Search Results

Search found 694 results on 28 pages for 'mock'.

Page 8/28 | < Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >

  • What is the best way to mock a 3rd party object in ruby?

    - by spinlock
    I'm writing a test app using the twitter gem and I'd like to write an integration test but I can't figure out how to mock the objects in the Twitter namespace. Here's the function that I want to test: def build_twitter(omniauth) Twitter.configure do |config| config.consumer_key = TWITTER_KEY config.consumer_secret = TWITTER_SECRET config.oauth_token = omniauth['credentials']['token'] config.oauth_token_secret = omniauth['credentials']['secret'] end client = Twitter::Client.new user = client.current_user self.name = user.name end and here's the rspec test that I'm trying to write: feature 'testing oauth' do before(:each) do @twitter = double("Twitter") @twitter.stub!(:configure).and_return true @client = double("Twitter::Client") @client.stub!(:current_user).and_return(@user) @user = double("Twitter::User") @user.stub!(:name).and_return("Tester") end scenario 'twitter' do visit root_path login_with_oauth page.should have_content("Pages#home") end end But, I'm getting this error: 1) testing oauth twitter Failure/Error: login_with_oauth Twitter::Error::Unauthorized: GET https://api.twitter.com/1/account/verify_credentials.json: 401: Invalid / expired Token # ./app/models/user.rb:40:in `build_twitter' # ./app/models/user.rb:16:in `build_authentication' # ./app/controllers/authentications_controller.rb:47:in `create' # ./spec/support/integration_spec_helper.rb:3:in `login_with_oauth' # ./spec/integration/twit_test.rb:16:in `block (2 levels) in <top (required)>' The mocks above are using rspec but I'm open to trying mocha too. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Mocking successive calls of similar type via sequential mocking

    - by mehfuzh
    In this post , i show how you can benefit from  sequential mocking feature[In JustMock] for setting up expectations with successive calls of same type.  To start let’s first consider the following dummy database and entity class. public class Person {     public virtual string Name { get; set; }     public virtual int Age { get; set; } }   public interface IDataBase {     T Get<T>(); } Now, our test goal is to return different entity for successive calls on IDataBase.Get<T>(). By default, the behavior in JustMock is override , which is similar to other popular mocking tools. By override it means that the tool will consider always the latest user setup. Therefore, the first example will return the latest entity every-time and will fail in line #12: Person person1 = new Person { Age = 30, Name = "Kosev" }; Person person2 = new Person { Age = 80, Name = "Mihail" };   var database = Mock.Create<IDataBase>();   Queue<Person> queue = new Queue<Person>();   Mock.Arrange(() => database.Get<Person>()).Returns(() => queue.Dequeue()); Mock.Arrange(() => database.Get<Person>()).Returns(person2);   // this will fail Assert.Equal(person1.GetHashCode(), database.Get<Person>().GetHashCode());   Assert.Equal(person2.GetHashCode(), database.Get<Person>().GetHashCode()); We can solve it the following way using a Queue and that removes the item from bottom on each call: Person person1 = new Person { Age = 30, Name = "Kosev" }; Person person2 = new Person { Age = 80, Name = "Mihail" };   var database = Mock.Create<IDataBase>();   Queue<Person> queue = new Queue<Person>();   queue.Enqueue(person1); queue.Enqueue(person2);   Mock.Arrange(() => database.Get<Person>()).Returns(queue.Dequeue());   Assert.Equal(person1.GetHashCode(), database.Get<Person>().GetHashCode()); Assert.Equal(person2.GetHashCode(), database.Get<Person>().GetHashCode()); This will ensure that right entity is returned but this is not an elegant solution. So, in JustMock we introduced a  new option that lets you set up your expectations sequentially. Like: Person person1 = new Person { Age = 30, Name = "Kosev" }; Person person2 = new Person { Age = 80, Name = "Mihail" };   var database = Mock.Create<IDataBase>();   Mock.Arrange(() => database.Get<Person>()).Returns(person1).InSequence(); Mock.Arrange(() => database.Get<Person>()).Returns(person2).InSequence();   Assert.Equal(person1.GetHashCode(), database.Get<Person>().GetHashCode()); Assert.Equal(person2.GetHashCode(), database.Get<Person>().GetHashCode()); The  “InSequence” modifier will tell the mocking tool to return the expected result as in the order it is specified by user. The solution though pretty simple and but neat(to me) and way too simpler than using a collection to solve this type of cases. Hope that helps P.S. The example shown in my blog is using interface don’t require a profiler  and you can even use a notepad and build it referencing Telerik.JustMock.dll, run it with GUI tools and it will work. But this feature also applies to concrete methods that includes JM profiler and can be implemented for more complex scenarios.

