Search Results

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

Page 9/16 | < Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >

  • Creating mock Objects in PHP unit

    - by Mike
    Hi, I've searched but can't quite find what I'm looking for and the manual isn't much help in this respect. I'm fairly new to unit testing, so not sure if I'm on the right track at all. Anyway, onto the question. I have a class: <?php class testClass { public function doSomething($array_of_stuff) { return AnotherClass::returnRandomElement($array_of_stuff); } } ?> Now, clearly I want the AnotherClass::returnRandomElement($array_of_stuff); to return the same thing every time. My question is, in my unit test, how do I mockup this object? I've tried adding the AnotherClass to the top of the test file, but when I want to test AnotherClass I get the "Cannot redeclare class" error. I think I understand factory classes, but I'm not sure how I would apply that in this instance. Would I need to write an entirely seperate AnotherClass class which contained test data and then use the Factory class to load that instead of the real AnotherClass? Or is using the Factory pattern just a red herring. I tried this: $RedirectUtils_stub = $this->getMockForAbstractClass('RedirectUtils'); $o1 = new stdClass(); $o1->id = 2; $o1->test_id = 2; $o1->weight = 60; $o1->data = "http://www.google.com/?ffdfd=fdfdfdfd?route=1"; $RedirectUtils_stub->expects($this->any()) ->method('chooseRandomRoot') ->will($this->returnValue($o1)); $RedirectUtils_stub->expects($this->any()) ->method('decodeQueryString') ->will($this->returnValue(array())); in the setUp() function, but these stubs are ignored and I can't work out whether it's something I'm doing wrong, or the way I'm accessing the AnotherClass methods. Help! This is driving me nuts.

    Read the article

  • python mock side_effect or return_value dependent on call_count

    - by user18380
    To test a polling function I want to mock the calling of a sub function so that the first time it is called it will fail, and the second time it is called it will succeed. Here's a very simplified version of it: poll_function(var1): value = sub_function(var1) # First call will return None while not value: time.sleep(POLLING_INTERVAL) value = sub_function(var1) # A subsequent call will return a string, e.g "data" return value Is this possible to do with a Mock object from the mock framework? I know Mock objects have a call_count attribute I should be able to use somehow. Right now I've solved it by creating a custom mock object that I use to monkey patch sub_function(), but I feel there should be a better less verbose way of doing it: def test_poll(): class MyMock(object): def __init__(self, *args): self.call_count = 0 def sub_function(self, *args, **kwargs): if self.call_count > 1: return "data" else: self.call_count += 1 return None my_mock = MyMock() with patch('sub_function', my_mock.sub_function): ok_(poll_function())

    Read the article

  • How to mock static member variables

    - by pkrish
    I have a class ClassToTest which has a dependency on ClassToMock. public class ClassToMock { private static final String MEMBER_1 = FileReader.readMemeber1(); protected void someMethod() { ... } } The unit test case for ClassToTest. public class ClassToTestTest { private ClassToMock _mock; @Before public void setUp() throws Exception { _mock = mock(ClassToMock.class) } } When mock is called in the setUp() method, FileReader.readMemeber1(); is executed. Is there a way to avoid this? I think one way is to initialize the MEMBER_1 inside a method. Any other alternatives? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • C#: How to unit test a method that relies on another method within the same class?

    - by michael paul
    I have a class similar to the following: public class MyProxy : ClientBase<IService>, IService { public MyProxy(String endpointConfiguration) : base(endpointConfiguration) { } public int DoSomething(int x) { int result = DoSomethingToX(x); //This passes unit testing int result2 = ((IService)this).DoWork(x) //do I have to extract this part into a separate method just //to test it even though it's only a couple of lines? //Do something on result2 int result3 = result2 ... return result3; } int IService.DoWork(int x) { return base.Channel.DoWork(x); } } The problem lies in the fact that when testing I don't know how to mock the result2 item without extracting the part that gets result3 using result2 into a separate method. And, because it is unit testing I don't want to go that deep as to test what result2 comes back as... I'd rather mock the data somehow... like, be able to call the function and replace just that one call.

