Search Results

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

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

• Where do you take mocking - immediate dependencies, or do you grow the boundaries...?

  - by Peter Mounce

  So, I'm reasonably new to both unit testing and mocking in C# and .NET; I'm using xUnit.net and Rhino Mocks respectively. I'm a convert, and I'm focussing on writing behaviour specifications, I guess, instead of being purely TDD. Bah, semantics; I want an automated safety net to work above, essentially. A thought struck me though. I get programming against interfaces, and the benefits as far as breaking apart dependencies goes there. Sold. However, in my behaviour verification suite (aka unit tests ;-) ), I'm asserting behaviour one interface at a time. As in, one implementation of an interface at a time, with all of its dependencies mocked out and expectations set up. The approach seems to be that if we verify that a class behaves as it should against its collaborating dependencies, and in turn relies on each of those collaborating dependencies to have signed that same quality contract, we're golden. Seems reasonable enough. Back to the thought, though. Is there any value in semi-integration tests, where a test-fixture is asserting against a unit of concrete implementations that are wired together, and we're testing its internal behaviour against mocked dependencies? I just re-read that and I think I could probably have worded it better. Obviously, there's going to be a certain amount of "well, if it adds value for you, keep doing it", I suppose - but has anyone else thought about doing that, and reaped benefits from it outweighing the costs?

  Read the article

• Mocking HttpContext with JustMock

  - by mehfuzh

  In post , i will show 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 though ProcessRequest call, now if we take a look inside method though reflector, we will find calls stack like : ProcessRequest –> ProcessRequestWithNoAssert –> SetInstrinsics –> Finallly ProcessRequest. Inside SetIntrinsics , where it requires calls from HttpRequest, HttpResponse and HttpBrowserCababilities. With this , we can easily know what are classes / calls  we need to mock in order to get though 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

• Mocking property sets

  - by mehfuzh

  In this post, i will be showing how you can mock property sets with your expected values or even action using JustMock. To begin, we have a sample interface: public interface IFoo {     int Value { get; set; } } Now,  we can create a mock that will throw on any call other than the one expected, generally its a strict mock and we can do it like: bool expected = false;  var foo = Mock.Create<IFoo>(BehaviorMode.Strict);  Mock.ArrangeSet(() => { foo.Value = 1; }).DoInstead(() => expected  = true);    foo.Value = 1;    Assert.True(expected); Here , the method for running though our expectation for set is Mock.ArrangeSet , where we can directly set our expectations or can even set matchers into it like: var foo = Mock.Create<IFoo>(BehaviorMode.Strict);   Mock.ArrangeSet(() => foo.Value = Arg.Matches<int>(x => x > 3));   foo.Value = 4; foo.Value = 5;   Assert.Throws<MockException>(() => foo.Value = 3);   In the example, any set for value not satisfying matcher expression will throw an MockException as this is a strict mock but what will be the case for loose mocks, where we also have to assert it. Here, let’s take an interface with an indexed property. Indexers are treated in the same way as properties, as with basic indexers let you access your class if it were an array. public interface IFooIndexed {     string this[int key] { get; set; } } We want to  setup a value for a particular index,  we then will pass that mock to some implementer where it will be actually called. Once done, we want to assert that if it has been invoked properly. var foo = Mock.Create<IFooIndexed>();   Mock.ArrangeSet(() => foo[0] = "ping");   foo[0] = "ping";   Mock.AssertSet(() => foo[0] = "ping"); In the above example, both the values are user defined, it might happen that we want to make it more dynamic, In this example, i set it up for set with any value and finally checked if it is set with the one i am looking for. var foo = Mock.Create<IFooIndexed>();   Mock.ArrangeSet(() => foo[0] = Arg.Any<string>());   foo[0] = "ping";   Mock.AssertSet(() => foo[0] = Arg.Matches<string>(x => string.Compare("ping", x) == 0)); This is more or less of mocking user sets , but we can further have it to throw exception or even do our own task for a particular set , like : Mock.ArrangeSet(() => foo.MyProperty = 10).Throws(new ArgumentException()); Or  bool expected = false;  var foo = Mock.Create<IFoo>(BehaviorMode.Strict);  Mock.ArrangeSet(() => { foo.Value = 1; }).DoInstead(() => expected  = true);    foo.Value = 1;    Assert.True(expected); Or call the original setter , in this example it will throw an NotImplementedExpectation var foo = Mock.Create<FooAbstract>(BehaviorMode.Strict); Mock.ArrangeSet(() => { foo.Value = 1; }).CallOriginal(); Assert.Throws<NotImplementedException>(() => { foo.Value = 1; });   Finally, try all these, find issues, post them to forum and make it work for you :-). Hope that helps,

