I have a repository offering a GetAll method which again calls the Query extension method on the ISession instance of NHibernate.
public ICollection<Product> GetAll()
{
return _session.Query<Product>().ToList();
}
My unit test looks like this:
[Test]
public void GetAllReturnsCollectionFromSession()
{
IQueryable<Product> productList = new ProductListBuilder().Build().AsQueryable();
_fixture.Session.Query<Product>().Returns(productList);
var sut = _fixture.CreateSut();
var result = sut.GetAll();
Assert.AreSame(productList, result);
_fixture.Session.Received().Query<Product>();
}
In the _fixture.Session.Query().Returns(productList) statement, NSubstitute throws the following exception:
NSubstitute.Exceptions.CouldNotSetReturnDueToTypeMismatchException : Can not return value of type IQueryable`1Proxy for ISession.GetSessionImplementation (expected type ISessionImplementor).
Make sure you called Returns() after calling your substitute (for example: mySub.SomeMethod().Returns(value)),
and that you are not configuring other substitutes within Returns() (for example, avoid this: mySub.SomeMethod().Returns(ConfigOtherSub())).
If you substituted for a class rather than an interface, check that the call to your substitute was on a virtual/abstract member.
Return values cannot be configured for non-virtual/non-abstract members.
Correct use:
mySub.SomeMethod().Returns(returnValue);
Potentially problematic use:
mySub.SomeMethod().Returns(ConfigOtherSub());
Instead try:
var returnValue = ConfigOtherSub();
mySub.SomeMethod().Returns(returnValue);
at NSubstitute.Core.ConfigureCall.CheckResultIsCompatibleWithCall(IReturn valueToReturn, ICallSpecification spec)
at NSubstitute.Core.ConfigureCall.SetResultForLastCall(IReturn valueToReturn, MatchArgs matchArgs)
at NSubstitute.Core.CallRouter.LastCallShouldReturn(IReturn returnValue, MatchArgs matchArgs)
at NSubstitute.Core.SubstitutionContext.LastCallShouldReturn(IReturn value, MatchArgs matchArgs)
at NSubstitute.SubstituteExtensions.Returns[T](MatchArgs matchArgs, T returnThis, T[] returnThese)
at NSubstitute.SubstituteExtensions.ReturnsForAnyArgs[T](T value, T returnThis, T[] returnThese)
at Statoil.Wellcom.DataLayer.Implementation.Oracle.UnitTests.Repositories.DwapplicationRepositoryTests.GetAllReturnsCollectionFromSession() in C:\git\WELLCOM\source\Statoil.Wellcom.DataLayer.Implementation.Oracle.UnitTests\Repositories\DwapplicationRepositoryTests.cs:line 123
It looks like NSubstitute is unable to set the return value due to Query being an extension method. How would I go about mocking the extension method call on the ISession?
The easiest solution is to wrap your ISession in another interface/concrete class so you can stub that out:
public interface ISessionWrapper
{
IQueryable<T> Query<T>();
}
public class SessionWrapper : ISessionWrapper
{
private readonly ISession _session;
public SessionWrapper(ISession session)
{
_session = session;
}
public IQueryable<T> Query<T>()
{
return _session.Query<T>();
}
}
There is no way to mock extension method with NSubstitute, however if you know what extension method is using inside, than you can mock that. Your test will use extension method on mocked object and eventually it will use mocked method. Difficult part is to know what is going on inside.
It worked for me in projects, where I knew all the source code and I could check what's inside.
Related
We have a service component (#service) which internally uses MyBatis to do CRUD operations. All the components are managed by Spring.
Lets assume our MyBatis mapper file
class MyBatisMapper{
public void getData(Map<String,Object> arg);
}
In our mybatis xml file,we have element defined for a callable statement. arg is a map which holds IN and OUT parameters.
Our service component is like
#Service("myService")
class MyService{
#Autowired
private MyBatisMapper myMapper;
public void processData(){
Map<String,Object> input = new HashMap<String,Object>();
............
............
myMapper.getDat(input);
Object response = input.get("RESPONSE");
//process response and so on
}
My objective is to write Junits for the service component and don't have to interact with DB. So, I tried to use JMockIt to mock some of the DAO operations
My attempt is ike
#Mocked
#Injectable
private MyBatisMapper myMapper;
#Test
public void testService() {
new NonStrictExpectations(){
{
Map<String,Object> input = new HashMap<String,Object>();
input.put("xxx,"yyy");
myMapper.getData(input);
}
};
}
But when I ran my tests, I noticed that call went through actualy DB , instead of mocked one.
