Develop Reference

Unit Testing a Class With A Private Constructor

I am trying to test a class that only has a private constructor. This is for a course registration system. The courses do not get create via our application, therefore we intentionally have no public constructor. Instead we use EF to get the courses that are already in the database, and register students to them.
I am trying to test the register method of the Course class, however I have no way of creating an instance. I could use
course = (Course)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(Course), true);, but then I don't have a way to setup the necessary properties since those are private.
What is the recommended approach for unit testing without a constructor?
This is a slimmed down version of the code.
public class Course
{
private Course()
{
}
public int Id { get; private set; }
public string Name { get; private set; }
public bool Open { get; private set; }
public virtual ICollection<Student> Students { get; private set; }
public void Register(string studentName)
{
if (Open)
{
var student = new Student(studentName);
Students.Add(student);
}
}
}
// Usage //
using (var db = new SchoolContext())
{
var course = db.Courses.Include(x => x.Students).Where(x => x.Name == courseName).First();
course.Register(studentName);
db.SaveChanges();
}
// Unit Test //
[Fact]
public void CanRegisterStudentForOpenClass(){
// HERE I HAVE NO WAY TO CHANGE THE OPEN VARIABLE
var course = (Course)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(Course), true);
course.Register("Bob");
}

Yes you can using reflexion. your code is neraly there;
you can get properties and fields of the types with typeof(Course).GetProperty("PropertyName") then you can use SetValue to set the desired value, and pass as parameter first the instance to modify then the value.
in your case true;
note: in your example you will need to add the Collection of students too, if your Open is true.
Here there is a working example:
[Fact]
public void CanRegisterStudentForOpenClass()
{
var course = (Course)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(Course), true);
typeof(Course).GetProperty("Open").SetValue(course, true, null);
ICollection<Student> students = new List<Student>();
typeof(Course).GetProperty("Students").SetValue(course, students, null);
course.Register("Bob");
Assert.Single(course.Students);
}

If you would rather not use reflection, then I recommend you use internal classes (instead of private) and using the InternalsVisibleToAttribute on your implementation assembly.
You can find more about the attribute here. Here's a quick guide on how you can use it!
Step 1. Add this attribute to your assembly that wants its internal code tested.
[assembly: InternalsVisibleToAttribute("MyUnitTestedProject.UnitTests")]
Step 2. Change private to internal.
public class Course
{
internal Course()
{
}
public int Id { get; internal set; }
public string Name { get; internal set; }
public bool Open { get; internal set; }
public virtual ICollection<Student> Students { get; internal set; }
/* ... */
}
Step 3. Write your tests like normal!
[Fact]
public void CanRegisterStudentForOpenClass()
{
var course = new Course();
course.Id = "#####";
course.Register("Bob");
}

As a few people have mentioned here, unit testing something private is either a code smell, or a sign you're writing the wrong tests.
In this case, what you would want to do is use EF's in-memory database if you're using Core, or mocking with EF6.
For EF6 You can follow the docs here
I would say rather than newing your dbContext where you do, pass it in via Dependency Injection. If that's beyond the scope of the work you're doing, (I'm assuming this is actual coursework, so going to DI may be overkill) then you can create a wrapper class that takes a dbcontext and use that in place.
Taking a few liberties with where this code is called from...
class Semester
{
//...skipping members etc
//if your original is like this
public RegisterCourses(Student student)
{
using (var db = new SchoolContext())
{
RegisterCourses(student, db);
}
}
//change it to this
public RegisterCourses(Student student, SchoolContext db)
{
var course = db.Courses.Include(x => x.Students).Where(x => x.Name == courseName).First();
course.Register(studentName);
db.SaveChanges();
}
}
[Fact]
public void CanRegisterStudentForOpenClass()
{
//following after https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/ef/ef6/fundamentals/testing/mocking#testing-query-scenarios
var mockCourseSet = new Mock<DbSet<Course>>();
mockCourseSet.As<IQueryable<Course>>().Setup(m => m.Provider).Returns(data.Provider);
mockCourseSet.As<IQueryable<Course>>().Setup(m => m.Expression).Returns(data.Expression);
mockCourseSet.As<IQueryable<Course>>().Setup(m => m.ElementType).Returns(data.ElementType);
mockCourseSet.As<IQueryable<Course>>().Setup(m => m.GetEnumerator()).Returns(data.GetEnumerator());
//create an aditional mock for the Student dbset
mockStudentSet.As.........
var mockContext = new Mock<SchoolContext>();
mockContext.Setup(c => c.Courses).Returns(mockCourseSet.Object);
//same for student so we can include it
mockContext.Include(It.IsAny<string>()).Returns(mockStudentSet); //you can change the isAny here to check for Bob or such
var student = Institution.GetStudent("Bob");
var semester = Institution.GetSemester(Semester.One);
semester.RegisterCourses(student, mockContext);
}
If you're using EFCore you can follow it along from here

