I'm tasked with writing some tests to one of our codebases.
Now I have this class:
```
public class A
{
public void method_1()
{
this.method_2();
// Do something
}
public void method_2()
{
Environment.CurrentDirectory = Path.GetDirectoryName(Assembly.GetEntryAssembly().Location);
// Do something
}
}
```
Now I'm trying to write a test for method_1 without invoking method_2 and getting NullReferenceException.
[TestClass]
public class MyTestClass
{
[TestMethod]
public void MyTestMethod()
{
// Ignore the call: Assembly.GetEntryAssembly() because it returns null>
new A().method_1();
}
Any suggestion?
EDIT:
I'm not allowed to change the code.
Without the possibility to override/mock the logic inside method_2 there is not much you can do.
If it is your own codebase I suggest to move the call to Assembly.GetEntryAssembly().Location to some helper method which you can override for the tests.
Assuming you cannot change anything to the code, you can use MS Fakes to mock out static methods like DateTime.Now. Should also work on Assembly.GetEntryAssembly().
I'm not a big fan of MS Fakes though, had a few too many problems with it in the past. If you can make a small change to the code, you can make the method_2 virtual and do something like this:
public class MyTestA : A
{
public override void method_2()
{
//Do nothing
}
}
You can then write your tests against MyTestA.
Of course, putting the code in method 2 in a new class/interface and mock that as a dummy interface is an even cleaner solution.
Related
I'm trying to write Unittests for D365 Plugins and CodeActivities (both being classes). There are small tests that should run in every plugin, such as:
[TestMethod]
public void NullLocalPluginContext()
{
XrmFakedContext context = new XrmFakedContext();
Assert.ThrowsException<InvalidPluginExecutionException>(
() => context.ExecutePluginWith<SomePlugin>(null));
}
Where SomePlugin is the class to be tested (which is for each child different) and cannot be abstract (awaits IPlugin). For example here it's a CheckDuplicateOrder in the child:
[TestClass]
public class CheckDuplicateOrderTest
{
[TestMethod]
public void NullLocalPluginContext()
{
XrmFakedContext context = new XrmFakedContext();
Assert.ThrowsException<Exception>(
() => context.ExecutePluginWith<CheckDuplicateOrder>(null));
}
}
For these small tests I'd like to have this parent with Shared tests but I don't know how to reference the 'to-be' child's target.
I prefer MSTest, but any NuGet framework is accepted.
Maybe this helps with understanding
Every plugin would have it's own test class.
Every plugintest class needs the basic.
These basic tests should be inherited from parent (so they don't take up space).
Plugins: Dog, Cat, Mouse
PluginTests: DogTest, CatTest, MouseTest
BasePluginTest -> should have shared tests where SomePlugin in the exmaple is Dog/Cat/Mouse. But I don't know how to reference it. Every plugin would have a function TestWalk() { .. ExecutePluginWith<SomePlugin>}. The Cat should call CatTest, the Dog should call DogTest.
As with a normal class you should favour composition over inheritance. Even
though test-classes do not have to follow the same rules and guidelines as normal classes doesn't mean we cannot implement them.
So when you feel you have some common functionality accross your test-classes you should extract some class that is used by your tests. You would do the same for a normal business-class also, won´t you?
class CommonFunc
{
public static bool NullLocalPluginContext<T, TException>() where T: IPlugIn, TException : Exception
{
XrmFakedContext context = new XrmFakedContext();
try { context.ExecutePluginWith<T>(null)) };
catch (T e) { return true; }
return false;
}
}
[TestClass]
public class CheckDuplicateOrderTests
{
[TestMethod]
public void NullLocalPluginContext()
{
Assert.IsTrue(CommonFunc.NullLocalPluginContext<CheckDuplicateOrder, Exception>(null));
}
}
[TestClass]
public class SomeOtherPluginTests
{
[TestMethod]
public void NullLocalPluginContext()
{
Assert.IsTrue(CommonFunc.NullLocalPluginContext<SomePlugin, InvalidPluginExecutionException>(null));
}
}
You could also make your common method rethrow the exception instead of just returning true or false if you want to log the actual exception being thrown within the test-framework.
