Structuring tests (or property) for this reactive ui scenario - testing

I'm not sure the correct way to structure this test. I've got a view model here:
public class ViewModel
{
public ReactiveCommand PerformSearchCommand { get; private set; }
private readonly ObservableAsPropertyHelper<bool> _IsBusy;
public bool IsBusy
{
get { return _IsBusy.Value; }
}
public ViewModel(IAdventureWorksRepository _awRepository)
{
PerformSearchCommand = new ReactiveCommand();
PerformSearchCommand.RegisterAsyncFunction((x) =>
{
return _awRepository.vIndividualCustomers.Take(1000).ToList();
}).Subscribe(rval =>
{
CustomerList = rval;
SelectedCustomer = CustomerList.FirstOrDefault();
});
PerformSearchCommand.IsExecuting.ToProperty(this, x => x.IsBusy, out _IsBusy);
PerformSearchCommand.Execute(null); // begin executing immediately
}
}
The dependency is a data access object to AdventureWorks
public interface IAdventureWorksRepository
{
IQueryable<vIndividualCustomer> vIndividualCustomers { get; }
}
Finally, my test looks something like this:
[TestMethod]
public void TestTiming()
{
new TestScheduler().With(sched =>
{
var repoMock = new Mock<IAdventureWorksRepository>();
repoMock.Setup(x => x.vIndividualCustomers).Returns(() =>
{
return new vIndividualCustomer[] {
new vIndividualCustomer { FirstName = "John", LastName = "Doe" }
};
});
var vm = new ViewModel(repoMock.Object);
Assert.AreEqual(true, vm.IsBusy); //fails?
Assert.AreEqual(1, vm.CustomerList.Count); //also fails, so it's not like the whole thing ran already
sched.AdvanceTo(2);
Assert.AreEqual(1, vm.CustomerList.Count); // success
// now the customer list is set at tick 2 (not at 1?)
// IsBusy was NEVER true.
});
}
So the viewmodel should immediately begin searching upon load
My immediate problem is that the IsBusy property doesn't seem to get set in the testing scheduler, even though it seems to work fine when I run the code normally. Am I using the ToProperty method correctly in the view model?
More generally, what is the proper way to do the full 'time travel' testing when my object under test has a dependency like this? The issue is that unlike most testing examples I'm seeing, the called interface is not an IObservable. It's just a synchronous query, used asynchronously in my view model. Of course in the view model test, I can mock the query to do whatever rx things I want. How would I set this up if I wanted the query to last 200 ticks, for example?

So, you've got a few things in your code that is stopping you from getting things to work correctly:
Don't invoke commands in ViewModel Constructors
First, calling Execute in the constructor means you'll never see the state change. The best pattern is to write that command but not execute it in the VM immediately, then in the View:
this.WhenAnyValue(x => x.ViewModel)
.InvokeCommand(this, x => x.ViewModel.PerformSearchCommand);
Move the clock after async actions
Ok, now that we can properly test the before and after state, we have to realize that after every time we do something that normally would be async, we have to advance the scheduler if we use TestScheduler. This means, that when we invoke the command, we should immediately advance the clock:
Assert.IsTrue(vm.PerformSearchCommand.CanExecute(null));
vm.PerformSearchCommand.Execute(null);
sched.AdvanceByMs(10);
Can't test Time Travel without IObservable
However, the trick is, your mock executes code immediately, there's no delay, so you'll never see it be busy. It just returns a canned value. Unfortunately, injecting the Repository makes this difficult to test if you want to see IsBusy toggle.
So, let's rig the constructor a little bit:
public ViewModel(IAdventureWorksRepository _awRepository, Func<IObservable<List<Customer>>> searchCommand = null)
{
PerformSearchCommand = new ReactiveCommand();
searchCommand = searchCommand ?? () => Observable.Start(() => {
return _awRepository.vIndividualCustomers.Take(1000).ToList();
}, RxApp.TaskPoolScheduler);
PerformSearchCommand.RegisterAsync(searchCommand)
.Subscribe(rval => {
CustomerList = rval;
SelectedCustomer = CustomerList.FirstOrDefault();
});
PerformSearchCommand.IsExecuting
.ToProperty(this, x => x.IsBusy, out _IsBusy);
}
Set up the test now
Now, we can set up the test, to replace PerformSearchCommand's action with something that has a delay on it:
new TestScheduler().With(sched =>
{
var repoMock = new Mock<IAdventureWorksRepository>();
var vm = new ViewModel(repoMock.Object, () =>
Observable.Return(new[] { new vIndividualCustomer(), })
.Delay(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1.0), sched));
Assert.AreEqual(false, vm.IsBusy);
Assert.AreEqual(0, vm.CustomerList.Count);
vm.PerformSearchCommand.Execute(null);
sched.AdvanceByMs(10);
// We should be busy, we haven't finished yet - no customers
Assert.AreEqual(true, vm.IsBusy);
Assert.AreEqual(0, vm.CustomerList.Count);
// Skip ahead to after we've returned the customer
sched.AdvanceByMs(1000);
Assert.AreEqual(false, vm.IsBusy);
Assert.AreEqual(1, vm.CustomerList.Count);
});