You can fake private constructors and members using TypeMock Isolator or JustMock (both paid) or using MS Fakes (only available in VS Enterprise).
There is also a free Pose library that allows you to fake access to properties.
Unfortunately, the private constructor can't be forged. Therefore, you will need to create an instance of the class using reflection.
Add package.
Open namespace:
using Pose;
Test code:
[Fact]
public void CanRegisterStudentForOpenClass()
{
var course = (Course)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(Course), true);
ICollection<Student> students = new List<Student>();
Shim studentsPropShim = Shim.Replace(() => Is.A<Course>().Students)
.With((Course _) => students);
Shim openPropShim = Shim.Replace(() => Is.A<Course>().Open)
.With((Course _) => true);
int actual = 0;
PoseContext.Isolate(() =>
{
course.Register("Bob");
actual = course.Students.Count;
},
studentsPropShim, openPropShim);
Assert.Equal(1, actual);
}

You can create a JSON representation of your default instance and deserialize it with Newtonsoft.
Something like this:
using System.Reflection;
using Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting;
using Newtonsoft.Json;
using Newtonsoft.Json.Serialization;
using privateConstructor;
namespace privateConstructorTest
{
[TestClass]
public class CourseTest
{
[TestMethod]
public void Register_WhenOpenIsTrue_EnableAddStudents()
{
// Arrange
const string json = #"{'Id': 1, 'name':'My Course', 'open':'true', 'students':[]}";
var course = CreateInstance<Course>(json);
// Act
course.Register("Bob");
// Assert
Assert.AreEqual(1, course.Students.Count);
}
[TestMethod]
public void Register_WhenOpenIsFalse_DisableAddStudents()
{
// Arrange
const string json = #"{'Id': 1, 'name':'My Course', 'open':'false', 'students':[]}";
var course = CreateInstance<Course>(json);
// Act
course.Register("Bob");
// Assert
Assert.AreEqual(0, course.Students.Count);
}
private static T CreateInstance<T>(string json) =>
JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<T>(json, new JsonSerializerSettings
{
ConstructorHandling = ConstructorHandling.AllowNonPublicDefaultConstructor,
ContractResolver = new ContractResolverWithPrivates()
});
public class ContractResolverWithPrivates : CamelCasePropertyNamesContractResolver
{
protected override JsonProperty CreateProperty(MemberInfo member, MemberSerialization memberSerialization)
{
var prop = base.CreateProperty(member, memberSerialization);
if (prop.Writable) return prop;
var property = member as PropertyInfo;
if (property == null) return prop;
var hasPrivateSetter = property.GetSetMethod(true) != null;
prop.Writable = hasPrivateSetter;
return prop;
}
}
}
}
In order to have a cleaner test class, you can extract the JSON strings and the helper code that creates the instance.