Disclaimer: some people won't like this because it abuses class inheritance to save code. It's a potential tool for the job, you can evaluate whether it works for you or not.
This seems like it could be achievable with a base class to define the shared tests. Maybe something like this would achieve what you're trying to do?
// note: no [TestClass] on this type so it doesn't get discovered by MSTest.
// Probably should also be abstract.
public class SharedTests<T> where T : IPlugin
{
[TestMethod]
public void NullLocalPluginContext()
{
XrmFakedContext context = new XrmFakedContext();
Assert.ThrowsException<Exception>(
() => context.ExecutePluginWith<T>(null));
}
}
Your plugin classes would inherit from this class:
[TestClass]
public class CheckDuplicateOrderTests : SharedTests<CheckDuplicateOrder>
{
// NullLocalPluginContext test is inherited from the parent type
}
[TestClass]
public class SomeOtherPluginTests : SharedTests<SomeOtherPlugin>
{
// Also has NullLocalPluginContext test inherited, but for testing SomeOtherPlugin
}
I currently have a set of unit tests which are consistent for a number of Rest API endpoints. Say the class is defined like so.
public abstract class GetAllRouteTests<TModel, TModule>
{
[Test]
public void HasModels_ReturnsPagedModel()
{
// Implemented test
}
}
With the implemented test fixture looking like:
[TestFixture(Category = "/api/route-to-test")]
public GetAllTheThings : GetAllRouteTests<TheThing, ModuleTheThings> { }
This enables me to run a number of common tests across all GET all/list routes. It also means that I have classes which are linked directly to the module being tested, and links between tests and code in Resharper / Visual Studio / CI "just work".
The challenge is that some routes require query parameters for testing other pathways through the route code;
e.g. /api/route-to-test?category=big.
As [TestCaseSource] requires a static field, property, or method there appears to be no nice way to override a list of query strings to pass. The closest thing I have come up with seems like a hack. Namely:
public abstract class GetAllRouteTests<TModel, TModule>
{
[TestCaseSource("StaticToDefineLater")]
public void HasModels_ReturnsPagedModel(dynamic args)
{
// Implemented test
}
}
[TestFixture(Category = "/api/route-to-test")]
public GetAllTheThings : GetAllRouteTests<TheThing, ModuleTheThings>
{
static IEnumerable<dynamic> StaticToDefineLater()
{
// yield return all the query things
}
}
This works because the static method is defined for the implemented test class, and is found by NUnit. Huge hack. Also problematic for someone else consuming the abstract class as they need to "know" to implement "StaticToDefineLater" as a static something.
I am looking for a better way of achieving this. It seems like non-static TestCaseSource sources were removed in NUnit 3.x, so that's out.
Thanks in advance.
NOTES:
GetAllRouteTests<> implements a number of tests, not just the one shown.
Iterating through all the routes in one test will "hide" what is covered, so would like to avoid that.
The way I solved a similar problem is by having a base source class that implements IEnumerable (another acceptable source for NUnit), consider if this design suits your usecase:
// in the parent fixture...
public abstract class TestCases : IEnumerable
{
protected abstract List<List<object>> Cases { get; }
public IEnumerator GetEnumerator()
{
return Cases.GetEnumerator();
}
}
// in tests
private class TestCasesForTestFoobar : TestCases
{
protected override List<List<object>> Cases => /* sets of args */
}
[TestCaseSource(typeof(TestCasesForTestFoobar))]
public void TestFoobar(List<object> args)
{
// implemented test
}
It is my understanding that I can test that a method call will occur if I call a higher level method, i.e.:
public abstract class SomeClass()
{
public void SomeMehod()
{
SomeOtherMethod();
}
internal abstract void SomeOtherMethod();
}
I want to test that if I call SomeMethod() then I expect that SomeOtherMethod() will be called.
Am I right in thinking this sort of test is available in a mocking framework?
