I've got the following code and I need help to write a unit test for it. I'm using Moq library.
Here's the deal. I have a business class with a dependency to a repository (interface), so I can use it to save my entities to the database. My entity is basically a list of strings. The method AddAndSave, from MyBusinessClass, grab the value it receives as a parameters, put it into the list and call Save method from IRepository. Then, I clear the list of my entity. The code below show this example (I've made it simple so I can explain it here).
There's a unit test, too.
using System.Collections.Generic;
using Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting;
using Moq;
namespace TestesGerais
{
public class MyEntity
{
public MyEntity()
{
MyList = new List<string>();
}
public List<string> MyList { get; set; }
}
public interface IRepository
{
void Save(MyEntity entity);
}
public class MyBusinessClass
{
public IRepository Repository { get; set; }
private MyEntity _entity = new MyEntity();
public void AddAndSave(string info)
{
_entity.MyList.Add(info);
Repository.Save(_entity);
_entity.MyList.Clear(); // for some reason I need to clear it
}
}
[TestClass]
public class UnitTest10
{
[TestMethod]
public void TestMethod1()
{
var mock = new Mock<IRepository>();
MyBusinessClass b = new MyBusinessClass() { Repository = mock.Object };
b.AddAndSave("xpto");
mock.Verify(m => m.Save(It.Is<MyEntity>(x => x.MyList[0] == "xpto")), Times.Exactly(1));
}
}
}
My unit-test check if the IRepository's Save method was called with its parameter (an entity) having one element in the list, and having the value "xpto" in this element.
When I run this test, it turns red with the error message "Test method TestesGerais.UnitTest10.TestMethod1 threw exception:
System.ArgumentOutOfRangeException: Index was out of range. Must be non-negative and less than the size of the collection.
Parameter name: index".
Ok, this is caused by the list that has been cleaned. If I comment the line "_entity.MyList.Clear();", everything goes well.
My question is: how can I test this without commenting the "Clear" line in my business class, and making sure that my repository's method is called passing the specific value (entity with one element with value "xpto")?
Thanks
I've changed my unit test using the Callback feature of Moq. This way, I can setup the mock so when AddAndSave is called, the parameter it receives is saved into a variable from my unit test, and I can assert it later.
[TestMethod]
public void TestMethod1()
{
var mock = new Mock<IRepository>();
string result = string.Empty;
mock.Setup(m => m.Save(It.IsAny<MyEntity>())).Callback((MyEntity e) => { result = e.MyList[0]; });
MyBusinessClass b = new MyBusinessClass() { Repository = mock.Object };
b.AddAndSave("xpto");
Assert.AreEqual(result, "xpto");
}
You could split your method up a bit. "AddAndSave" isn't all it does. You could then just test the behaviour of the adding and saving bit in isolation.
Related
I been trying to figure out how i can unit test service and so far have got nowhere.
I am using xUnit and NSubstitute (as advised by friends), below is the simple test that i want to run (which fails currently).
public class UnitTest1
{
private readonly RallyService _rallyService;
public UnitTest1(RallyService rallyService)
{
_rallyService= rallyService;
}
[Fact]
public void Test1()
{
var result = _rallyService.GetAllRallies();
Assert.Equal(2, result.Count());
}
}
My rally service class makes a simple call to the db to get all Rally entites and returns those:
public class RallyService : IRallyService
{
private readonly RallyDbContext _context;
public RallyService(RallyDbContext context)
{
_context = context;
}
public IEnumerable<Rally> GetAllRallies()
{
return _context.Rallies;
}
}
Any guidance would be appreciated.
Since you use .NET Core, I assume you also use Entity Framework Core. While it was possible to mock most of the operations in the previous EF version, however the EF Core suggests to use in-memory database for unit testing. I.e. you don't need to mock RallyDbContext, hence NSubstitute is not needed for this particular test. You would need NSubstitute to mock the service when testing a controller or application using the service.
Below is your Test1 written using in-memory database.
public class UnitTest1
{
private readonly DbContextOptions<RallyDbContext> _options;
public UnitTest1()
{
// Use GUID for in-memory DB names to prevent any possible name conflicts
_options = new DbContextOptionsBuilder<RallyDbContext>()
.UseInMemoryDatabase(Guid.NewGuid().ToString())
.Options;
}
[Fact]
public async Task Test1()
{
using (var context = new RallyDbContext(_options))
{
//Given 2 records in database
await context.AddRangeAsync(new Rally { Name = "rally1" }, new Rally { Name = "rally2" });
await context.SaveChangesAsync();
}
using (var context = new RallyDbContext(_options))
{
//When retrieve all rally records from the database
var service = new RallyService(context);
var rallies = service.GetAllRallies();
//Then records count should be 2
Assert.Equal(2, rallies.Count());
}
}
}
A working test application with this unit test is in my GitHub for your reference. I used SQL Express in the actual app.
