Fluent builder is a well-known pattern to build objects with many properties:
Team team = teamBuilder.CreateTeam("Chelsea")
.WithNickName("The blues")
.WithShirtColor(Color.Blue)
.FromTown("London")
.PlayingAt("Stamford Bridge");
However, using it doesn't seem very clear to me due to one particular reason:
Every Team object has its minimal operational state, in other words, set of properties which have to be set (mandatory), so that the object is ready to use.
Now, how should the Fluent builder approach be used considering that you have to maintain this state?
Should the With_XYZ members modify the part of the object, that can't affect this state?
Maybe there are some general rules for this situation?
Update:
If the CreateTeam method should take the mandatory properties as arguments, what happens next?
What happens if I (for example) omit the WithNickName call?
Does this mean that the nickname should be defaulted to some DefaultNickname?
Does this mean that the example (see the link) is bad, because the object can be left in invalid state?
And, well, I suspect that in this case the fluent building approach actually loses it's "beauty", doesn't it?
CreateTeam() should have the mandatory the properties as parameters.
Team CreateTeam(string name, Color shirtColor, string Town)
{
}
Seems to me the points of Fluent Interface are:
Minimize the number of parameters to zero in a constructor while still dynamically initializing certain properties upon creation.
Makes the property/ parameter-value association very clear - in a large parameter list, what value is for what? Can't tell without digging further.
The coding style of the instantiation is very clean, readable, and editable. Adding or deleting property settings with this formatting style is less error prone. I.E. delete an entire line, rather than edit in the middle of a long parameter list; not to mention editing the wrong parameter
So, I've been searching around on the internet for a bit, trying to see if someone has already invented the wheel here. What I want to do is write an integration test that will parse the current project, find all references to a certain method, find it's arguments, and then check the database for that argument. For example:
public interface IContentProvider
{
ContentItem GetContentFor(string descriptor);
}
public class ContentProvider : IContentProvider
{
public virtual ContentItem GetContentFor(string descriptor)
{
// Fetches Content from Database for descriptor and returns in
}
}
Any other class will get an IContentProvider injected into their constructor using IOC, such that they could write something like:
contentProvider.GetContentFor("SomeDescriptor");
contentProvider.GetContentFor("SomeOtherDescriptor");
Basically, the unit test finds all these references, find the set of text ["SomeDescriptor", "SomeOtherDescriptor"], and then I can check the database to make sure I have rows defined for those descriptors. Furthermore, the descriptors are hard coded.
I could make an enum value for all descriptors, but the enum would have thousands of possible options, and that seems like kinda a hack.
Now, this link on SO: How I can get all reference with Reflection + C# basically says it's impossible without some very advanced IL parsing. To clarify; I don't need Reflector or anything - it's just to be an automated test I can run so that if any other developers on my team check in code that calls for this content without creating the DB record, the test will fail.
Is this possible? If so, does anyone have a resource to look at or sample code to modify?
EDIT: Alternatively, perhaps a different method of doing this VS trying to find all references? The end result is I want a test to fail when the record doesnt exist.
This will be very difficult: your program may compute the value of the descriptor, which will mean your test is able to know which value are possible without executing said code.
I would suggest to change the way you program here, by using an enum type, or coding using the type safe enum pattern. This way, each and every use of a GetContentFor will be safe: the argument is part of the enum, and the languages type checker performs the check.
Your test can then easily iterate on the different enum fields, and check they are all declared in your database, very easily.
Adding a new content key requires editing the enum, but this is a small inconvenient you can live with, as it help a log ensuring all calls are safe.
I want to write a custom ValidationAttribute that checks if the given value is unique or not.
The problem is that in the edit screen, it is not guaranteed that the user actually changed the value, resulting in a false error.
Is there a way to check in my attribute whether the value actually changed? Or can I trigger the attribute only when the value has changed?
I'm getting the feeling this requirement maybe just doesn't belong in an attribute?
When you say ValidationAttibute, do you mean using DataAnnotations? If so, then all of this applies, else, sorry, I misunderstood and only part of this will.
I think your best bet is to do this in the repository or BLL using your unique key for the record, at least this is how I did it. Get the previous values of the record and see if they changed. If they did change, then run your uniqueness checks.
