Develop Reference

Testing methods with overloading using shims and stubs in VS 2013 c# Code [duplicate]

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 ?

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.

What to test/mock?

Given the following simple service class, in the GetCategories() method, should you test the fact that the categoryRepository.Query() method was called, or should you be setting up a test that keeps a list of categories and returns those?
I guess what I am saying is would mocking the categoryRepository and verifying that it's Query method was called once cover this test case?
public class CategoryService : ValidatingServiceBase, ICategoryService
{
private readonly IRepository<Category> categoryRepository;
private readonly IRepository<SubCategory> subCategoryRepository;
private readonly IValidationService validationService;
public CategoryService(
IRepository<Category> categoryRepository,
IRepository<SubCategory> subCategoryRepository,
IValidationService validationService)
: base(validationService)
{
this.categoryRepository = categoryRepository;
this.subCategoryRepository = subCategoryRepository;
this.validationService = validationService;
}
public IEnumerable<Category> GetCategories()
{
return categoryRepository.Query().ToList();
}
}
Sample Test
[Fact]
public void GetCategories_Should_CallRepositoryQuery()
{
var categoryRepo = new Mock<IRepository<Category>>();
var service = new CategoryService(categoryRepo.Object, null, null);
service.GetCategories();
categoryRepo.Verify(x => x.Query(), Times.Once());
}

It doesn't matter. In both cases (mock + behavior verification vs stub + assertion) you achieve exactly the same result and require exactly the same level of details about inner workings of class. Stick to whichever one you think is more suited in given scenario.
Unit test you posted is an example of behavior verification. You don't assert any values but instead check whether some method was called. This is especially useful when method call has no visible results (think about logging) or doesn't return any value (obviously). It of course has drawbacks, especially when you do such verification for methods that do return value, and don't check it (as is your case - we'll get to it).
The stubbing and asserting approach uses the collaborators to generate value. It doesn't check whether methods were called (at least not directly, yet such test is performed when you setup stub and that setup works), but instead relies on correct flow of stubbed value.
Let's go with simple example. Say you test a method of your class, PizzaFactory.GetPizza which looks like this:
public Pizza GetPizza()
{
var dough = doughFactory.GetDough();
var cheese = ingredientsFactory.GetCheese();
var pizza = oven.Bake(dough, cheese);
return pizza;
}
With behavior verification you'd check whether doughFactory.GetDough was called, then ingredientsFactory.GetCheese and finally oven.Bake. Had such calls indeed been made, you'd assume pizza was created. You don't check that your factory returns pizza, but assume it happens if all process' steps were completed. You can already see that drawback I mentioned earlier - I can call all the correct methods but return something else, say:
var dough = doughFactory.GetDough();
var cheese = ingredientsFactory.GetCheese();
var pizza = oven.Bake(dough, cheese);
return garbageBin.FindPizza();
Not the pizza you ordered? Notice that all the correct calls to collaborators happened just as we assumed they would.
With stub + assert approach it all looks similar except instead of verification you have stubbing. You use values generated by earlier collaborators to stub later collaborators (if somehow you get wrong dough or cheese, oven will not return pizza we wanted). The final value is what your method returns and this is what we assert:
doughFactoryStub.Setup(df => dg.GetDough).Return("thick");
ingredientsFactoryStub.Setup(if => if.GetCheese()).Return("double");
var expectedPizza = new Pizza { Name = "Margherita" };
ovenStub.Setup(o => o.Bake("thick", "double")).Return(expectedPizza);
var actualPizza = pizzaFactory.GetPizza();
Assert.That(actualPizza, Is.EqualTo(expectedPizza));
If any part of the process fails (say doughFactory returns normal dough) then the final value will be different and test will fail.
And once again, in my opinion in your example it doesn't matter which approach you use. In any normal environment both methods will verify the same thing and require same level of knowledge about your implementation. To be extra safe you might want to prefer to use the stub + assert approach in case somebody plants you a garbage bin1. But if such thing happens, unit tests are your last problem.
1 Note however that it might not be intentional (especially when complex methods are considered).