  Read the article

• Returning a mock object from a mock object

  - by Songo

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

  Read the article

• Your experiences with TDD [closed]

  - by SkonJeet

  In your experience, does TDD prove to be a useful approach in all development projects? Do you take the approach of TDD even when working on an existing project? Also, how does mocking tie in with a TDD discipline? I'm not looking for opinions, I'm looking for developers' advice, tips and learning resources regarding TDD's usage based on their experience. I'm going to spend the day equipping myself with enough knowledge about TDD to start making small steps towards using it but I don't know to what extent I should be using it.

  Read the article

• How to unit test image processing code?

  - by rold2007

  I'm working in image processing (mainly OCR) and I wonder how I should integrate unit tests in my development. I'm already using unit tests for more "common" type of code but when dealing with image processing code I'm not sure how to deal with it. This kind of code always need some image data input/output and mocking this is not obvious. For now I'm mostly doing integration tests but they take a while to run and I would like some ideas on how to break down this kind of code into unit tests so that I can run them more quickly.

  Read the article

• Is static universally "evil" for unit testing and if so why does resharper recommend it?

  - by Vaccano

  I have found that there are only 3 ways to unit test (mock/stub) dependencies that are static in C#.NET: Moles TypeMock JustMock Given that two of these are not free and one has not hit release 1.0, mocking static stuff is not too easy. Does that make static methods and such "evil" (in the unit testing sense)? And if so, why does resharper want me to make anything that can be static, static? (Assuming resharper is not also "evil".) Clarification: I am talking about the scenario when you want to unit test a method and that method calls a static method in a different unit/class. By most definitions of unit testing, if you just let the method under test call the static method in the other unit/class then you are not unit testing, you are integration testing. (Useful, but not a unit test.)

  Read the article

• Tips for Making this Code Testable [migrated]

  - by Jesse Bunch

  So I'm writing an abstraction layer that wraps a telephony RESTful service for sending text messages and making phone calls. I should build this in such a way that the low-level provider, in this case Twilio, can be easily swapped without having to re-code the higher level interactions. I'm using a package that is pre-built for Twilio and so I'm thinking that I need to create a wrapper interface to standardize the interaction between the Twilio service package and my application. Let us pretend that I cannot modify this pre-built package. Here is what I have so far (in PHP): <?php namespace Telephony; class Provider_Twilio implements Provider_Interface { public function send_sms(Provider_Request_SMS $request) { if (!$request->is_valid()) throw new Provider_Exception_InvalidRequest(); $sms = \Twilio\Twilio::request('SmsMessage'); $response = $sms->create(array( 'To' => $request->to, 'From' => $request->from, 'Body' => $request->body )); if ($this->_did_request_fail($response)) { throw new Provider_Exception_RequestFailed($response->message); } $response = new Provider_Response_SMS(TRUE); return $response; } private function _did_request_fail($api_response) { return isset($api_response->status); } } So the idea is that I can write another file like this for any other telephony service provided that it implements Provider_Interface making them swappable. Here are my questions: First off, do you think this is a good design? How could it be improved? Second, I'm having a hard time testing this because I need to mock out the Twilio package so that I'm not actually depending on Twilio's API for my tests to pass or fail. Do you see any strategy for mocking this out? Thanks in advance for any advice!

