How to Mock an Entity Framework 6 Async Projecting Query - entity-framework

By leveraging the Testing with async queries section of the Testing with a Mocking Framework article on MSDN, I've been able to create many successfully passing tests.
Here's my test code, which uses NSubstitute for mocks:
var dummyQueryable = locations.AsQueryable();
var mock = Substitute.For<DbSet<Location>, IDbAsyncEnumerable<Location>, IQueryable<Location>>();
((IDbAsyncEnumerable<Location>)mock).GetAsyncEnumerator().Returns(new TestDbAsyncEnumerator<Location>(dummyQueryable.GetEnumerator()));
((IQueryable<Location>)mock).Provider.Returns(new TestDbAsyncQueryProvider<Location>(dummyQueryable.Provider));
((IQueryable<Location>)mock).Expression.Returns(dummyQueryable.Expression);
((IQueryable<Location>)mock).ElementType.Returns(dummyQueryable.ElementType);
((IQueryable<Location>)mock).GetEnumerator().Returns(dummyQueryable.GetEnumerator());
sut.DataContext.Locations = mock;
var result = await sut.Index();
result.Should().BeView();
sut.Index() doesn't do much, but it makes the following query:
await DataContext.Locations
.GroupBy(l => l.Area)
.ToListAsync());
This works fine until I add a projection into the query:
await DataContext.Locations
.GroupBy(l => l.Area)
.Select(l => new LocationsIndexVM{ Area = l.Key }) // added projection
.ToListAsync());
which results in this exception:
System.InvalidOperationException
The source IQueryable doesn't implement IDbAsyncEnumerable<LocationsIndexVM>. Only sources that implement IDbAsyncEnumerable can be used for Entity Framework asynchronous operations. For more details see http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=287068.
at System.Data.Entity.QueryableExtensions.AsDbAsyncEnumerable(IQueryable`1 source)
at System.Data.Entity.QueryableExtensions.ToListAsync(IQueryable`1 source)
at Example.Web.Controllers.HomeController.<Index>d__0.MoveNext() in HomeController.cs: line 25
--- End of stack trace from previous location where exception was thrown ---
at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.TaskAwaiter.ThrowForNonSuccess(Task task)
at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.TaskAwaiter.HandleNonSuccessAndDebuggerNotification(Task task)
at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.TaskAwaiter`1.GetResult()
at Example.Test.Web.Controllers.HomeControllerShould.<TempTest>d__4.MoveNext() in HomeControllerShould.cs: line 71
UPDATE: I've uploaded a small, simple solution that reproduces this problem.
Can anyone provide an example of what is required to unit test a query that is both async and contains a .Select() projection?

So I did a bit of digging, and the issue is to do with the way the TestDbAsyncEnumerable<T> exposes the IQueryProvider. My best guess as to the reasoning is below, and the solution below that.
TestDbAsyncEnumerable<T> inherits from EnumerableQuery<T>, which in turn inherits from IQueryable<T>, and explicitly implements the Provider property of this interface:
IQueryProvider IQueryable.Provider { get ... }
Given that it's implemented explicitly, I am assuming that the LINQ internals explicitly cast a type before trying to get the Provider:
((IQueryable<T>)source).Provider.CreateQuery(...);
I don't have a source on hand (and can't be bothered looking for one), but I believe the type binding rules are different for explicit implementations; essentially, the Provider property on your TestDbAsyncEnumerable<T> is not considered to be an implementation of IQueryable<T>.Provider as an explicit one exists further up the chain, so your TestDbAsyncQueryProvider<T> is never returned.
The fix for this is to make TestDbAsyncEnumerable<T> also inherit IQueryable<T> and explicitly implement the Provider property, as below (adjusted from the MSDN article you linked):
public class TestDbAsyncEnumerable<T> : EnumerableQuery<T>, IDbAsyncEnumerable<T>, IQueryable<T>
{
public TestDbAsyncEnumerable(IEnumerable<T> enumerable) : base(enumerable)
{ }
public TestDbAsyncEnumerable(Expression expression) : base(expression)
{ }
public IDbAsyncEnumerator<T> GetAsyncEnumerator()
{
return new TestDbAsyncEnumerator<T>(this.AsEnumerable().GetEnumerator());
}
IDbAsyncEnumerator IDbAsyncEnumerable.GetAsyncEnumerator()
{
return GetAsyncEnumerator();
}
IQueryProvider IQueryable.Provider
{
get { return new TestDbAsyncQueryProvider<T>(this); }
}
}