    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

  • Implementing a ILogger interface to log data

    - by Jon
    I have a need to write data to file in one of my classes. Obviously I will pass an interface into my class to decouple it. I was thinking this interface will be used for testing and also in other projects. This is my interface: //This could be used by filesystem, webservice public interface ILogger { List<string> PreviousLogRecords {get;set;} void Log(string Data); } public interface IFileLogger : ILogger { string FilePath; bool ValidFileName; } public class MyClassUnderTest { public MyClassUnderTest(IFileLogger logger) {....} } [Test] public void TestLogger() { var mock = new Mock<IFileLogger>(); mock.Setup(x => x.Log(Is.Any<string>).AddsDataToList()); //Is this possible?? var myClass = new MyClassUnderTest(mock.Object); myClass.DoSomethingThatWillSplitThisAndLog3Times("1,2,3"); Assert.AreEqual(3,mock.PreviousLogRecords.Count); } This won't work I don't believe as nothing is storing the items so is this possible using Moq and also what do you think of the design of the interface?

    Read the article

  • How can i mock or test my deferred execution functionality?

    - by cottsak
    I have what could be seen as a bizarre hybrid of IQueryable<T> and IList<T> collections of domain objects passed up my application stack. I'm trying to maintain as much of the 'late querying' or 'lazy loading' as possible. I do this in two ways: By using a LinqToSql data layer and passing IQueryable<T>s through by repositories and to my app layer. Then after my app layer passing IList<T>s but where certain elements in the object/aggregate graph are 'chained' with delegates so as to defer their loading. Sometimes even the delegate contents rely on IQueryable<T> sources and the DataContext are injected. This works for me so far. What is blindingly difficult is proving that this design actually works. Ie. If i defeat the 'lazy' part somewhere and my execution happens early then the whole thing is a waste of time. I'd like to be able to TDD this somehow. I don't know a lot about delegates or thread safety as it applies to delegates acting on the same source. I'd like to be able to mock the DataContext and somehow trace both methods of deferring (IQueryable<T>'s SQL and the delegates) the loading so that i can have tests that prove that both functions are working at different levels/layers of the app/stack. As it's crucial that the deferring works for the design to be of any value, i'd like to see tests fail when i break the design at a given level (separate from the live implementation). Is this possible?

    Read the article

  • .net mvc2 custom HtmlHelper extension unit testing

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

    Read the article

  • How to mock/stub a directory of files and their contents using RSpec?

    - by John Topley
    A while ago I asked "How to test obtaining a list of files within a directory using RSpec?" and although I got a couple of useful answers, I'm still stuck, hence a new question with some more detail about what I'm trying to do. I'm writing my first RubyGem. It has a module that contains a class method that returns an array containing a list of non-hidden files within a specified directory. Like this: files = Foo.bar :directory => './public' The array also contains an element that represents metadata about the files. This is actually a hash of hashes generated from the contents of the files, the idea being that changing even a single file changes the hash. I've written my pending RSpec examples, but I really have no idea how to implement them: it "should compute a hash of the files within the specified directory" it "shouldn't include hidden files or directories within the specified directory" it "should compute a different hash if the content of a file changes" I really don't want to have the tests dependent on real files acting as fixtures. How can I mock or stub the files and their contents? The gem implementation will use Find.find, but as one of the answers to my other question said, I don't need to test the library. I really have no idea how to write these specs, so any help much appreciated!

    Read the article

  • How GAE emulator limits list of available Python modules?

    - by Konstantin
    I installed Python Mock module using PIP. When I try to import mock running under 'dev_appserver', GAE says that it can't find module 'mock'. import mock works perfectly in Python interpreter. I understand that dev_appserver behaves absolutely correctly because I can't install modules with PIP on GAE servers. My question is how technically dev_appserver filters list of modules that can be loaded?

    Read the article

  • Aide On a Low Memory System

    - by Jason Mock
    I have a Linux server running on a Linode.com VPS, where I'm trying to utilize aide to detect any issues. However, the nightly aide run uses up all of my available memory and swap (512MB RAM / 384MB SWAP). I've tried adding a script to /etc/cron.daily that would stop/start services using a lot of memory (apache2, mysql) during the aide run. Unfortunately, it seems like aide continued to use every available byte (including the space freed up from apache2 and mysql). Here's a graph from munin showing what happens when aide runs: Note the spike of memory usage, well into swap, when aide runs Any suggestions on tuning aide to not use so much memory, or is there an alternative to aide that doesn't behave this way?