  Read the article

• Telerik Introduces New Developer Tool Designed to Simplify Unit Test Mocking

  JustMock extends Teleriks commitment to providing Visual Studio developer productivity Waltham, MA, April 13, 2010 Telerik, the leading vendor of development tools and user interface components for .NET, today announced the introduction of JustMock, a productivity add-in for Microsoft? Visual Studio 2008 and 2010. JustMock helps developers easily create object mockings in unit tests, saving time and improving the quality of software testing. JustMock is being introduced as a Beta and is scheduled...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

  Read the article

• Mocking property sets

  In this post, i will be showing how you can mock property sets with your expected values or even action using JustMock. To begin, we have a sample interface: public interface IFoo { int Value { get; set; } } Now,  we can create a mock that will throw on any call other than the one expected, generally its a strict mock and we can do it like: bool expected = false; var foo = Mock.Create<IFoo>(BehaviorMode.Strict); Mock.ArrangeSet(() => { foo.Value = 1; }).DoInstead(() =>...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

  Read the article

• Mocking property sets

  In this post, i will be showing how you can mock property sets with your expected values or even action using JustMock. To begin, we have a sample interface: public interface IFoo { int Value { get; set; } } Now,  we can create a mock that will throw on any call other than the one expected, generally its a strict mock and we can do it like: bool expected = false; var foo = Mock.Create<IFoo>(BehaviorMode.Strict); Mock.ArrangeSet(() => { foo.Value = 1; }).DoInstead(() =>...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

  Read the article

• What is Type Mocking?

  - by masoud ramezani

  What is Type Mocking?

  Read the article

• Is there a tool I can use to generate interfaces and wrappers for object mocking in c#

  - by fostandy

  Given a class like System.Timers.Timer, or ANY managed class (whether user defined, from the .net framework, or some 3rd party library) is there some program I can use to (a) generate an interface based on this class and (b) generate a wrapper for the given class? for example if I have a public class Foo { public object MyProperty { get { ... } set { ... } } public int SomeMethod(object a) { ... } } it will create an interface interface IFoo { object MyProperty { get; set; } int SomeMethod(object a) { ... } } and maybe even a wrapper class FooWrap { // something for relay constructor here ... Foo _me; public object MyProperty { get { return _me.MyProperty; } set { _me.MyProperty = value; } } public int SomeMethod(object a) { return _me.SomeMethod(); } } Obviously there's stuff I haven't thought about like events, generics etc. I want a DWIMNWIS-PSICHTO(-Plus-Stuff-I-Clearly-Haven't-Thought-Of). I'm aware resharper can be used to extract an interface but I've only been able to use this on my own classes. Aside: Wow, it is amazing how simply becoming accustomed to a previously 'unacceptable' idea eventually gives it legitimacy. A year ago the idea of having to create interfaces for all objects I want to mock and adopting an injection framework would have seemed like the height of madness. It turns out that while it's not quite death and taxes, it is sparta. I am aware of and have used typemock. It certainly is the work of elvish wizards. One day when $800 does not seem like quite so much money I intend to buy it.

  Read the article

• Am I mocking this helper function right in my Django test?

