I have a class that expose some methods like this:
public class Test
{
public async Task AddToGroup(string groupName)
{
//..
}
public async Task RemoveFromGroup(string groupName)
{
//..
}
}
Those methods are invoked from web with string parameter that match the name
connection.invoke('AddToGroup', groupName);
I would like to use NUnit to test if those methods exists and if parameters of methods are correct. There is a way to assert equality on method signature?
Below my working solution, but seems too verbose
var test = new Test();
[Test]
public void AddToGroup_Exists_WithExactNameAndParams()
{
Assert.That(this.test.GetType().GetMethod("AddToGroup"), Is.Not.Null);
foreach (var param in this.test.GetType().GetMethod("RemoveFromGroup").GetParameters().ToList())
{
if (param.Name == "groupName")
Assert.That(param.ParameterType == typeof(string), Is.True, "Parameter type is not correct");
else
Assert.Fail("This method has not the appropriate parameters");
}
}
Related
I need to run a method before each test Like how before method works in TestNg.
What I am expecting is I need to take the Testname and find the relevant test data and store it variable. Currently I have included that step in Test. But it would be good to have to reduce a line of code in each test.
is it possible in Nunit?
Setup attribute is used to provide a common set of functions that are performed just before each test method is called. You can also get the Method name from TestContext.CurrentContext.Test.MethodName. There are also other properties on Test like Arguments or FullName depending on what you need.
[SetUp]
public void Setup()
{
var testName = TestContext.CurrentContext.Test.MethodName;
TestContext.WriteLine($"SetUp for {testName}");
}
Alternately, you can also use TestCaseData class which provides extended test case information for a parameterized test.
public class DemoClass {
[TestCaseSource(typeof(MyDataClass), nameof(MyDataClass.DivideTestCases))]
public int DivideTest(int n, int d)
{
return n / d;
}
[TestCaseSource(typeof(MyDataClass), nameof(MyDataClass.AddTestCases))]
public int AddTest(int a, int b)
{
return a + b;
}
}
public class MyDataClass
{
public static IEnumerable DivideTestCases
{
get
{
yield return new TestCaseData(12, 3).Returns(4);
yield return new TestCaseData(12, 2).Returns(6);
yield return new TestCaseData(12, 4).Returns(3);
}
}
public static IEnumerable AddTestCases
{
get
{
yield return new TestCaseData(10, 15).Returns(25);
yield return new TestCaseData(12, 10).Returns(22);
yield return new TestCaseData(14, 5).Returns(19);
}
}
}
I am having two Methods in Unit Test case where First Insert Records into Database and Second retrieves back data. I want that input parameter for retrieve data should be the id generated into first method.
private int savedrecordid =0;
private object[] SavedRecordId{ get { return new object[] { new object[] { savedrecordid } }; } }
[Test]
public void InsertInfo()
{
Info oInfo = new Info();
oInfo.Desc ="Some Description here !!!";
savedrecordid = InsertInfoToDb(oInfo);
}
[Test]
[TestCaseSource("SavedRecordId")]
public void GetInfo(int savedId)
{
Info oInfo = GetInfoFromDb(savedId);
}
I know each test case executed separately and separate instance we can't share variables across test methods.
Please let me know if there is way to share parameters across the test cases.
The situation you describe is one of unit tests' antipatterns: unit tests should be independent and should not depend on the sequence in which they run. You can find more at the xUnit Patterns web site:
Unit test should be implemented using Fresh Fixture
Anti pattern Shared Fixture
And both your unit tests have no asserts, so they can't prove whether they are passing or not.
Also they are depend on a database, i.e. external resource, and thus they are not unit but integration tests.