How to make sure only the mocked components gets called, instead of the actual object
#Injectable mock instances only get injected into #Tested objects. And to specify a return value from a mocked method, you need to assign it to the result field. So, the test should look like the following:
#Tested MyService myService;
#Injectable MyBatisMapper myMapper;
#Test
public void testService() {
final Map<String,Object> data = new HashMap<String, Object>();
data.put("RESPONSE", "yyy");
new Expectations() {{
myMapper.getData((Map<String, Object>) any); result = data;
}};
myService.processData();
// Assert some expected outcome.
}
Thank you Rogerio. I tried to follow the approach you mentioned, but still I see the call going to the actual object. There is a point which I did not mention earlier. My project is spring based and the components are all autowired.
My test has
#RunWith(SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.class)
#ContextConfiguration(locations = {"classpath:spring/test-applicationContext.xml"})
and test-applicationContext.xml has component scan. So I think, Spring is injecting the actual object ignoring the mock instruction.
Am I wrong ?
What I have to do:
I have to test my spring mvc with JMockit. I need to do two things:
Redefine MyService.doService method
Check how many times redefined MyService.doService method is called
What the problem:
To cope with the first item, I should use MockUp; to cope with the second item I should use #Mocked MyService. As I understand this two approaches are overriding each other.
My questions:
How to override MyService.doService method and simultaneously check how many times it was invoked?
Is it possible to avoid mixing a behaviour & state based testing approaches in my case?
My code:
#WebAppConfiguration
#ContextConfiguration(locations = "classpath:ctx/persistenceContextTest.xml")
#RunWith(SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.class)
public class MyControllerTest extends AbstractContextControllerTests {
private MockMvc mockMvc;
#Autowired
protected WebApplicationContext wac;
#Mocked()
private MyServiceImpl myServiceMock;
#BeforeClass
public static void beforeClass() {
new MockUp<MyServiceImpl>() {
#SuppressWarnings("unused")
#Mock
public List<Object> doService() {
return null;
}
};
}
#Before
public void setUp() throws Exception {
this.mockMvc = webAppContextSetup(this.wac).build();
}
#Test
public void sendRedirect() throws Exception {
mockMvc.perform(get("/doService.html"))
.andExpect(model().attribute("positions", null));
new Verifications() {
{
myServiceMock.doService();
times = 1;
}
};
}
}
I don't know what gave you the impression that you "should use" MockUp for something, while using #Mocked for something else in the same test.
In fact, you can use either one of these two APIs, since they are both very capable. Normally, though, only one or the other is used in a given test (or test class), not both.
To verify how many invocations occurred to a given mocked method, you can use the "invocations/minInvocations/maxInvocations" attributes of the #Mock annotation when using a MockUp; or the "times/minTimes/maxTimes" fields when using #Mocked. Choose whichever one best satisfies your needs and testing style. For example tests, check out the JMockit documentation.
On my service layer I have injected an UnitOfWork and 2 repositories in the constructor. The Unit of Work and repository have an instance of a DbContext I want to share between the two of them. How can I do that with Ninject ? Which scope should be considered ?
I am not in a web application so I can't use InRequestScope.
I try to do something similar... and I am using DI however, I need my UoW to be Disposed and created like this.
using (IUnitOfWork uow = new UnitOfWorkFactory.Create())
{
_testARepository.Insert(a);
_testBRepository.Insert(b);
uow.SaveChanges();
}
EDIT: I just want to be sure i understand… after look at https://github.com/ninject/ninject.extensions.namedscope/wiki/InNamedScope i though about my current console application architecture which actually use Ninject.
Lets say :
Class A is a Service layer class
Class B is an unit of work which take into parameter an interface (IContextFactory)
Class C is a repository which take into parameter an interface (IContextFactory)
The idea here is to be able to do context operations on 2 or more repository and using the unit of work to apply the changes.
Class D is a context factory (Entity Framework) which provide an instance (keep in a container) of the context which is shared between Class B et C (.. and would be for other repositories aswell).
The context factory keep the instance in his container so i don’t want to reuse this instance all the name since the context need to be disposed at the end of the service operaiton.. it is the main purpose of the InNamedScope actually ?
The solution would be but i am not sure at all i am doing it right, the services instance gonna be transcient which mean they actually never disposed ? :
Bind<IScsContextFactory>()
.To<ScsContextFactory>()
.InNamedScope("ServiceScope")
.WithConstructorArgument(
"connectionString",
ConfigurationUtility.GetConnectionString());
Bind<IUnitOfWork>().To<ScsUnitOfWork>();
Bind<IAccountRepository>().To<AccountRepository>();
Bind<IBlockedIpRepository>().To<BlockedIpRepository>();
Bind<IAccountService>().To<AccountService>().DefinesNamedScope("ServiceScope");
Bind<IBlockedIpService>().To<BlockedIpService>().DefinesNamedScope("ServiceScope");
UPDATE: This approach works against NuGet current, but relies in an anomaly in the InCallscope implementation which has been fixed in the current Unstable NuGet packages. I'll be tweaking this answer in a few days to reflect the best approach after some mulling over. NB the high level way of structuring stuff will stay pretty much identical, just the exact details of the Bind<DbContext>() scoping will work. (Hint: CreateNamedScope in unstable would work or one could set up the Command Handler as DefinesNamedScope. Reason I dont just do that is that I want to have something that composes/plays well with InRequestScope)
I highly recommend reading the Ninject.Extensions.NamedScope integration tests (seriously, find them and read and re-read them)
The DbContext is a Unit Of Work so no further wrapping is necessary.
