Develop Reference

How to raise an event when unit testing asynchronous method in my case?

I use MS-Test, moq 4.18.2 and FileSystem (System.IO.Abstractions) 17.0.24 for my tests.
I think I wrote a correct test for InfoLoader_LoadInfoAsync. But, I don't understand how to write a test for MyViewModel::StartLoadInfoAsync to check that InfoList was populated correctly. It seems that I have to duplicate instantiation and configuration of InfoLoader as I did in InfoLoader_LoadInfoAsync. Is there a way around this? How such things are usually tested?
public abstract class IInfoLoader
{
public event Action<MyInfo> InfoLoaded;
public abstract Task LoadInfoAsync();
protected void OnInfoLoaded(MyInfo info)
{
InfoLoaded?.Invoke(info);
}
}
public class InfoLoader : IInfoLoader
{
private readonly IFileSystem _fileSystem;
private readonly string _path;
public InfoLoader(string path, IFileSystem fileSystem) {...}
public async override Task LoadInfoAsync()
{
foreach (var data in await _fileSystem.File.ReadAllLinesAsync(_path))
OnInfoLoaded(new MyInfo(...));
}
}
public class MyViewModel
{
private IInfoLoader _infoLoader;
public ObservableCollection<MyInfo> InfoList { get; }
public MyViewModel(IInfoLoader infoLoader) { ... }
public Task StartLoadInfoAsync()
{
_infoLoader.InfoLoaded += (info) => InfoList.Add(info);
return _infoLoader.LoadInfoAsync();
}
}
Tests
[TestMethod]
public async Task InfoLoader_LoadInfoAsync_Success()
{
var path = "...";
var lines = new string[] { "name1", "name2" };
var expectedInfoList = new List<MyInfo>();
foreach(var line in lines)
expectedInfoList.Add(new MyInfo(line));
var fileSystem = new Mock<IFileSystem>();
fileSystem.Setup(fs => fs.File.ReadAllLinesAsync(path, CancellationToken.None))
.ReturnsAsync(lines);
var actualInfoList = new List<MyInfo>();
var infoLoader = new InfoLoader(path, fileSystem.Object);
infoLoader.InfoLoaded += (info) => actualInfoList.Add(info);
await infoLoader.LoadInfoAsync();
// Assert that items in expectedInfoList and actualInfoList are equal
}
[TestMethod]
public async Task MyViewModel_StartLoadInfoAsync_Success()
{
var expectedInfoList = new List<MyInfo>();
// WHAT DO I DO HERE? DO I CREATE AND CONFIGURE infoLoader LIKE in "InfoLoader_LoadInfoAsync" TEST?
var vm = new MyViewModel(infoLoader.Object);
await vm.StartLoadInfoAsync();
actualInfoList = vm.InfoList;
// Assert that items in expectedInfoList and actualInfoList are equal
}

Since the view model depends on the IInfoLoader abstraction, it can be mocked to behave as expected when the desired member is invoked.
Review the comments in the following example
[TestMethod]
public async Task MyViewModel_StartLoadInfoAsync_Success() {
//Arrange
var info = new MyInfo();
List<MyInfo> expectedInfoList = new List<MyInfo>() { info };
// WHAT DO I DO HERE?
var dependency = new Mock<IInfoLoader>(); //mock the dependency
dependency
// When LoadInfoAsync is invoked
.Setup(_ => _.LoadInfoAsync())
// Use callback to raise event passing the custom arguments expected by the event delegate
.Callback(() => dependency.Raise(_ => _.InfoLoaded += null, info))
// Then allow await LoadInfoAsync to complete properly
.Returns(Task.CompletedTask);
MyViewModel subject = new MyViewModel(dependency.Object);
//Act
await subject.StartLoadInfoAsync();
//Assert
List<MyInfo> actualInfoList = subject.InfoList;
actualInfoList.Should().NotBeEmpty()
And.BeEquivalentTo(expectedInfoList); //Using FluentAssertions
}
Note how a Callback is used to capture when LoadInfoAsync is invoked by the subject so that an event can be raised by the mock, allowing the subject under test to flow to completion as desired
Reference MOQ Quickstart: Events

In order to test StartLoadInfoAsync you need an instance of MyViewModel, so you should:
Create this instance.
Invoke the method StartLoadInfoAsync.
Assert that its state is according to what you need.
Now obviously you have a dependency, which is InfoLoader, so you have two options:
Create and configure a new instance of InfoLoader
Mock InfoLoader so you can test MyViewModel independently of InfoLoader.
The second approach is what you may want to follow, this way you do not need to configure again InfoLoader, mock the FileSystem and so on.
You only need to create a mock of InfoLoader and setup its calls, just like you did with the FileSystem.