If you can get this logic into the ValidationAttribute, then more power to you, but I am not sure if a validationAttribute would be the best thing since there are ways to get around them. From my understanding of these attributes, you should use them as supplements only to business logic validations and not as the only way that you validate your model.
See here for more info on DataAnnotations
EDIT:
Fair enough, now let's see if I can give an answer to help you :) Check out this link, it is the code for uniqueness checking on any property in any table. Pretty in-depth LINQ to SQL stuff, but looks like it works well. You should be able to decorate any property with this just like using the <Required> or <StringLenght> attributes.
ASP.NET Forums
Basically what I'm hoping for is something that would work like how the Obsolete attribute works with Intellisense and strikes the method text when typing out the name. What I'm looking for is an attribute that blocks the method from being seen with the assembly it's defined. Kind of like an reverse internal. Using 3.5 by the by.
Yeah sounds odd but if you need the reason why, here it is:
My current solution for lazy loading in entity framework involves having the generated many to one or one to one properties be internal and have a facade? property that is public and basically loads the internal property's value:
public ChatRoom ParentRoom
{
get
{
if(!ParentRoomInnerReference.IsLoaded)
{
ParentRoomInnerReference.Load();
}
return ParentRoomInner;
}
set
{
ParentRoomInner = value;
}
}
Problem with this is if someone tries to use the ParentRoom property in a query:
context.ChatItem.Where(item => item.ParentRoom.Id = someId)
This will blow up since it doesn't know what to do with the facade property when evaluating the expression. This isn't a huge problem since the ParentRoomInner property can be used and queries are only in the entity assembly. (IE no selects and such in the UI assembly) The only situation comes in the entity assembly since it can see both properties and it's possible that someone might forget and use the above query and blow up at runtime.
So it would be nice if there were an attribute or some way to stop the entity assembly from seeing (ie blocked by intellisense) the outward facing properties.
Basically inside the assembly see ParentRoomInner. Outside the assembly see ParentRoom. Going to guess this isn't possible but worth a try.
I do see that there is an attribute
for stopping methods from being
viewable
(System.ComponentModel.EditorBrowsable)
but it's choices are rather slim and
don't really help.
You can use the EditorBrowsableAttribute for this:
[System.ComponentModel.EditorBrowsable(System.ComponentModel.EditorBrowsableState.Never)]
public void MyMethod() {}
One thing to know, though: In c#, you will still get intellisense on the method if it is in the same assembly as the one you are working in. Someone referencing your assembly (or your project, for a project reference) will not see it though. You can also pass EditorBrowsableState.Advanced, and then you will only get intellisense if c# if you clear the HideAdvancedMembers option in Tools Options.
I haven't heard of a good way to do this in plain .NET. But, here are some ideas. Maybe one of them will work, or set you off in a direction that will be helpful.
Use FxCop, probably writing your own rule to make sure ParentRoom isn't called from the asslembly that defined it.
Look into the various post-processing projects for .NET (link design-by-contract).
Write some code inside your ParentRoom getter which will check the stack (using "new Stack()" or "new StackFrame(1)" to figure out whether the caller was from the same assembly. If so, either throw an exception or simply return ParentRoomInner.
I have a class that serializes a set of objects (using XML serialization) that I want to unit test.
My problem is it feels like I will be testing the .NET implementation of XML serialization, instead of anything useful. I also have a slight chicken and egg scenario where in order to test the Reader, I will need a file produced by the Writer to do so.
I think the questions (there's 3 but they all relate) I'm ultimately looking for feedback on are:
Is it possible to test the Writer, without using the Reader?
What is the best strategy for testing the reader (XML file? Mocking with record/playback)? Is it the case that all you will really be doing is testing property values of the objects that have been deserialized?
What is the best strategy for testing the writer!
Background info on Xml serialization
I'm not using a schema, so all XML elements and attributes match the objects' properties. As there is no schema, tags/attributes which do not match those found in properties of each object, are simply ignored by the XmlSerializer (so the property's value is null or default). Here is an example
<MyObject Height="300">
<Name>Bob</Name>
<Age>20</Age>
<MyObject>
would map to
public class MyObject
{
public string Name { get;set; }
public int Age { get;set; }
[XmlAttribute]
public int Height { get;set; }
}
and visa versa. If the object changed to the below the XML would still deserialize succesfully, but FirstName would be blank.
public class MyObject
{
public string FirstName { get;set; }
public int Age { get;set; }
[XmlAttribute]
public int Height { get;set; }
}
An invalid XML file would deserialize correctly, therefore the unit test would pass unless you ran assertions on the values of the MyObject.
