I currently have a test which tests the presenter I have in the MVP model. On my presenter I have a property which will call into my View, which in my test is mocked out. In the Initialization of my test, after I set my View on the Presenter to be the mocked View, I set my property on the Presenter which will call this method.
In my test I do not have an Expect.Call for the method I invoke, yet when I run I get this Rhino mock exception:
Rhino.Mocks.Exceptions.ExpectationViolationException: IView.MethodToInvoke(); Expected #1, Actual #0..
From what I understand with Rhino mocks, as long as I am invoking on the Mock outside the expecting block it should not be recording this. I would imagine the test to pass. Is there a reason it is not passing?
Below is some code to show my setup.
public class Presenter
{
public IView View;
public Presenter(IView view)
{
View = view
}
private int _property;
public int Property
get { return _property;}
set
{
_property = value;
View.MethodToInvoke();
}
}
... Test Code Below ...
[TestInitialize]
public void Initilize()
{
_mocks = new MockRepository();
_view = _mocks.StrictMock<IView>();
_presenter = new Presenter(_view);
_presenter.Property = 1;
}
[TestMethod]
public void Test()
{
Rhino.Mocks.With.Mocks(_mocks).Expecting(delegate
{
}).Verify(delegate
{
_presenter.SomeOtherMethod();
});
}
Why in the world would you want to test the same thing each time a test is run?
If you want to test that a specific thing happens, you should check that in a single test.
The pattern you are using now implies that you need to
- set up prerequisites for testing
- do behavior
- check that behavior is correct
and then repeat that several times in one test
You need to start testing one thing for each test, and that help make the tests clearer, and make it easier to use the AAA syntax.
There's several things to discuss here, but it certainly would be clearer if you did it something like:
[TestMethod]
ShouldCallInvokedMethodWhenSettingProperty()
{
var viewMock = MockRepository.GenerateMock<IView>()
var presenter = new Presenter(viewMock);
presenter.Property = 1;
viewMock.AssertWasCalled(view => view.InvokedMethod());
}
Read up more on Rhino Mocks 3.5 syntax here: http://ayende.com/Wiki/Rhino+Mocks+3.5.ashx
What exactly are you trying to test in the Test method?
You should try to avoid using strict mocks.
I suggest using the Rhino's AAA syntax (Arrange, Act, Assert).
The problem lied with me not understanding the record/verify that is going on with Strict mocks. In order to fix the issue I was having this is how I changed my TestInitilize function. This basicaly does a quick test on my intial state I'm setting up for all my tests.
[TestInitialize]
public void Initilize()
{
_mocks = new MockRepository();
_view = _mocks.StrictMock<IView>();
_presenter = new Presenter(_view);
Expect.Call(delegate { _presenter.View.InvokedMethod(); });
_mocks.ReplayAll();
_mocks.VerifyAll();
_mocks.BackToRecordAll();
_presenter.Property = 1;
}
Related
Have no issues to mock constructor with non-list parameter but I cannot figure out how to mock constructor with List parameters in Expectations section.
Tested code:
public Mono<ParameterObject> create(UUID id, List<Foo> foos) {
return Mono.just(foos)
.zipWith(barRepository.findSomething(id).collectList())
.map(function((foos, bars)-> new ParameterObject(foos, bars)));
}
Test:
#Test
void testMe(#Injectable ParameterObject parameterObject) {
var foos = List.of(new Foo());
var bar = new Bar();
new Expectations(ParameterObject.class) {{
barRepository.findBySomething(ID);
result = Flux.just(bar);
new ParameterObject(foos, List.of(bar));
//new ParameterObject(foos, (List<Bar>) any)); // also won't work - still different instances` references
//new ParameterObject((List<Foo) any, (List<Bar>) any)); // also won't work - still different instances` references
result = parameterObject;
}};
StepVerifier.create(subject.create(ID, foos))
.expectNext(parameterObject)
.verifyComplete();
}
Result:
expected value: com.package.ParameterObject#662773f8;
actual value: com.package.ParameterObject#1c375a0b
As we might see there is difference in ParametObject instances` references.