I need help mocking a method in my c# project

I'm fairly new to this TDD and I'm lost with this at the moment.
I'm trying to use .Setup to get the product by ID of 99 and check it's actually returned in .Returns(saveProduct), which causes me the error below:
enter image description here
What am I doing wrong?
public class ProductControllerTests
{
private Mock<ICart> cartMock;
private Mock<IProductRepository> productRepositoryMock;
private Mock<IOrderRepository> orderRepositoryMock;
private Mock<IProductService> productServiceMock;
private Mock<ILanguageService> languageServiceMock;
private Mock<IStringLocalizer<ProductService>> stringLocalizerMock;
private ProductViewModel product;
private ProductController productController;
public ProductControllerTests()
{
//setup
product = new ProductViewModel();
cartMock = new Mock<ICart>();
productRepositoryMock = new Mock<IProductRepository>();
orderRepositoryMock = new Mock<IOrderRepository>();
stringLocalizerMock = new Mock<IStringLocalizer<ProductService>>();
productServiceMock = new Mock<IProductService>();
languageServiceMock = new Mock<ILanguageService>();
productController = new ProductController(productServiceMock.Object, languageServiceMock.Object);
}
[Fact]
public void CreateValidModelState() // MOCKED
{
// Act
ProductService productService = new ProductService(cartMock.Object, productRepositoryMock.Object, orderRepositoryMock.Object, stringLocalizerMock.Object);
productController = new ProductController(productService, languageServiceMock.Object);
productServiceMock.Setup(x => x.SaveProduct(product)); //It works without this?!? what's it FOR!?
//Arranje
product.Id = 99;
product.Name = "Test box";
product.Description = "The best box ever.";
product.Details = "Toss it and see if it gets back.";
product.Stock = "9000";
product.Price = "9000";
var saveProduct = productController.Create(product);
//productServiceMock.Setup(x => x.GetProductById(It.IsAny<int>())).Returns(saveProduct);
//productServiceMock.SetupGet(x => x.GetProductById(99)).Returns("Test box");
//var expectedProduct = productServiceMock.GetProduct(1);
Assert.IsType<RedirectToActionResult>(saveProduct);
}
}
}

There is a lot of room for improvement in your code snippet.
First, you create private members but then you over write the variable name with local variables.
The idea behind mocking is that when you mock an interface you can Setup its' methods to return whatever you wish them to return. So in your case
productServiceMock.Setup(x => x.GetProductById(99)).Returns(saveProduct);
the line above means that wherever in your controller you have the GetProductById(int) method is called with 99 as a parameter, the method will return the saveProduct object.
You could also write the Setup like
productServiceMock.Setup(x => x.GetProductById(It.IsAny<int>())).Returns(saveProduct);
In this case wherever in your controller the GetProductById() method is called, no matter what is the parameter passed, you will get the saveProductObject.
In this test you have written I can not see any value. What I mean is that create a controller, you create the saveProduct and then you assert it is not null. Of course it is not null, because you populated above.
It would make sense to actually use one of your controllers methods that you know that the GetByUserId() method is used. Then make an assertion upon the return object based on the methods logic.
---Update---
Imagine you have a handler
public class HandlerExample {
private IInjectedService _injectedService;
public HandlerExample(IInjectedService injectedService){
_injectedService = injectedService;
}
public int Handle(testNumber)
{
var serviceResponse = _injectedService.TestMethod(testNumber);
if(serviceResponse)
return 1;
return 2;
}
}
And your interface looks like
public interface IInjectedService
{
bool TestMethod(int testNumber);
}
I won't give any example on the implementation here because it is not relevant. Your test method would then make sense to be like
[Fact]
public void Test()
{
mockedInjectedService = new Mock<IInjectedService>();
mockedInjectedService.Setup(x => x.TestMethod(99)).Returns(true);
var handler = new Handler(mockedInjectedService.Object);
var sut = handler.Handle(99);
Assert.Equal(sut, 1);
}
sut is a convention for "system under test"

