Search Results

Search found 155 results on 7 pages for 'moq'.

Page 4/7 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  | Next Page >

  • Receiving an Expectedmessage differs error

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

    Read the article

  • Wrap Sub as Function for use in Lambda

    - by Luhmann
    I have a problem with VB and Moq. I need to call a verify on a Sub. Like so: logger.Verify(Function(x) x.Log, Times.AtLeastOnce) And my logger looks like this: Public Interface ILogger Sub Log() End Interface But with VB this is not possible, because the Log method is a Sub, and thereby does not produce a value. I don't want to change the method to be a function. Whats the cleanest way of working around this limitation and is there any way to wrap the Sub as a Function like the below? logger.Verify(Function(x) ToFunc(AddressOf x.Log)) I have tried this, but i get: Lambda Parameter not in scope

    Read the article

  • How should I mock out my data connectivity

    - by BobTheBuilder
    I'm trying to unit test my Data Access Layer and I'm in the process of trying to mock my data connectivity to unit test my DAL and I'm coming unstuck trying to mock out the creation of the commands. I thought about using a queue of IDbParameters for the creation of the parameters, but the unit tests then require that the parameters are configured in the right order. I'm using MOQ and having looked around for some documentation to walk me through this, I'm finding lots of recommendation not to do this, but to write a wrapper for the connection, but it's my contention that my DAL is supposed to be the wrapper for my database and I don't feel I should be writing wrappers... if I do, how do I unit test the connectivity to the database for my wrapper? By writing another wrapper? It seems like it's turtles all the way down. So does anyone have any recommendations or tutorials regarding this particular area of unit testing/mocking?

    Read the article

  • How to Unit Test HtmlHelper similar to using(Html.BeginForm()){ }

    - by DaveDev
    Can somebody please suggest how I could write a Unit Test with Moq for following HtmlHelper method? public static HtmlTagBase GenerateTag<T>(this HtmlHelper htmlHelper , object elementData , object attributes) where T : HtmlTagBase { return (T)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(T) , htmlHelper.ViewContext , elementData , attributes); } which you would use as follows (please note the using statement - this is causing me confusion): <%--Model is a type of ShareClass--%> <% using (Html.GenerateTag<DivTag>(Model)) { %> My Div <% } %> using this method, if you specify T as type DivTag, where ShareClass is defined as public class ShareClass { public string Name { get; set; } public string Type { get; set; } public IEnumerable<Fund> Funds { get; set; } public ShareClass(string name, string shareClassType) { this.Name = name; this.Type = shareClassType; } } the following html will be rendered: <div class="ShareClass" shareclass-type="ShareClass_A" shareclass-name="MyShareClass">My Div</div>

    Read the article

  • Unit testing Monorail's RenderText method

    - by MikeWyatt
    I'm doing some maintenance on an older web application written in Monorail v1.0.3. I want to unit test an action that uses RenderText(). How do I extract the content in my test? Reading from controller.Response.OutputStream doesn't work, since the response stream is either not setup properly in PrepareController(), or is closed in RenderText(). Example Action public DeleteFoo( int id ) { var success= false; var foo = Service.Get<Foo>( id ); if( foo != null && CurrentUser.IsInRole( "CanDeleteFoo" ) ) { Service.Delete<Foo>( id ); success = true; } CancelView(); RenderText( "{ success: " + success + " }" ); } Example Test (using Moq) [Test] public void DeleteFoo() { var controller = new FooController (); PrepareController ( controller ); var foo = new Foo { Id = 123 }; var mockService = new Mock < Service > (); mockService.Setup ( s => s.Get<Foo> ( foo.Id ) ).Returns ( foo ); controller.Service = mockService.Object; controller.DeleteTicket ( foo.Id ); mockService.Verify ( s => s.Delete<Foo> ( foo.Id ) ); Assert.AreEqual ( "{success:true}", GetResponse ( Response ) ); } // response.OutputStream.Seek throws an "System.ObjectDisposedException: Cannot access a closed Stream." exception private static string GetResponse( IResponse response ) { response.OutputStream.Seek ( 0, SeekOrigin.Begin ); var buffer = new byte[response.OutputStream.Length]; response.OutputStream.Read ( buffer, 0, buffer.Length ); return Encoding.ASCII.GetString ( buffer ); }

    Read the article

  • How can I mock this asynchronous method?

