I'm following the accepted answer in this question but I'm getting a NullReferenceException.
What I need is having a partial mock stub a property (both getter and setter) to behave like a stub (as a simple automatic property). Currently I am able to stub the getter but not the setter.
Is this possible?
EDIT: this is a simple example, I hope it helps explaining my problem.
public class SomeClass
{
public virtual string SomeProperty
{
get{ return SomeMethodDependingOnDBOrAspSession(); }
set{ SomeMethodDependingOnDBOrAspSession(value); } // I want to avoid calling this setter implementation
}
}
var partialMock = MockRepository.GeneratePartialMock<SomeClass>();
partialMock.Stub(p => p.SomeProperty); // I want SomeProperty to behave as an automatic property
When using a PartialMock you can get auto-implemented property like behavior by using PropertyBehavior feature of Rhino Mocks. Given the class in your question, the following nunit test passes for me.
[Test]
public void TestPartialMock()
{
var someClass = MockRepository.GeneratePartialMock<SomeClass>();
someClass.Stub(x => x.SomeProperty).PropertyBehavior();
string val = "yo!";
Assert.DoesNotThrow(() => someClass.SomeProperty = val);
Assert.AreEqual(val, someClass.SomeProperty);
}
If you don't need a PartialMock you could use a Stub which has property behavior by default. You'd simply replace the first two lines of the test with:
var someClass = MockRepository.GenerateStub<SomeClass>();
Related
When I tried to do unit testing for private methods in a Class getting error as private methods are only accessible inside the class. Here I added sample snippet for my class and mocha test. Kindly provide me solution to implement unit test for private methods.
Class Name: Notification.ts
class Notification {
constructor() {}
public validateTempalte() {
return true;
}
private replacePlaceholder() {
return true;
}
}
Unit Test:
import {Notification} from 'Notification';
import * as chai from "chai";
describe("Notification", function(){
describe('#validateTempalte - Validate template', function() {
it('it should return success', function() {
const result = new Notification()
chai.expect(result.validateTempalte()).to.be.equal(true);
});
});
describe('#replacePlaceholder - Replace Placeholder', function() {
it('it should return success', function() {
const result = new Notification()
// As expected getting error "Private is only accessible within class"
chai.expect(result.replacePlaceholder()).to.be.equal(true);
});
});
});
As a workaround, currently, I am changing access specifier of function replacePlaceholder to public. But I don't think its a valid approach.
A possible solution to omit Typescript checks is to access the property dynamically (Not telling wether its good).
myClass['privateProp'] or for methods: myClass['privateMethod']()
Technically, in current versions of TypeScript private methods are only compile-time checked to be private - so you can call them.
class Example {
public publicMethod() {
return 'public';
}
private privateMethod() {
return 'private';
}
}
const example = new Example();
console.log(example.publicMethod()); // 'public'
console.log(example.privateMethod()); // 'private'
I mention this only because you asked how to do it, and that is how you could do it.
Correct Answer
However, that private method must be called by some other method... otherwise it isn't called at all. If you test the behaviour of that other method, you will cover the private method in the context it is used.
If you specifically test private methods, your tests will become tightly coupled to the implementation details (i.e. a good test wouldn't need to be changed if you refactored the implementation).
Disclaimer
If you still test it at the private method level, the compiler might in the future change and make the test fail (i.e. if the compiler made the method "properly" private, or if a future version of ECMAScript added visibility keywords, etc).
In my case, I use the prototype of the object to get access to a private method. It works well and TS does not swear.
For example:
class Example {
private privateMethod() {}
}
describe() {
it('test', () => {
const example = new Example();
const exampleProto = Object.getPrototypeOf(example);
exampleProto.privateMethod();
})
}
If you use a static method then use exampleProto.constructor.privateMethod();.
In HolgerJeromin's comment, the comment issue has a succinct solution that still uses the property syntax.
The solution is to type cast your object / class to any.
Examples:
(<any>myClass).privateMethod();
const value = (<any>myClass).privateValue;
(myClass as any).privateMethod();
const value = (myClass as any).privateValue;
This method satisfies the compiler as well as the VSCode syntax highlighting.
Here are some of my notes from the issue that talks about this
Accessing via a string is more common, although I don't see why it might be more typesafe.
These features are done deliberately, therefore they are helping more than hindering.
There is probably a way to disable this type of feature so people don't copy and paste this code into production. "noImplicitAny": true, might help in the tsconfig.json
Extract out the private function into a separate/stand alone function, but don't export it externally.
This is somewhat semantically correct, since after all — a private function is private and should not be accessed by anyone except the class itself.
