I trying to experiment with Specflow. So I am writing functional tests for a REST API and have created a couple of step definitions, say CreatePersonStepDefinitions and GetPeopleStepDefinition
Those extend CommonStepDefinition, which provides things like:
[Given(#"a valid API key is given")]
public void AValidApiKeyIsGiven()
{
ApiKey = "Some Api Key";
}
[Then(#"the response HTTP code should be (.*)")]
public void ThenTheStatusCodeShouldBe(int statusCode)
{
Assert.AreEqual (statusCode, (int)Response.StatusCode);
}
This is to be able to run scenarios like
Given I am retrieving all people
And an invalid API key is given
When I make the call
Then the response HTTP code should be 200
And the API response code is 104
And the API call didn't take more than 200 milliseconds
So there are several common steps between step definitions. I understand that I cannot do this as Steps are global. What I wanted to ask is whats the best way (i.e. best practise) to achieve this without duplicating the same steps in every step definition.
Thanks
Because steps are global you don't need to duplicate them in every step definition, you can just use them in ALL features, and specflow will call them.
If your real question is how do I share the ApiKey and Response between my features steps and my common steps there are a few ways but what I would recommend is to use the context injection approqach from the link. I would create context objects and pass these to your step classes. Specflow has a simple DI framework which will do this automatically (most of the time) for you.
I would create something like this:
public class SecurityContext
{
public string ApiKey {get;set;}
}
public class ResponseContext
{
public IHttpResponse Response{get;set;}
}
[Binding]
public class CommonSteps
{
private SecurityContext securityContext;
private ResponseContext responseContext;
public CommonSteps(SecurityContext securityContext,ResponseContext responseContext)
{
this.securityContext = securityContext;
this.responseContext = responseContext;
}
[Given(#"a valid API key is given")]
public void AValidApiKeyIsGiven()
{
securityContext.ApiKey = "Some Api Key";
}
[Then(#"the response HTTP code should be (.*)")]
public void ThenTheStatusCodeShouldBe(int statusCode)
{
Assert.AreEqual (statusCode, (int)responseContext.Response.StatusCode);
}
}
public class MyFeatureSteps
{
private SecurityContext securityContext;
private ResponseContext responseContext;
public MyFeatureSteps(SecurityContext securityContext,ResponseContext responseContext)
{
this.securityContext = securityContext;
this.responseContext = responseContext;
}
///Then in your feature steps you can use the Api key you set and set the response
}
you might even consider not having Common steps as this get just be a big bucket for everything that is not feature specific, but what we usually do is to break the step classes into something like SecuritySteps which would just take the SecurityContext and ResponseSteps which would just take the ResponseContext
Related
The userManager.GeneratePasswordResetTokenAsync(user);
creates a long string and then ResetPasswordAsync(user,code,newPassword) takes user,token and password to validate. My requirement is to create a short code, say 5 to 10 (clear text) characters. Send the code in email. User can then insert the code and new password, and I validate the token. The problem is I do not know how to customize the above two methods to accomplish my results. There is not much help on the internet either. I tried different things like the following but I do not want my make any mistake and create security vulnerability.
public class CustomPasswordTokenProvider<TUser> : DataProtectorTokenProvider<TUser> where TUser:class
{
public CustomPasswordTokenProvider(IDataProtectionProvider dataProtectionProvider, IOptions<PasswordResetTokenProviderOptions> options):
base(dataProtectionProvider,options)
{
}
}
public class PasswordResetTokenProviderOptions : DataProtectionTokenProviderOptions
{
public PasswordResetTokenProviderOptions()
{ // update the defaults
Name = "CustomPasswordResetTokenPorvider";
TokenLifespan = TimeSpan.FromMinutes(15);
}
}
I am attempting to verify that a user is authorized via a custom policy. I followed the tutorial at Ode To Code to add this functionality to my controller. From within Visual Studio, the code appears to be correct and utilizing a known overload.
Notice that it says that the overload is an "extension". I didn't take much notice of this until I spent 5 hours today trying to solve the following error:
As you can see, it would appear that the overload I'm attempting to use isn't being utilized. Am I doing something wrong here? Is there something special I have to do to include these extended methods? I've attempted cleaning and rebuilding the solution but this hasn't solved the problem.
While you've defined the field for IAuthorizationSerivce, you haven't provided any way for that to be set. You need to define a constructor for the LRController that takes a single parameter of IAuthorizationService, and assign that to the field.
I think there was a definition of that constructor in the tutorial.