    Read the article

  • Moq basic questions

    - by devoured elysium
    I made the following test for my class: var mock = new Mock<IRandomNumberGenerator>(); mock.Setup(framework => framework.Generate(0, 50)) .Returns(7.0); var rnac = new RandomNumberAverageCounter(mock.Object, 1, 100); rnac.Run(); double result = rnac.GetAverage(); Assert.AreEqual(result, 7.0, 0.1); The problem here was that I changed my mind about what range of values Generate(int min, int max) would use. So in Mock.Setup() I defined the range as from 0 to 50 while later I actually called the Generate() method with a range from 1 to 100. I ran the test and it failed. I know that that is what it's supposed to happen but I was left wondering if isn't there a way to launch an exception or throw in a message when trying to run the method with wrong params. Also, if I want to run this Generate() method 10 times with different values (let's say, from 1 to 10), will I have to make 10 mock setups or something, or is there a special method for it? The best I could think of is this (which isn't bad, I'm just asking if there is other better way): for (int i = 1; i < 10; ++i) { mock.Setup(framework => framework.Generate(1, 100)) .Returns((double)i); }

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Testing local scoped object with mockito without refactoring

    - by supertonsky
    Say I have the following code: public class ClassToTest { AnotherClass anotherClass; public void methodToTest( int x, int y ) { int z = x + y anotherClass.receiveSomething( z ); } } public class AnotherClass { public void receiveSomething( int z ) {.. do something.. } } I want to make assertion on the value of the variable z. How do I do this? Variables x, y, and z could be some other Java class types, and I just used "int" for simplicity.

    Read the article

  • Mock implementations in C++

    - by forneo
    Hi guys, I need a mock implementation of a class - for testing purposes - and I'm wondering how I should best go about doing that. I can think of two general ways: Create an interface that contains all public functions of the class as pure virtual functions, then create a mock class by deriving from it. Mark all functions (well, at least all that are to be mocked) as virtual. I'm used to doing it the first way in Java, and it's quite common too (probably since they have a dedicated interface type). But I've hardly ever seen such interface-heavy designs in C++, thus I'm wondering. The second way will probably work, but I can't help but think of it as kind of ugly. Is anybody doing that? If I follow the first way, I need some naming assistance. I have an audio system that is responsible for loading sound files and playing the loaded tracks. I'm using OpenAL for that, thus I've called the interface "Audio" and the implementation "OpenALAudio". However, this implies that all OpenAL-specific code has to go into that class, which feels kind of limiting. An alternative would be to leave the class' name "Audio" and find a different one for the interface, e.g. "AudioInterface" or "IAudio". Which would you suggest, and why?

    Read the article

  • A TDD Journey: 2- Naming Tests; Mocking Frameworks; Dependency Injection

    Test-Driven Development (TDD) relies on the repetition of a very short development cycle Starting from an initially failing automated test that defines the functionality that is required, and then producing the minimum amount of code to pass that test, and finally refactoring the new code. Michael Sorens continues his introduction to TDD that is more of a journey in six parts, by implementing the first tests and introducing the topics of Test Naming, Mocking Frameworks and Dependency Injection

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • mocking command object in grails controller results in hasErrors() return false no matter what! Plea

    - by egervari
    I have a controller that uses a command object in a controller action. When mocking this command object in a grails' controller unit test, the hasErrors() method always returns false, even when I am purposefully violating its constraints. def save = { RegistrationForm form -> if(form.hasErrors()) { // code block never gets executed } else { // code block always gets executed } } In the test itself, I do this: mockCommandObject(RegistrationForm) def form = new RegistrationForm(emailAddress: "ken.bad@gmail", password: "secret", confirmPassword: "wrong") controller.save(form) I am purposefully giving it a bad email address, and I am making sure the password and the confirmPassword properties are different. In this case, hasErrors() should return true... but it doesn't. I don't know how my testing can be any where reliable if such a basic thing does not work :/ Here is the RegistrationForm class, so you can see the constraints I am using: class RegistrationForm { def springSecurityService String emailAddress String password String confirmPassword String getEncryptedPassword() { springSecurityService.encodePassword(password) } static constraints = { emailAddress(blank: false, email: true) password(blank: false, minSize:4, maxSize: 10) confirmPassword(blank: false, validator: { confirmPassword, form -> confirmPassword == form.password }) } }

    Read the article

  • When mocking a class with Moq, how can I CallBase for just specific methods?

