Dynamics CRM - Unit Testing a plugin with RhinoMocks give weird result - plugins

I am writing a unit test for a plugin using Dynamics CRM with RhinoMocks.
After stubbing out the OrganizationService.Retrieve() method, when I invoke the stubbed out method, I am getting null back.
From what I can see (correct me if I'm wrong), is that the stubbed out method signature must the same as the invocation signature.
Here is my code:
TestSetup
var someGuid = Guid.Empty;
var organisationServiceMock = MockRepository.GenerateMock<IOrganizationService>();
organisationServiceMock.Expect(x => x.Retrieve("someCrmEntity", someGuid, SomeCrmEntityColumnSetQuery.ColumnSet))
.Return(new Entity
{
LogicalName = "someCrmEntity",
Id = Guid.NewGuid(),
});
SomeCrmEntityColumnSetQuery Code
public static class SomeCrmEntityColumnSetQuery
{
public static ColumnSet ColumnSet => new ColumnSet("column1", "column2");
}
Invocation Code
var someEntity = organisationServiceMock.Retrieve("someCrmEntity", someGuid, SomeCrmEntityColumnSetQuery.ColumnSet);
//someEntity is null
Things I have tried
Removed the ColumnSet and replaced it with null - this works
Replaced the static class SomeCrmEntityColumnSetQuery with a default instance (new ColumnSet())
I have set the someGuid to Guid.Empty thinking that it was not "joining" on the correct Guid hence the null return value.
I have tried to replace .Expect() with .Stub() - no joy
Edit
In the expectation, I have tried the .WhenCalled(...) and that is how I found out that if I replace the columnSet argument with a null in the expectation and the invocation, it works. So it's go to do with something in my static class that represents a ColumnSet. The code works as I have it running in my DEV environment.
If anyone can share some light on this, that would be magic!
Charles

So I found the answer after watching a PluralSight video on RhinoMocks.
My problem was that when setting up the stub, the stub does not take values but rather the signature of the method that you are stubbing out. For e.g:
var organisationServiceMock = MockRepository.GenerateMock();
//Wrong
organisationServiceMock.Expect(x => x.Retrieve("someCrmEntity", someGuid, SomeCrmEntityColumnSetQuery.ColumnSet)).Return(new Entity());
//The stub does not care about what values are being sent into the method when invoked but rather if the method signature types match.
//Correct
organisationServiceMock.Expect(x => x.Retrieve(Arg.Is.Anything, Arg.Is.Anything, Arg.Is.Anything)).Return(new Entity());
//During the invocation, stubbed method now expects the first argument to be a string, then 2nd to be a Guid, 3rd to be a ColumnSet.
I hope this helps anyone who has also been struggling with this. :)

