Develop Reference

What's the deal with Unit Tests and sharing static state?

All,
I am using Unit test framework to write my tests in .net. I wrote some unit tests that all access a configuration object (via AppConfig.Current) that is internally a class static.
In the startup I initialize this configuration object and use it immediately in the following line like this:
[AssemblyInitialize]
public static void AssemblyInitialize(TestContext context)
{
var appCfg = AppConfig.Current;
string path = Path.Combine(AppDomain.CurrentDomain.BaseDirectory, "conf/app.settings.xml");
appCfg.Load(path);
var _ = AccountingContext.Current; // <= AccountingContext references the configuration object via "AppConfig.Current" to read some configuration values and initialize the accounting context but I receive a different instance (ONLY in release mode) ....
}
After loading configuration, next line uses this configuration object (AccountingContext.Current) to initialize itself from the configuration object.
The issue is, the tests run fine in Debug mode but in Release mode when I reference the configuration object I get a different object (I know this for a fact because the configuration is not loaded).
So what is the deal with using static reference in unit tests in release mode???
UPDATE: SELF ANSWERED
The issued lied in the "AccountingContext" class.
This class is also a static and it initialized itself like this:
public static AccountingContext Current { get; set; } = new AccountingContext();
public AccountingContext()
{
CompanyAccessContext = _CreateCompanyAccessContext();
}
Changing this intialization to using a static ctor resolved this issue and now everything works:
public static AccountingContext Current { get; set; }
static AccountingContext()
{
Current = new AccountingContext();
}
public AccountingContext()
{
CompanyAccessContext = _CreateCompanyAccessContext();
}
Looks like optimizations were made which changed the actual flow of initialization of AccountingContext. That's a bit unwanted, not sure if this is what everyone expects.
I also found this good resource:
Static member variable not being initialized in Release - Compiler/clr bug?

Cause of this issue was not using static ctor which guarantees order of initialization. For more details, see updated comments above.

Best practice for unit test cases

I am using the xUnit.net test framework and in each unit test I have certain steps which I am doing in each case. I would like to know if there is a way I call this method once before my unit case starts and also call when all unit test cases has been executed.
For example: In the scenario below I have two unit cases and in each case I am creating a local DB, populating it with data and then running my test and once it is done I am calling method to delete the DB. This I am doing in each test case. Instead of multiple creation I would like to create once and populate once and then delete db once all test case has been executed. It is important for me to delete what I have created as the test cases has certain cases which will fail if Database is not created when the tests are executed.
[Fact]
public void UnitCase1()
{
CreateDb();
UploadData();
...//My set of operation to test this case
...//Assert
DeleteDb()
}
[Fact]
public void UnitCase2()
{
CreateDb();
UploadData();
...//My set of operation to test this case
...//Assert
DeleteDb()
}
Editing after Answer from Eric:(I tried but its not working)
public class CosmosDataFixture : IDisposable
{
public static readonly string CosmosEndpoint = "https://localhost:8081";
public static readonly string EmulatorKey = "Mykey";
public static readonly string DatabaseId = "Databasename";
public static readonly string RecordingCollection = "collectionName";
string Root = Directory.GetParent( Directory.GetCurrentDirectory() ).Parent.Parent.FullName;
DocumentClient client = null;
public void ReadAllData( DocumentClient client )
{
//reading document code
}
public void ReadConfigAsync()
{
client = new DocumentClient( new Uri( CosmosEndpoint ), EmulatorKey,
new ConnectionPolicy
{
ConnectionMode = ConnectionMode.Direct,
ConnectionProtocol = Protocol.Tcp
} );
}
public void CreateDatabase()
{// create db code
}
private void DeleteDatabase()
{
// delete db code
}
public CosmosDataFixture()
{
ReadConfigAsync();
CreateDatabase();
ReadAllData( client );
}
public void Dispose()
{
DeleteDatabase();
}
}
public class CosmosDataTests : IClassFixture<CosmosDataFixture>
{
CosmosDataFixture fixture;
public CosmosDataTests( CosmosDataFixture fixture )
{
this.fixture = fixture;
}
[Fact]
public async Task CheckDatabaseandCollectionCreation()
{
List<string> collectionName = new List<string>();
var uri = UriFactory.CreateDatabaseUri(DatabaseId);// don't get DatabaseId or client says does not exist in current context
var collections = await client.ReadDocumentCollectionFeedAsync( uri );
foreach( var collection in collections )
{
collectionName.Add( collection.Id);
}
}

