I'm trying to unit test a Workflow Service by using Microsoft.Activities.UnitTesting
The goal is to mock the service's extensions in order to ensure that all steps are executed.
The mock objects don't seem to get called even though the extensions are registered in the Host. As expected, if the extensions are not registered an exception is thrown.
WorkflowServiceTestHost host = null;
try
{
Mock<ISubscriber> publisher = new Mock<ISubscriber>();
Mock<IWebWorker> webWorker = new Mock<IWebWorker>();
var voucher = new Voucher();
using (host = new WorkflowServiceTestHost(workflowServiceFile, serviceAddress))
{
host.WorkflowExtensions.Add<ISubscriber>(() => publisher.Object);
host.WorkflowExtensions.Add<IWebWorker>(() => webWorker.Object);
host.Open();
using (var factory = new ChannelFactory<IServiceInterface>(clientBinding, serviceAddress))
{
var proxy = factory.CreateChannel() as IServiceInterface;
proxy.Process(voucher);
}
}
**//These validations fail...**
publisher.Verify(m => m.Push(It.IsAny<Voucher>()), Times.Once(), "ISubscriber.Push was not called.");
webWorker.Verify(m => m.Done(It.IsAny<Voucher>()), Times.Once(), "IWebWorker.Done was not called.");
// The host must be closed before asserting tracking
// Explicitly call host.Close or exit the using block to do this.
}
finally
{
if (host != null)
{
host.Tracking.Trace(TrackingOptions.All);
}
}
The workflow runs as expected in IIS.
Thanks!
Edit: This error is being written in the Workflow Host output:
WorkflowInstance "Sequential Service" Unhandled Exception Source "Receive Process Message"
Exception <System.NotSupportedException: Expression Activity type 'CSharpReference`1' requires compilation in order to run.
Please ensure that the workflow has been compiled.
at System.Activities.Expressions.CompiledExpressionInvoker.InvokeExpression(ActivityContext activityContext)
at Microsoft.CSharp.Activities.CSharpReference`1.Execute(CodeActivityContext context)
at System.Activities.CodeActivity`1.InternalExecuteInResolutionContext(CodeActivityContext context)
at System.Activities.Runtime.ActivityExecutor.ExecuteInResolutionContext[T](ActivityInstance parentInstance, Activity`1 expressionActivity)
at System.Activities.OutArgument`1.TryPopulateValue(LocationEnvironment targetEnvironment, ActivityInstance targetActivityInstance, ActivityExecutor executor)
at System.Activities.RuntimeArgument.TryPopulateValue(LocationEnvironment targetEnvironment, ActivityInstance targetActivityInstance, ActivityExecutor executor, Object argumentValueOverride, Location resultLocation, Boolean skipFastPath)
at System.Activities.ActivityInstance.InternalTryPopulateArgumentValueOrScheduleExpression(RuntimeArgument argument, Int32 nextArgumentIndex, ActivityExecutor executor, IDictionary`2 argumentValueOverrides, Location resultLocation, Boolean isDynamicUpdate)
at System.Activities.ActivityInstance.ResolveArguments(ActivityExecutor executor, IDictionary`2 argumentValueOverrides, Location resultLocation, Int32 startIndex)
at System.Activities.Runtime.ActivityExecutor.ExecuteActivityWorkItem.ExecuteBody(ActivityExecutor executor, BookmarkManager bookmarkManager, Location resultLocation)>
I've just realized WorkflowServiceTestHost is a Microsoft.Activities.UnitTesting class and not yours.
So, let's see if this is possible. As I saw on its source code you can pass to the constructor the WorkflowService's object itself instead of the XAMLX file. Something like this:
// Load WorkflowService from .xamlx
// Actually this is the method WorkflowserviceTestHost uses when you pass a
// .xamlx so we're taking a step back to be able to compile the body
var wfService = XamlServices.Load("c:\\workflowservice.xamlx") as WorkflowService;
// Compile workflow body
CompileExpressions(wfService.Body);
// Now you can use WorkflowServiceTestHost
using (host = new WorkflowServiceTestHost(wfService, serviceAddress))
{
// ... do your thing
}
CompileExpressions is taken from the link that I gave you earlier.
That being said, it seems odd consider testing a WCF service as unit-testing. Unit tests should be focused on small activities of your service, those are truly unit-testable. Integration tests (or functional tests) is where you test services with all its dependencies (IIS\WAS, network, DBs, etc).
Related
Trying to unit test the navigation in one of my command calls into a private method. Just trying to test if the navigation request has been made as a result of this command execution.
There's the old documentation;
https://www.mvvmcross.com/documentation/fundamentals/testing
This documentation does not factor in new async based calls as far as I found; For example IMvxMainThreadAsyncDispatcher
Either we need to implement two ExecuteOnMainThreadAsync methods or inherit from MvxMainThreadAsyncDispatcher in MockDispatcher.