Related

Wicket NumberTextField in Kotlin throws ClassCastException when submitted

I'm having some issues with a Wicket (8.0.0-M4) NumberTextField in Kotlin (1.1.0).
My stripped-down form looks like this:
class Test : AbstractWebPage() {
val housenumberModel: Model<Int> = Model<Int>()
val housenumber = NumberTextField<Int>("housenumberModel", housenumberModel)
val form: Form<Unit> = object : Form<Unit>("adressForm") {}
override fun onInitialize() {
super.onInitialize()
form.add(housenumber.setRequired(false))
form.add(object : SubmitLink("submit") {
override fun onSubmit() {
super.onSubmit()
println(housenumberModel.`object`) // this is line 28
}
})
add(form)
}
}
After submitting the form I get the following stacktrace:
java.lang.ClassCastException: java.lang.String cannot be cast to
java.lang.Number
at com.mycompany.test.pages.Test$onInitialize$1.onSubmit(Test.kt:28)
at org.apache.wicket.markup.html.form.Form.delegateSubmit(Form.java:1312)
at org.apache.wicket.markup.html.form.Form.process(Form.java:979)
at org.apache.wicket.markup.html.form.Form.onFormSubmitted(Form.java:802)
at org.apache.wicket.markup.html.form.Form.onRequest(Form.java:715)
at org.apache.wicket.core.request.handler.ListenerRequestHandler.internalInvoke(ListenerRequestHandler.java:301)
at org.apache.wicket.core.request.handler.ListenerRequestHandler.invoke(ListenerRequestHandler.java:250)
at org.apache.wicket.core.request.handler.ListenerRequestHandler.invokeListener(ListenerRequestHandler.java:210)
at org.apache.wicket.core.request.handler.ListenerRequestHandler.respond(ListenerRequestHandler.java:203)
at org.apache.wicket.request.cycle.RequestCycle$HandlerExecutor.respond(RequestCycle.java:912)
at org.apache.wicket.request.RequestHandlerExecutor.execute(RequestHandlerExecutor.java:65)
at org.apache.wicket.request.cycle.RequestCycle.execute(RequestCycle.java:283)
at org.apache.wicket.request.cycle.RequestCycle.processRequest(RequestCycle.java:253)
at org.apache.wicket.request.cycle.RequestCycle.processRequestAndDetach(RequestCycle.java:221)
at org.apache.wicket.protocol.http.WicketFilter.processRequestCycle(WicketFilter.java:262)
at org.apache.wicket.protocol.http.WicketFilter.processRequest(WicketFilter.java:204)
at org.apache.wicket.protocol.http.WicketFilter.doFilter(WicketFilter.java:286)
[...]
If I use
val housenumberModel: Model<Int> = Model.of(0)
instead of
val housenumberModel: Model<Int> = Model<Int>()
everything works fine. But since my NumberTextField is optional I don't want to have it pre-initialized with 0.
Me and my colleagues were trying to change the type signature of the Model in every way we could imagine but came to no solution. A co-worker suggested to write a custom Wicket converter since Kotlins Int is represendeted as a primitive type (From the docs: "On the JVM, non-nullable values of this type are represented as values of the primitive type int.") Even though I don't know yet if this would work it seems like an overkill for me.
Another hack I could think of: writing some JavaScript to delete the zero from the input field. Also not really something I would want to do.
Question: Is there a simple solution to my problem?
(And as a bonus-question: has already anyone written a larger Wicket application in Kotlin and could tell me if this combination is ready for prime time to develop a critical project with this stack or is my problem just the tip of the iceberg?)
[edit]
Solution as pointed out by svenmeier:
Using
val housenumber = NumberTextField<Int>("housenumberModel", housenumberModel, Int::class.java)
works.
Or as an alternative:
val housenumbervalue: Int? = null
val housenumberModel: IModel<Int> = PropertyModel<Int>(this, "housenumbervalue")
val housenumber = NumberTextField<Int>("housenumberModel", housenumberModel)
Because of type erasure your NumberTextField cannot detect the generic type parameter of your model. Since your model object is null, it cannot be used to derive the type either.
In this case Wicket assumes a String model object type :/.
Either provide the type to the NumberTextField explicitly, or use a model that keeps its generic information, e.g. a PropertyModel.
There is a way to tell wicket about the type you want, it is by adding the type in the constructor. More here.
In Java it looks like this:
new NumberTextField<Integer>("housenumberModel", housenumberModel, Integer.class);

Why can't I create a callback for the List Find method in Moq?

