Search Results

Search found 209 results on 9 pages for 'mocks'.

Page 8/9 | < Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9  | Next Page >

  • What is the best way to use Guice and JMock together?

    - by Yishai
    I have started using Guice to do some dependency injection on a project, primarily because I need to inject mocks (using JMock currently) a layer away from the unit test, which makes manual injection very awkward. My question is what is the best approach for introducing a mock? What I currently have is to make a new module in the unit test that satisfies the dependencies and bind them with a provider that looks like this: public class JMockProvider<T> implements Provider<T> { private T mock; public JMockProvider(T mock) { this.mock = mock; } public T get() { return mock; } } Passing the mock in the constructor, so a JMock setup might look like this: final CommunicationQueue queue = context.mock(CommunicationQueue.class); final TransactionRollBack trans = context.mock(TransactionRollBack.class); Injector injector = Guice.createInjector(new AbstractModule() { @Override protected void configure() { bind(CommunicationQueue.class).toProvider(new JMockProvider<QuickBooksCommunicationQueue>(queue)); bind(TransactionRollBack.class).toProvider(new JMockProvider<TransactionRollBack>(trans)); } }); context.checking(new Expectations() {{ oneOf(queue).retrieve(with(any(int.class))); will(returnValue(null)); never(trans); }}); injector.getInstance(RunResponse.class).processResponseImpl(-1); Is there a better way? I know that AtUnit attempts to address this problem, although I'm missing how it auto-magically injects a mock that was created locally like the above, but I'm looking for either a compelling reason why AtUnit is the right answer here (other than its ability to change DI and mocking frameworks around without changing tests) or if there is a better solution to doing it by hand.

    Read the article

  • How to keep your unit test Arrange step simple and still guarantee DDD invariants ?

    - by ian31
    DDD recommends that the domain objects should be in a valid state at any time. Aggregate roots are responsible for guaranteeing the invariants and Factories for assembling objects with all the required parts so that they are initialized in a valid state. However this seems to complicate the task of creating simple, isolated unit tests a lot. Let's assume we have a BookRepository that contains Books. A Book has : an Author a Category a list of Bookstores you can find the book in These are required attributes : a book has to have an author, a category and at least a book store you can buy the book from. There's likely to be a BookFactory since it is quite a complex object, and the Factory will initialize the Book with at least all the mentioned attributes. Now we want to unit test a method of the BookRepository that returns all the Books. To test if the method returns the books, we have to set up a test context (the Arrange step in AAA terms) where some Books are already in the Repository. If the only tool at our disposal to create Book objects is the Factory, the unit test now also uses and is dependent on the Factory and inderectly on Category, Author and Store since we need those objects to build up a Book and then place it in the test context. Would you consider this is a dependency in the same way that in a Service unit test we would be dependent on, say, a Repository that the Service would call ? How would you solve the problem of having to re-create a whole cluster of objects in order to be able to test a simple thing ? How would you break that dependency and get rid of all these attributes we don't need in our test ? By using mocks or stubs ? If you mock up things a Repository contains, what kind of mock/stubs would you use as opposed to when you mock up something the object under test talks to or consumes ?

    Read the article

  • How to keep your unit tests simple and isolated and still guarantee DDD invariants ?

    - by ian31
    DDD recommends that the domain objects should be in a valid state at any time. Aggregate roots are responsible for guaranteeing the invariants and Factories for assembling objects with all the required parts so that they are initialized in a valid state. However this seems to complicate the task of creating simple, isolated unit tests a lot. Let's assume we have a BookRepository that contains Books. A Book has : an Author a Category a list of Bookstores you can find the book in These are required attributes : a book has to have an author, a category and at least a book store you can buy the book from. There's likely to be a BookFactory since it is quite a complex object, and the Factory will initialize the Book with at least all the mentioned attributes. Now we want to unit test a method of the BookRepository that returns all the Books. To test if the method returns the books, we have to set up a test context (the Arrange step in AAA terms) where some Books are already in the Repository. If the only tool at our disposal to create Book objects is the Factory, the unit test now also uses and is dependent on the Factory and inderectly on Category, Author and Store since we need those objects to build up a Book and then place it in the test context. Would you consider this is a dependency in the same way that in a Service unit test we would be dependent on, say, a Repository that the Service would call ? How would you solve the problem of having to re-create a whole cluster of objects in order to be able to test a simple thing ? How would you break that dependency and get rid of all these attributes we don't need in our test ? By using mocks or stubs ? If you mock up things a Repository contains, what kind of mock/stubs would you use as opposed to when you mock up something the object under test talks to or consumes ?

    Read the article

  • C++ & proper TDD

    - by Kotti
    Hi! I recently tried developing a small-sized project in C# and during the whole project our team used the Test-Driven-Development (TDD) technique (xunit, moq). I really think this was awesome, because (when paired with C#) this approach allowed to relax when coding, relax when projecting and relax when refactoring. I suspect that all this TDD-stuff actually simplifies the coding process and, well, it allowed (eventually, for me) to get the same result with fewer brain cells working. Right after that I tried using TDD paired with C++ (I used Google Test and Google Mock libraries), and, I don't know why but I actually think that TDD here was a step back in terms of rapid application development. I had some moments when I had to spend huge amounts of time thinking of my tests, building proper mocks, rebuilding them and swearing at my monitor. And, well, I obviously can't ask something like "what I did wrong?" or "what was wrong in my approach?", because I don't know what to describe. But if there are any people who are used to TDD in C++ (and, probably C#) too, could you please advise me how to do this properly. Framework recommendations, architecture approaches, plain coding advices - if you are experienced in TDD & C++, please respond.

    Read the article

  • mmap only needed pages of kernel buffer to user space

    - by axeoth
    See also this answer: http://stackoverflow.com/a/10770582/1284631 I need something similar, but without having to allocate a buffer: the buffer is large, in theory, but the user space program only needs to access some parts of it (it mocks some registers of a hardware). As I cannot allocate with vmalloc_user() such a large buffer (kernel 32 bit, in embedded environment, no swap...), I followed the same approach as in the quoted answer, trying to allocate only those pages that are really requested by the user space. So: I use a my_mmap() function for the device file (actually, is the .mmap field of a struct uio_info) to set up the fields of the vma, then, in the vm_area_struct's .fault field (also named my_fault()), I should return a page. except that: In the my_fault() method of vm_area_struct, I cannot obtain a page through: vmf->page=vmalloc_to_page(my_buf + (vmf->pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT)); since there is no allocated buffer: my_buf = vmalloc_user(MY_BUF_SIZE); fails with "allocation failed: out of vmalloc space - use vmalloc= to increase size." (and there is no room or swap to increase that vmalloc= parameter). So, I would need to get a page from the kernel and fill the vmf->page field. How to allocate a page (I assume that the offset of the page is known, as it is vm->pgoff). What base memory should I use instead of my_buf? PS: I also did set up the vma->flags |= VM_NORESERVE; (in the my_mmap()), but not sure if it helps. Is there any vmalloc_user_unreserved()-like function? (let's say, lazy allocation) Also, writing 1 to /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_memory and large values (eg 500) to /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_ratio before trying to my_buf=vmalloc_user(<large_size>) didn't work.