That's what [SetUp] and [TearDown] are for in NUnit. They are run right before and right after each test case, respectively. In xUnit you would usually implement a default constructor and IDisposable.
For example:
public TestClass()
{
CreateDb();
UploadData();
}
public void Dispose()
{
DeleteDb()
}
[Fact]
public void UnitCase1()
{
...//My set of operation to test this case
...//Assert
}
[Fact]
public void UnitCase2()
{
...//My set of operation to test this case
...//Assert
}

As other people have pointed out, such tests are in mainstream parlance not unit tests, but rather integration tests. xUnit.net is a fine framework for those kinds of tests, though, so apart from the semantic distinction, it makes little technical difference.
Apart from setting up the database in the test class' constructor and tearing it down in Dispose, as outlined by Eric Schaefer, you can also use xUnit.net's BeforeAfterTestAttribute. You'll then override Before to set up the database, and override After to tear it down:
public class UseDatabaseAttribute : BeforeAfterTestAttribute
{
public override void Before(MethodInfo methodUnderTest)
{
CreateDb();
UploadData();
base.Before(methodUnderTest);
}
public override void After(MethodInfo methodUnderTest)
{
base.After(methodUnderTest);
DeleteDb();
}
}
You can then annotate either each test method, or the entire test class with the attribute. I usually just annotate the class:
[UseDatabase]
public class DbTests
{
// Tests go here...
}
Since tests that use a database interact with a shared resource (the database), they can't easily run in parallel. By default, xUnit.net runs tests in parallel, so you may want to disable that. You can do it by adding an xunit.runner.json file:
{
"$schema": "https://xunit.net/schema/current/xunit.runner.schema.json",
"parallelizeTestCollections": false
}
Finally, at least if you're using SQL Server, connection pooling will prevent you from deleting the database. You can either turn off connection pooling for your tests, or forcibly close other connections before teardown.

In my experience in Testing, I see 2 points here:
1-If you are checking that the data from the DB to another point in the program is being transmited correctly, that is Integration Testing, and it should be out of scope in the Unit Testing Plan, make sure that the responsabilities of a Unit Tester are clear where you work as there are some companies which avoid Integration Testing levels by assuming that if Functional Testing is 'OK', integrations should be too.
2- You mention at the end
It is important for me to delete what I have created as the test cases has certain cases which will fail if Database is not created when the tests are executed
but
I would like to create once and populate once and then delete db once all test case has been executed.
If I understand correctly, you need to do it for each Test Case as not all test cases are checking the same scenario, so it looks like those statements are the real problem here.
To answer your question, as it seems like you want to automate the process with minimum maintenance for the next releases, and I also know how the work environment tend to corner you to do some stuff that shouldn't be, I could think of a Preconditions Function and a Postcondition one, where you do it once and that's it.
If that is not possible for whatever reason, try to create another Test Case at the beginning (like Test Case 0) where you create and populate the DB (if apply, or separate it if needed) and another one at the end where you delete it.
I'm not familiar with the framework you are using, but I have a lot of experience in Testing, opening test levels and automating tasks, and hope that my answer could be of some help.

Share Data Between Threads when using SpecFlow + SpecRunner

I am working on a test suit implementation which uses the SpecFlow + SpecRunner and XUnit. and we are trying to do parallel test execution and i would like to know is there are a way that i can run a hook in the begining of the test run and store the token value in a static variable so that that can be shared among threads.
to summarize is there a way that specflow offers a mechanism to share data between threads during parallel execution.

