In aspnet boilerplate, a LocalIocManager property was available for unit tests to allow to replace a service and then get the instance we wanted to test with only the dependencies required by the test mocked up by NSubstitute.
In abp.io, I cant find this attribute anymore or a replacement procedure. How can I replace it?
In https://docs.abp.io/en/abp/latest/Testing#example-testing-a-domain-service-1, we can see an example with a fakeRepo, but it is injected "by hand". Doing so can be done when there are few dependencies, but become problematic when there are more.
Found a solution:
I need to override AfterAddApplication so I have access to IServiceCollection.
protected override void AfterAddApplication(IServiceCollection services)
{
base.AfterAddApplication(services);
var fakeRepo = Substitute.For<IMyRepository>();
fakeRepo.GetList().Returns(Task.FromResult(new List<Guid>()));
services.Replace(ServiceDescriptor.Transient(typeof(IMyRepository), _ => fakeRepo));
}
However, this will force me to use the same substitute for all my tests. I can't have different instances for each tests.
Related
I am creating another test module for an application service which is using different DbContext.
Is there any way to bypass permission checking for the application service in Unit Test?
I've tried
Configuration.ReplaceService<IPermissionChecker, NullPermissionChecker>(DependencyLifeStyle.Transient);
in Test Module PreInitialize() but it is still checking the permissions.
Please help! Thank you!
services.AddAbpIdentity replaces IPermissionChecker again. You can use AddPermissionChecker<NullPermissionChecker> extension method after services.AddAbpIdentity.
For AspNet Zero, it's inside IdentityRegistrar class. Example (add the last line):
services.AddAbpIdentity<Tenant, User, Role>(options =>
{
...
})
...
.AddPermissionChecker<NullPermissionChecker>();
Notice that: You probably want to make this conditional and apply only for unit tests.
I am in the process of writing unit tests for a service class. This service class calls MyDomain.findAllByIdNotInList. The issue I am facing is that grails does not recognize NotInList as a dynamic finder for a mocked domain. I tried Metaclass-ing this functionality out, but was having issues with it.
Any creative ways for bypassing this short of turning the Unit Test into an Integration test? I would like to avoid this for multiple reasons (time to run, Only our Unit tests run at build time, etc)
Also, it is possible my metaclassing is written poorly:
MyDomain.metaClass.findAllByIdNotInList = {ArrayList list ->
return []
}
Edit: Using grails 1.3.7.
also tried
MyDomain.metaClass.findAllByIdNotInList = {deflist ->
return []
}
Bug report here:
http://jira.grails.org/browse/GRAILS-8593
#Sagar V's comment is correct you should be able to utilize all dynamic finders when a Domain is properly mocked. If you're using a version of Grails before 2.0 you'd have to extend GrailsUnitTestCase and call MockDomain(MyDomain) before attempting to invoke the dynamic finders. As an FYI your metaClassing is not written properly (in my opinion you should use the mocking framework to get your test working I'm providing the correct syntax so you can use it properly in the future).
MyDomain.metaClass.'static'.findAllByIdNotInList = {defList ->
[]
}
When the method that you're overriding is static you need to add the .'static'. inbetween the metaClass and the method name.
I'm in the process of learning Node.js and am wondering about how people mock dependencies in their modules when unit testing.
For example:
I have a module that abstracts my MongoDB calls. A module that uses this module may start out something like this.
var myMongo = require("MyMongoModule");
// insert rest of the module here.
I want to ensure I test such a module in isolation while also ensuring that my tests don't insert records/documents into Mongo.
Is there a module/package that I can use that proxies require() so I can inject in my own mocks? How do other's typically address this issue?
You can use a dependency injection library like nCore
To be honest, the hard part of this is actually mocking out the mongoDB API, which is complex and non trivial. I estimate it would take about a week to mock out most of the mongo API I use so I just test againts the a local mongodb database on my machine (which is always in a weird state)
Then with nCore specific syntax
// myModule.js
module.exports = {
myMethod: function () {
this.mongo.doStuff(...)
},
expose: ["myMethod"]
};
// test-myModule.js
var module = require("myModule")
module.mongo = mongoMock
assert(module.myMethod() === ...)
After reviewing Ryanos's suggestion as well as the Horaa package on npm, I discovered this thread on the Google Group that pointed me towards Sandboxed-Module.
