I am creating some unit tests for a Country model object. This is partly-generated by the Linq-to-SQL mechanism from a database table and partly under my control. This class uses the CountryRepository for some checks when checking it is valid; particularly that a country of this name doesn't already exist in the database.
As one ought not to embroil oneself in the database during unit tests, I created a mock repository to provide pretend data, and modify the model class like this:-
public partial class Country
{
private ICountryRepository country_repository;
public Country(ICountryRepository passed_country_repository)
{
country_repository = passed_country_repository;
}
//...etc
I can then construct this object in the test like this:-
Country test_country = new Country(new MockCountryRepository())
{
// code in here
};
and the tests run satisfactorily.
The problem comes in actual live usage; I have to prefix every usage of the repository with this:-
if (country_repository == null)
{
country_repository = new CountryRepository();
}
as the country_repository variable is unset if the zero-parameter constructor is invoked. I originally had the declaration line reading:-
private ICountryRepository country_repository = new CountryRepository();
but that attempts a database connection whichever constructor is used. I can't change the zero-parameter constructor to set country_repository to anything because it is automatically-generated and my changes might disappear at zero notice.
Is there a better way of getting the MockCountryRepository into the model object? Or have I missed the point here somewhere, and if so, what should I be doing?
Related
I need to add a method to a model that given some parameters assigns a value to one of the model's fields.
public class ModelName: SomeModel<ModelName>, IModelName
{
[Field]
public string SomeField{ get; set; }
[Field]
public string FieldSetByMethod{ get; set; }
public new async Task MethodToSetField(string parameter)
{
var someClassInstance = new SomeExternalClass(parameter);
FieldSetByMethod = someClassInstance(parameter).method();
}
}
Now when I'm writing unit tests and I want to have a way of checking that this MethodToSetField was called. However, I can't really actually call the MethodToSetField method as creating SomeExternalClass is not desirable (e.g. because it creates unique ID).
I don't really have experience with neither C# nor Moq. How can I mock this function so it behaves more or less like this:
ModelNameInstance.Setup(c => c.MethodToSetField("Parameter")).Assigns(FieldSetByMethod,"DummyValue");
Or maybe I can somehow restructure the code / write tests in a way to imitate this behavior?
You could inject ISomeExternalClass into this class and then mock it, and test against the mock, or if you can't do that - inject ISomeExternalClassFactory into this class and then mock it. ISomeExternalClassFactory mock would return a mock of ISomeExternalClass that you could setup and test against.
In a view model's constructor I have a command declaration that calls a method:
OpenGroupCommand = new DelegateCommand(OnOpenGroupExecute);
And the method looks like:
private void OnOpenGroupExecute(object obj)
{
string groupName = (string)obj;
Application.Current.MainPage.Navigation.PushAsync(new GroupPage(groupName));
}
How can I test, that groupName is passed to another view model correctly? In another view model groupName parameter is sent to GroupName property on VM instance:
public class GroupPageViewModel : ViewModelBase, IGroupPageViewModel
{
private string _groupName;
public GroupPageViewModel(string groupName)
{
LoadGroupName(groupName);
}
public void LoadGroupName(string groupName)
{
GroupName = groupName;
}
public string GroupName
{
get
{
return _groupName;
}
set
{
_groupName = value;
OnPropertyChanged();
}
}
}
On debug all works fine, but how can I unit test it? Where can I read a bit about testing and mocking stuff like this, even with Moq framework?
I believe your question is actually about how to test navigation between pages.
In the implementation of method OnOpenGroupExecute, because you are using Xamarin forms stuff to implement the navigation, you have to refer Xamarin Forms assemblies in your test project which makes the unit test depend on Xamarin Forms.
As suggested in this document https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/xamarin/xamarin-forms/enterprise-application-patterns/ , try to create an interface for navigation and navigate with viewmodel (more details on https://github.com/dotnet-architecture/eShopOnContainers)
And in your unit test project, implement a fake navigation service class like below and inject into the DI container:
public class FakeNavigationService : INavigationService //this interface is from MS eShopOnContainer project
{
private List<ViewModelBase> _viewModels = new List<ViewModel>();
public Task NavigateToAsync<TViewModel>() where TViewModel : ViewModelBase {
//create viewModel object from DI container
//var viewModel = ......