How to test method in unit testing

I have such service as below. Let's say i want to test Create() method. I read that in unit testing i should test by comparing, counting and so on. How could i then test my Create() method. Is it ugly to change return type from void Create to bool Create just to be able to check method output for testing purpose or that's not ideal idea? Can you propose something?
public class CreateCarService : ICreateCarService
{
private readonly ICarQuery _carQuery;
private readonly ICarRepository _carRepository;
public CreateCarService(ICarQuery carQuery, ICarRepository carRepository)
{
_carQuery = carQuery;
_carRepository = carRepository;
}
public void Create(Car car)
{
if (car == null) throw new CusException(Error, "Car object cannot be null");
if (_carQuery.IsLoginExist(car.Login))
throw new CusException(Error, "Message1");
if (_carQuery.IsEmailExist(car.Email))
throw new CusException(Error, "Message1");
_carRepository.Add(car);
}
}

You might verify that for any valid Car instance Add method was called only once, by setting up the Moq behavior of IsLoginExist and IsEmailExist method an using a Verify method
[TestFixture]
public class Test
{
[Test]
public void CreateCarServiceTest()
{
var carQueryMock = new Mock<ICarQuery>();
var carRepositoryMock = new Mock<ICarRepository>();
var createCarService = new CreateCarService(carQueryMock.Object, carRepositoryMock.Object);
carQueryMock.Setup(c => c.IsLoginExist(It.IsAny<string>())).Returns(false);
carQueryMock.Setup(c => c.IsEmailExist(It.IsAny<string>())).Returns(false);
createCarService.Create(new Car());
carRepositoryMock.Verify(c => c.Add(It.IsAny<Car>()), Times.Once);
}
}
It also makes sense to check a negative cases, when Create method throws an exception
[Test]
public void CreateCarNegativeTest()
{
var carQueryMock = new Mock<ICarQuery>();
var carRepositoryMock = new Mock<ICarRepository>();
var createCarService = new CreateCarService(carQueryMock.Object, carRepositoryMock.Object);
Assert.Throws<CusException>(() => createCarService.Create(null));
carQueryMock.Setup(c => c.IsLoginExist(It.IsAny<string>())).Returns(true);
Assert.Throws<CusException>(() => createCarService.Create(new Car()));
carQueryMock.Setup(c => c.IsLoginExist(It.IsAny<string>())).Returns(false);
carQueryMock.Setup(c => c.IsEmailExist(It.IsAny<string>())).Returns(true);
Assert.Throws<CusException>(() => createCarService.Create(new Car()));
}
You can split this method into different tests to have one Assert per test, or pass the parameters to it.

You want to test the "expected behavior" of the member under test. Since the member under test does not return any verifiable output and has a dependency on external abstractions, you should be able to monitor the interaction of the member under test with that external abstractions and verify the expected behavior
One such example
public void CreateCarService_Create_Should_Add_Car() {
//Arrange
Car car = new Car {
Login = "Login",
Email = "Email"
};
ICarQuery carQuery = Mock.Of<ICarQuery>();
ICarRepository carRepository = Mock.Of<ICarRepository>();
ICreateCarService subject = new CreateCarService(carQuery, carRepository);
//Act
subject.Create(car);
//Assert
Mock.Get(carRepository).Verify(_ => _.Add(car), Times.Once);
}
The example above safely navigates through to the end of the member under test but lets say you wanted to test the exception is thrown for the null parameter case.
public void CreateCarService_Create_Should_Throw_CusException_For_Null_Car() {
//Arrange
ICreateCarService subject = new CreateCarService(null, null);
//Act
Action act = ()=> subject.Create(null);
//Assert
var ex = Assert.Throws<CusException>(act);
}
You want to create tests for all the possible paths through the member under test. So take some time and review the subject under test and work out the possible test cases. Arrange the subject to satisfy those cases and exercise those cases to verify the expected behavior.
Reference Moq Quickstart to get a better understanding of how to use the Moq mocking framework.