Sandboxed-Module allows me to inject/override require() without me having to expose such dependencies for my unit tests.
I'm still up for other suggestions; however, Sandboxed-Module appears to fit my needs at the moment.
You easily mock require by using "a": https://npmjs.org/package/a
e.g. need to mock require('./foo') in unit test:
var fakeFoo = {};
var expectRequire = require('a').expectRequire;
expectRequire('./foo).return(fakeFoo);
//in sut:
var foo = require('./foo); //returns fakeFoo
Overwriting require to inject your mocks is a possible solution. However, I concur in Raynos' opinion:
I personally find the methodology of overwriting require on a file by file basis an "ugly hack" and prefer to go for proper DI. It is however optimum for mocking one or two modules on an existing code base without rewriting code for DI support.
To use proper dependency injection not only saves you an "ugly hack" but also allows you to apply additional use cases apart from injecting mocks. In production you may e.g. usually instantiate connections over http and in certain circumstances inject a different implementation to establish a connection over VPN.
If you want to look for a dependency injection container read this excellent article and check out Fire Up! which I implemented.
This is a tough one because not too many people use Pex & Moles or so I think (even though Pex is a really great product - much better than any other unit testing tool)
I have a Data project that has a very simple model with just one entity (DBItem). I've also written a DBRepository within this project, that manipulates this EF model. Repository has a method called GetItems() that returns a list of business layer items (BLItem) and looks similar to this (simplified example):
public IList<BLItem> GetItems()
{
using (var ctx = new EFContext("name=MyWebConfigConnectionName"))
{
DateTime limit = DateTime.Today.AddDays(-10);
IList<DBItem> result = ctx.Items.Where(i => i.Changed > limit).ToList();
return result.ConvertAll(i => i.ToBusinessObject());
}
}
So now I'd like to create some unit tests for this particular method. I'm using Pex & Moles. I created my moles and stubs for my EF object context.
I would like to write parametrised unit test (I know I've first written my production code, but I had to, since I'm testing Pex & Moles) that tests that this method returns valid list of items.
This is my test class:
[PexClass]
public class RepoTest
{
[PexMethod]
public void GetItemsTest(ObjectSet<DBItem> items)
{
MEFContext.ConstructorString = (#this, name) => {
var mole = new SEFContext();
};
DBRepository repo = new DBRepository();
IList<BLItem> result = repo.GetItems();
IList<DBItem> manual = items.Where(i => i.Changed > DateTime.Today.AddDays(-10));
if (result.Count != manual.Count)
{
throw new Exception();
}
}
}
Then I run Pex Explorations for this particular parametrised unit test, but I get an error path bounds exceeded. Pex starts this test by providing null to this test method (so items = null). This is the code, that Pex is running:
[Test]
[PexGeneratedBy(typeof(RepoTest))]
[Ignore("the test state was: path bounds exceeded")]
public void DBRepository_GetTasks22301()
{
this.GetItemsTest((ObjectSet<DBItem>)null);
}
This was additional comment provided by Pex:
The test case ran too long for these inputs, and Pex stopped the analysis. Please notice: The method Oblivious.Data.Test.Repositories.TaskRepositoryTest.b__0 was called 50 times; please check that the code is not stuck in an infinite loop or recursion. Otherwise, click on 'Set MaxStack=200', and run Pex again.
Update attribute [PexMethod(MaxStack = 200)]
Question
Am I doing this the correct way or not? Should I use EFContext stub instead? Do I have to add additional attributes to test method so Moles host will be running (I'm not sure it does now). I'm running just Pex & Moles. No VS test or nUnit or anything else.
I guess I should probably set some limit to Pex how many items should it provide for this particular test method.
Moles is not designed to test the parts of your application that have external dependencies (e.g. file access, network access, database access, etc). Instead, Moles allows you to mock these parts of your app so that way you can do true unit testing on the parts that don't have external dependencies.
So I think you should just mock your EF objects and queries, e.g., by creating in-memory lists and having query methods return fake data from those lists based on whatever criteria is relevant.
I am just getting to grips with pex also ... my issues surrounded me wanting to use it with moq ;)
anyway ...
I have some methods similar to your that have the same problem. When i increased the max they went away. Presumably pex was satisfied that it had sufficiently explored the branches. I have methods where i have had to increase the timeout on the code contract validation also.
