I'm using xUnit to test my C# code and I'm using Visual Studio Premium 2012.
In my solution I have my main project that I'm testing and a 2nd project that contains all of my tests. I'm supposesd to be at 100% code coverage, but there are some functions in my Test project that I cannot get to 100%. Can I just exclude that project from appearing in Code Coverage results?
Or... does anyone now how to get a test function to 100% when you have a test where you are expecting an exception to be thrown? Here are some of the ways I've tried to write a test for a method that should throw an exception and what isn't being covered. MyBusinessLogic has a function named GenerateNameLine that accepts an object of type MyViewModel. if the Name property of MyViewModel is an empty string, it should throw an exception of type RequiredInformationMissingException.
[Fact]
public void TestMethod1()
{
var vm = new MyViewModel();
vm.Name = string.Empty;
Assert.Throws<RequiredInformationMissingException>(delegate { MyBusinessLogic.GenerateNameLine(vm); });
}
This test passes, but code coverage with color highlighting it showing me that MyBusinessLogic.GenerateNameLine(vm); is not getting hit.
I've also tried:
[Fact]
public void TestMethod1
{
bool fRequiredInfoExceptionThrown = false;
var vm = new MyViewModel();
vm.Name = string.Empty;
try
{
MyBusinessLogic.GenerateNameLine(vm);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
if (ex.GetType() == typeof(RequiredInformationMissingException))
fRequiredInfoExceptionThrown = true;
}
Assert.True(fRequiredInfoExceptionThrown, "RequiredInformationMissingException was not thrown.");
}
This test also passes. But code coverage says the } right before my catch is never hit.
I don't know how to write a test for an exception that gets 100%. I know it doesn't even really matter, but at work 100% code coverage is part of our definition of done, so I don't know what to do here.
The answer is Yes
We provide filters to customize what you want to include/exclude via the .runsettings file. You can filter out pretty much anything that you do not find useful.
The [ExcludeFromCodeCoverage] attribute can also be used in code.
See: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/sudhakan/archive/2012/05/11/customizing-code-coverage-in-visual-studio-11.aspx
Are you seeing the second issue in VS2012RTM+Update1 as well?
I would exclude the tests, but still have an eye on coverage rate for them, because a coverage below 99% would suggest some of them did not run at all.
BTW: 100% is an ideal and cannot be achieved in real life projects. At least the effort to actually reach 100% opposed to something like 90% is disproportionately high. Also exact coverage rates depend on the manner of counting hit lines.
Related
When people say "test only one thing". Does that mean that test one feature at a time or one scenario at a time?
method() {
//setup data
def data = new Data()
//send external webservice call
def success = service.webserviceCall(data)
//persist
if (success) {
data.save()
}
}
Based on the example, do we test by feature of the method:
testA() //test if service.webserviceCall is called properly, so assert if called once with the right parameter
testB() //test if service.webserviceCall succeeds, assert that it should save the data
testC() //test if service.webserviceCall fails, assert that it should not save the data
By scenario:
testA() //test if service.webserviceCall succeeds, so assert if service is called once with the right parameter, and assert that the data should be saved
testB() //test if service.webserviceCall fails, so again assert if service is called once with the right parameter, then assert that it should not save the data
I'm not sure if this is a subjective topic, but I'm trying to do the by feature approach. I got the idea from Roy Osherove's blogs, but I'm not sure if I understood it correct.
It was mentioned there that it would be easier to isolate the errors, but I'm not sure if its overkill. Complex methods will tend to have lots of tests.
(Please excuse my wording on the by feature/scenario, I'm not sure how to word them)
You are right in that this is a subjective topic.
Think about how you want this method to behave, not just on how it's currently implemented. Otherwise your tests will just mirror the production code and will break everytime the implementation changes.
Based on the limited context provided, I'd write the following (separate) tests:
Is the webservice command called with the expected data?
If the command returns successfully, is the data saved? Don't overspecify the arguments provided to your webservice call here, as the previous test covers this.
If it's important that the data is not saved when the command returns a failure, I'd write a third test for this. If it's not important, I wouldn't even bother.
You might have heard the adage "one assert per test". This is good advice in general because a test stops executing as soon as a single assert fails. All asserts further down are not executed. By splitting up the asserts in multiple tests you will receive more feedback when something goes wrong. When tests go red, you know exactly all the asserts that fail and don't have to run through the -fix assertion failure, run tests, fix next assertion failure, repeat- cycle.