    Read the article

  • Seeking suggestions on redesigning the interface

    - by ratkok
    As a part of maintaining large piece of legacy code, we need to change part of the design mainly to make it more testable (unit testing). One of the issues we need to resolve is the existing interface between components. The interface between two components is a class that contains static methods only. Simplified example: class ABInterface { static methodA(); static methodB(); ... static methodZ(); }; The interface is used by component A so that different methods can use ABInterface::methodA() in order to prepare some input data and then invoke appropriate functions within component B. Now we are trying to redesign this interface for various reasons: Extending our unit test coverage - we need to resolve this dependency between the components and stubs/mocks are to be introduced The interface between these components diverged from the original design (ie. a lots of newer functions, used for the inter-component i/f are created outside this interface class). The code is old, changed a lot over the time and needs to be refactored. The change should not be disruptive for the rest of the system. We try to limit leaving many test-required artifacts in the production code. Performance is very important and should be no (or very minimal) degradation after the redesign. Code is OO in C++. I am looking for some ideas what approach to take. Any suggestions on how to do this efficiently?

    Read the article

  • Nested Resource testing RSpec

    - by Joseph DelCioppio
    I have two models: class Solution < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :owner, :class_name => "User", :foreign_key => :user_id end class User < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :solutions end with the following routing: map.resources :users, :has_many => :solutions and here is the SolutionsController: class SolutionsController < ApplicationController before_filter :load_user def index @solutions = @user.solutions end private def load_user @user = User.find(params[:user_id]) unless params[:user_id].nil? end end Can anybody help me with writing a test for the index action? So far I have tried the following but it doesn't work: describe SolutionsController do before(:each) do @user = Factory.create(:user) @solutions = 7.times{Factory.build(:solution, :owner => @user)} @user.stub!(:solutions).and_return(@solutions) end it "should find all of the solutions owned by a user" do @user.should_receive(:solutions) get :index, :user_id => @user.id end end And I get the following error: Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in 'SolutionsController GET index, when the user owns the software he is viewing should find all of the solutions owned by a user' #<User:0x000000041c53e0> expected :solutions with (any args) once, but received it 0 times Thanks in advance for all the help. Joe

    Read the article

  • How can I spec out an authlogic sessions controller using using a stub?

    - by Dave
    I want to test my User Session Controller testing that a user session is first built then saved. My UserSession class looks like this: class UserSession < Authlogic::Session::Base end The create method of my UserSessionsController looks like this: def create @user_session = UserSession.new(params[:user_session]) if @user_session.save flash[:notice] = "Successfully logged in." redirect_back_or_default administer_home_page_url else render :new end end and my controller spec looks like this: describe UserSessionsController do it "should build a new user session" do UserSession.stub!(:new).with(:email, :password) UserSession.should_receive(:new).with(:email => "[email protected]", :password => "foobar") post :create, :user_session => { :email => "[email protected]", :password => "foobar" } end end I stub out the new method but I still get the following error when I run the test: Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in 'UserSessionsController should build a new user session' <UserSession (class)> received :new with unexpected arguments expected: ({:password=>"foobar", :email=>"[email protected]"}) got: ({:priority_record=>nil}, nil) It's although the new method is being called on UserSession before my controller code is getting called. Calling activate_authlogic makes no difference.

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Framework or tool for "distributed unit testing"?

    - by user262646
    Is there any tool or framework able to make it easier to test distributed software written in Java? My system under test is a peer-to-peer software, and I'd like to perform testing using something like PNUnit, but with Java instead of .Net. The system under test is a framework I'm developing to build P2P applications. It uses JXTA as a lower subsystem, trying to hide some complexities of it. It's currently an academic project, so I'm pursuing simplicity at this moment. In my test, I want to demonstrate that a peer (running in its own process, possibly with multiple threads) can discover another one (running in another process or even another machine) and that they can exchange a few messages. I'm not using mocks nor stubs because I need to see both sides working simultaneously. I realize that some kind of coordination mechanism is needed, and PNUnit seems to be able to do that. I've bumped into some initiatives like Pisces, which "aims to provide a distributed testing environment that extends JUnit, giving the developer/tester an ability to run remote JUnits and create complex test suites that are composed of several remote JUnit tests running in parallel or serially", but this project and a few others I have found seem to be long dead.

    Read the article

  • Angular JS pagination after data loaded

    - by Federico Bucchi
    do you have any example of Angular JS elements pagination loaded from I file? I found this example: http://jsfiddle.net/SAWsA/11/ Now, instead of having this: $scope.items = [ {"id":"1","name":"name 1","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 1","field4":"field4 1","field5 ":"field5 1"}, {"id":"2","name":"name 2","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 2","field4":"field4 2","field5 ":"field5 2"}, {"id":"3","name":"name 3","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 3","field4":"field4 3","field5 ":"field5 3"}, {"id":"4","name":"name 4","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 4","field4":"field4 4","field5 ":"field5 4"}, {"id":"5","name":"name 5","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 5","field4":"field4 5","field5 ":"field5 5"}, {"id":"6","name":"name 6","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 6","field4":"field4 6","field5 ":"field5 6"}, {"id":"7","name":"name 7","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 7","field4":"field4 7","field5 ":"field5 7"}, {"id":"8","name":"name 8","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 8","field4":"field4 8","field5 ":"field5 8"}, {"id":"9","name":"name 9","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 9","field4":"field4 9","field5 ":"field5 9"}, {"id":"10","name":"name 10","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 10","field4":"field4 10","field5 ":"field5 10"}, {"id":"11","name":"name 11","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 11","field4":"field4 11","field5 ":"field5 11"}, {"id":"12","name":"name 12","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 12","field4":"field4 12","field5 ":"field5 12"}, {"id":"13","name":"name 13","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 13","field4":"field4 13","field5 ":"field5 13"}, {"id":"14","name":"name 14","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 14","field4":"field4 14","field5 ":"field5 14"}, {"id":"15","name":"name 15","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 15","field4":"field4 15","field5 ":"field5 15"}, {"id":"16","name":"name 16","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 16","field4":"field4 16","field5 ":"field5 16"}, {"id":"17","name":"name 17","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 17","field4":"field4 17","field5 ":"field5 17"}, {"id":"18","name":"name 18","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 18","field4":"field4 18","field5 ":"field5 18"}, {"id":"19","name":"name 19","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 19","field4":"field4 19","field5 ":"field5 19"}, {"id":"20","name":"name 20","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 20","field4":"field4 20","field5 ":"field5 20"} ]; I have to use something generated by: $http.get('/json/mocks/apps/applications.json') .then(function (result) { $scope.items = result.data.applications; }); How would you create the pagination waiting for the data loaded from $http.get?

    Read the article

  • How do I setup model associations in an RSpec test?

    - by Eric M.
    I've pastied the specs I've written for the posts/show.html.erb view in an application I'm writing as a means to learn RSpec. I am still learning about mocks and stubbing. This question is specific to the "should list all related comments" spec. What I want is to test that the show view displays a post's comments. But what I'm not sure about is how to setup this test and then have the test iterate through with should contain('xyz') statements. Any hints? Other suggestions are also appreciated! Thanks. ---Edit Some more information. I have a named_scope applied to comments in my view (I know, I did this a bit backwards in this case), so @post.comments.approved_is(true). The code pastied responds with the error "undefined method `approved_is' for #", which makes sense since I told it stub comments and return a comment. I'm still not sure, however, how to chain the stubs so that @post.comments.approved_is(true) will return an array of comments.