As you want to be able to have multiple 'requests' in flight and want to have a single Unit of Work shared between them, you need to:
Bind<DbContext>()
.ToMethod( ctx =>
new DbContext(
connectionStringName: ConfigurationUtility.GetConnectionString() ))
.InCallScope();
The InCallScope() means that:
for a given object graph composed for a single kernel.Get() Call (hence In Call Scope), everyone that requires an DbContext will get the same instance.
the IDisposable.Dispose() will be called when a Kernel.Release() happens for the root object (or a Kernel.Components.Get<ICache>().Clear() happens for the root if it is not .InCallScope())
There should be no reason to use InNamedScope() and DefinesNamedScope(); You don't have long-lived objects you're trying to exclude from the default pooling / parenting / grouping.
If you do the above, you should be able to:
var command = kernel.Get<ICommand>();
try {
command.Execute();
} finally {
kernel.Components.Get<ICache>().Clear( command ); // Dispose of DbContext happens here
}
The Command implementation looks like:
class Command : ICommand {
readonly IAccountRepository _ar;
readonly IBlockedIpRepository _br;
readonly DbContext _ctx;
public Command(IAccountRepository ar, IBlockedIpRepository br, DbContext ctx){
_ar = ar;
_br = br;
_ctx = ctx;
}
void ICommand.Execute(){
_ar.Insert(a);
_br.Insert(b);
_ctx.saveChanges();
}
}
Note that in general, I avoid having an implicit Unit of Work in this way, and instead surface it's creation and Disposal. This makes a Command look like this:
class Command : ICommand {
readonly IAccountService _as;
readonly IBlockedIpService _bs;
readonly Func<DbContext> _createContext;
public Command(IAccountService #as, IBlockedIpServices bs, Func<DbContext> createContext){
_as = #as;
_bs = bs;
_createContext = createContext;
}
void ICommand.Execute(){
using(var ctx = _createContext()) {
_ar.InsertA(ctx);
_br.InsertB(ctx);
ctx.saveChanges();
}
}
This involves no usage of .InCallScope() on the Bind<DbContext>() (but does require the presence of Ninject.Extensions.Factory's FactoryModule to synthesize the Func<DbContext> from a straightforward Bind<DbContext>().
As discussed in the other answer, InCallScope is not a good approach to solving this problem.
For now I'm dumping some code that works against the latest NuGet Unstable / Include PreRelease / Instal-Package -Pre editions of Ninject.Web.Common without a clear explanation. I will translate this to an article in the Ninject.Extensions.NamedScope wiki at some stagehave started to write a walkthrough of this technique in the Ninject.Extensions.NamedScope wiki's CreateNamedScope/GetScope article.
Possibly some bits will become Pull Request(s) at some stage too (Hat tip to #Remo Gloor who supplied me the outline code). The associated tests and learning tests are in this gist for now), pending packaging in a proper released format TBD.
The exec summary is you Load the Module below into your Kernel and use .InRequestScope() on everything you want created / Disposed per handler invocation and then feed requests through via IHandlerComposer.ComposeCallDispose.
If you use the following Module:
public class Module : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
Bind<IHandlerComposer>().To<NinjectRequestScopedHandlerComposer>();
// Wire it up so InRequestScope will work for Handler scopes
Bind<INinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory>().To<NinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory>();
NinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory.NinjectHttpApplicationPlugin.RegisterIn( Kernel );
}
}
Which wires in a Factory[1] and NinjectHttpApplicationPlugin that exposes:
public interface INinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory
{
NamedScope CreateRequestHandlerScope();
}
Then you can use this Composer to Run a Request InRequestScope():
public interface IHandlerComposer
{
void ComposeCallDispose( Type type, Action<object> callback );
}
Implemented as:
class NinjectRequestScopedHandlerComposer : IHandlerComposer
{
readonly INinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory _requestHandlerScopeFactory;
public NinjectRequestScopedHandlerComposer( INinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory requestHandlerScopeFactory )
{
_requestHandlerScopeFactory = requestHandlerScopeFactory;
}
void IHandlerComposer.ComposeCallDispose( Type handlerType, Action<object> callback )
{
using ( var resolutionRoot = _requestHandlerScopeFactory.CreateRequestHandlerScope() )
foreach ( object handler in resolutionRoot.GetAll( handlerType ) )
callback( handler );
}
}
The Ninject Infrastructure stuff:
class NinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory : INinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory
{
internal const string ScopeName = "Handler";
readonly IKernel _kernel;
public NinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory( IKernel kernel )
{
_kernel = kernel;
}
NamedScope INinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory.CreateRequestHandlerScope()
{
return _kernel.CreateNamedScope( ScopeName );
}
/// <summary>
/// When plugged in as a Ninject Kernel Component via <c>RegisterIn(IKernel)</c>, makes the Named Scope generated during IHandlerFactory.RunAndDispose available for use via the Ninject.Web.Common's <c>.InRequestScope()</c> Binding extension.