Moq a concrete class method call

I've got a setup like this with a concrete class that is instantiated inside the method I want to test. I want to mock this concrete class an not have it execute the code inside. Hence, no exception should be thrown:
public class Executor
{
public bool ExecuteAction(ActionRequest request)
{
switch (request.ActionType)
{
case ActionType.Foo:
var a = new Foo();
return a.Execute(request);
case ActionType.Bar:
var b = new Bar();
return b.Execute(request);
}
return true;
}
}
public class Foo
{
public virtual bool Execute(ActionRequest request)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
public class Bar
{
public virtual bool Execute(ActionRequest request)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
My NUnit test looks like this:
[Test]
public void GivenARequestToFooShouldExecuteFoo()
{
var action = new Mock<Foo>();
action.Setup(x => x.Execute(It.IsAny<ActionRequest>())).Returns(true);
var sut = new Mock<Executor>();
sut.Object.ExecuteAction(new ActionRequest
{
ActionType = ActionType.Foo
});
}
[Test]
public void GivenARequestToBarShouldExecuteBar()
{
var action = new Mock<Bar>();
action.Setup(x => x.Execute(It.IsAny<ActionRequest>())).Returns(true);
var sut = new Mock<Executor>();
sut.Object.ExecuteAction(new ActionRequest
{
ActionType = ActionType.Bar
});
}
I fiddled around with CallBase, but it didn't get me anywhere. Is there anyway I can solve this easily without dependency injection of these classes and adding interfaces? Is this possible just using Moq?
The only thing I can think to do currently is move the Execute methods into the Executor class and rename them to ExecuteFoo() and ExecuteBar(), but I have a lot of code to move so they'd have to be partial classes (sub classes?).

The problem is not with the mocking of the method but with the creation of the concrete class. The creation of Foo and Bar need to be inverted out of the Executor. It is responsible for executing the action, not creating it. with that this interface was created to handle the creation.
public interface IActionCollection : IDictionary<ActionType, Func<IExecute>> {
}
think of this as a collection of factories or a collection of creation strategies.
A common interface was created for the actions.
public interface IExecute {
bool Execute(ActionRequest request);
}
public class Foo : IExecute {
public virtual bool Execute(ActionRequest request) {
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
public class Bar : IExecute {
public virtual bool Execute(ActionRequest request) {
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
And the Executor was refactored to use dependency inversion.
public class Executor {
readonly IActionCollection factories;
public Executor(IActionCollection factories) {
this.factories = factories;
}
public bool ExecuteAction(ActionRequest request) {
if (factories.ContainsKey(request.ActionType)) {
var action = factories[request.ActionType]();
return action.Execute(request);
}
return false;
}
}
With that refactor done the Executor can be tested with fake actions.
public void GivenARequestToFooShouldExecuteFoo() {
//Arrange
var expected = true;
var key = ActionType.Foo;
var action = new Mock<Foo>();
action.Setup(x => x.Execute(It.IsAny<ActionRequest>())).Returns(expected);
var actions = new Mock<IActionCollection>();
actions.Setup(_ => _[key]).Returns(() => { return () => action.Object; });
actions.Setup(_ => _.ContainsKey(key)).Returns(true);
var sut = new Executor(actions.Object);
var request = new ActionRequest {
ActionType = ActionType.Foo
};
//Act
var actual = sut.ExecuteAction(request);
//Assert
Assert.AreEqual(expected, actual);
}
A production implementation of the factory collection can look like this
public class ActionCollection : Dictionary<ActionType, Func<IExecute>>, IActionCollection {
public ActionCollection()
: base() {
}
}
and configured accordingly with your concrete types.
var factories = ActionCollection();
factories[ActionType.Foo] = () => new Foo();
factories[ActionType.Bar] = () => new Bar();