Related

EF Core load references of unknown entity

DISCLAIMER: Since we are all familiar with it, i will be using contoso university design to explain my question. Also, i am using EF core and .net core 2.0 on a mvc code first design.
I am developing a very generic RESTful API that works on any model. It has one method for each of create, read, update and delete operation in only one controller, the route of this is
[Route("/api/{resource}")]
Resource is the entity that the client wants to work with, for example if someone wants to get all Courses using the api he has to do a GET request on http://www.example.com/api/course/ or http://www.example.com/api/course/2 to get one by id and the following code will do the job.
[HttpGet("{id:int:min(1)?}")]
public IActionResult Read([FromRoute] string resource, [FromRoute] int? id)
{
//find resourse in models
IEntityType entityType = _context.Model
.GetEntityTypes()
.FirstOrDefault(x => x.Name.EndsWith($".{resource}", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase));
if (entityType == null) return NotFound(resource);
Type type = entityType.ClrType;
if (id == null)//select all from table
{
var entityRows = context.GetType().GetMethod("Set").MakeGenericMethod(type).Invoke(context, null);
if (entityRows == null)
return NoContent();
//TODO: load references (1)
return Ok(entityRows);
}
else //select by id
{
var entityRow = _context.Find(type, id);
if (entityRow == null)
return NoContent();
//TODO: load references (2)
return Ok(entityRows);
}
}
This small piece of code will do the magic with one small exception, intermediate collections will not be loaded. Given our example, the fetched course or courses will have no info for CourseInstructor (the intermediate collection in between Course and Person). I am trying to find a way to Eager load the navigation properties only if it is a collection; or by any other condition that will ensure that only many-to-many relationships are loaded.
For //TODO: load reference (2) i could use
_context.Entry(entityRow).Collection("CourseInsructor").Load();
On runtime if i could find all the navigation properties (filtered by spoken condition) and foreach of them i did Load(), i should get the desired result. My problem is when i get all (when id is null) the entityRows is type 'InternalDbSet' which is an unknown model.
So for the two TODOs i need some help on doing the following steps
1: find navigation properties of many-to-many relationships only
2: load them
Any suggestions?
In general, this seems like a very bad idea to me. While the CRUD stuff is going to be identical for most resources, there will be variances (as you've now run into). There's also something to be said for having a self-documenting API: with individual controllers, you know which resources can be accessed by nature of having a controller associated with that resource. With they way you're doing it, it's a complete black box. This also will of course effect any sort of actual generated API documentation. For example, if you were to include Swagger in your project, it would not be able to determine what you're doing here. Finally, you're now having to use reflection for everything, which will effect your performance.
What I would suggest instead is creating a base abstract controller and then creating a controller for each unique resource that inherits from that, for example:
public abstract class BaseController<TEntity> : Controller
where TEntity : class, new()
{
protected readonly MyContext _context;
public BaseController(MyContext context)
{
_context = context ?? throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(context));
}
...
[HttpGet("create")]
public IActionResult Create()
{
var model = new TEntity();
return View(model);
}
[HttpPost("create")]
public async Task<IActionResult> Create(TEntity model)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
_context.Add(model);
await _context.SaveChangesAsync();
return RedirectToAction("Index");
}
return View(model);
}
...
}
I just wanted to give a quick example, but you'd build out all the rest of the CRUD methods in the same fashion, generically using TEntity. Then, for each actual resource, you simply do:
public class WidgetController : BaseController<Widget>
{
public WidgetController(MyContext context)
: base(context)
{
}
}
No duplication of code, but you've now got an actual real controller backing the resource, aiding both the innate and possibly explicit documentation of your API. And, no reflection anywhere.
Then, to solve problems like what you have here, you can add hooks to your base controller: essentially just virtual methods that are utilized in your base controller's CRUD actions and do nothing or just default things. However, you can then override these in your derived controllers to stub in additional functionality. For example, you can add something like:
public virtual IQueryable<TEntity> GetQueryable()
=> _context.Set<TEntity>();
Then, in your derived controller, you can do something like:
public class CourseController : BaseController<Course>
{
...
public override IQueryable<Course> GetQueryable()
=> base.GetQueryable().Include(x => x.CourseInstructors).ThenInclude(x => x.Instructor);
So, for example, you'd make your BaseController.Index action, perhaps, utilize GetQueryable() to get the list of entities to display. Simply by overriding this on the derived class, you can alter what happens based on the context of a particular type of resource.

