I'm trying to write a test for a class that has a constructor dependency on Func<T>. In order to complete successfully the function under test needs to create a number of separate objects of type T.
When running in production, AutoFac generates a new T every time factory() is called, however when writing a test using AutoMock it returns the same object when it is called again.
Test case below showing the difference in behaviour when using AutoFac and AutoMock. I'd expect both of these to pass, but the AutoMock one fails.
public class TestClass
{
private readonly Func<TestDep> factory;
public TestClass(Func<TestDep> factory)
{
this.factory = factory;
}
public TestDep Get()
{
return factory();
}
}
public class TestDep
{}
[TestMethod()]
public void TestIt()
{
using var autoMock = AutoMock.GetStrict();
var testClass = autoMock.Create<TestClass>();
var obj1 = testClass.Get();
var obj2 = testClass.Get();
Assert.AreNotEqual(obj1, obj2);
}
[TestMethod()]
public void TestIt2()
{
var builder = new ContainerBuilder();
builder.RegisterSource(new AnyConcreteTypeNotAlreadyRegisteredSource());
var container = builder.Build();
var testClass = container.Resolve<TestClass>();
var obj1 = testClass.Get();
var obj2 = testClass.Get();
Assert.AreNotEqual(obj1, obj2);
}
AutoMock (from the Autofac.Extras.Moq package) is primarily useful for setting up complex mocks. Which is to say, you have a single object with a lot of dependencies and it's really hard to set that object up because it doesn't have a parameterless constructor. Moq doesn't let you set up objects with constructor parameters by default, so having something that fills the gap is useful.
However, the mocks you get from it are treated like any other mock you might get from Moq. When you set up a mock instance with Moq, you're not getting a new one every time unless you also implement the factory logic yourself.
AutoMock is not for mocking Autofac behavior. The Func<T> support where Autofac calls a resolve operation on every call to the Func<T> - that's Autofac, not Moq.
It makes sense for AutoMock to use InstancePerLifetimeScope because, just like setting up mocks with plain Moq, you need to be able to get the mock instance back to configure it and validate against it. It would be much harder if it was new every time.
Obviously there are ways to work around that, and with a non-trivial amount of breaking changes you could probably implement InstancePerDependency semantics in there, but there's really not much value in doing that at this point since that's not really what this is for... and you could always create two different AutoMock instances to get two different mocks.
A much better way to go, in general, is to provide useful abstractions and use Autofac with mocks in the container.
For example, say you have something like...
public class ThingToTest
{
public ThingToTest(PackageSender sender) { /* ... */ }
}
public class PackageSender
{
public PackageSender(AddressChecker checker, DataContext context) { /* ... */ }
}
public class AddressChecker { }
public class DataContext { }
If you're trying to set up ThingToTest, you can see how also setting up a PackageSender is going to be complex, and you'd likely want something like AutoMock to handle that.
However, you can make your life easier by introducing an interface there.
public class ThingToTest
{
public ThingToTest(IPackageSender sender) { /* ... */ }
}
public interface IPackageSender { }
public class PackageSender : IPackageSender { }
By hiding all the complexity behind the interface, you now can mock just IPackageSender using plain Moq (or whatever other mocking framework you like, or even creating a manual stub implementation). You wouldn't even need to include Autofac in the mix because you could mock the dependency directly and pass it in.
Point being, you can design your way into making testing and setup easier, which is why, in the comments on your question, I asked why you were doing things that way (which, at the time of this writing, never did get answered). I would strongly recommend designing things to be easier to test if possible.
I have an abstract base class and an implementation class like:
public abstract class Base
{
public Base getInstance( Class<? extends Base> clazz )
{
//expected to return a singleton instance of clazz's class
}
public abstract absMeth();
}
public A extends Base
{
//expected to be a singleton
}
In this example I can make A to be a singleton and even write getInstance in Base to return a singleton object of A for every call, doing this way:
public abstract class Base
{
public Base getInstance( Class<? extends Base> clazz )
{
try
{
return clazz.getDeclaredMethod("getInstance").invoke(null,null);
}
}
public abstract void absMeth();
}
public A extends Base
{
private static A inst;
private A(){}
public static A getInstance( )
{
if( inst!= null)
inst = new A();
return inst;
}
public void absMeth(){
//...