_viewModels.Add(viewModel);
}
public ViewModelBase CurrentPageViewModel {
get {
if (_viewModels.Count() < 1) {
return null;
}
return _viewModels[_viewModels.Count() - 1];
}
}
}
This is just a suggestion. If you have implemented most of features in your app, it takes time to change navigate-with-page to navigate-with-viewmodel.
Well, let's see what you have:
you have some code in a private method, unless you make that public you won't be able to test it directly, because you can't call it. I am not considering here any tricks that allow you to call private methods.
what does that method do? It is not clear at all, it receives an object, we don't know what's in it. You're converting it to string, but what if it is not a string? Can you convert that object to a string? who knows.
So we have a method, that we don't know what it does, we don't know what it receives as parameters, we can't call it directly, but we want to test it. This is not a good position to be in.
Step back a bit and ask yourself, what are you really trying to test?
You said : How can I test, that groupName is passed to another view model correctly?
what does "correctly" mean? You need to define what it means for that string to be correct. This will give a test scenario you can work with.
I expect to receive an object, which looks like A and I want to convert it to a string which looks like B. Forget about viewmodels for now, that's just unimportant noise.
You can change the method into a public one and you can test that for different types of input data, you're getting the right result. This is literally, working with an object and extract some stuff from it. When that method is correct, you can guarantee that the viewmodel will receive the right input and that is good enough from a unit testing point of view.
You can of course add more tests for various inputs, you can test for correct failure conditions etc.
I'm having an issue where AutoFixture seems to be overwriting a property on a frozen mock. The property on the mocked class is read-only, and from what I've read, AutoFixture shouldn't be trying to do anything with it.
I've included code to reproduce the issue in LINQPad below. Victim is a trivial test class with two read-only properties. At issue is that once I have set the expectation for the Things property and registered the mock's Object as the instance for AutoFixture to return for the Victim type, the collection Things contains different strings.
To reproduce the problem, run the code below in LINQPad as a C# Program and reference AutoFixture and Moq from NuGet. Be sure to include the namespaces Moq and Ploeh.AutoFixture.
My expectation is that I should get back the object I registered with Register and that the collection Things in the returned Victim should return the collection I referenced in my call to SetupGet.
public class Victim
{
private string _vic;
private IEnumerable<string> _things;
public virtual string VictimName { get { return _vic; } }
public virtual IEnumerable<string> Things { get { return _things; } }
}
void Main()
{
var fixture = new Fixture();
var victimName = fixture.CreateAnonymous("VIC_");
var things = fixture.CreateMany<string>();
victimName.Dump("Generated vic name");
things.Dump("Generated things");
var victimMock = fixture.Freeze<Mock<Victim>>();
victimMock.SetupGet(x => x.VictimName).Returns(victimName).Verifiable();
victimMock.SetupGet(x => x.Things).Returns(things).Verifiable();
fixture.Register(() => victimMock.Object);
var victim = fixture.CreateAnonymous<Victim>();
(victim.Equals(victimMock.Object)).Dump("Victims are the same?");
victim.VictimName.Dump("Returned name");
victim.Things.Dump("Returned things");
(things.Equals(victim.Things)).Dump("Returned things are the same?");
victimMock.Verify();
}
My guess is that the Iterator for Things is actually the same, but that the strings it generates are different. This is actually by design, although we've later come to realize that this wasn't a particularly good design decision.
In AutoFixture 3, this behavior has been changed.
If I've guessed correctly, this issue will go away in AutoFixture 3. In AutoFixture 2 you should be able to resolve it by creating the fixture like this:
var fixture = new Fixture().Customize(new StableMultipeCustomization());
I'm trying to learn how to do Unit testing with C# and Moq, and I've built a little test situation. Given this code:
public interface IUser
{
int CalculateAge();
DateTime DateOfBirth { get; set; }
string Name { get; set; }
}
public class User : IUser
{
public DateTime DateOfBirth { get; set; }
string Name { get; set; }
public int CalculateAge()
{
return DateTime.Now.Year - DateOfBirth.Year;
}
}
I want to test the method CalculateAge(). To do this, I thought I should try giving a default value to the DateOfBirth property by doing this in my test method:
var userMock = new Mock<IUser>();
userMock.SetupProperty(u => u.DateOfBirth, new DateTime(1990, 3, 25)); //Is this supposed to give a default value for the property DateOfBirth ?
Assert.AreEqual(22, userMock.Object.CalculateAge());
But when It comes to the assertion, the value of CalculateAge() equals 0, although DateOfBirth equals new DateTime(1990, 3, 25).
