I have a conceptual doubt about how to organize and test code like the following, where a call to an auxiliary method is the first instruction of all the public methods of the class. My idea is make the code clean and testable.
The code is an example to try to illustrate this by a class "cache". This class has an optional prefix will be applied to all keys in the cache if it is set.
import java.util.HashMap;
public class Cache {
private HashMap<String, Integer> inMemoryCache;
private String prefix;
public Cache() {
this.inMemoryCache = new HashMap<String, Integer>();
prefix = null;
}
public void setPrefix(String prefix) {
this.prefix = prefix;
}
public int getValue(String key) throws NullPointerException {
String prefixedKey = applyPrefixOrDefault(key);
return inMemoryCache.get(prefixedKey);
}
public void setValue(String key, int value) {
String prefixedKey = applyPrefixOrDefault(key);
inMemoryCache.put(prefixedKey, value);
}
public boolean isCached(String key) {
String prefixedKey = applyPrefixOrDefault(key);
return inMemoryCache.containsKey(prefixedKey);
}
private String applyPrefixOrDefault(String key) {
if (prefix == null) {
return key;
} else {
return prefix + key;
}
}
public static void main (String[] arg) {
Cache cache = new Cache();
cache.setPrefix("global:");
cache.setValue("id", 4);
int value = cache.getValue("id");
System.out.println(value);
}
}
This code poses two questions to me:
If I had many methods accessing the inner hash table, would it be right separate the behavior of the cache in one class and the behavior of the prefix in other?
What would be the cleanest way to test this? Test the getValue, setValue and isCached is simple if we do not consider the prefix. With the prefix we need to test two things, the correct internal behavior of the cache and we need test also that all methods call applyPrefixOrDefault before accessing the data.
This is a common use case and I'm sure there must be some design pattern to organize this. Any idea?
To my opinion, what we miss here is a constructor that let us set the state of the cache. So I would add one as follows:
public Cache() {
this(null, new HashMap<String, Integer>());
}
public Cache(String prefix, Map<String, Integer> cache) {
this.prefix = prefix;
this.inMemoryCache = cache;
}
With this new constructor, you should be able to write test-cases for every possible cache state. I would also change the visibility of the applyPrefixOrDefault method to protected or package so that test code can access it. For instance, to test the GetValue method, I would write:
public class EmptyCacheTests {
private final Map<String, Integer> memory;
private final String prefix;
private final Cache cache;
public EmptyCacheTests() {
this.memory = new HasMap<String, Integer>();
this.prefix = "foo";
this.cache = new Cache(prefix, memory);
}
public void testGetValue() {
String key = this.cache.applyPrefixOrDefault("bar")
this.memory.put(key, 50);
result = this.cache.getValue("bar");
assertEquals(50, result, "The value retrieved is wrong!");
}
}
The point here, it to allow the test to set up the internal state of the cache, so that we can then test against many different ones.
Related
I would like to write xunit test case of below method. Could you please suggest alternate design so i can write xunit test case with minimum change in my current project.
public ActionResult Index(int id = 0, AssetFilterType filter = AssetFilterType.All)
{
using (var tracer = new Tracer("AssetController", "Index"))
{
RemoveReturnUrl();
ViewBag.JobId = id;
var response = ContextFactory.Current.GetDomain<EmployeeDomain>().GetEmployeeFilterAsync(id,
CurrentUser.CompanyId, filter); // Not able write unit test case , please suggest alternate design.
return View("View", response);
}
}
current design is as follow
public interface IDomain
{
}
public interface IContext
{
D GetDomain<D>() where D : IDomain;
string ConnectionString { get; }
}
public class ApplicationContext : IContext
{
public D GetDomain<D>() where D : IDomain
{
return (D)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(D));
}
public string ConnectionString
{
get
{
return "DatabaseConnection";
}
}
}
public class ContextFactory
{
private static IContext _context;
public static IContext Current
{
get
{
return _context;
}
}
public static void Register(IContext context)
{
_context = context;
}
}
//var response = ContextFactory.Current.GetDomain**< EmployeeDomain>**().GetEmployeeFilterAsync(id,
CompanyId, filter);
This line serve purpose to call specific class method i.e GetEmployeeFilterAsync from EmployeeDomain. Although it is very handy and widely used in our application but due to design issue i am not able to write unit
test case.
Could you please suggest design so with the minimum change we can write unit test case.