My subjective solution: you could define a new testing-only interface that extends the original one by adding the private methods as (implicitly public) interface methods. Then, you cast the instantiated object to this new test type. This satisfies both tsc and VS code type checking. Your example with my solution:
interface INotification {
validateTemplate(): boolean,
}
class Notification implements INotification {
constructor() {}
public validateTemplate() {
return true;
}
private replacePlaceholder() {
return true;
}
}
Testing:
import {Notification} from 'Notification';
import * as chai from "chai";
interface INotificationTest extends INotification {
replacePlaceholder(): boolean;
}
describe("Notification", function(){
describe('#validateTemplate - Validate template', function() {
it('it should return success', function() {
const result = new Notification() as INotificationTest;
chai.expect(result.validateTemplate()).to.be.equal(true);
});
});
describe('#replacePlaceholder - Replace Placeholder', function() {
it('it should return success', function() {
const result = new Notification() as INotificationTest;
// Works!
chai.expect(result.replacePlaceholder()).to.be.equal(true);
});
});
});
Advantages:
tsc and vs code do not complain
IntelliSense (or any other autocomplete) works
simple (subjectively)
If you don't want to define the original interface (INotification), you could just fully define the test one (INotificationTest) instead of extending and cast it in the same manner.
Disadvantages:
Added boilerplate
Need to have both of the interfaces updated and in sync
Potentially introducing bugs by explicitly casting as a non original type.
I leave it up to you to decide whether this is worth it or no. In my case, the positives outweigh the negatives. I have tested this with jest, but I assume that mocha.js is no different here.
Edit: but generally I would agree with Fenton's answer
// module.ts
private async privateMethod = () => "private method executed"
public async testPrivateMethods(...args) {
if (process.env.NODE_ENV === 'development') {
return this.privateMethod(...args);
}
}
Now we can reach our private method to test. In jest file:
// module.spec.js
describe('Module', () => {
let service: Module = new Module();
it('private method should be defined', () => {
expect(service.testPrivateMethods).toBeDefined();
});
}
You need to set your enviroment variable name of NODE_ENV must be development.
// .env
NODE_ENV="development"
The fun thing is that it's just a typescript error (not javascript), so you can fix it with
// #ts-expect-error
and everything works fine.
I consider it as a legitimate solution, as the goal was to suppress typescript in this particular case.
Since private methods are not accessible outside class, you can have another public method which calls replacePlaceholder() in Notification class and then test the public method.
Wanting to know if there's a way to mock a virtual method on a concrete class using AutoFixture and NSubstitute. I've been able to do this easily with Moq, as can be seen here:
public class SomeConcreteClass
{
public string MethodA()
{
return MethodB();
}
public virtual string MethodB()
{
return "AAA";
}
}
[TestFixture]
public class SomeConcreteClassTests
{
private IFixture _fixture;
private SomeConcreteClass _someConcreteClass;
[SetUp]
protected void Setup()
{
_fixture = new Fixture()
.Customize(new AutoMoqCustomization());
var someConcreteClassMock = _fixture.Create<Mock<SomeConcreteClass>>();
_someConcreteClass = someConcreteClassMock.Object;
someConcreteClassMock.CallBase = true;
}
[Test]
public void SomeScenario()
{
Mock.Get(_someConcreteClass).Setup(m => m.MethodB()).Returns("BBB");
var actual = _someConcreteClass.MethodA();
actual.ShouldBe("BBB");
}
}
This is best achieved if you use AutoFixture's support for Parametrised Tests, here illustrated using xUnit.net (but, IIRC, there's similar support for NUnit):
[Theory, AutoNSubstituteData]
public void ImplicitSubtituteViaAttribute([Substitute]SomeConcreteClass scc)
{
scc.MethodB().Returns("BBB");
var actual = scc.MethodB();
Assert.Equal("BBB", actual);
}
Using the [Substitute] attribute enables you to explicitly tell AutoFixture that, although you asked for a concrete class, it should create it via NSubstitute so that you can override any virtual members it might have.
AutoNSubstituteData is defined like this:
public class AutoNSubstituteDataAttribute : AutoDataAttribute
{
public AutoNSubstituteDataAttribute() :
base(() => new Fixture().Customize(new AutoNSubstituteCustomization()))
{
}
}
AutoDataAttribute comes from AutoFixture.Xunit2, but if you prefer NUnit over xUnit.net, you should be able to use AutoFixture.NUnit3 instead.