I created an extension method that lets me treat a List as DbSet for testing purposes (actually, I found this idea in another question here on stack overflow, and it's been fairly useful). Coded as follows:
public static DbSet<T> AsDbSet<T>(this List<T> sourceList) where T : class
{
var queryable = sourceList.AsQueryable();
var mockDbSet = new Mock<DbSet<T>>();
mockDbSet.As<IQueryable<T>>().Setup(m => m.Provider).Returns(queryable.Provider);
mockDbSet.As<IQueryable<T>>().Setup(m => m.Expression).Returns(queryable.Expression);
mockDbSet.As<IQueryable<T>>().Setup(m => m.ElementType).Returns(queryable.ElementType);
mockDbSet.As<IQueryable<T>>().Setup(m => m.GetEnumerator()).Returns(queryable.GetEnumerator());
mockDbSet.Setup(d => d.Add(It.IsAny<T>())).Callback<T>(sourceList.Add);
mockDbSet.Setup(d => d.Find(It.IsAny<object[]>())).Callback(sourceList.Find);
return mockDbSet.Object;
}
I had been using Add for awhile, and that works perfectly. However, when I try to add the callback for Find, I get a compiler error saying that it can't convert a method group to an action. Why is sourceList.Add an Action, but sourceList.Find is a method group?
I'll admit I'm not particularly familiar with C# delegates, so it's likely I'm missing something very obvious. Thanks in advance.
The reason Add works is because the List<T>.Add method group contains a single method which takes a single argument of type T and returns void. This method has the same signature as an Action<T> which is one of the overloads of the Callback method (the one with a single generic type parameter, Callback<T>), therefore the List<T>.Add method group can be converted to an Action<T>.
With Find, you are trying to call the Callback method (as opposed to Callback<T>) which expects an Action parameter (as opposed to Action<T>). The difference here is that an Action does not take any parameters, but an Action<T> takes a single parameter of type T. The List<T>.Find method group cannot be converted to an Action because all the Find methods (there is only one anyway) take input parameters.
The following will compile:
public static DbSet<T> AsDbSet<T>(this List<T> sourceList) where T : class
{
var mockDbSet = new Mock<DbSet<T>>();
mockDbSet.Setup(d => d.Find(It.IsAny<object[]>())).Callback<Predicate<T>>(t => sourceList.Find(t));
return mockDbSet.Object;
}
Note that I have called .Callback<Predicate<T>> because the List<T>.Find method expects and argument of type Predicate. Also note I have had to write t => sourceList.Find(t) instead of sourceList.Find because Find returns a value (which means it doesn't match the signature of Action<Predicate<T>>). By writing it as a lambda expression the return value will be thrown away.
Note that although this compiles it will not actually work because the DbSet.Find method actually takes an object[] for it's parameter, not a Predicate<T>, so you will likely have to do something like this:
public static DbSet<T> AsDbSet<T>(this List<T> sourceList) where T : class
{
var mockDbSet = new Mock<DbSet<T>>();
mockDbSet.Setup(d => d.Find(It.IsAny<object[]>())).Callback<object[]>(keyValues => sourceList.Find(keyValues.Contains));
return mockDbSet.Object;
}
This last point has more to do with how to use the Moq library that how to use method groups, delegates and lambdas - there is all sorts of syntactic sugar going on with this line which is hiding what is actually relevant to the compiler and what isn't.

EntityFramework and Expressions translation

I have a entity class Foo I've made partial containing the following code
private readonly static Expression<Func<Foo, int>> MyKeyExpression = (x) => x.Key;
public int MyKey
{
get { return MyKeyExpression.Compile()(this); }
}
The above works as in I can use MyKey in EntityFrameworks linq queries.
Why don't the following work?
private readonly static Expression<Func<Foo, int>> MyKeyExpression = (x) => x.Key;
// Set in the constructor with
// _myKeyDelegate = MyKeyExpression.Compile();
private readonly Func<Foo,int> _myKeyDelegate;
public int MyKey
{
get { return _myKeyDelegate(this); }
}
I understand the difference between a delegate and an expression(or maybe i don't?) but is confused how EntityFramework is able to interpret the property differently since MyKeyExpression.Compile() returns just that delegate which is then invoked returning an int. Perhaps its my lack of understanding of how the compiler actually handles C# Properties?
Example of usage where first example works but second examples throw a exception about not being able to translate it to SQL.:
dbContext.Foo.Delete(x => x.MyKey == 5)
I would say you don't fully understand difference between delegates and expressions.
Delegate is a reference to code compiled into IL. Only thing you can with it is execute it within .net CLR.
Expression object is a expression represented as tree, (you can think of AST). You can compile it to IL (Compile method) or you can inspect it and generate code for other execution environment, for example into SQL (that's what EF does).
When C# compiler compiles code, first it builds syntax tree and then compiles it. Basically expression is result of first part without second, so you could use SQL translator to compile it to SQL. Or you can write you own and translate it to anything else.
It's very strange what you are saying...
EF ignores the content of the getter and the setter of a mapped property (MyKey).
The query should be generated with a WHERE clause based on MyKey independent of what getter does.
How did you map the MyKey property? There is the setter missing so EF does not generate a field on the DB table and does not map it automatically.

Why do I get a lambda error that no-one else gets?