Do you need to be able to do backward compatibility? If so, it may be worth building up unit tests of files produced by old versions which should still be able to be deserialized by new versions.
Other than that, if you ever introduce anything "interesting" it may be worth a unit test to just check you can serialize and deserialize just to make sure you're not doing something funky with a readonly property etc.
I would argue that it is essential to unit test serialization if it is vitally important that you can read data between versions. And you must test with "known good" data (i.e. it isn't sufficient to simply write data in the current version and then read it again).
You mention that you don't have a schema... why not generate one? Either by hand (it isn't very hard), or with xsd.exe. Then you have something to use as a template, and you can verify this just using XmlReader. I'm doing a lot of work with xml serialization at the moment, and it is a lot easier to update the schema than it is to worry about whether I'm getting the data right.
Even XmlSerializer can get complex; particularly if you involve subclasses ([XmlInclude]), custom serialization (IXmlSerializable), or non-default XmlSerializer construction (passing additional metadata at runtime to the ctor). Another possibility is creative use of [XmlIngore], [XmlAnyAttribute] or [XmlAnyElement]; for example you might support unexpected data for round-trip (only) in version X, but store it in a known property in version Y.
With serialization in general:
The reason is simple: you can break the data! How badly you do this depends on the serializer; for example, with BinaryFormatter (and I know the question is XmlSerializer), simply changing from:
public string Name {get;set;}
to
private string name;
public string Name {
get {return name;}
set {name = value; OnPropertyChanged("Name"); }
}
could be enough to break serialization, as the field name has changed (and BinaryFormatter loves fields).
There are other occasions when you might accidentally rename the data (even in contract-based serializers such as XmlSerializer / DataContractSerializer). In such cases you can usually override the wire identifiers (for example [XmlAttribute("name")] etc), but it is important to check this!
Ultimately, it comes down to: is it important that you can read old data? It usually is; so don't just ship it... prove that you can.
For me, this is absolutely in the Don't Bother category. I don't unit test my tools. However, if you wrote your own serialization class, then by all means unit test it.
If you want to ensure that the serialization of your objects doesn't break, then by all means unit test. If you read the MSDN docs for the XMLSerializer class:
The XmlSerializer cannot serialize or deserialize the following:Arrays of ArrayListArrays of List<T>
There is also a peculiar issue with enums declared as unsigned longs. Additionally, any objects marked as [Obsolete] do no get serialized from .Net 3.5 onwards.
If you have a set of objects that are being serialized, testing the serialization may seem odd, but it only takes someone to edit the objects being serialized to include one of the unsupported conditions for the serialisation to break.
In effect, you are not unit testing XML serialization, you are testing that your objects can be serialized. The same applies for deserialization.
Yes, as long as what needs to be tested is properly tested, through a bit of intervention.
The fact that you're serializing and deserializing in the first place means that you're probably exchanging data with the "outside world" -- the world outside the .NET serialization domain. Therefore, your tests should have an aspect that's outside this domain. It is not OK to test the Writer using the Reader, and vice versa.
It's not only about whether you would just end up testing the .NET serialization/deserialization; you have to test your interface with the outside world -- that you can output XML in the expected format and that you can properly consume XML in the anticipated format.
You should have static XML data that can be used to compare against serialization output and to use as input data for deserialization.
Assume you give the job of note taking and reading the notes back to the same guy:
You - Bob, I want you to jot down the following: "small yellow duck."
Bob - OK, got it.
You - Now, read it back to me.
Bob - "small yellow duck"
Now, what have we tested here? Can Bob really write? Did Bob even write anything or did he memorize the words? Can Bob actually read? -- his own handwriting? What about another person's handwriting? We don't have answers to any of these questions.
Now let's introduce Alice to the picture:
You - Bob, I want you to jot down the following: "small yellow duck."
Bob - OK, got it.
You - Alice, can you please check what Bob wrote?