    Read the article

  • Integration testing - can it be done right?

    - by Max
    I used TDD as a development style on some projects in the past two years, but I always get stuck on the same point: how can I test the integration of the various parts of my program? What I am currently doing is writing a testcase per class (this is my rule of thumb: a "unit" is a class, and each class has one or more testcases). I try to resolve dependencies by using mocks and stubs and this works really well as each class can be tested independently. After some coding, all important classes are tested. I then "wire" them together using an IoC container. And here I am stuck: How to test if the wiring was successfull and the objects interact the way I want? An example: Think of a web application. There is a controller class which takes an array of ids, uses a repository to fetch the records based on these ids and then iterates over the records and writes them as a string to an outfile. To make it simple, there would be three classes: Controller, Repository, OutfileWriter. Each of them is tested in isolation. What I would do in order to test the "real" application: making the http request (either manually or automated) with some ids from the database and then look in the filesystem if the file was written. Of course this process could be automated, but still: doesn´t that duplicate the test-logic? Is this what is called an "integration test"? In a book i recently read about Unit Testing it seemed to me that integration testing was more of an anti-pattern?

    Read the article

  • Test-Drive ASP.NET MVC Review

    - by Ben Griswold
    A few years back I started dallying with test-driven development, but I never fully committed to the practice. This wasn’t because I didn’t believe in the value of TDD; it was more a matter of not completely understanding how to incorporate “test first” into my everyday development. Back in my web forms days, I could point fingers at the framework for my ignorance and laziness. After all, web forms weren’t exactly designed for testability so who could blame me for not embracing TDD in those conditions, right? But when I switched to ASP.NET MVC and quickly found myself fresh out of excuses and it became instantly clear that it was time to get my head around red-green-refactor once and for all or I would regretfully miss out on one of the biggest selling points the new framework had to offer. I have previously written about how I learned ASP.NET MVC. It was primarily hands on learning but I did read a couple of ASP.NET MVC books along the way. The books I read dedicated a chapter or two to TDD and they certainly addressed the benefits of TDD and how MVC was designed with testability in mind, but TDD was merely an afterthought compared to, well, teaching one how to code the model, view and controller. This approach made some sense, and I learned a bunch about MVC from those books, but when it came to TDD the books were just a teaser and an opportunity missed.  But then I got lucky – Jonathan McCracken contacted me and asked if I’d review his book, Test-Drive ASP.NET MVC, and it was just what I needed to get over the TDD hump. As the title suggests, Test-Drive ASP.NET MVC takes a different approach to learning MVC as it focuses on testing right from the very start. McCracken wastes no time and swiftly familiarizes us with the framework by building out a trivial Quote-O-Matic application and then dedicates the better part of his book to testing first – first by explaining TDD and then coding a full-featured Getting Organized application inspired by David Allen’s popular book, Getting Things Done. If you are a learn-by-example kind of coder (like me), you will instantly appreciate and enjoy McCracken’s style – its fast-moving, pragmatic and focused on only the most relevant information required to get you going with ASP.NET MVC and TDD. The book continues with the test-first theme but McCracken moves away from the sample application and incorporates other practical skills like persisting models with NHibernate, leveraging Inversion of Control with the IControllerFactory and building a RESTful web service. What I most appreciated about this section was McCracken’s use of and praise for open source libraries like Rhino Mocks, SQLite and StructureMap (to name just a few) and productivity tools like ReSharper, Web Platform Installer and ASP.NET SQL Server Setup Wizard.  McCracken’s emphasis on real world, pragmatic development was clearly demonstrated in every tool choice, straight-forward code block and developer tip. Whether one is already familiar with the tools/tips or not, McCracken’s thought process is easily understood and appreciated. The final section of the book walks the reader through security and deployment – everything from error handling and logging with ELMAH, to ASP.NET Health Monitoring, to using MSBuild with automated builds, to the deployment  of ASP.NET MVC to various web environments. These chapters, like those prior, offer enough information and explanation to simply help you get the job done.  Do I believe Test-Drive ASP.NET MVC will turn you into an expert MVC developer overnight?  Well, no.  I don’t think any book can make that claim.  If that were possible, I think book list prices would skyrocket!  That said, Test-Drive ASP.NET MVC provides a solid foundation and a unique (and dare I say necessary) approach to learning ASP.NET MVC.  Along the way McCracken shares loads of very practical software development tips and references numerous tools and libraries. The bottom line is it’s a great ASP.NET MVC primer – if you’re new to ASP.NET MVC it’s just what you need to get started.  Do I believe Test-Drive ASP.NET MVC will give you everything you need to start employing TDD in your everyday development?  Well, I used to think that learning TDD required a lot of practice and, if you’re lucky enough, the guidance of a mentor or coach.  I used to think that one couldn’t learn TDD from a book alone. Well, I’m still no pro, but I’m testing first now and Jonathan McCracken and his book, Test-Drive ASP.NET MVC, played a big part in making this happen.  If you are an MVC developer and a TDD newb, Test-Drive ASP.NET MVC is just the book for you.

