Develop Reference

How do I unit test a method to add an item to a database?

I have an item and I am adding it to the database using this method:
public Messages addItem(Item item)
{
Messages resultMessage = Messages.Success;
using (IUnitOfWork unitOfWork = new UnitOfWork())
{
IItemRepository itemRep = new ItemRepository(unitOfWork);
try
{
itemRep.Insert(item);
unitOfWork.Commit();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
Console.WriteLine(e.StackTrace);
resultMessage = Messages.DB_Failure;
}
}
return resultMessage;
}
Now I have to make write a unit test for this method to check if the item is being added to the database. I have no idea how I should do that, can someone help me?

Your code is coupled with the ItemRepository and the UnitOfWork implementations. Ideally you should decouple them and use mocks to verify that the right methods are called.
A possible solution:
Make the Repository a property on your unit of work
Don't create the Unit of Work directly, use a factory for that
Make the factory a dependency of your class
In your test pass a mock of the factory to the class you are testing that returns a mock of the Unit Of Work
Return a mock of the Repository on your UoW mock
Verify that the right methods are called on your Repository mock and Unit of Work mocks
This would be an example. I have used Moq as the mocking framework. And put the test method inside the class, but you can get the idea:
class MyClass
{
private readonly IUnitOfWorkFactory _factory;
public MyClass(IUnitOfWorkFactory factory)
{
_factory = factory;
}
public Messages addItem(Item item)
{
Messages resultMessage = Messages.Success;
using (IUnitOfWork unitOfWork = _factory.GetUnitOfWork())
{
try
{
unitOfWork.ItemRep.Insert(item);
unitOfWork.Commit();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
Console.WriteLine(e.StackTrace);
resultMessage = Messages.DB_Failure;
}
}
return resultMessage;
}
public void Test()
{
// Arrange
var factoryMock = new Mock<IUnitOfWorkFactory>();
var uowMock = new Mock<IUnitOfWork>();
var repositoryMock = new Mock<IItemRepository>();
factoryMock.Setup(f => f.GetUnitOfWork()).Returns(uowMock.Object);
uowMock.Setup(u => u.ItemRep).Returns(repositoryMock.Object);
var sut = new MyClass(factoryMock.Object);
// Act
var item = new Item();
sut.addItem(item);
// Assert
repositoryMock.Verify(r => r.Insert(item), Times.Once);
uowMock.Verify(u => u.Commit(), Times.Once);
}
}

You say that the goal is to "check if this item is added to the database".
This is something you do not normally write a unit test for because it is the responsibility of the database, which presumably you are not the one developing.
A better case for a unit test is to mock out the database and check the logic that decides to add something to the database. For instance:
A Unit of Work is described by a customer/operator.
Your component queries the database for the existence of the item.
No corresponding item exists.
Your component adds the item to the database.
This is achieved by using just a mock of the database and it is testing your code, rather than the database.

As your method currently stands, it cannot be unit tested as it's hard-coded to write to the database.
The conventional way around this is to pass an instance of IItemRepository into the method, rather than having the method create it. Do that and then you are free to create a mocked IItemRepository implementation that can report what's being written to the DB.

As other answers suggested: try to separate your class under test from difficult/slow to test dependencies like the database. You can use a number of approaches to achieve this result, but they all come down to the same:
Don't create (new up) dependencies that make unit testing difficult in the code you want to test itself (like your unitofwork/repository). Rather, ask these dependencies from the outside world (google Dependency Inversion/DI for further info).
If you want to test the implementation of the repository with a real database, I suggest you test through the public API of your repository. Don't go writing "SELECT * FROM Items" queries yourself, but use a repository.GetItem(...) method if available. That way your tests are less brittle and decoupled from the actual implementation of your repository class.

How to unit test web service with Linq

I have a web service, which I would like to do some unit testing on, however I am not sure how I can do this. Can anyone give any suggestions? Below is the webservice, it produces an object with three fields, but only when there is values in the database queue.
[WebMethod]
public CommandMessages GetDataLINQ()
{
CommandMessages result;
using (var dc = new TestProjectLinqSQLDataContext())
{
var command = dc.usp_dequeueTestProject();
result = command.Select(c => new CommandMessages(c.Command_Type, c.Command, c.DateTimeSent)).FirstOrDefault();
return result;
}
}

You don't need to consume your data over the WebService to Unit test it. You can just create another project in your solution with a reference to your WebService project and call directly the methods.