It means our ParameterObject constructor mock wasn't even invoked.
What I do wrong here?
You're going down a weird road in your expectations block where it looks like you are trying to mock the constructor when certain parameters are supplied. Mocking constructors is something that can be done, but it's tricky and has special syntax. See the docs if you really want to go that way.
That said, there are 2 easier solutions.
1.) mock "create(..)" to just return parameterObject. Since you are trying to test the behavior of create(..), this is not for you, but may work in other situations.
2.) In your class-under-test, extract the "new ParameterObject(..)" piece of the lambda to a separate method, such that the lambda calls the "new"-method and the "new"-method does the actual new. Have 1 test that tests the lambda (with the "new"-method mocked) and a 2nd test that just tests the 'new'-method
public Mono<ParameterObject> create(UUID id, List<Foo> foos) {
return Mono.just(foos)
.zipWith(barRepository.findSomething(id).collectList())
.map(function((foos, bars)-> construct(foos,bars)));
}
public void construct(List<Foo> foos, List<Bar> bars) {
new ParameterObject(foos, bars)
}
#Test
void testMe(#Injectable ParameterObject parameterObject) {
var foos = List.of(new Foo());
var bar = new Bar();
new Expectations(ParameterObject.class) {{
barRepository.findBySomething(ID);
result = Flux.just(bar);
construct((List<Foo) any, (List<Bar>) any));
result = parameterObject;
}};
StepVerifier.create(subject.create(ID, foos))
.expectNext(parameterObject)
.verifyComplete();
}
String Actualvalue= d.findElement(By.xpath("//[#id=\"wrapper\"]/main/div[2]/div/div[1]/div/div[1]/div[2]/div/table/tbody/tr[1]/td[1]/a")).getText();
Assert.assertEquals(Actualvalue, "jumlga");
captureScreen(d, "Fail");
The assert should not be put before your capture screen. Because it will immediately shutdown the test process so your code
captureScreen(d, "Fail");
will be not reachable
This is how i usually do:
boolean result = false;
try {
// do stuff here
result = true;
} catch(Exception_class_Name ex) {
// code to handle error and capture screen shot
captureScreen(d, "Fail");
}
# then using assert
Assert.assertEquals(result, true);
1.
A good solution will be is to use a report framework like allure-reports.
Read here:allure-reports
2.
We don't our tests to be ugly by adding try catch in every test so we will use Listeners which are using an annotations system to "Listen" to our tests and act accordingly.
Example:
public class listeners extends commonOps implements ITestListener {
public void onTestFailure(ITestResult iTestResult) {
System.out.println("------------------ Starting Test: " + iTestResult.getName() + " Failed ------------------");
if (platform.equalsIgnoreCase("web"))
saveScreenshot();
}
}
Please note I only used the relevant method to your question and I suggest you read here:
TestNG Listeners
Now we will want to take a screenshot built in method by allure-reports every time a test fails so will add this method inside our listeners class
Example:
#Attachment(value = "Page Screen-Shot", type = "image/png")
public byte[] saveScreenshot(){
return ((TakesScreenshot)driver).getScreenshotAs(OutputType.BYTES);
}
Test example
#Listeners(listeners.class)
public class myTest extends commonOps {
#Test(description = "Test01: Add numbers and verify")
#Description("Test Description: Using Allure reports annotations")
public void test01_myFirstTest(){
Assert.assertEquals(result, true)
}
}
Note we're using at the beginning of the class an annotation of #Listeners(listeners.class) which allows our listeners to listen to our test, please mind the (listeners.class) can be any class you named your listeners.
The #Description is related to allure-reports and as the code snip suggests you can add additional info about the test.
Finally, our Assert.assertEquals(result, true) will take a screen shot in case the assertion fails because we enabled our listener.class to it.