    - by Charlie
    I have a class that roughly looks like this: public class ViewModel { public ViewModel(IWebService service) { this.WebService = service; } private IWebService WebService{get;set;} private IEnumerable<SomeData> MyData{get;set;} private void GetReferenceData() { this.WebService.BeginGetStaticReferenceData(GetReferenceDataOnComplete, null); } private void GetReferenceDataOnComplete(IAsyncResult result) { this.MyData = this.WebService.EndGetStaticReferenceData(result); } . . . } I want to mock my IWebService interface so that when BeginGetStaticReferenceData is called it is able to call the callback method. I'm using Moq and I can't work out how to do this. My unit test set up code looks something like: //Arrange var service = new Mock<IWebService>(); service.Setup(x => x.BeginGetStaticReferenceData(/*.......don't know.....*/)); service.Setup(x => x.EndGetStaticReferenceData(It.IsAny<IAsyncResult>())).Returns(new List<SomeData>{new SomeData{Name="blah"}}); var viewModel = new ViewModel(service.Object); . .

    Read the article

  • castle monorail unit test rendertext

    - by MikeWyatt
    I'm doing some maintenance on an older web application written in Monorail v1.0.3. I want to unit test an action that uses RenderText(). How do I extract the content in my test? Reading from controller.Response.OutputStream doesn't work, since the response stream is either not setup properly in PrepareController(), or is closed in RenderText(). Example Action public DeleteFoo( int id ) { var success= false; var foo = Service.Get<Foo>( id ); if( foo != null && CurrentUser.IsInRole( "CanDeleteFoo" ) ) { Service.Delete<Foo>( id ); success = true; } CancelView(); RenderText( "{ success: " + success + " }" ); } Example Test (using Moq) [Test] public void DeleteFoo() { var controller = new MyController (); PrepareController ( controller ); var foo = new Foo { Id = 123 }; var mockService = new Mock < Service > (); mockService.Setup ( s => s.Get<Foo> ( foo.Id ) ).Returns ( foo ); controller.Service = mockService.Object; controller.DeleteTicket ( ticket.Id ); mockService.Verify ( s => s.Delete<Foo> ( foo.Id ) ); Assert.AreEqual ( "{success:true}", GetResponse ( Response ) ); } // response.OutputStream.Seek throws an "System.ObjectDisposedException: Cannot access a closed Stream." exception private static string GetResponse( IResponse response ) { response.OutputStream.Seek ( 0, SeekOrigin.Begin ); var buffer = new byte[response.OutputStream.Length]; response.OutputStream.Read ( buffer, 0, buffer.Length ); return Encoding.ASCII.GetString ( buffer ); }

    Read the article

  • Unit test for Web Forms MVP presenter has a null Model

    - by jacksonakj
    I am using Web Forms MVP to write an DotNetNuke user control. When the 'SubmitContactUs' event is raised in my unit test the presenter attempts to set the 'Message' property on the Modal. However the View.Modal is null in the presenter. Shouldn't the Web Forms MVP framework automatically build a new View.Model object in the presenter? It could be that the 'Arrange' portion of my test is missing something that the presenter needs. Any help would be appreciated. Here is my test: using System; using AthleticHost.ContactUs.Core.Presenters; using AthleticHost.ContactUs.Core.Views; using Xunit; using Moq; namespace AthleticHost.ContactUs.Tests { public class ContactUsPresenterTests { [Fact] public void ContactUsPresenter_Sets_Message_OnSubmit() { // Arrange var view = new Mock<IContactUsView>(); var presenter = new ContactUsPresenter(view.Object); // Act view.Raise(v => v.Load += null, new EventArgs()); view.Raise(v => v.SubmitContactUs += null, new SubmitContactUsEventArgs("Chester", "Tester", "[email protected]", "http://www.test.com", "This is a test of the emergancy broadcast system...")); presenter.ReleaseView(); // Assert Assert.Contains("Chester Tester", view.Object.Model.Message); } } }

    Read the article

  • Can someone please clarify my understanding of a mock's Verify concept?

    - by Pure.Krome
    Hi folks, I'm playing around with some unit tests and mocking. I'm trying to verify that some code, in my method, has been called. I don't think I understand the Verify part of mocking right, because I can only ever Verify main method .. which is silly because that is what I Act upon anyways. I'm trying to test that my logic is working - so I thought I use Verify to see that certain steps in the method have been reached and enacted upon. Lets use this example to highlight what I am doing wrong. public interface IAuthenticationService { bool Authenticate(string username, string password); SignOut(); } public class FormsAuthenticationService : IAuthenticationService { public bool Authenticate(string username, string password) { var user = _userService.FindSingle(x => x.UserName == username); if (user == null) return false; // Hash their password. var hashedPassword = EncodePassword(password, user.PasswordSalt); if (!hashedPassword.Equals(password, StringComparison.InvariantCulture)) return false; FormsAuthentication.SetAuthCookie(userName, true); return true; } } So now, I wish to verify that EncodePassword was called. FormsAuthentication.SetAuthCookie(..) was called. Now, I don't care about the implimentations of both of those. And more importantly, I do not want to test those methods. That has to be handled elsewhere. What I though I should do is Verify that those methods were called and .. if possible ... an expected result was returned. Is this the correct understanding of what 'Verify' means with mocking? If so, can someone show me how I can do this. Preferable with moq but i'm happy with anything. Cheers :)