    Read the article

  • TDD and WCF behavior

    - by Frederic Hautecoeur
    Some weeks ago I wanted to develop a WCF behavior using TDD. I have lost some time trying to use mocks. After a while i decided to just use a host and a client. I don’t like this approach but so far I haven’t found a good and fast solution to use Unit Test for testing a WCF behavior. To Implement my solution I had to : Create a Dummy Service Definition; Create the Dummy Service Implementation; Create a host; Create a client in my test; Create and Add the behavior; Dummy Service Definition This is just a simple service, composed of an Interface and a simple implementation. The structure is aimed to be easily customizable for my future needs.   Using Clauses : 1: using System.Runtime.Serialization; 2: using System.ServiceModel; 3: using System.ServiceModel.Channels; The DataContract: 1: [DataContract()] 2: public class MyMessage 3: { 4: [DataMember()] 5: public string MessageString; 6: } The request MessageContract: 1: [MessageContract()] 2: public class RequestMessage 3: { 4: [MessageHeader(Name = "MyHeader", Namespace = "http://dummyservice/header", Relay = true)] 5: public string myHeader; 6:  7: [MessageBodyMember()] 8: public MyMessage myRequest; 9: } The response MessageContract: 1: [MessageContract()] 2: public class ResponseMessage 3: { 4: [MessageHeader(Name = "MyHeader", Namespace = "http://dummyservice/header", Relay = true)] 5: public string myHeader; 6:  7: [MessageBodyMember()] 8: public MyMessage myResponse; 9: } The ServiceContract: 1: [ServiceContract(Name="DummyService", Namespace="http://dummyservice",SessionMode=SessionMode.Allowed )] 2: interface IDummyService 3: { 4: [OperationContract(Action="Perform", IsOneWay=false, ProtectionLevel=System.Net.Security.ProtectionLevel.None )] 5: ResponseMessage DoThis(RequestMessage request); 6: } Dummy Service Implementation 1: public class DummyService:IDummyService 2: { 3: #region IDummyService Members 4: public ResponseMessage DoThis(RequestMessage request) 5: { 6: ResponseMessage response = new ResponseMessage(); 7: response.myHeader = "Response"; 8: response.myResponse = new MyMessage(); 9: response.myResponse.MessageString = 10: string.Format("Header:<{0}> and Request was <{1}>", 11: request.myHeader, request.myRequest.MessageString); 12: return response; 13: } 14: #endregion 15: } Host Creation The most simple host implementation using a Named Pipe binding. The GetBinding method will create a binding for the host and can be used to create the same binding for the client. 1: public static class TestHost 2: { 3: 4: internal static string hostUri = "net.pipe://localhost/dummy"; 5:  6: // Create Host method. 7: internal static ServiceHost CreateHost() 8: { 9: ServiceHost host = new ServiceHost(typeof(DummyService)); 10:  11: // Creating Endpoint 12: Uri namedPipeAddress = new Uri(hostUri); 13: host.AddServiceEndpoint(typeof(IDummyService), GetBinding(), namedPipeAddress); 14:  15: return host; 16: } 17:  18: // Binding Creation method. 19: internal static Binding GetBinding() 20: { 21: NamedPipeTransportBindingElement namedPipeTransport = new NamedPipeTransportBindingElement(); 22: TextMessageEncodingBindingElement textEncoding = new TextMessageEncodingBindingElement(); 23:  24: return new CustomBinding(textEncoding, namedPipeTransport); 25: } 26:  27: // Close Method. 28: internal static void Close(ServiceHost host) 29: { 30: if (null != host) 31: { 32: host.Close(); 33: host = null; 34: } 35: } 36: } Checking the service A simple test tool check the plumbing. 1: [TestMethod] 2: public void TestService() 3: { 4: using (ServiceHost host = TestHost.CreateHost()) 5: { 6: host.Open(); 7:  8: using (ChannelFactory<IDummyService> channel = 9: new ChannelFactory<IDummyService>(TestHost.GetBinding() 10: , new EndpointAddress(TestHost.hostUri))) 11: { 12: IDummyService svc = channel.CreateChannel(); 13: try 14: { 15: RequestMessage request = new RequestMessage(); 16: request.myHeader = Guid.NewGuid().ToString(); 17: request.myRequest = new MyMessage(); 18: request.myRequest.MessageString = "I want some beer."; 19:  20: ResponseMessage response = svc.DoThis(request); 21: } 22: catch (Exception ex) 23: { 24: Assert.Fail(ex.Message); 25: } 26: } 27: host.Close(); 28: } 29: } Running the service should show that the client and the host are running fine. So far so good. Adding the Behavior Add a reference to the Behavior project and add the using entry in the test class. We just need to add the behavior to the service host : 1: [TestMethod] 2: public void TestService() 3: { 4: using (ServiceHost host = TestHost.CreateHost()) 5: { 6: host.Description.Behaviors.Add(new MyBehavior()); 7: host.Open();¨ 8: …  If you set a breakpoint in your behavior and run the test in debug mode, you will hit the breakpoint. In this case I used a ServiceBehavior. To add an Endpoint behavior you have to add it to the endpoints. 1: host.Description.Endpoints[0].Behaviors.Add(new MyEndpointBehavior()) To add a contract or an operation behavior a custom attribute should work on the service contract definition. I haven’t tried that yet.   All the code provided in this blog and in the following files are for sample use. Improvements I don’t like to instantiate a client and a service to test my behaviors. But so far I have' not found an easy way to do it. Today I am passing a type of endpoint to the host creator and it creates the right binding type. This allows me to easily switch between bindings at will. I have used the same approach to test Mex Endpoints, another post should come later for this. Enjoy !

    Read the article

  • Liskov Substitution Principle and the Oft Forgot Third Wheel

    - by Stacy Vicknair
    Liskov Substitution Principle (LSP) is a principle of object oriented programming that many might be familiar with from the SOLID principles mnemonic from Uncle Bob Martin. The principle highlights the relationship between a type and its subtypes, and, according to Wikipedia, is defined by Barbara Liskov and Jeanette Wing as the following principle:   Let be a property provable about objects of type . Then should be provable for objects of type where is a subtype of .   Rectangles gonna rectangulate The iconic example of this principle is illustrated with the relationship between a rectangle and a square. Let’s say we have a class named Rectangle that had a property to set width and a property to set its height. 1: Public Class Rectangle 2: Overridable Property Width As Integer 3: Overridable Property Height As Integer 4: End Class   We all at some point here that inheritance mocks an “IS A” relationship, and by gosh we all know square IS A rectangle. So let’s make a square class that inherits from rectangle. However, squares do maintain the same length on every side, so let’s override and add that behavior. 1: Public Class Square 2: Inherits Rectangle 3:  4: Private _sideLength As Integer 5:  6: Public Overrides Property Width As Integer 7: Get 8: Return _sideLength 9: End Get 10: Set(value As Integer) 11: _sideLength = value 12: End Set 13: End Property 14:  15: Public Overrides Property Height As Integer 16: Get 17: Return _sideLength 18: End Get 19: Set(value As Integer) 20: _sideLength = value 21: End Set 22: End Property 23: End Class   Now, say we had the following test: 1: Public Sub SetHeight_DoesNotAffectWidth(rectangle As Rectangle) 2: 'arrange 3: Dim expectedWidth = 4 4: rectangle.Width = 4 5:  6: 'act 7: rectangle.Height = 7 8:  9: 'assert 10: Assert.AreEqual(expectedWidth, rectangle.Width) 11: End Sub   If we pass in a rectangle, this test passes just fine. What if we pass in a square?   This is where we see the violation of Liskov’s Principle! A square might "IS A” to a rectangle, but we have differing expectations on how a rectangle should function than how a square should! Great expectations Here’s where we pat ourselves on the back and take a victory lap around the office and tell everyone about how we understand LSP like a boss. And all is good… until we start trying to apply it to our work. If I can’t even change functionality on a simple setter without breaking the expectations on a parent class, what can I do with subtyping? Did Liskov just tell me to never touch subtyping again? The short answer: NO, SHE DIDN’T. When I first learned LSP, and from those I’ve talked with as well, I overlooked a very important but not appropriately stressed quality of the principle: our expectations. Our inclination is to want a logical catch-all, where we can easily apply this principle and wipe our hands, drop the mic and exit stage left. That’s not the case because in every different programming scenario, our expectations of the parent class or type will be different. We have to set reasonable expectations on the behaviors that we expect out of the parent, then make sure that those expectations are met by the child. Any expectations not explicitly expected of the parent aren’t expected of the child either, and don’t register as a violation of LSP that prevents implementation. You can see the flexibility mentioned in the Wikipedia article itself: A typical example that violates LSP is a Square class that derives from a Rectangle class, assuming getter and setter methods exist for both width and height. The Square class always assumes that the width is equal with the height. If a Square object is used in a context where a Rectangle is expected, unexpected behavior may occur because the dimensions of a Square cannot (or rather should not) be modified independently. This problem cannot be easily fixed: if we can modify the setter methods in the Square class so that they preserve the Square invariant (i.e., keep the dimensions equal), then these methods will weaken (violate) the postconditions for the Rectangle setters, which state that dimensions can be modified independently. Violations of LSP, like this one, may or may not be a problem in practice, depending on the postconditions or invariants that are actually expected by the code that uses classes violating LSP. Mutability is a key issue here. If Square and Rectangle had only getter methods (i.e., they were immutable objects), then no violation of LSP could occur. What this means is that the above situation with a rectangle and a square can be acceptable if we do not have the expectation for width to leave height unaffected, or vice-versa, in our application. Conclusion – the oft forgot third wheel Liskov Substitution Principle is meant to act as a guidance and warn us against unexpected behaviors. Objects can be stateful and as a result we can end up with unexpected situations if we don’t code carefully. Specifically when subclassing, make sure that the subclass meets the expectations held to its parent. Don’t let LSP think you cannot deviate from the behaviors of the parent, but understand that LSP is meant to highlight the importance of not only the parent and the child class, but also of the expectations WE set for the parent class and the necessity of meeting those expectations in order to help prevent sticky situations.   Code examples, in both VB and C# Technorati Tags: LSV,Liskov Substitution Principle,Uncle Bob,Robert Martin,Barbara Liskov,Liskov

