I have a web project which reads multiple configuration keys from web.config. These settings are related to the rules implemented in the project. When the unit test invokes the model classes in the web project it ends up reading the app.config from the unit test project. So I have to replicate the keys in app.config in the unit test project. Is it better to move the configuration information to an external file in the web project to avoid the copies of the configuration information?
Thanks in advance.
When testing web apps I end up doing the same as you, copying settings into the app.config file of the test project. There's nothing wrong with that.
The alternative would be to mock the config settings where they would be used, but this can be cumbersome, however it is still a valid approach. I tend to just keep it simple and create an app.config file.
I would use wrapper class which returns those settings. Example below
public interface ISettingStorage
{
string GetSetting(string name);
}
public class SettingStorage : ISettingStorage
{
public string GetSetting(string name)
{
// read the actual setting from the web.config
}
}
This way you can mock the ISettingStorage in your unit tests to return whatever values you want. It will also slightly speed up the unit tests because there is no disk I/O.
Related
I need a good practice to deal with my issue.
The issue is: I need to run automatic tests against a site. The site has different configurations that completely change its design (on some pages). For example I can config 2 different pages of login. And I need to test them both.
First of all I must make sure that a correct test is run against a correct configuration. So before each test I need to change site's config. It is not good if I have a thousand of test.
So a solution that comes to my mind is to not reconfigure the site each time but do it once and run all the tests that are corresponding to this configuration. But this solution doesn't seems to me as an easy one to make.
For now what I did is: I created a method that is run once before all the other tests and in this method I configure the site to make config that are used in the majority of the tests. All the other tests for now change the config before execution and after execution they change it back. It's not good at all.
To do so I used NUnit3 SetUpFixture and OneTimeSetUp attributes:
/// <summary>
/// Runs once before all the test in order to config the environment
/// </summary>
[SetUpFixture]
public class ConfigTests
{
[OneTimeSetUp]
public void RunBeforeAnyTests()
{
IWebDriver driver = new ChromeDriver();
try
{
//Here I config the stie
CommonActions actions = new CommonActions(driver);
actions.SwitchOffCombinedPaymentPage();
driver.Dispose();
}
catch (Exception)
{
driver.Dispose();
}
}
}
What I thought after this is that I'll be able to send parameters to SetUpFixture but first of all it's impossible and second of all it won't resolve the problem as this feature will just be run twice and the tests will be run against the last configuration.
So guys, how to deal with a site testing that has a lot of configurations?
I'd use a test run parameter from the command-line (or in the .runsettings file if you are using the VS adapter) Your SetUpFixture can grab that parameter and do the initialization and any individual fixtures that need it can grab it as well.
See the --params option to nunit3-console and the TestContext.TestParameters property for accessing the values.
This answers your "first of all it's impossible" part. I didn't answer "second of all... " because I don't understand it. I'll add more if you can clarify.
I'm using log4net, trying to get logging in my unit tests. If I manually call
log4net.Config.XmlConfigurator.Configure();
Since that works, that seems to eliminate all of the "bad config, config location" issues.
it works, but there are a large number of test classes, so that is not good.
I added
[assembly: log4net.Config.XmlConfigurator(Watch=true)]
to the assemblyinfo of my test project, but when I run (either via native MSTest, or Resharper test runner) I get no logging.
Help?
Source
[AssemblyInitialize()]
public static void MyTestInitialize(TestContext testContext)
{
// Take care the log4net.config file is added to the deployment files of the testconfig
FileInfo fileInfo;
string fullPath = Path.Combine(System.Environment.CurrentDirectory, "log4net.config");
fileInfo = new FileInfo(fullPath);
As it says in the documentation for assembly attributes
Therefore if you use configuration attributes you must invoke log4net
to allow it to read the attributes. A simple call to
LogManager.GetLogger will cause the attributes on the calling assembly
to be read and processed. Therefore it is imperative to make a logging
call as early as possible during the application start-up, and
certainly before any external assemblies have been loaded and invoked.
Because the unit test runners load the test assembly in order to find and the tests, it isn't possible to initialise log4net using an assembly attribute in unit test projects, and you will have to use the XmlConfigurator.
Edit: as linked in a comment by OP this can be done in one place for the whole test project by using the AssemblyInitializeAttribute
Is there a way to inject providers when writing unit tests using Karma(Testacular) and Jasmine in angular?