    Read the article

  • odd nullreference error at foreach when rendering view

    - by giddy
    This error is so weird I Just can't really figure out what is really wrong! In UserController I have public virtual ActionResult Index() { var usersmdl = from u in RepositoryFactory.GetUserRepo().GetAll() select new UserViewModel { ID = u.ID, UserName = u.Username, UserGroupName = u.UserGroupMain.GroupName, BranchName = u.Branch.BranchName, Password = u.Password, Ace = u.ACE, CIF = u.CIF, PF = u.PF }; if (usersmdl != null) { return View(usersmdl.AsEnumerable()); } return View(); } My view is of type @model IEnumerable<UserViewModel> on the top. This is what happens: Where and what exactly IS null!? I create the users from a fake repository with moq. I also wrote unit tests, which pass, to ensure the right amount of mocked users are returned. Maybe someone can point me in the right direction here? Top of the stack trace is : at lambda_method(Closure , User ) at System.Linq.Enumerable.WhereSelectArrayIterator`2.MoveNext() at ASP.Index_cshtml.Execute() Is it something to do with linq here? Tell me If I should include the full stack trace.

    Read the article

  • How to verify multiple properties on an object passed as parameter?

    - by Sandbox
    I want to verify multiple properties on an object passed as parameter. Mock<IInternalDataStore> mockOrder = new Mock<IInternalDataStore>(); I can think of doing it this way. Is this correct? Does a better way exist? mockDataStore.Setup(o => o.PlaceQuickOrder(It.Is<IOrder>(order => order.Id == 1))); mockDataStore.Setup(o => o.PlaceQuickOrder(It.Is<IOrder>(order => order.type == OrderType.Qucik))); mockDataStore.Setup(o => o.PlaceQuickOrder(It.Is<IOrder>(order => order.UnitName == "NYunit"))); mockDataStore.VerifyAll(); Another way of acheiving this would be to create a fake order object, expectedOrderObj with expected properties and do something like this: mockDataStore.Setup(o => o.PlaceQuickOrder(It.Is<IOrder>(order => order == expectedOrderObj ))); But, I don't want to override ==. Do we have a solution for this in moq? My classes look something like this: public interface IInternalDataStore { void PlaceQuickOrder(IOrder order); void PlaceUltraFastOrder(IOrder order); } public interface IOrder { public int Id { get; } public OrderType type { get; set; } public string UnitName { get; set; } } public enum OrderType { Qucik = 1, UltraFast = 2 }

    Read the article

  • Mocking methods that call other methods Still hit database.Can I avoid it?

    - by devnet247
    Hi, It has been decided to write some unit tests using moq etc..It's lots of legacy code c# (this is beyond my control so cannot answer the whys of this) Now how do you cope with a scenario when you dont want to hit the database but you indirectly still hit the database? This is something I put together it's not the real code but gives you an idea. How would you deal with this sort of scenario? Basically calling a method on a mocked interface still makes a dal call as inside that method there are other methods not part of that interface?Hope it's clear [TestFixture] public class Can_Test_this_legacy_code { [Test] public void Should_be_able_to_mock_login() { var mock = new Mock<ILoginDal>(); User user; var userName = "Jo"; var password = "password"; mock.Setup(x => x.login(It.IsAny<string>(), It.IsAny<string>(),out user)); var bizLogin = new BizLogin(mock.Object); bizLogin.Login(userName, password, out user); } } public class BizLogin { private readonly ILoginDal _login; public BizLogin(ILoginDal login) { _login = login; } public void Login(string userName, string password, out User user) { //Even if I dont want to this will call the DAL!!!!! var bizPermission = new BizPermission(); var permissionList = bizPermission.GetPermissions(userName); //Method I am actually testing _login.login(userName,password,out user); } } public class BizPermission { public List<Permission>GetPermissions(string userName) { var dal=new PermissionDal(); var permissionlist= dal.GetPermissions(userName); return permissionlist; } } public class PermissionDal { public List<Permission> GetPermissions(string userName) { //I SHOULD NOT BE GETTING HERE!!!!!! return new List<Permission>(); } } public interface ILoginDal { void login(string userName, string password,out User user); } public interface IOtherStuffDal { List<Permission> GetPermissions(); } public class Permission { public int Id { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } } Any suggestions? Am I missing the obvious? Is this Untestable code? Very very grateful for any suggestions.