First up, what you've posted can't really be Unit Tested at all; by definition, a Unit Test can have only a single reason to fail; However in your case, a single test of GetDataLINQ() (the "System Under Test" or "SUT") could fail because of a problem with any of the dependencies in the function - namely, TestProjectLinqSQLDataContext and usp_dequeueTestProject.
When you call this method from a Unit test, these dependencies at present are probably beyond your control because you didn't directly create them - they are most likely created in your page classes' constructor. (Note: this is an assumption on my part, and I could be wrong)
Also, because these dependencies are at present real "live" objects, which have hard dependencies on an actual database being present, it means your tests aren't able to run independently, which is another requirement for a Unit Test.
(I'll assume your page's class file is "MyPageClass" from now on, and I will pretend it's not a web page code-behind or asmx code-behind; because as other posters have pointed out, this only matters in the context of accessing the code via HTTP which we're not doing here)
var sut = new MyPageClass(); //sut now contains a DataContext over which the Test Method has no control.
var result = sut.GetDataLINQ(); //who know what might happen?
Consider some possible reasons for failure in this method when you call sut.GetDataLINQ():
new TestProjectLinqSQLDataContext() results in an exception because of a fault in TestProjectLinqSQLDataContext's constructor
dc.usp_dequeueTestProject() results in an exception because the database connection fails, or because the stored procedure has changed, or doesn't exist.
command.Select(...) results in an exception because of some as of yet unknown defect in the CommandMessage constructor
Probably many more reasons (i.e failure to perform correctly as opposed to an exception being thrown)
Because of the multiple ways to fail, you can't quickly and reliably tell what went wrong (certainly your test runner will indicate what type of exception threw, but that requires you to at least read the stack trace - you shouldn't need to do this for a Unit Test)
So, in order to do this you need to be able to setup your SUT - in this case, the GetDataLINQ function - such that any and all dependencies are fully under the control of the test method.
So if you really want to Unit Test this, you'll have to make some adjustments to your code. I'll outline the ideal scenario and then one alternative (of many) if you can't for whatever reason implement this. No error checking included in the code below, nor is it compiled so please forgive any typos, etc.
Ideal scenario
Abstract the dependencies, and inject them into the constructor.
Note that this ideal scenario will require you to introduce an IOC framework (Ninject, AutoFAC, Unity, Windsor, etc) into your project. It also requires a Mocking framework (Moq, etc).
1. Create an interface IDataRepository, which contains a method DequeueTestProject
public interface IDataRepository
{
public CommandMessages DequeueTestProject();
}
2. Declare IDataRepository as a dependency of MyPageClass
public class MyPageClass
{
readonly IDataRepository _repository;
public MyPageClass(IDataRepository repository)
{
_repository=repository;
}
}
3. Create an actual implementation of IDataRepository, which will be used in "real life" but not in your Unit Tests
public class RealDataRepository: IDataRepository
{
readonly MyProjectDataContext _dc;
public RealDataRepository()
{
_dc = new MyProjectDataContext(); //or however you do it.
}
public CommandMessages DequeueTestProject()
{
var command = dc.usp_dequeueTestProject();
result = command.Select(c => new CommandMessages(c.Command_Type, c.Command, c.DateTimeSent)).FirstOrDefault();
return result;
}
}
This is where you will need to involve your IOC framework such that it can inject the correct IDataRepository (i.e RealDataRepository) whenever your MyPageClass is instantiated by the ASP.NET framework
4. Recode your GetDataLINQ() method to use the _repository member
public CommandMessages GetDataLINQ()
{
CommandMessages result;
return _repository.DequeueTestProject();
}
So what has this bought us? Well, consider now how you can test against the following specification for GetDataLINQ:
Must always invoke DequeueTestProject
Must return NULL if there is no data in the database
Must return a valid CommandMessages instance if there is data in the database.