Our team decided recently to use angularjs $log to write debugging details to the console. This way we can leverage the ability to disable the logging via the $logProvider.debugEnabled() method.
angular.module("App", ["prismLogin", "ui.bootstrap"])
.config(["$routeProvider", "$logProvider",
function ($routeProvider, $logProvider) {
$routeProvider
//routes here edited for brevity
//This is the offending line, it breaks several pre-existing tests
$logProvider.debugEnabled(true);
}]);
However after adding the $logProvider.debugEnabled(true); line several of our tests no longer execute successfully, failing with the following message:
TypeError: Object doesn't support property or method 'debugEnabled' from App
So my question again, is it possible to mock the $logProvider? Or should I provide my own configuration block for the test harness?
I attempted searching for a way to mock the app module with no luck. It seems to me that using the concrete app module instead of a mock is very brittle. I would like to avoid reworking tests associated with the app module every time a change is made in the app or run configuration blocks.
The tests that are failing are units of code with no relation to the $logProvider? I feel as if I a missing something here and making things much harder than they should be. How should one go about writing tests that are flexible and are not affected by other side effects introduced in your application?
It appears that this is a know issue with angular-mocks.
Until the issue is addressed , I was able to resolve the issue by adding the following method to the angular.mock.$LogProvider definition in angular-mocks.js at line 295.
this.debugEnabled = function(flag) {
return this;
};
I am creating a cross-platform project with MvvmCross v3 and Xamarin solution and i would like to create some unit-tests.
This seems a bit outdated, so i was trying to follow this and it worked as expected.
However, I am now making an attempt to unit-test some of my domain services, which are dependent on platform specific MvvvCross plugins (e.g ResourceLoader).
Running the test results in the following exception:
Cirrious.CrossCore.Exceptions.MvxException: Failed to resolve type
Cirrious.CrossCore.Plugins.IMvxPluginManager.
I assume that IMvxPluginManager is probably registered in the Setup flow, and that I need to include platform implementation of the plugins in my project, yet I was wondering what would be the preferred way of setting up my unit-test project? Is there something that I am missing?
Is there any updated tutorial for the above task?
Are there already any plugin platform extensions that supports test environment, or should I make an attempt to write them by myself?
In general, you shouldn't be loading the plugins or a real MvxPluginManager during your service tests.
Instead your unit tests should be registering mock types for the interfaces that your services need to use.
var mock = new Mock<INeedToUse>();
// use mock.Setup methods
Ioc.RegisterSingleton<INeedToUse>(mock.Object);
// or you can use constructor dependency injection on INeedToUse instead
You can also register a mock IMvxPluginManager if you really need to, but in the majority of cases I don't believe you should need that. If you've got a case where you absolutely need it, please post a code sample - it's easier to talk in code than text.
This scenario should be well possible. I wanted to UnitTest my SqlLite service implementation. I did the following to get it to work:
Create a Visual Studio unit test project
Add a reference to .Core portable library project
Add a nuget reference To MvvmCross Test Helper
Add a nugget reference to MvvmCross SqlLite Plugin
( this will make use of the WPF implementation of SqlLite)
Download the SqlLite windows library and copy these into your test project
Sql Lite Download location
And make sure to add the sqllite3.dll to the root of your unit test project and set the "Copy to Output Library" to "Copy always". This will make sure the actual sqllite database is copied to the unit test dll location. (Check that the DLL is copied to your bin/debug folder)
Then write you unit test the following way:
[TestClass]
public class SqlServiceTests:MvxIoCSupportingTest
{
private readonly ISQLiteConnectionFactory _factory;
public SqlServiceTests()
{
base.ClearAll();
_factory = new MvxWpfSqLiteConnectionFactory();
Ioc.RegisterSingleton<ISQLiteConnectionFactory>(_factory);
}
[TestMethod]
public void YourSqlLiteTest()
{
// Arrange
var si = new SqlDataService(_factory);
var list = si.GetOrderList();
}
}
I haven't tested this with my viewmodel. By using the IoC.RegisterSingleton method the SqlConnectionFactory should be readyli available for your viewmodels.
I'm working on a web application that is built over Sitecore CMS. I was wondering if we could unit test for example a method that takes some data from Sitecore makes some processing with it and spits out a result. I would like to test all the logic within the method via a unit test.
I pretty confused after searching the internet wide and deep. Some say that this kind of testing is actually integration testing and not unit testing and I should test only the code that has no Sitecore calls, others say that this is not possible because the Sitecore context would be missing.
I would like to ask for your help experienced fellow programmers:
Can I unit test a method that contains Sitecore calls ? If YES, how ? If NO, why ? Is there any workaround ?
The project is at its beginning, so there will be no problem in choosing between unit testing frameworks such as MSTest or Nunit, if it is the case that the solution is related to the unit testing framework of choice.
It's pretty hard to find out anything about Sitecore without providing email and living through the sales pitch, so I'll just provide a generic approach on how to do something like this.
First and foremost, you assume that the Sitecore API is guaranteed to work - i.e. it's a framework - and you don't unit test it. You should be unit testing your interactions with it.
