I'm writing some unit tests in my project and I have a datacontext dependency on the controller containing the methods I'd like to test.
I'm using Ninject to inject the dependency and Moq to create my mock datacontext. My DI makes use of an interface IDataContext which my dbml impliments and is used through out the injection process.
In my unit test I'm creating my mock datacontext as follows:
var mock = new Mock<IDataContext>();
var myController = new MyController(mock.Object);
This throws a Object reference not set to an instance of an object. exception on the second line whilst executing the datacontexts constructor.
I'm clearly missing a fundamental piece in setting this up however most of the Moq examples I've seen involve some kind of test against the mocked object using Setup().
Am I going about this the right way? Should I be creating a mock of my IDataContext interface or something else?
haha,
the answer came while i was reading through emad's blog on unit testing in ASP.Net MVC.
I'm guessing that you didn't add the connection string to the app.config of your test project right? :)
And that's the database dependency way because you're still not mocking the database end.
So if you want to do that, you need to google up for some codes, there are a few ways to do that.
i find these few references below to be quite useful, but since i don't really have a need to mock the database end, i'm just using my test DB server for now.
link
Related
Im trying to get familiar with using MOQ and mocking in general. So I want to test an api controller which uses an assembly which serves as a repository for getting/updating data etc.
eg a structure like this.
HomeController
Index
Repository.GetSomeData (returns JSON object)
This repository class has an interface, and that is what is injected via the .net core startup class. The method in this case, GetSomeData does a number of steps via calls to the Db, as well as reading a file from the file system, parsing it and moving it off to another folder.
Question: How can a "mocked" Repository work without doing the things that the "real" object does? All the examples I see are simple addition, returning strings etc.
When you mock something like your repository, you going to stub out methods on the repository to return some canned result. Calls to those methods on the repository mock, then, bypass the real methods and instead just do what you've stubbed.
Essentially, you need to first identity what methods will be utilized. Then, you should determined appropriate responses those methods should return based on the particular scenario you're attempting to unit test. Then, you create the mock and add stubs for those methods with those responses.
The whole point of mocking is to remove variables, so you're intentionally trying to get to the "happy path": the set of internal responses that put the action in the state you need it to be in for specific test you're conducting.
I am sorry if this question is already been asked. I am very new to Unit Testing and I am suppose to use Rhino for mocking.
So the problem is...I have a method to test and that method is suppose to do retrive some data based on input parameter and return as datatable.
It also do some calculation for finding out which stored procedure should be called and with which set of parameters.
I issue is that, When I call the method with mock objects....it throws an error at date from database retrival line of code as object is not set to an instanse. That is expected as their is no data retruning from database since we are mocking it.
so what could be done it that case.
Seems like it is a good time to introduce Repository Pattern.
If you introduce than, the logic to generate query to DB and the logic to read data from DB will be encapsulated in the Repository.
In this case you can mock/stub the Repository in your tests and you can unit test all the classes, which use Repository, without creation test DB at all.
The Repository mock will verify whether incoming parameters are correct.
And the Repository stub will return any test-specific data which you need for each particular test.
I can add a method to the java Integer type in Groovy with the lines:
ExpandoMetaClass.EnableGlobally()
Integer.metaClass.gimmeAP = {->return 'p'}
I don't know why I'd need that, but it gets the point across. Now I can make calls to Integers and get back a 'p'. Now lets say I want this in a grails app so I can make calls in the domain objects. The specific problem I'm having is that when I put those metaprogramming lines in the bootstrap all the metaprogramming isn't available in the unit tests, so my unit tests are failing with errors like "No method gimmeAP for java.lang.Integer" or something like that.
How do I either include the metaprogramming better, or execute that part of the bootstrap so I can use my tricked out syntax in unit tests?
I have seen this question: Grails - Making Methods Globally Available and Metaclass Programming and it seems my line ExpandoMetaClass.EnableGlobally() may fix his problem, but am I using it right?
Bootstrap isn't executed for unit tests. I would personally prefer to create a mockFoo method that does the above meta programming, and Then I will call the mockFoo from the test setup.
Also look at the GrailsUnitTestCase.registerMetaClass. Register metaclass before you add mock methods, so that they don't leak in other tests.
registerMetaClass(SecurityUtils)
SecurityUtils.metaClass.'static'.getSubject = { ->
return [logout: { return true } ] as Subject
}
I know you want to make your dynamic methods available to all unit tests, but there's nothing such as bootstrap for unit tests. So you have to do it in each test.
You can create a MockHelper with a static method, and call it from test setUp.
I'm trying to write unit tests for parts of my Node app. I'm using Mongoose for my ORM.
I've searched a bunch for how to do testing with Mongoose and Node but not come with anything. The solutions/frameworks all seem to be full-stack or make no mention of mocking stuff.
Is there a way I can mock my Mongoose DB so I can return static data in my tests? I'd rather not have to set up a test DB and fill it with data for every unit test.
Has anyone else encountered this?
I too went looking for answers, and ended up here. This is what I did:
I started off using mockery to mock out the module that my models were in. An then creating my own mock module with each model hanging off it as a property. These properties wrapped the real models (so that child properties exist for the code under test). And then I override the methods I want to manipulate for the test like save. This had the advantage of mockery being able to undo the mocking.
but...
I don't really care enough about undoing the mocking to write wrapper properties for every model. So now I just require my module and override the functions I want to manipulate. I will probably run tests in separate processes if it becomes an issue.
In the arrange part of my tests:
// mock out database saves
var db = require("../../schema");
db.Model1.prototype.save = function(callback) {
console.log("in the mock");
callback();
};
db.Model2.prototype.save = function(callback) {
console.log("in the mock");
callback("mock staged an error for testing purposes");
};
I solved this by structuring my code a little. I'm keeping all my mongoose-related stuff in separate classes with APIs like "save", "find", "delete" and no other class does direct access to the database. Then I simply mock those in tests that rely on data.
I did something similar with the actual objects that are returned. For every model I have in mongoose, I have a corresponding class that wraps it and provides access-methods to fields. Those are also easily mocked.
Also worth mentioning:
mockgoose - In-memory DB that mocks Mongoose, for testing purposes.
monckoose - Similar, but takes a different approach (Implements a fake driver). Monckoose seems to be unpublished as of March 2015.
Does anybody have a link for a tutorial on how to write JRE junit tests (extending TestCase and not GWTTestCase) that tests Activity and Views in GWT 2.1?
Best regards
Pich
Views can only be unit tested using GWTTestCase because they call (either explicitly or implicitly) GWT.create().
To test Activities use mock Views to avoid use of GWT.create().
I have managed to test views, which of course contains reference to the objects that calls GWT.create(), using PowerMock.
For Activities it is easy todo using Mockito for instance to mock the View.