Develop Reference

Testing methods with overloading using shims and stubs in VS 2013 c# Code [duplicate]

What is the best way to unit test a method that doesn't return anything? Specifically in c#.
What I am really trying to test is a method that takes a log file and parses it for specific strings. The strings are then inserted into a database. Nothing that hasn't been done before but being VERY new to TDD I am wondering if it is possible to test this or is it something that doesn't really get tested.

If a method doesn't return anything, it's either one of the following
imperative - You're either asking the object to do something to itself.. e.g change state (without expecting any confirmation.. its assumed that it will be done)
informational - just notifying someone that something happened (without expecting action or response) respectively.
Imperative methods - you can verify if the task was actually performed. Verify if state change actually took place. e.g.
void DeductFromBalance( dAmount )
can be tested by verifying if the balance post this message is indeed less than the initial value by dAmount
Informational methods - are rare as a member of the public interface of the object... hence not normally unit-tested. However if you must, You can verify if the handling to be done on a notification takes place. e.g.
void OnAccountDebit( dAmount ) // emails account holder with info
can be tested by verifying if the email is being sent
Post more details about your actual method and people will be able to answer better.
Update: Your method is doing 2 things. I'd actually split it into two methods that can now be independently tested.
string[] ExamineLogFileForX( string sFileName );
void InsertStringsIntoDatabase( string[] );
String[] can be easily verified by providing the first method with a dummy file and expected strings. The second one is slightly tricky.. you can either use a Mock (google or search stackoverflow on mocking frameworks) to mimic the DB or hit the actual DB and verify if the strings were inserted in the right location. Check this thread for some good books... I'd recomment Pragmatic Unit Testing if you're in a crunch.
In the code it would be used like
InsertStringsIntoDatabase( ExamineLogFileForX( "c:\OMG.log" ) );

Test its side-effects. This includes:
Does it throw any exceptions? (If it should, check that it does. If it shouldn't, try some corner cases which might if you're not careful - null arguments being the most obvious thing.)
Does it play nicely with its parameters? (If they're mutable, does it mutate them when it shouldn't and vice versa?)
Does it have the right effect on the state of the object/type you're calling it on?
Of course, there's a limit to how much you can test. You generally can't test with every possible input, for example. Test pragmatically - enough to give you confidence that your code is designed appropriately and implemented correctly, and enough to act as supplemental documentation for what a caller might expect.

As always: test what the method is supposed to do!
Should it change global state (uuh, code smell!) somewhere?
Should it call into an interface?
Should it throw an exception when called with the wrong parameters?
Should it throw no exception when called with the right parameters?
Should it ...?

Try this:
[TestMethod]
public void TestSomething()
{
try
{
YourMethodCall();
Assert.IsTrue(true);
}
catch {
Assert.IsTrue(false);
}
}