Then, download MOQ and read the quick start on how to use it. This is my preferred mocking framework. Feel free to use other frameworks if you wish.
Hopefully, Sitecore API provides a way for you to create data objects without dealing with persistence - i.e. to simply create a new instance of whatever it is you are interested in. Here is my imaginary API:
public class Post {
public string Body {get;set;}
public DateTime LastModified {get;set;}
public string Title {get;set;}
}
public interface ISiteCorePosts {
public IEnumerable<Post> GetPostsByUser(int userId);
}
In this case unit testing should be fairly easy. With a bit of Dependency Injection, you can inject the SiteCore interfaces into your component and then unit test it.
public class MyPostProcessor {
private readonly ISiteCorePosts m_postRepository;
public MyPostProcessor(ISiteCorePosts postRepository) {
m_postRepository = postRepository;
}
public void ProcessPosts(int userId) {
var posts = m_postRepository.GetPostsByUser(userId);
//do something with posts
}
}
public class MyPostProcessorTest {
[TestMethod]
ProcessPostsShouldCallGetPostsByUser() {
var siteCorePostsMock = new Mock<ISiteCorePosts>();
//Sets up the mock to return a list of posts when called with userId = 5
siteCorePostsMock.Setup(m=>m.GetPostsByUser(5)).Returns(new List<Post>{/*fake posts*/});
MyPostProcessor target = new MyPostProcessor(siteCorePostsMock.Object);
target.ProcessPosts(5);
//Verifies that all setups are called
siteCorePostsMock.VerifyAll();
}
}
If ISiteCorePosts is not, in fact, an interface and is a concrete class whose methods are not virtual and thus cannot be mocked, you will need to use Facade pattern to wrap the SiteCore interaction to make it more testing friendly.
public class SiteCorePostsFacade {
SiteCorePosts m_Posts = new SiteCorePosts();
//important - make this method virtual so it can be mocked without needing an interface
public virtual IEnumerable<Post> GetPostsByUser(int userId) {
return m_Posts.GetPostsByUser(userId);
}
}
You then proceed to use SiteCorePostsFacade as though it was an interface in the previous example. Good thing about MOQ is that it allows you to mock concrete classes with virtual methods, not just interfaces.
With this approach, you should be able to inject all sorts of data into your application to test all interactions with SiteCore API.
we have used a custom WebControl placed on a WebForm for our integration tests some years now, which wraps the NUnit Test Suite runner functionality much like the NUnit GUI. It show a pretty grid of executed tests with links to fixtures and categories to execute specific tests. Its created much like described here http://adeneys.wordpress.com/2010/04/13/new-technique-for-unit-testing-renderings-in-sitecore/ (the custom test runner part). Our implementation can also return raw NUnit xml for further processing by for example a build server.
I've tried MSTest a while back and it also works when specified that it should launch a WebDev / IIS site to test. It works but is extremely slow compared to above solution.
Happy testing!
Short answer:
You need to mock calls to SiteCore CMS.
Long answer:
I am not aware about SiteCore CMS. But, from your question looks like it is something that is external to your application. Components external to your system should always be used via interface. This has two benefits:
If you want to use another CMS system, you can easily do as your application is just talking to an interface.
It helps you with behavior testing by mocking the interface.
The code you write is your responsibility and hence you should only unit test that piece of code. Your unit tests should ensure that your code calls appropriate SiteCode CMS methods in various scenarios (behavior tests). You can do this using mocking. I use moq for mocking.
As tugga said, it depends upon how tightly the code you want to test is coupled to SiteCore. If it's something like:
SomeSiteCoreService siteCoreDependency = new SomeSiteCoreService()
Then this would be very difficult to test. If SiteCore provides you an interface, then you have more flexibility to unit test it. You could pass the implementation into your method either (contstructor, class property, or method parameter) and then you can send in a fake implementation of that service.
If they do not provide you with an interface, then you have to do a little more work. You would write an adapter interface of your own and the default implementation would delegate to the 3rd party dependency.
public interface ICMSAdapter{
void DoSomethingWithCMS()
}
public class SiteCoreCMSAdapter: ICMSAdapter{
SiteCoreService _cms = new SiteCoreService();
public void DoSomethingWithCMS(){
_cms.DoSomething();
}
That keeps your 3rd party dependencies at arms length and provides seams to all sorts of cool things, like unit tests and you do interception style architecture and do your own thing before and after the call.
}
I was able to get unit tests to interact with sitecore api in VS 2015. The same test throws a StackOverflow exception when run in VS 2012.
For example, this method call runs fine in VS2015 but not VS2015:
Context.SetActiveSite("mysite");
quick note: this assumes you have a site named mysite setup in your config file