Related

EF Core not setting class variables automatically

I want to switch my code to an async implementation. When I want to do this then I notice that my related data gets not set automatically after I retrieve them like it used to do it.
This is the initial function that gets called from an API controller. I used the AddDbContext function to add the dbcontext class via dependency injection into my controller:
public async Task<Application> GetApplicationById(AntragDBNoInheritanceContext dbContext, int id)
{
List<Application> ApplicationList = await dbContext.Applications.FromSqlRaw("Exec dbo.GetApplication {0}", id).ToListAsync();
Application Application = ApplicationList.First();
if(Application != null)
{
await CategoryFunctions.GetCategoryByApplicationID(Application.Id);
}
}
The GetCategoryByApplicationId function loads the related category of an application which is a many to one relation between Category and Application:
public async Task<Category> GetCategoryByApplicationID(int applicationID)
{
var optionsBuilder = new DbContextOptionsBuilder<AntragDBNoInheritanceContext>();
optionsBuilder.UseSqlServer(ApplicationDBConnection.APPLICATION_CONNECTION);
using (var dbContext = new AntragDBNoInheritanceContext(optionsBuilder.Options))
{
List<Category> category = await dbContext.Categories.FromSqlRaw("Exec GetApplicationCategory {0}", applicationID).ToListAsync();
if (category.Any())
{
return category.First();
}
}
return null;
}
When I want to retrieve an application then the field Category is not set. When I did not use async/await it would set the category automatically for me. Of course I could just return the Category Object from the GetCategoryByApplicationId and then say:
Application.Category = RetrievedFromDbCategory;
But this seems a bit unmaintainable compared to the previous behaviour. Why does this happen now and can I do something about it? Otherwise I don't see much benefits on using async/await .