Should DBContext be globally defined or explicitly created every time?

I'm a SQL guy who's tinkering with Web API and Entity Framework 6 and I keep receiving the error "The operation cannot be completed because the DbContext has been disposed" when I my code is:
namespace DataAccessLayer.Controllers
{
public class CommonController : ApiController
{
[Route("CorrespondenceTypes")]
[HttpGet]
public IQueryable GetCorrespondenceTypes()
{
using (var coreDB = new coreEntities())
{
var correspondenceType = coreDB.tblCorrespondenceTypes.Select(cor => new { cor.CorrespondenceTypeName });
return correspondenceType;
}
}
}
}
But if change my code around a little and try this it works:
namespace DataAccessLayer.Controllers
{
public class CommonController : ApiController
{
readonly coreEntities coreDB = new coreEntities();
[Route("CorrespondenceTypes")]
[HttpGet]
public IQueryable GetCorrespondenceTypes()
{
var correspondenceType = coreDB.tblCorrespondenceTypes.Select(cor => new { cor.CorrespondenceTypeName });
return correspondenceType;
}
}
}
My question is why does the second one work but not the first? Is it better practice to have a global connection string or call DBContext explicitly each time?
Your are getting error because you are returning the IQueryable for which Entity framework has yet not executed the query and DbContext has been disposed when that query needs to be executed.
Remember Entity framework will not execute query until collection is initialized or any method that does not support deferred execution. Visit this link for list of Linq deferred execution supported method.
why does the second one work but not the first?
In first code snippet you are returning an instance of IQuerable which has not executed DbQuery and then after it just fires dispose on your context (coreDB). So then after whenever your code iterate over the collection it tries to fire DbQuery but finds that context has already been destroyed so you are getting an error.
In second case when ever you are iterating over the collection coreDB context must be alive so you are not getting an error.
Is it better practice to have a global connection string or call DBContext explicitly each time?
Answer to this question is based on developers taste or his own comforts. You can use your context wrapped within using statements as below:
public IList GetCorrespondenceTypes()
{
using (var coreDB = new coreEntities())
{
var correspondenceType = coreDB.tblCorrespondenceTypes.Select(cor => new { cor.CorrespondenceTypeName });
return correspondenceType.ToList();
}
}
As shown in above code snippet if you would use ToList before returning it would execute query before your coreDB got destroyed. In this case you will have to make sure that you returned materialized response (i.e. returned response after executing the DbQuery).
Note: I have noticed most of the people choose the second way. Which targets context as an instance field or property.