    Read the article

  • Mocking the Unmockable: Using Microsoft Moles with Gallio

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

    Read the article

  • Is unit testing the definition of an interface necessary?

    - by HackedByChinese
    I have occasionally heard or read about people asserting their interfaces in a unit test. I don't mean mocking an interface for use in another type's test, but specifically creating a test to accompany the interface. Consider this ultra-lame and off-the-cuff example: public interface IDoSomething { string DoSomething(); } and the test: [TestFixture] public class IDoSomethingTests { [Test] public void DoSomething_Should_Return_Value() { var mock = new Mock<IDoSomething>(); var actualValue = mock.Expect(m => m.DoSomething()).Returns("value"); mock.Object.DoSomething(); mock.Verify(m => DoSomething()); Assert.AreEqual("value", actualValue); } } I suppose the idea is to use the test to drive the design of the interface and also to provide guidance for implementors on what's expected so they can draw good tests of their own. Is this a common (recommended) practice?

    Read the article

  • .htaccess mod_rewrite is preventing certain files from being served

    - by Lucas
    i have a successful use of mod_rewrite to make a site display as i wish... however, i have migrated the 'mock-up' folder to the root directory and in implementing these rules for the site, some files are not being served in the ^pdfs folder: RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} -f RewriteRule ^ - [L] (old directory) RewriteRule ^redesign_03012010/mock-up/([^/]+)/([^/]+)$ /redesign_03012010/mock-up/index.php?page=$1&section=$2 [PT] RewriteRule ^redesign_03012010/mock-up/([^/]+)$ /redesign_03012010/mock-up/index.php?page=$1 [PT,L] (new directory) RewriteRule ^([^/]+)/([^/]+)$ /index.php?test=1&page=$1&section=$2 [PT] RewriteRule ^([^/]+)$ /index.php?test=1&page=$1 [PT,L] ... ^pdfs (aka /pdfs/) is not serving the files... any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Mocking the CAL EventAggregator with Moq

    - by toxvaerd
    Hi, I'm using the Composite Application Library's event aggregator, and would like to create a mock for the IEventAggregator interface, for use in my unit test. I'm planning on using Moq for this task, and an example test so far looks something like this: var mockEventAggregator = new Mock<IEventAggregator>(); var mockImportantEvent = new Mock<ImportantEvent>(); mockEventAggregator.Setup(e => e.GetEvent<SomeOtherEvent>()).Returns(new Mock<SomeOtherEvent>().Object); mockEventAggregator.Setup(e => e.GetEvent<SomeThirdEvent>()).Returns(new Mock<SomeThirdEvent>().Object); // ... mockEventAggregator.Setup(e => e.GetEvent<ImportantEvent>()).Returns(mockImportantEvent.Object); mockImportantEvent.Setup(e => e.Publish(It.IsAny<ImportantEventArgs>())); // ...Actual test... mockImportantEvent.VerifyAll(); This works fine, but I would like know, if there is some clever way to avoid having to define an empty mock for every event-type my code might encounter (SomeOtherEvent, SomeThirdEvent, ...)? I could of course define all my events this way in a [TestInitialize] method, but I would like to know if there is a more clever way? :-)

    Read the article

  • How to use mock and verify methods of OCMock in objective-C ? Is there any good tutorial on OCMock i

    - by san
    My problem is I am getting an error: OCMckObject[NSNumberFormatter]: expected method was not invoked:setAllowsFloats:YES I have written following Code: (void) testReturnStringFromNumber { id mockFormatter = [OCMockObject mockForClass:[NSNumberFormatter class]]; StringNumber *testObject = [[StringNumber alloc] init]; [[mockFormatter expect] setAllowsFloats:YES]; [testObject returnStringFromNumber:80.23456]; [mockFormatter verify]; } @implementation StringNumber - (NSString *) returnStringFromNumber:(float)num { NSNumberFormatter *formatter = [[NSNumberFormatter alloc] init]; [formatter setAllowsFloats:YES]; NSString *str= [formatter stringFromNumber:[NSNumber numberWithFloat:num]]; [formatter release]; return str; } @end

    Read the article

  • Mocking inter-method dependencies

    - by Zecrates
    I've recently started using mock objects in my tests, but I'm still very inexperienced with them and unsure of how to use them in some cases. At the moment I'm struggling with how to mock inter-method dependencies (calling method A has an effect on the results of method B), and whether it should even be mocked (in the sense of using a mocking framework) at all? Take for example a Java Iterator? It is easy enough to mock the next() call to return the correct values, but how do I mock hasNext(), which depends on how many times next() has been called? Currently I'm using a List.Iterator as I could find no way to properly mock one. Does Martin Fowler's distinction between mocks and stubs come into play here? Should I rather write my own IteratorMock? Also consider the following example. The method to be tested calls mockObject.setX() and later on mockObject.getX(). Is there any way that I can create such a mock (without writing my own) which will allow the returned value of getX to depend on what was passed to setX?