}
}
But my concern is how do I ensure that if somebody writes another class class B extends Base it should also be a singleton and it necessarily implements a static method called getInstance?
In other words I need to enforce this as a specification for all classes extending with the Base class.
You cannot trust classes that extend you to create a single instance of themselves1: even if you could somehow ensure that they all implement getInstance, there is no way to tell that inside that method they check inst before constructing a new instance of themselves.
Stay in control of the process: create a Map<Class,Base>, and instantiate the class passed in through reflection2. Now your code can decide whether to create an instance or not, without relying on the getInstance of a subclass.
1 A popular saying goes, "If you want a job done right, do it yourself."
2 Here is a link describing a solution based on setAccessible(true)
Singleton is a design pattern, not a language feature. It is pretty much impossible to somehow enforce it on the inheritance tree through syntax.
It certainly is possible to require all subclasses to implement a method by declaring it abstract but there is no way to control implementation details. Singleton is all about implementation details.
But why is this a concern at all? Do not make your app dependant on internal details of someone else's code. It is Bad Design™ and having this issue is a sure sign of it. Code against a well-defined interface and avoid relying on internal details.
To show an example what is this question about:
I have currently a dilemma in PHP project I'm working on. I have in mind a method that will be used by multiple classes (UIs in this case - MVC model), but I'm not sure how to represent such methods in OO design. The first thing that came into my mind was to create a class with static functions that I'd call whenever I need them. However I'm not sure if it's the right thing to do.
To be more precise, I want to work, for example, with time. So I'll need several methods that handle time. I was thinking about creating a Time class where I'd be functions that check whether the time is in correct format etc.
Some might say that I shouldn't use class for this at all, since in PHP I can still use procedural code. But I'm more interested in answer that would enlighten me how to approach such situations in OOP / OOD.
So the actual questions are: How to represent such methods? Is static function approach good enough or should I reconsider anything else?
I would recommend creating a normal class the contains this behavior, and then let that class implement an interface extracted from the class' members.
Whenever you need to call those methods, you inject the interface (not the concrete class) into the consumer. This lets you vary the two independently of each other.
This may sound like more work, but is simply the Strategy design pattern applied.
This will also make it much easier to unit test the code, because the code is more loosely coupled.
Here's an example in C#.
Interface:
public interface ITimeMachine
{
IStopwatch CreateStopwatch();
DateTimeOffset GetNow();
}
Production implementation:
public class RealTimeMachine : ITimeMachine
{
#region ITimeMachine Members
public IStopwatch CreateStopwatch()
{
return new StopwatchAdapter();
}
public DateTimeOffset GetNow()
{
return DateTimeOffset.Now;
}
#endregion
}
and here's a consumer of the interface:
public abstract class PerformanceRecordingSession : IDisposable
{
private readonly IStopwatch watch;
protected PerformanceRecordingSession(ITimeMachine timeMachine)
{
if (timeMachine == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("timeMachine");
}
this.watch = timeMachine.CreateStopwatch();
this.watch.Start();
}
public abstract void Record(long elapsedTicks);
public virtual void StopRecording()
{
this.watch.Stop();
this.Record(this.watch.ElapsedTicks);
}
}
Although you say you want a structure for arbitrary, unrelated functions, you have given an example of a Time class, which has many related functions. So from an OO point of view you would create a Time class and have a static function getCurrentTime(), for example, which returns an instance of this class. Or you could define that the constuctors default behaviour is to return the current time, whichever you like more. Or both.
class DateTime {
public static function getNow() {
return new self();
}
public function __construct() {
$this->setDateTime('now');
}
public function setDateTime($value) {
#...
}
}
But apart from that, there is already a builtin DateTime class in PHP.