How to fetch initial data using provider in flutter effectievly

Recently, i did a flutter course.
The instructor was making the get request from an API so difficult. For a hybrid framework like flutter i never thought it's so difficult.
below are my code. I am using provider for state management.
Future<void> fetchAndSetProducts() async {
try {
const url = 'fetch-url';
final response = await http.get(url);
final data = json.decode(response.body) as Map<String, dynamic>;
final List<Product> loadedProducts = [];
data.forEach((key, value) {
loadedProducts.add(Product(
id: key,
title: value['title'],
description: value['description'],
imageUrl: value['imageUrl'],
price: value['price'],
isFavorite: value['isFavorite'],
));
});
_items = loadedProducts;
notifyListeners();
} catch (error) {
throw (error);
}
}
And in the products overview screen were I am showing the products page this method is called like below:
bool _isInit = true;
bool _isLoading = false;
#override
void didChangeDependencies() {
if (_isInit) {
setState(() {
_isLoading = true;
});
Provider.of<Products>(context).fetchAndSetProducts().then((_) => {
setState(() {
_isLoading = false;
})
});
}
_isInit = false;
super.didChangeDependencies();
}
The other method included a sneaky way of using duration of zero just like we use in javascript set timeout giving a zero time.
It's worth noting that in didChangeDependencies we could not use async await, so most probably a call back hell awaits.
Also a variable needs to be initialized just for calling the api once upon loading.
Is there no easy solution to this? Or an industry way of dealing with this?
here is a minimal working example of what you can do, it's not the best thing in the world, but this is what works for me, let me know if you can make it any better.
The answer to your problem is really simple, BUT, you need to rearrange some stuff first.
A Flutter app can be split into multiple layers which are (just for example) data, state management and UI, in the data layer you will have all methods that communicate with the API, and you call them inside the state management solution (which is provider in your case), the result will be accessible from the provider which will save the data in a variable, then the UI will be able to retrieve these data from the provider, this seems a bit redundant I know, but there is a reason why we do that, if you put the API call inside the provider itself, and there is somewhere else in your app that uses the same endpoint then you will have duplicate code, as for the provider, it's the place where your data is stored in the runtime, these data are what makes the state of your app, finally, the UI can handle displaying data from the provider easily, just make a boolean in the provider that indicates if the API call is executing/loading or not, and inside the consumer in the UI display different widgets based on the boolean.
If we were to visualize the flow of the operation it would be like this:
1- action from the UI that triggers a method from the provider.
2- inside the provider method you will set the boolean indicating that the API call is executing to true and call notifyListeners().
3- call the API request and call .then() on it.
4- inside the .then() set the boolean to false to notify that the call is over and set the received data to a variable inside the provider and call notifyListeners again.
5- in the UI you should have a consumer listening to your provider and handling the boolean, if its true then display a CircularProgressIndicator for example, and if it's false then display your desired widget
Regarding the context in the initState you can fix this problem in 3 ways:
1- using WidgetsBinding.instance
.addPostFrameCallback((_) => yourProviderFunction(context));
2- by registering your provider in a service locator so you don't have to use a context at all. (which is what I used in the example project I posted above)
3- by executing the desired function in the constructor of the provider, so when its initialized the API request will be called
Is this the Academind course?
Also this is the correct way.
For using a Provider you need the context.
EDIT: Added BaselAbuhadrous' comment to the answer.
You need to use didChangeDependencies because the initState actually provides the context, but the screen layout isn't built yet, so you get an error, but if you used WidgetsBindings.instance and call the provider inside of it, then you won't get the error.
//your model , product_model.dart
import 'dart:convert';
List<Product> availableTicketsFromJson(String str) => List<Product>.from(json.decode(str).map((x) => Product.fromJson(x)));
class Product {
String title;
String description;
String imageUrl;
double price;
bool isFavorite;
Product(
{this.title,
this.description,
this.imageUrl,
this.price,
this.isFavorite});
factory Product.fromJson(Map<String, dynamic> json) => Product(
title: json['title'] as String,
description: json['description'] as String,
imageUrl: json['imageUrl'] as String,
price: json['price'] as double,
isFavorite: json['isFavorite'] as bool,
);
}
//viewmodel class
final String url = "test.com";
Future<List<Product> fetchProducts() async {
List<Product> products = List<Product>();
try {
final request = await http.get(url);
if(request.statusCode == 200) {
products = productsFromJson(request.body.toString());
notifyListeners();
} else {
print(request.statusCode.toString());
}
} catch(e) {
return List<Product>();
}
return products;
}
//fetch_data.dart
Create your instance of provider in the page that you wanna fetch the data:
Under State<yourWidget>
=> FetchDataViewModel _model;
List<Product> products = [];
under build method
=> _model = Provider.of<FetchDataViewModel>(context,listen: false);
Make a http request with FutureBuilder
FutureBuilder(future:_model.fetchProducts()),
builder: (context,snapshot)){
if(snapshot.connectionState == ConnectionState.done) {
products = snapshot.data;
if(products.length > 0) {
return ListView.builder(
itemCount: products.length,
itemBuilder : (context,index) {
return _items();
}
);
} else {return _noSavedDataWidget();}
}
}
You can test such a code
sometimes
Provider.of<'providerClassName'>(context, listen : false).'providerFunction'
might help.