We can share the data using any one of the below approach
Scenario Context
Context Injection
Here, Approach 1 and 2 will not have any issue in multiple thread. Since, Context Injection life is specific to the scenario Level.
Approach 1 : we can define the Token Generation Step within the BeforeScenario hooks and the generated Token values can be updated in the ScenarioContext.
we can directly access the token from the scenario context in any place like below
Here, Token will be generated before each scenario run and it will not affect the Parallel execution.For more Details, Parallel-Execution
Scenarios and their related hooks (Before/After scenario, scenario block, step) are isolated in the different threads during execution and do not block each other. Each thread has a separate (and isolated) ScenarioContext.
Hooks Class:
public class CommonHooks
{
[BeforeScenario]
public static void Setup()
{
// Add Token Generation Step
var adminToken = "<Generated Token>";
ScenarioContext.Current["Token"] = adminToken;
}
}
Step Class:
[Given(#"I Get the customer details""(.*)""")]
public void WhenIGetTheCustomerDetails(string endpoint)
{
if(ScenarioContext.Current.ContainsKey("Token"))
{
var token = ScenarioContext.Current["Token"].ToString();
//Now the Token variable holds the token value from the scenario context and It can be used in the subsequent steps
}
else
{
Assert.Fail("Unable to get the Token from the Scenario Context");
}
}
If you wish to share the same token across multiple Step, then you can assign this token value within constructor and it can be used
For Example,
[Binding]
public class CustomerManagementSteps
{
public readonly string token;
public CustomerManagementSteps()
{
token= ScenarioContext.Current["Token"].ToString();
}
[Given(#"I Get the customer details""(.*)""")]
public void WhenIGetTheCustomerDetails(string endpoint)
{
//Now the Token variable holds the token value from the scenario context and It can be used in the subsequent steps
}
}
Approach 2: Context Injection details can be referred in the below link with an example
Context Injection

Updated
Given the downvote and comments, I've updated my code example to better show exactly one way you can use dependency injection here with code of your own design. This shared data will last the lifetime of the scenario and be used by all bindings. I think that's what you're looking for unless I'm mistaken.
//Stores whatever data you want to share
//Write this however you want, it's your code
//You can use more than one of these custom data classes of course
public class SomeCustomDataStructure
{
//If this is run in paralell, this should be thread-safe. Using List<T> for simplicity purposes
//Use EF, ConcurrentCollections, synchronization (like lock), etc...
//Again, do NOT copy this code for parallel uses as List<int> is NOT thread-safe
//You can force things to not run in parallel so this can be useful by itself
public List<int> SomeData { get; } = new List<int>();
}
//Will be injected and the shared instance between any number of bindings.
//Lifespan is that of a scenario.
public class CatalogContext : IDisposable
{
public SomeCustomDataStructure CustomData { get; private set; }
public CatalogContext()
{
//Init shared data however you want here
CustomData = new SomeCustomDataStructure();
}
//Added to show Dispose WILL be called at the end of a scenario
//Feel free to do cleanup here if necessary.
//You do NOT have to implement IDiposable, but it's supported and called.
public void Dispose()
{
//Below obviously not thread-safe as mentioned earlier.
//Simple example is all.
CustomData.SomeData.Clear();
}
}
[Binding]
public class SomeSteps
{
//Data shared here via instane variable, accessable to multiple steps
private readonly CatalogContext catalogContext;
//Dependency injection handled automatically here.
//Will get the same instance between other bindings.
public SomeSteps(CatalogContext catalogContext)
{
this.catalogContext = catalogContext;
}
[Given(#"the following ints")]
public void GivenTheFollowingInts(int[] numbers)
{
//This will be visible to all other steps in this binding,
//and all other bindings sharing the context
catalogContext.CustomData.SomeData.AddRange(numbers);
}
}