So my advice is to rewrite them:
Use mock object to decouple from database
InsertInfo should insert info and verify using the mock that an appropriate insert call with arguments has been performed
GetInfo should operate with a mock that returns a fake record and verify that it works fine
Example
Notes:
* I have to separate B/L from database operations…
* … and make some assumptions about your solution
// Repository incapsulates work with Database
public abstract class Repository<T>
where T : class
{
public abstract void Save(T entity);
public abstract IEnumerable<T> GetAll();
}
// Class under Test
public class SomeRule
{
private readonly Repository<Info> repository;
public SomeRule(Repository<Info> repository)
{
this.repository = repository;
}
public int InsertInfoToDb(Info oInfo)
{
repository.Save(oInfo);
return oInfo.Id;
}
public Info GetInfoFromDb(int id)
{
return repository.GetAll().Single(info => info.Id == id);
}
}
// Actual unittests
[Test]
public void SomeRule_InsertInfo_WasInserted() // ex. InsertInfo
{
// Arrange
Info oInfo = new Info();
oInfo.Desc = "Some Description here !!!";
var repositoryMock = MockRepository.GenerateStrictMock<Repository<Info>>();
repositoryMock.Expect(m => m.Save(Arg<Info>.Is.NotNull));
// Act
var savedrecordid = new SomeRule(repositoryMock).InsertInfoToDb(oInfo);
// Assert
repositoryMock.VerifyAllExpectations();
}
[Test]
public void SomeRule_GetInfo_ReciveCorrectInfo() // ex. GetInfo
{
// Arrange
var expectedId = 1;
var expectedInfo = new Info { Id = expectedId, Desc = "Something" };
var repositoryMock = MockRepository.GenerateStrictMock<Repository<Info>>();
repositoryMock.Expect(m => m.GetAll()).Return(new [] { expectedInfo }.AsEnumerable());
// Act
Info receivedInfo = new SomeRule(repositoryMock).GetInfoFromDb(expectedId);
// Assert
repositoryMock.VerifyAllExpectations();
Assert.That(receivedInfo, Is.Not.Null.And.SameAs(expectedInfo));
}
ps: full example availabel here
I want to mock a Class in Mockito. It will then have a .newInstance() call issued which will be expected to return an actual class instance (and will return a mock in my case).
If it was setup correctly then I could do:
ArrayList myListMock = mock(ArrayList.class);
when(myVar.newInstance()).thenReturn(myListMock);
I know I can set it up so that a new instance of class ArrayList will be a mock (using PowerMockito whenNew), just wondering if there was a way to mock this kind of a class object so I don't have to override instance creation...
Below is the real class I'm trying to mock, I can't change the structure it is defined by the interface. What I'm looking for is a way to provide cvs when initialize is called.
public class InputConstraintValidator
implements ConstraintValidator<InputValidation, StringWrapper> {
Class<? extends SafeString> cvs;
public void initialize(InputValidation constraintAnnotation) {
cvs = constraintAnnotation.inputValidator();
}
public boolean isValid(StringWrapper value,
ConstraintValidatorContext context) {
SafeString instance;
try {
instance = cvs.newInstance();
} catch (InstantiationException e) {
return false;
} catch (IllegalAccessException e) {
return false;
}
}
Mockito is designed exclusively for mocking instances of objects. Under the hood, the mock method actually creates a proxy that receives calls to all non-final methods, and logs and stubs those calls as needed. There's no good way to use Mockito to replace a function on the Class object itself. This leaves you with a few options:
I don't have experience with PowerMock but it seems it's designed for mocking static methods.
In dependency-injection style, make your static factory method into a factory instance. Since it looks like you're not actually working with ArrayList, let's say your class is FooBar instead:
class FooBar {
static class Factory {
static FooBar instance;
FooBar getInstance() {
if (instance == null) {
instance = new FooBar();
}
return instance;
}
}
// ...
}
Now your class user can receive a new FooBar.Factory() parameter, which creates your real FooBar in singleton style (hopefully better and more threadsafe than my simple implementation), and you can use pure Mockito to mock the Factory. If this looks like it's a lot of boilerplate, it's because it is, but if you are thinking of switching to a DI solution like Guice you can cut down a lot of it.
