I dont want the users to put in method names and their parameters manually and mess with the method. Im aware i can check for unvalid inputs but what if I call a method that generates an access code and passes that into the main controller with the all the other parameters. If the access code. Then decide that access code, if valid proceed. Is this a little too much and too crazy? What other options would you suggest
Public IActionResult MainMethod(string input, string accesscode)
{
//check if access code is correct. I can figure out the decode process and stuff
}
Public IActionResult GenerateCode(string Inputt)
{
// generate a code
Return redirectToAction(“MainMethod” new {input=Inputt , accesscode=accesscode}
});
In View when a button is clicked, I call GenerateCode first
Since you pass Inputt and generated accesscode from GenerateCode to MainMethod,why not only pass input to MainMethod?And then call a method to accesscode,and then check the accesscode in MainMehtod.
public IActionResult MainMethod(string input)
{
string accesscode = GenerateCode(input);
//check if access code is correct. I can figure out the decode process and stuff
}
public string GenerateCode(string Inputt)
{
// generate a code
return accesscode;
}
Related
If I have an Apex function that is named authorize() that just gets a username, password, and session token, and another function called getURL('id#', 'key'), that takes an id# for the record as a string and a key for the image to return as a string as parameters. getURL calls the authorize function inside it in order to get the credentials for its callout. The authorize is a post request, and the getURL is a get request.
I am trying to figure out how to test both of these callouts just so I can make sure that getURL is returning the proper JSON as a response. It doesn't even have to be the URL yet which is its intention eventually. But I just need to test it to make sure these callouts are working and that I am getting a response back for the 75% code coverage that it needs.
I made a multiRequestMock class that looks like this:
public class MultiRequestMock implements HttpCalloutMock {
Map<String, HttpCalloutMock> requests;
public MultiRequestMock(Map<String, HttpCalloutMock> requests) {
this.requests = requests;
}
public HTTPResponse respond(HTTPRequest req) {
HttpCalloutMock mock = requests.get(req.getEndpoint());
if (mock != null) {
return mock.respond(req);
} else {
throw new MyCustomException('HTTP callout not supported for test methods');
}
}
public void addRequestMock(String url, HttpCalloutMock mock) {
requests.put(url, mock);
}
}
I then began to write a calloutTest.cls file but wasn't sure how to use this mock class in order to test my original functions. Any clarity or assistance on this would be helpful Thank you.
I believe in your calloutTest class you use Test.setMock(HttpCalloutMock.class, new MultiRequestMock(mapOfRequests)); then call the getUrl and/or authorize methods and instead of the request really executing the response returned will be that which is specified in the response(HttpRequest) method you have implemented in the MultiRequestMock class. That is basically how I see it working, for more info and an example you can see this resource on testing callout classes. This will get you the code coverage you need but unfortunately cannot check you are getting the correct JSON response. For this, you may be able to use the dev console and Execute Anonymous?
You may want to look at simplifying your HttpCalloutMock Implementation and think about removing the map from the constructor as this class really only needs to return a simple response then your calloutTest class can be where you make sure the returned response is correct.
Hope this helps
UPD. Sorry, guys.
I have an application that acts as a SOAP server, how do I write a PHPUnit test to test it?
SOAP extension is reading data from PHP input stream. You just provide your own data there and create some integration/unit tests for your API.
Take a look at the signature of SoapServer::handle() method. It takes as an argument a string which is a request itself. This parameter is optional and if you don't pass anything in, PHP will just read the data itself. But you can simply override it.
I used streams to do it. First you wrap the SoapServer with your own class like this:
class MyServer
{
/** \SoapServer */
private $soapServer;
public function __construct(\SoapServer $soapServer)
{
$this->soapServer = $soapServer;
}
public function handle(Psr\Http\Message\StreamInterface $inputStream): void
{
$this->soapServer->handle($inputStream->getContent());
}
}
Now you are ready to mock the request.