Moq an object in a static class

I can't get Moq to mock an object that gets created in a static method.
Here is my moq and code
code:
public interface IConfigHelper
{
string GetConfiguration(string sectionName, string elementName);
}
public class ConfigHelper : IConfigHelper
{
public ConfigHelper() { }
public virtual string GetConfiguration(string sectionName, string elementName)
{
string retValue = String.Empty;
//Does things to get configuration and return a value
return retValue;
}
}
public class myRealClass
{
public myRealClass(){}
public string myworkingMethod()
{
var retValue = String.Empty;
retValue = utilSvc.GetConfigurationValue();
return retValue;
}
}
public static class utilSvc
{
public static string GetConfigurationValue()
{
ConfigHelper configUtil = new ConfigHelper(); //NOT BEING MOCKED
return configUtil.GetConfiguration("sectionName/sectionElement", "ClinicalSystem");
}
}
the Test using Moq
[TestFixture(TestName = "Tests")]
public class Tests
{
private Mock<IConfigHelper> configHelperMOCK;
[SetUp]
public void Setup()
{
configHelperMOCK = new Mock<IConfigHelper>();
}
[Test]
public void serviceIsBPManagementForValidSource()
{
//Arrange
string sectionName = "sectionName/sectionElement";
string clinicalElementName = "ClinicalSystem";
string clinicalElementValue = "Zedmed";
configHelperMOCK.Setup(s => s.GetConfiguration(sectionName, clinicalElementName)).Returns(clinicalElementValue);
//act
// the call to myRealClass
//assert
// test assertions
}
}
The issue that I am having is with this line:
ConfigHelper configUtil = new ConfigHelper(); //NOT BEING MOCKED
I cannot get the moq to Mock the object.
I do not want the code to read the config file. I wish to moq away this instance of ConfigHelper

You can't wrap the static class/method but you can redirect it
public static class UtilSvc
{
static UtilSvc()
{
CreatorFunc = () => new ConfigHelper();
}
public static Func<IConfigHelper> CreatorFunc { get; set; }
public static string GetConfigurationValue()
{
var configUtil = CreatorFunc();
return configUtil.GetConfiguration("sectionName/sectionElement",
"ClinicalSystem");
}
}
and then in the test
//...
private Mock<IConfigHelper> configHelperMOCK;
[SetUp]
public void Setup()
{
configHelperMOCK = new Mock<IConfigHelper>();
UtilService.CreatorFunc = () => configHelperMOCK.Object;
}
//...

You cannot mock static class. I would rather propose to inject that IConfigHelper into the myRealClass. That is the usual way how to decouple dependencies and use DI.
public class myRealClass
{
private IConfigHelper _configHelper;
public myRealClass(IConfigHelper configHelper)
{
_configHelper = configHelper;
}
public string myworkingMethod()
{
var retValue = String.Empty;
retValue = _configHelper.GetConfigurationValue();
return retValue;
}
}

Avoid coupling your code to static classes, which in most cases cause you code be to difficult to maintain and test.
Follow the Explicit Dependencies Principle
Methods and classes should explicitly require (typically through
method parameters or constructor parameters) any collaborating objects
they need in order to function correctly.
Give the article a read. It is short and very informative.
If you want to keep the static class then you wrap the static class behind an abstraction.
public interface IUtilSvc {
string GetConfigurationValue();
}
public class utilSvcWrapper : IUtilSvc {
public string GetConfigurationValue() {
return utilSvc.GetConfigurationValue(); //Calling static service
}
}
Or another option is that utlSvc does not have to be static if can be injected into dependent classes
public class utilSvc : IUtilScv {
private readonly IConfigHelper configUtil;
public utilSvc(IConfigHelper configHelper) {
configUtil = configHelper;
}
public string GetConfigurationValue() {
return configUtil.GetConfiguration("sectionName/sectionElement", "ClinicalSystem");
}
}
Inject the IUtilScv into the dependent class so that it is no longer dependent on static class.
public class myRealClass {
private readonly IUtilScv utilSvc;
//Explicit dependency inject via constructor
public myRealClass(IUtilScv utilSvc) {
this.utilSvc = utilSvc;
}
public string myworkingMethod() {
var retValue = utilSvc.GetConfiguration();
return retValue;
}
}
In that case you don't even need IConfigHelper when testing as it has also been abstracted away. And you only need to mock the dependencies needed for the test.
[TestFixture(TestName = "Tests")]
public class Tests {
private Mock<IUtilScv> utilScvMOCK;
[SetUp]
public void Setup() {
utilScvMOCK = new Mock<IUtilScv>();
}
[Test]
public void serviceIsBPManagementForValidSource() {
//Arrange
var expectedClinicalElementValue = "Zedmed";
utilScvMOCK
.Setup(s => s.GetConfiguration())
.Returns(expectedClinicalElementValue)
.Verifiable();
var sut = new myRealClass(utilScvMOCK.Object);
//Act
var actualClinicalElementValue = sut.myworkingMethod();
//Assert
configHelperMOCK.Verify();
Assert.AreEqual(expectedClinicalElementValue, actualClinicalElementValue);
}
}

How to return null when accessing a moq object?