Test 1 - Must always invoke DequeueTestProject
public void GetDataLINQ_AlwaysInvokesDequeueTestProject()
{
//create a fake implementation of IDataRepository
var repo = new Mock<IDataRepository>();
//set it up to just return null; we don't care about the return value for now
repo.Setup(r=>r.DequeueTestProject()).Returns(null);
//create the SUT, passing in the fake repository
var sut = new MyPageClass(repo.Object);
//call the method
sut.GetDataLINQ();
//Verify that repo.DequeueTestProject() was indeed called.
repo.Verify(r=>r.DequeueTestProject(),Times.Once);
}
Test 2 - Must return NULL if there is no data in the database
public void GetDataLINQ_ReturnsNULLIfDatabaseEmpty()
{
//create a fake implementation of IDataRepository
var repo = new Mock<IDataRepository>();
//set it up to return null;
repo.Setup(r=>r.DequeueTestProject()).Returns(null);
var sut = new MyPageClass(repo.Object);
//call the method but store the result this time:
var actual = sut.GetDataLINQ();
//Verify that the result is indeed NULL:
Assert.IsNull(actual);
}
Test 3 - Must return a valid CommandMessages instance if there is data in the database.
public void GetDataLINQ_ReturnsNCommandMessagesIfDatabaseNotEmpty()
{
//create a fake implementation of IDataRepository
var repo = new Mock<IDataRepository>();
//set it up to return null;
repo.Setup(r=>r.DequeueTestProject()).Returns(new CommandMessages("fake","fake","fake");
var sut = new MyPageClass(repo.Object);
//call the method but store the result this time:
var actual = sut.GetDataLINQ();
//Verify that the result is indeed NULL:
Assert.IsNotNull(actual);
}
Because we can Mock the IDataRepository interface, therfore we can completely control how it behaves.
We could even make it throw an exception, if we needed to test how GetDataLINQ responds to unforseen results.
This is the real benefit of abstracting your dependencies when it comes to Unit Testing (not to mention, it reduces coupling in your system because dependencies are not tied to a particular concrete type).
Not Quite ideal method
Introducing an IOC framework into your project may be a non-runner, so here is one alternative which is a compromise. There are other ways as well, this is just the first that sprang to mind.
Create the IDataRepository interface
Create the RealDataRepository class
Create other implementations of IDataRepository, which mimic the behaviour we created on the fly in the previous example. These are called stubs, and basically they are just classes with a single, predefined behaviour that never changes. This makes then ideal for testing, because you always know what will happen when you invoke them.
public class FakeEmptyDatabaseRepository:IDataRepository
{
public CommandMessages DequeueTestProject(){CallCount++;return null;}
//CallCount tracks if the method was invoked.
public int CallCount{get;private set;}
}
public class FakeFilledDatabaseRepository:IDataRepository
{
public CommandMessages DequeueTestProject(){CallCount++;return new CommandMessages("","","");}
public int CallCount{get;private set;}
}
Now modify the MyPageClass as per the first method, except do not declare IDataRepository on the constructor, instead do this:
public class MyPageClass
{
private IDataRepository _repository; //not read-only
public MyPageClass()
{
_repository = new RealDataRepository();
}
//here is the compromise; this method also returns the original repository so you can restore it if for some reason you need to during a test method.
public IDataRepository SetTestRepo(IDataRepository testRepo)
{
_repository = testRepo;
}
}
And finally, modify your unit tests to use FakeEmptyDatabaseRepository or FakeFilledDatabaseRepository as appropriate:
public void GetDataLINQ_AlwaysInvokesDequeueTestProject()
{
//create a fake implementation of IDataRepository
var repo = new FakeFilledDatabaseRepository();
var sut = new MyPageClass();
//stick in the stub:
sut.SetTestRepo(repo);
//call the method
sut.GetDataLINQ();
//Verify that repo.DequeueTestProject() was indeed called.
var expected=1;
Assert.AreEqual(expected,repo.CallCount);
}
Note that this second scenario is not an ivory-tower-ideal scenario and doesn't lead to strictly pure Unit tests (i.e if there were a defect in FakeEmptyDatabaseRepository your test could also fail) but it's a pretty good compromise; however if possible strive to achieve the first scenario as it leads to all kinds of other benefits and gets you one step closer to truly SOLID code.
Hope that helps.