Use a class as a namespace. So yes, have a static class.
class Time {
public static function getCurrentTime() {
return time() + 42;
}
}
I don't do PHP, but from an OO point of view, placing these sorts of utility methods as static methods is fine. If they are completely reusable in nature, consider placing them in a utils class.
Why should we make the constructor private in class? As we always need the constructor to be public.
Some reasons where you may need private constructor:
The constructor can only be accessed from static factory method inside the class itself. Singleton can also belong to this category.
A utility class, that only contains static methods.
By providing a private constructor you prevent class instances from being created in any place other than this very class. There are several use cases for providing such constructor.
A. Your class instances are created in a static method. The static method is then declared as public.
class MyClass()
{
private:
MyClass() { }
public:
static MyClass * CreateInstance() { return new MyClass(); }
};
B. Your class is a singleton. This means, not more than one instance of your class exists in the program.
class MyClass()
{
private:
MyClass() { }
public:
MyClass & Instance()
{
static MyClass * aGlobalInst = new MyClass();
return *aGlobalInst;
}
};
C. (Only applies to the upcoming C++0x standard) You have several constructors. Some of them are declared public, others private. For reducing code size, public constructors 'call' private constructors which in turn do all the work. Your public constructors are thus called delegating constructors:
class MyClass
{
public:
MyClass() : MyClass(2010, 1, 1) { }
private:
MyClass(int theYear, int theMonth, int theDay) { /* do real work */ }
};
D. You want to limit object copying (for example, because of using a shared resource):
class MyClass
{
SharedResource * myResource;
private:
MyClass(const MyClass & theOriginal) { }
};
E. Your class is a utility class. That means, it only contains static members. In this case, no object instance must ever be created in the program.
To leave a "back door" that allows another friend class/function to construct an object in a way forbidden to the user. An example that comes to mind would be a container constructing an iterator (C++):
Iterator Container::begin() { return Iterator(this->beginPtr_); }
// Iterator(pointer_type p) constructor is private,
// and Container is a friend of Iterator.
Everyone is stuck on the Singleton thing, wow.
Other things:
Stop people from creating your class on the stack; make private constructors and only hand back pointers via a factory method.
Preventing creating copys of the class (private copy constructor)
This can be very useful for a constructor that contains common code; private constructors can be called by other constructors, using the 'this(...);' notation. By making the common initialization code in a private (or protected) constructor, you are also making explicitly clear that it is called only during construction, which is not so if it were simply a method:
public class Point {
public Point() {
this(0,0); // call common constructor
}
private Point(int x,int y) {
m_x = x; m_y = y;
}
};
There are some instances where you might not want to use a public constructor; for example if you want a singleton class.
If you are writing an assembly used by 3rd parties there could be a number of internal classes that you only want created by your assembly and not to be instantiated by users of your assembly.
This ensures that you (the class with private constructor) control how the contructor is called.
An example : A static factory method on the class could return objects as the factory method choses to allocate them (like a singleton factory for example).
We can also have private constructor,
to enfore the object's creation by a specific class
only(For security reasons).
One way to do it is through having a friend class.
C++ example:
class ClientClass;
class SecureClass
{
private:
SecureClass(); // Constructor is private.
friend class ClientClass; // All methods in
//ClientClass have access to private
// & protected methods of SecureClass.
};
class ClientClass
{
public:
ClientClass();
SecureClass* CreateSecureClass()
{
return (new SecureClass()); // we can access
// constructor of
// SecureClass as
// ClientClass is friend
// of SecureClass.
}
};
Note: Note: Only ClientClass (since it is friend of SecureClass)
can call SecureClass's Constructor.
You shouldn't make the constructor private. Period. Make it protected, so you can extend the class if you need to.
Edit: I'm standing by that, no matter how many downvotes you throw at this.
You're cutting off the potential for future development on the code. If other users or programmers are really determined to extend the class, then they'll just change the constructor to protected in source or bytecode. You will have accomplished nothing besides to make their life a little harder. Include a warning in your constructor's comments, and leave it at that.