/// </summary>
public class NinjectHttpApplicationPlugin : NinjectComponent, INinjectHttpApplicationPlugin
{
readonly IKernel kernel;
public static void RegisterIn( IKernel kernel )
{
kernel.Components.Add<INinjectHttpApplicationPlugin, NinjectHttpApplicationPlugin>();
}
public NinjectHttpApplicationPlugin( IKernel kernel )
{
this.kernel = kernel;
}
object INinjectHttpApplicationPlugin.GetRequestScope( IContext context )
{
// TODO PR for TrgGetScope
try
{
return NamedScopeExtensionMethods.GetScope( context, ScopeName );
}
catch ( UnknownScopeException )
{
return null;
}
}
void INinjectHttpApplicationPlugin.Start()
{
}
void INinjectHttpApplicationPlugin.Stop()
{
}
}
}
I want to implement an aspect to avoid lazy Loading problems .
so how to pass context(Application Context) as an argument for logBefore Method?
What is the signature pointcut defines the method above(the place to which I make "???"), knowing that this method (logBefore) will be execute before all the methods that have "Set"
as a result type and "slm.aoa.buisiness.facade" as package
#Aspect
public class EagerLoading {
#Before("execution(???)")
public void logBefore(JoinPoint joinPoint) {
SessionFactory sessionFactory = (SessionFactory) context.getBean("sessionFactory");
Session session = SessionFactoryUtils.getSession(sessionFactory, true);
TransactionSynchronizationManager.bindResource(sessionFactory, new SessionHolder(session));
}
and Thanks for your Help .
I'm trying to find a method of passing a constructor argument to the constructors of child classes.
These objects are immutable so I'd prefer to use constructor arguments.
The issue I have encountered is that ConstructorArgument does not inherit to child instantiations and the following statements are not interchangeable:
_parsingProcessor = _kernel.Get<IParsingProcessor>(new ConstructorArgument("dataFilePath", dataFilePath);
and
_parsingProcessor = _kernel.Get<IParsingProcessor>(new Parameter("dataFilePath", dataFilePath, true);
So, how can get an inheritable ConstructorArgument and when does it makes sense, if ever, to new the Parameter class?
Yes, you can do this, but it's probably not what you really want. If the container is not actually responsible for instantiating its own dependencies, then its dependencies probably shouldn't be sharing its constructor arguments - it just doesn't make sense.
I'm pretty sure I know what you're trying to do, and the recommended approach is to create a unique binding specifically for your one container, and use the WhenInjectedInto conditional binding syntax, as in the example below:
public class Hello : IHello
{
private readonly string name;
public Hello(string name)
{
this.name = name;
}
public void SayHello()
{
Console.WriteLine("Hello, {0}!", name);
}
}
This is the class that takes a constructor argument which we want to modify, depending on who is asking for an IHello. Let's say it's this boring container class:
public class MyApp : IApp
{
private readonly IHello hello;
public MyApp(IHello hello)
{
this.hello = hello;
}
public virtual void Run()
{
hello.SayHello();
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
Now, here's how you do up the bindings:
public class MainModule : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
Bind<IApp>().To<MyApp>();
Bind<IHello>().To<Hello>()
.WithConstructorArgument("name", "Jim");
Bind<IHello>().To<Hello>()
.WhenInjectedInto<MyApp>()
.WithConstructorArgument("name", "Bob");
}
}
Basically all this binding is doing is saying the name should be "Jim" unless it's being requested by Hello, which in this case it is, so instead it will get the name "Bob".
If you are absolutely certain that you truly want cascading behaviour and understand that this is very dangerous and brittle, you can cheat using a method binding. Assuming that we've now added a name argument to the MyApp class for some unspecified purpose, the binding would be:
Bind<IHello>().ToMethod(ctx =>
ctx.Kernel.Get<Hello>(ctx.Request.ParentContext.Parameters
.OfType<ConstructorArgument>()
.Where(c => c.Name == "name")
.First()));
Please, please, make sure you are positive that this is what you want before doing it. It looks easy but it is also very likely to break during a simple refactoring, and 95% of the "customized dependency" scenarios I've seen can be addressed using the WhenInjectedInto binding instead.