    Read the article

  • Mocking property sets

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

    Read the article

  • sqlite3-ruby can't make on rvm 1.8.7

    - by Josh Crews
    Upgrading to Rails 3 by starting with RVM 1.8.7. OSX 10.5.8 Output: josh-crewss-macbook:~ joshcrews$ gem install sqlite3-rubyBuilding native extensions. This could take a while...ERROR: Error installing sqlite3-ruby: ERROR: Failed to build gem native extension. /Users/joshcrews/.rvm/rubies/ruby-1.8.7-p174/bin/ruby extconf.rb checking for sqlite3.h... yes checking for sqlite3_libversion_number() in -lsqlite3... yes checking for rb_proc_arity()... no checking for sqlite3_column_database_name()... no checking for sqlite3_enable_load_extension()... no checking for sqlite3_load_extension()... no creating Makefile make gcc -I. -I. -I/Users/joshcrews/.rvm/rubies/ruby-1.8.7-p174/lib/ruby/1.8/i686-darwin9.8.0 -I. -I/usr/local/include -I/opt/local/include -I/usr/include -D_XOPEN_SOURCE -D_DARWIN_C_SOURCE -fno-common -g -O2 -fno-common -pipe -fno-common -O3 -Wall -Wcast-qual -Wwrite-strings -Wconversion -Wmissing-noreturn -Winline -c database.c database.c: In function ‘deallocate’: database.c:17: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘sqlite3_next_stmt’ database.c:17: warning: assignment makes pointer from integer without a cast database.c: In function ‘initialize’: database.c:76: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘sqlite3_open_v2’ database.c:79: error: ‘SQLITE_OPEN_READWRITE’ undeclared (first use in this function) database.c:79: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once database.c:79: error: for each function it appears in.) database.c:79: error: ‘SQLITE_OPEN_CREATE’ undeclared (first use in this function) database.c: In function ‘set_sqlite3_func_result’: database.c:277: error: ‘sqlite3_int64’ undeclared (first use in this function) database.c: In function ‘rb_sqlite3_func’: database.c:311: warning: passing argument 1 of ‘ruby_xcalloc’ as signed due to prototype database.c: In function ‘rb_sqlite3_step’: database.c:378: warning: passing argument 1 of ‘ruby_xcalloc’ as signed due to prototype make: *** [database.o] Error 1 Gem list (these are under RVM, under system I've got lot more gems included the sqlite3-ruby that's worked for 1.5 years) josh-crewss-macbook:~ joshcrews$ gem list *** LOCAL GEMS *** abstract (1.0.0) actionmailer (3.0.0.beta3) actionpack (3.0.0.beta3) activemodel (3.0.0.beta3) activerecord (3.0.0.beta3) activeresource (3.0.0.beta3) activesupport (3.0.0.beta3, 2.3.8) arel (0.3.3) builder (2.1.2) bundler (0.9.25) capybara (0.3.8) configuration (1.1.0) cucumber (0.7.2) cucumber-rails (0.3.1) culerity (0.2.10) database_cleaner (0.5.2) diff-lcs (1.1.2) erubis (2.6.5) ffi (0.6.3) gherkin (1.0.30) i18n (0.4.0, 0.3.7) json_pure (1.4.3) launchy (0.3.5) mail (2.2.1) memcache-client (1.8.3) mime-types (1.16) nokogiri (1.4.2) polyglot (0.3.1) rack (1.1.0) rack-mount (0.6.3) rack-test (0.5.4) rails (3.0.0.beta3) railties (3.0.0.beta3) rake (0.8.7) rdoc (2.5.8) rspec (2.0.0.beta.10, 2.0.0.beta.8) rspec-core (2.0.0.beta.10, 2.0.0.beta.8) rspec-expectations (2.0.0.beta.10, 2.0.0.beta.8) rspec-mocks (2.0.0.beta.10, 2.0.0.beta.8) rspec-rails (2.0.0.beta.10, 2.0.0.beta.8) rubygems-update (1.3.7) selenium-webdriver (0.0.20) spork (0.8.3) term-ansicolor (1.0.5) text-format (1.0.0) text-hyphen (1.0.0) thor (0.13.6) treetop (1.4.8) trollop (1.16.2) tzinfo (0.3.22) webrat (0.7.1) Version of XCode: 3.1.1 My suspicion is it has to do with "-I/Users/joshcrews/.rvm/rubies/ruby-1.8.7-p174/lib/ruby/1.8/i686-darwin9.8.0", because i686-darwin9.8.0 doesnt exist in that file

