In .NET Core 2.0 I have a fairly simple MassTransit routing slip that contains 2 activities. This is built and executed in a consumer and it all ties back to an automatonymous state machine. It all works great albeit with a few final clean tweaks needed.
However, I can't quite figure out the best way to write unit tests for my consumer as it builds a routing slip. I have the following code in my consumer:
public async Task Consumer(ConsumerContext<ProcessRequest> context)
{
var builder = new RoutingSlipBuilder(NewId.NextGuid());
SetupRoutingSlipActivities(builder, context);
var routingSlip = builder.Build();
await context.Execute(routingSlip).ConfigureAwait(false);
}
I created the SetupRoutingSlipActivities method as I thought it would help me write tests to make sure the right activities were being added and it simply looks like:
public void SetupRoutingSlipActivities(RoutingSlipBuilder builder, ConsumeContext<IProcessCreateLinkRequest> context)
{
builder.AddActivity(
nameof(ActivityOne),
new Uri("execute_activity_one_example_address"),
new ActivityOneArguments(
context.Message.Id,
context.Message.Name)
);
builder.AddActivity(
nameof(ActivityTwo),
new Uri("execute_activity_two_example_address"),
new ActivityTwoArguments(
context.Message.AnotherId,
context.Message.FileName)
);
}
I tried to just write tests for the SetupRoutingSlipActivities by using a Moq mock builder and a MassTransit InMemoryTestHarness but I found that the AddActivity method is not virtual so I can't verify it as such:
aRoutingSlipBuilder.Verify(x => x.AddActivity(
nameof(ActivityOne),
new Uri("execute_activity_one_example_address"),
It.Is<ActivityOne>(y => y.Id == 1 && y.Name == "A test name")));
Please ignore some of the weird data in the code examples as I just put up a simplified version.
Does anyone have any recommendations on how to do this? I also wanted to test to make sure the RoutingSlipBuilder was created but as that instance is created in the Consume method I wasn't sure how to do it! I've searched a lot online and through the MassTransit repo but nothing stood out.
Look at how the Courier tests are written, there are a number of test fixtures available to test routing slip activities. While they aren't well documented, the unit tests are a working testament to how the testing is used.
https://github.com/MassTransit/MassTransit/blob/develop/src/MassTransit.Tests/Courier/TwoActivityEvent_Specs.cs
Related
So let me start by saying I've seen all the threads over the wars between creating a wrapper vs mocking the HttpMethodRequest. In the past, I've done the wrapper method with great success, but I thought I'd go down the path of Mocking the HttpMessageRequest.
For starters here is an example of the debate: Mocking HttpClient in unit tests. I want to add that's not what this is about.
What I've found is that I have tests upon tests that inject an HttpClient. I've been doing a lot of serverless aws lambdas, and the basic flow is like so:
//some pseudo code
public class Functions
{
public Functions(HttpClient client)
{
_httpClient = client;
}
public async Task<APIGatewayResponse> GetData(ApiGatewayRequest request, ILambdaContext context)
{
var result = await _client.Get("http://example.com");
return new APIGatewayResponse
{
StatusCode = result.StatusCode,
Body = await result.Content.ReadStringAsAsync()
};
}
}
...
[Fact]
public void ShouldDoCall()
{
var requestUri = new Uri("http://example.com");
var mockResponse = new HttpResponseMessage(HttpStatusCode.OK) { Content = new StringContent(expectedResponse) };
var mockHandler = new Mock<HttpClientHandler>();
mockHandler
.Protected()
.Setup<Task<HttpResponseMessage>>(
"SendAsync",
It.IsAny<HttpRequestMessage>(),
It.IsAny<CancellationToken>())
.ReturnsAsync(mockResponse);
var f = new Functions(new HttpClient(handler.Object);
var result = f.GetData().Result;
handlerMock.Protected().Verify(
"SendAsync",
Times.Exactly(1), // we expected a single external request
ItExpr.Is<HttpRequestMessage>(req =>
req.Method == HttpMethod.Get &&
req.RequestUri == expectedUri // to this uri
),
ItExpr.IsAny<CancellationToken>()
);
Assert.Equal(200, result.StatusCode);
}
So here's where I have the problem!
When all my tests run in NCrunch they pass, and pass fast!
When I run them all manually with Resharper 2018, they fail.
Equally, when they get run within the CI/CD platform, which is a docker container with the net core 2.1 SDK on a Linux distro, they too fail.
These tests should not be run in parallel (read the tests default this way). I have about 30 tests around these methods combined, and each one randomly fails on the moq verify portion. Sometimes they pass, sometimes they fail. If I break down the tests per test class and on run the groups that way, instead of all in one, then these will all pass in chunks. I'll also add that I have even gone through trying to isolate the variables per test method to make sure there is no overlap.
So, I'm really lost with trying to handle this through here and make sure this is testable.
Are there different ways to approach the HttpClient where it can consistently pass?
After lots of back n forth. I found two of situations from this.