FakeItEasy ControllerTest HttpGet Calls

I want to start using FakeItEasy for testing queries.
The tests I want to write should check if entities are returned on HttpGet calls (get all and get by Id)
The Controller:
public class ToDoController : ControllerBase
{
private readonly IMediator _mediator;
public ToDoController(IMediator mediator) =>
_mediator = mediator;
[HttpGet]
[Produces("application/json")]
[ProducesResponseType(typeof(IEnumerable<ToDoItem>), (int)HttpStatusCode.OK)]
public async Task<ActionResult<IEnumerable<ToDoItem>>> Get()
{
var result = await _mediator.Send(new ToDoItemsQuery(new
AllToDoItems())).ConfigureAwait(false);
if (result != null && result.Any())
{
return result.ToList();
}
throw new InvalidOperationException("TODO: error handling");
}
[HttpGet]
[Route("{id}")]
[Produces("application/json")]
[ProducesResponseType(typeof(ToDoItem), (int)HttpStatusCode.OK)]
public async Task<ActionResult<ToDoItem>> GetById(int itemId)
{
var result = await _mediator
.Send(new ToDoItemsQuery(new ToDoItemById(itemId)))
.ConfigureAwait(false);
if (result != null && result.Any())
{
return result.FirstOrDefault();
}
throw new InvalidOperationException("TODO: error handling");
}
}
}
The TestClass:
public class ToDoItemControllerTests : ControllerTestBase
{
private IMediator _mediator;
private ToDoController _sut;
public ToDoItemControllerTests()
{
_mediator = A.Fake<IMediator>();
_sut = new ToDoController(_mediator);
}
[TestMethod]
public async Task GetAllItemsAsync_SuccessTest()
{
A.CallTo(() => _mediator.Send(A<AllToDoItems>._,
A<CancellationToken>._)).Returns(A.CollectionOfFake<ToDoItem>(10));
var result = await _sut.Get();
Assert.IsNotNull(result);
A.CallTo(() => _mediator).MustHaveHappened();
}
[TestMethod]
public async Task GetItemByIdAsync_SuccessTest()
{
// Arrange
int itemId = 2;
var commandResult =
new List<ToDoItem>
{
new ToDoItem
{
Id = itemId
};
}
A.CallTo(() => MediatR.Send(A<ToDoItemById>._, A<CancellationToken>._)).Returns(commandResult);
// Act
var result = await _sut.GetById(itemId);
// Assert
Assert.IsNotNull(result);
A.CallTo(() => MediatR.Send(A<ToDoItemById>._, A<CancellationToken>._)).MustHaveHappened();
}
}
So in the first test I set up A.CallTo the interface IMediatR to return 10 ToDoItems.
During debug I see the _sut.Get() enter the controller, entering the correct method/api call.
The _mediator.Send() in the controller returns a Fake IEnumerable (not the 10 items i set up in the first Call.To in the testmethod, but an enumeration that yields no results).
Because of the result.Any() being false, the controller throws an InvalidOperationException
And I cannot even Assert the result.IsNotNull()
The second test I want to Test If 1 item is returned upon calling the API.
I set up (a) an itemId of type int for parameter,
(b) A mocked(?) List with 1 Item from the setup with the itemId and
(c) a call to the mediatR should return the mocked Listfrom (b)
I make the call from the test, in debug I see the call await _mediator.Sent() returning
A Fake Ienumerable of ToDoItem, result is not null, but because result.Any() is false,
the item doesn't get returned, and I get another InvalidOperationException
I feel like I'm missing something in the setup of the tests..
A Fake database Interface?
I don't want to chance my controller and make the if less restrictive, just so my test would pass
EDIT:
Even if I change the if condition to removing the Any condition
and I see the test entering the controller, returning "First Or Default" of the result,
The test fails on A Call To Must Have Happened.
Expected to find it once or more but no calls were made to the fake object.
This I really don't get, i actually see him making the call?!
I've browsed GitHub to find examples but the closest I found was Entities with methods, with those methods being defined in an interface. This is not the case here
Seeing as the official documentation doesn't make me any wiser I turn to SO <3
Thanks in advance!
In the first test, you configure the call to Send with an argument of type AllToDoItems. But in the controller, you actually call Send with a TodoItemsQuery. So the call doesn't match, and the default (unconfigured) behavior, which is to return a fake IEnumerable, applies. You need to configure the call like this:
A.CallTo(() => _mediator.Send(A<TodoItemsQuery>._,
A<CancellationToken>._)).Returns(A.CollectionOfFake<ToDoItem>(10));
In the second test, the problem is the same, with ToDoItemById instead of AllToDoItems

When calling a WCF RIA Service method using Invoke, does the return type affect when the Completed callback is executed?

