I have a function which will take student details as input and write their report card into a xml file. When i tried to create unit tests in vs2008 i saw the message - "A method that does not return a value cannot be verified." My function does not return a value it merely writes into a file and returns.
How do i write tests for this function?
[TestMethod()]
public void StoreInformationTest()
{
StudentSettings target = new StudentSettings(); // TODO: Initialize to an appropriate
StudentSettings settings = null; // TODO: Initialize to an appropriate value
target.StoreInformation(settings);
Assert.Inconclusive("A method that does not return a value cannot be verified.");
}
Thanks in advance,
Regards,
John
With good separation of responsibilities, it would be easy to replace your file with something like a memorystream. Write into a memory stream instead of a file. Then you can test against the content of that. But as mentioned by others, a code example would maybe reveal other needs.
UPDATE:
Thanks for the code. It looks like your StudentSettings class is doing to much. Separate xml writing functions into its own class, extract an interface from it, and inject this into your class as a constructor argument. Then you can replace it with your own mock during tests.
First of all, if the big uncle Visual Studio tells you that your method cannot be tested, it does not have to be true.
You should return the output to be written in the file as a string, or your method should take TextWriter as a parameter. In the former case you may use mocking framework, as mentioned in the other answer, to give the method under test a fake TextWriter object.
You can use an mocking framework to do this. An good example is Moq. Simply put you can create fake-objects and you tell them to behave like another. You can also verify how often and method is called, if it is called and how often it should be called.
EDIT:
The quick startguide shown here has some good examples which probably will put you in the right direct. In your case you could create an moq of your class containing the function which writes your file. Using the verify function you can check/verify how often the function is called and if it runs without any exceptions.
The code generator is merely suggesting that it can't verify your test based on its return value (void) which makes perfect sense. I think someone else mentioned that this is more of a placeholder. When it comes to actually writing the test, you need to decide what your passing criteria really is. You can go as easy as;
Assert.IsTrue(File.Exists(filePath));
If all you care about is the file existing, or you can get deeper down into it, verify its contents and so forth. It is really up to you.
Related
What is the best way to unit test a method that doesn't return anything? Specifically in c#.
What I am really trying to test is a method that takes a log file and parses it for specific strings. The strings are then inserted into a database. Nothing that hasn't been done before but being VERY new to TDD I am wondering if it is possible to test this or is it something that doesn't really get tested.
If a method doesn't return anything, it's either one of the following
imperative - You're either asking the object to do something to itself.. e.g change state (without expecting any confirmation.. its assumed that it will be done)
informational - just notifying someone that something happened (without expecting action or response) respectively.
Imperative methods - you can verify if the task was actually performed. Verify if state change actually took place. e.g.
void DeductFromBalance( dAmount )
can be tested by verifying if the balance post this message is indeed less than the initial value by dAmount
Informational methods - are rare as a member of the public interface of the object... hence not normally unit-tested. However if you must, You can verify if the handling to be done on a notification takes place. e.g.
void OnAccountDebit( dAmount ) // emails account holder with info
can be tested by verifying if the email is being sent
Post more details about your actual method and people will be able to answer better.
Update: Your method is doing 2 things. I'd actually split it into two methods that can now be independently tested.
string[] ExamineLogFileForX( string sFileName );
void InsertStringsIntoDatabase( string[] );
String[] can be easily verified by providing the first method with a dummy file and expected strings. The second one is slightly tricky.. you can either use a Mock (google or search stackoverflow on mocking frameworks) to mimic the DB or hit the actual DB and verify if the strings were inserted in the right location. Check this thread for some good books... I'd recomment Pragmatic Unit Testing if you're in a crunch.
In the code it would be used like
InsertStringsIntoDatabase( ExamineLogFileForX( "c:\OMG.log" ) );
Test its side-effects. This includes:
Does it throw any exceptions? (If it should, check that it does. If it shouldn't, try some corner cases which might if you're not careful - null arguments being the most obvious thing.)
Does it play nicely with its parameters? (If they're mutable, does it mutate them when it shouldn't and vice versa?)
Does it have the right effect on the state of the object/type you're calling it on?