One thing that you should probably be doign though is passing in all the dependant objects as parameters ... ie dont instantiate the repo in the method but pass it in.
A general problem you have is that you are instantiating big objects in your method. I do the same in my DAL classes, but then i am not tryign to unit test them in isolation. I build up datasets and use this to test my data access code against.
I use pex on my business logic and objects.
If i were to try and test my DAL code id have to use IOC to pass the datacontext into the methods - which would then make testing possible as you can mock the data context.
You should use Entity Framework Repository Pattern: http://www.codeproject.com/KB/database/ImplRepositoryPatternEF.aspx
A few weeks ago I jumped on the MEF (ComponentModel) bandwagon, and am now using it for a lot of my plugins and also shared libraries. Overall, it's been great aside from the frequent mistakes on my part, which result in frustrating debugging sessions.
Anyhow, my app has been running great, but my MEF-related code changes have caused my automated builds to fail. Most of my unit tests were failing simply because the modules I was testing were dependent upon other modules that needed to be loaded by MEF. I worked around these situations by bypassing MEF and directly instantiating those objects.
In other words, via MEF I would have something like
[Import]
public ICandyInterface ci { get; set; }
and
[Export(typeof(ICandyInterface))]
public class MyCandy : ICandyInterface
{
[ImportingConstructor]
public MyCandy( [Import("name_param")] string name) {}
...
}
But in my unit tests, I would just use
CandyInterface MyCandy = new CandyInterface( "Godiva");
In addition, the CandyInterface requires a connection to a database, which I have worked around by just adding a test database to my unit test folder, and I have NUnit use that for all of the tests.
Ok, so here are my questions regarding this situation:
Is this a Bad Way to do things?
Would you recommend composing parts in [SetUp]
I haven't yet learned how to use mocks in unit testing -- is this a good example of a case where I might want to mock the underlying database connection (somehow) to just return dummy data and not really require a database?
If you've encountered something like this before, can you offer your experience and the way you solved your problem? (or should this go into the community wiki?)
It sounds like you are on the right track. A unit test should test a unit, and that's what you do when you directly create instances. If you let MEF compose instances for you, they would tend towards integration tests. Not that there's anything wrong with integration tests, but unit tests tend to be more maintainable because you test each unit in isolation.
You don't need a container to wire up instances in unit tests.
I generally recommend against composing Fixtures in SetUp, as it leads to the General Fixture anti-pattern.
It is best practice to replace dependencies with Test Doubles. Dynamic mocks is one of the more versatile ways of doing this, so definitely something you should learn.
I agree that creating the DOCs manually is much better than using MEF composition container to satisfy imports, but regarding the note 'compositing fixtures in setup leads to the general fixture anti pattern' - I want to mention that that's not always the case.
If you’re using the static container and satisfy imports via CompositionInitializer.SatisfyImports you will have to face the general fixture anti pattern as CompositionInitializer.Initialize cannot be called more than once. However, you can always create CompositionContainer, add catalogs, and call SatisyImportOnce on the container itself. In that case you can use a new CompositionContainer in every test and get away with facing the shared/general fixture anti pattern
I blogged on how to do unit tests (not nunit but works just the same) with MEF.
The trick was to use a MockExportProvider and i created a test base for all my tests to inherit from.
This is my main AutoWire function that works for integration and unit tests:
protected void AutoWire(MockExportProvider mocksProvider, params Assembly[] assemblies){
CompositionContainer container = null;
var assCatalogs = new List<AssemblyCatalog>();
foreach(var a in assemblies)
{
assCatalogs.Add(new AssemblyCatalog(a));
}
if (mocksProvider != null)
{
var providers = new List<ExportProvider>();
providers.Add(mocksProvider); //need to use the mocks provider before the assembly ones
foreach (var ac in assCatalogs)
{
var assemblyProvider = new CatalogExportProvider(ac);
providers.Add(assemblyProvider);
}
container = new CompositionContainer(providers.ToArray());
foreach (var p in providers) //must set the source provider for CatalogExportProvider back to the container (kinda stupid but apparently no way around this)
{
if (p is CatalogExportProvider)
{
((CatalogExportProvider)p).SourceProvider = container;
}
}
}
else
{
container = new CompositionContainer(new AggregateCatalog(assCatalogs));
}
container.ComposeParts(this);
}
More info on my post: https://yoavniran.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/unit-testing-wcf-and-mef/