How to mock the limitations of EntityFramework's implementation of IQueryable

I am currently writing unit tests for my repository implementation in an MVC4 application. In order to mock the data context, I started by adopting some ideas from this post, but I have now discovered some limitations that make me question whether it is even possible to properly mock IQueryable.
In particular, I have seen some situations where the tests pass but the code fails in production and I have not been able to find any way to mock the behavior that causes this failure.
For example, the following snippet is used to select Post entities that fall within a predefined list of categories:
var posts = repository.GetEntities<Post>(); // Returns IQueryable<Post>
var categories = GetCategoriesInGroup("Post"); // Returns a fixed list of type Category
var filtered = posts.Where(p => categories.Any(c => c.Name == p.Category)).ToList();
In my test environment, I have tried mocking posts using the fake DbSet implementation mentioned above, and also by creating a List of Post instances and converting it to IQueryable using the AsQueryable() extension method. Both of these approaches work under test conditions, but the code actually fails in production, with the following exception:
System.NotSupportedException : Unable to create a constant value of type 'Category'. Only primitive types or enumeration types are supported in this context.
Although LINQ issues like this are easy enough to fix, the real challenge is finding them, given that they do not reveal themselves in the test environment.
Am I being unrealistic in expecting that I can mock the behavior of Entity Framework's implementation of IQueryable?
Thanks for your ideas,
Tim.
I think it is very very hard, if impossible, to mock Entity Framework behaviour. First and foremost because it would require profound knowledge of all peculiarities and edge cases where linq-to-entites differs from linq-to-objects. As you say: the real challenge is finding them. Let me point out three main areas without claiming to be even nearly exhaustive:
Cases where Linq-to-Objects succeeds and Linq-to-Entities fails:
.Select(x => x.Property1.ToString(). LINQ to Entities does not recognize the method 'System.String ToString()' method... This applies to nearly all methods in native .Net classes and of course to own methods. Only a few .Net methods will be translated into SQL. See CLR Method to Canonical Function Mapping. As of EF 6.1, ToString is supported by the way. But only the parameterless overload.
Skip() without preceding OrderBy.
Except and Intersect: can produce monstrous queries that throw Some part of your SQL statement is nested too deeply. Rewrite the query or break it up into smaller queries.
Select(x => x.Date1 - x.Date2): DbArithmeticExpression arguments must have a numeric common type.
(your case) .Where(p => p.Category == category): Only primitive types or enumeration types are supported in this context.
Nodes.Where(n => n.ParentNodes.First().Id == 1): The method 'First' can only be used as a final query operation.
context.Nodes.Last(): LINQ to Entities does not recognize the method '...Last...'. This applies to many other IQueryable extension methods. See Supported and Unsupported LINQ Methods.
(See Slauma's comment below): .Select(x => new A { Property1 = (x.BoolProperty ? new B { BProp1 = x.Prop1, BProp2 = x.Prop2 } : new B { BProp1 = x.Prop1 }) }): The type 'B' appears in two structurally incompatible initializations within a single LINQ to Entities query... from here.
context.Entities.Cast<IEntity>(): Unable to cast the type 'Entity' to type 'IEntity'. LINQ to Entities only supports casting EDM primitive or enumeration types.
.Select(p => p.Category?.Name). Using null propagation in an expression throws CS8072 An expression tree lambda may not contain a null propagating operator. This may get fixed one day.
This question: Why does this combination of Select, Where and GroupBy cause an exception? made me aware of the fact that there are even entire query constructions that are not supported by EF, while L2O wouldn't have any trouble with them.
Cases where Linq-to-Objects fails and Linq-to-Entities succeeds:
.Select(p => p.Category.Name): when p.Category is null L2E returns null, but L2O throws Object reference not set to an instance of an object. This can't be fixed by using null propagation (see above).
Nodes.Max(n => n.ParentId.Value) with some null values for n.ParentId. L2E returns a max value, L2O throws Nullable object must have a value.
Using EntityFunctions (DbFunctions as of EF 6) or SqlFunctions.
Cases where both succeed/fail but behave differently:
