I am connecting to a REST service. It's QuickBlox, to be specific, but it should not matter other than that the REST API is defined like a SQL query (but notably minus the joins) and I can do CRUD on it.
QuickBlox provides iOS SDK, which gives me an interface to construct the REST query with a callback.
In my program I want objects like User, UserResourceTable, Card, for example. (It's not exactly like this as User resides in a special QuickBlox module, but for the sake of the question it's OK to ignore this.)
I have constructed something I think is similar to the ActiveRecord pattern (I hope). So in my User class I have CRUD methods, and Card class also. And these CRUD have callbacks (or rather, Objective-C blocks which are closures).
Originally I have "read" as class method (like a Java static method), since before calling read there is nothing about the object that's read so I thought I would provide a static factory method on the aforementioned classes.
UserResourceTable is not directly expose to whoever uses the User class. It's created when User is created and read when User is read.
Now this all went OK until I started to think about unit-testing. I end up deciding to do dependency injection (DI), then I want UserResourceTable to be injected into User. But it now seems difficult to do DI while read is a class method/static method and I now think I want read to be an instance method. (Especially there is no static variable in Objective-C and even if I can use static variable in the file to kind of use it I wouldn't know when to inject it. It just smell bad to me.)
Now read would be something like this (pseudo code):
User user = User(); // user just so we can call read()
User userFetched = user.read();
A few questions:
Is it a good idea to have read as an instance method?
Is ActiveRecord suitable for my situation? Perhaps a better model?
Right now the User, UserResourceTable, and Card all directly uses QuickBlox sdk (or rather, via a thin wrapper). And I intend to inject UserResourceTable into User. I also like to inject Quickblox's interface (or the thin wrapper) into User, UserResourceTable, and Card. I would have some factories to do this. Does that sound any good?
Related
Im trying to get familiar with using MOQ and mocking in general. So I want to test an api controller which uses an assembly which serves as a repository for getting/updating data etc.
eg a structure like this.
HomeController
Index
Repository.GetSomeData (returns JSON object)
This repository class has an interface, and that is what is injected via the .net core startup class. The method in this case, GetSomeData does a number of steps via calls to the Db, as well as reading a file from the file system, parsing it and moving it off to another folder.
Question: How can a "mocked" Repository work without doing the things that the "real" object does? All the examples I see are simple addition, returning strings etc.
When you mock something like your repository, you going to stub out methods on the repository to return some canned result. Calls to those methods on the repository mock, then, bypass the real methods and instead just do what you've stubbed.
Essentially, you need to first identity what methods will be utilized. Then, you should determined appropriate responses those methods should return based on the particular scenario you're attempting to unit test. Then, you create the mock and add stubs for those methods with those responses.
The whole point of mocking is to remove variables, so you're intentionally trying to get to the "happy path": the set of internal responses that put the action in the state you need it to be in for specific test you're conducting.
Previously when I developed ember application I used App as my global object and every class was stored in this big object.
Like this
window.App.MyModel = Em.Object.extend({});
And in the browser console, I was able to do
App.MyModel.create();
So it was really easy for me to access MyModel class.
Now I started experiments with Ember-CLI, I don't have much experience with this kind of tools. I followed the documentations and I created my model Service like this.
var Service = Ember.Object.extend({});
export default Service
But now, how to access Service class from browser console?
Only way I found was:
App.__container__.resolve('model:service')
But I don't like it much. Is there better way? Btw, can you please explain how export works? Or is there some source (documentation, article) where I can study it?
Thanks a lot for response.
If you're aiming to have something available in most places throughout your application you'll typically want to register it on the container.
There are multiple ways to access the container, and you're correct in that the one you found was less than ideal. The running joke is "any time you directly access __container__ we need to add more underscores."
To directly control how things are registered on the container and injected into the container you typically want to use an initializer. Using initializers in ember-cli is super-easy, they're executed for you automatically.
Checking out the documentation you can see that you get access to the application's container as an argument which allows you to manipulate it in a safe manner.