I don't think it is standard to have a unit test constructor with a parameter. The unit test runner will new up this class, and unless you are using something that will auto-inject that parameter I think the test will fail to run.
Here is a standard fixture layout:
public class SampleFixture {
[Fact]
public void SampleShouldWork() {
// Arrange stuff we need for the test. This may involved configuring
// some dependencies, and also creating the subject we are testing.
var realOrSubstitutedDependency = new FakeDependency();
realOrSubstitutedDependency.WorkingItemCount = 42;
var subject = new Subject(realOrSubstitutedDependency);
// Act: perform the operation we are testing
var result = subject.DoWork();
// Assert: check the subject's operation worked as expected
Assert.Equal(42, result);
}
[Fact]
public void AnotherTest() { /* ... */ }
}
If you need a common setup between tests, you can use a parameterless constructor and do common initialisation there.
In terms of the specific class you are trying to test, you need to make sure your RallyDbContext is in a known state to repeatably and reliably test. You may want to look up answers specific to testing Entity Framework for more information.
Having some issues wrapping my head around class instantiation and TestDriven.Net(v4.0.3478) or XUnit(v2.2.0), RhinoMocks(v3.6.1), and structuremap.automocking(v4.0.0.315).
Given this code:
public class Tests1
{
[Fact]
public void passing_test()
{
var mocker = new RhinoAutoMocker<Subject>();
mocker.Get<IData>().Stub(x => x.Strings).Return(new List<string> {""});
var result = mocker.ClassUnderTest.GetStrings();
result.Count().ShouldEqual(1);
}
}
public class Tests2
{
[Fact]
public void passing_test()
{
var mocker = new RhinoAutoMocker<Subject>();
mocker.Get<IData>().Stub(x => x.Strings).Return(new List<string> {""});
var result = mocker.ClassUnderTest.GetStrings();
result.Count().ShouldEqual(1);
}
}
public class Subject
{
private readonly IData _data;
public Subject(IData data)
{
_data = data;
}
public IEnumerable<string> GetStrings()
{
return _data.Strings;
}
}
public interface IData
{
IEnumerable<string> Strings { get; set; }
}
All tests run fine when I right click -> Run Test(s) on specific test method or a specific class definition.
Tests fail when I right click on project, folder containing tests or the namespace definition of the class above.
The errors are NullReferenceException, when doing asserts, it seems to be the stub's data. It's random, sometimes Tests1.passing_test fails, sometimes Tests2.passing_test fails. Never both.
Thinking it has to with RhinoAutoMocker and/or the MockRepository not being reset between test fixtures?
UPDATE: simplified the code to show the problem, also given code is complete, using NUnit [Test] instead of XUnit [Fact] attributes works, everything behaves as normal.
In your example, you have two separate test classes.
By default, xUnit v2 will run these tests in parallel.
I have experienced the same issue, but in my case using the static MockRepository.GenerateMock.
The static class being used across the parallel tests results in exceptions.
The seeming randomness of the test failures depends on which tests run first.
There are two alternatives I can see.
1. Tests in a single class - not really workable
2. Use the XUnit Collection attribute to place all tests classes in the same collection - this worked for me.
see: http://xunit.github.io/docs/running-tests-in-parallel.html
Another alternative is to turn off parallelism for xUnit using the following attribute in your test assembly
[assembly: CollectionBehavior(DisableTestParallelization = true)]
I have following Java code that I want to test. What I am having difficulty is figuring out how do I verify that call to handleAppVersionRequest , actually constructs AppVersionResponse object. Is there any way to do that using Mockito?
Here code is code for method:
class MyClass {
public void handleAppVersionRequest(String dataStr,
final int dataChannelId) {
String ver = "1.0";
final AppVersionResponse resp = new AppVersionResponse(ver);
Timber.d("Sending data %s", resp.toString());
sendResponse(dataChannelId, getGson().toJson(resp));
}
}
And here is method for test:
#Test
public void testHandleAppVersionRequest() throws Exception {
MyClass presenter = Mockito.spy(new MyClass());
String versionRequestJson = "{\"command\":1}";
when(presenter.getGson()).thenReturn(gSon);
presenter.handleAppVersionRequest(versionRequestJson,0);
// How do I verify that AppResponse object was constructed?
verify(presenter,times(1)).sendResponse(anyInt(),anyString());
}
If you must test the creation of the object during a unit test, you can extract a factory, mock it for your test, and then verify that the create method is called on it.
At the same time, consider spending some time looking at some tutorials for Mockito and unit testing in general, like this one. You should choose one class that is going to be the 'system under test'. Don't spy or mock this class! Instead, pass in mocks as dependencies that you will use to test the behaviour of your class.