Of course, there's a limit to how much you can test. You generally can't test with every possible input, for example. Test pragmatically - enough to give you confidence that your code is designed appropriately and implemented correctly, and enough to act as supplemental documentation for what a caller might expect.
As always: test what the method is supposed to do!
Should it change global state (uuh, code smell!) somewhere?
Should it call into an interface?
Should it throw an exception when called with the wrong parameters?
Should it throw no exception when called with the right parameters?
Should it ...?
Try this:
[TestMethod]
public void TestSomething()
{
try
{
YourMethodCall();
Assert.IsTrue(true);
}
catch {
Assert.IsTrue(false);
}
}
Void return types / Subroutines are old news. I haven't made a Void return type (Unless I was being extremely lazy) in like 8 years (From the time of this answer, so just a bit before this question was asked).
Instead of a method like:
public void SendEmailToCustomer()
Make a method that follows Microsoft's int.TryParse() paradigm:
public bool TrySendEmailToCustomer()
Maybe there isn't any information your method needs to return for usage in the long-run, but returning the state of the method after it performs its job is a huge use to the caller.
Also, bool isn't the only state type. There are a number of times when a previously-made Subroutine could actually return three or more different states (Good, Normal, Bad, etc). In those cases, you'd just use
public StateEnum TrySendEmailToCustomer()
However, while the Try-Paradigm somewhat answers this question on how to test a void return, there are other considerations too. For example, during/after a "TDD" cycle, you would be "Refactoring" and notice you are doing two things with your method... thus breaking the "Single Responsibility Principle." So that should be taken care of first. Second, you might have idenetified a dependency... you're touching "Persistent" Data.
If you are doing the data access stuff in the method-in-question, you need to refactor into an n-tier'd or n-layer'd architecture. But we can assume that when you say "The strings are then inserted into a database", you actually mean you're calling a business logic layer or something. Ya, we'll assume that.
When your object is instantiated, you now understand that your object has dependencies. This is when you need to decide if you are going to do Dependency Injection on the Object, or on the Method. That means your Constructor or the method-in-question needs a new Parameter:
public <Constructor/MethodName> (IBusinessDataEtc otherLayerOrTierObject, string[] stuffToInsert)
Now that you can accept an interface of your business/data tier object, you can mock it out during Unit Tests and have no dependencies or fear of "Accidental" integration testing.
So in your live code, you pass in a REAL IBusinessDataEtc object. But in your Unit Testing, you pass in a MOCK IBusinessDataEtc object. In that Mock, you can include Non-Interface Properties like int XMethodWasCalledCount or something whose state(s) are updated when the interface methods are called.
So your Unit Test will go through your Method(s)-In-Question, perform whatever logic they have, and call one or two, or a selected set of methods in your IBusinessDataEtc object. When you do your Assertions at the end of your Unit Test you have a couple of things to test now.
The State of the "Subroutine" which is now a Try-Paradigm method.
The State of your Mock IBusinessDataEtc object.
For more information on Dependency Injection ideas on the Construction-level... as they pertain to Unit Testing... look into Builder design patterns. It adds one more interface and class for each current interface/class you have, but they are very tiny and provide HUGE functionality increases for better Unit-Testing.
You can even try it this way:
[TestMethod]
public void ReadFiles()
{
try
{
Read();
return; // indicates success
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Assert.Fail(ex.Message);
}
}
it will have some effect on an object.... query for the result of the effect. If it has no visible effect its not worth unit testing!
Presumably the method does something, and doesn't simply return?
Assuming this is the case, then:
If it modifies the state of it's owner object, then you should test that the state changed correctly.
If it takes in some object as a parameter and modifies that object, then your should test the object is correctly modified.
If it throws exceptions is certain cases, test that those exceptions are correctly thrown.
If its behaviour varies based on the state of its own object, or some other object, preset the state and test the method has the correct Ithrough one of the three test methods above).
If youy let us know what the method does, I could be more specific.
Use Rhino Mocks to set what calls, actions and exceptions might be expected. Assuming you can mock or stub out parts of your method. Hard to know without knowing some specifics here about the method, or even context.