Yes, that would be the way.
mockCategoryRepository.Setup(r => r.Query()).Returns(categories)
var actualCategories = new CategoryService(mockCategoryRepository, mock..).GetCategories();
CollectionAssert.AreEquivalent(categories, actualCategories.ToList());
It would look something similar with Moq and NUnit.

What you've presented is a white-box test - an approach also possible in unit testing, but recommended only for simple methods.
In the answer presented by Sruti the service is tested in a black-box sense. The knowledge about the inner method is used only to prepare the test, but you don't verify if the method was called one time, 10 times, or wasn't called at all. Personally, I verify method calls only to verify that some external API that must be stubbed is used correctly (example: sending e-mails). Usually it is sufficient not to care about how a method works, as long as it's producing correct results.
With black-box tests the code and the tests are easier to maintain. With white-box tests, most changes of some internal structure during refactoring of a class usually must be followed by changing test code. In black-box approach you have more freedom to rearrange everything, and still be sure that interface's external behaviour hasn't changed.

Is there a way to protect Unit test names that follows MethodName_Condition_ExpectedBehaviour pattern against refactoring?

I follow the naming convention of
MethodName_Condition_ExpectedBehaviour
when it comes to naming my unit-tests that test specific methods.
for example:
[TestMethod]
public void GetCity_TakesParidId_ReturnsParis(){...}
But when I need to rename the method under test, tools like ReSharper does not offer me to rename those tests.
Is there a way to prevent such cases to appear after renaming? Like changing ReSharper settings or following a better unit-test naming convention etc. ?

A recent pattern is to groups tests into inner classes by the method they test.
For example (omitting test attributes):
public CityGetterTests
{
public class GetCity
{
public void TakesParidId_ReturnsParis()
{
//...
}
// More GetCity tests
}
}
See Structuring Unit Tests from Phil Haack's blog for details.
The neat thing about this layout is that, when the method name changes,
you'll only have to change the name of the inner class instead of all
the individual tests.

I also started with this convertion, however ended up with feeling that is not very good. Now I use BDD styled names like should_return_Paris_for_ParisID.
That makes my tests more readable and alsow allows me to refactor method names without worrying about my tests :)

I think the key here is what you should be testing.
You've mentioned TDD in the tags, so I hope that we're trying to adhere to that here. By that paradigm, the tests you're writing have two purposes:
To support your code once it is written, so you can refactor without fearing that you've broken something
To guide us to a better way of designing components - writing the test first really forces you to think about what is necessary for solving the problem at hand.
I know at first it looks like this question is about the first point, but really I think it's about the second. The problem you're having is that you've got concrete components you're testing instead of a contract.
In code terms, that means that I think we should be testing interfaces instead of class methods, because otherwise we expose our test to a variety of problems associated with testing components instead of contracts - inheritance strategies, object construction, and here, renaming.
It's true that interfaces names will change as well, but they'll be a lot more rigid than method names. What TDD gives us here isn't just a way to support change through a test harness - it provides the insight to realise we might be going about it the wrong way!
Take for example the code block you gave:
[TestMethod]
public void GetCity_TakesParidId_ReturnsParis(){...}
{
// some test logic here
}
And let's say we're testing the method GetCity() on our object, CityObtainer - when did I set this object up? Why have I done so? If I realise GetMatchingCity() is a better name, then you have the problem outlined above!
The solution I'm proposing is that we think about what this method really means earlier in the process, by use of interfaces:
public interface ICityObtainer
{
public City GetMatchingCity();
}
By writing in this "outside-in" style way, we're forced to think about what we want from the object a lot earlier in the process, and it becoming the focus should reduce its volatility. This doesn't eliminate your problem, but it may mitigate it somewhat (and, I think, it's a better approach anyway).
Ideally, we go a step further, and we don't even write any code before starting the test:
[TestMethod]
public void GetCity_TakesParId_ReturnsParis
{
ICityObtainer cityObtainer = new CityObtainer();
var result = cityObtainer.GetCity("paris");
Assert.That(result.Name, Is.EqualTo("paris");
}
This way, I can see what I really want from the component before I even start writing it - if GetCity() isn't really what I want, but rather GetCityByID(), it would become apparent a lot earlier in the process. As I said above, it isn't foolproof, but it might reduce the pain for this particular case a bit.
Once you've gone through that, I feel that if you're changing the name of the method, it's because you're changing the terms of the contract, and that means you should have to go back and reconsider the test (since it's possible you didn't want to change it).
(As a quick addendum, if we're writing a test with TDD in mind, then something is happening inside GetCity() that has a significant amount of logic going on. Thinking about the test as being to a contract helps us to separate the intention from the implementation - the test will stay valid no matter what we change behind the interface!)