Test Service using Entity Framework without dependency injection

I'm trying to test business logic in queries in services. So I don't want my tests to have real access to the database, because they are unit tests, not integration tests.
So I've made a simple example of my context and how I'm trying to shim it.
I have an entity
public class SomeEntity
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
and a service
public class Service
{
public int CountSomeEntites()
{
using (var ctx = new Realcontext())
{
int result = ctx.SomeEntities.Count();
return result;
}
}
}
And this is the real context
public partial class Realcontext : DbContext
{
public virtual DbSet<SomeEntity> SomeEntities { get; set; }
public Realcontext() : base("name=Realcontext")
{
InitializeContext();
}
partial void InitializeContext();
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
throw new UnintentionalCodeFirstException();
}
}
So I've tried to create a fake context and I detourned the constructor of the real context in my test method
This is the fake context
public class FakeContext : DbContext
{
public DbSet<SomeEntity> SomeEntities { get; set; }
public FakeContext()
{
}
}
And finally the test class
[TestClass]
public class ServiceTests
{
[TestMethod]
public void CountEmployee_ShoulReturnCorrectResult()
{
using (ShimsContext.Create())
{
ShimRealcontext.Constructor = context => GenerateFakeContext();
ShimDbContext.AllInstances.Dispose = () => DummyDispose();
Service service = new Service();
int result = service.CountSomeEntites();
Assert.AreEqual(result, 2);
}
}
private FakeContext GenerateFakeContext()
{
FakeContext fakeContext = new FakeContext();
fakeContext.SomeEntities.AddRange(new[]
{
new SomeEntity {Id = 1, Name = "entity1"},
new SomeEntity {Id = 2, Name = "entity2"}
});
return fakeContext;
}
}
When I run the test, the RealContext constructor is returned properly, a FakeContext is built in the GenerateFakeContext() method, it contains 2 SomeEntities and it is returned, but right after, in the service, the property SomeEntities of the variable ctx equals to null.
Is it because my variable ctx is declared as a new RealContext()? But calling the constructor of RealContext returns a FakeContext(), so isn't the variable supposed to be of type FakeContext?
Am I doing something wrong? Or is there any other way to test the service without accessing the real database?