Depends on what it's doing. If it has parameters, pass in mocks that you could ask later on if they have been called with the right set of parameters.
What ever instance you are using to call the void method , You can just use ,Verfiy
For Example:
In My case its _Log is the instance and LogMessage is the method to be tested:
try
{
this._log.Verify(x => x.LogMessage(Logger.WillisLogLevel.Info, Logger.WillisLogger.Usage, "Created the Student with name as"), "Failure");
}
Catch
{
Assert.IsFalse(ex is Moq.MockException);
}
Is the Verify throws an exception due to failure of the method the test would Fail ?
Is it always necessary to create and pass in a stub into a method as a parameter, even if I can instantiate that object being passed in to the method without any problems.
ex. I want to test this method below and it takes in a TargetDataRanger object as a parameter. Should I a.) stub it out and pass it in b.) break the dependency and put it behind a interface then stub it and pass it in c.) instantiate it and pass it into the method as a concrete object.
In this case below I can get away with using the concrete object but is that wise and does it break some testing rules or something?
public virtual Dictionary<DateTime, DateTime> ResolveDates(ISeries comparisonSeries, TargetDateRanger sourceRanger)
{
Dictionary<DateTime, DateTime> dates = new Dictionary<DateTime, DateTime>();
foreach (DateTime keyDate in sourceRanger.ValidDates)
dates.Add(keyDate, this.ResolveDate(comparisonSeries, keyDate));
return dates;
}
I think the answer depends on what TargetDateRanger.ValidDates does. Assuming you can completely control what that property returns from your unit test, there's no reason to separately mock it out. If it hits the database, has some internal logic, depends on something like DateTime.Now, etc. then you'll need to mock it.
Basically, you want the "environment" of a unit test to be completely under your control so that you have predictable results and can quickly pinpoint the failing code. If ValidDates has a possibility of returning wrong results, then you'd want to unit test that separately and mock it in this case (so that "bad results" don't cause your ResolveDates method to fail, since the problem doesn't reside there).
You could use a default parameter.
void print(int a, string b = "default")
{
Console.WriteLine(a + b);
}
In unit testing, I test mine as stand alone. I break it out, have a driver set up that I can pump variables into (if it is meant to receive them) and a stub so I can view the expected results. I feel it's a better test philosophy for me, but I am relatively new to programming, so I find this way of testing me teaches me a lot at the same time.
Once that's done, I integrate it into the larger system, re-test it with a new driver and stub output, verify the entire flow works.
I can't say there is something inherently wrong using the concrete method, especially if it's a small piece of a small program... But, I like breaking things out.
If you are writing a Unit test for this method, I think better to isolate/fake out any external dependencies. The problem is that if you don't, for example if someone make a change to the ValidateDates method, then your test would fail for the wrong reason. On the other had you are also testing what is inside the ValidateDates method. This means you are probably tempting to test multiple things. Also this might prevent you giving good/specific name for the test.
Remember you can Unit test ValidateDates method separately/in isolation.
It is important that you want to break as much as dependencies as test small piece of logic/behavior in isoloation. This way you get real value of Unit Tests IMO.
I have some code as follows:
In the PaymentsController:
[HttpPost]
public void GeneratePaymentData(IList<int> paymentIds)
{
string paymentSummaryFileName;
var results = _paymentsPort.GetPaymentData(paymentIds, out paymentSummaryFileName);
_fileUtilities.SaveToFile(results, _appSettings.paymentFileSaveLocation, paymentSummaryFileName);
}
So what this does is goes off and gets some payment data and returns via the out parameter the name of the file to save to. It then saves the data to a file.
I was told by a colleague what I've done here is very bad. His reasoning is that my code creates the potential for the controller to give the wrong filename to the save method.
I disagree with this because I have unit tests that make sure the filename from the out parameter is the same as the one passed to SaveToFile.
He suggests I just do the save inside of GetPaymentData.
I disagree with this because I think it would be harder to unit test. Currently it is easy to test what's coming back from GetPaymentData is correct but if this method didn't return the data but just save it to a file this would be harder.