So in the terminology you propose, my approach would also be to write a test per feature of the method.
Sidenote: you construct your data object in the method itself and call the save method of that object. How do you sense that the data is saved in your tests?
I understand it like this:
"unit test one thing" == "unit test one behavior"
(After all, it is the behavior that the client wants!)
I would suggest that you approach your testing "one feature at a time". I agree with you where you quoted that with this approach it is "easier to isolate the errors". Roy Osherove really does know what he is talking about especially when it comes to TDD.
In my experience I like to focus on the behaviors that I am trying to test (and I am not particularly referring to BDD here). Essentially I would test each behavior that I am expecting from this code. You said that you are mocking out the dependencies (webservice, and data storage) so I would still class this as a unit test with the following expected behaviors:
a call to this method will result in a particular call to a web service
a successful web service call will result in the data being saved
an unsuccessful web service call will result in the data not being saved
Having tests for these three behaviors will help you isolate any issues with the code immediately.
Your tests should also have no dependency on the actual code written to achieve the behavior. For example, if my implementation called some decorator internal to my class which in turn called the webservice correctly then that should be no concern of my test. My test should only be concerned with the external dependencies and public interface of the class itself.
If I exposed internal methods of my class (or implementation details, such as the decorator mentioned above) for the purposes of testing its particular implementation then I have created brittle tests that will fail when the implementation changes.
In summary, I would recommend that your tests should lock down the behavior of a class and isolate failures to identify the 'unit of behavior' that is failing.
A unit test in general is a test that is done without a call to database or file system or even to that effect doesnot call a webservice either. The idea of a unit test is that if you did not have any internet connection you should be able to unit test. So having said that , if a method calls a webservice or calls a database, then you basically are expected to mock the responses from an external system. You should be testing that unit of work only. As mentioned above by prgmtc on how you should be asserting one assert per method is the way to go.
Second, if you are calling a real webservice or database etc, then consider calling those test as integrated or integration test depending upon what you are trying to test.
In my opinion to get the most out of TDD you want to be doing test first development. Have a look at uncle Bobs 3 Rules of TDD.
If you follow these rules strictly, you end up writing tests that generally only have a single assert statements. In reality you will often find you end up with a number of assert statements that act as a single logical assert as it often helps with the understanding of the unit test itself.
Here is an example
[Test]
public void ValidateBankAccount_GivenInvalidAccountType_ShouldReturnValidationFailure()
{
//---------------Set up test pack-------------------
const string validBankAccount = "99999999999";
const string validBranchCode = "222222";
const string invalidAccountType = "99";
const string invalidAccoutTypeResult = "3";
var bankAccountValidation = Substitute.For<IBankAccountValidation>();
bankAccountValidation.ValidateBankAccount(validBankAccount, validBranchCode, invalidAccountType)
.Returns(invalidAccoutTypeResult);
var service = new BankAccountCheckingService(bankAccountValidation);
//---------------Assert Precondition----------------
//---------------Execute Test ----------------------
var result = service.ValidateBankAccount(validBankAccount, validBranchCode, invalidAccountType);
//---------------Test Result -----------------------
Assert.IsFalse(result.IsValid);
Assert.AreEqual("Invalid account type", result.Message);
}
And the ValidationResult class that is returned from the service
public interface IValidationResult
{
bool IsValid { get; }
string Message { get; }
}
public class ValidationResult : IValidationResult
{
public static IValidationResult Success()
{
return new ValidationResult(true,"");
}
public static IValidationResult Failure(string message)
{
return new ValidationResult(false, message);
}
public ValidationResult(bool isValid, string message)
{
Message = message;
IsValid = isValid;
}
public bool IsValid { get; private set; }
public string Message { get; private set; }
}
Note I would have unit tests the ValidationResult class itself, but in the test above I feel it gives more clarity to include both Asserts.
I have a strange problem occurring when I run my unit tests in VS2012. I'm using NUnit and run them with ReSharper and there all tests are working. But when my colleagues run the tests, some of them don't have ReSharper so they are using the Test Explorer with the extension NUnit Test Adapter (Beta 3) v0.95.2 (http://visualstudiogallery.msdn.microsoft.com/6ab922d0-21c0-4f06-ab5f-4ecd1fe7175d). However with that extension some tests are failing.