Otherwise, I'm not sure you can achieve exactly the same result as with AutoFixture.AutoMoq. In this degenerate example, you can do this:
[Fact]
public void ImperativeWorkaround()
{
var fixture = new Fixture().Customize(new AutoNSubstituteCustomization());
fixture.Register(() => Substitute.For<SomeConcreteClass>());
var scc = fixture.Create<SomeConcreteClass>();
scc.MethodB().Returns("BBB");
var actual = scc.MethodB();
Assert.Equal("BBB", actual);
}
This is, however, fairly pointless, as you could just as well have written this:
[Fact]
public void Reduction()
{
var scc = Substitute.For<SomeConcreteClass>();
scc.MethodB().Returns("BBB");
var actual = scc.MethodB();
Assert.Equal("BBB", actual);
}
In other words, AutoFixture doesn't actually do anything in that workaround.
I could imagine that the real issue is that in real usage, the concrete class in question has other members or constructor data that you wish to fill with data. The problem is that due to the way NSubstitute is designed, I'm not aware of any way you can declaratively ask for a 'substitute'; you'll have to use the Substitute.For method, which then completely short-circuits AutoFixture's ability to hook into the process and add its own behaviour.
With Moq, this is possible because in the OP, you're not asking AutoFixture for a SomeConcreteClass object, but rather for a Mock<SomeConcreteClass>, and that enables AutoFixture to distinguish.
In other words, Moq follows the Zen of Python that explicit is better than implicit, and that makes it extensible to a degree not easily achieved with NSubstitute. For that reason, I've always considered Moq to have the better API.
Hi I'm new to Mocking.
I have a class:
public class Car
{
public virtual void Register() {
...
Warrant();
}
public virtual void Warrant() {
...
}
}
I was wanting to test that Register calls Warrant. Using RhinoMocks I came up with:
[Test]
public void RhinoCarTest() {
var mocks = new Rhino.Mocks.MockRepository();
var car = mocks.PartialMock<Car>();
mocks.ReplayAll();
car.Stub(x => x.Warrant());
car.Register();
car.AssertWasCalled(x => x.Warrant());
}
I'm not even sure if this is correct but it seemed to do the job. I was wanting to do the same thing in Moq. I couldn't seem to find a partial Moq.
What I came up with was:
[Test]
public void MoqCarTest() {
var car = new Mock<Car>();
car.Setup(x => x.Warrant());
car.Object.Register();
car.Verify(x => x.Warrant());
}
This doesn't even work though. Can someone point me in the right direction?
Partial classes in Rhino.Mocks will call the base class methods unless you set up a Mock and/or stub. By default, Moq will only call base class methods if you create the mock to specifically do that. Here's an example that will work for your example:
var car = new Mock<Car> {CallBase = true};
car.Object.Register();
car.Verify(c => c.Warrant(), Times.Once());
However, I would try and avoid this approach (verifying that a specific method was called). Instead, your test should simply ensure that the correct "work" was done after calling the method. How that work gets done is a private implementation of the method.
If you write tests that ensure certain methods are called, your tests can become more brittle over time -- especially as you refactor for performance or other issues.
I am trying to unit test an action filter I wrote. I want to mock the HttpClientCertificate but when I use MOQ I get exception. HttpClientCertificate doesnt have a public default constructor.
code:
//Stub HttpClientCertificate </br>
var certMock = new Mock<HttpClientCertificate>();
HttpClientCertificate clientCertificate = certMock.Object;
requestMock.Setup(b => b.ClientCertificate).Returns(clientCertificate);
certMock.Setup(b => b.Certificate).Returns(new Byte[] { });
This is the most awkward case of creating unit testable systems in .NET. I invariable end up adding a layer of abstraction over the component that I can't mock. Normally this is required for classes with inaccessible constructors (like this case), non-virtual methods or extension methods.
Here is the pattern I use (which I think is Adapter pattern) and is similar to what MVC team has done with all the RequestBase/ResponseBase classes to make them unit testable.
//Here is the original HttpClientCertificate class
//Not actual class, rather generated from metadata in Visual Studio
public class HttpClientCertificate : NameValueCollection {
public byte[] BinaryIssuer { get; }
public int CertEncoding { get; }
//other methods
//...
}
public class HttpClientCertificateBase {
private HttpClientCertificate m_cert;
public HttpClientCertificateBase(HttpClientCertificate cert) {
m_cert = cert;
}
public virtual byte[] BinaryIssuer { get{return m_cert.BinaryIssuer;} }
public virtual int CertEncoding { get{return m_cert.CertEncoding;} }
//other methods
//...
}
public class TestClass {
[TestMethod]
public void Test() {
//we can pass null as constructor argument, since the mocked class will never use it and mock methods will be called instead
var certMock = new Mock<HttpClientCertificate>(null);
certMock.Setup(cert=>cert.BinaryIssuer).Returns(new byte[1]);
}
}
In your code that uses HttpClientCertificate you instead use HttpClientCertificateBase, which you can instantiate like this - new HttpClientCertificateBase(httpClientCertificateInstance). This way you are creating a test surface for you to plug in mock objects.