Who is right? Is this just a matter of different styles or is someone definitely in the wrong here?
You wrote your own unit tests, so you are biased to make the same false assumptions in your test and in your production code. Unit testing is not a holy grail, it is a means to an end.
One way to solve the discussion: ask your colleague to write a unit test that uses your method and fails. You will both learn from it.
I had visual studio create a test for each member in my class. Here's one example:
/// <summary>
///A test for CloseCurrentTextLogFile
///</summary>
[TestMethod()]
public void CloseCurrentTextLogFileTest()
{
Logger.CloseCurrentTextLogFile();
Assert.Inconclusive( "A method that does not return a value cannot be verified." );
}
Based on the assert string, I'm wondering how to test this... Any ideas?
Static state methods naturally make themselves fairly untestable, so my suggestion is based around refactoring your code away from static methods.
I would turn Logger into an instance class that takes an IO object in the constructor. That will allow you to stub the IO object and you can Assert that your IO object's Close method was called.
This is only if you want to make your code 100% testable. Otherwise, I would agree with Mo that if it is not testable, then do not write a forced test...those tend to be very brittle. In the end, you need to be pragmatic about your code. Often a logger is useful to keep static, however as I already mentioned, these tend to be very untestable....so just be pragmatic about your work and don't write tests in the mere effort to get 100% code coverage...that 100% will come with a price...
UPDATE
Here is why this is not truly testable from a dogmatic POV of unit testing. You are not testing a unit of work, but instead you are testing the Logger AND the Logger's dependencies (the IO object in this case). It also makes your tests slower and requiring environmental setup and state (you must have first opened an actual file to close it, right?). These are all bad for unit testing, but ok for integration testing...so it depends on what kind of tests you are writing, also.
I would posit that if it's truly not testable, then it doesn't actually do anything at all, and shouldn't exist ;)
Something along the lines of this might work...
Assert.IsNotNull( Logger.File );
Logger.CloseCurrentTextLogFile();
Assert.IsNull( Logger.File );
Or check the status of Logger.FileOpenStatus or check that Logger.OpenFile(fname) throws an exception before closing, but not after. There's got to be something in Logger whose behaviour depends on whatever action CloseCurrentTextLogFile() performs.
You can check the state of Logger or you could call some other method on logger that will not produce an error because you called this method, which should succeeded if you had not called the method.
Am not sure either, but you could try the following:
A function is supposed to do something (write a file, set some variables, etc)
Maybe you can check if the variables have been writen, or file has been created.
You could mock up the Logger class and assert that the CloseCurrentTextLogFile is being called. Some might argue that you need to check that any open log files are closed, I personally do not agree with that as that would test the Logger itself not your method.
This is the kind of questions developers should ask themselves when they start designing their systems, how can I test my application.
I just started using mock objects (using Java's mockito) in my tests recently. Needless to say, they simplified the set-up part of the tests, and along with Dependency Injection, I would argue it made the code even more robust.
However, I have found myself tripping in testing against implementation rather than specification. I ended up setting up expectations that I would argue that it's not part of the tests. In more technical terms, I will be testing the interaction between SUT (the class under test) and its collaborators, and such dependency isn't part of contract or the interface of the class!
Consider that you have the following:
When dealing with XML node, suppose that you have a method, attributeWithDefault() that returns the attribute value of the node if it's available, otherwise it would return a default value!
I would setup the test like the following:
Element e = mock(Element.class);
when(e.getAttribute("attribute")).thenReturn("what");
when(e.getAttribute("other")).thenReturn(null);
assertEquals(attributeWithDefault(e, "attribute", "default"), "what");
assertEquals(attributeWithDefault(e, "other", "default"), "default");
Well, here not only did I test that attributeWithDefault() adheres to the specification, but I also tested the implementation, as I required it to use Element.getAttribute(), instead of Element.getAttributeNode().getValue() or Element.getAttributes().getNamedItem().getNodeValue(), etc.
I assume that I am going about it in the wrong way, so any tips on how I can improve my usage of mocks and best practices will be appreciated.
EDIT:
What's wrong with the test
I made the assumption above that the test is a bad style, here is my rationale.