    Read the article

  • Is it a good idea to mock/stub in integration tests?

    - by ez
    Say there are multiple requests in a integration test, some of them are sphinx calls(locator for example). Should we just stub out the entire response of these sphinx call, or, since it is a integration test, we want to excise the entire test without stubbing. If that is the case, how do we still keep test independent in the situation when sphinx fails, no internet connection, or third party server non-responsive. Give reasons. Thanks

    Read the article

  • PHPUnit: Testing if a protected method was called

    - by Luiz Damim
    I´m trying to test if a protected method is called in a public interface. <?php abstract class SomeClassAbstract { abstract public foo(); public function doStuff() { $this->_protectedMethod(); } protected function _protectedMethod(); { // implementation is irrelevant } } <?php class MyTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase { public function testCalled() { $mock = $this->getMockForAbstractClass('SomeClass'); $mock->expects($this->once()) ->method('_protectedMethod'); $mock->doStuff(); } } I know it is called correctly, but PHPUnit says its never called. The same happens when I test the other way, when a method is never called: <?php abstract class AnotherClassAbstract { abstract public foo(); public function doAnotherStuff() { $this->_loadCache(); } protected function _loadCache(); { // implementation is irrelevant } } <?php class MyTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase { public function testCalled() { $mock = $this->getMockForAbstractClass('AnotherClass'); $mock->expects($this->once()) ->method('_loadCache'); $mock->doAnotherStuff(); } } The method is called but PHPUnit says that it is not. What I´m doing wrong? Edit I wasn´t declaring my methods with double colons, it was just for denoting that it was a public method (interface). Updated to full class/methods declarations. Edit 2 I should have said that I´m testing some method implementations in an abstract class (edited the code to reflect this). Since I can not instantiate the class, how can I test this? I´m thinking in creating an SomeClassSimple extending SomeClassAbstract and testing this one instead. Is it the right approach?

    Read the article

  • How do I mock a custom field that is deleted so that south migrations run?

    - by muhuk
    I have removed an app that contained a couple of custom fields from my project. Now when I try to run my migrations I get ImportError, naturally. These fields were very basic customizations like below: from django.db.models.fields import IntegerField class SomeField(IntegerField): def get_internal_type(self): return "SomeField" def db_type(self, connectio=None): return 'integer' def clean(self, value): # some custom cleanup pass So, none of them contain any database level customizations. When I removed this code, I've created migrations so the subsequent migration all ran fine. But when I try to run them on a pre-deletion database I realized my mistake. I can re-create a bare-bones app and make these imports work, but Ideally I would like to know if South has a mechanism to resolve these issues? Or is there any best practises? It would be cool if I could solve these issues just by modifying my migrations and not touching the codebase. (Django 1.3, South 0.7.3)

    Read the article

  • How to test method call order with Moq

    - by Finglas
    At the moment I have: [Test] public void DrawDrawsAllScreensInTheReverseOrderOfTheStack() { // Arrange. var screenMockOne = new Mock<IScreen>(); var screenMockTwo = new Mock<IScreen>(); var screens = new List<IScreen>(); screens.Add(screenMockOne.Object); screens.Add(screenMockTwo.Object); var stackOfScreensMock = new Mock<IScreenStack>(); stackOfScreensMock.Setup(s => s.ToArray()).Returns(screens.ToArray()); var screenManager = new ScreenManager(stackOfScreensMock.Object); // Act. screenManager.Draw(new Mock<GameTime>().Object); // Assert. screenMockOne.Verify(smo => smo.Draw(It.IsAny<GameTime>()), Times.Once(), "Draw was not called on screen mock one"); screenMockTwo.Verify(smo => smo.Draw(It.IsAny<GameTime>()), Times.Once(), "Draw was not called on screen mock two"); } But the order in which I draw my objects in the production code does not matter. I could do one first, or two it doesn't matter. However it should matter as the draw order is important. How do you (using Moq) ensure methods are called in a certain order? Edit I got rid of that test. The draw method has been removed from my unit tests. I'll just have to manually test it works. The reversing of the order though was taken into a seperate test class where it was tested so it's not all bad. Thanks for the link about the feature they are looking into. I sure hope it gets added soon, very handy.