Nodes.Include("ParentNodes"): L2O has no implementation of include. It will run and return nodes (if Nodes is IQueryable), but without parent nodes.
Nodes.Select(n => n.ParentNodes.Max(p => p.Id)) with some empty ParentNodes collections: both fail but with different exceptions.
Nodes.Where(n => n.Name.Contains("par")): L2O is case sensitive, L2E depends on the database collation (often not case sensitive).
node.ParentNode = parentNode: with a bidirectional relationship, in L2E this will also add the node to the nodes collection of the parent (relationship fixup). Not in L2O. (See Unit testing a two way EF relationship).
Work-around for failing null propagation: .Select(p => p.Category == null ? string.Empty : p.Category.Name): the result is the same, but the generated SQL query also contains the null check and may be harder to optimize.
Nodes.AsNoTracking().Select(n => n.ParentNode. This one is very tricky!. With AsNoTracking EF creates new ParentNode objects for each Node, so there can be duplicates. Without AsNoTracking EF reuses existing ParentNodes, because now the entity state manager and entity keys are involved. AsNoTracking() can be called in L2O, but it doesn't do anything, so there will never be a difference with or without it.
And what about mocking lazy/eager loading and the effect of context life cycle on lazy loading exceptions? Or the effect of some query constructs on performance (like constructs that trigger N+1 SQL queries). Or exceptions due to duplicate or missing entity keys? Or relationship fixup?
My opinion: nobody is going to fake that. The most alarming area is where L2O succeeds and L2E fails. Now what's the value of green unit tests? It has been said before that EF can only reliably be tested in integration tests (e.g. here) and I tend to agree.
However, that does not mean that we should forget about unit tests in projects with EF as data layer. There are ways to do it, but, I think, not without integration tests.
I have written a few Unit Tests with Entity Framework 6.1.3 using Moq and used it to override IQueryable. Note that all DbSet that should be tested needs to be marked as virtual. Example from Microsoft themselves:
Query:
using Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting;
using Moq;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Data.Entity;
using System.Linq;
namespace TestingDemo
{
[TestClass]
public class QueryTests
{
[TestMethod]
public void GetAllBlogs_orders_by_name()
{
var data = new List<Blog>
{
new Blog { Name = "BBB" },
new Blog { Name = "ZZZ" },
new Blog { Name = "AAA" },
}.AsQueryable();
var mockSet = new Mock<DbSet<Blog>>();
mockSet.As<IQueryable<Blog>>().Setup(m => m.Provider).Returns(data.Provider);
mockSet.As<IQueryable<Blog>>().Setup(m => m.Expression).Returns(data.Expression);
mockSet.As<IQueryable<Blog>>().Setup(m => m.ElementType).Returns(data.ElementType);
mockSet.As<IQueryable<Blog>>().Setup(m => m.GetEnumerator()).Returns(0 => data.GetEnumerator());
var mockContext = new Mock<BloggingContext>();
mockContext.Setup(c => c.Blogs).Returns(mockSet.Object);
var service = new BlogService(mockContext.Object);
var blogs = service.GetAllBlogs();
Assert.AreEqual(3, blogs.Count);
Assert.AreEqual("AAA", blogs[0].Name);
Assert.AreEqual("BBB", blogs[1].Name);
Assert.AreEqual("ZZZ", blogs[2].Name);
}
}
}
Insert:
using Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting;
using Moq;
using System.Data.Entity;
namespace TestingDemo
{
[TestClass]
public class NonQueryTests
{
[TestMethod]
public void CreateBlog_saves_a_blog_via_context()
{
var mockSet = new Mock<DbSet<Blog>>();
var mockContext = new Mock<BloggingContext>();
mockContext.Setup(m => m.Blogs).Returns(mockSet.Object);
var service = new BlogService(mockContext.Object);
service.AddBlog("ADO.NET Blog", "http://blogs.msdn.com/adonet");
mockSet.Verify(m => m.Add(It.IsAny<Blog>()), Times.Once());
mockContext.Verify(m => m.SaveChanges(), Times.Once());
}
}
}
Example service:
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Data.Entity;
using System.Linq;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace TestingDemo
{
public class BlogService
{
private BloggingContext _context;
public BlogService(BloggingContext context)
{
_context = context;
}
public Blog AddBlog(string name, string url)
{
var blog = _context.Blogs.Add(new Blog { Name = name, Url = url });
_context.SaveChanges();
return blog;
}
public List<Blog> GetAllBlogs()
{
var query = from b in _context.Blogs
orderby b.Name
select b;
return query.ToList();
}
public async Task<List<Blog>> GetAllBlogsAsync()
{
var query = from b in _context.Blogs
orderby b.Name
select b;
return await query.ToListAsync();
}
}
}
Source: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/ef/ef6/fundamentals/testing/mocking