  - by CppLearner

  lib.py from django.core.urlresolvers import reverse def render_reverse(f, kwargs): """ kwargs is a dictionary, usually of the form {'args': [cbid]} """ return reverse(f, **kwargs) tests.py from lib import render_reverse, print_ls class LibTest(unittest.TestCase): def test_render_reverse_is_correct(self): #with patch('webclient.apps.codebundles.lib.reverse') as mock_reverse: with patch('django.core.urlresolvers.reverse') as mock_reverse: from lib import render_reverse mock_f = MagicMock(name='f', return_value='dummy_views') mock_kwargs = MagicMock(name='kwargs',return_value={'args':['123']}) mock_reverse.return_value = '/natrium/cb/details/123' response = render_reverse(mock_f(), mock_kwargs()) self.assertTrue('/natrium/cb/details/' in response) But instead, I get File "/var/lib/graphyte-webclient/graphyte-webenv/lib/python2.6/site-packages/django/core/urlresolvers.py", line 296, in reverse "arguments '%s' not found." % (lookup_view_s, args, kwargs)) NoReverseMatch: Reverse for 'dummy_readfile' with arguments '('123',)' and keyword arguments '{}' not found. Why is it calling reverse instead of my mock_reverse (it is looking up my urls.py!!) The author of Mock library Michael Foord did a video cast here (around 9:17), and in the example he passed the mock object request to the view function index. Furthermore, he patched POll and assigned an expected return value. Isn't that what I am doing here? I patched reverse? Thanks.

  Read the article

• Library to fake intermittent failures according to tester-defined policy?

  - by crosstalk

  I'm looking for a library that I can use to help mock a program component that works only intermittently - usually, it works fine, but sometimes it fails. For example, suppose I need to read data from a file, and my program has to avoid crashing or hanging when a read fails due to a disk head crash. I'd like to model that by having a mock data reader function that returns mock data 90% of the time, but hangs or returns garbage otherwise. Or, if I'm stress-testing my full program, I could turn on debugging code in my real data reader module to make it return real data 90% of the time and hang otherwise. Now, obviously, in this particular example I could just code up my mock manually to test against a random() routine. However, I was looking for a system that allows implementing any failure policy I want, including: Fail randomly 10% of the time Succeed 10 times, fail 4 times, repeat Fail semi-randomly, such that one failure tends to be followed by a burst of more failures Any policy the tester wants to define Furthermore, I'd like to be able to change the failure policy at runtime, using either code internal to the program under test, or external knobs or switches (though the latter can be implemented with the former). In pig-Java, I'd envision a FailureFaker interface like so: interface FailureFaker { /** Return true if and only if the mocked operation succeeded. Implementors should override this method with versions consistent with their failure policy. */ public boolean attempt(); } And each failure policy would be a class implementing FailureFaker; for example there would be a PatternFailureFaker that would succeed N times, then fail M times, then repeat, and a AlwaysFailFailureFaker that I'd use temporarily when I need to simulate, say, someone removing the external hard drive my data was on. The policy could then be used (and changed) in my mock object code like so: class MyMockComponent { FailureFaker faker; public void doSomething() { if (faker.attempt()) { // ... } else { throw new RuntimeException(); } } void setFailurePolicy (FailureFaker policy) { this.faker = policy; } } Now, this seems like something that would be part of a mocking library, so I wouldn't be surprised if it's been done before. (In fact, I got the idea from Steve Maguire's Writing Solid Code, where he discusses this exact idea on pages 228-231, saying that such facilities were common in Microsoft code of that early-90's era.) However, I'm only familiar with EasyMock and jMockit for Java, and neither AFAIK have this function, or something similar with different syntax. Hence, the question: Do such libraries as I've described above exist? If they do, where have you found them useful? If you haven't found them useful, why not?

  Read the article

• What is the most appropriate testing method in this scenario?

