I have a base class that creates some test databases and then those are used by the tests in multiple assemblies. Those tests are methods in classes that inherits from this base class.
However, it seems that when the runner changes to another assembly the base class recreates again the test databases, losing considerable time.
Is there a way to save this state between assemblies in NUnit?
Thanks.
Related
I want to test my class EventTextsDB that is a singleton, using MSTest in .NET 6.
I first thought about using AppDomain, but they basically were removed in .NET 5+ (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/porting/net-framework-tech-unavailable#application-domains)
Then I found Unit test singletons, but by calling the private constructor via reflection I still cannot test the static Create() and static Delete() methods in the class, because they set the static EventTextsDB Instance property.
I could use ordered unit tests, but this would require a lot of work because I would have to order all tests that used this class. Not many tests use or test this class yet, but many do with a similar class LanguageDB, at which I want to apply the same solution that I am looking for.
I have read somewhere on stackoverflow or MSDN, that each test assembly runs isolated (in different AppDomain, if they still exist?), but I don't want to create 10 new test assemblies just for 10 tests of this class.
How can I test my singleton class?
I'm implementing a project using .net-core and microservices base on eShopOnContainers. In my functional test I previously put all the tests in one class called IntegrationEventsScenarios.cs and now I need to separate tests by their related services. But when I run Basket Catalog and Ordering test scenarios together tests will not pass.
I have tried putting for example basket Scenariobase and Teststarup classes in Ordering folder to remove any shared resource but it didn't work.
I have a bunch of classes that wrap DB queries. I want to be able to test-run each query, and verify the result, returned to private members of my class. The perhaps barbaric idea that sprung to mind was to give my query wrappers a public SelfTest() method, visible to XUnit with a [Fact] attribute. As such, my test method would have access to the internals of the class and could verify in detail the outcome of the DB request.
Are there unhappy consequences I should be aware of? I would be adding a public method to my DB wrapper classes, but the method would do no damage. I would be making my application directly 'consumable' by XUnit, rather than having my tests in a separate project as I'm used to, but this seems harmless, no?
Adding the SelfTest() methods to your production code will have no direct impact on the functionality. But your notion that this is kind of
'babaric' is caused by the violation of several principles we know as Clean Code.
Just to name a few points:
First of all this will violate the Single Responsibilty Principle. Beside the functionality itsself the class has the responsibility to test itsself.
More code and more complexity is added to the class. Who wants to read all the test code if someone is just interesting in understanding the functionality ?
You add additional dependencies to your production code (XUnit in this case) and the assemblies will be part of your shipped product.
But what is an alternative approach ?
Just making all methods and properties public for the sake of testing is not suitable as well. But with the InternalsVisibleTo annotation in the assembly.cs you can give the test project assembly the right to access internal methods and properties of the assembly to test.
Example:
Add in the assembly.cs of MyAssembly the line
[assembly:InternalsVisibleTo("MyAssembly.UnitTests")]
Then in MyAssembly.UnitTests internal methods can be used.
My solution has many projects. Most projects in the solution will have associated unit test projects. I have created a UnitTestCommon project to act as a stand alone assembly with a local database and setup methods to refresh its data by parsing xml records into the tables. Also others like, test the db connection and expose public properties for the connection string and others needed to interact with the db.
I want to accomplish a self instantiated UnitTestCommon project to be references by all other associated unit test projects.
I know if you add the attribute [AssemblyFixture] for the "global" class and [FixtureSetup] it will run before all other tests. But because I want to separate my unit test projects this will not self instantiate when referencing in the associated unit tests.
I could always call an Initialize method in the UnitTestCommon, but...there has to be a better way.
I am approaching database testing with NUnit. As its time consuming so I don't want to run everytime.
So, I tried creating the base class and every other database testing classes derive from it as I thought if I will decorate the base class with [Ignore] attribute then rest of the derived classes will get ignored, but thats not happening.
I need to know is there any way to Ignore set of the classes with minimal effort?
If you don't want to split out integration and unit tests into separate projects you can also group tests into categories
[Test, Category("Integration")]
Most test runners allow you to filter which categories to run which would give you finer grained control if you need it (e.g. 'quick', 'slow' and 'reaaallyy slow' categories)
A recommended approach is seperating your unit tests that can run in isolation from your integration tests into different projects, then you can choose which project to execute when you run your tests. This will make it easier to run your faster running tests more often, multiple times daily or even hourly (and hopefully without ever having to worry about such things as configuration), while letting your slower running integration tests run on a different schedule.