I am using Moq library for unit testing. Now what i want is that when I access my object for the first time it should return null, and when i access this on second time it should return something else.
here is my code
var mock = new Mock<IMyClass>();
mock.Setup(?????);
mock.Setup(?????);
var actual = target.Method(mock.object);
in my method i am first checking that whether mock object is null or not, if it is null then do initialize it and then do some calls on it.
bool Method(IMyClass myObj)
{
if (myObj != null)
return true;
else
{
myObj = new MyClass();
bool result = myObj.SomeFunctionReturningBool();
return result;
}
}
what to do setup for mock object,
Also i need to know how to mock this line
bool result = myObj.SomeFunctionReturningBool();

It sounds like you are trying to run two tests with one test method - maybe it would be better to split the tests into two?
You also want to initialise a new object if the method is passed null. To test this, I suggest creating a factory object responsible for creating instances of MyClass. The new code would look like:
interface IMyClassFactory
{
IMyClass CreateMyClass();
}
bool Method(IMyClass myObj, IMyClassFactory myClassFactory)
{
if (myObj != null)
{
return true;
}
myObj = myClassFactory.CreateMyClass();
return myObj.SomeFunctionReturningBool();
}
Then the tests would look like:
[Test]
public void Method_ShouldReturnTrueIfNotPassedNull()
{
Assert.That(target.Method(new MyClass()), Is.True);
}
[Test]
public void Method_ShouldCreateObjectAndReturnResultOfSomeFunctionIfPassedNull()
{
// Arrange
bool expectedResult = false;
var mockMyClass = new Mock<IMyClass>();
mockMyClass.Setup(x => x.SomeFunctionReturningBool()).Returns(expectedResult);
var mockMyFactory = new Mock<IMyClassFactory>();
mockMyFactory.Setup(x => x.CreateMyClass()).Returns(mockMyClass.Object);
// Act
var result = target.Method(null, mockMyFactory.Object);
// Assert
mockMyClass.Verify(x => x.SomeFunctionReturningBool(), Times.Once());
mockMyFactory.Verify(x => x.CreateMyClass(), Times.Once());
Assert.That(result, Is.EqualTo(expectedResult));
}
Here the factory pattern has been used to pass in an object which can create objects of IMyClass type, and then the factory itself has been mocked.
If you do not want to change your method's signature, then create the factory in the class's constructor, and make it accessible via a public property of the class. It can then be overwritten in the test by the mock factory. This is called dependency injection.

Moq - Return null - This working example simply illustrates how to return null using Moq. While the line of code is required is the commented line below, a full working example is provided below.
// _mockShopService.Setup(x => x.GetProduct(It.IsAny<string>())).Returns(() => null);
using Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting;
using Moq;
public class Product
{
public string Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public interface IShopService
{
Product GetProduct(string productId);
}
public class ShopService : IShopService
{
public Product GetProduct(string productId)
{
if (string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(productId))
{
return new Product();
}
return new Product { Id = "8160807887984", Name = "How to return null in Moq" };
}
}
public class Shop
{
private static IShopService _shopService;
public Shop(IShopService shopService)
{
_shopService = shopService;
}
public Product GetProduct(string productId)
{
Product product = _shopService.GetProduct(productId);
return product;
}
}
[TestClass]
public class ShopTests
{
Mock<IShopService> _mockShopService;
[TestInitialize]
public void Setup()
{
_mockShopService = new Mock<IShopService>();
}
[TestMethod]
public void ShopService_GetProduct_Returns_null()
{
//Arrange
Shop shop = new Shop(_mockShopService.Object);
//This is how we return null --- all other code above is to bring this line of code home
_mockShopService.Setup(x => x.GetProduct(It.IsAny<string>())).Returns(() => null);
//Act
var actual = shop.GetProduct(It.IsAny<string>());
//Assert
Assert.IsNull(actual);
}
}