The specification doesn't specify which method gets called. A client of the library shouldn't care of how attribute is retrieved for example, as long as it is done rightly. The implementor should have free reign to access any of the alternative approaches, in any way he sees fit (with respect to performance, consistency, etc). It's the specification of Element that ensures that all these approaches return identical values.
It doesn't make sense to re-factor Element into a single method interface with getElement() (Go is quite nice about this actually). For ease of use, a client of the method should be able to just to use the standard Element in the standard library. Having interfaces and new classes is just plain silly, IMHO, as it makes the client code ugly, and it's not worth it.
Assuming the spec stays as is and the test stays as is, a new developer may decide to refactor the code to use a different approach of using the state, and cause the test to fail! Well, a test failing when the actual implementation adheres to the specification is valid.
Having a collaborator expose state in multiple format is quite common. A specification and the test shouldn't depend on which particular approach is taken; only the implementation should!
This is a common issue in mock testing, and the general mantra to get away from this is:
Only mock types you own.
Here if you want to mock collaboration with an XML parser (not necessarily needed, honestly, as a small test XML should work just fine in a unit context) then that XML parser should be behind an interface or class that you own that will deal with the messy details of which method on the third party API you need to call. The main point is that it has a method that gets an attribute from an element. Mock that method. This separates implementation from design. The real implementation would have a real unit test that actually tests you get a successful element from a real object.
Mocks can be a nice way of saving boilerplate setup code (acting essentially as Stubs), but that isn't their core purpose in terms of driving design. Mocks are testing behavior (as opposed to state) and are not Stubs.
I should add that when you use Mocks as stubs, they look like your code. Any stub has to make assumptions about how you are going to call it that are tied to your implementation. That is normal. Where it is a problem is if that is driving your design in bad ways.
When designing unit tests you will always effectively test your implementation, and not some abstract specification. Or one can argue that you will test the "technical specification", which is the business specification extended with technical details. There is nothing wrong with this. Instead of testing that:
My method will return a value if defined or a default.
you are testing:
My method will return a value if defined or a default provided that the xml Element supplied will return this attribute when I call getAttribute(name).
The only solution I can see for you here (and I have to admit I'm not familiar with the library you're using) is to create a mock element that has all of the functionality included, that is, also have the ability to set the value of getAttributeNote().getValue() and getAttributes().getNamedItem().getNodeValue().
But, assuming they're all equivalent, it's fine to just test one. It's when it varies that you need to test all cases.
I don't find anything wrong with your use of the mocks. What you are testing is the attributeWithDefault() method and it's implementation, not whether Element is correct or not. So you mocked Element in order to reduce the amount of setup required. The test ensures that the implementation of attributeWithDefault() fits the specification, naturally there needs to be some specific implementation that can be run for the test.
You're effectively testing your mock object here.
If you want to test the attributeWithDefault() method, you must assert that e.getAttribute() gets called with the expected argument and forget about the return value. This return value only verifies the setup of your mock object.
(I don't know how this is exactly done with Java's mockito, I'm a pure C# guy...)
It depends on whether getting the attribute via calling getAttribute() is part of the specification, or if it is an implementation detail that might change.
If Element is an interface, than stating that you should use 'getAttribute' to get the attribute is probably part of the interface. So your test is fine.
If Element is a concrete class, but attributeWithDefault should not be aware of how you can get the attribute, than maybe there is a interface waiting to appear here.
public interface AttributeProvider {
// Might return null
public String getAttribute(String name);
}
public class Element implements AttributeProvider {
public String getAttribute(String name) {
return getAttributeHolder().doSomethingReallyTricky().toString();
}
}
public class Whatever {
public String attributeWithDefault(AttributeProvider p, String name, String default) {
String res = p.getAtribute(name);
if (res == null) {
return default;
}
}
}
You would then test attributeWithDefault against a Mock AttributeProvider instead of an Element.
Of course in this situation it would probably be an overkill, and your test is probably just fine even with an implementation (You will have to test it somewhere anyway ;) ). However this kind of decoupling might be usefull if the logic ever goes any more complicated, either in getAttribute or in attributeWithDefualt.