Here is a factory extracted from your MyClass:
class AppVersionResponseFactory {
AppVersionResponse create(String version) {
return new AppVersionResponse(version);
}
}
Then the refactored version of your class where the dependencies (Gson and the factory) are passed in through the constructor:
class MyClass {
//dependencies that can now be mocked!
private final AppVersionResponseFactory appVersionResponseFactory;
private final Gson gson;
//pass the mockable dependencies in the constructor of the system under test!
public MyClass(AppVersionResponseFactory appVersionResponseFactory, Gson gson) {
this.appVersionResposeFactory = factory;
this.gson = gson;
}
public void handleAppVersionRequest(String dataStr, final int dataChannelId) {
String ver = "1.0";
AppVersionResponse resp = AppVersionResponseFactory.create(ver);
Timber.d("Sending data %s", resp.toString());
sendResponse(dataChannelId, gson.toJson(resp));
}
}
Now your test looks something like this:
//mocks
AppVersionResponseFactory mockAppVersionResposeFactory;
Gson mockGson;
//system under test
MyClass myClass;
#Before
public void setUp() {
mockAppVersionResposeFactory = Mockito.mock(AppVersionResponseFactory.class);
mockGson = Mockito.mock(Gson.class);
myClass = new MyClass(mockGson, mockAppVersionResposeFactory);
}
#Test
public void testHandleAppVersionRequest() throws Exception {
String versionRequestJson = "{\"command\":1}";
myClass.handleAppVersionRequest(versionRequestJson, 0);
verify(appVersionResposeFactory).create("1.0");
}
Please note that although your question asks for a way to verify the construction of an object, a better test would probably test the final outcome of that method i.e., that sendResponse was called with the correct dataChannelId and correct JSON. You can use the same techniques in this answer to do that i.e., extracting a dependency (perhaps a ResponseSender?), passing it in the constructor for your MyClass, mocking it in the test, then calling verify on it.
I am working on a unit test of an instance method. The method happens to be an ASP.NET MVC 4 controller action, but I don't think that really matters much. We just found a bug in this method, and I'd like to use TDD to fix the bug and make sure it doesn't come back.
The method under test calls a service which returns an object. It then calls an internal method passing a string property of this object. The bug is that under some circumstances, the service returns null, causing the method under test to throw a NullReferenceException.
The controller uses dependency injection, so I have been able to mock the service client to have it return a null object. The problem is that I want to change the method under test so that when the service returns null, the internal method should be called with a default string value.
The only way I could think to do this is to use a mock for the class under test. I want to be able to assert, or Verify that this internal method has been called with the correct default value. When I try this, I get a MockException stating that the invocation was not performed on the mock. Yet I was able to debug the code and see the internal method being called, with the correct parameters.
What's the right way to prove that the method under test calls another method passing a particular parameter value?
I think there's a code smell here. The first question I'll ask myself in such a situation is, is the "internal" method really internal/ private to the controller under test. Is it the controller's responsibility to do the "internal" task? Should the controller change when the internal method's implementation changes? May be not.
In that case, I would pull out a new targeted class, which has a public method which does the stuff which was until now internal to the controller.
With this refactoring in place, I would use the callback mechanism of MOQ and assert the argument value.
So eventually, you will end up mocking two dependancies:
1. The external service
2. The new targeted class which has the controller's internal implementation
Now your controller is completely isolated and can be unit tested independently. Also, the "internal" implementation becomes unit testable and should have its own set of unit tests too.
So your code and test would look something like this:
public class ControllerUnderTest
{
private IExternalService Service { get; set; }
private NewFocusedClass NewFocusedClass { get; set; }
const string DefaultValue = "DefaultValue";
public ControllerUnderTest(IExternalService service, NewFocusedClass newFocusedClass)
{
Service = service;
NewFocusedClass = newFocusedClass;
}
public void MethodUnderTest()
{
var returnedValue = Service.ExternalMethod();
string valueToBePassed;
if (returnedValue == null)
{
valueToBePassed = DefaultValue;
}
else
{
valueToBePassed = returnedValue.StringProperty;
}
NewFocusedClass.FocusedBehvaior(valueToBePassed);
}
}
public interface IExternalService
{
ReturnClass ExternalMethod();
}
public class NewFocusedClass
{
public virtual void FocusedBehvaior(string param)
{
}
}
public class ReturnClass
{
public string StringProperty { get; set; }
}
[TestClass]
public class ControllerTests
{
[TestMethod]
public void TestMethod()
{
//Given
var mockService = new Mock<IExternalService>();
mockService.Setup(s => s.ExternalMethod()).Returns((ReturnClass)null);
var mockFocusedClass = new Mock<NewFocusedClass>();
var actualParam = string.Empty;
mockFocusedClass.Setup(x => x.FocusedBehvaior(It.IsAny<string>())).Callback<string>(param => actualParam = param);
//when
var controller = new ControllerUnderTest(mockService.Object, mockFocusedClass.Object);
controller.MethodUnderTest();
//then
Assert.AreEqual("DefaultValue", actualParam);
}
}
Edit: Based on the suggestion in the comments to use "verify" instead of callback.