You can see if a method in something you have mocked has been called by using Verify, e.g.:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Mock<ITest> mock = new Mock<ITest>();
ClassBeingTested testedClass = new ClassBeingTested();
testedClass.WorkMethod(mock.Object);
mock.Verify(m => m.MethodToCheckIfCalled());
}
class ClassBeingTested
{
public void WorkMethod(ITest test)
{
//test.MethodToCheckIfCalled();
}
}
public interface ITest
{
void MethodToCheckIfCalled();
}
If the line is left commented it will throw a MockException when you call Verify. If it is uncommented it will pass.
No, mock testing assumes you are using certain testable design patterns, one of which is injection. In your case you would be testing SomeClass.SomeMethod and SomeOtherMethod must be implemented in another entity which needs to be interfaced.
Your Someclass constructor would look like New(ISomeOtherClass). Then you would mock the ISomeOtherClass and set expectation on its SomeOtherMethod to be called and verify the expectation.
Even though I agree that the #Paul's answer is the recommended way to go I just want to add one alternative way which is provided by moq off the self.
Since SomeClass is abstract it is indeed mockable, but public void SomeMehod() isn't. The point is to find the way to mock and somehow invoke that method and then using CallBase propagate the call to the SomeOtherMethod(). It might sound as a hack but it is simple in essence. It could be used in the case if the proposed refactoring is not possible.
// This class is used only for test and purpose is make SomeMethod mockable
public abstract class DummyClass : SomeClass
{
public virtual void DummyMethod() => base.SomeMethod();
}
Then you could setup DummyMethod() to propagate the call by setting CallBase flag.
//Arrange
var mock = new Mock<DummyClass>();
mock.Setup(m => m.DummyMethod()).CallBase();
//Act
mock.Object.SomeMethod();
//Assert
mock.Verify(m => m.SomeOtherMethod(), Times.Once);
I have a base class:
public abstract class MyBaseClass
{
protected virtual void Method1()
{
}
}
and a derived class:
public class MyDerivedClass : MyBaseClass
{
public void Method2()
{
base.Method1();
}
}
I want to write a unit test for Method2 to verify that it calls Method1 on the base class. I'm using Moq as my mocking library. Is this possible?
I came across a related SO link:
Mocking a base class method call with Moq
in which the 2nd answer suggests it can be achieved by setting CallBase property to true on the mock object. However it's not clear how this would enable the call to the base class method (Method1 in the above example) to be verified.
Appreciate any assistance with this.
Unit tests should verify behavior, not implementation. There are several reasons for this:
The results are the goal, not how you get the results
Testing results allows you to improve the implementation without re-writing your tests
Implementations are harder to mock
You might be able to put in hooks or create mocks that verify that the base method was called, but do you really care how the answer was achieved, or do you care that the answer is right?
If the particular implementation you require has side effects that you can verify, then that is what you should be validating.
Mocking the base class from the perspective of the derived class is not possible. In your simple example, I would suggest one of the two options.
Option 1: In the event that MyDerivedClass really shouldn't care what MyBaseClass is up to, then use dependency injection! Yay abstraction!
public class MyClass
{
private readonly IUsedToBeBaseClass myDependency;
public MyClass(IUsedToBeBaseClass myDependency){
_myDependency = myDependency;
}
public void Method2()
{
_myDependency.Method1();
}
}
Elsewhere in test land...
[TestClass]
public class TestMyDependency {
[TestMethod]
public void TestThatMyDependencyIsCalled() {
var dependency = new Mock<IUsedToBeBaseClass>();
var unitUnderTest = new MyClass(dependency.Object);
var unitUnderTest.Method2();
dependency.Verify(x => x.Method1(), Times.Once);
}
}
Option 2: In the event that MyDerivedClass NEEDS to know what MyBaseClass is doing, then test that MyBaseClass is doing the right thing.
In alternative test land...