I know this may look like a silly example, but whatever... I thought I could use mocking to give values to not-yet-developed method/properties in my objects, so the testing of a method wouldn't depend on another component of my class, or even setting up a default context for my object (hence the name of the user here...) Am I approaching this problem the wrong way?
Thanks.
Yes, you approaching it wrong, but don't worry, I'll explain why. First hint would be
you can completely remove your User class and everything will be the
same.
When you are doing:
var userMock = new Mock<IUser>();
You just creating a fake\mock object of that interface, that has nothing to do with your initial User class, so it doesn't have any implementation of CalculateAge method, except of fake one that just silly returns 0. That's why you are getting 0 in your assert statement.
So, you were saying:
thought I could use mocking to give values to not-yet-developed
method/properties in my objects, so the testing of a method wouldn't
depend on another component of my class
You could, let's say you will have some consumer of your IUser, lets say like the following:
class ConsumerOfIUser
{
public int Consume(IUser user)
{
return user.CalculateAge() + 10;
}
}
in that case mocking of IUser will make total sense, since you want to test how your ConsumerOfIUser behaves when IUser.CalculateAge() returns 10. You would do the following:
var userMock = new Mock<IUser>();
userMock.Setup(u => u.CalculateAge()).Returns(10);
var consumer = new ConsumerOfIUser();
var result = consumer.Consume(userMock);
Assert.AreEqual(result, 20); //should be true
It depends on what your trying to test. In this case, you have mocked out the User object, so there is no point in testing anything inside this class as you are replacing it with a mock object. If you want to test the User object then you shouldn't mock it out.
Mocks are used to replace dependant objects that you don't want to test. For example, if you had a Name object instead of a string (e.g contains first name, surname, title etc..) but you didn't want to test the Name object, just the User object, you would create a mock of the Name object to be used when constructing the User object.
I have a form, which shows three items in a combo box.
Continents, Countries and Cities
If I select an item, e.g. if I select Cities and then if I click on the "Get Results" button, I send a select command to the database via business and data layer which then retrieves a list of type Cities.
The List are then bound to the grid on the UI form.
The classes: Continents, Countries and Cities implement IEntities interface with property string "Name".
The button click event calls Business layer using:
click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
string selectedItem = comboBox.SelectedItem;
IEntities entity = null;
List<IEntities> list = null;
if (selectedItem == "Cities")
{
entity = new Cities("City");
}
if (selectedItem == "Continents")
{
entity = new Continents("Continents");
}
if (selectedItem == "Countries")
{
entity = new Countries("Countries");
}
//Then I call a method in Business Layer to return list
BL bl = new BL(entity);
list = bl.GetItems();
myDataGrid.DataContext = list;//to bind grid to the list
}
Business Layer looks like this:
public class BL
{
public IEntities _entity;
//constructor sets the variable
public BL(IEntity entity)
{
_entity = entity;
}
public IList<Entities> GetItems()
{
//call a method in data layer that communicates to the database
DL dl = new DL();
return dl.CreateItemsFromDatabase(_entity.Name);//name decides which method to call
}
}
I want to use Unity as the IOC so instead of using factory (sort of) pattern in the button click event with if then elses and using hardcoded class names, I want to use the container's configration that creates the relevant class instance. And when the IEntities instance is passed to the constructor of the BL class, I want to pass the object using Unity. Can you please advice how to do it?
As it exists, this design is not well suited to incorporating an IoC container.
As long as your ComboBox still contains strings, you're going to have to compare that against hardcoded values in a switch statement or set of if blocks somewhere.
Furthermore, the BL class takes a constructor parameter of type IEntity, but that can be an object of any among many different types at runtime. There is no way to configure Unity at startup to instantiate BL without also telling it what to use as that parameter (and nothing to gain by it, really).
Interestingly, though, you seem to be instantiating these Entity objects for the sole purpose of passing their string name to the CreateItemsFromDatabase method; you're not using its type for anything. It seems that you can skip the constructor parameter altogether and simply pass the selected string from the ComboBox directly to the GetItems method and achieve the same result. If you have some other reason for doing this, you should at least not supply the name in the constructor; make it a const within each class declaration.
What might be better suited is to make GetItems a generic method. Instead of passing an IEntity to the BL constructor, you would pass the concrete type to the method:
var bl = new BL();
var countries = bl.GetItems<Countries>();
var cities = bl.GetItems<Cities>();
var continents = bl.GetItems<Continents>();