Don't use the Service Locator anti-pattern, use Constructor Injection instead. I can't tell what AssetDomain is from the OP, but it seems as though it's the dependency that matters. Inject it into the class:
public class ProbablySomeController
{
public ProbablySomeController(AssetDomain assetDomain)
{
AssetDomain = assetDomain;
}
public AssetDomain AssetDomain { get; }
public ActionResult Index(int id = 0, AssetFilterType filter = AssetFilterType.All)
{
using (var tracer = new Tracer("AssetController", "Index"))
{
RemoveReturnUrl();
ViewBag.JobId = id;
var response = AssetDomain.GetAssetFilterAsync(id, CurrentUser.CompanyId, filter);
return View("View", response);
}
}
}
Assuming that AssetDomain is a polymorphic type, you can now write a test and inject a Test Double:
[Fact]
public void MyTest()
{
var testDouble = new AssetDomainTestDouble();
var sut = new ProbablySomeController(testDouble);
var actual = sut.Index(42, AssetFilterType.All);
// Put assertions here
}
step1 : Required library
step 2 : When the application starts , register required domain like
protected void Application_Start()
UnityConfig.RegisterComponents();
Step 3: create one static class and register all your domain
example
public static class UnityConfig
{
public static void RegisterComponents()
{
var container = new UnityContainer();
Initialize domain which will injected in controller
container.RegisterType<IPricingDomain, PricingDomain>();
GlobalConfiguration.Configuration.DependencyResolver = new UnityDependencyResolver(container);
}
}
step 4 :
so you can inject respective interface in constructor
in controller file.
goal : get rid of below any pattern in your project.
and start writing unit test cases.
When creating a new class or method I used to be able to see the parameters needed. But, now they don't come up anymore. How do I view parameters when creating a class?
Running the latest windows version.
public class Main {
public static void main(String args[]) {
Case theCase = new Case("Default", "Corsair", "500W");
}
}
public class Case {
private String model;
private String manufacturer;
private String powerSupply;
public Case(String model, String manufacturer, String powerSupply,) {
this.model = model;
this.manufacturer = manufacturer;
this.powerSupply = powerSupply;
}
public void pressPowerButton() {
System.out.println("Power button pressed");
}
public String getModel() {
return model;
}
public String getManufacturer() {
return manufacturer;
}
public String getPowerSupply() {
return powerSupply;
}
}
When making theCase I can't see what my parameters are and have to move to the "Case" class back and forth
You can explicitly call Parameter Info action which is usually mapped to Ctrl/(Cmd) - p.
Nevermind in order to see the parameters as you type you must type them while in the editor without moving your cursor.
How can I jackson serialize a wrapper type to and from a string?
I merged the following from two different examples their website. But the HostName type is serialized/deserialized as
{ "name" : "my.host.name.com" }
when I want it to be simply the string
"my.host.name.com"
Note that I have a lot of XName types, hence the use of the Immutables wrapper. So I would prefer a solution that keeps the amount of boiler plate down.
#Value.Immutable #AbstractName.Wrapper
public abstract class _HostName extends AbstractName { }
...
public abstract class AbstractName {
#JsonSerialize
#JsonDeserialize
#Value.Style(
// Detect names starting with underscore
typeAbstract = "_*",
// Generate without any suffix, just raw detected name
typeImmutable = "*",
// Make generated public, leave underscored as package private
visibility = Value.Style.ImplementationVisibility.PUBLIC,
// Seems unnecessary to have builder or superfluous copy method
defaults = #Value.Immutable(builder = false, copy = false))
public #interface Wrapper {}
#Value.Parameter
public abstract String name();
#Override
public String toString() { return name(); }
}
I've got this to work like below. There's an extra annotation on my name types. It's not my favorite, but it works.
#JsonDeserialize(as=HostName.class)
#Value.Immutable #AbstractName.Wrapper
public abstract class _HostName extends AbstractName { }
...
public abstract class AbstractName {
#Value.Style(
// Detect names starting with underscore
typeAbstract = "_*",
// Generate without any suffix, just raw detected name
typeImmutable = "*",
// Make generated public, leave underscored as package private
visibility = Value.Style.ImplementationVisibility.PUBLIC,
// Seems unnecessary to have builder or superfluous copy method
defaults = #Value.Immutable(builder = false, copy = false))
public #interface Wrapper {}
#JsonValue
#Value.Parameter
public abstract String name();
#Override
public String toString() { return name(); }
}
Here's a little program to run it:
public static void main(String... args) throws IOException {
ObjectMapper json = new ObjectMapper();
String text = json.writeValueAsString(HostName.of("my.host.name.com"));
System.out.println(text);
HostName hostName = json.readValue(text, HostName.class);
System.out.println(hostName);
}
Do you know how to add the same module twice to a catalog with different parameters?