    - by Daryn
    I really appreciate Moq's Loose mocking behaviour that returns default values when no expectations are set. It's convenient and saves me code, and it also acts as a safety measure: dependencies won't get unintentionally called during the unit test (as long as they are virtual). However, I'm confused about how to keep these benefits when the method under test happens to be virtual. In this case I do want to call the real code for that one method, while still having the rest of the class loosely mocked. All I have found in my searching is that I could set mock.CallBase = true to ensure that the method gets called. However, that affects the whole class. I don't want to do that because it puts me in a dilemma about all the other properties and methods in the class that hide call dependencies: if CallBase is true then I have to either Setup stubs for all of the properties and methods that hide dependencies -- Even though my test doesn't think it needs to care about those dependencies, or Hope that I don't forget to Setup any stubs (and that no new dependencies get added to the code in the future) -- Risk unit tests hitting a real dependency. Q: With Moq, is there any way to test a virtual method, when I mocked the class to stub just a few dependencies? I.e. Without resorting to CallBase=true and having to stub all of the dependencies? Example code to illustrate (uses MSTest, InternalsVisibleTo DynamicProxyGenAssembly2) In the following example, TestNonVirtualMethod passes, but TestVirtualMethod fails - returns null. public class Foo { public string NonVirtualMethod() { return GetDependencyA(); } public virtual string VirtualMethod() { return GetDependencyA();} internal virtual string GetDependencyA() { return "! Hit REAL Dependency A !"; } // [... Possibly many other dependencies ...] internal virtual string GetDependencyN() { return "! Hit REAL Dependency N !"; } } [TestClass] public class UnitTest1 { [TestMethod] public void TestNonVirtualMethod() { var mockFoo = new Mock<Foo>(); mockFoo.Setup(m => m.GetDependencyA()).Returns(expectedResultString); string result = mockFoo.Object.NonVirtualMethod(); Assert.AreEqual(expectedResultString, result); } [TestMethod] public void TestVirtualMethod() // Fails { var mockFoo = new Mock<Foo>(); mockFoo.Setup(m => m.GetDependencyA()).Returns(expectedResultString); // (I don't want to setup GetDependencyB ... GetDependencyN here) string result = mockFoo.Object.VirtualMethod(); Assert.AreEqual(expectedResultString, result); } string expectedResultString = "Hit mock dependency A - OK"; }

    Read the article

  • GWT: Best practice for unit testing / mocking JSNI methods?

    - by Epaga
    I have a class which uses JSNI to retrieve JSON data stored in the host page: protected native JsArray<JsonModel> getModels() /*-{ return $wnd.jsonData; }-*/; This method is called, and the data is then translated and process in a different method. How should I unit test this class, since I'm not able to instantiate (or seemingly mock?) JsArray? What is the best way to unit test JSNI methods at all?

    Read the article

  • How do I Unit Test Actions without Mocking that use UpdateModel?

    - by Hellfire
    I have been working my way through Scott Guthrie's excellent post on ASP.NET MVC Beta 1. In it he shows the improvements made to the UpdateModel method and how they improve unit testing. I have recreated a similar project however anytime I run a UnitTest that contains a call to UpdateModel I receive an ArgumentNullException naming the controllerContext parameter. Here's the relevant bits, starting with my model: public class Country { public Int32 ID { get; set; } public String Name { get; set; } public String Iso3166 { get; set; } } The controller action: [AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post)] public ActionResult Edit(Int32 id, FormCollection form) { using ( ModelBindingDataContext db = new ModelBindingDataContext() ) { Country country = db.Countries.Where(c => c.CountryID == id).SingleOrDefault(); try { UpdateModel(country, form); db.SubmitChanges(); return RedirectToAction("Index"); } catch { return View(country); } } } And finally my unit test that's failing: [TestMethod] public void Edit() { CountryController controller = new CountryController(); FormCollection form = new FormCollection(); form.Add("Name", "Canada"); form.Add("Iso3166", "CA"); var result = controller.Edit(2 /*Canada*/, form) as RedirectToRouteResult; Assert.IsNotNull(result, "Expected to be redirected on successful POST."); Assert.AreEqual("Show", result.RouteName, "Expected to redirect to the View action."); } ArgumentNullException is thrown by the call to UpdateModel with the message "Value cannot be null. Parameter name: controllerContext". I'm assuming that somewhere the UpdateModel requires the System.Web.Mvc.ControllerContext which isn't present during execution of the test. I'm also assuming that I'm doing something wrong somewhere and just need to pointed in the right direction. Help Please!