You don't need to change it to bool, just to test. A simple way you can do this is:
[TestFixture]
public class Test
{
CreateCarService createCarService;
ICarRepository carRepositoryMock;
[Setup]
public void InitializeTest()
{
var carQueryMock = new Mock<ICarQuery>();
carRepositoryMock = new Mock<ICarRepository>();
createCarService = new CreateCarService(carQueryMock.Object, carRepositoryMock.Object);
}
[Test]
public void CreateCarShouldThrowIfNull()
{
//arrange
Car car =null;
//act and assert
Assert.Throw<CustomException>(()=>
{
createCarService.CreateCar(car);
});
}
[Test]
public void CreateCarShouldThrowForInvalidLogin()
{
//arrange
var car = new Car()
{
Login=null,
Email="Email"
};
//act and assert
Assert.Throw<CustomException>(()=>
{
createCarService.CreateCar(car);
});
}
And So on.
You can use Assert.Throw for invalid car objects or Assert.DoesNotThrow for valid car objects. Finally, you can test if the car was added to the repository by:
[Test]
public void CreateCarShouldAddCarToRepo()
{
//arrange
var car = new Car()
{
Login="Login",
Email="Email"
};
//act
createCarService.CreateCar(car);
var carRetrieved =carRepositoryMock.GetCar(car.id);//depending on your implementation
//assert
Assert.AreSame(car,carRetrieved);
}

How to mock an IEnumerable<interface> type and pass it to constructor

I got a class which looks like below
public interface ILocationProvider
{
bool IsRequiredLocation (string type);
}
public class MyClass : IMyInterface
{
private readonly IEnumerable<ILocationProvider> _locationProvider;
public MyClass (ILocationProvider[] locationProvider)
{
_locationProvider = locationProvider;
}
public ILocationProvider ProvideRequireLocationObject(string type)
{
ILocationProvider location = _locationProvider.FirstOrDefault(x => x.IsRequiredLocation(type));
return location;
}
}
Now I am trying to write some tests for it. But I stuck passing the Mock<IEnumerable<ITransitReportCountryFlowProvider>> to constructor. Below my test code
[TestClass]
public class TMyClassTest
{
private Mock<IEnumerable<ILocationProvider>> _locationProvider = null;
private IMyInterface _myClass = null;
[TestInitialize]
public void InitializeTest ()
{
_locationProvider = new Mock<IEnumerable<ILocationProvider>>();
}
[TestMethod]
public void ProvideRequireLocationObject_Test1()
{
//Given: I have type as 'PMI'
string type = "PMI";
//When: I call MyClass object
_myClass = new MyClass(_locationProvider.Object); //wrong actual argument as the formal argument is an array of ILocationProvider
//_locationProvider.Setup(x => x.IsRequiredCountryFlow(It.IsAny<string>())).Returns(true); //how do I setup
ILocationProvider result = _myClass.ProvideRequireLocationObject(type);
//Then: I get a type of ILocationProvider in return
Assert.IsTrue(result is ILocationProvider);
}
}
Problem 1: The line _myClass = new MyClass(_locationProvider.Object) in above test class, as the constructor's formal argument is ILocationProvider[] so I cannot pass a mocking object of Mock<IEnumerable<ILocationProvider>>
Problem 2: If I change the line private readonly IEnumerable<ILocationProvider> _locationProvider; in above MyClass to private readonly ILocationProvider[] _locationProvider; I will not be able to mock it as because mock must be an interface or an abstract or non-sealed class.
Problem 3: How do I set up for _locationProvider.FirstOrDefault(x => x.IsRequiredLocation(type)); in my test method
Problem 4: How do I assert that my method ProvideRequireLocationObject is returning a type of ILocationProvider