  - by Daniel Bruce

  I'm writing some Objective-C apps (for OS X/iOS) and I'm currently implementing a service to be shared across them. The service is intended to be fairly self-contained. For the current functionality I'm envisioning there will be only one method that clients will call to do a fairly complicated series of steps both using private methods on the class, and passing data through a bunch of "data mangling classes" to arrive at an end result. The gist of the code is to fetch a log of changes, stored in a service-internal data store, that has occurred since a particular time, simplify the log to only include the last applicable change for each object, attach the serialized values for the affected objects and return this all to the client. My question then is, how do I unit-test this entry point method? Obviously, each class would have thorough unit tests to ensure that their functionality works as expected, but the entry point seems harder to "disconnect" from the rest of the world. I would rather not send in each of these internal classes IoC-style, because they're small and are only made classes to satisfy the single-responsibility principle. I see a couple possibilities: Create a "private" interface header for the tests with methods that call the internal classes and test each of these methods separately. Then, to test the entry point, make a partial mock of the service class with these private methods mocked out and just test that the methods are called with the right arguments. Write a series of fatter tests for the entry point without mocking out anything, testing the entire functionality in one go. This looks, to me, more like "integration testing" and seems brittle, but it does satisfy the "only test via the public interface" principle. Write a factory that returns these internal services and take that in the initializer, then write a factory that returns mocked versions of them to use in tests. This has the downside of making the construction of the service annoying, and leaks internal details to the client. Write a "private" initializer that take these services as extra parameters, use that to provide mocked services, and have the public initializer back-end to this one. This would ensure that the client code still sees the easy/pretty initializer and no internals are leaked. I'm sure there's more ways to solve this problem that I haven't thought of yet, but my question is: what's the most appropriate approach according to unit testing best practices? Especially considering I would prefer to write this test-first, meaning I should preferably only create these services as the code indicates a need for them.

  Read the article

• Using Lambdas for return values in Rhino.Mocks

  - by PSteele

  In a recent StackOverflow question, someone showed some sample code they’d like to be able to use.  The particular syntax they used isn’t supported by Rhino.Mocks, but it was an interesting idea that I thought could be easily implemented with an extension method. Background When stubbing a method return value, Rhino.Mocks supports the following syntax: dependency.Stub(s => s.GetSomething()).Return(new Order()); The method signature is generic and therefore you get compile-time type checking that the object you’re returning matches the return value defined by the “GetSomething” method. You could also have Rhino.Mocks execute arbitrary code using the “Do” method: dependency.Stub(s => s.GetSomething()).Do((Func<Order>) (() => new Order())); This requires the cast though.  It works, but isn’t as clean as the original poster wanted.  They showed a simple example of something they’d like to see: dependency.Stub(s => s.GetSomething()).Return(() => new Order()); Very clean, simple and no casting required.  While Rhino.Mocks doesn’t support this syntax, it’s easy to add it via an extension method. The Rhino.Mocks “Stub” method returns an IMethodOptions<T>.  We just need to accept a Func<T> and use that as the return value.  At first, this would seem straightforward: public static IMethodOptions<T> Return<T>(this IMethodOptions<T> opts, Func<T> factory) { opts.Return(factory()); return opts; } And this would work and would provide the syntax the user was looking for.  But the problem with this is that you loose the late-bound semantics of a lambda.  The Func<T> is executed immediately and stored as the return value.  At the point you’re setting up your mocks and stubs (the “Arrange” part of “Arrange, Act, Assert”), you may not want the lambda executing – you probably want it delayed until the method is actually executed and Rhino.Mocks plugs in your return value. So let’s make a few small tweaks: public static IMethodOptions<T> Return<T>(this IMethodOptions<T> opts, Func<T> factory) { opts.Return(default(T)); // required for Rhino.Mocks on non-void methods opts.WhenCalled(mi => mi.ReturnValue = factory()); return opts; } As you can see, we still need to set up some kind of return value or Rhino.Mocks will complain as soon as it intercepts a call to our stubbed method.  We use the “WhenCalled” method to set the return value equal to the execution of our lambda.  This gives us the delayed execution we’re looking for and a nice syntax for lambda-based return values in Rhino.Mocks. Technorati Tags: .NET,Rhino.Mocks,Mocking,Extension Methods