I inherited a Silverlight 5 application. On the server side, it has a DomainContext (service) with a method marked as
[Invoke]
public void DoIt
{
do stuff for 10 seconds here
}
On the client side, it has a ViewModel method containing this:
var q = Context.DoIt(0);
var x=1; var y=2;
q.Completed += (a,b) => DoMore(x,y);
My 2 questions are
1) has DoIt already been activated by the time I attach q.Completed, and
2) does the return type (void) enter into the timing at all?
Now, I know there's another way to call DoIt, namely:
var q = Context.DoIt(0,myCallback);
This leads me to think the two ways of making the call are mutually exclusive.
Although DoIt() is executed on a remote computer, it is best to attach Completed event handler immediately. Otherwise, when the process completes, you might miss out on the callback.
You are correct. The two ways of calling DoIt are mutually exclusive.
If you have complicated logic, you may want to consider using the Bcl Async library. See this blog post.
Using async, your code will look like this:
// Note: you will need the OperationExtensions helper
public async void CallDoItAndDosomething()
{
this.BusyIndicator.IsBusy = true;
await context.DoIt(0).AsTask();
this.BusyIndicator.IsBusy = false;
}
public static class OperationExtensions
{
public static Task<T> AsTask<T>(this T operation)
where T : OperationBase
{
TaskCompletionSource<T> tcs =
new TaskCompletionSource<T>(operation.UserState);
operation.Completed += (sender, e) =>
{
if (operation.HasError && !operation.IsErrorHandled)
{
tcs.TrySetException(operation.Error);
operation.MarkErrorAsHandled();
}
else if (operation.IsCanceled)
{
tcs.TrySetCanceled();
}
else
{
tcs.TrySetResult(operation);
}
};
return tcs.Task;
}
}

Testing In A Try Catch With Moq Compared To Rhino Mocks

I've just been working on some tests using Moq but ran into trouble trying to test a method I wanted to call twice through a try catch block. The principle is that the first call throws an exception, then in the catch I correct the problem and call the method again.
I managed to do it with Rhino Mocks as below but being new to both frameworks I wondered if anyone could tell me if the same can be achieved using Moq.
// C.U.T
public class Mockee
{
bool theCatLives = true;
public Mockee() { }
public virtual void SetFalse()
{
theCatLives = false;
}
}
[Test]
public void TestTryCatch(){
var mr = new MockRepository();
var mock = mr.StrictMock<Mockee>();
mr.Record();
Expect.Call(mock.SetFalse).Throw(new Exception());
Expect.Call(mock.SetFalse);
mr.ReplayAll();
try
{
mock.SetFalse();
}
catch
{
mock.SetFalse();
}
mock.VerifyAllExpectations();
}
This isn't particularly easy to do with Moq, as it has no concept of ordered expectations. You can, however, use the Callback method and throw exceptions from there, like this:
var actions = new Queue<Action>(new Action[]
{
() => { throw new Exception(); },
() => { }
});
var mock = new Mock<Mockee>();
mock.Setup(m => m.SetFalse()).Callback(() => actions.Dequeue()()).Verifiable();
try
{
mock.Object.SetFalse();
}
catch
{
mock.Object.SetFalse();
}
mock.Verify();
However, one caveat is that this version only checks whether the SetFalse method was called at all.
If you want to verify that it was called twice, you can change the last statement to this:
mock.Verify(m => m.SetFalse(), Times.Exactly(2));
However, this slightly violates the DRY principle because you would be stating the same Setup twice, but you could get around that by first declaring and defining a variable of type Expression<Action<Mockee>> and use it for both the Setup and the Verify methods...