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Multiple instances of Intellitrace.exe process

    - by Vincent Grondin
    Not so long ago I was confronted with a very bizarre problem… I was using visual studio 2010 and whenever I opened up the Test Impact view I would suddenly see my pc perf go down drastically…  Investigating this problem, I found out that hundreds of “Intellitrace.exe” processes had been started on my system and I could not close them as they would re-start as soon as I would close one.  That was very weird.  So I knew it had something to do with the Test Impact but how can this feature and Intellitrace.exe going crazy be related?  After a bit of thinking I remembered that a teammate (Etienne Tremblay, ALM MVP) had told me once that he had seen this issue before just after installing a MOCKING FRAMEWORK that uses the .NET Profiler API…  Apparently there’s a conflict between the test impact features of Visual Studio and some mocking products using the .NET profiler API…  Maybe because VS 2010 also uses this feature for Test Impact purposes, I don’t know… Anyways, here’s the fix…  Go to your VS 2010 and click the “Test” menu.  Then go to the “Edit Test Settings” and choose EACH test setting file applying the following actions (normally 2 files being “Local” and TraceAndTestImpact”: -          Select the Data And Diagnostic option on the left -          Make sure that the ASP.NET Client Proxy for Intellitrace and Test Impact option is NOT SELECTED -          Make sure that the Test Impact option is NOT SELECTED -          Save and close   Edit Test Settings   Problem solved…  For me having to choose between the “Test Impact” features and the “Mocking Framework” was a no brainer, bye bye test impact…  I did not investigate much on this subject but I feel there might be a way to have them both working by enabling one after the other in a precise sequence…  Feel free to leave a comment if you know how to make them both work at the same time!   Hope this helps someone out there !

    Read the article

  • JustMock is here !!

    - by mehfuzh
    As announced earlier by Hristo Kosev at Telerik blogs , we have started giving out JustMock builds from today. This is the first of early builds before the official Q2 release and we are pretty excited to get your feedbacks. Its pretty early to say anything on it. It actually depends on your feedback. To add few, with JustMock we tried to build a mocking tool with simple and intuitive syntax as possible excluding more and more noises and avoiding any smell that can be made to your code [We are still trying everyday] and we want to make the tool even better with your help. JustMock can be used to mock virtually anything. Moreover, we left an option open that it can be used to reduce / elevate the features  just though a single click. We tried to make a strong API and make stuffs fluent and guided as possible so that you never have the chance to get de-railed. Our syntax is AAA (Arrange – Act – Assert) , we don’t believe in Record – Reply model which some of the smarter mocking tools are planning to remove from their coming release or even don’t have [its always fun to lean from each other]. Overall more signals equals more complexity , reminds me of 37 signals :-). Currently, here are the things you can do with JustMock ( will cover more in-depth in coming days) Proxied mode Mock interfaces and class with virtuals Mock properties that includes indexers Set raise event for specific calls Use matchers to control mock arguments Assert specific occurrence of a mocked calls. Assert using matchers Do recursive mocks Do Sequential mocking ( same method with argument returns different values or perform different tasks) Do strict mocking (by default and i prefer loose , so that i can use it as stubs) Elevated mode Mock static calls Mock final class Mock sealed classes Mock Extension methods Partially mock a  class member directly using Mock.Arrange Mock MsCorlib (we will support more and more members in coming days) , currently we support FileInfo, File and DateTime. These are few, you need to take a look at the test project that is provided with the build to find more [Along with the document]. Also, one of feature that will i will be using it for my next OS projects is the ability to run it separately in  proxied mode which makes it easy to redistribute and do some personal development in a more DI model and my option to elevate as it go.   I’ve surely forgotten tons of other features to mention that i will cover time but  don’t for get the URL : www.telerik.com/justmock   Finally a little mock code:   var lvMock = Mock.Create<ILoveJustMock>();    // set your goal  Mock.Arrange(() => lvMock.Response(Arg.Any<string>())).Returns((int result) => result);    //perform  string ret =  lvMock.Echo("Yes");    Assert.Equal(ret, "Yes");  // make sure everything is fine  Mock.Assert(() => lvMock.Echo("Yes"), Occurs.Once());   Hope that helps to get started,  will cover if not :-).