Alice - OK, he's got it.
You - Alice, can you please jot down a few words?
Alice - Done.
You - Bob, can you please read them?
Bob - "red fox"
Alice - Yup, that sounds right.
We now know, with certainty, that Bob can write and read properly -- as long as we can completely trust Alice. Static XML data (ideally tested against a schema) should sufficiently be trustworthy.
In my experience it is definitely worth doing, especially if the XML is going to be used as an XML document by the consumer. For example, the consumer may need to have every element present in the document, either to avoid null checking of nodes when traversing or to pass schema validation.
By default the XML serializer will omit properties with a null value unless you add the [XmlElement(IsNullable = true)] attribute. Similarly, you may have to redirect generic list properties to standard arrays with an XMLArray attribute.
As another contributor said, if the object is changing over time, you need to continuously check that the output is consistent. It will also protect you against the serializer itself changing and not being backwards compatible, although you'd hope that this doesn't happen.
So for anything other than trivial uses, or where the above considerations are irrelevant, it is worth the effort of unit testing it.
There are a lot of types that serialization can not cope with etc. Also if you have your attributes wrong, it is common to get an exception when trying to read the xml back.
I tend to create an example tree of the objects that can be serialized with at least one example of each class (and subclass). Then at a minimum serialize the object tree to a stringstream and then read it back from the stringstream.
You will be amazed the number of time this catches a problem and save me having to wait for the application to start up to find the problem. This level of unit testing is more about speeding up development rather then increasing quality, so I would not do it for working serialization.
As other people have said, if you need to be able to read back data saved by old versions of your software, you had better keep a set of example data files for each shipped version and have tests to confirm you can still read them. This is harder then it seems at first, as the meaning of fields on a object may change between versions, so just being able to create the current object from a old serialized file is not enough, you have to check that the meaning is the same as it was it the version of the software that saved the file. (Put a version attribute in your root object now!)
I agree with you that you will be testing the .NET implementation more than you'll be testing your own code. But if that's what you want to do (perhaps you don't trust the .NET implementation :) ), I might approach your three questions as follows.
Yes, it's certainly possible to test the writer without the reader. Use the writer to serialize the example (20-year old Bob) you provided to a MemoryStream. Open the MemoryStream with an XmlDocument. Assert the root node is named "MyObject". Assert it has one attribute named "Height" with value "300". Assert there is a "Name" element containing a text node with value "Bob". Assert there is an "Age" element containing a text node with value "20".
Just do the reverse process of #1. Create an XmlDocument from the 20-year old Bob XML string. Deserialize the stream with the reader. Assert the Name property equals "Bob". Assert the Age property equals 20. You can do things like add test case with insignificant whitespace or single quotes instead of double-quotes to be more thorough.
See #1. You can extend it by adding what you consider to be tricky "edge" cases you think could break it. Names with various Unicode characters. Extra long names. Empty names. Negative ages. Etc.
I have done this in some cases... not testing the serialisation as such, but using some 'known good' XML serializations and then loading them into my classes, and checking that all the properties (as applicable) have the expected values.
This is not going to test anything for the first version... but if the classes ever evolve I know I will catch any breaking changes in the format.
We do acceptance testing of our serialization rather than unit testing.
What this means is that our acceptance testers take the XML schema, or as in your case some sample XML, and re-create their own serializable data-transfer class.
We then use NUnit to test our WCF service with this clean-room XML.
With this technique we've identified many, many errors. For example, where we have changed the name of the .NET member and forgotten to add an [XmlElement] tag with a Name = property.
If there's nothing you can do to change the way your class serializes, then you're testing .NET's implementation of XML serialization ;-)
If the format of the serialized XML matters, then you need to test the serialization. If it's important that you can deserialize it, then you need to test deserialization.
Seeing how you can't really fix serialization, you shouldn't be testing it - instead, you should be testing your own code and the way it interacts with the serialization mechanism. For example, you might need to unit-test the structure of the data you're serializing to make sure that no-one accidentally changes a field or something.
Speaking of which, I have recently adopted a practice where I check such things at compile-time rather than during execution of unit tests. It's a bit tedious, but I have a component that can traverse the AST, and then I can read it in a T4 template and write lots of #error messages if I meet something that shouldn't be there.