The issue is that you need to specify constructor parameters when creating the mock of the HttpClientCertificate.
var certMock = new Mock<HttpClientCertificate>(ctorArgument);
The bad news is that the ctor for HttpClientCertificate is internal and takes in an HttpContext, so it probably won't work.
Unless you want to write more code to make the class "Testable" I suggest you use Typemock Isolator, Unless specified otherwise it looks for the first c'tor available - public, internal or private and fake (mocks) it's parameters so you won't have to.
Creating the fake object is as simple as:
var fakeHttpClientCertificate = Isolate.Fake.Instance<HttpClientCertificate>();
Another alternative is to use the free Microsoft Moles framework. It will allow you to replace any .NET method with your own delegate. Check out the link as it gives an example that is pretty easy to understand. I think you'll find it much nicer than adding layers of indirection to get HttpClientCertificate into a testable state.
Here is my situation:
I want to test on the "HasSomething()" function, which is in the following class:
public class Something
{
private object _thing;
public virtual bool HasSomething()
{
if (HasSomething(_thing))
return true;
return false;
}
public virtual bool HasSomething(object thing)
{
....some algo here to check on the object...
return true;
}
}
So, i write my test to be like this:
public void HasSomethingTest1()
{
MockRepository mocks = new MockRepository();
Something target = mocks.DynamicMock(typeof(Something)) as Something;
Expect.Call(target.HasSomething(new Object())).IgnoreArguments().Return(true);
bool expected = true;
bool actual;
actual = target.HasSomething();
Assert.AreEqual(expected, actual);
}
Is my test written correctly?
Please help me as i can't even get the result as expected. the "HasSomething(object)" just can't be mock in that way. it did not return me 'true' as being set in expectation.
Thanks.
In response to OP's 'answer': Your main problem is that RhinoMocks does not mock members of classes - instead it creates mock classes and we can then set expectations and canned responses for its members (i.e. Properties and Functions). If you attempt to test a member function of a mock/stub class, you run the risk of testing the mocking framework rather than your implementation.
For the particular scenario of the logical path being dependent on the return value of a local (usually private) function, you really need an external dependency (another object) which would affect the return value that you require from that local function. For your code snippet above, I would write the test as follows:
[Test]
public void TestHasSomething()
{
// here I am assuming that _thing is being injected in via the constructor
// you could also do it via a property setter or a function
var sut = new Something(new object());
Assert.IsTrue(sut.HasSomething);
}
i.e. no mocking required.
This is one point of misunderstanding that I often had in the past with regards to mocking; we mock the behaviour of a dependency of the system under test (SUT). Something like: the SUT calls several methods of the dependency and the mocking process provides canned responses (rather than going to the database, etc) to guide the way the logic flows.
A simple example would be as follows (note that I have used RhinoMocks AAA syntax for this test. As an aside, I notice that the syntax that you are using in your code sample is using the Record-Replay paradigm, except that it isn't using Record and Replay! That would probably cause problems as well):
public class SUT
{
Dependency _depend
public SUT (Dependency depend)
{
_depend = depend;
}
...
public int MethodUnderTest()
{
if (_depend.IsReady)
return 1;
else
return -1;
}
}
...
[Test]
public void TestSUT_MethodUnderTest()
{
var dependency = MockRepository.GenerateMock<Dependency>();
dependency.Stub(d => d.IsReady).Return(true);
var sut = new SUT(dependency);
Assert.AreEqual(1, sut.MethodUnderTest());
}
And so the problem that you have is that you are attempting to test the behaviour of a mocked object. Which means that you aren't actually testing your class at all!
In a case like this, your test double should be a derived version of class Something. Then you override the method HasSomething(object) and ensure that HasSomething() calls your one.
If I understand correctly, you are actually interested in testing the method HasDynamicFlow (not depicted in your example above) without concerning yourself with the algorithm for HasSomething.
Preet is right in that you could simply subclass Something and override the behavior of HasSomething to short-circuit the algorithm, but that would require creating some additional test-dummy code which Rhino is efficient at eliminating.
Consider using a Partial Mock Stub instead of a Dynamic Mock. A stub is less strict and is ideal for working with Properties. Methods however require some extra effort.
[Test]
public void CanStubMethod()
{
Foo foo = MockRepository.GenerateStub<Foo>();
foo.Expect(f => f.HasDynamicFlow()).CallOriginalMethod(OriginalCallOptions.NoExpectation);
foo.Expect(f => f.HasSomething()).CallOriginalMethod(OriginalCallOptions.NoExpectation);
foo.Expect(f => f.HasSomething(null)).IgnoreArguments().Return(true);
Assert.IsTrue(foo.HasDynamicFlow());
}
EDIT: added code example and switched Partial Mock to Stub