If it's a utility class, the simpler, more correct, and more elegant solution is to mark the whole class "static final" to prevent extension. It doesn't do any good to just mark the constructor private; a really determined user may always use reflection to obtain the constructor.
Valid uses:
One good use of a protected
constructor is to force use of static
factory methods, which allow you to
limit instantiation or pool & reuse
expensive resources (DB connections,
native resources).
Singletons (usually not good practice, but sometimes necessary)
when you do not want users to create instances of this class or create class that inherits this class, like the java.lang.math, all the function in this package is static, all the functions can be called without creating an instance of math, so the constructor is announce as static.
If it's private, then you can't call it ==> you can't instantiate the class. Useful in some cases, like a singleton.
There's a discussion and some more examples here.
I saw a question from you addressing the same issue.
Simply if you don't want to allow the others to create instances, then keep the constuctor within a limited scope. The practical application (An example) is the singleton pattern.
Constructor is private for some purpose like when you need to implement singleton or limit the number of object of a class.
For instance in singleton implementation we have to make the constructor private
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
class singletonClass
{
static int i;
static singletonClass* instance;
public:
static singletonClass* createInstance()
{
if(i==0)
{
instance =new singletonClass;
i=1;
}
return instance;
}
void test()
{
cout<<"successfully created instance";
}
};
int singletonClass::i=0;
singletonClass* singletonClass::instance=NULL;
int main()
{
singletonClass *temp=singletonClass::createInstance();//////return instance!!!
temp->test();
}
Again if you want to limit the object creation upto 10 then use the following
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
class singletonClass
{
static int i;
static singletonClass* instance;
public:
static singletonClass* createInstance()
{
if(i<10)
{
instance =new singletonClass;
i++;
cout<<"created";
}
return instance;
}
};
int singletonClass::i=0;
singletonClass* singletonClass::instance=NULL;
int main()
{
singletonClass *temp=singletonClass::createInstance();//return an instance
singletonClass *temp1=singletonClass::createInstance();///return another instance
}
Thanks
You can have more than one constructor. C++ provides a default constructor and a default copy constructor if you don't provide one explicitly. Suppose you have a class that can only be constructed using some parameterized constructor. Maybe it initialized variables. If a user then uses this class without that constructor, they can cause no end of problems. A good general rule: If the default implementation is not valid, make both the default and copy constructor private and don't provide an implementation:
class C
{
public:
C(int x);
private:
C();
C(const C &);
};
Use the compiler to prevent users from using the object with the default constructors that are not valid.
Quoting from Effective Java, you can have a class with private constructor to have a utility class that defines constants (as static final fields).
(EDIT: As per the comment this is something which might be applicable only with Java, I'm unaware if this construct is applicable/needed in other OO languages (say C++))
An example as below:
public class Constants {
private Contants():
public static final int ADDRESS_UNIT = 32;
...
}
EDIT_1:
Again, below explanation is applicable in Java : (and referring from the book, Effective Java)
An instantiation of utility class like the one below ,though not harmful, doesn't serve
any purpose since they are not designed to be instantiated.
For example, say there is no private Constructor for class Constants.
A code chunk like below is valid but doesn't better convey intention of
the user of Constants class
unit = (this.length)/new Constants().ADDRESS_UNIT;
in contrast with code like
unit = (this.length)/Constants.ADDRESS_UNIT;
Also I think a private constructor conveys the intention of the designer of the Constants
(say) class better.
Java provides a default parameterless public constructor if no constructor
is provided, and if your intention is to prevent instantiation then a private constructor is
needed.
One cannot mark a top level class static and even a final class can be instantiated.
Utility classes could have private constructors. Users of the classes should not be able to instantiate these classes:
public final class UtilityClass {
private UtilityClass() {}
public static utilityMethod1() {
...
}
}
You may want to prevent a class to be instantiated freely. See the singleton design pattern as an example. In order to guarantee the uniqueness, you can't let anyone create an instance of it :-)
One of the important use is in SingleTon class
class Person
{
private Person()
{
//Its private, Hense cannot be Instantiated
}
public static Person GetInstance()
{
//return new instance of Person
// In here I will be able to access private constructor
}
};
Its also suitable, If your class has only static methods. i.e nobody needs to instantiate your class
It's really one obvious reason: you want to build an object, but it's not practical to do it (in term of interface) within the constructor.
