Develop Reference

TDD - Am I doing it correctly?

I have a class that deals with Account stuff. It provides methods to login, reset password and create new accounts so far.
I inject the dependencies through the constructor. I have tests that validates each dependency's reference, if the reference is null it throws an ArgumentNullException.
The Account class exposes each of these dependencies through read only properties, I then have tests that validates if the reference passed on the constructor is the same that the property returns. I do this to make sure the references are being held by the class. (I don't know if this is a good practice too.)
First question: Is this a good practice in TDD? I ask this because this class has 6 dependencies so far, and it gets very repetitive and also the tests get pretty long as I have to mock all the dependencies for each test. What I do is just a copy and paste every time and just change the dependency's reference being tested.
Second question: my account creation method does things like validating the model passed, inserting data in 3 different tables or a forth table if a certain set of values are present and sending an email. What should I test here? I have so far a test that checks if the model validation gets executed, if the Add method of each repository gets called, and in this case, I use the Moq's Callback method of the mocked repository to compare each property being added to the repository against the ones I passed by the model.
Something like:
userRepository
.Setup(r => r.Add(It.IsAny<User>()))
.Callback<User>(u =>
{
Assert.AreEqual(model.Email, u.Email);
Assert.IsNotNull(u.PasswordHash);
//...
})
.Verifiable();
As I said, these tests are getting longer, I think that it doesn't hurt to test anything I can, but I don't know if it's worth it as it it's taking time to write the tests.

The purpose of testing is to find bugs.
Are you really going to have a bug where the property exists but is not initialized to the value from the constructor?
public class NoNotReally {
private IMyDependency1 _myDependency;
public IMyDependency1 MyDependency {get {return _myDependency;}}
public NoNotReally(IMyDependency dependency) {
_myDependency = null; // instead of dependency. Really?
}
}
Also, since you're using TDD, you should write the tests before you write the code, and the code should exist only to make the tests pass. Instead of your unnecessary tests of the properties, write a test that demonstrates that your injected dependency is being used. In order or such a test to pass, the dependency will need to exist, it will need to be of the correct type, and it will need to be used in the particular scenario.
In my example, the dependency will come to exist because it's needed, not because some artificial unit test required it to be there.

You say writing these tests feels repetitive. I say you feel the major benefit of TDD. Which is in fact not writing software with less bugs and not writing better software, because TDD doesn't guarantee either (at least not inherently). TDD forces you to think about design decisions and make design decisions all. The. Time. (And reduce debugging time.) If you feel pain while doing TDD, it's usually because a design decision is coming back to bite you. Then it's time to switch to your refactoring hat and improve the design.
Now in this particular case it's just the design of your tests, but you have to make design decisions for those as well.
As for testing whether properties are set. If I understand you correctly, you exposed those properties just for the sake of testing? In that case I'd advise against that. Assume you have a class with a constructor parameter and have a test that asserts the construtor should throw on null arguments:
public class MyClass
{
public MyClass(MyDependency dependency)
{
if (dependency == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("dependency");
}
}
}
[Test]
public void ConstructorShouldThrowOnNullArgument()
{
Assert.Catch<ArgumentNullException>(() => new MyClass(null));
}
(TestFixture class omitted)
Now when you start to write a test for an actual business method of the class under test, the parts will start to fit together.
[Test]
public void TestSomeBusinessFunctionality()
{
MyDependency mockedDependency;
// setup mock
// mock calls on mockedDependency
MyClass myClass = new MyClass(mockedDependency);
var result = myClass.DoSomethingOrOther();
// assertions on result
// if necessary assertion on calls on mockedDependency
}
At that point, you will have to assign the injected dependency from the constructor to a field so you can use it in the method later. And if you manage to get the test to pass without using the dependency... well, heck, obviously you didn't need it to begin with. Or, maybe, you'll only start to need it for the next test.
About the other point. When it becomes a hassle to test all the reponsibilities of a method or class, TDD is telling you that the method/class is doing to much and would maybe like to be split up into parts that are easy to test. E.g. one class for verification, one for mapping and one for executing the storage calls.
That can very well lead to over-engineering, though! So watch out for that and you'll develop a feeling for when to resist the urge for more indirection. ;)
To test if properties are mapped properly, I'd suggest to use stubs or self-made fake objects which have simple properties. That way you can simply compare the source and target properties and don't have to make lengthy setups like the one you posted.