Once you have access to the container you can use register and inject to make content easily available in particular locations. This was introduced here. One note, accessing things inside of the container from outside the context of your app (browser console) will require the usage of App.__container__ and that is the expected use pattern.
And the export you're running into is an ES6 module system construct, it's not Ember-specific. Playing with the ES6 module transpiler can give you a good sense of what goes in and what comes out in "we can do this today" type of JavaScript.
For ember 3.22, application classes can be accessed like so:
Ember.Namespace.NAMESPACES[1]._applicationInstances.values().next().value.lookup('service:state-events')
Note, you may need to modify the index in NAMESPACES[1] to be something other than 1. You can determine which namespace is your application when this returns true:
Ember.Namespace.NAMESPACES[1] instanceof Application
This approach is how ember-inspector accesses ember applications: https://github.com/emberjs/ember-inspector/blob/50db91b7bd26b12098cae774a307208fe0a47d75/ember_debug/main.js#L163-L168
Quick terminology question that's somewhat related to my main question: What is the correct term for a model class and the term for a instance of that class?
I am learning Test Driven Development, and want to make sure I am learning it the right so I can form good habits.
My current project has a SalesmanController, which is pretty much a basic resource controller. Here's my current issue (I can get it working, but I want to make sure its done as "right" as possible)
I have a 'Salesman' model.
The 'Salesman' is mapped as having many 'Sales' using my ORM.
The 'Sales' model is mapped as belongsTo 'Salesman' using my ORM.
I have created a ORMSalesmanRepository which implements the SalesmanRepositoryInterface.
My controller has SalesmanRepositoryInterface passed to it upon construction(constructor dependency injection).
My controller calls the find method on the SalesmanRepositoryInterface implementation it has been given to find the correct salesman.
My view needs information on the salesman and information on all 'Sales' records that belong to him.
The current implementation of SalesmanRepositoryInterface returns an instance of a ORMRecord, and then passes that to the view, which retrieves the sales from the ORMRecord.
My gut tells me this implementation is wrong. The orm record implements Array Access, so it still behaves like an array as far as the view knows.
However, when trying to go back and implement my unit tests I am running into issues mocking my dependencies. (I now know with TDD I'm supposed to make my unit tests and then develop the actual implementation, didn't figure this out till recently).
Salesman = MockedSalesman;
SalesRecords = MockedSalesman->Sales;
Is it poor programming to expect my Salesman to return a ORMObject for the controller to use (for chaining relationships maybe?) or is a controller becoming to 'fat' if I'm allowing it to call more than just basic get methods (using arrayaccess []) on the ORMObject? Should the controller just assume that whatever it gets back is an array (or at least acts like one?)
Also, should it ever come up where something one of my mocked classes returns needs to be mocked again?
Thanks in advance everybody.
What is the correct term for a model class and the term for a instance of that class?
Depends on what you mean with "model classes"? Technically model is a layer, that contains several groups of classes. Most notable ones would be: mappers, services an domain objects. Domain objects as whole are implementation of accumulated knowledge about business requirements, insight from specialists and project goals. This knowledge is referred to as "domain model".
Basically, there is no such thing as "model class". There are classes that are part of model.
What is the controller allowed to assume about what it recieves from a service?
Nothing, because controller should not receive anything from model layer. The responsibility of controller is to alter the state of model layer (and in rare cases - state of current view).
Controller is NOT RESPONSIBLE for:
gather data from model layer,
initializing views
passing data from model layer to views
dealing with authorization checks
The current implementation of SalesmanRepositoryInterface returns an instance of a ORMRecord, and then passes that to the view, which retrieves the sales from the ORMRecord.
It sounds like you are implementing active record pattern. It has very limited use-case, where is is appropriate to use AR - when object mostly consists of getters and setters tht are directly stored in a single table. For anything beyond that active record becomes an anti-pattern because it violates SRP and you loose the ability to test your domain logic without database.
Also, are repository should be returning an instance of domain object and makes sure that you are not retrieving data repeatedly. Repositories are not factories for active record instances.