ITest acc1 = new smalltest("a", 0)
ITest acc2 = new smalltest("b", 1)
AggregateCatalog.Catalogs.Add(??)
AggregateCatalog.Catalogs.Add(??)
Thanks in advance!
As MEF is limited to its usage of attributes and can be configured by using the Import and Export attributes unlike the flexibility usually provided by IoC Containers, just how one may extend a Part in MEF, one may extend it from a referenced DLL, you could also do something similar where a class inherits from a previous MEF Part by creating a class which exposes some properties with the [ExportAttribute]. The attribute is not limited to the usage on a class, but can be applied to properties. For example, how about something like this.
public class PartsToExport
{
[Export(typeof(ITest))]
public Implementation A
{
get { return new Implementation("A", 5); }
}
[Export(typeof(ITest))]
public Implementation B
{
get { return new Implementation("B", 10); }
}
}
public interface ITest
{
void WhoAmI(Action<string, int> action);
}
[Export]
public class Implementation : ITest
{
private string _method;
private readonly int _value;
public Implementation(string method, int value)
{
_method = method;
_value = value;
}
public void WhoAmI(Action<string, int> action)
{
action(_method, _value);
}
}
[TestClass]
public class Tests
{
[TestMethod]
public void Test()
{
var catalog = new AssemblyCatalog(System.Reflection.Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly());
CompositionContainer container = new CompositionContainer(catalog);
var tests = container.GetExportedValues<ITest>();
foreach (var test in tests)
{
test.WhoAmI((s, i) => Console.WriteLine("I am {0} with a value of {1}.", s, i));
}
}
}
This outputs the following to the console:
I am A with a value of 5.
I am B with a value of 10.
I'm personally committed to .net distributed caching solutions, but I think this question is interesting across all platforms.
Is there a distributed caching solution (or generic strategy) that allows to both store objects in the cache while maintaining the integrity of the references between them?
To exemplify - Suppose I have an object Foo foo that references an object Bar bar and also and object Foo foo2 that references that same Bar bar. If I load foo to the cache, a copy of bar is stored along with it. If I also load foo2 to the cache, a separate copy of bar is stored along with that. If I change foo.bar in the cache, the change does not impact foo2.bar :(
Is there an existing distributed cache solution that will enable me to load foo, foo2 and bar into the cache while maintaining the foo.bar foo2.bar references?
First and foremost
I do not know of any distributed system, and I do not pretend to build one. This post explains how you can simulate this behavior with .NET and C# using the IObjectReference interface with serializable objects.
Now, lets go on with the show
I do not know of such a distributed system, but you can somewhat easily achive this with .NET using the IObjectReference interface. Your implementation of ISerializable.GetObjectData would need to call SerializationInfo.SetType to point out a proxy class that implements IObjectReference, and would be able (with help from data provided by your GetObjectData method) to get a reference to the real object that should be used.
Example code:
[Serializable]
internal sealed class SerializationProxy<TOwner, TKey> : ISerializable, IObjectReference {
private const string KeyName = "Key";
private const string InstantiatorName = "Instantiator";
private static readonly Type thisType = typeof(SerializationProxy<TOwner, TKey>);
private static readonly Type keyType = typeof(TKey);
private static readonly Type instantiatorType = typeof(Func<TKey, TOwner>);
private readonly Func<TKey, TOwner> _instantiator;
private readonly TKey _key;
private SerializationProxy() {
}
private SerializationProxy(SerializationInfo info, StreamingContext context) {
if (info == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("info");
_key = (TKey)info.GetValue(KeyName, keyType);
_instantiator = (Func<TKey, TOwner>)info.GetValue(InstantiatorName, instantiatorType);
}
void ISerializable.GetObjectData(SerializationInfo info, StreamingContext context) {
throw new NotSupportedException("This type should never be serialized.");
}
object IObjectReference.GetRealObject(StreamingContext context) {
return _instantiator(_key);
}
internal static void PrepareSerialization(SerializationInfo info, TKey key, Func<TKey, TOwner> instantiator) {
if (info == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("info");
if (instantiator == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("instantiator");
info.SetType(thisType);
info.AddValue(KeyName, key, keyType);
info.AddValue(InstantiatorName, instantiator, instantiatorType);
}
}
This code would be called with SerializationProxy.PrepareSerialization(info, myKey, myKey => LoadedInstances.GetById(myKey)) from your GetObjectData method, and your LoadedInstances.GetById should return the instance from a Dictionary<TKey, WeakReference> or load it from cache/database if it isnt already loaded.