    Read the article

  • Heroku- Could not find paperclip-3.1.3 in any of the sources

    - by otchkcom
    This morning when I tried to update my website, heroku didn't let me push the app. Here's the message I got. Fetching gem metadata from http://rubygems.org/....... Fetching gem metadata from http://rubygems.org/.. Fetching git://github.com/drhenner/nifty-generators.git Could not find paperclip-3.1.3 in any of the sources ! ! Failed to install gems via Bundler. ! ! Heroku push rejected, failed to compile Ruby/rails app ! [remote rejected] master -> master (pre-receive hook declined) I don't have paperclip- 3.1.3 in my gem file. I'm not sure why it's looking for paperclip 3.1.3 Here's my gem file source 'http://rubygems.org' gem 'rails', '~> 3.2.6' gem 'asset_sync' group :assets do gem 'uglifier', '>= 1.0.3' end gem 'sass-rails', " ~> 3.2.3" gem "activemerchant", '~> 1.17.0' #, :lib => 'active_merchant' gem 'authlogic', "3.0.3" gem 'bluecloth', '~> 2.1.0' gem 'cancan', '~> 1.6.7' gem 'compass', '~> 0.12.rc.0' gem 'compass-rails' gem 'dalli', '~> 1.1.5' gem "friendly_id", "~> 3.3" gem 'haml', ">= 3.0.13"#, ">= 3.0.4"#, "2.2.21"#, gem "jquery-rails" gem 'aws-sdk' group :production do gem 'pg' gem 'thin' end gem 'nested_set', '~> 1.6.3' gem 'nokogiri', '~> 1.5.0' gem 'paperclip', '~> 3.0' gem 'prawn', '~> 0.12.0' gem 'rails3-generators', '~> 0.17.0' gem 'rmagick', :require => 'RMagick' gem 'rake', '~> 0.9.2' gem 'state_machine', '~> 1.1.2' gem 'sunspot_solr' gem 'sunspot_rails', '~> 1.3.0rc' gem 'will_paginate', '~> 3.0.0' gem 'dynamic_form' group :development do gem 'sqlite3' gem "autotest-rails-pure" gem "rails-erd" gem "ruby-debug19" end group :test, :development do gem "rspec-rails", "~> 2.8.0" gem 'capybara', :git => 'git://github.com/jnicklas/capybara.git' gem 'launchy' gem 'database_cleaner' end group :test do gem 'factory_girl', "~> 3.3.0" gem 'factory_girl_rails', "~> 3.3.0" gem 'mocha', '~> 0.10.0', :require => false gem 'rspec-rails-mocha' gem "rspec", "~> 2.8.0" gem "rspec-core", "~> 2.8.0" gem "rspec-expectations", "~> 2.8.0" gem "rspec-mocks", "~> 2.8.0" gem 'email_spec' gem "faker" gem "autotest", '~> 4.4.6' gem "autotest-rails-pure" gem "autotest-growl" gem "ZenTest", '4.6.2' end

    Read the article

  • Mocking using boost::shared_ptr and AMOP

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

    Read the article

  • Mock static method Activator.CreateInstance to return a mock of another class

    - by Jeep87c
    I have this factory class and I want to test it correctly. Let's say I have an abstract class which have many child (inheritance). As you can see in my Factory class the method BuildChild, I want to be able to create an instance of a child class at Runtime. I must be able to create this instance during Runtime because the type won't be know before runtime. And, I can NOT use Unity for this project (if so, I would not ask how to achieve this). Here's my Factory class that I want to test: public class Factory { public AnAbstractClass BuildChild(Type childType, object parameter) { AnAbstractClass child = (AnAbstractClass) Activator.CreateInstance(childType); child.Initialize(parameter); return child; } } To test this, I want to find a way to Mock Activator.CreateInstance to return my own mocked object of a child class. How can I achieve this? Or maybe if you have a better way to do this without using Activator.CreateInstance (and Unity), I'm opened to it if it's easier to test and mock! I'm currently using Moq to create my mocks but since Activator.CreateInstance is a static method from a static class, I can't figure out how to do this (I already know that Moq can only create mock instances of objects). I took a look at Fakes from Microsoft but without success (I had some difficulties to understand how it works and to find some well explained examples). Please help me! EDIT: I need to mock Activator.CreateInstance because I want to force this method to return another mocked object. The correct thing I want is only to stub this method (not to mock it). So when I test BuildChild like this: [TestMethod] public void TestBuildChild() { var mockChildClass = new Mock(AChildClass); // TODO: Stub/Mock Activator.CreateInstance to return mockChildClass when called with "type" and "parameter" as follow. var type = typeof(AChildClass); var parameter = "A parameter"; var child = this._factory.BuildChild(type, parameters); } Activator.CreateInstance called with type and parameter will return my mocked object instead of creating a new instance of the real child class (not yet implemented).

    Read the article

  • asp.net mvc How to test controllers correctly

    - by Simon G
    Hi, I'm having difficulty testing controllers. Original my controller for testing looked something like this: SomethingController CreateSomethingController() { var somethingData = FakeSomethingData.CreateFakeData(); var fakeRepository = FakeRepository.Create(); var controller = new SomethingController(fakeRepository); return controller; } This works fine for the majority of testing until I got the Request.IsAjaxRequest() part of code. So then I had to mock up the HttpContext and HttpRequestBase. So my code then changed to look like: public class FakeHttpContext : HttpContextBase { bool _isAjaxRequest; public FakeHttpContext( bool isAjaxRequest = false ) { _isAjaxRequest = isAjaxRequest; } public override HttpRequestBase Request { get { string ajaxRequestHeader = ""; if ( _isAjaxRequest ) ajaxRequestHeader = "XMLHttpRequest"; var request = new Mock<HttpRequestBase>(); request.SetupGet( x => x.Headers ).Returns( new WebHeaderCollection { {"X-Requested-With", ajaxRequestHeader} } ); request.SetupGet( x => x["X-Requested-With"] ).Returns( ajaxRequestHeader ); return request.Object; } } private IPrincipal _user; public override IPrincipal User { get { if ( _user == null ) { _user = new FakePrincipal(); } return _user; } set { _user = value; } } } SomethingController CreateSomethingController() { var somethingData = FakeSomethingData.CreateFakeData(); var fakeRepository = FakeRepository.Create(); var controller = new SomethingController(fakeRepository); ControllerContext controllerContext = new ControllerContext( new FakeHttpContext( isAjaxRequest ), new RouteData(), controller ); controller.ControllerContext = controllerContext; return controller; } Now its got to that stage in my controller where I call Url.Route and Url is null. So it looks like I need to start mocking up routes for my controller. I seem to be spending more time googling on how to fake/mock objects and then debugging to make sure my fakes are correct than actual writing the test code. Is there an easier way in to test a controller? I've looked at the TestControllerBuilder from MvcContrib which helps with some of the issues but doesn't seem to do everything. Is there anything else available that will do the job and will let me concentrate on writing the tests rather than writing mocks? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Code excavations, wishful invocations, perimeters and domain specific unit test frameworks