  Read the article

• Unit Testing DateTime – The Crazy Way

  - by João Angelo

  We all know that the process of unit testing code that depends on DateTime, particularly the current time provided through the static properties (Now, UtcNow and Today), it’s a PITA. If you go ask how to unit test DateTime.Now on stackoverflow I’ll bet that you’ll get two kind of answers: Encapsulate the current time in your own interface and use a standard mocking framework; Pull out the big guns like Typemock Isolator, JustMock or Microsoft Moles/Fakes and mock the static property directly. Now each alternative has is pros and cons and I would have to say that I glean more to the second approach because the first adds a layer of abstraction just for the sake of testability. However, the second approach depends on commercial tools that not every shop wants to buy or in the not so friendly Microsoft Moles. (Sidenote: Moles is now named Fakes and it will ship with VS 2012) This tends to leave people without an acceptable and simple solution so after reading another of these types of questions in SO I came up with yet another alternative, one based on the first alternative that I presented here but tries really hard to not get in your way with yet another layer of abstraction. So, without further dues, I present you, the Tardis. The Tardis is single section of conditionally compiled code that overrides the meaning of the DateTime expression inside a single class. You still get the normal coding experience of using DateTime all over the place, but in a DEBUG compilation your tests will be able to mock every static method or property of the DateTime class. An example follows, while the full Tardis code can be downloaded from GitHub: using System; using NSubstitute; using NUnit.Framework; using Tardis; public class Example { public Example() : this(string.Empty) { } public Example(string title) { #if DEBUG this.DateTime = DateTimeProvider.Default; this.Initialize(title); } internal IDateTimeProvider DateTime { get; set; } internal Example(string title, IDateTimeProvider provider) { this.DateTime = provider; #endif this.Initialize(title); } private void Initialize(string title) { this.Title = title; this.CreatedAt = DateTime.UtcNow; } private string title; public string Title { get { return this.title; } set { this.title = value; this.UpdatedAt = DateTime.UtcNow; } } public DateTime CreatedAt { get; private set; } public DateTime UpdatedAt { get; private set; } } public class TExample { public void T001() { // Arrange var tardis = Substitute.For<IDateTimeProvider>(); tardis.UtcNow.Returns(new DateTime(2000, 1, 1, 6, 6, 6)); // Act var sut = new Example("Title", tardis); // Assert Assert.That(sut.CreatedAt, Is.EqualTo(tardis.UtcNow)); } public void T002() { // Arrange var tardis = Substitute.For<IDateTimeProvider>(); var sut = new Example("Title", tardis); tardis.UtcNow.Returns(new DateTime(2000, 1, 1, 6, 6, 6)); // Act sut.Title = "Updated"; // Assert Assert.That(sut.UpdatedAt, Is.EqualTo(tardis.UtcNow)); } } This approach is also suitable for other similar classes with commonly used static methods or properties like the ConfigurationManager class.

  Read the article

• Anyone using Moles / Pex in production?

  - by dferraro

  Hi all, I did search the forum and did not find a similar question. I'm looking to make a final decision on our mocking framework of choice moving forward as a best practice - I've decided on Moq... untill I just recently discovered MS has finally created a mocking framework called Moles which seems to work similar to TypeMock via the profiler API sexyness etc.. There's a million 'NMock vs Moq vs TypeMock vs Rhino....' threads on here. But I never see Moles involved.In fact, I did not even know if its existence until a short time ago. Anyone using it? In Production? Anyone dump their old mocking framework for it, and if so, which one? How did it compare to ther mocking frameworks you've used? thanks.. ps, we are using VS2008 and are moving to 2010 shortly.

  Read the article

• Is the moq project dead? Is it wise for me to invest in learning it?

  - by NimsDotNet

  I am fairly new to mocking frameworks and was trying to decide which one will be a good bet to start working on. I have been looking at this question about the best mocking framework, and I can see a lot of people preferring moq, but when i saw the moq project's change list, i can see that it has not been updated for almost an year now. Is moq project dead? if yes, which will be a good mocking framework to start with today?