I couldn't get parallel processing disabled within the docker setup, which is where I thought the issue was (I even made it do thread sleep between tests to slow it down (It felt really icky to me)
I found that all the tests l locally ran through the test runners were telling me they passed when about 1/2 failed on the docker test runner. What ended up being the issue was a magic string area when seeing and getting environment variables.
Small caveat to call out, Amazon updated their .NET Core lambda tools to install via dotnet cli, so this was updated in our docker image.
How do we unit test logic in Promises.task?
task{service.method()}
I want to validate invocation of the service method inside the task.
Is this possible? If yes, how?
I read in the documentation that in unit testing async processes, one can use this:
Promises.promiseFactory = new SynchronousPromiseFactory()
Tried adding it in my setup, but still does not work.
The long way
I've been struggling with this for a moment too.
I tried those:
grails unit test + Thread
Verify Spock mock with specified timeout
Also tried the same solution from the docs as you:
Promises.promiseFactory = new SynchronousPromiseFactory()
All went with no luck.
The solution
So I ended up with meta classing.
In the test's setup method, I mocked the Promise.task closure, so it runs the closure in the current thread, not in a new one:
def setup() {
Promises.metaClass.static.task = { Closure c -> c() }
// ...more stuff if needed...
}
Thanks to that, I can test the code as it wouldn't use multi threading.
Even I'm far from being 100% happy with this, I couldn't get anything better so far.
In recent versions of Grails (3.2.3 for instance), there is no need to mock, metaClass or use a Promise factory. I found out the promises in unit tests get executed synchronously. Found no doc for that, I empirically added a sleep inside a promise and noticed the test waited for the pause to complete.
For integration tests and functional tests, that's another story: you have to change the promise provider, for instance in BootStrap.groovy:
if (Environment.current == Environment.TEST) {
Promises.promiseFactory = new SynchronousPromiseFactory()
}
Like Marcin suggested, the metaClass option is not satisfactory. Also bear in mind that previous (or future) versions of Grails are likely to work differently.
If you are stuck with Grails 2 like dinosaurs such as me, then you can just copy the classes SynchronousPromiseFactory and SynchronousPromise from Grails 3 to your project and then the following works:
Promises.promiseFactory = new Grails3SynchronousPromiseFactory()
(Class names are prefixed with Grails3 to make the hack more obvious)
I'd simply mock/override the Promises.task method to invoke the provided closure directly.
I have a small problem, I have created some Selenium tests. The problem is I can't order the testcases I have created. I know unit testing should not be ordered but this is what I need in my situation. I have to follow these steps: login first, create a new customer, change some details about the customer and finally log out.
Since there is no option to order unit tests in NUnit I can't execute this.
I already tried another option, to create a unittest project in Visual Studio, because Visual Studio 2012 has the ability to create a ordered unit test. But this is not working because I can't run a unit test while I am running my ASP.NET project. Another solution file is also not a good option because I want to verify my data after it has been submitted by a Selenium test.
Does someone of you have another solution to solve my problem?
If you want to test all of those steps in a specific order (and by the sounds of it, as a single session) then really it's more like an acceptance test you are talking about; and in that case it's not a sin to write more complex test methods and Assert your conditions after each step.
If you want to test each step in true isolation (a pure unit test) then each unit test must be capable of running by itself without any reference to any other tests; but when you're testing the actual site UI itself this isn't really an option for you.
Of course if you really you want to have every single test somehow setup every single dependency without reference to any other actions (e.g in the last test you would need to fake the login token, your data layer will have to pretend that you added a new customer, etc. A lot of work for dubious benefit...)
I say this based on the assumption that you already have unit tests written for the server-side controllers, layers, models, etc, that you run without any reference to the actual site running in a browser and are therefore confident that the various back-end part of your site do what they are supposed to do
In your case I'd recommend more of a hybrid integration/acceptance test
void Login(IWebDriver driver)
{
//use driver to open browser, navigate to login page, type user/password into box and press enter
}
void CreateNewCustomer(IWebDriver driver)
{
Login(driver);
//and then use driver to click "Create Customer" link, etc, etc
}
void EditNewlyCreatedCustomer(IWebDriver driver)
{
Login(driver);
CreateNewCustomer(driver);
//do your selenium stuff..
}
and then your test methods:
[Test]
void Login_DoesWhatIExpect()
{
var driver = new InternetExplorerDriver("your Login URL here");
Login(driver);
Assert(Something);
}
[Test]
void CreateNewCustomer_WorksProperly()
{
var driver = new InternetExplorerDriver("your Login URL here");
CreateNewCustomer(driver);
Assert(Something);
}
[Test]
void EditNewlyCreatedCustomer_DoesntExplodeTheServer()
{
var driver = new InternetExplorerDriver("your Login URL here");
EditNewlyCreatedCustomer(driver);
Assert(Something);
}
In this way the order of the specific tests do not matter; certainly if the Login test fails then the CreateNewCustomer and EditNewlyCreatedCustomer tests will also fail but that's actually irrelevant in this case as you are testing an entire "thread" of operation
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/