EDIT:
I've wrote some example code to show what I mean.
public static class Program {
public static void Main() {
// Create an item and serialize it.
// Pretend that the bytes are stored in some magical
// domain where everyone lives happily ever after.
var item = new Item { Name = "Bleh" };
var bytes = Serialize(item);
{
// Deserialize those bytes back into the cruel world.
var loadedItem1 = Deserialize<Item>(bytes);
var loadedItem2 = Deserialize<Item>(bytes);
// This should work since we've deserialized identical
// data twice.
Debug.Assert(loadedItem1.Id == loadedItem2.Id);
Debug.Assert(loadedItem1.Name == loadedItem2.Name);
// Notice that both variables refer to the same object.
Debug.Assert(ReferenceEquals(loadedItem1, loadedItem2));
loadedItem1.Name = "Bluh";
Debug.Assert(loadedItem1.Name == loadedItem2.Name);
}
{
// Deserialize those bytes back into the cruel world. (Once again.)
var loadedItem1 = Deserialize<Item>(bytes);
// Notice that we got the same item that we messed
// around with earlier.
Debug.Assert(loadedItem1.Name == "Bluh");
// Once again, force the peaceful object to hide its
// identity, and take on a fake name.
loadedItem1.Name = "Blargh";
var loadedItem2 = Deserialize<Item>(bytes);
Debug.Assert(loadedItem1.Name == loadedItem2.Name);
}
}
#region Serialization helpers
private static readonly IFormatter _formatter
= new BinaryFormatter();
public static byte[] Serialize(ISerializable item) {
using (var stream = new MemoryStream()) {
_formatter.Serialize(stream, item);
return stream.ToArray();
}
}
public static T Deserialize<T>(Byte[] bytes) {
using (var stream = new MemoryStream(bytes)) {
return (T)_formatter.Deserialize(stream);
}
}
#endregion
}
// Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious interface.
public interface IDomainObject {
Guid Id { get; }
}
// Holds all loaded instances using weak references, allowing
// the almighty garbage collector to grab our stuff at any time.
// I have no real data to lend on here, but I _presume_ that this
// wont be to overly evil since we use weak references.
public static class LoadedInstances<T>
where T : class, IDomainObject {
private static readonly Dictionary<Guid, WeakReference> _items
= new Dictionary<Guid, WeakReference>();
public static void Set(T item) {
var itemId = item.Id;
if (_items.ContainsKey(itemId))
_items.Remove(itemId);
_items.Add(itemId, new WeakReference(item));
}
public static T Get(Guid id) {
if (_items.ContainsKey(id)) {
var itemRef = _items[id];
return (T)itemRef.Target;
}
return null;
}
}
[DebuggerDisplay("{Id} {Name}")]
[Serializable]
public class Item : IDomainObject, ISerializable {
public Guid Id { get; private set; }
public String Name { get; set; }
// This constructor can be avoided if you have a
// static Create method that creates and saves new items.
public Item() {
Id = Guid.NewGuid();
LoadedInstances<Item>.Set(this);
}
#region ISerializable Members
public void GetObjectData(SerializationInfo info, StreamingContext context) {
// We're calling SerializationProxy to call GetById(this.Id)
// when we should be deserialized. Notice that we have no
// deserialization constructor. Fxcop will hate us for that.
SerializationProxy<Item, Guid>.PrepareSerialization(info, Id, GetById);
}
#endregion
public static Item GetById(Guid id) {
var alreadyLoaded = LoadedInstances<Item>.Get(id);
if (alreadyLoaded != null)
return alreadyLoaded;
// TODO: Load from storage container (database, cache).
// TODO: The item we load should be passed to LoadedInstances<Item>.Set
return null;
}
}