    Read the article

  • How do you unit test a method containing a LINQ expression?

    - by Phil.Wheeler
    I'm struggling to get my head around how to accommodate a mocked method that only accepts a Linq expression as its argument. Specifically, the repository I'm using has a First() method that looks like this: public T First(Expression<Func<T, bool>> expression) { return All().Where(expression).FirstOrDefault(); } The difficulty I'm encountering is with my MSpec tests, where I'm (probably incorrectly) trying to mock that call: public abstract class with_userprofile_repository { protected static Mock<IRepository<UserProfile>> repository; Establish context = () => { repository = new Mock<IRepository<UserProfile>>(); repository.Setup<UserProfile>(x => x.First(up => up.OpenID == @"http://testuser.myopenid.com")).Returns(GetDummyUser()); }; protected static UserProfile GetDummyUser() { UserProfile p = new UserProfile(); p.OpenID = @"http://testuser.myopenid.com"; p.FirstName = "Joe"; p.LastLogin = DateTime.Now.Date.AddDays(-7); p.LastName = "Bloggs"; p.Email = "[email protected]"; return p; } } I run into trouble because it's not enjoying the Linq expression: System.NotSupportedException: Expression up = (up.OpenID = "http://testuser.myopenid.com") is not supported. So how does one test these sorts of scenarios?

    Read the article

  • moqing static method call to c# library class

    - by Joe
    This seems like an easy enough issue but I can't seem to find the keywords to effect my searches. I'm trying to unit test by mocking out all objects within this method call. I am able to do so to all of my own creations except for this one: public void MyFunc(MyVarClass myVar) { Image picture; ... picture = Image.FromStream(new MemoryStream(myVar.ImageStream)); ... } FromStream is a static call from the Image class (part of c#). So how can I refactor my code to mock this out because I really don't want to provide a image stream to the unit test.

    Read the article

  • mocking static method call to c# library class

    - by Joe
    This seems like an easy enough issue but I can't seem to find the keywords to effect my searches. I'm trying to unit test by mocking out all objects within this method call. I am able to do so to all of my own creations except for this one: public void MyFunc(MyVarClass myVar) { Image picture; ... picture = Image.FromStream(new MemoryStream(myVar.ImageStream)); ... } FromStream is a static call from the Image class (part of c#). So how can I refactor my code to mock this out because I really don't want to provide a image stream to the unit test.

    Read the article

  • How to test soft deletion event listner without setting up NHibernate Sessions

    - by isuruceanu
    I have overridden the default NHibernate DefaultDeleteEventListener according to this source: http://nhforge.org/blogs/nhibernate/archive/2008/09/06/soft-deletes.aspx so I have protected override void DeleteEntity( IEventSource session, object entity, EntityEntry entityEntry, bool isCascadeDeleteEnabled, IEntityPersister persister, ISet transientEntities) { if (entity is ISoftDeletable) { var e = (ISoftDeletable)entity; e.DateDeleted = DateTime.Now; CascadeBeforeDelete(session, persister, entity, entityEntry, transientEntities); CascadeAfterDelete(session, persister, entity, transientEntities); } else { base.DeleteEntity(session, entity, entityEntry, isCascadeDeleteEnabled, persister, transientEntities); } } How can I test only this piece of code, without configuring an NHIbernate Session?

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Write your Tests in RSpec with IronRuby