    Read the article

  • Tracking/Counting Word Frequency

    - by Joel Martinez
    I'd like to get some community consensus on a good design to be able to store and query word frequency counts. I'm building an application in which I have to parse text inputs and store how many times a word has appeared (over time). So given the following inputs: "To Kill a Mocking Bird" "Mocking a piano player" Would store the following values: Word Count ------------- To 1 Kill 1 A 2 Mocking 2 Bird 1 Piano 1 Player 1 And later be able to quickly query for the count value of a given arbitrary word. My current plan is to simply store the words and counts in a database, and rely on caching word count values ... But I suspect that I won't get enough cache hits to make this a viable solution long term. Can anyone suggest algorithms, or data structures, or any other idea that might make this a well-performing solution?

    Read the article

  • Doing your first mock with JustMock

    In this post, i will start with a  more traditional mocking example that  includes a fund transfer scenario between two different currency account using JustMock.Our target interface that we will be mocking looks similar to: public interface ICurrencyService { float GetConversionRate(string fromCurrency, string toCurrency); } Moving forward the SUT or class that will be consuming the  service and will be invoked by user [provided that the ICurrencyService will be passed...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Unit-Testing functions which have parameters of classes where source code is not accessible

    - by McMannus
    Relating to this question, I have another question regarding unit testing functions in the utility classes: Assume you have function signatures like this: public function void doSomething(InternalClass obj, InternalElement element) where InternalClass and InternalElement are both Classes which source code are not available, because they are hidden in the API. Additionally, doSomething only operates on obj and element. I thought about mocking those classes away but this option is not possible due to the fact that they do not implement an interface at all which I could use for my Mocking classes. However, I need to fill obj with defined data to test doSomething. How can this problem be solved?

    Read the article

  • Unit testing in Django

    - by acjohnson55
    I'm really struggling to write effective unit tests for a large Django project. I have reasonably good test coverage, but I've come to realize that the tests I've been writing are definitely integration/acceptance tests, not unit tests at all, and I have critical portions of my application that are not being tested effectively. I want to fix this ASAP. Here's my problem. My schema is deeply relational, and heavily time-oriented, giving my model object high internal coupling and lots of state. Many of my model methods query based on time intervals, and I've got a lot of auto_now_add going on in timestamped fields. So take a method that looks like this for example: def summary(self, startTime=None, endTime=None): # ... logic to assign a proper start and end time # if none was provided, probably using datetime.now() objects = self.related_model_set.manager_method.filter(...) return sum(object.key_method(startTime, endTime) for object in objects) How does one approach testing something like this? Here's where I am so far. It occurs to me that the unit testing objective should be given some mocked behavior by key_method on its arguments, is summary correctly filtering/aggregating to produce a correct result? Mocking datetime.now() is straightforward enough, but how can I mock out the rest of the behavior? I could use fixtures, but I've heard pros and cons of using fixtures for building my data (poor maintainability being a con that hits home for me). I could also setup my data through the ORM, but that can be limiting, because then I have to create related objects as well. And the ORM doesn't let you mess with auto_now_add fields manually. Mocking the ORM is another option, but not only is it tricky to mock deeply nested ORM methods, but the logic in the ORM code gets mocked out of the test, and mocking seems to make the test really dependent on the internals and dependencies of the function-under-test. The toughest nuts to crack seem to be the functions like this, that sit on a few layers of models and lower-level functions and are very dependent on the time, even though these functions may not be super complicated. My overall problem is that no matter how I seem to slice it, my tests are looking way more complex than the functions they are testing.