Please note the name change: such as the global variable name for IAuthorizationService _authorization has been prefixed with an underscore. Obviously not required, but as a good rule of thumb/good coding standard, IMO. :-)
public class LRController : Controller
{
private readonly IAuthorizationService _authorization;
// you're missing this constructor & this pattern is known as Constructor Dependency Injection
public LRController(IAuthorizationService authorization)
{
_authorization = authorization;
}
public async Task<RedirectToActionResult> Index()
{
var superAdmin = await _authorization.AuthorizeAsync(User, "IsLucky");
//rest of your code here
}
}
EDIT
Additionally, if you wanted/needed to inject other interfaces into this controller, you would add it to that LRController constructor. Would look something like this:
public class LRController : Controller
{
private readonly IAuthorizationService _authorization;
private readonly IOtherService _otherService;
public LRController(IAuthorizationService authorization, IOtherService otherService)
{
_authorization = authorization;
_otherService = otherService;
}
public async Task<RedirectToActionResult> Index()
{
var superAdmin = await _authorization.AuthorizeAsync(User, "IsLucky");
}
public async Task Foo()
{
await _otherService.Bar();
}
}
I am working on a test suit implementation which uses the SpecFlow + SpecRunner and XUnit. and we are trying to do parallel test execution and i would like to know is there are a way that i can run a hook in the begining of the test run and store the token value in a static variable so that that can be shared among threads.
to summarize is there a way that specflow offers a mechanism to share data between threads during parallel execution.
We can share the data using any one of the below approach
Scenario Context
Context Injection
Here, Approach 1 and 2 will not have any issue in multiple thread. Since, Context Injection life is specific to the scenario Level.
Approach 1 : we can define the Token Generation Step within the BeforeScenario hooks and the generated Token values can be updated in the ScenarioContext.
we can directly access the token from the scenario context in any place like below
Here, Token will be generated before each scenario run and it will not affect the Parallel execution.For more Details, Parallel-Execution
Scenarios and their related hooks (Before/After scenario, scenario block, step) are isolated in the different threads during execution and do not block each other. Each thread has a separate (and isolated) ScenarioContext.
Hooks Class:
public class CommonHooks
{
[BeforeScenario]
public static void Setup()
{
// Add Token Generation Step
var adminToken = "<Generated Token>";
ScenarioContext.Current["Token"] = adminToken;
}
}
Step Class:
[Given(#"I Get the customer details""(.*)""")]
public void WhenIGetTheCustomerDetails(string endpoint)
{
if(ScenarioContext.Current.ContainsKey("Token"))
{
var token = ScenarioContext.Current["Token"].ToString();
//Now the Token variable holds the token value from the scenario context and It can be used in the subsequent steps
}
else
{
Assert.Fail("Unable to get the Token from the Scenario Context");
}
}
If you wish to share the same token across multiple Step, then you can assign this token value within constructor and it can be used
For Example,
[Binding]
public class CustomerManagementSteps
{
public readonly string token;
public CustomerManagementSteps()
{
token= ScenarioContext.Current["Token"].ToString();
}
[Given(#"I Get the customer details""(.*)""")]
public void WhenIGetTheCustomerDetails(string endpoint)
{
//Now the Token variable holds the token value from the scenario context and It can be used in the subsequent steps
}
}
Approach 2: Context Injection details can be referred in the below link with an example
Context Injection
Updated
Given the downvote and comments, I've updated my code example to better show exactly one way you can use dependency injection here with code of your own design. This shared data will last the lifetime of the scenario and be used by all bindings. I think that's what you're looking for unless I'm mistaken.
//Stores whatever data you want to share
//Write this however you want, it's your code
//You can use more than one of these custom data classes of course
public class SomeCustomDataStructure
{
//If this is run in paralell, this should be thread-safe. Using List<T> for simplicity purposes
//Use EF, ConcurrentCollections, synchronization (like lock), etc...
//Again, do NOT copy this code for parallel uses as List<int> is NOT thread-safe
//You can force things to not run in parallel so this can be useful by itself
public List<int> SomeData { get; } = new List<int>();
}
//Will be injected and the shared instance between any number of bindings.
//Lifespan is that of a scenario.
public class CatalogContext : IDisposable
{
public SomeCustomDataStructure CustomData { get; private set; }
public CatalogContext()
{
//Init shared data however you want here
CustomData = new SomeCustomDataStructure();
}
//Added to show Dispose WILL be called at the end of a scenario
//Feel free to do cleanup here if necessary.
//You do NOT have to implement IDiposable, but it's supported and called.
public void Dispose()
{
//Below obviously not thread-safe as mentioned earlier.