In your test you can do:
class MyTest extends TestCase
{
public function testMyRequest(): void
{
$mySoapServer = $this->createMySoapServer();
$request = $this->createRequest();
$mySoapServer->handle($request);
}
private function createRequest(): StreamInterface
{
$requestString = '<soap:Envelope></soap:Envelope>';
$fh = fopen('php://temp', 'rw');
fwrite($fh, $requestString);
fseek($fh, SEEK_SET);
return new Psr\Http\Message\StreamInterface\Stream($fh);
}
private function createMySoapServer(): MyServer
{
return new MyServer(new \SoapServer());
}
}
One thing to keep in mind - this test will generate output. You may want to test this output or ignore it. Depends on your use case.
Another side note. What you are asking for has really nothing to do with PHPUnit. It just a matter of designing your SOAP server correctly.
If you are wondering how to set up the stream when you have a live request, this is really simple:
$server->handle(new Psr\Http\Message\StreamInterface\Stream(fopen('php://input', 'r+')));
I have an MVC 4 application that sends out multiple emails. For example, I have an email template for submitting an order, a template for cancelling an order, etc...
I have an Email Service with multiple methods. My controller calls the Send method which looks like this:
public virtual void Send(List<string> recipients, string subject, string template, object data)
{
...
string html = GetContent(template, data);
...
}
The Send method calls GetContent, which is the method causing the problem:
private string GetContent(string template, object data)
{
string path = Path.Combine(BaseTemplatePath, string.Format("{0}{1}", template, ".html.cshtml"));
string content = File.ReadAllText(path);
return Engine.Razor.RunCompile(content, "htmlTemplate", null, data);
}
I am receiving the error:
The same key was already used for another template!
In my GetContent method should I add a new parameter for the TemplateKey and use that variable instead of always using htmlTemplate? Then the new order email template could have newOrderKey and CancelOrderKey for the email template being used to cancel an order?
Explanation
This happens because you use the same template key ("htmlTemplate") for multiple different templates.
Note that the way you currently have implemented GetContent you will run into multiple problems:
Even if you use a unique key, for example the template variable, you will trigger the exception when the templates are edited on disk.
Performance: You are reading the template file every time even when the template is already cached.
Solution:
Implement the ITemplateManager interface to manage your templates:
public class MyTemplateManager : ITemplateManager
{
private readonly string baseTemplatePath;
public MyTemplateManager(string basePath) {
baseTemplatePath = basePath;
}
public ITemplateSource Resolve(ITemplateKey key)
{
string template = key.Name;
string path = Path.Combine(baseTemplatePath, string.Format("{0}{1}", template, ".html.cshtml"));
string content = File.ReadAllText(path);
return new LoadedTemplateSource(content, path);
}
public ITemplateKey GetKey(string name, ResolveType resolveType, ITemplateKey context)
{
return new NameOnlyTemplateKey(name, resolveType, context);
}
public void AddDynamic(ITemplateKey key, ITemplateSource source)
{
throw new NotImplementedException("dynamic templates are not supported!");
}
}
Setup on startup:
var config = new TemplateServiceConfiguration();
config.Debug = true;
config.TemplateManager = new MyTemplateManager(BaseTemplatePath);
Engine.Razor = RazorEngineService.Create(config);
And use it:
// You don't really need this method anymore.
private string GetContent(string template, object data)
{
return Engine.Razor.RunCompile(template, null, data);
}
RazorEngine will now fix all the problems mentioned above internally. Notice how it is perfectly fine to use the name of the template as key, if in your scenario the name is all you need to identify a template (otherwise you cannot use NameOnlyTemplateKey and need to provide your own implementation).
Hope this helps.
(Disclaimer: Contributor of RazorEngine)
In my web application I have a form where user can send SMS to any phone. The action is declared something like this:
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Index(Massages massages)
{
// called the webservice
return View(massages);
}
This works fine.
There is web service which sends the SMS message to the client (i.e. their phone). In this web service call we also have to provide a PostBackUrl, so we could see the response which client has provided.
This response is coming in form of JSON and HttpPost.