Is it poor programming to expect my Salesman to return a ORMObject for the controller to use (for chaining relationships maybe?) or is a controller becoming to 'fat' if I'm allowing it to call more than just basic get methods (using arrayaccess []) on the ORMObject?
Yes, it's bad code. Your application logic (one that would usually be contained in services) is leaking in the presentation layer.
At this stage I wouldn't stress too much about your implementation - if you try and write proper tests, you'll quickly find out what works and what doesn't.
The trick is to think hard about what each component is trying to achieve. What is your controller method supposed to do? Most likely it is intended to create a ViewModel of some kind, and then choose which View to render. So there's a few tests right there:
When I call my controller method with given arguments (ShowSalesmanDetail(5))
It should pick the correct View to render ('ShowSalesmanDetail')
It should construct the ViewModel that I expect (A Salesman object with some Sales)
In theory, at this point you don't care how the controller constructs the model, only that it does. In practice though you do need to care, because the controller has dependencies (the big one being the database), which you need to cater for. You've chosen to abstract this with a Repository class that talks to an ORM, but that shouldn't impact the purpose of your tests (though it will definitely alter how you implement those tests).
Ideally the Salesman object in your example would be a regular class, with no dependencies of its own. This way, your repository can construct a Salesman object by populating it from the database/ORM, and your unit tests can also use Salesman objects that you've populated yourself with test data. You shouldn't need to mock your models or data classes.
My personal preference is that you don't take your 'data entities' (what you get back from your ORM) and put them into Views. I would construct a ViewModel class that is tied to one View, and then map from your data entities to your ViewModel. In your example, you might have a Salesman class which represents the data in the database, then a SalesmanModel which represents the information you are displaying on the page (which is usually a subset of what's in the db).
So you might end up with a unit test looking something like this:
public void CallingShowSalesmanShouldReturnAValidModel()
{
ISalesmanRepository repository = A.Fake<ISalesmanRepository>();
SalesmanController controller = new SalesmanController(repository);
const int salesmanId = 5;
Salesman salesman = new Salesman
{
Id = salesmanId,
Name = "Joe Bloggs",
Address = "123 Sesame Street",
Sales = new[]
{
new Sale { OrderId = 123, SaleDate = DateTime.Now.AddMonths(-1) }
}
};
A.CallTo(() => repository.Find(salesmanId)).Returns(salesman);
ViewResult result = controller.ShowSalesman(salesmanId) as ViewResult;
SalesmanModel model = result.Model as SalesmanModel;
Assert.AreEqual(salesman.Id, model.Id);
Assert.AreEqual(salesman.Name, model.Name);
SaleModel saleModel = model.Sales.First();
Assert.AreEqual(salesman.Sales.First().OrderId, saleModel.OrderId);
}
This test is by no means ideal but hopefully gives you an idea of the structure. For reference, the A.Fake<> and A.CallTo() stuff is from FakeItEasy, you could replace that with your mocking framework of choice.
If you were doing proper TDD, you wouldn't have started with the Repository - you'd have written your Controller tests, probably got them passing, and then realised that having all this ORM/DB code in the controller is a bad thing, and refactored it out. The same approach should be taken for the Repository itself and so on down the dependency chain, until you run out of things that you can mock (the ORM layer most likely).
I am using Apache CXF (apache-cxf-2.5.0) to create Web Services using a bottom-up approach (Java first approach). I want to return some data/records (for example, username, email) from a database table. I can write a Java class which returns a simple response. But I am not able to find way to return a response such as data/records extracted from a database table. How to do that?
You don't mention how you are accessing the database, but the basic idea is that you ensure that the classes that you return have JAXB annotations (notably #XmlRootElement or #XmlType) on them, which allows CXF to convert the instances of those classes into XML document fragments. The classes which you annotate this way probably should not have lots of functionality in them; they should exist just to hold data. (I find anything else too confusing given the complex lifecycle they'll have.) Once the annotations are in place, just return the relevant objects and all the conversions will happen automatically.