First of all, you don’t need to mock the collection. Collections (arrays or lists) are tested well enough to trust on their implementation. Since your constructor expects an array, you need to pass an array. And the simplest way to do that is to simply pass an array. There is no reason to mock this at all.
Changing the implementation details of the class you are testing (as suggested in problem 2) will not change anything on the testing surface. Unit tests should always be independent from the internal implementation details anyway.
How do I assert that my method ProvideRequireLocationObject is returning a type of ILocationProvider
You don’t need to do that. The method has that return type, so the compiler will only accept an implementation where the method returns that type. You are guaranteed by the language that if there is a return value, then it’s of the ILocationProvider type. So you actually just need to check for null.
Taking your implementation, below is a possible way to test this. Note that you don’t actually need to mock this. You usually mock things when the actual implementation is too difficult to set up (e.g. has other dependencies) or when providing a testable implementation is too much work (e.g. an interface with lots of method but you only need one). In this case, I’m assuming that the ILocationProvider is easy to implement, so we’re going to create a test type for this:
[TestClass]
public class MyClassTests
{
[TestMethod]
public void ProvideRequireLocationObject_EmptyCollection()
{
// arrange
var providers = new ILocationProvider[] {};
var obj = new MyClass(providers);
// act
var result = obj.ProvideRequireLocationObject();
// assert
Assert.IsNull(result);
}
[TestMethod]
public void ProvideRequireLocationObject_NoRequiredLocation()
{
// arrange
var providers = new ILocationProvider[] {
new TestLocationProvider(false)
};
var obj = new MyClass(providers);
// act
var result = obj.ProvideRequireLocationObject();
// assert
Assert.IsNull(result);
}
[TestMethod]
public void ProvideRequireLocationObject_OneRequiredLocation()
{
// arrange
var providers = new ILocationProvider[] {
new TestLocationProvider(true)
};
var obj = new MyClass(providers);
// act
var result = obj.ProvideRequireLocationObject();
// assert
Assert.AreEqual(providers[0], result);
}
[TestMethod]
public void ProvideRequireLocationObject_OneRequiredLocationNotFirstInArray()
{
// arrange
var providers = new ILocationProvider[] {
new TestLocationProvider(false),
new TestLocationProvider(true),
new TestLocationProvider(false)
};
var obj = new MyClass(providers);
// act
var result = obj.ProvideRequireLocationObject();
// assert
Assert.AreEqual(providers[1], result);
}
[TestMethod]
public void ProvideRequireLocationObject_MultipleRequiredLocations()
{
// arrange
var providers = new ILocationProvider[] {
new TestLocationProvider(true),
new TestLocationProvider(true),
new TestLocationProvider(true)
};
var obj = new MyClass(providers);
// act
var result = obj.ProvideRequireLocationObject();
// assert
Assert.AreEqual(providers[0], result);
}
public class TestLocationProvider : ILocationProvider
{
public TestLocationProvider(bool isRequiredLocation)
{
IsRequiredLocation = isRequiredLocation;
}
public bool IsRequiredLocation { get; private set; }
}
}
Of course, you could expand those tests as necessary.

I believe are looking at it from the wrong angle. I think you don't need to mock the IEnumerable (Mock<IEnumerable<ITransitReportCountryFlowProvider>>) - IEnumerable has been testing front and back and besides you don't want to have to implement all its logic..
I think you should mock your own classes: Mock<ITransitReportCountryFlowProvider>
And pass a normal IEnumerable containing your mock in it
Something like:
[TestClass]
public class TMyClassTest
{
private Mock<ILocationProvider> _locationProvider = null;
private IEnumerable<ILocationProvider> _locationProviderCollection;
private IMyInterface _myClass = null;
[TestInitialize]
public void InitializeTest ()
{
_locationProvider = new Mock<IEnumerable<ILocationProvider>>();
_locationProviderCollection = new List<ILocationProvider> { _locationProvider };
}
[TestMethod]
public void ProvideRequireLocationObject_Test1()
{
//Given: I have type as 'PMI'
string type = "PMI";
//When: I call MyClass object
_myClass = new MyClass(_locationProviderCollection); //wrong actual argument as the formal argument is an array of ILocationProvider
.....
}
}