[TestClass]
public class TestMyDependency {
[TestMethod]
public void TestThatMyDependencyIsCalled() {
var unitUnderTest = new MyDerivedClass();
var unitUnderTest.Method2();
/* verify base class behavior #1 inside Method1() */
/* verify base class behavior #2 inside Method1() */
/* ... */
}
}
What you're describing is not a test of your code, but a test of the behavior of the language. That's fine, because it's a good way to ensure that the language behaves the way we think it does. I used to write lots of little console apps when I was learning. I wish I'd known about unit testing then because it's a better way to go about it.
But once you've tested it and confirmed that the language behaves the way you expect, I wouldn't keep writing tests for that. You can just test the behavior of your code.
Here's a real simple example:
public class TheBaseClass
{
public readonly List<string> Output = new List<string>();
public virtual void WriteToOutput()
{
Output.Add("TheBaseClass");
}
}
public class TheDerivedClass : TheBaseClass
{
public override void WriteToOutput()
{
Output.Add("TheDerivedClass");
base.WriteToOutput();
}
}
Unit test
[TestMethod]
public void EnsureDerivedClassCallsBaseClass()
{
var testSubject = new TheDerivedClass();
testSubject.WriteToOutput();
Assert.IsTrue(testSubject.Output.Contains("TheBaseClass"));
}
I currently have a base service class that all my services extend. This is what one of the methods look like:
protected internal virtual T PerformServiceOperationWithExceptionHandling<T>(Func<T> func)
{
try
{
return func.Invoke();
}
...
}
In the derived classes I call the method like this:
public AddGuestResponse AddGuest(AddGuestRequest addGuestRequest)
{
return PerformServiceOperationWithExceptionHandling(() => AddGuestLogic(addGuestRequest));
}
I want to test AddGuest and ensure "AddGuestLogic" is being passed as a parameter in the base method? How do I achieve this with nSubstitute and nUnit. I don't think its possible?
================================================
I ended up using the following code:
[Test]
public void AddGuest_WhenCalled_PerformsAddGuestLogicWithExceptionHandling()
{
Func<AddGuestResponse> addGuestLogic = null;
_guestService.PerformServiceOperationWithExceptionHandling(Arg.Do<Func<AddGuestResponse>>(arg => addGuestLogic = arg));
var addGuestRequest = new AddGuestRequest();
_guestService.AddGuest(addGuestRequest);
_guestService.ClearReceivedCalls();
addGuestLogic.Invoke();
_guestService.Received().AddGuestLogic(addGuestRequest);
}
The _guestService is created in my setup method as follows: Substitute.ForPartsOf();
I second Sunny Milenov's answer, but would go one step further by advising you to change your design. I have learned the hard way that many of these headaches with testing base class behavior go away when you follow the principle of composition over inheritance.
I.e., if you refactor your base class to a collaborator, which you inject into your services' constructor, you can test that in isolation and mock it in your services' tests. No worrying about testing an abstract base class or testing the same exception handling in all of your services' tests.
You would test that the collaborator correctly invokes the func in the collaborator's tests.
In the services' tests you can just mock the collaborator to return the Func's result right away:
[Test]
public void ServiceLogicIsExecuted()
{
var collaborator = Substitute.For<ICollaborator>();
//Tell the test double to return the Func's result. You'd probably want to do this in the setup method.
collaborator.PerformServiceOperation(Arg.Any<Func<int>>()).Returns(x => ((Func<int>)x[0]).Invoke());
var sut = new Service(collaborator);
var result = sut.CalculateSomething();
Assert.That(result, Is.EqualTo(99));
}
public class Service
{
private readonly ICollaborator _collaborator;
public Service(ICollaborator collaborator)
{
_collaborator = collaborator;
}
public int CalculateSomething()
{
return _collaborator.PerformServiceOperation(ExecuteLogic);
}
private static int ExecuteLogic()
{
return 99;
}
}
public interface ICollaborator
{
T PerformServiceOperation<T>(Func<T> func);
}
Short answer - you shouldn't. Unit testing is about testing the behavior of the tested method, not the implementation details.
Long answer:
It doesn't matter how the class internally works, as far as it produces the expected results.
You need to test your public method on the final class and see if this works as expected. Testing a base/abstract class in isolation proves nothing.