I would change your Code as follows:
public class MyRepository
{
public CommandMessage DeQueueTestProject()
{
using (var dc = new TestProjectLinqSQLDataContext())
{
var results = dc.usp_dequeueTestProject().Select(c => new CommandMessages(c.Command_Type, c.Command, c.DateTimeSent)).FirstOrDefault();
return results;
}
}
}
Then code your Web Method as:
[WebMethod]
public CommandMessages GetDataLINQ()
{
MyRepository db = new MyRepository();
return db.DeQueueTestProject();
}
Then Code your Unit Test:
[Test]
public void Test_MyRepository_DeQueueTestProject()
{
// Add your unit test using MyRepository
var r = new MyRepository();
var commandMessage = r.DeQueueTestProject();
Assert.AreEqual(commandMessage, new CommandMessage("What you want to compare"));
}
This allows your code to be reusable and is a common design pattern to have Data Repositories. You can now use your Repository Library everywhere you need it and test it in only one place and it should be good everywhere you use it. This way you don't have to worry about complicated tests calling WCF Services. This is a good way of testing Web Methods.
This is just a short explanation and can be improved much more, but this gets you in the right direction in building your Web Services.

Unit Testing with DbContext mock through Service Layer

I'm a beginner at writing unit tests and I have a test I'm trying to get working. I'll start of by explaining what I'm trying to test.
I'm trying to test a method which saves messages in a Mvc 4 project. The method is called SaveMessage and is shown below.
namespace ChatProj.Service_Layer
{
public class UserService : IUserService
{
public MessageContext messageContext = new MessageContext();
public UserService()
{
_messageRepository = new MessageRepository(messageContext);
}
private IMessageRepository _messageRepository;
-> public void SaveMessage(Message message)
{
messageContext.Messages.Add(message);
_messageRepository.Save();
}
The _messageRepository.Save in the SaveMessage method is implemented in my DAL layer MessageRepository and looks like this:
public void Save()
{
context.SaveChanges();
}
This way of saving will seem a bit overcomplicated, but I structured the project this way because I didn't want the service layer (IUserService & UserService) to handle operations that could & should (i think) be handled by the Data Access Layer (IMessageRepository & MessageRepository).
Now comes the tricky part. I've been trying to understand how I could unit test this. This is my try:
namespace ChatProj.Tests
{
[TestFixture]
class MessageRepositoryTests
{
[SetUp]
public void Setup()
{
}
[Test]
public void SaveMessage_SaveWorking_VerifyUse()
{
//Arrange
var userServiceMock = new Mock<UserService>();
var message = new Message { MessageID = 0, Name = "Erland", MessageString = "Nunit Test", MessageDate = DateTime.Now };
var repositoryMock = new Mock<IMessageRepository>();
var contextMock = new Mock<MessageContext>();
MessageRepository messageRepository = new MessageRepository(contextMock.Object);
UserService userService = new UserService();
//Act
userService.SaveMessage(message);
//Assert
repositoryMock.Verify(m => m.Save());
userServiceMock.Verify(m => m.SaveMessage(message));
}
}
I get this error: Imgur link , and I'm not quite sure how to solve it. I've tried looking at several other SO posts but I fail to make the test work.
So I'm wondering, how do I practically get my Unit Test to work?

You should setup your MessageContext properties to return fake data and don't make real Db call with SaveChanges method.
Right now it still tries to access a real DB.
But you can setup only virtual properties or if it will be an inteface.
So the best solution is to extract an interface from your MessageContext and inject it into repository. Then you can easily mock your IMessageContext interface and force it to return appropriate in-memory data.

Take a look at these two lines:
UserService userService = new UserService();
//Act
userService.SaveMessage(message);
You're creating a userService instance, and then immediately saving your message. Now jump into the SaveMessage code.
public void SaveMessage(Message message)
{
messageContext.Messages.Add(message);
_messageRepository.Save();
}
Ok, now you're adding stuff to messageContext, and then calling _messageRepository.Save(). But where are messageContext and _messageRepository instantiated?
public MessageContext messageContext = new MessageContext();
public UserService()
{
_messageRepository = new MessageRepository(messageContext);
}
You're creating them at instantiation. The mocks that you've created in your test aren't being used. Instead of creating instances of these objects in the constructor, you might consider passing them into the UserService constructor as arguments. Then, you can pass in mocked instances in your test.