Normally in unit tests (especially in TDD), you are not going to test every single statement in the class that you are testing. The main purpose of the TDD unit tests is to test the business logic of the class, not the initialization stuff.
In other words, you give scenarios (remember to include edge cases too) as input and check the results, which can either be the final values of the properties and/or the return values of the methods.
The reason you don't want to test every single possible code path in your classes is because should you ever decide to refactor your classes later on, you only need to make minimal changes to your TDD unit tests, as they are supposed to be agnostic to the actual implementation (as much as possible).
Note: There are other types of unit tests, such as code coverage tests, that are meant to test every single code path in your classes. However, I personally find these tests impractical, and certainly not encouraged in TDD.

Is it a good way of unit testing to use another, tested function to make preparations for the actual test?

I'm trying to get into unit testing with NUnit. At the moment, I'm writing a simple test to get used to the syntax and the way of unit testing. But I'm not sure if I'm doing it right with the following test:
The class under test holds a list of strings containing fruit names, where new fruit names can be added via class_under_test.addNewFruit(...). So, to test the functionality of addNewFruit(...), I first use the method to add a new string to the list (e.g. "Pinapple") and, in the next step, verify if the list contains this new string.
I'm not sure if this is a good way to test the functionality of the method, because I rely on the response of another function (which I have already tested in a previous unit test).
Is this the way to test this function, or are there better solutions?
public void addNewFruit_validNewFruitName_ReturnsFalse()
{
//arrange
string newFruit = "Pineapple";
//act
class_under_test.addNewFruit(newFruit);
bool result = class_under_test.isInFruitList(newFruit);
//assert
Assert.That(!result);
}

In a perfect world, every unit test can only be broken in single way. Every unit test "lives" in isolation to every other. Your addNewFruit test can be broken by breaking isInFruitsList - but luckily, this isn't a perfect world either.
Since you already tested isInFruitsList method, you shouldn't worry about that. That's like using 3rd party API - it (usually) is tested, and you assume it works. In your case, you assume isInFruitsList works because, well - you tested it.
Going around the "broken in a single way" you could try to expose underlying fruits list internally (and use InternalsVisibleTo attribute), or passing it via dependency injection. Question is - is it worth the effort? What do you really gain? In such simple case, you usually gain very little and overhead of introducing such constructs usually is not worth the time.

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.

Refactoring Service Layer classes

My company is on a Unit Testing kick, and I'm having a little trouble with refactoring Service Layer code. Here is an example of some code I wrote:
public class InvoiceCalculator:IInvoiceCalculator
{
public CalculateInvoice(Invoice invoice)
{
foreach (InvoiceLine il in invoice.Lines)
{
UpdateLine(il);
}
//do a ton of other stuff here
}
private UpdateLine(InvoiceLine line)
{
line.Amount = line.Qty * line.Rate;
//do a bunch of other stuff, including calls to other private methods
}
}
In this simplified case (it is reduced from a 1,000 line class that has 1 public method and ~30 private ones), my boss says I should be able to test my CalculateInvoice and UpdateLine separately (UpdateLine actually calls 3 other private methods, and performs database calls as well). But how would I do this? His suggested refactoring seemed a little convoluted to me:
//Tiny part of original code
public class InvoiceCalculator:IInvoiceCalculator
{
public ILineUpdater _lineUpdater;
public InvoiceCalculator (ILineUpdater lineUpdater)
{
_lineUpdater = lineUpdater;
}
public CalculateInvoice(Invoice invoice)
{
foreach (InvoiceLine il in invoice.Lines)
{
_lineUpdater.UpdateLine(il);
}
//do a ton of other stuff here
}
}
public class LineUpdater:ILineUpdater
{
public UpdateLine(InvoiceLine line)
{
line.Amount = line.Qty * line.Rate;
//do a bunch of other stuff
}
}
I can see how the dependency is now broken, and I can test both pieces, but this would also create 20-30 extra classes from my original class. We only calculate invoices in one place, so these pieces wouldn't really be reusable. Is this the right way to go about making this change, or would you suggest I do something different?
Thank you!
Jess

This is an example of Feature Envy:
line.Amount = line.Qty * line.Rate;
It should probably look more like:
var amount = line.CalculateAmount();
There isn't anything wrong with lots of little classes, it's not about re-usability as much as it's about adaptability. When you have many single responsibility classes, it's easier to see the behavior of your system and change it when your requirements change. Big classes have intertwinded responsibilities which make it very difficult to change.