I am puzzled how declare such function.
//It is wrong but It might be something like this.
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult ReplyBack(JSON reply)
{
return View(reply);
}
So you are close, you should just define the structure of the "reply" argument as a C# class and ASP.NET will parse the JSON postback.
So do
public class JSONRequest
{
property MessageId as Int
property Sender AS String
}
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult ReplyBack(JSONRequest request)
{
//query database with request.MessageId
return View(reply);
}
I changed the name of your argument to request because, unless I am not following your question correctly, you need to call another webservice to get replies. So it does not make sense to make a request to ReplyBack with an JSON argument called reply, the response is the reply in this case, so ReplyBack gets the request arguments and builds the reply as a response. Also I would rename your ReplyBack method to GetReply as it should make more sense to other developers.
I have never seen this before and am stumped. I have the following controller sequence:
/// <summary>
/// Helper method to store offerId to TempData
/// </summary>
/// <param name="offerId"></param>
private void StoreOfferInTempData(string offerId)
{
if (TempData.ContainsKey(SelectedOfferKey))
TempData.Remove(SelectedOfferKey);
TempData.Add(SelectedOfferKey, offerId);
}
[HttpPost]
[AllowAnonymous]
public virtual ActionResult Step1(MyViewModel model)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
StoreOfferInTempData(model.SelectedOfferId);
return RedirectToAction(MVC.Subscription.Register());
}
MySecondViewModel model2 = new MySecondViewModel { OfferId = model.SelectedOfferId };
return View(model2);
}
[HttpGet]
[AllowAnonymous]
public virtual ActionResult Register()
{
string offerId = TempData[SelectedOfferKey] as string; //we get a valid value here
... error handling content elided ...
RegisterViewModel model = new RegisterViewModel { OfferId = offerId };
return View(model);
}
[HttpPost]
[AllowAnonymous]
public virtual ActionResult Register(RegisterViewModel model)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
CreateCustomerResult result = CustomerService.CreateAccount(model.Email, model.NewPassword);
if (result.Success)
{
... content elided; storing customer to Session ...
MyMembershipProvider.PersistUserCookie(result.Principal, true);
//need to store our selected OfferId again for use by the next step
StoreOfferInTempData(model.OfferId);
return RedirectToAction(MVC.Subscription.Payment());
}
model.ErrorMessage = result.ErrorMessage;
}
return View(model);
}
[HttpGet]
public ActionResult Payment()
{
string offerId = TempData[SelectedOfferKey] as string; //this is null???
... content elided ...
return View(model);
}
The first round of storage to TempData behaves as expected. The value is present in the subsequent HttpGet method and is marked for deletion such that it is no longer there when I go to add it again. However, on the third HttpGet method, it returns null.
I have tried using different Keys for each round with no change. I can assure you that at no time other than those displayed am I checking TempData, so I see no way the value would be marked for deletion somehow. Also, it fails in the Payment method whether it has an [AllowAnonymous] attribute or not (so not due to any http to https switch or anything like that.
Seems like it must be something very simple, but my searches have turned up nothing. Any help greatly appreciated.
UPDATE: On further inspection, it seems my whole context is hosed on this step, for some reason. We're using IoC in the controllers, but none of the IoC-instantiated items are there. The mystery deepens.
The lifespan of TempData is only until it's read back out or the next request has processed (which ever comes first). You shouldn't be relying on TempData if you're going in to two (or three) requests. Instead, use the session or a database.
The purpose of TempData is to hand-off information between requests not to perpetuate until you clear it (that's what sessions are for).
Aha! Well, this is obscure enough that I hope it helps someone else. Turns out, I had forgotten to run my T4MVC.tt file after creating the Payment() actions, so the RedirectToAction taking an MVC.Subscription.Payment() action was not instantiating the controller properly. I'm not clear on all the underlying magic here, but if you run into this and are using T4MVC.tt, make sure you ran it!
Comments on why this would be are welcome.
Use TempData.Keep("key") to retain values between multiple post-backs