Consider making a field or method package-private or protected and documenting that it's visible for testing purposes. Then you can insert a mocked instance in test code only.
public class InputConstraintValidator implements
ConstraintValidator<InputValidation, StringWrapper> {
Class<? extends SafeString> cvs;
public void initialize(InputValidation constraintAnnotation) {
cvs = constraintAnnotation.inputValidator();
}
public boolean isValid(StringWrapper value,
ConstraintValidatorContext context) {
SafeString instance;
try {
instance = getCvsInstance();
} catch (InstantiationException e) {
return false;
} catch (IllegalAccessException e) {
return false;
}
}
#VisibleForTesting protected getCvsInstance()
throws InstantiationException, IllegalAccessException {
return cvs.newInstance();
}
}
public class InputConstaintValidatorTest {
#Test public void testWithMockCvs() {
final SafeString cvs = mock(SafeString.class);
InputConstraintValidator validator = new InputConstraintValidator() {
#Override protected getCvsInstance() {
return cvs;
}
}
// test
}
}
I think you just need to introduce an additional mock for Class:
ArrayList<?> myListMock = mock(ArrayList.class);
Class<ArrayList> clazz = mock(Class.class);
when(clazz.newInstance()).thenReturn(myListMock);
Of course the trick is making sure your mocked clazz.newInstance() doesn't end up getting called all over the place because due to type-erasure you can't specify that it's actually a Class<ArrayList>.
Also, be careful defining your own mock for something as fundamental as ArrayList - generally I'd use a "real one" and populate it with mocks.
I'm considering re-rewriting some of my MVC controllers to be async controllers. I have working unit tests for these controllers, but I'm trying to understand how to maintain them in an async controller environment.
For example, currently I have an action like this:
public ContentResult Transaction()
{
do stuff...
return Content("result");
}
and my unit test basically looks like:
var result = controller.Transaction();
Assert.AreEqual("result", result.Content);
Ok, that's easy enough.
But when your controller changes to look like this:
public void TransactionAsync()
{
do stuff...
AsyncManager.Parameters["result"] = "result";
}
public ContentResult TransactionCompleted(string result)
{
return Content(result);
}
How do you suppose your unit tests should be built? You can of course invoke the async initiator method in your test method, but how do you get at the return value?
I haven't seen anything about this on Google...
Thanks for any ideas.
As with any async code, unit testing needs to be aware of thread signalling. .NET includes a type called AutoResetEvent which can block the test thread until an async operation has been completed:
public class MyAsyncController : Controller
{
public void TransactionAsync()
{
AsyncManager.Parameters["result"] = "result";
}
public ContentResult TransactionCompleted(string result)
{
return Content(result);
}
}
[TestFixture]
public class MyAsyncControllerTests
{
#region Fields
private AutoResetEvent trigger;
private MyAsyncController controller;
#endregion
#region Tests
[Test]
public void TestTransactionAsync()
{
controller = new MyAsyncController();
trigger = new AutoResetEvent(false);
// When the async manager has finished processing an async operation, trigger our AutoResetEvent to proceed.
controller.AsyncManager.Finished += (sender, ev) => trigger.Set();
controller.TransactionAsync();
trigger.WaitOne()
// Continue with asserts
}
#endregion
}
Hope that helps :)
I've written short AsyncController extension method that simplifies unit testing a bit.
static class AsyncControllerExtensions
{
public static void ExecuteAsync(this AsyncController asyncController, Action actionAsync, Action actionCompleted)
{
var trigger = new AutoResetEvent(false);
asyncController.AsyncManager.Finished += (sender, ev) =>
{
actionCompleted();
trigger.Set();
};
actionAsync();
trigger.WaitOne();
}
}
That way we can simply hide threading 'noise':
public class SampleAsyncController : AsyncController
{
public void SquareOfAsync(int number)
{
AsyncManager.OutstandingOperations.Increment();
// here goes asynchronous operation
new Thread(() =>
{
Thread.Sleep(100);
// do some async long operation like ...