To mock a result value you can do simply:
mock.Setup(foo => foo.SomeFunctionReturningBool()).Returns(true); // or false :)
for the other question, just pass null in the unit test instead of passing mock.object and your unit test cover that too. So you basically create two unit test one with:
var actual = target.Method(mock.object);
and the other one with:
var actual = target.Method(null);

Currently your SUT is tight-coupled with MyClass implementation. You can't mock objects which are instantiated with new keyword inside your SUT. Thus you cannot test your SUT in isolation, and your test is not unit test anymore. When implementation of MyClass.SomeFunctionReturningBool will change (it will return true instead of false), tests of your SUT will fail. This shouldn't happen. Thus, delegate creation to some dependency (factory) and inject that dependency to your SUT:
[Test]
public void ShouldReturnTrueWhenMyClassIsNotNull()
{
Mock<IMyClassFactory> factory = new Mock<IMyClassFactory>();
Mock<IMyClass> myClass = new Mock<IMyClass>();
var foo = new Foo(factory.Object);
Assert.True(foo.Method(myClass.Object));
}
[Test]
public void ShouldCreateNewMyClassAndReturnSomeFunctionValue()
{
bool expected = true;
Mock<IMyClass> myClass = new Mock<IMyClass>();
myClass.Setup(mc => mc.SomeFunctionReturningBool()).Returns(expected);
Mock<IMyClassFactory> factory = new Mock<IMyClassFactory>();
factory.Setup(f => f.CreateMyClass()).Returns(myClass.Object);
var foo = new Foo(factory.Object);
Assert.That(foo.Method(null), Is.EqualTo(expected));
factory.VerifyAll();
myClass.VerifyAll();
}
BTW assignment new value to method parameter does not affect reference which you passed to method.
Implementation:
public class Foo
{
private IMyClassFactory _factory;
public Foo(IMyClassFactory factory)
{
_factory = factory;
}
public bool Method(IMyClass myObj)
{
if (myObj != null)
return true;
return _factory.CreateMyClass().SomeFunctionReturningBool();
}
}

You can use TestFixture with parameter. this test will run two times and different type value.
using NUnit.Framework;
namespace Project.Tests
{
[TestFixture(1)]
[TestFixture(2)]
public class MyTest
{
private int _intType;
public MyTest(int type)
{
_intType = type;
}
[SetUp]
public void Setup()
{
if (_intType==1)
{
//Mock Return false
}
else
{
//Mock Return Value
}
}
}
}

Creating a hybrid of a mock and an anonymous object using e.g. Moq and AutoFixture?

I encountered a class during my work that looks like this:
public class MyObject
{
public int? A {get; set;}
public int? B {get; set;}
public int? C {get; set;}
public virtual int? GetSomeValue()
{
//simplified behavior:
return A ?? B ?? C;
}
}
The issue is that I have some code that accesses A, B and C and calls the GetSomeValue() method (now, I'd say this is not a good design, but sometimes my hands are tied ;-)). I want to create a mock of this object, which, at the same time, has A, B and C set to some values. So, when I use moq as such:
var m = new Mock<MyObject>() { DefaultValue = DefaultValue.Mock };
lets me setup a result on GetSomeValue() method, but all the properties are set to null (and setting up all of them using Setup() is quite cumbersome, since the real object is a nasty data object and has more properties than in above simplified example).
So on the other hand, using AutoFixture like this:
var fixture = new Fixture();
var anyMyObject = fixture.CreateAnonymous<MyObject>();
Leaves me without the ability to stup a call to GetSomeValue() method.
Is there any way to combine the two, to have anonymous values and the ability to setup call results?
Edit
Based on nemesv's answer, I derived the following utility method (hope I got it right):
public static Mock<T> AnonymousMock<T>() where T : class
{
var mock = new Mock<T>();
fixture.Customize<T>(c => c.FromFactory(() => mock.Object));
fixture.CreateAnonymous<T>();
fixture.Customizations.RemoveAt(0);
return mock;
}