The Factory example is quite obvious, let me demonstrate the Named Constructor idiom.
Say I have a class Complex which can represent a complex number.
class Complex { public: Complex(double,double); .... };
The question is: does the constructor expects the real and imaginary parts, or does it expects the norm and angle (polar coordinates) ?
I can change the interface to make it easier:
class Complex
{
public:
static Complex Regular(double, double = 0.0f);
static Complex Polar(double, double = 0.0f);
private:
Complex(double, double);
}; // class Complex
This is called the Named Constructor idiom: the class can only be built from scratch by explicitly stating which constructor we wish to use.
It's a special case of many construction methods. The Design Patterns provide a good number of ways to build object: Builder, Factory, Abstract Factory, ... and a private constructor will ensure that the user is properly constrained.
In addition to the better-known uses…
To implement the Method Object pattern, which I’d summarize as:
“Private constructor, public static method”
“Object for implementation, function for interface”
If you want to implement a function using an object, and the object is not useful outside of doing a one-off computation (by a method call), then you have a Throwaway Object. You can encapsulate the object creation and method call in a static method, preventing this common anti-pattern:
z = new A(x,y).call();
…replacing it with a (namespaced) function call:
z = A.f(x,y);
The caller never needs to know or care that you’re using an object internally, yielding a cleaner interface, and preventing garbage from the object hanging around or incorrect use of the object.
For example, if you want to break up a computation across methods foo, bar, and zork, for example to share state without having to pass many values in and out of functions, you could implement it as follows:
class A {
public static Z f(x, y) {
A a = new A(x, y);
a.foo();
a.bar();
return a.zork();
}
private A(X x, Y y) { /* ... */ };
}
This Method Object pattern is given in Smalltalk Best Practice Patterns, Kent Beck, pages 34–37, where it is the last step of a refactoring pattern, ending:
Replace the original method with one that creates an instance of the new class, constructed with the parameters and receiver of the original method, and invokes “compute”.
This differs significantly from the other examples here: the class is instantiable (unlike a utility class), but the instances are private (unlike factory methods, including singletons etc.), and can live on the stack, since they never escape.
This pattern is very useful in bottoms-up OOP, where objects are used to simplify low-level implementation, but are not necessarily exposed externally, and contrasts with the top-down OOP that is often presented and begins with high-level interfaces.
Sometimes is useful if you want to control how and when (and how many) instances of an object are created.
Among others, used in patterns:
Singleton pattern
Builder pattern
On use of private constructors could also be to increase readability/maintainability in the face of domain-driven design.
From "Microsoft .NET - Architecing Applications for the Enterprise, 2nd Edition":
var request = new OrderRequest(1234);
Quote, "There are two problems here. First, when looking at the code, one can hardly guess what’s going
on. An instance of OrderRequest is being created, but why and using which data? What’s 1234? This
leads to the second problem: you are violating the ubiquitous language of the bounded context. The
language probably says something like this: a customer can issue an order request and is allowed to
specify a purchase ID. If that’s the case, here’s a better way to get a new OrderRequest instance:"
var request = OrderRequest.CreateForCustomer(1234);
where
private OrderRequest() { ... }
public OrderRequest CreateForCustomer (int customerId)
{
var request = new OrderRequest();
...
return request;
}
I'm not advocating this for every single class, but for the above DDD scenario I think it makes perfect sense to prevent a direct creation of a new object.
If you create a private constructor you need to create the object inside the class
enter code here#include<iostream>
//factory method
using namespace std;
class Test
{
private:
Test(){
cout<<"Object created"<<endl;
}
public:
static Test* m1(){
Test *t = new Test();
return t;
}
void m2(){
cout<<"m2-Test"<<endl;
}
};
int main(){
Test *t = Test::m1();
t->m2();
return 0;
}