The specific code that fails is the following:
public void Clear()
{
this.Items.ForEach(s => removeItem(s));
}
private bool removeItem(SequenceFlow item)
{
int i = this.Items.IndexOf(item);
if (i == -1)
return false;
this.Items.RemoveAt(i);
return true;
}
The exception is:
System.InvalidOperationException : Collection was modified; enumeration operation may not execute.
Result StackTrace:
at System.ThrowHelper.ThrowInvalidOperationException(ExceptionResource resource)
at System.Collections.Generic.List`1.ForEach(Action`1 action)
Now, I'm not looking for an to answer why I get this exception, sure I can understand why it fails. But what I can't understand is why the tests fail with the Test Exporer but not when using ReSharper. Why do I get different behavior for the tests?
I used ildasm.exe to see if the code is compiled differently when testing for the two cases, but the IL-code is identical.
The tests also runs during commit on our Team City server with no errors.
Furthermore, when debugging the test I get the same exception when debugging through NUnit test adapter, but when debugging and stepping through the code with ReSharper, no exception at all.
I found that in VS2012 similar code would fail at run-time with the same error. If you used this method in an application, would it succeed?
You're functionally iterating over a collection and removing items from it while you're still in the collection - this changes the internal indexing of the collection, invalidating the addressing of the iteration. If you'd coded it as:
for(int I=0; I < Items.Count, I++)
{
removeItem(Items[I]);
}
you'd wind up with an index out of bounds error because the collection's internal indexing resets.
I can't speak to ReSharper, but I'd guess that it has a more generous run-time engine than the MS nunit engine (or, for that matter, the MS runtime engine).
I was doing something similar in an application where I tried to iterate through the collection of dependent objects on my parent and remove them. It failed with the exact error you're receiving: ultimately I went with a linq query to remove all items attached to the specified parent - the equivalent of running the SQL query DELETE FROM table WHERE parentID = parentid.
I've got a bunch of methods in my application service layer that are doing things like this:
public void Execute(PlaceOrderOnHoldCommand command)
{
var order = _repository.Load(command.OrderId);
order.PlaceOnHold();
_repository.Save(order);
}
And at present, I have a bunch of unit tests like this:
[Test]
public void PlaceOrderOnHold_LoadsOrderFromRepository()
{
var repository = new Mock<IOrderRepository>();
const int orderId = 1;
var order = new Mock<IOrder>();
repository.Setup(r => r.Load(orderId)).Returns(order.Object);
var command = new PlaceOrderOnHoldCommand(orderId);
var service = new OrderService(repository.Object);
service.Execute(command);
repository.Verify(r => r.Load(It.Is<int>(x => x == orderId)), Times.Exactly(1));
}
[Test]
public void PlaceOrderOnHold_CallsPlaceOnHold()
{
/* blah blah */
}
[Test]
public void PlaceOrderOnHold_SavesOrderToRepository()
{
/* blah blah */
}
It seems to be debatable whether these unit tests add value that's worth the effort. I'm quite sure that the application service layer should be integration tested, though.
Should the application service layer be tested to this level of granularity, or are integration tests sufficient?
I'd write a unit test despite there also being an integration test. However, I'd likely make the test much simpler by eliminating the mocking framework, writing my own simple mock, and then combining all those tests to check that the the order in the mock repository was on hold.
[Test]
public void PlaceOrderOnHold_LoadsOrderFromRepository()
{
const int orderId = 1;
var repository = new MyMockRepository();
repository.save(new MyMockOrder(orderId));
var command = new PlaceOrderOnHoldCommand(orderId);
var service = new OrderService(repository);
service.Execute(command);
Assert.IsTrue(repository.getOrder(orderId).isOnHold());
}
There's really no need to check to be sure that load and/or save is called. Instead I'd just make sure that the only way that MyMockRepository will return the updated order is if load and save are called.
This kind of simplification is one of the reasons that I usually don't use mocking frameworks. It seems to me that you have much better control over your tests, and a much easier time writing them, if you write your own mocks.
Exactly: it's debatable! It's really good that you are weighing the expense/effort of writing and maintaining your test against the value it will bring you - and that's exactly the consideration you should make for every test you write. Often I see tests written for the sake of testing and thereby only adding ballast to the code base.
As a guideline I usually take that I want a full integration test of every important successful scenario/use case. Other tests I'll write are for parts of the code that are likely to break with future changes, or have broken in the past. And that is definitely not all code. That's where your judgement and insight in the system and requirements comes into play.