Void return types / Subroutines are old news. I haven't made a Void return type (Unless I was being extremely lazy) in like 8 years (From the time of this answer, so just a bit before this question was asked).
Instead of a method like:
public void SendEmailToCustomer()
Make a method that follows Microsoft's int.TryParse() paradigm:
public bool TrySendEmailToCustomer()
Maybe there isn't any information your method needs to return for usage in the long-run, but returning the state of the method after it performs its job is a huge use to the caller.
Also, bool isn't the only state type. There are a number of times when a previously-made Subroutine could actually return three or more different states (Good, Normal, Bad, etc). In those cases, you'd just use
public StateEnum TrySendEmailToCustomer()
However, while the Try-Paradigm somewhat answers this question on how to test a void return, there are other considerations too. For example, during/after a "TDD" cycle, you would be "Refactoring" and notice you are doing two things with your method... thus breaking the "Single Responsibility Principle." So that should be taken care of first. Second, you might have idenetified a dependency... you're touching "Persistent" Data.
If you are doing the data access stuff in the method-in-question, you need to refactor into an n-tier'd or n-layer'd architecture. But we can assume that when you say "The strings are then inserted into a database", you actually mean you're calling a business logic layer or something. Ya, we'll assume that.
When your object is instantiated, you now understand that your object has dependencies. This is when you need to decide if you are going to do Dependency Injection on the Object, or on the Method. That means your Constructor or the method-in-question needs a new Parameter:
public <Constructor/MethodName> (IBusinessDataEtc otherLayerOrTierObject, string[] stuffToInsert)
Now that you can accept an interface of your business/data tier object, you can mock it out during Unit Tests and have no dependencies or fear of "Accidental" integration testing.
So in your live code, you pass in a REAL IBusinessDataEtc object. But in your Unit Testing, you pass in a MOCK IBusinessDataEtc object. In that Mock, you can include Non-Interface Properties like int XMethodWasCalledCount or something whose state(s) are updated when the interface methods are called.
So your Unit Test will go through your Method(s)-In-Question, perform whatever logic they have, and call one or two, or a selected set of methods in your IBusinessDataEtc object. When you do your Assertions at the end of your Unit Test you have a couple of things to test now.
The State of the "Subroutine" which is now a Try-Paradigm method.
The State of your Mock IBusinessDataEtc object.
For more information on Dependency Injection ideas on the Construction-level... as they pertain to Unit Testing... look into Builder design patterns. It adds one more interface and class for each current interface/class you have, but they are very tiny and provide HUGE functionality increases for better Unit-Testing.

You can even try it this way:
[TestMethod]
public void ReadFiles()
{
try
{
Read();
return; // indicates success
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Assert.Fail(ex.Message);
}
}

it will have some effect on an object.... query for the result of the effect. If it has no visible effect its not worth unit testing!

Presumably the method does something, and doesn't simply return?
Assuming this is the case, then:
If it modifies the state of it's owner object, then you should test that the state changed correctly.
If it takes in some object as a parameter and modifies that object, then your should test the object is correctly modified.
If it throws exceptions is certain cases, test that those exceptions are correctly thrown.
If its behaviour varies based on the state of its own object, or some other object, preset the state and test the method has the correct Ithrough one of the three test methods above).
If youy let us know what the method does, I could be more specific.

Use Rhino Mocks to set what calls, actions and exceptions might be expected. Assuming you can mock or stub out parts of your method. Hard to know without knowing some specifics here about the method, or even context.

Depends on what it's doing. If it has parameters, pass in mocks that you could ask later on if they have been called with the right set of parameters.

What ever instance you are using to call the void method , You can just use ,Verfiy
For Example:
In My case its _Log is the instance and LogMessage is the method to be tested:
try
{
this._log.Verify(x => x.LogMessage(Logger.WillisLogLevel.Info, Logger.WillisLogger.Usage, "Created the Student with name as"), "Failure");
}
Catch
{
Assert.IsFalse(ex is Moq.MockException);
}
Is the Verify throws an exception due to failure of the method the test would Fail ?

Unit testing a class that tracks state

I am abstracting the history tracking portion of a class of mine so that it looks like this:
private readonly Stack<MyObject> _pastHistory = new Stack<MyObject>();
internal virtual Boolean IsAnyHistory { get { return _pastHistory.Any(); } }
internal virtual void AddObjectToHistory(MyObject myObject)
{
if (myObject == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("myObject");
_pastHistory.Push(myObject);
}
internal virtual MyObject RemoveLastObject()
{
if(!IsAnyHistory) throw new InvalidOperationException("There is no previous history.");
return _pastHistory.Pop();
}
My problem is that I would like to unit test that Remove will return the last Added object.
AddObjectToHistory
RemoveObjectToHistory -> returns what was put in via AddObjectToHistory
However, it isn't really a unit test if I have to call Add first? But, the only way that I can see to do this in a true unit test way is to pass in the Stack object in the constructor OR mock out IsAnyHistory...but mocking my SUT is odd also. So, my question is, from a dogmatic view is this a unit test? If not, how do I clean it up...is constructor injection my only way? It just seems like a stretch to have to pass in a simple object? Is it ok to push even this simple object out to be injected?