    - by kazimanzurrashid
    [Note: This is not a continuation of my previous post, treat it as an experiment out in the wild. ] Lets consider the following class, a fictitious Fund Transfer Service: public class FundTransferService : IFundTransferService { private readonly ICurrencyConvertionService currencyConvertionService; public FundTransferService(ICurrencyConvertionService currencyConvertionService) { this.currencyConvertionService = currencyConvertionService; } public void Transfer(Account fromAccount, Account toAccount, decimal amount) { decimal convertionRate = currencyConvertionService.GetConvertionRate(fromAccount.Currency, toAccount.Currency); decimal convertedAmount = convertionRate * amount; fromAccount.Withdraw(amount); toAccount.Deposit(convertedAmount); } } public class Account { public Account(string currency, decimal balance) { Currency = currency; Balance = balance; } public string Currency { get; private set; } public decimal Balance { get; private set; } public void Deposit(decimal amount) { Balance += amount; } public void Withdraw(decimal amount) { Balance -= amount; } } We can write the spec with MSpec + Moq like the following: public class When_fund_is_transferred { const decimal ConvertionRate = 1.029m; const decimal TransferAmount = 10.0m; const decimal InitialBalance = 100.0m; static Account fromAccount; static Account toAccount; static FundTransferService fundTransferService; Establish context = () => { fromAccount = new Account("USD", InitialBalance); toAccount = new Account("CAD", InitialBalance); var currencyConvertionService = new Moq.Mock<ICurrencyConvertionService>(); currencyConvertionService.Setup(ccv => ccv.GetConvertionRate(Moq.It.IsAny<string>(), Moq.It.IsAny<string>())).Returns(ConvertionRate); fundTransferService = new FundTransferService(currencyConvertionService.Object); }; Because of = () => { fundTransferService.Transfer(fromAccount, toAccount, TransferAmount); }; It should_decrease_from_account_balance = () => { fromAccount.Balance.ShouldBeLessThan(InitialBalance); }; It should_increase_to_account_balance = () => { toAccount.Balance.ShouldBeGreaterThan(InitialBalance); }; } and if you run the spec it will give you a nice little output like the following: When fund is transferred » should decrease from account balance » should increase to account balance 2 passed, 0 failed, 0 skipped, took 1.14 seconds (MSpec). Now, lets see how we can write exact spec in RSpec. require File.dirname(__FILE__) + "/../FundTransfer/bin/Debug/FundTransfer" require "spec" require "caricature" describe "When fund is transferred" do Convertion_Rate = 1.029 Transfer_Amount = 10.0 Initial_Balance = 100.0 before(:all) do @from_account = FundTransfer::Account.new("USD", Initial_Balance) @to_account = FundTransfer::Account.new("CAD", Initial_Balance) currency_convertion_service = Caricature::Isolation.for(FundTransfer::ICurrencyConvertionService) currency_convertion_service.when_receiving(:get_convertion_rate).with(:any, :any).return(Convertion_Rate) fund_transfer_service = FundTransfer::FundTransferService.new(currency_convertion_service) fund_transfer_service.transfer(@from_account, @to_account, Transfer_Amount) end it "should decrease from account balance" do @from_account.balance.should be < Initial_Balance end it "should increase to account balance" do @to_account.balance.should be > Initial_Balance end end I think the above code is self explanatory, treat the require(line 1- 4) statements as the add reference of our visual studio projects, we are adding all the required libraries with this statement. Next, the describe which is a RSpec keyword. The before does exactly the same as NUnit's Setup or MsTest’s TestInitialize attribute, but in the above we are using before(:all) which acts as ClassInitialize of MsTest, that means it will be executed only once before all the test methods. In the before(:all) we are first instantiating the from and to accounts, it is same as creating with the full name (including namespace)  like fromAccount = new FundTransfer.Account(.., ..), next, we are creating a mock object of ICurrencyConvertionService, check that for creating the mock we are not using the Moq like the MSpec version. This is somewhat an interesting issue of IronRuby or maybe the DLR, it seems that it is not possible to use the lambda expression that most of the mocking tools uses in arrange phase in Iron Ruby, like: currencyConvertionService.Setup(ccv => ccv.GetConvertionRate(Moq.It.IsAny<string>(), Moq.It.IsAny<string>())).Returns(ConvertionRate); But the good news is, there is already an excellent mocking tool called Caricature written completely in IronRuby which we can use to mock the .NET classes. May be all the mocking tool providers should give some thought to add the support for the DLR, so that we can use the tool that we are already familiar with. I think the rest of the code is too simple, so I am skipping the explanation. Now, the last thing, how we are going to run it with RSpec, lets first install the required gems. Open you command prompt and type the following: igem sources -a http://gems.github.com This will add the GitHub as gem source. Next type: igem install uuidtools caricature rspec and at last we have to create a batch file so that we can execute it in the Notepad++, create a batch like in the IronRuby bin directory like my previous post and put the following in that batch file: @echo off cls call spec %1 --format specdoc pause Next, add a run menu and shortcut in the Notepad++ like my previous post. Now when we run it it will show the following output: When fund is transferred - should decrease from account balance - should increase to account balance Finished in 0.332042 seconds 2 examples, 0 failures Press any key to continue . . . You will complete code of this post in the bottom. That's it for today. Download: RSpecIntegration.zip

    Read the article

  • Can I "inherit" a delegate? Looking for ways to combine Moq and MSpec without conflicts around It...