I had the simlair situation and I solved it with build configuration and conditional compilation. It's not the best solution, but it worked for me and solved the problem. Here is the receipt:
1. Create DataContext interface
First you need to create an interface which will be implemented by both context classe you going to use. Let it be named just 'IMyDataContext'. Inside it you need to describe all DbSets you need to have access to.
public interaface IMyDataContext
{
DbSet<SomeEntity> SomeEntities { get; set; }
}
And both your context classes need to impelemt it:
public partial class RealDataContext : DataContext, IMyDataContext
{
DbSet<SomeEntity> SomeEntities { get; set; }
/* Contructor, Initialization code, etc... */
}
public class FakeDataContext : DataContext, IMyDataContext
{
DbSet<SomeEntity> SomeEntities { get; set; }
/* Mocking, test doubles, etc... */
}
By the way you can even make properies read-only at interface level.
2. Add 'Test' build configuration
Here you can find how to add new build configuration. I named my configuratin 'Test'. After new configuration is created, go to your DAL project properties, Build section on the left pane. In the 'Configuration' drop-down select the configuration you've just created and in input 'Conditional compilation symbols' type 'TEST'.
3. Incapsulate context injection
To be clear, my approach is still method/property based DI solution =)
So now we need to implement some injection code. For simplicity you can add it right into your service or extract into another class if you need more abstraction. The main idea is to use conditional compilation direcitves instead of IoC framework.
public class Service
{
// Injector method
private IMyDataContext GetContext() {
// Here is the main code
#if TEST // <-- In 'Test' configuration
// we will use fake context
return new FakeDataContext();
#else
// in any other case
// we will use real context
return new RealDataContext();
#endif
}
public int CountSomeEntites()
{
// the service works with interface and does know nothing
// about the implementation
using (IMyDataContext ctx = GetContext())
{
int result = ctx.SomeEntities.Count();
return result;
}
}
}
Limitations
The described approach solves the the problem you described, but it has a limitation: as IoC allows you switch contexts dynamically at runtime, conditional complation requires you to recompile the solution.
In my case it's not a problem - my code isn't covered by tests for 100% and I don't run them on each build. Usually I run tests only before commiting the code, so it's very easy to switch the build configuration in VS, run tests, make sure that nothing was broke and then return to debug mode. In release mode you don't need to run test either. Even if you need - you can craete "Release build test mode" configuration and continue to use the same solution.
Another problem is if you have continuos integration - you need to make additional setup to your build server. Here you have two ways:
Setup two build definitions: one for release and one for tests. If your server is setup to automatic release you need to be careful because test fails will be shown in the second one while the first is deployed.
Set complex build definition which builds your code in Test configuration for the first time, runs test and if they are OK - then recompiles the code in target configuration and prepare to deploy.
Thus, as any solution this one is yet another compromise between simplisity and flexibility.
UPDATE
After some time I understand that the way I described above is very heavy. I mean - build configurations. In case of only two IDataContext implementations: 'Core' and 'Fake' you can simply use bool paramenter and simple if/else branches instead of compilation directives #if/#else/#endif and all the head ache configuring your build server.
If you have more than two implementations - you can use enum and switch block. A probem here is to define what you will return in default case or if value is out of enum's range.
But the main benefit of such approach is that you can be no longer bound to compilation time. Injector parameter could be changed at any time, for example using web.config and ConfigurationManager. Using it you could event switch your data context at run time.

How to unit test web service with Linq

I have a web service, which I would like to do some unit testing on, however I am not sure how I can do this. Can anyone give any suggestions? Below is the webservice, it produces an object with three fields, but only when there is values in the database queue.
[WebMethod]
public CommandMessages GetDataLINQ()
{
CommandMessages result;
using (var dc = new TestProjectLinqSQLDataContext())
{
var command = dc.usp_dequeueTestProject();
result = command.Select(c => new CommandMessages(c.Command_Type, c.Command, c.DateTimeSent)).FirstOrDefault();
return result;
}
}

You don't need to consume your data over the WebService to Unit test it. You can just create another project in your solution with a reference to your WebService project and call directly the methods.