Also need to add IMvxMainThreadAsyncDispatcher in IoC registration.
var mockDispatcher = new MockDispatcher();
...
...
Ioc.RegisterSingleton<IMvxMainThreadAsyncDispatcher>(MockDispatcher);
So almost all tests work except navigation call requests. Below method inside MockDispatcher never gets called so I can't check request counts;
public async Task<bool> ShowViewModel(MvxViewModelRequest request)
{
Requests.Add(request);
return true;
}
Anybody has a working code that would mock and gets this Request called or in some other form? IMvxMainThreadDispatcher is being set as absolute, and navigation calls are not done with ShowViewModel<>() anymore in MVVMCross, it's done by calling navigationService.Navigate();
Well, I have found the solution to my question... The ShowViewModel is called when navigation service is properly mocked. I have found a piece of code on GitHub from MvvmCross's own repo on how they do tests for navigation. My next challenge would be to mock the destination viewModel but that's separate and below code doesn't cover that. Previously I had a very basic IMvxNavigationService mock.
var mockLocator = new Mock<IMvxViewModelLocator>();
mockLocator.Setup(
m => m.Load(It.IsAny<Type>(), It.IsAny<IMvxBundle>(), It.IsAny<IMvxBundle>(), It.IsAny<IMvxNavigateEventArgs>())).Returns(() => new FakeViewModel());
mockLocator.Setup(
m => m.Reload(It.IsAny<IMvxViewModel>(), It.IsAny<IMvxBundle>(), It.IsAny<IMvxBundle>(), It.IsAny<IMvxNavigateEventArgs>())).Returns(() => new FakeViewModel());
var mockCollection = new Mock<IMvxViewModelLocatorCollection>();
mockCollection.Setup(m => m.FindViewModelLocator(It.IsAny<MvxViewModelRequest>()))
.Returns(() => mockLocator.Object);
Ioc.RegisterSingleton(mockLocator.Object);
var loader = new MvxViewModelLoader(mockCollection.Object);
_navigationService = new MvxNavigationService(null, loader)
{
ViewDispatcher = MockDispatcher,
};
_navigationService.LoadRoutes(new[] { typeof(YourViewModelTestClass).Assembly });
Ioc.RegisterSingleton<IMvxNavigationService>(_navigationService);
I have to unfortunately write Unit Tests for a legacy Sitecore MVC code base where two distinct Sitecore Contexts are called. I understand this comes under Integration Testing but i don't have the option of educating my project Leads on that front. So i have chosen to use FakeDb for emulating Sitecore Instance and NSubstitute for substituting injected Dependencies (can't use any Profilier API Frameworks like MS Fakes, TypeMock etc because of Budget constraints). I am providing the code below:
Method to be UnitTested
public bool DubiousMethod()
{
// This HttpContext call is pain area 1. This gets resolved when i call it using ItemContextSwitcher in Unit Tests.
string currentUrl = HttpContext.Current.Request.RawUrl;
// This Sitecore Context call to Site Name is pain area 2. This gets resolved when Unit Tests are run under SiteContextSwitcher.
string siteName = Sitecore.Context.Site.Name;
return true/False;
}
Unit Test Method
[Fact]
public void DubiousMethodUT()
{
// create a fake site context
var fakeSite = new Sitecore.FakeDb.Sites.FakeSiteContext(
new Sitecore.Collections.StringDictionary
{
{ "name", "website" }, { "database", "web" }, { "rootPath", "/sitecore/content/home" },
{ "contentStartItem", "home"}, {"hostName","https://www.myorignalsiteurl.com"}
});
using (new Sitecore.Sites.SiteContextSwitcher(fakeSite))
{
//DubiousClassObject.DubiousMethod(home) // When Debugging after uncommenting this line i get correct value in **Sitecore.Context.Site.Name**
using (Sitecore.FakeDb.Db db = new Sitecore.FakeDb.Db
{
new Sitecore.FakeDb.DbItem("home") { { "Title", "Welcome!" } ,
new Sitecore.FakeDb.DbItem("blogs") }
})
{
Sitecore.Data.Items.Item home = db.GetItem("/sitecore/content/home");
//bool abc = confBlogUT.IsBlogItem(home);
using (new ContextItemSwitcher(home))
{
string siteName = Sitecore.Context.Site.Name;
var urlOptions = new Sitecore.Links.UrlOptions();
urlOptions.AlwaysIncludeServerUrl = true;
var pageUrl = Sitecore.Links.LinkManager.GetItemUrl(Sitecore.Context.Item, urlOptions);
HttpContext.Current = new HttpContext(new HttpRequest("", pageUrl.Substring(3), ""), new HttpResponse(new StringWriter()));
Assert.False(DubiousClassObject.DubiousMethod(home); //When Debugging after commenting above DubiousMethodCall i get correct value for **HttpContext.Current.Request.RawUrl**
}
}
}
}
As you can observe that when i try to call the method from FakSiteContext then i am getting the correct value for Sitecore.Context.Site.Name however my code breaks when HttpContext.Current.Request.RawUrl is invoked in the method. Opposite happens when i invoke the method from ContextItemSwitcher(FakeItem) context. So far i have not been able to find a way to merge both the Contexts (which i believe is impossible in Sitecore). Can anyone suggest if i run my Unit Tests in an overarching context where i am able to contrl fakeSite Variables as well as FakeItem context variables as well and by extensions any other Sitecore Context calls?