    - by RoyOsherove
    One of the talks I did at QCON London was about a subject that I’ve come across fairly recently , when I was building SilverUnit – a “pure” unit test framework for silverlight objects that depend on the silverlight runtime to run. It is the concept of “cogs in the machine” – when your piece of code needs to run inside a host framework or runtime that you have little or no control over for testability related matters. Examples of such cogs and machines can be: your custom control running inside silverlight runtime in the browser your plug-in running inside an IDE your activity running inside a windows workflow your code running inside a java EE bean your code inheriting from a COM+ (enterprise services) component etc.. Not all of these are necessarily testability problems. The main testability problem usually comes when your code actually inherits form something inside the system. For example. one of the biggest problems with testing objects like silverlight controls is the way they depend on the silverlight runtime – they don’t implement some silverlight interface, they don’t just call external static methods against the framework runtime that surrounds them – they actually inherit parts of the framework: they all inherit (in this case) from the silverlight DependencyObject Wrapping it up? An inheritance dependency is uniquely challenging to bring under test, because “classic” methods such as wrapping the object under test with a framework wrapper will not work, and the only way to do manually is to create parallel testable objects that get delegated with all the possible actions from the dependencies.    In silverlight’s case, that would mean creating your own custom logic class that would be called directly from controls that inherit from silverlight, and would be tested independently of these controls. The pro side is that you get the benefit of understanding the “contract” and the “roles” your system plays against your logic, but unfortunately, more often than not, it can be very tedious to create, and may sometimes feel unnecessary or like code duplication. About perimeters A perimeter is that invisible line that your draw around your pieces of logic during a test, that separate the code under test from any dependencies that it uses. Most of the time, a test perimeter around an object will be the list of seams (dependencies that can be replaced such as interfaces, virtual methods etc.) that are actually replaced for that test or for all the tests. Role based perimeters In the case of creating a wrapper around an object – one really creates a “role based” perimeter around the logic that is being tested – that wrapper takes on roles that are required by the code under test, and also communicates with the host system to implement those roles and provide any inputs to the logic under test. in the image below – we have the code we want to test represented as a star. No perimeter is drawn yet (we haven’t wrapped it up in anything yet). in the image below is what happens when you wrap your logic with a role based wrapper – you get a role based perimeter anywhere your code interacts with the system: There’s another way to bring that code under test – using isolation frameworks like typemock, rhino mocks and MOQ (but if your code inherits from the system, Typemock might be the only way to isolate the code from the system interaction.   Ad-Hoc Isolation perimeters the image below shows what I call ad-hoc perimeter that might be vastly different between different tests: This perimeter’s surface is much smaller, because for that specific test, that is all the “change” that is required to the host system behavior.   The third way of isolating the code from the host system is the main “meat” of this post: Subterranean perimeters Subterranean perimeters are Deep rooted perimeters  - “always on” seams that that can lie very deep in the heart of the host system where they are fully invisible even to the test itself, not just to the code under test. Because they lie deep inside a system you can’t control, the only way I’ve found to control them is with runtime (not compile time) interception of method calls on the system. One way to get such abilities is by using Aspect oriented frameworks – for example, in SilverUnit, I’ve used the CThru AOP framework based on Typemock hooks and CLR profilers to intercept such system level method calls and effectively turn them into seams that lie deep down at the heart of the silverlight runtime. the image below depicts an example of what such a perimeter could look like: As you can see, the actual seams can be very far away form the actual code under test, and as you’ll discover, that’s actually a very good thing. Here is only a partial list of examples of such deep rooted seams : disabling the constructor of a base class five levels below the code under test (this.base.base.base.base) faking static methods of a type that’s being called several levels down the stack: method x() calls y() calls z() calls SomeType.StaticMethod()  Replacing an async mechanism with a synchronous one (replacing all timers with your own timer behavior that always Ticks immediately upon calls to “start()” on the same caller thread for example) Replacing event mechanisms with your own event mechanism (to allow “firing” system events) Changing the way the system saves information with your own saving behavior (in silverunit, I replaced all Dependency Property set and get with calls to an in memory value store instead of using the one built into silverlight which threw exceptions without a browser) several questions could jump in: How do you know what to fake? (how do you discover the perimeter?) How do you fake it? Wouldn’t this be problematic  - to fake something you don’t own? it might change in the future How do you discover the perimeter to fake? To discover a perimeter all you have to do is start with a wishful invocation. a wishful invocation is the act of trying to invoke a method (or even just create an instance ) of an object using “regular” test code. You invoke the thing that you’d like to do in a real unit test, to see what happens: Can I even create an instance of this object without getting an exception? Can I invoke this method on that instance without getting an exception? Can I verify that some call into the system happened? You make the invocation, get an exception (because there is a dependency) and look at the stack trace. choose a location in the stack trace and disable it. Then try the invocation again. if you don’t get an exception the perimeter is good for that invocation, so you can move to trying out other methods on that object. in a future post I will show the process using CThru, and how you end up with something close to a domain specific test framework after you’re done creating the perimeter you need.

    Read the article

  • Testing Workflows &ndash; Test-First

    - by Timothy Klenke
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/TimothyK/archive/2014/05/30/testing-workflows-ndash-test-first.aspxThis is the second of two posts on some common strategies for approaching the job of writing tests.  The previous post covered test-after workflows where as this will focus on test-first.  Each workflow presented is a method of attack for adding tests to a project.  The more tools in your tool belt the better.  So here is a partial list of some test-first methodologies. Ping Pong Ping Pong is a methodology commonly used in pair programing.  One developer will write a new failing test.  Then they hand the keyboard to their partner.  The partner writes the production code to get the test passing.  The partner then writes the next test before passing the keyboard back to the original developer. The reasoning behind this testing methodology is to facilitate pair programming.  That is to say that this testing methodology shares all the benefits of pair programming, including ensuring multiple team members are familiar with the code base (i.e. low bus number). Test Blazer Test Blazing, in some respects, is also a pairing strategy.  The developers don’t work side by side on the same task at the same time.  Instead one developer is dedicated to writing tests at their own desk.  They write failing test after failing test, never touching the production code.  With these tests they are defining the specification for the system.  The developer most familiar with the specifications would be assigned this task. The next day or later in the same day another developer fetches the latest test suite.  Their job is to write the production code to get those tests passing.  Once all the tests pass they fetch from source control the latest version of the test project to get the newer tests. This methodology has some of the benefits of pair programming, namely lowering the bus number.  This can be good way adding an extra developer to a project without slowing it down too much.  The production coder isn’t slowed down writing tests.  The tests are in another project from the production code, so there shouldn’t be any merge conflicts despite two developers working on the same solution. This methodology is also a good test for the tests.  Can another developer figure out what system should do just by reading the tests?  This question will be answered as the production coder works there way through the test blazer’s tests. Test Driven Development (TDD) TDD is a highly disciplined practice that calls for a new test and an new production code to be written every few minutes.  There are strict rules for when you should be writing test or production code.  You start by writing a failing (red) test, then write the simplest production code possible to get the code working (green), then you clean up the code (refactor).  This is known as the red-green-refactor cycle. The goal of TDD isn’t the creation of a suite of tests, however that is an advantageous side effect.  The real goal of TDD is to follow a practice that yields a better design.  The practice is meant to push the design toward small, decoupled, modularized components.  This is generally considered a better design that large, highly coupled ball of mud. TDD accomplishes this through the refactoring cycle.  Refactoring is only possible to do safely when tests are in place.  In order to use TDD developers must be trained in how to look for and repair code smells in the system.  Through repairing these sections of smelly code (i.e. a refactoring) the design of the system emerges. For further information on TDD, I highly recommend the series “Is TDD Dead?”.  It discusses its pros and cons and when it is best used. Acceptance Test Driven Development (ATDD) Whereas TDD focuses on small unit tests that concentrate on a small piece of the system, Acceptance Tests focuses on the larger integrated environment.  Acceptance Tests usually correspond to user stories, which come directly from the customer. The unit tests focus on the inputs and outputs of smaller parts of the system, which are too low level to be of interest to the customer. ATDD generally uses the same tools as TDD.  However, ATDD uses fewer mocks and test doubles than TDD. ATDD often complements TDD; they aren’t competing methods.  A full test suite will usually consist of a large number of unit (created via TDD) tests and a smaller number of acceptance tests. Behaviour Driven Development (BDD) BDD is more about audience than workflow.  BDD pushes the testing realm out towards the client.  Developers, managers and the client all work together to define the tests. Typically different tooling is used for BDD than acceptance and unit testing.  This is done because the audience is not just developers.  Tools using the Gherkin family of languages allow for test scenarios to be described in an English format.  Other tools such as MSpec or FitNesse also strive for highly readable behaviour driven test suites. Because these tests are public facing (viewable by people outside the development team), the terminology usually changes.  You can’t get away with the same technobabble you can with unit tests written in a programming language that only developers understand.  For starters, they usually aren’t called tests.  Usually they’re called “examples”, “behaviours”, “scenarios”, or “specifications”. This may seem like a very subtle difference, but I’ve seen this small terminology change have a huge impact on the acceptance of the process.  Many people have a bias that testing is something that comes at the end of a project.  When you say we need to define the tests at the start of the project many people will immediately give that a lower priority on the project schedule.  But if you say we need to define the specification or behaviour of the system before we can start, you’ll get more cooperation.   Keep these test-first and test-after workflows in your tool belt.  With them you’ll be able to find new opportunities to apply them.