Proper use of MOQ in a Unit Test

Given the following, is this the proper use of MOQ? I am very new to "mocking", "stubbing", "faking", etc. and just trying to wrap my head around it.
The way I understand it is that this mock is providing a known result, so when I test this service using it, the service reacts properly?
public interface IRepository<T> where T : class
{
void Add(T entity);
void Delete(T entity);
void Update(T entity);
IQueryable<T> Query();
}
public interface ICustomerService
{
void CreateCustomer(Customer customer);
Customer GetCustomerById(int id);
}
public class Customer
{
public int Id { get; set; }
}
public class CustomerService : ICustomerService
{
private readonly IRepository<Customer> customerRepository;
public CustomerService(IRepository<Customer> customerRepository)
{
this.customerRepository = customerRepository;
}
public Customer GetCustomerById(int id)
{
return customerRepository.Query().Single(x => x.Id == id);
}
public void CreateCustomer(Customer customer)
{
var existingCustomer = customerRepository.Query().SingleOrDefault(x => x.Id == customer.Id);
if (existingCustomer != null)
throw new InvalidOperationException("Customer with that Id already exists.");
customerRepository.Add(customer);
}
}
public class CustomerServiceTests
{
[Fact]
public void Test1()
{
//var repo = new MockCustomerRepository();
var repo = new Mock<IRepository<Customer>>();
repo.Setup(x => x.Query()).Returns(new List<Customer>() { new Customer() { Id = 1 }}.AsQueryable());
var service = new CustomerService(repo.Object);
Action a = () => service.CreateCustomer(new Customer() { Id = 1 });
a.ShouldThrow<InvalidOperationException>();
}
}
I am using xUnit, FluentAssertions and MOQ.

The way I understand it is that this mock is providing a known result,
so when I test this service using it, the service reacts properly?
This statement is correct - the unit test should be verifying that the class you're testing (in this case, CustomerService) is exhibiting the behavior you desire. It's not intended to verify that its dependencies are behaving as expected (in this case, IRepository<Customer>).
Your test is good* - you're setting up your mock for the IRepository and injecting into your SystemUnderTest, and verifying that the CustomerService.CreateCustomer() function is exhibiting the behavior that you expect.
*The overall setup of the test is fine, but I'm not familiar with xUnit, so the final two line's syntax is foreign to me, but it looks like it's correct based on the semantics. For reference, you would do the last two lines in NUnit like so:
Assert.Throws<InvalidOperationException>(() => service.CreateCustomer(...));

The test looks fine to me, the mock just provides a fake repository that returns a hardcoded answer just for the test, so the test only cares about the service you're testing and don't deals with a real-life database or whatever, since you're not testing it here.
I would only add one thing to the test to be even more complete. When you setup method calls on the mocks, make sure they were really called by the system under test. After all, the service is supposed to ask the repo for some object and throw only under a certain return value. Moq in particular provides a syntax for this:
repo.VerifyAll();
What this does is simply checking that the setups you've placed before were actually called at least once. This can protect you from errors where the service just throws the exception right away without calling the repo (easy to spot in examples like yours, but with complex code it's easy to miss a call). With that line, at the end of your test, if your service didn't called the repo asking for the list (and with that specific set of parameters), the test will fail too, even if the exception was properly thrown.