I have the following netcore 2.2 controller method that I am trying to write an xUnit integration test for:
private readonly ISoapSvc _soapSvc;
private readonly IRepositorySvc _repositorySvc;
public SnowConnectorController(ISoapSvc soapSvc, IRepositorySvc repositorySvc)
{
_soapSvc = soapSvc;
_repositorySvc = repositorySvc;
}
[Route("accept")]
[HttpPost]
[Produces("text/xml")]
public async Task<IActionResult> Accept([FromBody] XDocument soapRequest)
{
try
{
var response = new CreateRes
{
Body = new Body
{
Response = new Response
{
Status = "Accepted"
}
}
};
return Ok(response);
}
finally
{
// After the first API call completes
Response.OnCompleted(async () =>
{
// Run the close method
await Close(soapRequest);
});
}
}
The catch block runs and does the things it needs to, then the finally block runs and does things it needs to do after the request in the catch finishes per design.
Close has been both a private method . It started as a public controller method but I don't need to expose it for function so moved it to private method status.
Here's an integration test I started with the intention of just testing the try portion of the code:
[Fact]
public async Task AlwaysReturnAcceptedResponse()
{
// Arrange------
// Build mocks so that we can inject them in our system under tests constructor
var mockSoapSvc = new Mock<ISoapSvc>();
var mockRepositorySvc = new Mock<IRepositorySvc>();
// Build system under test(sut)
var sut = new SnowConnectorController(mockSoapSvc.Object, mockRepositorySvc.Object);
var mockRequest = XDocument.Load("..\\..\\..\\mockRequest.xml");
// Act------
// Form and send test request to test system
var actualResult = await sut.Accept(mockRequest);
var actualValue = actualResult.GetType().GetProperty("Value").GetValue(actualResult);
// Assert------
// The returned object from the method call should be of type CreateRes
Assert.IsType<CreateRes>(actualValue);
}
I am super new to testing... I've been writing the test and feeling my way through the problem. I started by entering the controller method not really knowing where it would go. The test works through the try method, and then an exception is thrown once it hits the delegate in the finally block.
It looks like my test will have to run through to the results of the finally block unless there is a way to tell it to stop with the catch blocks execution?
That's fine, i'm learning, but the problem with that approach for me now is that the HttpResponse's Response.OnCompleted delegate in the finally block returns null when my test is running and I haven't been successful at figuring out what I can do to not make it null - because it is null, it throws this when my unit test is executing -
System.NullReferenceException: 'Object reference not set to an instance of an object.'
*One thought that occurred was that if I was to make the private Close method a public controller method, and then make the Accept method not have the finally block, I could create a third controller method that does the try finally action by running the two controller methods and then just test the individual controller methods that are strung together with the third. However, it doesn't feel right because I would be exposing methods just for the sake of unit testing and I don't need Close to be exposed.
If the above idea is not the right approach, I am wondering what is, and if I just need to test through end to end, how I would get over the null httpresponse?
Any ideas would be appreciated. Thank you, SO community!
EDIT - Updated Test that works after the accepted answer was implemented. Thanks!
[Fact]
public async Task AlwaysReturnAcceptedResponse()
{
// Arrange------
// Build mocks so that we can inject them in our system under tests constructor
var mockSoapSvc = new Mock<ISoapSvc>();
var mockRepositorySvc = new Mock<IRepositorySvc>();
// Build system under test(sut)
var sut = new SnowConnectorController(mockSoapSvc.Object, mockRepositorySvc.Object)
{
// Supply mocked ControllerContext and HttpContext so that finally block doesnt fail test
ControllerContext = new ControllerContext
{
HttpContext = new DefaultHttpContext()
}
};
var mockRequest = XDocument.Load("..\\..\\..\\mockRequest.xml");
// Act------
// Form and send test request to test system
var actualResult = await sut.Accept(mockRequest);
var actualValue = actualResult.GetType().GetProperty("Value").GetValue(actualResult);
// Assert------
// The returned object from the method call should be of type CreateRes
Assert.IsType<CreateRes>(actualValue);
}
Curious what you are doing in the Close method against the input parameter.