Hoping this helps.
It seems to me that there are 3 things you want to verify with this method:
It gets the attribute from the right place (Element.getAttribute())
If the attribute is not null, it is returned
If the attribute is null, the string "default" is returned
You're currently verifying #2 and #3, but not #1. With mockito, you could verify #1 by adding
verify(e.getAttribute("attribute"));
verify(e.getAttribute("other"));
Which ensures that the methods are actually getting called on your mock. Admittedly this is a little clunky in mockito. In easymock, you'd do something like:
expect(e.getAttribute("attribute")).andReturn("what");
expect(e.getAttribute("default")).andReturn(null);
It has the same effect, but I think makes your test a bit easier to read.
If you are using dependency injection then the collaborators should be part of the contract. You need to be able to inject all collaborators in through the constructor or a public property.
Bottom line: if you have a collaborator that you newing up instead of injecting then you probably need to refactor the code. This is a change of mindset necessary for testing/mocking/injecting.
This is a late answer, but it takes a different viewpoint from the other ones.
Basically, the OP is right in thinking the test with mocking is bad, for the reasons he stated in the question. Those saying that mocks are ok have not provided good reasons for it, IMO.
Here is a complete version of the test, in two versions: one with mocking (the BAD one) and another without (the GOOD one). (I took the liberty of using a different mocking library, but that doesn't change the point.)
import javax.xml.parsers.*;
import org.w3c.dom.*;
import org.junit.*;
import static org.junit.Assert.*;
import mockit.*;
public final class XmlTest
{
// The code under test, embedded here for convenience.
public static final class XmlReader
{
public String attributeWithDefault(
Element xmlElement, String attributeName, String defaultValue
) {
String attributeValue = xmlElement.getAttribute(attributeName);
return attributeValue == null || attributeValue.isEmpty() ?
defaultValue : attributeValue;
}
}
#Tested XmlReader xmlReader;
// This test is bad because:
// 1) it depends on HOW the method under test is implemented
// (specifically, that it calls Element#getAttribute and not some other method
// such as Element#getAttributeNode) - it's therefore refactoring-UNSAFE;
// 2) it depends on the use of a mocking API, always a complex beast which takes
// time to master;
// 3) use of mocking can easily end up in mock behavior that is not real, as
// actually occurred here (specifically, the test records Element#getAttribute
// as returning null, which it would never return according to its API
// documentation - instead, an empty string would be returned).
#Test
public void readAttributeWithDefault_BAD_version(#Mocked final Element e) {
new Expectations() {{
e.getAttribute("attribute"); result = "what";
// This is a bug in the test (and in the CUT), since Element#getAttribute
// never returns null for real.
e.getAttribute("other"); result = null;
}};
String actualValue = xmlReader.attributeWithDefault(e, "attribute", "default");
String defaultValue = xmlReader.attributeWithDefault(e, "other", "default");
assertEquals(actualValue, "what");
assertEquals(defaultValue, "default");
}
// This test is better because:
// 1) it does not depend on how the method under test is implemented, being
// refactoring-SAFE;
// 2) it does not require mastery of a mocking API and its inevitable intricacies;
// 3) it depends only on reusable test code which is fully under the control of the
// developer(s).
#Test
public void readAttributeWithDefault_GOOD_version() {
Element e = getXmlElementWithAttribute("what");
String actualValue = xmlReader.attributeWithDefault(e, "attribute", "default");
String defaultValue = xmlReader.attributeWithDefault(e, "other", "default");
assertEquals(actualValue, "what");
assertEquals(defaultValue, "default");
}
// Creates a suitable XML document, or reads one from an XML file/string;
// either way, in practice this code would be reused in several tests.
Element getXmlElementWithAttribute(String attributeValue) {
DocumentBuilder dom;
try { dom = DocumentBuilderFactory.newInstance().newDocumentBuilder(); }
catch (ParserConfigurationException e) { throw new RuntimeException(e); }
Element e = dom.newDocument().createElement("tag");
e.setAttribute("attribute", attributeValue);
return e;
}
}