IMO this all depends on how 'significant' that UpdateLine() method really is. If it's just an implementation detail (e.g. it could easily be inlined inside CalculateInvoice() method and they only thing that would hurt is readability), then you probably don't need to unit test it separately from the master class.
On the other hand, if UpdateLine() method has some value to the business logic, if you can imagine situation when you would need to change this method independently from the rest of the class (and therefore test it separately), then you should go on with refactoring it to a separate LineUpdater class.
You probably won't end up with 20-30 classes this way, because most of those private methods are really just implementation details and do not deserve to be tested separately.

Well, your boss goes more correct way in terms of unit-testing:
He is now able to test CalculateInvoice() without testing UpdateLine() function. He can pass mock object instead of real LineUpdater object and test only CalculateInvoice(), not a whole bunch of code.
Is it right? It depends. Your boss wants to make real unit-tests. And testing in your first example would not be unit-testing, it would be integration testing.
What are advantages of unit-tests before integration tests?
1) Unit-tests allow you to test only one method or property, without it being affected by other methods/database and so on.
2) Second advantage - unit tests execute faster (for example, you said UpdateLine uses database) because they don't test all the nested methods. Nested methods can be database calls so if you have thousand of tests your tests can run slow (several minutes).
3) Third advantage: if your methods make database calls then sometimes you need to setup database (fill it with data which is necessary for test) and it can be not easy - maybe you will have to write a couple of pages of code just to prepare database for a test. With unit tests, you separate database calls from the methods being tested (using mock objects).
But! I am not saying that unit tests a better. They are just different. As I said, unit tests allow you to test a unit in isolation and quickly. Integration tests are easier and allow you to test results of a joint work of different methods and layers. Honestly, I prefer integration tests more :)
Also, I have a couple of suggestions for you:
1) I don't think having Amount field is a good idea. It seems that Amount field is extra because it's value can be calculated based on 2 other public fields. If you want to do it anyway, I would do it as a read only property which returns Qty * Rate.
2) Usually, having a class which consists of 1000 rows may mean that it's badly designed and should be refactored.
Now, I hope you better understand the situation and can decide. Also, if you understand the situation you can talk to your boss and you can decide together.

yeah, nice one. I'm not sure wether the InvoiceLine object also has some logic included, otherwise then you would probably need a IInvoiceLine also.
I sometimes have the same questions. On one hand you want to do things right and unit test your code, but when database calls and maybe filewriting is involved it causes a lot of extra work to setup the first test with all the testobjects which step in when filewriting and database io is about to happen, interfaces, asserts and you also want to test that the datalayer doesn't contain any errors. So a test which is more 'process' then 'unit' is often easier to build.
If you have a project that will be changed a lot (in the future) and lots of dependencies of this code (maybe other programs read the file or database data) it can be nice to have a solid unit test for all parts of your code, and the investment time is worthwhile.
But if the project is, like my latest client says 'let's get it live and maybe we'll tweak a bit next year and next year there will be something new', than i wouldn't be so hard on myself to get all unit tests up and running.
Michel

Your boss' example looks reasonable to me.
Some of the key considerations I try to keep in mind when designing for any scenario are:
Single Responsibility Principle
A class should only change for one reason.
Does each new class justify its existence
Have classes been created just for the sake of it, or do they encapsulate a meaningful portion of logic?
Are you able to test each piece of code in isolation?
In your scenario, just looking at the names, it would appear that you were wandering away from Single Responsibility - You have an IInvoiceCalculator, yet this class is then also responsible for updating InvoiceLines. Not only have you made it very difficult to test the update behaviour, but you now need to change your InvoiceCalculator class both when calculation business rules change and when the rules around updating change.
Then there is the question about the updating logic - does the logic justify a seperate class? That really depends and it is hard to say without seeing the code, but certainly the fact that your boss wants that logic under test would suggest that it is more than a simple on liner call off to a datalayer.
You say that this refactoring creates a great number of extra classes, (I'm taking that you mean across all your business entities, since I only see a couple of new classes and their interfaces in your example) but you have to consider what you get from this. It looks like you gain full testability of your code, the ability to introduce new calculation and new update logic in isolation, and a more clear encapsulation of what are seperate pieces of business logic.
The gains above are of course subject to a cost benefit analysis, but since your boos is asking for them, it sounds like he is happy that they will pay off, against the extra work to implement the code this way.
The final, third point about testing in isolation is also a key benefit of the way your boss has designed this - the closer your public methods are to the code that does that actualy work, the easier it is to inject stubs or mocks for parts of your system that are not under test. For example, if you are testing an update method that calls off the a datalayer, you do not want to test the datalayer, so you would usually inject a mock. If you need to pass that mocked datalayer through all your calculator logic first, your test setup is going to be far more complicated since the mock now needs to meet many other potential requirements, not related to the actual test in question.
While this approach is extra work initially, I'd say that the majority of the work is the time to think through the design, after that, and after you get up to speed on the more injection based style of code, the raw implementation time of software that is structured in that way is actually comparible.

Your hoss' approach is a great example of dependency injection and how doing so allows you to use a mock ILineUpdater to conduct your tests efficiently.

How do you know what to test when writing unit tests? [closed]

Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
Using C#, I need a class called User that has a username, password, active flag, first name, last name, full name, etc.
There should be methods to authenticate and save a user. Do I just write a test for the methods? And do I even need to worry about testing the properties since they are .Net's getter and setters?

Many great responses to this are also on my question: "Beginning TDD - Challenges? Solutions? Recommendations?"
May I also recommend taking a look at my blog post (which was partly inspired by my question), I have got some good feedback on that. Namely:
I Don’t Know Where to Start?
Start afresh. Only think about writing tests when you are writing new
code. This can be re-working of old
code, or a completely new feature.
Start simple. Don’t go running off and trying to get your head round
a testing framework as well as being
TDD-esque. Debug.Assert works fine.
Use it as a starting point. It doesn’t
mess with your project or create
dependencies.
Start positive. You are trying to improve your craft, feel good about
it. I have seen plenty of developers
out there that are happy to stagnate
and not try new things to better
themselves. You are doing the right
thing, remember this and it will help
stop you from giving up.
Start ready for a challenge. It is quite hard to start getting into
testing. Expect a challenge, but
remember – challenges can be overcome.
Only Test For What You Expect
I had real problems when I first
started because I was constantly sat
there trying to figure out every
possible problem that could occur and
then trying to test for it and fix.
This is a quick way to a headache.
Testing should be a real YAGNI
process. If you know there is a
problem, then write a test for it.
Otherwise, don’t bother.
Only Test One Thing
Each test case should only ever test
one thing. If you ever find yourself
putting “and” in the test case name,
you’re doing something wrong.
I hope this means we can move on from "getters and setters" :)

Test your code, not the language.
A unit test like:
Integer i = new Integer(7);
assert (i.instanceOf(integer));
is only useful if you are writing a compiler and there is a non-zero chance that your instanceof method is not working.
Don't test stuff that you can rely on the language to enforce. In your case, I'd focus on your authenticate and save methods - and I'd write tests that made sure they could handle null values in any or all of those fields gracefully.

This got me into unit testing and it made me very happy
We just started to do unit testing.
For a long time I knew it would be good to start doing it but I had no idea how to start and more importantly what to test.
Then we had to rewrite an important piece of code in our accounting program.
This part was very complex as it involved a lot of different scenarios.
The part I'm talking about is a method to pay sales and/or purchase invoices already entered into the accounting system.
I just didn't know how to start coding it, as there were so many different payment options.
An invoice could be $100 but the customer only transferred $99.
Maybe you have sent sales invoices to a customer but you have also purchased from that customer.
So you sold him for $300 but you bought for $100. You can expect your customer to pay you $200 to settle the balance.
And what if you sold for $500 but the customer pays you only $250?
So I had a very complex problem to solve with many possibilities that one scenario would work perfectly but would be wrong on an other type of invocie/payment combination.
This is where unit testing came to the rescue.
I started to write (inside the test code) a method to create a list of invoices, both for sales and purchases.
Then I wrote a second method to create the actual payment.
Normally a user would enter that information through a user interface.
Then I created the first TestMethod, testing a very simple payment of a single invoice without any payment discounts.
All the action in the system would happen when a bankpayment would be saved to the database.
As you can see I created an invoice, created a payment (a bank transaction) and saved the transaction to disk.
In my asserts I put what should be the correct numbers ending up in the Bank transaction and in the linked Invoice.
I check for the number of payments, the payment amounts, the discount amount and the balance of the invoice after the transaction.
After the test ran I would go to the database and double check if what I expected was there.
After I wrote the test, I started coding the payment method (part of the BankHeader class).
In the coding I only bothered with code to make the first test pass. I did not yet think about the other, more complex, scenarios.
I ran the first test, fixed a small bug until my test would pass.
Then I started to write the second test, this time working with a payment discount.
After I wrote the test I modified the payment method to support discounts.
While testing for correctness with a payment discount, I also tested the simple payment.
Both tests should pass of course.
Then I worked my way down to the more complex scenarios.
1) Think of a new scenario
2) Write a test for that scenario
3) Run that single test to see if it would pass
4) If it didn't I'd debug and modify the code until it would pass.
5) While modifying code I kept on running all tests
This is how I managed to create my very complex payment method.
Without unit testing I did not know how to start coding, the problem seemed overwhelming.
With testing I could start with a simple method and extend it step by step with the assurance that the simpler scenarios would still work.
I'm sure that using unit testing saved me a few days (or weeks) of coding and is more or less guaranteeing the correctness of my method.
If I later think of a new scenario, I can just add it to the tests to see if it is working or not.
If not I can modify the code but still be sure the other scenarios are still working correctly.
This will save days and days in the maintenance and bug fixing phase.
Yes, even tested code can still have bugs if a user does things you did not think of or prevented him from doing
Below are just some of tests I created to test my payment method.
public class TestPayments
{
InvoiceDiaryHeader invoiceHeader = null;
InvoiceDiaryDetail invoiceDetail = null;
BankCashDiaryHeader bankHeader = null;
BankCashDiaryDetail bankDetail = null;
public InvoiceDiaryHeader CreateSales(string amountIncVat, bool sales, int invoiceNumber, string date)
{
......
......
}
public BankCashDiaryHeader CreateMultiplePayments(IList<InvoiceDiaryHeader> invoices, int headerNumber, decimal amount, decimal discount)
{
......
......
......
}
[TestMethod]
public void TestSingleSalesPaymentNoDiscount()
{
IList<InvoiceDiaryHeader> list = new List<InvoiceDiaryHeader>();
list.Add(CreateSales("119", true, 1, "01-09-2008"));
bankHeader = CreateMultiplePayments(list, 1, 119.00M, 0);
bankHeader.Save();
Assert.AreEqual(1, bankHeader.BankCashDetails.Count);
Assert.AreEqual(1, bankHeader.BankCashDetails[0].Payments.Count);
Assert.AreEqual(119M, bankHeader.BankCashDetails[0].Payments[0].PaymentAmount);
Assert.AreEqual(0M, bankHeader.BankCashDetails[0].Payments[0].PaymentDiscount);
Assert.AreEqual(0, bankHeader.BankCashDetails[0].Payments[0].InvoiceHeader.Balance);
}
[TestMethod]
public void TestSingleSalesPaymentDiscount()
{
IList<InvoiceDiaryHeader> list = new List<InvoiceDiaryHeader>();
list.Add(CreateSales("119", true, 2, "01-09-2008"));
bankHeader = CreateMultiplePayments(list, 2, 118.00M, 1M);
bankHeader.Save();
Assert.AreEqual(1, bankHeader.BankCashDetails.Count);
Assert.AreEqual(1, bankHeader.BankCashDetails[0].Payments.Count);
Assert.AreEqual(118M, bankHeader.BankCashDetails[0].Payments[0].PaymentAmount);
Assert.AreEqual(1M, bankHeader.BankCashDetails[0].Payments[0].PaymentDiscount);
Assert.AreEqual(0, bankHeader.BankCashDetails[0].Payments[0].InvoiceHeader.Balance);
}
[TestMethod]
[ExpectedException(typeof(ApplicationException))]
public void TestDuplicateInvoiceNumber()
{
IList<InvoiceDiaryHeader> list = new List<InvoiceDiaryHeader>();
list.Add(CreateSales("100", true, 2, "01-09-2008"));
list.Add(CreateSales("200", true, 2, "01-09-2008"));
bankHeader = CreateMultiplePayments(list, 3, 300, 0);
bankHeader.Save();
Assert.Fail("expected an ApplicationException");
}
[TestMethod]
public void TestMultipleSalesPaymentWithPaymentDiscount()
{
IList<InvoiceDiaryHeader> list = new List<InvoiceDiaryHeader>();
list.Add(CreateSales("119", true, 11, "01-09-2008"));
list.Add(CreateSales("400", true, 12, "02-09-2008"));
list.Add(CreateSales("600", true, 13, "03-09-2008"));
list.Add(CreateSales("25,40", true, 14, "04-09-2008"));
bankHeader = CreateMultiplePayments(list, 5, 1144.00M, 0.40M);
bankHeader.Save();
Assert.AreEqual(1, bankHeader.BankCashDetails.Count);
Assert.AreEqual(4, bankHeader.BankCashDetails[0].Payments.Count);
Assert.AreEqual(118.60M, bankHeader.BankCashDetails[0].Payments[0].PaymentAmount);
Assert.AreEqual(400, bankHeader.BankCashDetails[0].Payments[1].PaymentAmount);
Assert.AreEqual(600, bankHeader.BankCashDetails[0].Payments[2].PaymentAmount);
Assert.AreEqual(25.40M, bankHeader.BankCashDetails[0].Payments[3].PaymentAmount);
Assert.AreEqual(0.40M, bankHeader.BankCashDetails[0].Payments[0].PaymentDiscount);
Assert.AreEqual(0, bankHeader.BankCashDetails[0].Payments[1].PaymentDiscount);
Assert.AreEqual(0, bankHeader.BankCashDetails[0].Payments[2].PaymentDiscount);
Assert.AreEqual(0, bankHeader.BankCashDetails[0].Payments[3].PaymentDiscount);
Assert.AreEqual(0, bankHeader.BankCashDetails[0].Payments[0].InvoiceHeader.Balance);
Assert.AreEqual(0, bankHeader.BankCashDetails[0].Payments[1].InvoiceHeader.Balance);
Assert.AreEqual(0, bankHeader.BankCashDetails[0].Payments[2].InvoiceHeader.Balance);
Assert.AreEqual(0, bankHeader.BankCashDetails[0].Payments[3].InvoiceHeader.Balance);
}
[TestMethod]
public void TestSettlement()
{
IList<InvoiceDiaryHeader> list = new List<InvoiceDiaryHeader>();
list.Add(CreateSales("300", true, 43, "01-09-2008")); //Sales
list.Add(CreateSales("100", false, 6453, "02-09-2008")); //Purchase
bankHeader = CreateMultiplePayments(list, 22, 200, 0);
bankHeader.Save();
Assert.AreEqual(1, bankHeader.BankCashDetails.Count);
Assert.AreEqual(2, bankHeader.BankCashDetails[0].Payments.Count);
Assert.AreEqual(300, bankHeader.BankCashDetails[0].Payments[0].PaymentAmount);
Assert.AreEqual(-100, bankHeader.BankCashDetails[0].Payments[1].PaymentAmount);
Assert.AreEqual(0, bankHeader.BankCashDetails[0].Payments[0].InvoiceHeader.Balance);
Assert.AreEqual(0, bankHeader.BankCashDetails[0].Payments[1].InvoiceHeader.Balance);
}

If they really are trivial, then don't bother testing. Eg, if they are implemented like this;
public class User
{
public string Username { get; set; }
public string Password { get; set; }
}
If, on the other hand, you are doing something clever, (like encrypting and decrypting the password in the getter/setter) then give it a test.

The rule is that you have to test every piece of logic you write. If you implemented some specific functionality in the getters and setters I think they are worth testing. If they only assign values to some private fields, don't bother.

This question seems to be a question of where does one draw the line on what methods get tested and which don't.
The setters and getters for value assignment have been created with consistency and future growth in mind, and foreseeing that some time down the road the setter/getter may evolve into more complex operations. It would make sense to put unit tests of those methods in place, also for the sake of consistency and future growth.
Code reliability, especially while undergoing change to add additional functionality, is the primary goal. I am not aware of anyone ever getting fired for including setters/getters in the testing methodology, but I am certain there exists people who wished they had tested methods which last they were aware or can recall were simple set/get wrappers but that was no longer the case.
Maybe another member of the team expanded the set/get methods to include logic that now needs tested but didn't then create the tests. But now your code is calling these methods and you aren't aware they changed and need in-depth testing, and the testing you do in development and QA don't trigger the defect, but real business data on the first day of release does trigger it.
The two teammates will now debate over who dropped the ball and failed to put in unit tests when the set/gets morphed to include logic that can fail but isn't covered by a unit test. The teammate that originally wrote the set/gets will have an easier time coming out of this clean if the tests were implemented from day one on the simple set/gets.
My opinion is that a few minutes of "wasted" time covering ALL methods with unit tests, even trivial ones, might save days of headache down the road and loss of money/reputation of the business and loss of someone's job.
And the fact that you did wrap trivial methods with unit tests might be seen by that junior team mate when they change the trivial methods into non-trivial ones and prompt them to update the test, and now nobody is in trouble because the defect was contained from reaching production.
The way we code, and the discipline that can be seen from our code, can help others.

Another canonical answer. This, I believe, from Ron Jeffries:
Only test the code that you want to work.

Testing boilerplate code is a waste of time, but as Slavo says, if you add a side effect to your getters/setters, then you should write a test to accompany that functionality.
If you're doing test-driven development, you should write the contract (eg interface) first, then write the test(s) to exercise that interface which document the expected results/behaviour. Then write your methods themselves, without touching the code in your unit tests. Finally, grab a code coverage tool and make sure your tests exercise all the logic paths in your code.

Really trivial code like getters and setters that have no extra behaviour than setting a private field are overkill to test. In 3.0 C# even has some syntactic sugar where the compiler takes care of the private field so you don't have to program that.
I usually write lots of very simple tests verifying behaviour I expect from my classes. Even if it's simple stuff like adding two numbers. I switch a lot between writing a simple test and writing some lines of code. The reason for this is that I then can change around code without being afraid I broke things I didn't think about.

You should test everything. Right now you have getters and setters, but one day you might change them somewhat, maybe to do validation or something else. The tests you write today will be used tomorrow to make sure everything keeps on working as usual.
When you write test, you should forget considerations like "right now it's trivial". In an agile or test-driven context you should test assuming future refactoring.
Also, did you try putting in really weird values like extremely long strings, or other "bad" content? Well you should... never assume how badly your code can be abused in the future.
Generally I find that writing extensive user tests is on one side, exhausting. On the other side, though it always gives you invaluable insight on how your application should work and helps you throw away easy (and false) assumptions (like: the user name will always be less than 1000 characters in length).

For simple modules that may end up in a toolkit, or in an open source type of project, you should test as much as possible including the trivial getters and setters. The thing you want to keep in mind is that generating a unit test as you write a particular module is fairly simple and straight forward. Adding getters and setters is minimal code and can be handled without much thought. However, once your code is placed in a larger system, this extra effort can protect you against changes in the underlying system, such as type changes in a base class. Testing everthing is the best way to have a regression that is complete.

It doesn't hurt to write unit tests for your getters and setters. Right now, they may just be doing field get/sets under the hood, but in the future you may have validation logic, or inter-property dependencies that need to be tested. It's easier to write it now while you're thinking about it then remembering to retrofit it if that time ever comes.

in general, when a method is only defined for certain values, test for values on and over the border of what is acceptable. In other words, make sure your method does what it's supposed to do, but nothing more. This is important, because when you're going to fail, you want to fail early.
In inheritance hierarchies, make sure to test for LSP compliance.
Testing default getters and setters doesn't seem very useful to me, unless you're planning to do some validation later on.

well if you think it can break, write a test for it. I usually don't test setter/getter, but lets says you make one for User.Name, which concatenate first and last name, I would write a test so if someone change the order for last and first name, at least he would know he changed something that was tested.

The canonical answer is "test anything that can possibly break." If you are sure the properties won't break, don't test them.
And once something is found to have broken (you find a bug), obviously it means you need to test it. Write a test to reproduce the bug, watch it fail, then fix the bug, then watch the test pass.

As I understand unit tests in the context of agile development, Mike, yes, you need to test the getters and setters (assuming they're publicly visible). The whole concept of unit testing is to test the software unit, which is a class in this case, as a black box. Since the getters and setters are externally visible you need to test them along with Authenticate and Save.

If the Authenticate and Save methods use the properties, then your tests will indirectly touch the properties. As long as the properties are just providing access to data, then explicit testing should not be necessary (unless you are going for 100% coverage).

I would test your getters and setters. Depending on who's writing the code, some people change the meaning of the getter/setter methods. I've seen variable initialization and other validation as part of getter methods. In order to test this sort of thing, you'd want unit tests covering that code explicitly.

Personally I would "test anything that can break" and simple getter (or even better auto properties) will not break. I have never had a simple return statement fail and therefor never have test for them. If the getters have calculation within them or some other form of statements, I would certainly add tests for them.
Personally I use Moq as a mock object framework and then verify that my object calls the surrounding objects the way it should.

You have to cover the execution of every method of the class with UT and check the method return value. This includes getters and setters, especially in case the members(properties) are complex classes, which requires large memory allocation during their initialization. Call the setter with some very large string for example (or something with greek symbols) and check the result is correct (not truncated, encoding is good e.t.c.)
In case of simple integers that also applies - what happens if you pass long instead of integer? That's the reason you write UT for :)

I wouldn't test the actual setting of properties. I would be more concerned about how those properties get populated by the consumer, and what they populate them with. With any testing, you have to weigh the risks with the time/cost of testing.

You should test "every non-trivial block of code" using unit tests as far as possible.
If your properties are trivial and its unlikely that someone will introduce a bug in it, then it should be safe to not unit test them.
Your Authenticate() and Save() methods look like good candidates for testing.