    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

  • Why in the world is this Moq + NUnit test failing?

    - by Dave Falkner
    I have this dataAccess mock object and I'm trying to verify that one of its methods is being invoked, and that the argument passed into this method fulfills certain constraints. As best I can tell, this method is indeed being invoked, and with the constraints fulfilled. This line of the test throws a MockException: data.Verify(d => d.InsertInvoice(It.Is<Invoice>(i => i.TermPaymentAmount == 0m)), Times.Once()); However, removing the constraint and accepting any invoice passes the test: data.Verify(d => d.InsertInvoice(It.IsAny<Invoice>()), Times.Once()); I've created a test windows form that instantiates this test class, runs its .Setup() method, and then calls the method which I am wishing to test. I insert a breakpoint on the line of code where the mock object is failing the test data.InsertInvoice(invoice); to actually hover over the invoice, and I can confirm that its .TermPaymentAmount decimal property is indeed zero at the time the method is invoked. Out of desperation, I even added a call back to my dataAccess mock: data.Setup(d => d.InsertInvoice(It.IsAny<Invoice>())).Callback((Invoice inv) => System.Windows.Forms.MessageBox.Show(inv.TermPaymentAmount.ToString("G17"))); And this gives me a message box showing "0". This is really baffling me, and no one else in my shop has been able to figure this out. Any help would be appreciated. A barely related question, which I should probably ask independently, is whether it is preferable to use Mock.Verify(...) as I have here, or to use Mock.Expect(...).Verifiable followed by Mock.VerifyAll() as I have seen other people doing? If the answer is situational, which situations would warrent the use of one over the other?

    Read the article

  • How do I mock/fake/replace/stub a base class at unit-test time in C#?

    - by MatthewMartin
    UPDATE: I've changed the wording of the question. Previously it was a yes/no question about if a base class could be changed at runtime. I may be working on mission impossible here, but I seem to be getting close. I want to extend a ASP.NET control, and I want my code to be unit testable. Also, I'd like to be able to fake behaviors of a real Label (namely things like ID generation, etc), which a real Label can't do in an nUnit host. Here a working example that makes assertions on something that depends on a real base class and something that doesn't-- in a more realistic unit test, the test would depend on both --i.e. an ID existing and some custom behavior. Anyhow the code says it better than I can: public class LabelWrapper : Label //Runtime //public class LabelWrapper : FakeLabel //Unit Test time { private readonly LabelLogic logic= new LabelLogic(); public override string Text { get { return logic.ProcessGetText(base.Text); } set { base.Text=logic.ProcessSetText(value); } } } //Ugh, now I have to test FakeLabelWrapper public class FakeLabelWrapper : FakeLabel //Unit Test time { private readonly LabelLogic logic= new LabelLogic(); public override string Text { get { return logic.ProcessGetText(base.Text); } set { base.Text=logic.ProcessSetText(value); } } } [TestFixture] public class UnitTest { [Test] public void Test() { //Wish this was LabelWrapper label = new LabelWrapper(new FakeBase()) LabelWrapper label = new LabelWrapper(); //FakeLabelWrapper label = new FakeLabelWrapper(); label.Text = "ToUpper"; Assert.AreEqual("TOUPPER",label.Text); StringWriter stringWriter = new StringWriter(); HtmlTextWriter writer = new HtmlTextWriter(stringWriter); label.RenderControl(writer); Assert.AreEqual(1,label.ID); Assert.AreEqual("<span>TOUPPER</span>", stringWriter.ToString()); } } public class FakeLabel { virtual public string Text { get; set; } public void RenderControl(TextWriter writer) { writer.Write("<span>" + Text + "</span>"); } } //System Under Test internal class LabelLogic { internal string ProcessGetText(string value) { return value.ToUpper(); } internal string ProcessSetText(string value) { return value.ToUpper(); } }

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to set the value of $? in a mock in Ruby?

    - by rleber
    I am testing some scripts that interface with system commands. Their logic depends on the return code of the system commands, i.e. the value of $?. So, as a simplified example, the script might say: def foo(command) output=`#{command}` if $?==0 'succeeded' else 'failed' end end In order to be able to test these methods properly, I would like to be able to stub out the Kernel backquote call, and set $? to an arbitrary value, to see if I get appropriate behavior from the logic in the method after the backquote call. I can't figure out a way to do this. (In case it matters, I'm testing using Test::Unit and Mocha.)

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >