Develop Reference

FakeItEasy not verifying call for Full Framework SignalR test

I have a simple hub that I am trying to write a test for with FakeItEasy and the verification of calling the client is not passing. I have the example working in a separate project that uses MOQ and XUnit.
public interface IScheduleHubClientContract
{
void UpdateToCheckedIn(string id);
}
public void UpdateToCheckedIn_Should_Broadcast_Id()
{
var hub = new ScheduleHub();
var clients = A.Fake<IHubCallerConnectionContext<dynamic>>();
var all = A.Fake<IScheduleHubClientContract>();
var id= "123456789";
hub.Clients = clients;
A.CallTo(() => all.UpdateToCheckedIn(A<string>.Ignored)).MustHaveHappened();
A.CallTo(() => clients.All).Returns(all);
hub.UpdateToCheckedIn(id);
}
I'm using Fixie as the Unit Test Framework and it reports:
FakeItEasy.ExpectationException:
Expected to find it once or more but no calls were made to the fake object.
The sample below works in XUnit & MOQ:
public interface IScheduleClientContract
{
void UpdateToCheckedIn(string id);
}
[Fact]
public void UpdateToCheckedIn_Should_Broadcast_Id()
{
var hub = new ScheduleHub();
var clients = new Mock<IHubCallerConnectionContext<dynamic>>();
var all = new Mock<IScheduleClientContract>();
hub.Clients = clients.Object;
all.Setup(m=>m.UpdateToCheckedIn(It.IsAny<string>())).Verifiable();
clients.Setup(m => m.All).Returns(all.Object);
hub.UpdateToCheckedIn("id");
all.VerifyAll();
}
I'm not sure what I've missed in the conversion?

You're doing some steps in a weird (it looks to me, without seeing the innards of your classes) order, and I believe that's the problem.
I think your key problem is that you're attempting to verify that all.UpdateToCheckedIn must have happened before even calling hub.UpdateToCheckedIn. (I don't know for sure that hub.UpdateToCheckedIn calls all.UpdateToCheckedIn, but it sounds reasonable.
There's another problem, where you configure clients.Setup to return all.Object, which happens after you assert the call to all.UpdateToCheckedIn. I'm not sure whether that's necessary or not, but thought I'd mention it.
The usual ordering is
arrange the fakes (and whatever else you need)
act, but exercising the system under test (hub)
assert that expected actions were taken on the fakes (or whatever other conditions you deem necessary for success)
I would have expected to see something more like
// Arrange the fakes
var all = A.Fake<IScheduleHubClientContract>();
var clients = A.Fake<IHubCallerConnectionContext<dynamic>>();
A.CallTo(() => clients.All).Returns(all); // if All has a getter, this could be clients.All = all
// … and arrange the system under test
var hub = new ScheduleHub();
hub.Clients = clients;
// Act, by exercising the system under test
var id = "123456789";
hub.UpdateToCheckedIn(id);
// Assert - verify that the expected calls were made to the Fakes
A.CallTo(() => all.UpdateToCheckedIn(A<string>.Ignored)).MustHaveHappened();

RhinoMocks mock method without return

I am new to mocking. I need to mock method (it doesn't have return value). I cannot find any examples of how to mock a method. I need to mock ITempDa.Import method.
var stub = MockRepository.GenerateStub<ITempDA>();
stub.Stub(x => x.Import(param1)). ???
public void MockedImport() {
// some processing here
}
ITempDa.Import should be mocked and instead some internal method "MockedImport" should be called.

As #JamesLucas said you don't need to use Return() method(you should use this method only when your method is not void).
In this case you should use the Do() method:
var stub = MockRepository.GenerateStub<ITempDA>();
stub.Stub(x => x.Import(Arg<object>.Is.Anything))
.Do(new Action<object>(o => MockedImport()));
or if MockedImport ths same arguments as Import:
stub.Stub(x => x.Import(Arg<object>.Is.Anything))
.Do(new Action<object>(MockedImport);
You should use WhenCalled method when the method under test called your fake and you want to intercept the execution(execute something + change return value/change arguments/do additional steps and etc...). Another reason to use Do instead of WhenCalled is, your code become more readable.
Usually I do not recommend to use IgnoreArguments method. The reason is quite simple, you test the method behaviour. When something violate the method behaviour then the test should fail. IgnoreArguments easily hide things. However, if the calling parameters aren't important do:
stub.Stub(x => x.Import(null))
.IgnoreArguments()
.Do(new Action<object>(o => MockedImport()));

In this instance you don't need a Return() call as the method is void returning. If you want to intercept the call and perform some logic on the mocked operation then use WhenCalled. In this scenario it's also worht just ignoring the arguments in the Stub and handling everything in the WhenCalled expression. e.g.
var stub = MockRepository.GenerateStub<ITempDA>();
stub.Stub(x => x.Import(null))
.IgnoreArguments()
.WhenCalled(invocation =>
{
var arg = invocation.Arguments[0] as ...;
// etc
});

How to test a log method in catch block in Unit test

I have the following code for which I am writing a unit test
protected virtual string GetTokenFromTheWebrequest(WebRequest httpWebRequestObject)
{
try
{
HttpWebResponse responseHttpPostForToken = (HttpWebResponse)httpWebRequestObject.GetResponse();
string tokenJson = GetContentResponse(responseHttpPostForToken);
AccessToken accesstokenObj = DeserializeToAccessToken(tokenJson);
return accesstokenObj.Token;
}
catch (Exception Error)
{
Log.Debug("error");//I want to test this method
throw Error;
}
}
So,For this I have this unit test
[Test]
[ExpectedException(typeof(JsonReaderException))]
public void GetTokenFromTheWebrequestTestwithInValidHttpWebResponseOjectJsonReader()
{
var mockHttpWebResponse = new Mock<HttpWebResponse>();
var mockHttpWebRequest = new Mock<HttpWebRequest>();
var mockLog = new Mock<ILog>();
mockHttpWebRequest.Setup(c => c.GetResponse()).Returns(mockHttpWebResponse.Object);
mockedSurveyMonkeyAPIService.Setup(y => y.GetContentResponse(mockHttpWebResponse.Object)).Returns(TestData.TestData.SampleResponseStream);
mockedSurveyMonkeyAPIService.Setup(z => z.DeserializeToAccessToken(TestData.TestData.SampleResponseStream)).Throws(new JsonReaderException());
//mockLog.Setup(x => x.Debug("error")).Throws(new WebException());
var token = mockedSurveyMonkeyAPIService.Object.GetTokenFromTheWebrequest(mockHttpWebRequest.Object);
mockLog.VerifySet(x => x.Debug("error"),Times.Once); //its not going till this when i debug
}
Can anyone suggest how to check whether Log.Debug is called properly.

You don't seem to be testing any of your own code... you've mocked pretty much everything being used in that method. This begs the question what is actually being tested and the answer is that your implementation details are being tested, not any logic. You have even mocked the logger, so really you are testing the .NET try-catch mechanism here.
If you make any minor change to this method, your test will break even though the behaviour is the same. This is not the kind of test you want to shackle yourself to.
There are better ways of testing. For example, if you want to test your logger - test it in isolation of this method so you know your logger works. Don't test the logger by testing calls to it everywhere it is used.

rhinomocks setting expectation, unit test always passes

I'm trying to become more familiar with the Rhinomocks framework, and I'm trying to understand the Expect methods of rhinomocks.
Here's a unit test I have written:
[TestMethod]
public void Create_ValidModelData_CreatesNewEventObjectWithGivenSlugId()
{
//Arrange
var eventList = new List<Event>() { new Event() { Slug = "test-user" } };
_stubbedEventRepository.Stub(x => x.GetEvents())
.Return(eventList);
_stubbedEventRepository
.Expect(x => x.SaveEvent(eventList.SingleOrDefault()))
.Repeat
.Once();
var controller = new EventController(_stubbedEventRepository);
EventViewModel model = new EventViewModel();
//Act
//controller.Create(model); COMMENTED OUT
//Assert
_stubbedEventRepository.VerifyAllExpectations();
}
I thought I understood this code to only pass if the SaveEvent(...) method get's called exactly once. However, with controller.Create(model) commented out, the test still passes. Inside controller.Create(model) is where the SaveEvent() method gets called.
I tried the following:
_stubbedEventRepository
.Expect(x => x.SaveEvent(eventList.SingleOrDefault()));
But it still passes every time, so what am I doing incorrectly stack overflow? The sources I have looked at online haven't been able to help me. Why is VerifyAllExpectations() yielding a successful unit test?
Thank you!
Here's the body of the controller constructor:
public EventController(IEventRepository eventRepository)
{
_eventRepository = eventRepository;
}
edit:
// member variables
private IEventRepository _stubbedEventRepository;
[TestInitialize]
public void SetupTests()
{
_stubbedEventRepository = MockRepository.GenerateStub<IEventRepository>();
}

If you want to verify the behavior of the code under test, you will use a mock with the appropriate expectation, and verify that. If you want just to pass a value that may need to act in a certain way, but isn't the focus of this test, you will use a stub.

Not sure how I Mock this simple Save(User user) method in my .NET code

I'm still trying to get my head around mocking. Right now, I'm trying to test my Save method on my UserService. As such, I'm mocking out my IRepository which my UserService class uses.
What I don't get is... if i normally save this user to my DB/Repository, it magically gets an Identity, which it then gets set, into my instance object. No rocket science stuff, here.
What I don't understand is, how do i mock this? should I care? I thought I should. Or.. is it that i don't care about that .. because I'm just making sure that the Repository method is called .. not so much that I get the correct data BACK from it.
Here's my pseudo unit test code. (unit test, not integration test .. hence the mock'd repository)...
[TestMethod]
public void GivenANewUserWithValidData_Save_ReturnsTheSameNewUserWithAUserIdDetermined()
{
// Arrange.
var const string passwordSalt = "V4BXAhmHq8IMvR7K20TgoQ=="
var user = new User
{
DisplayName = "Test",
Email = "foo#foo.com",
PasswordSalt = passwordSalt ,
Password = "foobar".ToSha2Hash(passwordSalt)
};
var mockUserRepository = new Mock<IRepository<User>>();
mockUserRepository.Setup(x => x.Save(It.IsAny<User>())).Verifiable();
// Configure this repo in our Dependency Injection.
ObjectFactory.Inject(typeof (IRepository<User>), mockUserRepository.Object);
// Act.
using (new TransactionScope())
{
UserService.Save(user);
UnitOfWork.Commit(); // <-- not sure about this.. currently it's still
// an EntityFramework context.
// I need to change this to.. something??
// Assert.
Assert.IsNotNull(user);
Assert.IsTrue(user.UserId > 0);
}
}
and the user service looks like this..
public class UserService : IUserService
{
public UserService(IRepository<User> userRepository,
ILoggingService loggingService)
{
// .. snip ..
public void Save(User user) { .. }
}
}
Any suggestions?

If you are unit testing UserService.Save(), then all your test should care about is that the repository is called. It's the responsibility of the repository tests to verify that an object is saved correctly.

That's actually something easy to do. You're setting up the Mock object like so:
mockUserRepository.Setup(x => x.Save(user)).Callback(() => user.UserId = 10);
// mocking the value of 10 being insterted into the key
You can even continue using It.IsAny() if you want in the setup, but basically all you need to do is attach the callback to the end of your setup method.

> 1) How should I test a [UserService.]Save method?
Should I care about the result? and
> 2) If i do care about #1 .. then how do i mock the
result also, so I can test that
If the repository is responsible to do the Identity-Magic then it makes no sense to mock this functionality in a test and then verify that this functionality has happened in the test. You want to test the UserService and not the IRepository-mock. The mock is there to crate a fake repository with just enought intelligence that the service does not crash and gets all requirements for the testcase. In this case I do not think that Identity-Magic is required by the service.
If the service is responsible to do the Identity-Magic then it makes sence to test if the id has been set.