Any help would be appreciated.
I'd recommend to take a look at Unit testing in Sitecore article as it seem to be what you need.
In short - you'll need to do a few adjustments in your code to make it testable:
1) Replace static HttpContext with abstract HttpContextBase (impl. HttpContextWrapper) so that everything can be arranged - DubiousMethod gets an overload that accepts DubiousMethod(HttpContextBase httpContext).
2) As for Sitecore Context data - it has Sitecore.Caching.ItemsContext-bound semantics (as mentioned in the article), so you could cleanup the collection before/after each test to get a sort of isolation between tests.
Alternatively you could bake a similar wrapper for Sitecore.Context as ASP.NET team had done for HttpContext -> HttpContextBase & impl HttpContextWrapper.
I'm fairly new to using Moq and Nunit for unit testing and I'm having issues with one scenario. What I want is for my mock to have an out parameters which my system under test will then use to decide what action to take.
My system under test is an MVC API controller and in particular I'm trying to test the POST method. I want to return an error message for the object when validation fails.
Here is the method code for the controller:
public IHttpActionResult Post(Candidate candidate)
{
try
{
if(candidate==null)
return BadRequest();
IEnumerable<string> errors;
_candidateManager.InsertCandidate(candidate, out errors);
if (errors!=null && errors.Any())
return BadRequest(CreateErrorMessage("Invalid candidate: ", errors));
return CreatedAtRoute("DefaultApi", new {id = candidate.CandidateId}, candidate);
}
catch (Exception)
{
return InternalServerError();
}
}
This is my Unit Test Code:
[Test]
[Category("CandidateManagerController Unit Tests")]
public void Should_Return_Bad_Request_When_Creating_Invalid_Candidate()
{
IEnumerable<string> errors = new List<string>() {"error1", "error2"};
var mockManager = new Mock<ICandidateManager>();
mockManager.Setup(x => x.InsertCandidate(new Candidate(), out errors)).Callback(()=>GetErrors(errors));
var sut = new CandidateManagerController(mockManager.Object);
var actionResult = sut.Post(new Candidate());
Assert.IsInstanceOf<BadRequestResult>(actionResult);
}
What I expect is that when _candidateManager.InsertCandidate() is run then the errors variable is populated. However what is happening is that when you step through the controller code errors is null after _candidateManager.InsertCandidate() method is run.
If anyone has any ideas what I'm doing wrong or if what I want to do is not possible using Moq then please let me know.
Thanks
What you want to do is possible. If you look at the Quickstart docs at https://github.com/Moq/moq4/wiki/Quickstart, there is a section where it shows how you do setups for methods using out params. I have made two corrections to your code and it works.
You have to use the same candidate instance for both the mock setup and when you exercise the sut. Otherwise, Moq thinks that the two objects are different and your test setup becomes useless.
You don't have to use Callback in order to set the errors returned by the mocked CandidateManager.
Below is your test method with my changes.
[Test]
[Category("CandidateManagerController Unit Tests")]
public void Should_Return_Bad_Request_When_Creating_Invalid_Candidate()
{
IEnumerable<string> errors = new List<string>() {"error1", "error2"};
//instance to be used for both setup and test later
var candidate = new Candidate();
var mockManager = new Mock<ICandidateManager>();
//removed Callback
mockManager.Setup(x => x.InsertCandidate(candidate, out errors));
var sut = new CandidateManagerController(mockManager.Object);
var actionResult = sut.Post(candidate);
Assert.IsInstanceOf<BadRequestResult>(actionResult);
}
You have to make sure that when you call your SUT that you use the same instance passed to the out argument otherwise the call will fail.
In your example, the method under test passes a null instance into the mocked method thus negating the setup of the test.
If however you are not able to supply the same instances for the out then it doesn't look like you will be able to get a mock to pass successfully. Take a look a the Quick Start for Moq to get an understanding of it capabilities.