    Read the article

  • [News] Utiliser le framework de bouchon Moq

    Moq est un framework permettant de mettre en oeuvre les mock-objets destin?es aux phases de tests. Cet excellent article illustre le principe : " (...) it is intended to be straightforward and easy to use mocking framework that doesn?t require any prior knowledge of the mocking concepts. So, it doesn't requires deep learning curve from the developers. It takes full advantage of the .NET 3.5 expression trees and the lambda expressions. Any of the methods and properties of the mock object can be easily represented in the lambda expressions."

    Read the article

  • Doing your first mock with JustMock

    - by mehfuzh
    In this post, i will start with a  more traditional mocking example that  includes a fund transfer scenario between two different currency account using JustMock.Our target interface that we will be mocking looks similar to: public interface ICurrencyService {     float GetConversionRate(string fromCurrency, string toCurrency); } Moving forward the SUT or class that will be consuming the  service and will be invoked by user [provided that the ICurrencyService will be passed in a DI style] looks like: public class AccountService : IAccountService         {             private readonly ICurrencyService currencyService;               public AccountService(ICurrencyService currencyService)             {                 this.currencyService = currencyService;             }               #region IAccountService Members               public void TransferFunds(Account from, Account to, float amount)             {                 from.Withdraw(amount);                 float conversionRate = currencyService.GetConversionRate(from.Currency, to.Currency);                 float convertedAmount = amount * conversionRate;                 to.Deposit(convertedAmount);             }               #endregion         }   As, we can see there is a TransferFunds action implemented from IAccountService  takes in a source account from where it withdraws some money and a target account to where the transfer takes place using the provided conversion rate. Our first step is to create the mock. The syntax for creating your instance mocks is pretty much same and  is valid for all interfaces, non-sealed/sealed concrete instance classes. You can pass in additional stuffs like whether its an strict mock or not, by default all the mocks in JustMock are loose, you can use it as default valued objects or stubs as well. ICurrencyService currencyService = Mock.Create<ICurrencyService>(); Using JustMock, setting up your expectations and asserting them always goes with Mock.Arrang|Assert and this is pretty much same syntax no matter what type of mocking you are doing. Therefore,  in the above scenario we want to make sure that the conversion rate always returns 2.20F when converting from GBP to CAD. To do so we need to arrange in the following way: Mock.Arrange(() => currencyService.GetConversionRate("GBP", "CAD")).Returns(2.20f).MustBeCalled(); Here, I have additionally marked the mock call as must. That means it should be invoked anywhere in the code before we do Mock.Assert, we can also assert mocks directly though lamda expressions  but the more general Mock.Assert(mocked) will assert only the setups that are marked as "MustBeCalled()”. Now, coming back to the main topic , as we setup the mock, now its time to act on it. Therefore, first we create our account service class and create our from and to accounts respectively. var accountService = new AccountService(currencyService);   var canadianAccount = new Account(0, "CAD"); var britishAccount = new Account(0, "GBP"); Next, we add some money to the GBP  account: britishAccount.Deposit(100); Finally, we do our transfer by the following: accountService.TransferFunds(britishAccount, canadianAccount, 100); Once, everything is completed, we need to make sure that things were as it is we have expected, so its time for assertions.Here, we first do the general assertions: Assert.Equal(0, britishAccount.Balance); Assert.Equal(220, canadianAccount.Balance); Following, we do our mock assertion,  as have marked the call as “MustBeCalled” it will make sure that our mock is actually invoked. Moreover, we can add filters like how many times our expected mock call has occurred that will be covered in coming posts. Mock.Assert(currencyService); So far, that actually concludes our  first  mock with JustMock and do stay tuned for more. Enjoy!!

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >