Is there a way to attach a callback to every method of a mock without having setup each method? E.g.
var serviceMock = new Mock<IService>();
var count = 0;
//method does not exist, but you get the picture
serviceMock.CallbackAllMethods( () => { count++; throw new WebException()}; )
AutoFixture has nice integration with Moq and will automatically setup methods like this.
There's a good introduction here on Mark Seemann's blog.
Related
I have a unit test where I am using Moq and Fluent Assertions:
[Fact]
public void GetSymbols_ShouldSetSucceedToTrue_WhenSecondAttemptSucceed()
{
string selectedFileName = "testFileName.txt";
string[] expectedResult = new string[] { "testSymbol1", "testSymbol2" };
Mock<IOpenFileDialogService> mockFileDialogService = new Mock<IOpenFileDialogService>();
mockFileDialogService.SetupSequence(m => m.ShowDialog()).Returns(false).Returns(true);
mockFileDialogService.Setup(m => m.FileName).Returns(selectedFileName);
Mock<IFileService> mockFileService = new Mock<IFileService>();
mockFileService.Setup(m => m.ReadAllLines(selectedFileName)).Returns(expectedResult);
SymbolsProviderFromFile spff = new SymbolsProviderFromFile(mockFileDialogService.Object, mockFileService.Object);
// Act
spff.GetSymbols();
IEnumerable<string> result = spff.GetSymbols();
// Assert
using (new AssertionScope())
{
result.Should().Equal(expectedResult);
spff.Succeed.Should().BeTrue();
}
}
I would like to check the second call of my method.
Unfortunately when I debug this code, the spff.GetSymbols() method is only called once and it is called on the result.Should().Equals(expectedResult) line when the result is checked. There is some kind of a lazy loading here - the method is only called when the result is needed.
Why is it not called immediately in the spff.GetSymbols() line? How can I change this behavior and how can I call testing method twice in unit test?
Problem has been resolved thanks to #Dennis Doomen.
An issue about not executing method immediately was in the implementation of the spff.GetSymbols() method which uses yield return so it wasn't really related to unit testing.
I have a simple hub that I am trying to write a test for with FakeItEasy and the verification of calling the client is not passing. I have the example working in a separate project that uses MOQ and XUnit.
public interface IScheduleHubClientContract
{
void UpdateToCheckedIn(string id);
}
public void UpdateToCheckedIn_Should_Broadcast_Id()
{
var hub = new ScheduleHub();
var clients = A.Fake<IHubCallerConnectionContext<dynamic>>();
var all = A.Fake<IScheduleHubClientContract>();
var id= "123456789";
hub.Clients = clients;
A.CallTo(() => all.UpdateToCheckedIn(A<string>.Ignored)).MustHaveHappened();
A.CallTo(() => clients.All).Returns(all);
hub.UpdateToCheckedIn(id);
}
I'm using Fixie as the Unit Test Framework and it reports:
FakeItEasy.ExpectationException:
Expected to find it once or more but no calls were made to the fake object.
The sample below works in XUnit & MOQ:
public interface IScheduleClientContract
{
void UpdateToCheckedIn(string id);
}
[Fact]
public void UpdateToCheckedIn_Should_Broadcast_Id()
{
var hub = new ScheduleHub();
var clients = new Mock<IHubCallerConnectionContext<dynamic>>();
var all = new Mock<IScheduleClientContract>();
hub.Clients = clients.Object;
all.Setup(m=>m.UpdateToCheckedIn(It.IsAny<string>())).Verifiable();
clients.Setup(m => m.All).Returns(all.Object);
hub.UpdateToCheckedIn("id");
all.VerifyAll();
}
I'm not sure what I've missed in the conversion?
You're doing some steps in a weird (it looks to me, without seeing the innards of your classes) order, and I believe that's the problem.
I think your key problem is that you're attempting to verify that all.UpdateToCheckedIn must have happened before even calling hub.UpdateToCheckedIn. (I don't know for sure that hub.UpdateToCheckedIn calls all.UpdateToCheckedIn, but it sounds reasonable.
There's another problem, where you configure clients.Setup to return all.Object, which happens after you assert the call to all.UpdateToCheckedIn. I'm not sure whether that's necessary or not, but thought I'd mention it.
The usual ordering is
arrange the fakes (and whatever else you need)
act, but exercising the system under test (hub)
assert that expected actions were taken on the fakes (or whatever other conditions you deem necessary for success)
I would have expected to see something more like
// Arrange the fakes
var all = A.Fake<IScheduleHubClientContract>();
var clients = A.Fake<IHubCallerConnectionContext<dynamic>>();
A.CallTo(() => clients.All).Returns(all); // if All has a getter, this could be clients.All = all
// … and arrange the system under test
var hub = new ScheduleHub();
hub.Clients = clients;
// Act, by exercising the system under test
var id = "123456789";
hub.UpdateToCheckedIn(id);
// Assert - verify that the expected calls were made to the Fakes
A.CallTo(() => all.UpdateToCheckedIn(A<string>.Ignored)).MustHaveHappened();
I'm trying to create some unit tests for an application I've recently inherited. Currently using NSubstitute because that's what the previous programmer used, but I'm not attached to it.
The method I'm testing calls the DataService class' Create method.
Calling Create Method
var contactProductLink = this.dsService.Create<ContactProductLink>(x =>
{
x.ContactRoleId = prod.RoleId;
x.ContactId = contactViewModel.ContactId;
x.ProductId = prod.ProductId;
x.Active = true;
x.InsertDate = DateTime.Now;
x.InsertUserId = user.employeeId;
x.UpdateDate = DateTime.Now;
x.UpdateUserId = user.employeeId;
});
DataService Create Method:
public TEntity Create<TEntity>(Action<TEntity> propertySetter = null) where TEntity : class
{
var tEntity = this.Context.Create<TEntity>();
if (propertySetter != null)
{
propertySetter(tEntity);
}
return tEntity;
}
The approach I've taken (and maybe there's a better way) is to use NSubstitute to mock the DataService. When I'm doing my assertions at the end, I'm checking to make sure that the Create method was called:
mockDataSupplierService.Received().Create<ContactProductLink>(Arg.Any<Action<ContactProductLink>>());
However, I'd like to also verify the input that was sent to the method is correct, and here's where I'm running into trouble. I can get the System.Action object that was passed to the Create method, but I can't figure out how to pull out the parameters (such as ContactRoleId, ContactId, etc. as posted in the calling create method code snippet).
So after all of that what I'm asking is:
How can I access those input parameters so I can verify the correct arguments are being passed to the data service? Is it even possible?
Is there a better way to do this than what I'm currently trying to do?
Solution
//Arrange
mockDataSupplierService.Create<ContactProductLink>(Arg.Do<Action<ContactProductLink>>(x=> actionToPopulateEntity = x));
//Assert
mockDataSupplierService.Received().Create<ContactProductLink>(Arg.Any<Action<ContactProductLink>>());
var entity = new ContactProductLink();
actionToPopulateEntity.Invoke(entity);
Assert.AreEqual(ExpectedContactId, entity.ContactId);
How can I access those input parameters so I can verify the correct arguments are being passed to the data service? Is it even possible?
Essentially you can't, as it is not possible to extract "code" details from action (consider what happens when you pass an action that doesn't set any properties - this is totally legal, but would break hypothetical mechanism).
However, you can try this instead:
Create entity with initial values
Use Arg.Invoke argument, telling NSubstitute to use chosen object as action parameter
Verify that entity properties values changed
For example:
// Arrange
var entity = new ContactProductLink
{
ContactRoleId = // ...
// ...
};
mockDataSupplierService
.Create<ContactProductLink>(Arg<ContactProductLink>.Invoke(entity));
// Act
// ...
Assert.That(entity.ContactRoleId, Is.EqualTo(2));
// ...
Coming from using Moq, I'm used to being able to Setup mocks as Verifiable. As you know, this is handy when you want to ensure your code under test actually called a method on a dependency.
e.g. in Moq:
// Set up the Moq mock to be verified
mockDependency.Setup(x => x.SomethingImportantToKnow()).Verifiable("Darn, this did not get called.");
target = new ClassUnderTest(mockDependency);
// Act on the object under test, using the mock dependency
target.DoThingsThatShouldUseTheDependency();
// Verify the mock was called.
mockDependency.Verify();
I've been using VS2012's "Fakes Framework" (for lack of knowing a better name for it), which is quite slick and I'm starting to prefer it to Moq, as it seems a bit more expressive and makes Shims easy. However, I can't figure out how to reproduce behavior similar to Moq's Verifiable/Verify implementation. I found the InstanceObserver property on the Stubs, which sounds like it might be what I want, but there's no documentation as of 9/4/12, and I'm not clear how to use it, if it's even the right thing.
Can anyone point me in the right direction on doing something like Moq Verifiable/Verify with VS2012's Fakes?
-- 9/5/12 Edit --
I realized a solution to the problem, but I'd still like to know if there's a built-in way to do it with VS2012 Fakes. I'll leave this open a little while for someone to claim if they can. Here's the basic idea I have (apologies if it doesn't compile).
[TestClass]
public class ClassUnderTestTests
{
private class Arrangements
{
public ClassUnderTest Target;
public bool SomethingImportantToKnowWasCalled = false; // Create a flag!
public Arrangements()
{
var mockDependency = new Fakes.StubIDependency // Fakes sweetness.
{
SomethingImportantToKnow = () => { SomethingImportantToKnowWasCalled = true; } // Set the flag!
}
Target = new ClassUnderTest(mockDependency);
}
}
[TestMethod]
public void DoThingThatShouldUseTheDependency_Condition_Result()
{
// arrange
var arrangements = new Arrangements();
// act
arrangements.Target.DoThingThatShouldUseTheDependency();
// assert
Assert.IsTrue(arrangements.SomethingImportantToKnowWasCalled); // Voila!
}
}
-- 9/5/12 End edit --
Since I've heard no better solutions, I'm calling the edits from 9/5/12 the best approach for now.
EDIT
Found the magic article that describes best practices. http://www.peterprovost.org/blog/2012/11/29/visual-studio-2012-fakes-part-3/
Although it might make sense in complex scenarios, you don't have to use a separate (Arrangements) class to store information about methods being called. Here is a simpler way of verifying that a method was called with Fakes, which stores the information in a local variable instead of a field of a separate class. Like your example it implies that ClassUnderTest calls a method of the IDependency interface.
[TestMethod]
public void DoThingThatShouldUseTheDependency_Condition_Result()
{
// arrange
bool dependencyCalled = false;
var dependency = new Fakes.StubIDependency()
{
DoStuff = () => dependencyCalled = true;
}
var target = new ClassUnderTest(dependency);
// act
target.DoStuff();
// assert
Assert.IsTrue(dependencyCalled);
}
Which of these is correct?
var mockLogger = new Mock<EntLibLogger>();
mockLogger.Setup(i => i.CreateTracer(It.IsAny<string>()))
.Returns((string operationName) =>
{
var mockTracer = new Mock<EntLibTracer>(operationName);
mockTracer.Setup(i => i.IsTracingEnabled())
.Returns(true);
mockTracer.CallBase = true;
return mockTracer.Object;
});
mockLogger.CallBase = true;
//EntLibLogger.Current is a singleton that is shared across multiple threads.
//This Initialize method will set EntLibLogger.Current to the mocked instance
//instead of the default (non-mocked) configuration
EntLibLogger.Initialize(mockLogger.Object);
OR
var mockTracer = new Mock<EntLibTracer>(operationName);
mockTracer.Setup(i => i.IsTracingEnabled())
.Returns(true);
mockTracer.CallBase = true;
var mockLogger = new Mock<EntLibLogger>();
mockLogger.Setup(i => i.CreateTracer(It.IsAny<string>()))
.Returns(mockTracer.Object);
mockLogger.CallBase = true;
EntLibLogger.Initialize(mockLogger.Object);
I believe the first approach is correct but I am not sure if Moq might be doing some magic under the hood and just wanted to validate :)
I guess the main question is what you want to happen if it calls CreateTracer twice. In the first version you'll get two different mock tracers; in the second you'll get the same one twice.
The second version is what I've usually used in jMock, EasyMock and Rhino.Mocks - but I don't have any experience with Moq, so it may be more idiomatic to use the first form there. The second is simpler though, IMO :)