I'm talking a simple class like this:
#XmlRootElement // <---- THIS LINE HERE!
public class UserInfo {
public String username;
public String email;
}
You can use this in conjunction with other annotations (e.g., for your ORM) as necessary. Of course, if you're talking straight JDBC to the DB to get the information out, you won't need to worry about that.
The one tricky bit is that the objects being returned will have a lifespan that goes beyond that of the database transaction you're using; you may need to detach (i.e., do some copying, though the ORM layer might provide assistance) the objects extracted from the DB for that to work. This won't be much of a concern in this case as the DB you're describing is very simple (one table, no inter-row relations) but could be an issue if you make things more complex.
I just recently read about "Mocking objects" for unit testing and currently I'm having a difficulties implementing this approach in my application. Please let me explain my problem.
I have a User model class, which is dependent on 2 data sources (database and facebook web service). The controller class simply use this User model as an interface to access data and it doesn't care about where the data came from.
Currently I never done any unit test to this User model because it is dependent on an external web service. But just a while ago, I read about object mocking and now I know that it is a common approach to unit test a class that depends on external resources (like in my case).
Now I want to create a unit test for the User model, but then I encountered a design issue:
In order for the User model to use a mocked Facebook SDK, I have to inject this mocked Facebook SDK to the User object (probably using a setter). Therefore I can't construct the Facebook SDK inside the User object. I have to construct it outside the User object, and inject the SDK into the User object.
The real client of my User model is the application's controller. Therefore I have to construct the Facebook SDK inside the controller and inject it to the user object. Well, this is a problem because I want my controller to be as clean as possible. I want my controller to be ignorant about the application's data source.
I'm not good at explaining something systematically, so you'll probably sleeping before reading this last paragraph. But anyway, I want to ask if anyone here ever encountered the same problem as mine? How do you solve this problem?
Regards,
Andree
P.S: I'm using Zend framework, PHP 5.3.
One way to solve this problem is to create two constructors in User: the default one instantiates the real-life data sources, the other one gets them as parameters. This way your controller can use the default constructor, while your tests use the parameterized one to pass in mock data sources.
Since you haven't specified your language, I show you an example in Java, hopefully this helps get the idea:
class User {
private DataBase database;
private WebService webService;
// default constructor
public User() {
database = new OracleDataBase();
webService = new FacebookWebService();
}
// constructor for unit testing
public User(DataBase database, WebService webService) {
this.database = database;
this.webService = webService;
}
}
This isn't really a question about mocking, but about dependencies--and trying to unit test has forced the issue. It sounds like currently you create your User object within your Controller.
If the User and Controller have the same lifetime (they're created at the same time), then you can pass the User into the Controller's constructor, which is where you can make the substitution.
If there is a User object per call, then perhaps the User object should be passed in by the environment, or returned from some Context object.
If you make the Facebook SDK Object(s) publicly accessible, your User object can still create it when it sets up but you can replace it with a mock before you actually do anything on the User object.
[Test]
public void Test()
{
User u = new User(); // let's say that the object on User gets created in the ctor
u.FacebookObj = new DynamicMock(typeof(FacebookSDK)).MockInstance;
Assert.That(u.Method(), Does.Stuff, "u.Method didn't do stuff");
}
You don't say what language you are using, but I use Ruby and Mocha for mocking objects, and it's quite easy.
See http://mocha.rubyforge.org/.
here the fourth example shows that any call to Product.name from the unit under test is intercepted and the value 'stubbed_name' is returned.
I guess there are similar mechanisms in Java, etc.
Since you will be Unit Testing your test class will play the role of the Controller, so that one should not be touched. So that can remain clean.
You are well underway of reinventing Dependency Injection. So it may be worthwhile to look at Spring or Guice to help you with the plumbing. (If you are in Java land).
Your test can indeed do the injection of the Mocked Facebook SDK and your Database service using setter or constructor arguments.
your tests will now do what the controllers (and maybe views) will do and verify the proper routines are called in the SDK's and that the resources are properly obtained and disposed of.