Ideally, you would have done your unit tests as you were writing the class. This is how you're meant to do it when using Test Driven Development. You add the tests as you implement each function point, making sure that you cover the edge-cases with test too.
Writing the tests afterwards is much more painful, but doable.
Here's what I'd do in your position:
Write a basic set of tests that test the core function.
Get NCover and run it on your tests. Your test coverage will probably be around 50% at this point.
Keep adding tests that cover your edge-cases until you get coverage of around 80%-90%
This should give you a nice working set of unit tests that will act as a good buffer against regressions.
The only problem with this approach is that code has to be designed to be testable in this fashion. If you made any coupling mistakes early on, you won't be able to get high coverage very easily.
This is why it is really important to write the tests before you write the code. It forces you to write code that is loosely coupled.

Don't test obviously working (boilerplate) code. So if your setters and getters are just "propertyvalue = value" and "return propertyvalue" it makes no sense to test it.

Even get / set can have odd consequences, depending upon how they have been implemented, so they should be treated as methods.
Each test of these will need to specify sets of parameters for the properties, defining both acceptable and unacceptable properties to ensure the calls return / fail in the expected manner.
You also need to be aware of security gotchas, as an example SQL injection, and test for these.
So yes, you do need to worry about testing the properties.

I believe it's silly to test getters & setters when they only make a simple operation. Personally I don't write complex unit tests to cover any usage pattern. I try to write enough tests to ensure I have handled the normal execution behavior and as much error cases I can think of. I will write more unit tests as a response to bug reports. I use unit test to ensure the code meets the requirements and to make future modification easier. I feel a lot more willing to change code when I know that if I break something a test will fail.

I would write a test for anything that you are writing code for that is testable outside of the GUI interface.
Typically, any logic that I write that has any business logic I place inside another tier or business logic layer.
Then writing tests for anything that does something is easy to do.
First pass, write a unit test for each public method in your "Business Logic Layer".
If I had a class like this:
public class AccountService
{
public void DebitAccount(int accountNumber, double amount)
{
}
public void CreditAccount(int accountNumber, double amount)
{
}
public void CloseAccount(int accountNumber)
{
}
}
The first thing I would do before I wrote any code knowing that I had these actions to perform would be to start writing unit tests.
[TestFixture]
public class AccountServiceTests
{
[Test]
public void DebitAccountTest()
{
}
[Test]
public void CreditAccountTest()
{
}
[Test]
public void CloseAccountTest()
{
}
}
Write your tests to validate the code you've written to do something. If you iterating over a collection of things, and changing something about each of them, write a test that does the same thing and Assert that actually happened.
There's a lot of other approaches you can take, namely Behavoir Driven Development (BDD), that's more involved and not a great place to start with your unit testing skills.
So, the moral of the story is, test anything that does anything you might be worried about, keep the unit tests testing specific things that are small in size, a lot of tests are good.
Keep your business logic outside of the User Interface layer so that you can easily write tests for them, and you'll be good.
I recommend TestDriven.Net or ReSharper as both easily integrate into Visual Studio.

I would recommend writing multiple tests for your Authenticate and Save methods. In addition to the success case (where all parameters are provided, everything is correctly spelled, etc), it's good to have tests for various failure cases (incorrect or missing parameters, unavailable database connections if applicable, etc). I recommend Pragmatic Unit Testing in C# with NUnit as a reference.
As others have stated, unit tests for getters and setters are overkill, unless there's conditional logic in your getters and setters.

Whilst it is possible to correctly guess where your code needs testing, I generally think you need metrics to back up this guess. Unit testing in my view goes hand in hand with code-coverage metrics.
Code with lots of tests but a small coverage hasn't been well tested. That said, code with 100% coverage but not testing the boundry and error cases is also not great.
You want a balance between high coverage (90% minimum) and variable input data.
Remember to test for "garbage in"!
Also, a unit-test is not a unit-test unless it checks for a failure. Unit-tests that don't have asserts or are marked with known exceptions will simply test that the code doesn't die when run!
You need to design your tests so that they always report failures or unexpected/unwanted data!

It makes our code better... period!
One thing us software developers forget about when doing test driven development is the purpose behind our actions. If a unit test is being written after the production code is already in place, the value of the test goes way down (but is not completely lost).
In the true spirit for unit testing, these tests are not primarily there to "test" more of our code; or to get 90%-100% better code coverage. These are all fringe benefits of writing the tests first. The big payoff is that our production code ends be be written much better due to the natural process of TDD.
To help better communicate this idea, the following may be helpful in reading:
The Flawed Theory of Unit Tests
Purposeful Software Development
If we feel that the act of writing more unit tests is what helps us gain a higher quality product, then we may be suffering from a Cargo Cult of Test Driven Development.