I'm late, but maybe that Can be still useful. That's my solution (Assuming you are using XUnit at least).
First create an attribute FactFor that extends the XUnit Fact.
public class FactForAttribute : FactAttribute
{
public FactForAttribute(string methodName = "Constructor", [CallerMemberName] string testMethodName = "")
=> DisplayName = $"{methodName}_{testMethodName}";
}
The trick now is to use the nameof operator to make refactoring possible. For example:
public class A
{
public int Just2() => 2;
}
public class ATests
{
[FactFor(nameof(A.Just2))]
public void Should_Return2()
{
var a = new A();
a.Just2().Should().Be(2);
}
}
That's the result:

How do I unit test an implementation detail like caching

So I have a class with a method as follows:
public class SomeClass
{
...
private SomeDependency m_dependency;
public int DoStuff()
{
int result = 0;
...
int someValue = m_dependency.GrabValue();
...
return result;
}
}
And I've decided that rather than to call m_dependency.GrabValue() each time, I really want to cache the value in memory (i.e. in this class) since we're going to get the same value each time anyway (the dependency goes off and grabs some data from a table that hardly ever changes).
I've run into problems however trying to describe this new behaviour in a unit test. I've tried the following (I'm using NUnit with RhinoMocks):
[Test]
public void CacheThatValue()
{
var depend = MockRepository.GeneraMock<SomeDependency>();
depend.Expect(d => d.GrabValue()).Repeat.Once().Return(1);
var sut = new SomeCLass(depend);
int result = sut.DoStuff();
result = sut.DoStuff();
depend.VerifyAllExpectations();
}
This however doesn't work; this test passes even without introducing any changes to the functionality. What am I doing wrong?

I see caching as orthogonal to Do(ing)Stuff. I would find a way to pull the caching logic outside of the method, either by changing SomeDependency or wrapping it somehow (I now have a cool idea for a caching class based around lambda expressions -- yum).
That way your tests for DoStuff don't need to change, you only need to make sure they work with the new wrapper. Then you can test the caching functionality of SomeDependency, or its wrapper, independently. With well-architected code putting a caching layer in place should be rather easy and neither your dependency nor your implementation should know the difference.
Unit tests shouldn't be testing implementation, they should test behavior. At the same time, the subject under test should have a narrowly-defined set of behavior.
To answer your question, you are using a Dynamic Mock and the default behavior is to allow any call that isn't configured. The additional calls are just returning "0". You need to set up an expectation that no more calls are made on the dependency:
depend.Expect(d => d.GrabValue()).Repeat.Once().Return(1);
depend.Expect(d => d.GrabValue()).Repeat.Never();
You may need to enter record/replay mode to get it to work properly.

This seems like a case for "tests drive the design". If caching is an implementation detail of SubDependency - and therefore can't be directly tested - then probably some of its functionality (specifically, its caching behavior) needs to be exposed - and since it's not natural to expose it within SubDependency, needs to be exposed in another class (let's call it "Cache"). In Cache, of course, the behavior is contractual - public, and thereby testable.
So the tests - and the smells - are telling us we need a new class. Test-Driven Design. Ain't it great?