I'm trying to debug the following line:
MOrigValue.AllInstances.TestString = () => "New value";
There's a red squiggly line under:
() => "New value";
Mouseover shows the following error:
Delegate 'Microsoft.Moles.Framework.MolesDelegates.Func<OrigValueP.OrigValue, string>' does not take 0 arguments
Here is the complete class:
namespace OrigValueP
{
public class OrigValue
{
public string TestString() { return "Original value"; }
}
}
Here's the info from the object browser.
Click on the property MOrigValue.AllInstances.TestString:
public static Microsoft.Moles.Framework.MolesDelegates.Func<OrigValueP.OrigValue,string> TestString { set; }
Member of OrigValueP.Moles.MOrigValue.AllInstances
So, to a non-techie like me, that would explain the red squiggly line error above..
Click on the property MOrigValue..TestString:
public Microsoft.Moles.Framework.MolesDelegates.Func<string> TestString { set; }
Member of OrigValueP.Moles.MOrigValue
To me, this looks like the definition that I would have expected to see for MOrigValue.AllInstances.TestString. In other words a property that is actually a Moled "method" that has no parameters and returns a string.
As an experiment, based on the first object browser info above, I inserted the class as an input parameter, as follows:
MOrigValue.AllInstances.TestString = (OrigValue) => "New value";
This works :)
But my workaround looks like a "hack". I've seen every page on the internet (including StackOverflow) relating to moles and how to remove them painlessly. Many of them have lines with a lambda similar to the following:
MMyClass.AllInstances.DoSomething = () => "Hello world";
Assert.AreEqual("Hello world", new MyClass().DoSomething());
The fundamental issue is that Moles started from a method that takes no parameters and returns a string. The Moled equivalent takes its own class as a parameter and returns a string. Surely Moles knows that TestString() is a member of OrigValue.
Maybe my problem is a result of using VS Express, rather than the paid versions. I can live with that, but it would still be interesting to know why I need the hack. There might be cases where the hack produces incorrect test results without my knowledge.
BTW: I think this example proves the value of the object browser.
Your expectation is wrong. The "hack" you describe is the official documented way to use the AllInstances nested type. Its delegates really do always take a parameter containing an instance of the type under test.
It is unlikely that you could have seen this form of usage of AllInstances
MMyClass.AllInstances.DoSomething = () => "Hello world";
which, if you have, could be a mistake made by the author of the code.
What you expect to be the definition of a delegate belonging to the AllInstances type is really a different kind of use of Moles: it's used to detour an instance method of a single instance.
The "Mole Basics" section of the document "Microsoft Moles Reference Manual" contains more information on the topic. Here is an excerpt from there.
Instance Methods (for One Instance)
... The properties to set up those moles are instance methods of the mole type itself. Each instantiated mole type is also associated with a raw instance of a moled method type.
For example, given a class MyClass with an instance method MyMethod:
public class MyClass {
public int MyMethod() {
...
}
}
We can set up two mole types of MyMethod such that the first one always returns 5 and the second always returns 10:
var myClass1 = new MMyClass() { MyMethod = () => 5 };
var myClass2 = new MMyClass() { MyMethod = () => 10 };

How do I mock a Where clause in EF4

I am re-writing this question to make it clearer what I need to do. I am trying to use Rhino-Mock to test:
public IQueryable<TxRxMode> GetAllModes()
{
return m_context.TxRxModes.Where(txRxMode => txRxMode.Active);
}
Here's the code:
var context = MockRepository.GenerateStub<IProjectContext>();
//Returns an empty list
context.Expect(c => c.TxRxModes.Where(Arg<Func<TxRxMode, bool>>.Is.Anything)).Return(new List<TxRxMode>().AsQueryable());
TxRxModes in an IObjectSet property on the context and I want it to return an empty IQueryable<TxRxMode> object when the return m_context.TxRxModes.Where(txRxMode => txRxMode.Active); code is called.
When I run this, the Expect method call throws the an ArgumentNullException:
Value cannot be null.
Parameter name: predicate
I have tried the simpler:
IObjectSet<TxRxMode> modes = MockRepository.GenerateStub<IObjectSet<TxRxMode>>();
context.Expect(c => c.TxRxModes).Return(modes);
but this throws a null reference exception when I call
return m_context.TxRxModes.Where(txRxMode => txRxMode.Active);
Basically, this is part of the method I am trying to mock, so the key question is how do I mock this Where statement?
Where is actually a global static method and you shouldn't be mocking it. It operates on an IEnumerable however and you could just mock that.
Its kind of a hassle doing it with rhino mocks however. I would recommend doing the mock manually (if you need to do it at all).