  Read the article

• Verbosity Isn’t Always a Bad Thing

  - by PSteele

  There was a message posted to the Rhino.Mocks forums yesterday about verifying a single parameter of a method that accepted 5 parameters.  The code looked like this:   [TestMethod] public void ShouldCallTheAvanceServiceWithTheAValidGuid() { _sut.Send(_sampleInput); _avanceInterface.AssertWasCalled(x => x.SendData( Arg<Guid>.Is.Equal(Guid.Empty), Arg<string>.Is.Anything, Arg<string>.Is.Anything, Arg<string>.Is.Anything, Arg<string>.Is.Anything)); } Not the prettiest code, but it does work. I was going to reply that he could use the “GetArgumentsForCallsMadeOn” method to pull out an array that would contain all of the arguments.  A quick check of “args[0]” would be all that he needed.  But then Tim Barcz replied with the following: Just to help allay your fears a bit...this verbosity isn't always a bad thing.  When I read the code, based on the syntax you have used I know that for this particular test no parameters matter except the first...extremely useful in my opinion. An excellent point!  We need to make sure our unit tests are as clear as our code. Technorati Tags: Rhino.Mocks,Unit Testing

  Read the article

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

  - by Danack

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

  Read the article

• Is application-specific data required for good unit testing?

  - by stinkycheeseman

  I am writing unit tests for a fairly simple function that depends on a fairly complicated set of data. Essentially, the object I am manipulating represents a graph and this function determines whether to chart a line, bar, or pie chart based on the data that came back from the server. This is a simplified version, using jQuery: setDefaultChartType: function (graphObject) { var prop1 = graphObject.properties.key; var numCols = 0; $.each(graphObject.columns, function (colIndex, column) { numCols++; }); if ( numCols > 6 || ( prop1 > 1 && graphObject.data.length == 1) ) { graphObject.setChartType("line"); } else if ( numCols <=6 && prop1 == 1 ) { graphObject.setChartType("bar"); } else if ( numCols <=6 && prop1 > 1 ) { graphObject.setChartType("pie"); } } My question is, should I use mock data that is procured from the actual database? Or can I just fabricate data that fits the different cases? I'm afraid that fabricating data will not expose bugs arising from changes in the database, but on the other hand, it would require a lot more effort to keep the test data up-to-date that I'm not sure is necessary.

  Read the article

• 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

• How do I mock a method with an open array parameter in PascalMock?

  - by Oliver Giesen

  I'm currently in the process of getting started with unit testing and mocking for good and I stumbled over the following method that I can't seem to fabricate a working mock implementation for: function GetInstance(const AIID: TGUID; out AInstance; const AArgs: array of const; const AContextID: TImplContextID = CID_DEFAULT): Boolean; (TImplContextID is just an alias for Integer) I thought it would have to look something like this: function TImplementationProviderMock.GetInstance( const AIID: TGUID; out AInstance; const AArgs: array of const; const AContextID: TImplContextID): Boolean; begin Result := AddCall('GetInstance') .WithParams([@AIID, AContextID]) .ReturnsOutParams([AInstance]) .ReturnValue; end; But the compiler complains about the .ReturnsOutParams([AInstance]) saying "Bad argument type in variable type array constructor.". Also I haven't found a way to specify the open array parameter AArgs at all. Also, is using the @-notation for the TGUID-typed parameter the right way to go? Is it possible to mock this method with the current version of PascalMock at all? Update: I now realize I got the purpose of ReturnsOutParams completely wrong: It's intended to be used for populating the values to be returned when defining the expectations rather than for mocking the call itself. I now think the correct syntax for mocking the out parameter would probably have to look more like this: function TImplementationProviderMock.GetInstance( const AIID: TGUID; out AInstance; const AArgs: array of const; const AContextID: TImplContextID): Boolean; var lCall: TMockMethod; begin lCall := AddCall('GetInstance').WithParams([@AIID, AContextID]); Pointer(AInstance) := lCall.OutParams[0]; Result := lCall.ReturnValue; end; The questions that remain are how to mock the open array parameter AArgs and whether passing the TGUID argument (i.e. a value type) by address will work out...

  Read the article

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