Easier way to verify the parameter value is by using strict MOQ behavior and a verify call on the mock after system under test is executed.
Modified test could look like below:
[TestMethod]
public void TestMethod()
{
//Given
var mockService = new Mock<IExternalService>();
mockService.Setup(s => s.ExternalMethod()).Returns((ReturnClass)null);
var mockFocusedClass = new Mock<NewFocusedClass>(MockBehavior.Strict);
mockFocusedClass.Setup(x => x.FocusedBehvaior(It.Is<string>(s => s == "DefaultValue")));
//When
var controller = new ControllerUnderTest(mockService.Object, mockFocusedClass.Object);
controller.MethodUnderTest();
//Then
mockFocusedClass.Verify();
}
"The only way I could think to do this is to use a mock for the class under test."
I think you should not mock class under test. Mock only external dependencies your class under test has. What you could do is to create a testable-class. It would be a class which derives from your CUT and here you can catch the calls to the another method and verify it's parameter later. HTH
Testable class in the example is named MyTestableController
Another method is named InternalMethod.
Short example:
[TestClass]
public class Tests
{
[TestMethod]
public void MethodUnderTest_WhenServiceReturnsNull_CallsInternalMethodWithDefault()
{
// Arrange
Mock<IService> serviceStub = new Mock<IService>();
serviceStub.Setup(s => s.ServiceCall()).Returns((ReturnedFromService)null);
MyTestableController testedController = new MyTestableController(serviceStub.Object)
{
FakeInternalMethod = true
};
// Act
testedController.MethodUnderTest();
// Assert
Assert.AreEqual(testedController.SomeDefaultValue, testedController.FakeInternalMethodWasCalledWithThisParameter);
}
private class MyTestableController
: MyController
{
public bool FakeInternalMethod { get; set; }
public string FakeInternalMethodWasCalledWithThisParameter { get; set; }
public MyTestableController(IService service)
: base(service)
{ }
internal override void InternalMethod(string someProperty)
{
if (FakeInternalMethod)
FakeInternalMethodWasCalledWithThisParameter = someProperty;
else
base.InternalMethod(someProperty);
}
}
}
The CUT could look something like this:
public class MyController : Controller
{
private readonly IService _service;
public MyController(IService service)
{
_service = service;
}
public virtual string SomeDefaultValue { get { return "SomeDefaultValue"; }}
public EmptyResult MethodUnderTest()
{
// We just found a bug in this method ...
// The method under test calls a service which returns an object.
ReturnedFromService fromService = _service.ServiceCall();
// It then calls an internal method passing a string property of this object
string someStringProperty = fromService == null
? SomeDefaultValue
: fromService.SomeProperty;
InternalMethod(someStringProperty);
return new EmptyResult();
}
internal virtual void InternalMethod(string someProperty)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
I'm trying inject my database initializer so that I can use test data initializer in my unit test and the real one in production.
Here is my ninject module.
class IocBindings : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
Bind<DbContext>()
.To<ActualEntityFrameworkDataContext>();
Bind(typeof(IDatabaseInitializer<>))
.To(typeof(TestDataContextInitializer));
}
}
As you can see there is only one binding is defined; however when I run the test it fails do to the following exception:
Ninject.ActivationException : Error activating IDatabaseInitializer{TContext} More than one matching bindings are available.
I have a base testfixture in which I instantiate the kernel ans pass it into common service locator:
[TestFixture]
public class TestContext
{
private IKernel NinjectKernel { get; set; }
[SetUp]
public void setup()
{
NinjectKernel = new StandardKernel(new INinjectModule[] { new IocBindings() } );
ServiceLocator.SetLocatorProvider(() => new NinjectServiceLocator(NinjectKernel));
}
[TearDown]
public void TearDownAttribute()
{
NinjectKernel.Dispose();
}
}
I'm new to ninject so I'm not sure if I have set it up correctly.
any help in how to resolve this issue is very welcomed.
Cheers
I'm not sure what is the problem with my source code, but if I use the following line of code, I get no exception. Obviously, this is the only workaround!
Bind<DbContext>()
.To<ActualEntityFrameworkDataContext>()
.OnActivation(dbContext => (new TestDataContextInitializer()).InitializeDatabase(dbContext as ActualEntityFrameworkDataContext));