Thank you for your help-
I'd like to know if my app successfully adds a document to the database using a unit test in Meteor. I'm using practicalmeteor:mocha and chai. The issue I'm running into is that I don't know how to mock a this.userId, it keeps telling me I'm not logged in.
it('inserts the draft agenda document into the collection', function() {
// TODO: mock document to insert into collection
// TODO: mock userId and Agenda.insert
this.userId = "Not an empty string";
console.log("before spec, changing this.userId: " + this.userId) //is "Not an empty string"
Meteor.call('createAgenda', mockAgenda, function(res) {
console.log("callback with response: " + res); //You're not logged-in. [not-logged-in]
console.log("this.userId: " + this.userId) //is undefined
}
}
see https://docs.meteor.com/api/methods.html#DDPCommon-MethodInvocation-userId for more info on user id
test runner fails to import files in client directory
MochaRunner.runServerTests: failures: 1 when meteor methods are called
I have to call the server side meteor methods that have been declared in the testing context as if I am on the client, but I can't import the client files or operate as if I'm a client
MochaRunner.runServerTests: Starting server side tests with run id R7ocZh3Qva3rExTL9 runs basically every time
This seems useful but hasn't worked for me yet https://forums.meteor.com/t/testing-methods-which-use-this-userid/2292/8
Thank you for your help, any code examples would be great.
Remarks
I wanted to post a comment but do not have enough reputation. So here are some remarks. Since you are testing on the server, you can call a Meteor method without a callback. This will result in a synchronous execution and simplify your test. Otherwise you will have to let the test know it is finished by calling the done function in your callback, see mocha docs.
Using mdg:validated-method
You can call a valited method and provide the context in which they execute using the _execute function. Below is an example taken from the todos sample project. For more examples you can take a look at their Lists and Todos tests.
it('makes a list private and updates the todos', function() {
// Check initial state is public
assert.isFalse(Lists.findOne(listId).isPrivate());
// Set up method arguments and context
const methodInvocation = {
userId
};
const args = {
listId
};
// Making the list private adds userId to the todo
makePrivate._execute(methodInvocation, args);
assertListAndTodoArePrivate();
// Making the list public removes it
makePublic._execute(methodInvocation, args);
assert.isUndefined(Todos.findOne(todoId).userId);
assert.isTrue(Todos.findOne(todoId).editableBy(userId));
});
Using standard methods
Another possiblity would be to bind the standard call function to the correct context. Note that this is just a thought and not tested.
var methodInvocation = {
userId: "some user id"
};
Meteor.call.bind(methodInvocation)('createAgenda', mockAgenda);
I am very new to Unit Testing, so I am starting on my first set of tests today. I am using the Library JustMock from Telerik. Though any unit testing information is good. I am having a bit of trouble with an interface service that passes through my method. Below is my MembershipController.Register(model) method...
[CaptchaValidator]
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Register(Models.Membership.Registration model)
{
// just for good mesure, truncate any spaces that are given
System.Text.RegularExpressions.Regex.Replace(model.Email, #"\s", "");
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
// Attempt to register the User and return any applicable status that has to do
// with the result.
var createStatus = membershipService.RegisterMember(model.Email, model.Password);
// if the member is able to be created successfully, log them in now and begin the
// authentication portion of the registration, otherwise, display the registration
// errors and return to the view.
if (createStatus == Membership.MemberCreateStatus.Success)
{
formsAuthentication.SignIn(model.Email, false /* createPersistentCookie */);
return RedirectToAction("Success");
}
else
{
ModelState.AddModelError("", Membership.Validator.ErrorCodeToString(createStatus));
}
}
// If we got this far, something failed, redisplay form
return View(model);
}
And here is the paltry test I am trying to run...
[TestMethod]
public void Register_Post_ReturnsRedirectOnSuccess()
{
// Arrange
var controller = Mock.Create<Web.Controllers.MembershipController>();
var repository = Mock.Create<Membership.IMembershipService>();
Mock.Arrange(() => repository.RegisterMember("acceptible#email.com", "acceptiblePassword")).Returns(Membership.MemberCreateStatus.Success);
// Model
var model = new Web.Models.Membership.Registration
{
Email = "acceptible#email.com",
Password = "acceptiblePassword",
ConfirmPassword = "acceptiblePassword"
};
// Act
var result = controller.Register(model);
// Assert
Assert.IsInstanceOfType(result, typeof(RedirectToRouteResult));
}
The test fails because membershipService is resolving as null. I'm not sure what to do here. This is my first forray into the Unit Testing aspect of ASP.NET MVC. Can anyone give me some advice?
I am using Ninject to inject IMembershipService through the Constructor. It is implemented by the class MembershipService. The code runs fine when I run it, but the unit tests fail.
I don't see you passing repository anywhere into your controller. Normally you would have IMembershipService as a parameter in your controller's constructor that you can then pass in when needed or use MVC's Service Locator to grab the Ninject instance and pass it in.
:)