Assuming that you have an (integration) test for service.Execute(placeOrderOnHoldCommand), I'm not really sure if it adds value to test if the service loads an order from the repository exactly once. But it could be! For instance when your service previously had a nasty bug that would hit the repository ten times for a single order, causing performance issues (just making it up). In that case, I'd rename the test to PlaceOrderOnHold_LoadsOrderFromRepositoryExactlyOnce().
So for each and every test you have to decide for yourself ... hope that helps.
Notes:
The tests you show can be perfectly valid and look well written.
Your test sequence methods seems to be inspired on the way the Execute(...) method is currently implemented. When you structure your test this way, it could be that you are tying yourself to a specific implementation. This way, tests can actually make it harder to change - make sure you're only testing the important external behavior of your class.
I usually write a single integration test of the primary scenario. By primary scenario i mean the successful path of all the code being tested. Then I write unit tests of all the other scenarios like checking all the cases in a switch, testing exception and so forth.
I think it is important to have both and yes it is possible to test it all with integration tests only, but that makes your tests long running and harder to debug. In average I think I have 10 unit tests per integration test.
I don't bother to test methods with one-liners unless something bussines logic-like happens in that line.
Update: Just to make it clear, cause I'm doing test-driven development I always write the unit tests first and typically do the integration test at the end.
I'm writing some NUnit tests for database operations. Obviously, if Add() fails, then Get() will fail as well. However, it looks deceiving when both Add() and Get() fail because it looks like there's two problems instead of just one.
Is there a way to specify an 'order' for tests to run in, in that if the first test fails, the following tests are ignored?
In the same line, is there a way to order the unit test classes themselves? For example, I would like to run my tests for basic database operations first before the tests for round-tripping data from the UI.
Note: This is a little different than having tests depend on each other, it's more like ensuring that something works first before running a bunch of tests. It's a waste of time to, for example, run a bunch of database operations if you can't get a connection to the database in the first place.
Edit: It seems that some people are missing the point. I'm not doing this:
[Test]
public void AddTest()
{
db.Add(someData);
}
[Test]
public void GetTest()
{
db.Get(someData);
Assert.That(data was retrieved successfully);
}
Rather, I'm doing this:
[Test]
public void AddTest()
{
db.Add(someData);
}
[Test]
public void GetTest()
{
// need some way here to ensure that db.Add() can actually be performed successfully
db.Add(someData);
db.Get(somedata);
Assert.That(data was retrieved successfully);
}
In other words, I want to ensure that the data can be added in the first place before I can test whether it can be retrieved. People are assuming I'm using data from the first test to pass the second test when this is not the case. I'm trying to ensure that one operation is possible before attempting another that depends on it.
As I said already, you need to ensure you can get a connection to the database before running database operations. Or that you can open a file before performing file operations. Or connect to a server before testing API calls. Or...you get the point.
NUnit supports an "Assume.That" syntax for validating setup. This is documented as part of the Theory (thanks clairestreb). In the NUnit.Framework namespace is a class Assume. To quote the documentation:
/// Provides static methods to express the assumptions
/// that must be met for a test to give a meaningful
/// result. If an assumption is not met, the test
/// should produce an inconclusive result.
So in context:
public void TestGet() {
MyList sut = new MyList()
Object expecting = new Object();
sut.Put(expecting);
Assume.That(sut.size(), Is(1));
Assert.That(sut.Get(), Is(expecting));
}
Tests should never depend on each other. You just found out why. Tests that depend on each other are fragile by definition. If you need the data in the DB for the test for Get(), put it there in the setup step.
I think the problem is that you're using NUnit to run something other than the sort of Unit Tests that NUnit was made to run.
Essentially, you want AddTest to run before GetTest, and you want NUnit to stop executing tests if AddTest fails.
The problem is that that's antithetical to unit testing - tests are supposed to be completely independent and run in any order.
The standard concept of Unit Testing is that if you have a test around the 'Add' functionality, then you can use the 'Add' functionality in the 'Get' test and not worry about if 'Add' works within the 'Get' test. You know 'Add' works - you have a test for it.
The 'FIRST' principle (http://agileinaflash.blogspot.com/2009/02/first.html) describes how Unit tests should behave. The test you want to write violates both 'I' (Isolated) and 'R' (Repeatable).
If you're concerned about the database connection dropping between your two tests, I would recommend that rather than connect to a real database during the test, your code should use some sort of a data interface, and for the test, you should be using a mock interface. If the point of the test is to exercise the database connection, then you may simply be using the wrong tool for the job - that's not really a Unit test.