    - by Tomas Lycken
    I have started to use MSpec for BDD, and since long ago I use Moq as my mocking framework. However, they both define It, which means I can't have using Moq and using Machine.Specifications in the same code file without having to specify the namespace explicitly each time I use It. Anyone who's used MSpec knows this isn't really an option. I googled for solutions to this problem, and this blogger mentions having forked MSpec for himself, and implemented paralell support for Given, When, Then. I'd like to do this, but I can't figure out how to declare for example Given without having to go through the entire framework looking for references to Establish, and changing code there to match that I want either to be OK. For reference, the Establish, Because and It are declared in the following way: public delegate void Establish(); public delegate void Because(); public delegate void It(); What I need is to somehow declare Given, so that everywhere the code looks for an Establish, Given is also OK.

    Read the article

  • Does isolation frameworks (Moq, RhinoMock, etc) lead to test overspecification?

    - by Marius
    In Osherove's great book "The Art of Unit Testing" one of the test anti-patterns is over-specification which is basically the same as testing the internal state of the object instead of some expected output. To my experience, using Isolation frameworks can cause the same unwanted side effects as testing internal behavior because one tends to only implement the behavior necessary to make your stub interact with the object under test. Now if your implementation changes later on (but the contract remains the same), your test will suddenly break because you are expecting some data from the stub which was not implemented. So what do you think is the best approach to counter this? 1) Implement your stubs/mocks fully, this has the negative side-effect of potentially making your test less readable and also specifying more than necessary to make your test pass. 2) Favor manual, fully implemented fakes. 3) Implement your stubs/fakes so that they make your test just pass, and then deal with the brittleness that this might introduce.

    Read the article

  • How to merge your referenced assemblies into the output assembly for improved usability

    - by Daniel Cazzulino
    Something we've been doing in moq since the very beginning is to have a single assembly as output: Moq.dll. This reduces the clutter for users and lets them focus on what they need from our library, rather than getting the noise of whatever third-party (or internal) libraries we use to implement it. This is good from the deployment point of view too, and if all your libraries are actually internal infrastructure assemblies, you can even make them all internal types of your output assembly....Read full article

