) container. I am using the information within said container as part of the logic of what the class does and have the ability to add/delete the elements of said container. For unit tests, I need to populate this container with some data. That date depends on the test done and thus putting it all in setUp() would be impractical and bloated -- plus it could add unwanted side effects. Since the data is private, I can only add things via the public interface of the object. This run codes that need not be run during a unit test and in some case is just a copy and paste from another test. Currently, I am mocking the whole container but somehow it does not feel that elegant a solution. Due to Python mocking frame work (mock), this requires the container to be public -- so I can use patch.dict(). I would rather keep that data private. What pattern can one use to still populate the containers without excising the public method so I have data to test with? Is there a way to do this with mock' patch.dict() that I missed?

    Read the article

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