Using Moq to modify the argument to a stubbed void method

I have a bit of a perfect storm that's preventing me from testing a class. The class is a RestClient that's wrapping an in-house HttpClient (which I cannot modify). The ExecuteMethod method on the HttpClient is void. It accepts an IHttpMethod, and it modifies this object based on the response from the server. I want to mock out ExecuteMethod so that it modifies the IHttpMethod for me. I'm trying to use Callback to achieve this, but it's not working.
Here's the code that sends the request:
var httpClient = this.httpClientFactory.CreateHttpClient();
httpClient.ExecuteMethod(method);
var response = this.GetResourceResponse<T>(method.ResponseBodyAsStream.AsString());
response.ResponseHeaders = method.ResponseHeaders;
response.Status = method.StatusCode.ToString();
response.StatusCode = (int)method.StatusCode;
return response;
And here's my attempt at mocking:
var mockHttpMethod = new Mock<IHttpMethod>();
mockHttpMethod.Setup(m => m.ResponseBodyAsStream).Returns(new MemoryStream(Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes("foo")));
var modifyHttpMethod = new Action<IHttpMethod>(m =>
{
m = mockHttpMethod.Object;
});
var mockHttpClient = new Mock<IHttpClient>();
mockHttpClient.Setup(c => c.ExecuteMethod(It.IsAny<IHttpMethod>()))
.Callback<IHttpMethod>(modifyHttpMethod);
var mockHttpClientFactory = new Mock<ILegalHoldHttpClientFactory>();
mockHttpClientFactory.Setup(f => f.CreateHttpClient()).Returns(mockHttpClient.Object);
var restClient = new RestClient(mockHttpClientFactory.Object);
When the modifyHttpMethod action is executed, I observe two things, both of which I expect:
The incoming IHttpMethod (m) has the properties I expect it to have.
After assigning the mock object to m, it contains the stubbed values that I setup in my test.
However, after the callback is executed and control is returned to my application code, my method variable still has its old values that I saw in step 1 above, which causes a null reference exception when trying to read method.ResponseBodyAsStream.
Is what I'm trying to do even achievable? If so, how? Thanks!

I've replicated your setup vis a vis mocking, and can't find any issues with it:
public interface IHttpMethod
{
MemoryStream ResponseBodyAsStream { get; set; }
}
public interface IHttpClient
{
void ExecuteMethod(IHttpMethod method);
}
public class HttpClient : IHttpClient
{
#region IHttpClient Members
public void ExecuteMethod(IHttpMethod method)
{
}
#endregion
}
public class Factory
{
public virtual IHttpClient CreateHttpClient()
{
return new HttpClient();
}
}
public class ClassUnderTest
{
private readonly Factory _factory;
public ClassUnderTest(Factory factory)
{
_factory = factory;
}
public string GetResponseAsString(IHttpMethod method)
{
var myClient = _factory.CreateHttpClient();
myClient.ExecuteMethod(method);
return method.ResponseBodyAsStream.ToString();
}
}
[TestClass]
public class ScratchPadTest
{
[TestMethod]
public void SampleTest()
{
var mockHttpMethod = new Mock<IHttpMethod>();
mockHttpMethod.Setup(x => x.ResponseBodyAsStream).Returns(new MemoryStream(Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes("foo")));
var modifyHttpMethod = new Action<IHttpMethod>(m =>
{
m = mockHttpMethod.Object;
});
var mockHttpClient = new Mock<IHttpClient>();
mockHttpClient.Setup(c => c.ExecuteMethod(It.IsAny<IHttpMethod>())).Callback<IHttpMethod>(modifyHttpMethod);
var myFactoryStub = new Mock<Factory>();
myFactoryStub.Setup(f => f.CreateHttpClient()).Returns(mockHttpClient.Object);
var myCut = new ClassUnderTest(myFactoryStub.Object);
Assert.IsNotNull(myCut.GetResponseAsString(mockHttpMethod.Object));
}
}
That test passes, meaning that the memory stream is not null (otherwise an exception would be generated). The only X factor that I can see is your AsString() extension method (I'm assuming that's an extension method as intellisense doesn't show it to me on MemoryStream). Could your problem be in there?
And, by the way, what you're trying to do is almost certainly achievable with Moq.