There are two approaches to those scenarios:
Interfere into design, like making _pastHistory internal/protected or injecting stack
Use other (possibly unit tested) methods to perform verification
As always, there is no golden rule, although I'd say you generally should avoid situations where unit tests force design changes (as those changes will most likely introduce ambiguity/unnecessary questions to code consumers).
Nonetheless, in the end it is you who has to weigh how much you want unit test code interfere into design (first case) or bend the perfect unit test definition (second case).
Usually, I find second case much more appealing - it doesn't clutter original class code and you'll most likely have Add already tested - it's safe to rely on it.

I think it's still a unit test, assuming MyObject is a simple object. I often construct input parameters to unit test methods.
I use Michael Feather's unit test criteria:
A test is not a unit test if:
It talks to the database
It communicates across the network
It touches the file system
It can't run at the same time as any of your other unit tests
You have to do special things to your environment (such as editing config files) to run it.
Tests that do these things aren't bad. Often they are worth writing, and they can be written in a unit test harness. However, it is important to be able to separate them from true unit tests so that we can keep a set of tests that we can run fast whenever we make our changes.

My 2 cents... how would the client know if remove worked or not ? How is a 'client' supposed to interact with this object? Are clients going to push in a stack to the history tracker? Treat the test as just another user/consumer/client of the test subject.. using exactly the same interaction as in real production.
I haven't heard of any rule stating that you're not allowed to call multiple methods on the object under test.
To simulate, stack is not empty. I'd just call Add - 99% case. I'd refrain from destroying the encapsulation of that object.. Treat objects like people (I think I read that in Object Thinking). Tell them to do stuff.. don't break-in and enter.
e.g. If you want someone to have some money in their wallet,
the simple way is to give them the money and let them internally put it into their wallet.
throw their wallet away and stuff in a wallet in their pocket.
I like Option1. Also see how it frees you from implementation details (which induce brittleness in tests). Let's say tomorrow the person decides to use an online wallet. The latter approach will break your tests - they will need to be updated for pushing in an online wallet now - even though the object behavior is not broken.
Another example I've seen is for testing Repository.GetX() where people break-in to the DB to inject records with SQL now in the unit test.. where it would have be considerably cleaner and easier to call Repository.AddX(x) first. Isolation is desired but not to the extent that it overrides pragmatism.
I hope I didn't come on too strong here.. it just pains me to see object APIs being 'contorted for testability' to the point where it no longer resembles the 'simplest thing that could work'.

I think you're trying to be a little overly specific with your definition of a unit test. You should be testing the public behavior of your class, not the minute implementation details.
From your code snippet, it looks like all you really need to care about is whether a) calling AddObjectToHistory causes IsAnyHistory to return true and b) RemoveLastObject eventually causes IsAnyHistory to return false.

As stated in the other answers I think your options can be broken down like so.
You take a dogmatic approach to your testing methodology and add constructor injection for the stack object so you can inject your own fake stack object and test your methods.
You write a separate test for add and remove, the remove test will use the add method but consider it a part of the test setup. As long as your add test passes, your remove should be too.

Using a stub instead of a concrete object as a parameter

Is it always necessary to create and pass in a stub into a method as a parameter, even if I can instantiate that object being passed in to the method without any problems.
ex. I want to test this method below and it takes in a TargetDataRanger object as a parameter. Should I a.) stub it out and pass it in b.) break the dependency and put it behind a interface then stub it and pass it in c.) instantiate it and pass it into the method as a concrete object.
In this case below I can get away with using the concrete object but is that wise and does it break some testing rules or something?
public virtual Dictionary<DateTime, DateTime> ResolveDates(ISeries comparisonSeries, TargetDateRanger sourceRanger)
{
Dictionary<DateTime, DateTime> dates = new Dictionary<DateTime, DateTime>();
foreach (DateTime keyDate in sourceRanger.ValidDates)
dates.Add(keyDate, this.ResolveDate(comparisonSeries, keyDate));
return dates;
}

I think the answer depends on what TargetDateRanger.ValidDates does. Assuming you can completely control what that property returns from your unit test, there's no reason to separately mock it out. If it hits the database, has some internal logic, depends on something like DateTime.Now, etc. then you'll need to mock it.
Basically, you want the "environment" of a unit test to be completely under your control so that you have predictable results and can quickly pinpoint the failing code. If ValidDates has a possibility of returning wrong results, then you'd want to unit test that separately and mock it in this case (so that "bad results" don't cause your ResolveDates method to fail, since the problem doesn't reside there).