// calculate square number
AsyncManager.Parameters["result"] = number * number;
// decrementing OutstandingOperations to value 0
// will execute Finished EventHandler on AsyncManager
AsyncManager.OutstandingOperations.Decrement();
}).Start();
}
public JsonResult SquareOfCompleted(int result)
{
return Json(result);
}
}
[TestFixture]
public class SampleAsyncControllerTests
{
[Test]
public void When_calling_square_of_it_should_return_square_number_of_input()
{
var controller = new SampleAsyncController();
var result = new JsonResult();
const int number = 5;
controller.ExecuteAsync(() => controller.SquareOfAsync(number),
() => result = controller.SquareOfCompleted((int)controller.AsyncManager.Parameters["result"]));
Assert.AreEqual((int)(result.Data), number * number);
}
}
If you want to know more I've written a blog post about how to Unit test ASP.NET MVC 3 asynchronous controllers using Machine.Specifications
Or if you want to check this code it's on a github
I am trying to refactor some of my code to use Func
I have created a sample to try to understand how it works but I am getting compilation error. In the e.g. below when I am trying to access the parameter attributes or return the return value the compiler complain.
Clarifications please.
using System;
namespace chsarp
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
ParamInput input = new ParamInput();
input.ReservationID = 10;
Test testMethod = new Test();
Func<ParamInput, ReservationResult> methodToInvoke = testMethod.GetStatus;
ReservationResult result = TestFn(methodToInvoke, input);
}
static Result TestFn<Param, Result>(Func<Param, Result> methodToInvoke, Param parameter) where Result : new()
{
Result result = new Result();
try
{
result = methodToInvoke(parameter);
}
catch (Exception exception)
{
result.status = string.Format("Error-{0} during reserving {1}",
parameter.ReservationID,
exception.Message);
}
return result;
}
}
class Test
{
public ReservationResult GetStatus(ParamInput msg)
{
ReservationResult result = new ReservationResult();
result.status = string.Format("The ReservationID-{0}", msg.ReservationID);
return result;
}
}
class ParamInput
{
public int ReservationID { get; set; }
}
class ReservationResult
{
public string status { get; set; }
}
}
Annotated compile errors:
error CS1061: 'Result' does not contain a definition for 'status'
error CS1061: 'Param' does not contain a definition for 'ReservationID'
Code using generic type arguments can only compile if the compiler knows the member of the generic type. It doesn't know that the Result type argument has a "status" member. It certainly doesn't if you invoke TestFn<object, object>().
You'll need to use a constraint to make this work. You already do, but new() isn't strong enough. Something like "where Result : IResult" for example, where IResult is an interface type that has a status property. Or a base class. The compiler can now be 100% sure that any allowed concrete instance of the generic method will execute without causing runtime errors. Since it can only ever be compiled when it was invoked with a type that has a "status" property.
All the same applies to the Param type argument. The usefulness of a generic method here rapidly disappears when you do this, it is not the proper usage. Unless you can leverage IResult, like you can IEnumerable.
Compiles...
You ought to descibe what you aim is in your question.
See Hans' answer for details that might help you understand the error.
Your problem is that you're saying the function should take a Result that is instantiable, but you are not saying it has to have a property called "status".
namespace chsarp
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Func<int, string> m = Test.GetStatus;
var t = TestFn(m, 10);
}
static string TestFn<TParam>(Func<TParam, string> m, TParam p)
{
try { return m(p); }
catch (Exception exception)
{
return string.Format("Reserving \"{0}\" failure exception: {1}", p, exception);
}
}
}
static class Test
{
public static string GetStatus(int inp)
{
return string.Format("The ReservationID-{0}", inp);
}
}
}