This is actually possible to do with AutoFixture, but it does require a bit of tweaking. The extensibility points are all there, but I admit that in this case, the solution isn't particularly discoverable.
It becomes even harder if you want it to work with nested/complex types.
Given the MyObject class above, as well as this MyParent class:
public class MyParent
{
public MyObject Object { get; set; }
public string Text { get; set; }
}
these unit tests all pass:
public class Scenario
{
[Fact]
public void CreateMyObject()
{
var fixture = new Fixture().Customize(new MockHybridCustomization());
var actual = fixture.CreateAnonymous<MyObject>();
Assert.NotNull(actual.A);
Assert.NotNull(actual.B);
Assert.NotNull(actual.C);
}
[Fact]
public void MyObjectIsMock()
{
var fixture = new Fixture().Customize(new MockHybridCustomization());
var actual = fixture.CreateAnonymous<MyObject>();
Assert.NotNull(Mock.Get(actual));
}
[Fact]
public void CreateMyParent()
{
var fixture = new Fixture().Customize(new MockHybridCustomization());
var actual = fixture.CreateAnonymous<MyParent>();
Assert.NotNull(actual.Object);
Assert.NotNull(actual.Text);
Assert.NotNull(Mock.Get(actual.Object));
}
[Fact]
public void MyParentIsMock()
{
var fixture = new Fixture().Customize(new MockHybridCustomization());
var actual = fixture.CreateAnonymous<MyParent>();
Assert.NotNull(Mock.Get(actual));
}
}
What's in MockHybridCustomization? This:
public class MockHybridCustomization : ICustomization
{
public void Customize(IFixture fixture)
{
fixture.Customizations.Add(
new MockPostprocessor(
new MethodInvoker(
new MockConstructorQuery())));
fixture.Customizations.Add(
new Postprocessor(
new MockRelay(t =>
t == typeof(MyObject) || t == typeof(MyParent)),
new AutoExceptMoqPropertiesCommand().Execute,
new AnyTypeSpecification()));
}
}
The MockPostprocessor, MockConstructorQuery and MockRelay classes are defined in the AutoMoq extension to AutoFixture, so you'll need to add a reference to this library. However, note that it's not required to add the AutoMoqCustomization.
The AutoExceptMoqPropertiesCommand class is also custom-built for the occasion:
public class AutoExceptMoqPropertiesCommand : AutoPropertiesCommand<object>
{
public AutoExceptMoqPropertiesCommand()
: base(new NoInterceptorsSpecification())
{
}
protected override Type GetSpecimenType(object specimen)
{
return specimen.GetType();
}
private class NoInterceptorsSpecification : IRequestSpecification
{
public bool IsSatisfiedBy(object request)
{
var fi = request as FieldInfo;
if (fi != null)
{
if (fi.Name == "__interceptors")
return false;
}
return true;
}
}
}
This solution provides a general solution to the question. However, it hasn't been extensively tested, so I'd love to get feedback on it.

Probably there is a better why, but this works:
var fixture = new Fixture();
var moq = new Mock<MyObject>() { DefaultValue = DefaultValue.Mock };
moq.Setup(m => m.GetSomeValue()).Returns(3);
fixture.Customize<MyObject>(c => c.FromFactory(() => moq.Object));
var anyMyObject = fixture.CreateAnonymous<MyObject>();
Assert.AreEqual(3, anyMyObject.GetSomeValue());
Assert.IsNotNull(anyMyObject.A);
//...
Initially I tried to use fixture.Register(() => moq.Object); instead of fixture.Customize but it registers the creator function with OmitAutoProperties() so it wouldn't work for you case.

As of 3.20.0, you can use AutoConfiguredMoqCustomization. This will automatically configure all mocks so that their members' return values are generated by AutoFixture.
var fixture = new Fixture().Customize(new AutoConfiguredMoqCustomization());
var mock = fixture.Create<Mock<MyObject>>();
Assert.NotNull(mock.Object.A);
Assert.NotNull(mock.Object.B);
Assert.NotNull(mock.Object.C);