You could use a default parameter.
void print(int a, string b = "default")
{
Console.WriteLine(a + b);
}

In unit testing, I test mine as stand alone. I break it out, have a driver set up that I can pump variables into (if it is meant to receive them) and a stub so I can view the expected results. I feel it's a better test philosophy for me, but I am relatively new to programming, so I find this way of testing me teaches me a lot at the same time.
Once that's done, I integrate it into the larger system, re-test it with a new driver and stub output, verify the entire flow works.
I can't say there is something inherently wrong using the concrete method, especially if it's a small piece of a small program... But, I like breaking things out.

If you are writing a Unit test for this method, I think better to isolate/fake out any external dependencies. The problem is that if you don't, for example if someone make a change to the ValidateDates method, then your test would fail for the wrong reason. On the other had you are also testing what is inside the ValidateDates method. This means you are probably tempting to test multiple things. Also this might prevent you giving good/specific name for the test.
Remember you can Unit test ValidateDates method separately/in isolation.
It is important that you want to break as much as dependencies as test small piece of logic/behavior in isoloation. This way you get real value of Unit Tests IMO.

How does one test a function that has no return value?

I had visual studio create a test for each member in my class. Here's one example:
/// <summary>
///A test for CloseCurrentTextLogFile
///</summary>
[TestMethod()]
public void CloseCurrentTextLogFileTest()
{
Logger.CloseCurrentTextLogFile();
Assert.Inconclusive( "A method that does not return a value cannot be verified." );
}
Based on the assert string, I'm wondering how to test this... Any ideas?

Static state methods naturally make themselves fairly untestable, so my suggestion is based around refactoring your code away from static methods.
I would turn Logger into an instance class that takes an IO object in the constructor. That will allow you to stub the IO object and you can Assert that your IO object's Close method was called.
This is only if you want to make your code 100% testable. Otherwise, I would agree with Mo that if it is not testable, then do not write a forced test...those tend to be very brittle. In the end, you need to be pragmatic about your code. Often a logger is useful to keep static, however as I already mentioned, these tend to be very untestable....so just be pragmatic about your work and don't write tests in the mere effort to get 100% code coverage...that 100% will come with a price...
UPDATE
Here is why this is not truly testable from a dogmatic POV of unit testing. You are not testing a unit of work, but instead you are testing the Logger AND the Logger's dependencies (the IO object in this case). It also makes your tests slower and requiring environmental setup and state (you must have first opened an actual file to close it, right?). These are all bad for unit testing, but ok for integration testing...so it depends on what kind of tests you are writing, also.

I would posit that if it's truly not testable, then it doesn't actually do anything at all, and shouldn't exist ;)
Something along the lines of this might work...
Assert.IsNotNull( Logger.File );
Logger.CloseCurrentTextLogFile();
Assert.IsNull( Logger.File );
Or check the status of Logger.FileOpenStatus or check that Logger.OpenFile(fname) throws an exception before closing, but not after. There's got to be something in Logger whose behaviour depends on whatever action CloseCurrentTextLogFile() performs.

You can check the state of Logger or you could call some other method on logger that will not produce an error because you called this method, which should succeeded if you had not called the method.

Am not sure either, but you could try the following:
A function is supposed to do something (write a file, set some variables, etc)
Maybe you can check if the variables have been writen, or file has been created.

You could mock up the Logger class and assert that the CloseCurrentTextLogFile is being called. Some might argue that you need to check that any open log files are closed, I personally do not agree with that as that would test the Logger itself not your method.
This is the kind of questions developers should ask themselves when they start designing their systems, how can I test my application.