First up, what you've posted can't really be Unit Tested at all; by definition, a Unit Test can have only a single reason to fail; However in your case, a single test of GetDataLINQ() (the "System Under Test" or "SUT") could fail because of a problem with any of the dependencies in the function - namely, TestProjectLinqSQLDataContext and usp_dequeueTestProject.
When you call this method from a Unit test, these dependencies at present are probably beyond your control because you didn't directly create them - they are most likely created in your page classes' constructor. (Note: this is an assumption on my part, and I could be wrong)
Also, because these dependencies are at present real "live" objects, which have hard dependencies on an actual database being present, it means your tests aren't able to run independently, which is another requirement for a Unit Test.
(I'll assume your page's class file is "MyPageClass" from now on, and I will pretend it's not a web page code-behind or asmx code-behind; because as other posters have pointed out, this only matters in the context of accessing the code via HTTP which we're not doing here)
var sut = new MyPageClass(); //sut now contains a DataContext over which the Test Method has no control.
var result = sut.GetDataLINQ(); //who know what might happen?
Consider some possible reasons for failure in this method when you call sut.GetDataLINQ():
new TestProjectLinqSQLDataContext() results in an exception because of a fault in TestProjectLinqSQLDataContext's constructor
dc.usp_dequeueTestProject() results in an exception because the database connection fails, or because the stored procedure has changed, or doesn't exist.
command.Select(...) results in an exception because of some as of yet unknown defect in the CommandMessage constructor
Probably many more reasons (i.e failure to perform correctly as opposed to an exception being thrown)
Because of the multiple ways to fail, you can't quickly and reliably tell what went wrong (certainly your test runner will indicate what type of exception threw, but that requires you to at least read the stack trace - you shouldn't need to do this for a Unit Test)
So, in order to do this you need to be able to setup your SUT - in this case, the GetDataLINQ function - such that any and all dependencies are fully under the control of the test method.
So if you really want to Unit Test this, you'll have to make some adjustments to your code. I'll outline the ideal scenario and then one alternative (of many) if you can't for whatever reason implement this. No error checking included in the code below, nor is it compiled so please forgive any typos, etc.
Ideal scenario
Abstract the dependencies, and inject them into the constructor.
Note that this ideal scenario will require you to introduce an IOC framework (Ninject, AutoFAC, Unity, Windsor, etc) into your project. It also requires a Mocking framework (Moq, etc).
1. Create an interface IDataRepository, which contains a method DequeueTestProject
public interface IDataRepository
{
public CommandMessages DequeueTestProject();
}
2. Declare IDataRepository as a dependency of MyPageClass
public class MyPageClass
{
readonly IDataRepository _repository;
public MyPageClass(IDataRepository repository)
{
_repository=repository;
}
}
3. Create an actual implementation of IDataRepository, which will be used in "real life" but not in your Unit Tests
public class RealDataRepository: IDataRepository
{
readonly MyProjectDataContext _dc;
public RealDataRepository()
{
_dc = new MyProjectDataContext(); //or however you do it.
}
public CommandMessages DequeueTestProject()
{
var command = dc.usp_dequeueTestProject();
result = command.Select(c => new CommandMessages(c.Command_Type, c.Command, c.DateTimeSent)).FirstOrDefault();
return result;
}
}
This is where you will need to involve your IOC framework such that it can inject the correct IDataRepository (i.e RealDataRepository) whenever your MyPageClass is instantiated by the ASP.NET framework
4. Recode your GetDataLINQ() method to use the _repository member
public CommandMessages GetDataLINQ()
{
CommandMessages result;
return _repository.DequeueTestProject();
}
So what has this bought us? Well, consider now how you can test against the following specification for GetDataLINQ:
Must always invoke DequeueTestProject
Must return NULL if there is no data in the database
Must return a valid CommandMessages instance if there is data in the database.
Test 1 - Must always invoke DequeueTestProject
public void GetDataLINQ_AlwaysInvokesDequeueTestProject()
{
//create a fake implementation of IDataRepository
var repo = new Mock<IDataRepository>();
//set it up to just return null; we don't care about the return value for now
repo.Setup(r=>r.DequeueTestProject()).Returns(null);
//create the SUT, passing in the fake repository
var sut = new MyPageClass(repo.Object);
//call the method
sut.GetDataLINQ();
//Verify that repo.DequeueTestProject() was indeed called.
repo.Verify(r=>r.DequeueTestProject(),Times.Once);
}
Test 2 - Must return NULL if there is no data in the database