    Read the article

  • A simple Dynamic Proxy

    - by Abhijeet Patel
    Frameworks such as EF4 and MOQ do what most developers consider "dark magic". For instance in EF4, when you use a POCO for an entity you can opt-in to get behaviors such as "lazy-loading" and "change tracking" at runtime merely by ensuring that your type has the following characteristics: The class must be public and not sealed. The class must have a public or protected parameter-less constructor. The class must have public or protected properties Adhere to this and your type is magically endowed with these behaviors without any additional programming on your part. Behind the scenes the framework subclasses your type at runtime and creates a "dynamic proxy" which has these additional behaviors and when you navigate properties of your POCO, the framework replaces the POCO type with derived type instances. The MOQ framework does simlar magic. Let's say you have a simple interface:   public interface IFoo      {          int GetNum();      }   We can verify that the GetNum() was invoked on a mock like so:   var mock = new Mock<IFoo>(MockBehavior.Default);   mock.Setup(f => f.GetNum());   var num = mock.Object.GetNum();   mock.Verify(f => f.GetNum());   Beind the scenes the MOQ framework is generating a dynamic proxy by implementing IFoo at runtime. the call to moq.Object returns the dynamic proxy on which we then call "GetNum" and then verify that this method was invoked. No dark magic at all, just clever programming is what's going on here, just not visible and hence appears magical! Let's create a simple dynamic proxy generator which accepts an interface type and dynamically creates a proxy implementing the interface type specified at runtime.     public static class DynamicProxyGenerator   {       public static T GetInstanceFor<T>()       {           Type typeOfT = typeof(T);           var methodInfos = typeOfT.GetMethods();           AssemblyName assName = new AssemblyName("testAssembly");           var assBuilder = AppDomain.CurrentDomain.DefineDynamicAssembly(assName, AssemblyBuilderAccess.RunAndSave);           var moduleBuilder = assBuilder.DefineDynamicModule("testModule", "test.dll");           var typeBuilder = moduleBuilder.DefineType(typeOfT.Name + "Proxy", TypeAttributes.Public);              typeBuilder.AddInterfaceImplementation(typeOfT);           var ctorBuilder = typeBuilder.DefineConstructor(                     MethodAttributes.Public,                     CallingConventions.Standard,                     new Type[] { });           var ilGenerator = ctorBuilder.GetILGenerator();           ilGenerator.EmitWriteLine("Creating Proxy instance");           ilGenerator.Emit(OpCodes.Ret);           foreach (var methodInfo in methodInfos)           {               var methodBuilder = typeBuilder.DefineMethod(                   methodInfo.Name,                   MethodAttributes.Public | MethodAttributes.Virtual,                   methodInfo.ReturnType,                   methodInfo.GetParameters().Select(p => p.GetType()).ToArray()                   );               var methodILGen = methodBuilder.GetILGenerator();               methodILGen.EmitWriteLine("I'm a proxy");               if (methodInfo.ReturnType == typeof(void))               {                   methodILGen.Emit(OpCodes.Ret);               }               else               {                   if (methodInfo.ReturnType.IsValueType || methodInfo.ReturnType.IsEnum)                   {                       MethodInfo getMethod = typeof(Activator).GetMethod(/span>"CreateInstance",new Type[]{typeof((Type)});                                               LocalBuilder lb = methodILGen.DeclareLocal(methodInfo.ReturnType);                       methodILGen.Emit(OpCodes.Ldtoken, lb.LocalType);                       methodILGen.Emit(OpCodes.Call, typeofype).GetMethod("GetTypeFromHandle"));  ));                       methodILGen.Emit(OpCodes.Callvirt, getMethod);                       methodILGen.Emit(OpCodes.Unbox_Any, lb.LocalType);                                                              }                 else                   {                       methodILGen.Emit(OpCodes.Ldnull);                   }                   methodILGen.Emit(OpCodes.Ret);               }               typeBuilder.DefineMethodOverride(methodBuilder, methodInfo);           }                     Type constructedType = typeBuilder.CreateType();           var instance = Activator.CreateInstance(constructedType);           return (T)instance;       }   }   Dynamic proxies are created by calling into the following main types: AssemblyBuilder, TypeBuilder, Modulebuilder and ILGenerator. These types enable dynamically creating an assembly and emitting .NET modules and types in that assembly, all using IL instructions. Let's break down the code above a bit and examine it piece by piece                Type typeOfT = typeof(T);              var methodInfos = typeOfT.GetMethods();              AssemblyName assName = new AssemblyName("testAssembly");              var assBuilder = AppDomain.CurrentDomain.DefineDynamicAssembly(assName, AssemblyBuilderAccess.RunAndSave);              var moduleBuilder = assBuilder.DefineDynamicModule("testModule", "test.dll");              var typeBuilder = moduleBuilder.DefineType(typeOfT.Name + "Proxy", TypeAttributes.Public);   We are instructing the runtime to create an assembly caled "test.dll"and in this assembly we then emit a new module called "testModule". We then emit a new type definition of name "typeName"Proxy into this new module. This is the definition for the "dynamic proxy" for type T                 typeBuilder.AddInterfaceImplementation(typeOfT);               var ctorBuilder = typeBuilder.DefineConstructor(                         MethodAttributes.Public,                         CallingConventions.Standard,                         new Type[] { });               var ilGenerator = ctorBuilder.GetILGenerator();               ilGenerator.EmitWriteLine("Creating Proxy instance");               ilGenerator.Emit(OpCodes.Ret);   The newly created type implements type T and defines a default parameterless constructor in which we emit a call to Console.WriteLine. This call is not necessary but we do this so that we can see first hand that when the proxy is constructed, when our default constructor is invoked.   var methodBuilder = typeBuilder.DefineMethod(                      methodInfo.Name,                      MethodAttributes.Public | MethodAttributes.Virtual,                      methodInfo.ReturnType,                      methodInfo.GetParameters().Select(p => p.GetType()).ToArray()                      );   We then iterate over each method declared on type T and add a method definition of the same name into our "dynamic proxy" definition     if (methodInfo.ReturnType == typeof(void))   {       methodILGen.Emit(OpCodes.Ret);   }   If the return type specified in the method declaration of T is void we simply return.     if (methodInfo.ReturnType.IsValueType || methodInfo.ReturnType.IsEnum)   {                               MethodInfo getMethod = typeof(Activator).GetMethod("CreateInstance",                                                         new Type[]{typeof(Type)});                               LocalBuilder lb = methodILGen.DeclareLocal(methodInfo.ReturnType);                                                     methodILGen.Emit(OpCodes.Ldtoken, lb.LocalType);       methodILGen.Emit(OpCodes.Call, typeof(Type).GetMethod("GetTypeFromHandle"));       methodILGen.Emit(OpCodes.Callvirt, getMethod);       methodILGen.Emit(OpCodes.Unbox_Any, lb.LocalType);   }   If the return type in the method declaration of T is either a value type or an enum, then we need to create an instance of the value type and return that instance the caller. In order to accomplish that we need to do the following: 1) Get a handle to the Activator.CreateInstance method 2) Declare a local variable which represents the Type of the return type(i.e the type object of the return type) specified on the method declaration of T(obtained from the MethodInfo) and push this Type object onto the evaluation stack. In reality a RuntimeTypeHandle is what is pushed onto the stack. 3) Invoke the "GetTypeFromHandle" method(a static method in the Type class) passing in the RuntimeTypeHandle pushed onto the stack previously as an argument, the result of this invocation is a Type object (representing the method's return type) which is pushed onto the top of the evaluation stack. 4) Invoke Activator.CreateInstance passing in the Type object from step 3, the result of this invocation is an instance of the value type boxed as a reference type and pushed onto the top of the evaluation stack. 5) Unbox the result and place it into the local variable of the return type defined in step 2   methodILGen.Emit(OpCodes.Ldnull);   If the return type is a reference type then we just load a null onto the evaluation stack   methodILGen.Emit(OpCodes.Ret);   Emit a a return statement to return whatever is on top of the evaluation stack(null or an instance of a value type) back to the caller     Type constructedType = typeBuilder.CreateType();   var instance = Activator.CreateInstance(constructedType);   return (T)instance;   Now that we have a definition of the "dynamic proxy" implementing all the methods declared on T, we can now create an instance of the proxy type and return that out typed as T. The caller can now invoke the generator and request a dynamic proxy for any type T. In our example when the client invokes GetNum() we get back "0". Lets add a new method on the interface called DayOfWeek GetDay()   public interface IFoo      {          int GetNum();          DayOfWeek GetDay();      }   When GetDay() is invoked, the "dynamic proxy" returns "Sunday" since that is the default value for the DayOfWeek enum This is a very trivial example of dynammic proxies, frameworks like MOQ have a way more sophisticated implementation of this paradigm where in you can instruct the framework to create proxies which return specified values for a method implementation.