Does it have to happen after response is being sent? It might not always happen as you would expect, see here.
Regardless though, during runtime asp.net core runtime sets a lot of properties on the controller including ControllerContext, HttpContext, Request, Response etc.
But those won't be available in unit testing since there is no asp.net core runtime there.
If you really want to test this, you'll have to mock them.
Here is the ControllerBase source code.
As we can see, ControllerBase.Response simply returns ControllerBase.HttpContext.Response, and ControllerBase.HttpContext is a getter from ControllerBase.ControllerContext. This means you'll have to mock a ControllerContext (and the nested HttpContext as well as HttpResponse) and assign it to your controller in the setup phase.
Furthermore, the OnCompleted callback won't get called in unit test either. If you want to unit test that part, you'll have to trigger it manually.
Personally I think it's too much hassle beside the open bug I mentioned above.
I would suggest you move the closing logic (if it's really necessary) to a IDisposable scoped service and handle that in the Dispose instead - assuming it's not a computation heavy operation which can impact the response latency.
I have some parameterized tests
#ParameterizedTest
#CsvFileSource(resources = "testData.csv", numLinesToSkip = 1)
public void testExample(String parameter, String anotherParameter) {
// testing here
}
In case one execution fails, I want to ignore all following executions.
AFAIK there is no built-in mechanism to do this. The following does work, but is a bit hackish:
#TestInstance(Lifecycle.PER_CLASS)
class Test {
boolean skipRemaining = false;
#ParameterizedTest
#CsvFileSource(resources = "testData.csv", numLinesToSkip = 1)
void test(String parameter, String anotherParameter) {
Assumptions.assumeFalse(skipRemaining);
try {
// testing here
} catch (AssertionError e) {
skipRemaining = true;
throw e;
}
}
}
In contrast to a failed assertion, which marks a test as failed, an assumption results in an abort of a test. In addition, the lifecycle is switched from per method to per class:
When using this mode, a new test instance will be created once per test class. Thus, if your test methods rely on state stored in instance variables, you may need to reset that state in #BeforeEach or #AfterEach methods.
Depending on how often you need that feature, I would rather go with a custom extension.
https://docs.particular.net/nservicebus/testing/ has a very neat example of how to test a simple Saga. Unfortunately it does not explain, how to do the same with a SqlSaga - ie. a Saga with persistence of state to a database.
Given this saga:
public class SomeFancySaga : SqlSaga<MySagaData>,
IAmStartedByMessages<ImportantCommand>
{
protected override string CorrelationPropertyName => nameof(Data.MyPrimaryKey);
protected override void ConfigureMapping(IMessagePropertyMapper mapper)
{
mapper.ConfigureMapping<ImportantCommand>(x => x.CommandId);
}
public async Task Handle(ImportantCommand command, IMessageHandlerContext context)
{
if (Data.State == MyState.ReadyForUse)
<do some stuff>
}
...
}
If I try to write test-code like the example in the link, I would do something like this:
// arrange
var context = new NServiceBus.Testing.TestableMessageHandlerContext();
var command = ImportantCommand.Create();
var sut = new CreateSomeFancySaga();
// act
sut.Handle(command, context);
// assert
...
The call to sut.Handle() will throw a NullReferenceException, because the Saga property Data has not been initialized.
How do I correctly wireup the saga for testing so that:
Data is initialized
A real database connection is not really needed
We have a related code sample showing unit testing in more detail: https://docs.particular.net/samples/unit-testing/. That includes a couple of tests for saga (SagaTests.cs).
You can take this as a starting point and modify the saga tests in the following way:
Add NServiceBus.Persistence.Sql package.
Modify the DiscountPolicy policy saga to inherit from SqlSaga instead of a Saga.
Resolve compilation errors (add missing method and property, you can keep them empty, plus remove the ConfigureHowToFindSaga method).
I hope that helps, but let me know if there's anything missing or your scenario can't be tested this way.