public void GetDataLINQ_ReturnsNULLIfDatabaseEmpty()
{
//create a fake implementation of IDataRepository
var repo = new Mock<IDataRepository>();
//set it up to return null;
repo.Setup(r=>r.DequeueTestProject()).Returns(null);
var sut = new MyPageClass(repo.Object);
//call the method but store the result this time:
var actual = sut.GetDataLINQ();
//Verify that the result is indeed NULL:
Assert.IsNull(actual);
}
Test 3 - Must return a valid CommandMessages instance if there is data in the database.
public void GetDataLINQ_ReturnsNCommandMessagesIfDatabaseNotEmpty()
{
//create a fake implementation of IDataRepository
var repo = new Mock<IDataRepository>();
//set it up to return null;
repo.Setup(r=>r.DequeueTestProject()).Returns(new CommandMessages("fake","fake","fake");
var sut = new MyPageClass(repo.Object);
//call the method but store the result this time:
var actual = sut.GetDataLINQ();
//Verify that the result is indeed NULL:
Assert.IsNotNull(actual);
}
Because we can Mock the IDataRepository interface, therfore we can completely control how it behaves.
We could even make it throw an exception, if we needed to test how GetDataLINQ responds to unforseen results.
This is the real benefit of abstracting your dependencies when it comes to Unit Testing (not to mention, it reduces coupling in your system because dependencies are not tied to a particular concrete type).
Not Quite ideal method
Introducing an IOC framework into your project may be a non-runner, so here is one alternative which is a compromise. There are other ways as well, this is just the first that sprang to mind.
Create the IDataRepository interface
Create the RealDataRepository class
Create other implementations of IDataRepository, which mimic the behaviour we created on the fly in the previous example. These are called stubs, and basically they are just classes with a single, predefined behaviour that never changes. This makes then ideal for testing, because you always know what will happen when you invoke them.
public class FakeEmptyDatabaseRepository:IDataRepository
{
public CommandMessages DequeueTestProject(){CallCount++;return null;}
//CallCount tracks if the method was invoked.
public int CallCount{get;private set;}
}
public class FakeFilledDatabaseRepository:IDataRepository
{
public CommandMessages DequeueTestProject(){CallCount++;return new CommandMessages("","","");}
public int CallCount{get;private set;}
}
Now modify the MyPageClass as per the first method, except do not declare IDataRepository on the constructor, instead do this:
public class MyPageClass
{
private IDataRepository _repository; //not read-only
public MyPageClass()
{
_repository = new RealDataRepository();
}
//here is the compromise; this method also returns the original repository so you can restore it if for some reason you need to during a test method.
public IDataRepository SetTestRepo(IDataRepository testRepo)
{
_repository = testRepo;
}
}
And finally, modify your unit tests to use FakeEmptyDatabaseRepository or FakeFilledDatabaseRepository as appropriate:
public void GetDataLINQ_AlwaysInvokesDequeueTestProject()
{
//create a fake implementation of IDataRepository
var repo = new FakeFilledDatabaseRepository();
var sut = new MyPageClass();
//stick in the stub:
sut.SetTestRepo(repo);
//call the method
sut.GetDataLINQ();
//Verify that repo.DequeueTestProject() was indeed called.
var expected=1;
Assert.AreEqual(expected,repo.CallCount);
}
Note that this second scenario is not an ivory-tower-ideal scenario and doesn't lead to strictly pure Unit tests (i.e if there were a defect in FakeEmptyDatabaseRepository your test could also fail) but it's a pretty good compromise; however if possible strive to achieve the first scenario as it leads to all kinds of other benefits and gets you one step closer to truly SOLID code.
Hope that helps.

I would change your Code as follows:
public class MyRepository
{
public CommandMessage DeQueueTestProject()
{
using (var dc = new TestProjectLinqSQLDataContext())
{
var results = dc.usp_dequeueTestProject().Select(c => new CommandMessages(c.Command_Type, c.Command, c.DateTimeSent)).FirstOrDefault();
return results;
}
}
}
Then code your Web Method as:
[WebMethod]
public CommandMessages GetDataLINQ()
{
MyRepository db = new MyRepository();
return db.DeQueueTestProject();
}
Then Code your Unit Test:
[Test]
public void Test_MyRepository_DeQueueTestProject()
{
// Add your unit test using MyRepository
var r = new MyRepository();
var commandMessage = r.DeQueueTestProject();
Assert.AreEqual(commandMessage, new CommandMessage("What you want to compare"));
}
This allows your code to be reusable and is a common design pattern to have Data Repositories. You can now use your Repository Library everywhere you need it and test it in only one place and it should be good everywhere you use it. This way you don't have to worry about complicated tests calling WCF Services. This is a good way of testing Web Methods.
This is just a short explanation and can be improved much more, but this gets you in the right direction in building your Web Services.