How do i mock a Interface with Moq or NInject Mocking Kernel

I just waded through questions and blogs on the subject of mocking and Dependency Injection. Come to a conclusion i just need to mock the interface that is consumed by client. I am looking forward to testing a simple use case here with no idea.
The Contract
public Interface IApplicationService
{
bool DeleteApplication(int id);
ApplicationDto AddApplication(ApplicationDto application);
IEnumerable<ApplicationDto> GetApplications();
}
Implementation ( I am going to mock )
public Class ApplicationService:IApplicationService
{
private EntityFrameworkRepo repo;
public ApplicationService()
{
repo = new EntityFrameworkRepo();
}
public ApplicationDto Add(ApplicationDto dto)
{
//add to dbcontext and commit
}
}
Mocking Code
[Test(Description = "Test If can successfully add application")]
public void CanAddApplication()
{
//create a mock application service
var applicationService = new Mock<IApplicationService>();
//create a mock Application Service to be used by business logic
var applicationDto = new Mock<ApplicationDto>();
//How do i set this up
applicationService.Setup(x => x.GetApplications()).Returns(IEnumerable<applicationDto.Object>);
}
And i for one am sure i need to test the business logic rather than mocking it. So what is it exactly i have to do to test my ApplicationService but then keep the entity framework out.
btw to speak of ApplicationService, it uses constructor injection with NInject. So mocking this with NInject.MockingKernel will setup dependency chain?

There is little or no benefit using dependency injection (IOC) container in unit testing. Dependency injection helps you in creating loose coupled components, and loose coupled components are easier to test, thats it.
So if you want to test some service, just create mockups of it dependencies and pass them to that service as usual (no need to involve IOC container here, I hardly can imagine, that you will need some features of IOC containers - like contextual binding, interception etc. - inside unit test).
If you want your ApplicationService to be easy to test, it should look more like:
public class ApplicationService: IApplicationService
{
private readonly IEntityFrameworkRepo repo;
// dependency passed by constructor
public ApplicationService(IEntityFrameworkRepo repo)
{
this.repo = repo;
}
// save to db when DTO is eligible
public ApplicationDto Add(ApplicationDto dto)
{
// some business rule
if(dto.Id > 0 && dto.Name.Contains(string.Empty)){
//add to dbcontext and commit
}else{
throw new NotEligibleException();
}
}
}
Here the dependency is passed by constructor. In your application code you will use it together with an IOC container to make constructor injection (IOC container will be responsible for creating instances of IEntityFrameworkRepo).
But in unit test, you can just pass instance of some implementation of IEntityFrameworkRepo created on your own.
ApplicationDto
As long as ApplicationDto is some object that can by created by hand, I can directly use it in unit-test (creating instances by hand). Otherwise I will have to wrap it by interface like IApplicationDto, in order to be able to mock it up with Moq.
public class ApplicationDto{
public int Id {get; set;}
public string Name {get; set;}
}
Here is how could unit-test look like:
In unit test I will use mocked implementaion of IApplicationRepo, because I do not want to configure e.g. database connections, web services etc. and my primary intention is to test the ApplicationService not the underlying repository. Another advantage is that the test will be runnable without specific configuration for various machines. To mockup some db repository I can use e.g. List.
[Test(Description = "Test If can successfully add application")]
public void CanAddApplicationIfEligible()
{
var repo = GetRepo();
var appService = new ApplicationService(repo);
var testAppDto = new ApplicationDto() { Id = 155, Name = "My Name" };
var currentItems = repo.ApplicationDtos.Count();
appService.Add(testAppDto);
Assert.AreEqual(currentItems + 1, repo.ApplicationDtos.Count());
var justAdded = repo.ApplicationsDto.Where(x=> x.Id = 155).FirstOrDefault();
Assert.IsNotNull(justAdded);
///....
}
private static IEntityFrameworkRepo GetRepo{
// create a mock repository
var listRepo = new List<ApplicationDto>{
new ApplicationDto {Id=1, Name="MyName"}
};
var repo = new Mock<IEntityFrameworkRepo>();
// setup the methods you know you will need for testing
// returns initialzed list instead of DB queryable like in real impl.
repo.Setup(x => x.ApplicationDtos)
.Returns<IQueryable<ApplicationDto>>(x=> listRepo);
// adds an instance of ApplicationDto to list
repo.Setup(x => x.Add(It.IsAny<ApplicationDto>())
.Callback<ApplicationDto>(a=> listRepo.Add(a));
return repo.Object;
}
Note:
There have been realeased an ninject.mockingkernel extension. The approach described in example on wiki can make your unit-test code bit tidier, but the approach described there is definetly not depencdency injection (it is service locator).