//Simple example is all.
CustomData.SomeData.Clear();
}
}
[Binding]
public class SomeSteps
{
//Data shared here via instane variable, accessable to multiple steps
private readonly CatalogContext catalogContext;
//Dependency injection handled automatically here.
//Will get the same instance between other bindings.
public SomeSteps(CatalogContext catalogContext)
{
this.catalogContext = catalogContext;
}
[Given(#"the following ints")]
public void GivenTheFollowingInts(int[] numbers)
{
//This will be visible to all other steps in this binding,
//and all other bindings sharing the context
catalogContext.CustomData.SomeData.AddRange(numbers);
}
}
I'm making an application that uses an external API. But I don't want my application to be dependant on the API. So I have been reading about how to achieve this. I read that the thing I want is loose coupling. I want to loosely couple my class that uses the external API from the rest of my application. My question is how do I achieve this. If read about different design patterns, I can't find one that helps with my problem.
public class GoogleCalendarService
{
private const string CalendarId = ".....";
private CalendarService Authenticate(string calendarId)
{
...
}
public void Create(Booking newBooking, string userId)
{
...
InsertEvent(newEvent, userId);
}
private void Insert(Event newEvent, string userId)
{
call authenticate account
....
}
public List<Booking> GetEvents()
{
call authenticate account
...
}
}
Above is my code for the class that uses the external API. In the rest of my application I use this class the following way:
public class MyApplication
{
private void MyFunction()
{
GoogleCalendarService googleCalendarService = new GoogleCalendarService();
googleCalendarService.CreateEvent(..., ...)
}
}
I do this on multiple places in my application. So my question is: How can I loosely couple the API class from the rest?
Edit: I probably want a general calendar service interface that makes it easier to replace the google calendar service with an other calendar service when needed.
that makes it easier to replace the google calendar service with an other calendar service
The main pattern you will want to look at is Adapter. But you would want to use that in combination with Dependency Injection.
The DI first:
public class MyApplication
{
// constructor injection
private IGeneralCalendarService _calendarService;
public MyApplication(IGeneralCalendarService calendarService)
{
_calendarService = calendarService;
}
private void MyFunction()
{
_calendarService.CreateEvent(..., ...)
}
}
And the Adapter would look something like
public class GoogleCalendarServiceAdapter : IGeneralCalendarService
{
// implement the interface by calliong the Google API.
}
In addition you will need generic classes for Event etc. They belong to the same layer as the interface.
You need to write a wrapper around that API. And rewrite every Output/Input of that API with your wrapper IO. And after that, you can take advantage of Dependancy Injection to use your own code. By this way you can have an abstraction layer around that API
I'm rethinking a current WCF service we're using right now. We do A LOT of loading XML to various databases. In some cases, we can store it as XML data, and in others, we need to store it as rowsets.
So I'm redesigning this service to accept different providers. My first thought, classic abstract factory, but now I'm having my doubts. Essentially, the service class has one operation contract method, Load. But to me, it seems silly to new-up provider instances every time Load is called.
Currently:
// Obviously incomplete example:
public class XmlLoaderService : IXmlLoaderService
{
readonly IXmlLoaderFactory _xmlLoaderFactory;
readonly IXmlLoader _xmlLoader;
public XmlLoaderService()
{
_xmlLoader = _xmlLoaderFactory(ProviderConfiguration configuration);
}
public void Load(Request request)
{
_xmlLoader.Load(request);
}
}
I'm thinking about changing to:
public class XmlLoaderService : IXmlLoaderService
{
static readonly IDictionary<int, IXmlLoader> _providerDictionary;
static public XmlLoaderService()
{
_providerDictionary = PopulateDictionaryFromConfig();
}
public void Load(Request request)
{
// Request will always supply an int that identifies the
// request type, can be used as key in provider dictionary
var xmlLoader = _providerDictionary[request.RequestType];
xmlLoader.Load(request);
}
}
Is this a good approach? I like the idea of caching the providers, seems more efficient to me... though, I tend to overlook the obvious sometimes. Let me know your thoughts!
Why can't you use both? Pass in your dependency into the Load method and if the type is already cached use the cached instance.
public void Load(Request request)
{
// Request will always supply an int that identifies the
// request type, can be used as key in provider dictionary
IXmlLoader xmlLoader;
if(_providerDictionary.ContainsKey(request.RequestType))
{
xmlLoader = _providerDictionary[request.RequestType];
}
else
{
xmlLoader = //acquire from factory
_providerDictionary.Add(request.RequestType, xmlLoader);
}
xmlLoader.Load(request);
}