    Read the article

  • Lightning talk: Coderetreat

    - by Michael Williamson
    In the spirit of trying to encourage more deliberate practice amongst coders in Red Gate, Lauri Pesonen had the idea of running a coderetreat in Red Gate. Lauri and I ran the first one a few weeks ago: given that neither of us hadn’t even been to a coderetreat before, let alone run one, I think it turned out quite well. The participants gave positive feedback, saying that they enjoyed the day, wrote some thought-provoking code and would do it again. Sam Blackburn was one of the attendees, and gave a lightning talk to the other developers in one of our regular lightning talk sessions: In case you can’t watch the video, I’ve transcribed the talk below, although I’d recommend watching the video if you can — I didn’t have much time to do the transcribing! So, what is a coderetreat? So it’s not just something in Red Gate, there’s a website and everything, although it’s not a very big website. It calls itself a community network. The basic ideas behind coderetreat are: you’ve got one day, and you split it into one hour sections. You spend three quarters of that coding, and do a little retrospective at the end. You’re supposed to start fresh each, we were told to delete our code after every session. We were in pairs, swapping after each session, and we did the same task every time. In fact, Conway’s Game of Life is the only task mentioned anywhere that I find for coderetreat. So I don’t know what we’ll do next time, or if we’re meant to do the same thing again. There are some guiding principles which felt to us like restrictions, that you have to code in crazy ways to encourage better code. Final thing is that it’s supposed to be free for outsiders to join. It’s meant to be a kind of networking thing, where you link up with people from other companies. We had a pilot day with Michael and Lauri. Since it was basically the first time any of us had done anything like this, everybody was from Red Gate. We didn’t chat to anybody else for the initial one. The task was Conway’s Game of Life, which most of you have probably heard of it, all but one of us knew about it when did the coderetreat. I won’t got into the details of what it is, but it felt like the right size of task, basically one or two groups actually produced something working by the end of the day, and of course that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily a day’s work to produce that because we were starting again every hour. The task really drives you more than trying to create good code, I found. It was really tempting to try and get it working rather than stick to the rules. But it’s really good to stop and try again because there are so many what-ifs when you’ve finished writing something, “what if I’d done it this way?”. You can answer all those questions at a coderetreat because it’s not about getting a product out the door, it’s about learning and playing with ideas. So we had all these different practices we were trying. I’ll try and go through most of these. Single responsibility is this idea that everything should do just one thing. It was the very first session, we were still trying to figure out how do you go about the Game of Life? So by the end of forty-five minutes hadn’t produced very much for that first session. We were still thinking, “Do we start with a board, how do we represent all these squares? It can be infinitely big, help, this is getting really difficult!”. So, most of us didn’t really get anywhere on the first one. Although it was interesting that some people started with the board, one group started with the FateDecider class that decides whether things live or die. A sort of god class, but in a good way. They managed to implement all of the rules without even defining how the squares were arranged or anything like that. Another thing we tried was TDD (test-driven development). I’m sure most of you know what TDD is: Watch a test, watch it fail for the right reason Write code to pass the test, watch it pass Refactor, check the test still passes Repeat! It basically worked, we were able to produce code, but we often found the tests defined the direction that code went, which is obviously the idea of TDD. But you tend to find that by the time you’ve even written your first assertion, which is supposed to be the very first thing you write, because you write your tests backwards from the assertions back to the initial conditions, you’ve already constrained the logic of the code in some way by the time you’ve done that. You then get to this situation of, “Well, we actually want to go in a slightly different direction. Can we do this?”. Can we write tests that don’t constrain the architecture? Wrapping up all primitives: it’s kind of turtles all the way down. We had a Size, which has a Width and Height, which both derive from Dimension. You’ve got pages of code before you’ve even done anything. No getters and setters (use tell don’t ask instead): mocks and stubs for tests are required if you want to assert that your results are what you think they should be. You can’t just check the internal state of the code. And people found that really challenging and it made them think in a different way which I think is really good. Not having mutable state: that was kind of confusing because we weren’t quite sure what fitted within that rule and what didn’t, and I think we were trying too hard to follow the rule rather than the guideline. No if-statements: supposed to use polymorphism instead, but polymorphism still requires a factory with conditional behaviour. We did something really crazy to get around this: public T If(bool condition, Func<T> left, Func<T> right) { var dict = new Dictionary<bool, Func<T>> {{true, left}, {false, right}}; return dict[condition].Invoke(); } That is not really polymorphism, is it? For-loops: you can always replace a for-loop with recursion, but it doesn’t tend to make it any more readable unless it’s the kind of task that really lends itself to that. So it was interesting, it was good practice, but it wouldn’t make it easier it’s the kind of tree-structure algorithm where that would help. Having a limit on the number of levels of indentation: again, I think it does produce very nice, clean code, but it wasn’t actually a challenge because you just extract methods. That’s quite a useful thing because you can apply that to real code and say, “Okay, should this method really be going crazy like this?” No talking: we hated that. It’s like there’s two of you at a computer, and one of you is doing the typing, what does the other guy do if they’re not allowed to talk. The answer is TDD ping-pong – one person writes the tests, and then the other person writes the code to pass the test. And that creates communication without actually having to have discussion about things which is kind of cool. No code comments: just makes no difference to anything. It’s a forty-five minute exercise, so what are you going to put comments in code for? Finally, this is my fault. I discovered an entertaining way of doing the calculation that was kind of cool (using convolutions over the state of the board). Unfortunately, it turns out to be really hard to implement in C#, so didn’t even manage to work out how to do that convolution in C#. It’s trivial in some high-level languages, but you need something matrix-orientated for it to really work. That’s most of it, really. The thoughts that people went away with: we put down our answers to questions like “What have you learnt?” and “What surprised you?”, “How are you going to do things differently?”, and most people said redoing the problem is really, really good for understanding it properly. People hate having a massive legacy codebase that they can’t change, so being able to attack something three different ways in an environment where the end-product isn’t important: that’s something people really enjoyed. Pair-programming: also people said that they wanted to do more of that, especially with TDD ping-pong, where you write the test and somebody else writes the code. Various people thought different things about immutables, but most people thought they were good, they promote functional programming. And TDD people found really hard. “Tell, don’t ask” people found really, really hard and really, really, really hard to do well. And the recursion just made things trickier to debug. But most people agreed that coderetreats are really cool, and we should do more of them.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9  | Next Page >