Moq, strict vs loose usage

In the past, I have only used Rhino Mocks, with the typical strict mock. I am now working with Moq on a project and I am wondering about the proper usage.
Let's assume that I have an object Foo with method Bar which calls a Bizz method on object Buzz.
In my test, I want to verify that Bizz is called, therefore I feel there are two possible options:
With a strict mock
var mockBuzz= new Mock<IBuzz>(MockBehavior.Strict);
mockBuzz.Setup(x => x.Bizz()); //test will fail if Bizz method not called
foo.Buzz = mockBuzz
foo.Bar();
mockBuzz.VerifyAll();
With a loose mock
var mockBuzz= new Mock<IBuzz>();
foo.Buzz = mockBuzz
foo.Bar();
mockBuzz.Verify(x => x.Bizz()) //test will fail if Bizz method not called
Is there a standard or normal way of doing this?

I used to use strict mocks when I first starting using mocks in unit tests. This didn't last very long. There are really 2 reasons why I stopped doing this:
The tests become brittle - With strict mocks you are asserting more than one thing, that the setup methods are called, AND that the other methods are not called. When you refactor the code the test often fails, even if what you are trying to test is still true.
The tests are harder to read - You need to have a setup for every method that is called on the mock, even if it's not really related to what you want to test. When someone reads this test it's difficult for them to tell what is important for the test and what is just a side effect of the implementation.
Because of these I would strongly recommend using loose mocks in your unit tests.

I have background in C++/non-.NET development and I've been more into .NET recently so I had certain expectations when I was using Moq for the first time. I was trying to understand WTF was going on with my test and why the code I was testing was throwing a random exception instead of the Mock library telling me which function the code was trying to call. So I discovered I needed to turn on the Strict behaviour, which was perplexing- and then I came across this question which I saw had no ticked answer yet.
The Loose mode, and the fact that it is the default is insane. What on earth is the point of a Mock library that does something completely unpredictable that you haven't explicitly listed it should do?
I completely disagree with the points listed in the other answers in support of Loose mode. There is no good reason to use it and I wouldn't ever want to, ever. When writing a unit test I want to be certain what is going on - if I know a function needs to return a null, I'll make it return that. I want my tests to be brittle (in the ways that matter) so that I can fix them and add to the suite of test code the setup lines which are the explicit information that is describing to me exactly what my software will do.
The question is - is there a standard and normal way of doing this?
Yes - from the point of view of programming in general, i.e. other languages and outside the .NET world, you should use Strict always. Goodness knows why it isn't the default in Moq.

I have a simple convention:
Use strict mocks when the system under test (SUT) is delegating the call to the underlying mocked layer without really modifying or applying any business logic to the arguments passed to itself.
Use loose mocks when the SUT applies business logic to the arguments passed to itself and passes on some derived/modified values to the mocked layer.
For eg:
Lets say we have database provider StudentDAL which has two methods:
Data access interface looks something like below:
public Student GetStudentById(int id);
public IList<Student> GetStudents(int ageFilter, int classId);
The implementation which consumes this DAL looks like below:
public Student FindStudent(int id)
{
//StudentDAL dependency injected
return StudentDAL.GetStudentById(id);
//Use strict mock to test this
}
public IList<Student> GetStudentsForClass(StudentListRequest studentListRequest)
{
//StudentDAL dependency injected
//age filter is derived from the request and then passed on to the underlying layer
int ageFilter = DateTime.Now.Year - studentListRequest.DateOfBirthFilter.Year;
return StudentDAL.GetStudents(ageFilter , studentListRequest.ClassId)
//Use loose mock and use verify api of MOQ to make sure that the age filter is correctly passed on.
}

Me personally, being new to mocking and Moq feel that starting off with Strict mode helps better understand of the innards and what's going on. "Loose" sometimes hides details and pass a test which a moq beginner may fail to see. Once you have your mocking skills down - Loose would probably be a lot more productive - like in this case saving a line with the "Setup" and just using "Verify" instead.