I don't think that's possible out-of-box.
Anyway, your test class design as you described will make the test code very fragile.
MbUnit seems to have a DependsOnAttribute that would allow you to do what you want.
If the other test fixture or test
method fails then this test will not
run. Moreover, the dependency forces
this test to run after those it
depends upon.
Don't know anything about NUnit though.
You can't assume any order of test fixture execution, so any prerequisites have to be checked for within your test classes.
Segregate your Add test into one test-class e.g. AddTests, and put the Get test(s) into another test-class, e.g. class GetTests.
In the [TestFixtureSetUp] method of the GetTests class, check that you have working database access (e.g. that Add's work), and if not, Assert.Ignore or Inconclusive, as you deem appropriate.
This will abort the GetTests test fixture when its prerequisites aren't met, and skip trying to run any of the unit tests it contains.
(I think! I'm an nUnit newbie.)
Create a global variable and return in the test for Get unless Add set it to true (do this in the last line of Add):
public boolean addFailed = false;
public void testAdd () {
try {
... old test code ...
} catch (Throwable t) { // Catch all errors
addFailed = true;
throw t; // Don't forget to rethrow
}
}
public void testGet () {
if (addFailed) return;
... old test code ...
}
At my company we are writing a bunch of unit tests. What we'd like to have done is for the unit tests to execute and whenever one succeeds or fails at the end of the test we can write that somewhere but we don't want to put that logic in every test.
Any idea how we could just write tests without having to surround the content of the test with the try catch logic that we've been using?
I'm guessing you do something like this:
[Test]
public void FailBecauseOfException()
{
try
{
throw new Exception();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
Assert.Fail(e.Message);
}
}
There is no need for this. The tests will fail automatically if they throw an exception. For example, the following test will show up as a failure:
[Test]
public void FailBecauseOfException()
{
throw new Exception();
}
I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to do here. Are you saying you are wrapping it in a try/catch so that you can catch when an exception occurs and log this?
If so, then a better way, probably, is just to get NUnit to write an output file and use this. I haven't used NUnit for about a year, but IIRC you can redirect its output to any file you like using the /out directive.
If there is a reason why you have to log it the way you say, then you'll either have to add your custom code to each test, or have a common "runner" that takes your code (for each test) as an anonymous method and runs it inside a single try..catch. That would prevent you having to repeat the try..catch for every test.
Apologies if I've misunderstood the question.
MSTest has TestCleanup, which runs after every test. In NUnit, the attribute to be used is TearDown (after every test) or TestFixtureTearDown (after all the test are completely). This executes after the end of each test.
If you want something to run just in case a test passes, you could have a member variable shouldRunExtraMethod, which is initialized to false before each test, and is changed to true at the end of the test. And on the TearDown, you only execute it depending on this variable value
If your unit test method covers the scenario in which you expect exceptions to be thrown, use the ExpectedException attribute. There's a post here on SO about using that attribute.
Expect exceptions in nUnit...
NUnit assert statements all have an option to print a message for each test for when it fails.
Although if you'd like to have it write out something somewhere at the end of each test, you can set it up in the teardown of each method. Just set the string to what you want written inside the test itself, and during teardown (which happens after each test) It can do whatever you want with it.
I'm fairly certain teardown occurs even if an exception is thrown. That should do what you're wanting.
The problem you have is that the NUnit Assert.* methods will throw an AssertionException whenever an assert fails - but it does nothing else. So it doesn't look like you can check anything outside of the unit test to verify whether the test failed or not.
The only alternative I can think of is to use AOP (Aspect Oriented Programming) with a tool such as PostSharp. This tool allows you to create aspects that can act on certain events. For example:
public class ExceptionDialogAttribute : OnExceptionAspect
{
public override void OnException(MethodExecutionEventArgs eventArgs)
{
string message = eventArgs.Exception.Message;
Window window = Window.GetWindow((DependencyObject) eventArgs.Instance);
MessageBox.Show(window, message, "Exception");
eventArgs.FlowBehavior = FlowBehavior.Continue;
}
}
This aspect is code which runs whenever an exception is raised:
[ExceptionDialog]
[Test]
public void Test()
{
assert.AreEqual(2, 4);
}
Since the above test will raise an exception, the code in ExceptionDialogAttribute will run. You can get information about the method, such as it's name, so that you can log it into a file.
It's been a long time since I used PostSharp, so it's worth checking out the examples and experimenting with it.