    Read the article

  • Say goodbye to System.Reflection.Emit (any dynamic proxy generation) in WinRT

    - by mbrit
    tl;dr - Forget any form of dynamic code emitting in Metro-style. It's not going to happen.Over the past week or so I've been trying to get Moq (the popular open source TDD mocking framework) to work on WinRT. Irritatingly, the day before Release Preview was released it was actually working on Consumer Preview. However in Release Preview (RP) the System.Reflection.Emit namespace is gone. Forget any form of dynamic code generation and/or MSIL injection.This kills off any project based on the popular Castle Project Dynamic Proxy component, of which Moq is one example. You can at this point in time not perform any form of mocking using dynamic injection in your Metro-style unit testing endeavours.So let me take you through my journey on this, so that other's don't have to...The headline fact is that you cannot load any assembly that you create at runtime. WinRT supports one Assembly.Load method, and that takes the name of an assembly. That has to be placed within the deployment folder of your app. You cannot give it a filename, or stream. The methods are there, but private. Try to invoke them using Reflection and you'll be met with a caspol exception.You can, in theory, use Rotor to replace SRE. It's all there, but again, you can't load anything you create.You can't write to your deployment folder from within your Metro-style app. But, can you use another service on the machine to move a file that you create into the deployment folder and load it? Not really.The networking stack in Metro-style is intentionally "damaged" to prevent socket communication from Metro-style to any end-point on the local machine. (It just times out.) This militates against an approach where your Metro-style app can signal a properly installed service on the machine to create proxies on its behalf. If you wanted to do this, you'd have to route the calls through a C&C server somewhere. The reason why Microsoft has done this is obvious - taking out SRE know means they don't have to do it in an emergency later. The collateral damage in removing SRE is that you can't do mocking in test mode, but you also can't do any form of injection in production mode. There are plenty of reasons why enterprise apps might want to do this last point particularly. At CP, the assumption was that their inspection tools would prevent SRE being used as a malware vector - it now seems they are less confident about that. (For clarity, the risk here is in allowing a nefarious program to download instructions from a C&C server and make up executable code on the fly to run, getting around the marketplace restrictions.)So, two things:- System.Reflection.Emit is gone in Metro-style/WinRT. Get over it - dynamic, on-the-fly code generation is not going to to happen.- I've more or less got a version of Moq working in Metro-style. This is based on the idea of "baking" the dynamic proxies before you use them. You can find more information here: https://github.com/mbrit/moqrt

    Read the article

  • Fake It Easy On Yourself

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

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  | Next Page >