Decouple EF queries from BL - Extension Methods VS Class-Per-Query

I have read dozens of posts about PROs and CONs of trying to mock \ fake EF in the business logic.
I have not yet decided what to do - but one thing I know is - I have to separate the queries from the business logic.
In this post I saw that Ladislav has answered that there are 2 good ways:
Let them be where they are and use custom extension methods, query views, mapped database views or custom defining queries to define reusable parts.
Expose every single query as method on some separate class. The method
mustn't expose IQueryable and mustn't accept Expression as parameter =
whole query logic must be wrapped in the method. But this will make
your class covering related methods much like repository (the only one
which can be mocked or faked). This implementation is close to
implementation used with stored procedures.
Which method do you think is better any why ?
Are there ANY downsides to put the queries in their own place ? (maybe losing some functionality from EF or something like that)
Do I have to encapsulate even the simplest queries like:
using (MyDbContext entities = new MyDbContext)
{
User user = entities.Users.Find(userId); // ENCAPSULATE THIS ?
// Some BL Code here
}
So I guess your main point is testability of your code, isn't it? In such case you should start by counting responsibilities of the method you want to test and than refactor your code using single responsibility pattern.
Your example code has at least three responsibilities:
Creating an object is a responsibility - context is an object. Moreover it is and object you don't want to use in your unit test so you must move its creation elsewhere.
Executing query is a responsibility. Moreover it is a responsibility you would like to avoid in your unit test.
Doing some business logic is a responsibility
To simplify testing you should refactor your code and divide those responsibilities to separate methods.
public class MyBLClass()
{
public void MyBLMethod(int userId)
{
using (IMyContext entities = GetContext())
{
User user = GetUserFromDb(entities, userId);
// Some BL Code here
}
}
protected virtual IMyContext GetContext()
{
return new MyDbContext();
}
protected virtual User GetUserFromDb(IMyDbContext entities, int userId)
{
return entities.Users.Find(userId);
}
}
Now unit testing business logic should be piece of cake because your unit test can inherit your class and fake context factory method and query execution method and become fully independent on EF.
// NUnit unit test
[TestFixture]
public class MyBLClassTest : MyBLClass
{
private class FakeContext : IMyContext
{
// Create just empty implementation of context interface
}
private User _testUser;
[Test]
public void MyBLMethod_DoSomething()
{
// Test setup
int id = 10;
_testUser = new User
{
Id = id,
// rest is your expected test data - that is what faking is about
// faked method returns simply data your test method expects
};
// Execution of method under test
MyBLMethod(id);
// Test validation
// Assert something you expect to happen on _testUser instance
// inside MyBLMethod
}
protected override IMyContext GetContext()
{
return new FakeContext();
}
protected override User GetUserFromDb(IMyContext context, int userId)
{
return _testUser.Id == userId ? _testUser : null;
}
}
As you add more methods and your application grows you will refactor those query execution methods and context factory method to separate classes to follow single responsibility on classes as well - you will get context factory and either some query provider or in some cases repository (but that repository will never return IQueryable or get Expression as parameter in any of its methods). This will also allow you following DRY principle where your context creation and most commonly used queries will be defined only once on one central place.
So at the end you can have something like this:
public class MyBLClass()
{
private IContextFactory _contextFactory;
private IUserQueryProvider _userProvider;
public MyBLClass(IContextFactory contextFactory, IUserQueryProvider userProvider)
{
_contextFactory = contextFactory;
_userProvider = userProvider;
}
public void MyBLMethod(int userId)
{
using (IMyContext entities = _contextFactory.GetContext())
{
User user = _userProvider.GetSingle(entities, userId);
// Some BL Code here
}
}
}
Where those interfaces will look like:
public interface IContextFactory
{
IMyContext GetContext();
}
public class MyContextFactory : IContextFactory
{
public IMyContext GetContext()
{
// Here belongs any logic necessary to create context
// If you for example want to cache context per HTTP request
// you can implement logic here.
return new MyDbContext();
}
}
and
public interface IUserQueryProvider
{
User GetUser(int userId);
// Any other reusable queries for user entities
// Non of queries returns IQueryable or accepts Expression as parameter
// For example: IEnumerable<User> GetActiveUsers();
}
public class MyUserQueryProvider : IUserQueryProvider
{
public User GetUser(IMyContext context, int userId)
{
return context.Users.Find(userId);
}
// Implementation of other queries
// Only inside query implementations you can use extension methods on IQueryable
}
Your test will now only use fakes for context factory and query provider.
// NUnit + Moq unit test
[TestFixture]
public class MyBLClassTest
{
private class FakeContext : IMyContext
{
// Create just empty implementation of context interface
}
[Test]
public void MyBLMethod_DoSomething()
{
// Test setup
int id = 10;
var user = new User
{
Id = id,
// rest is your expected test data - that is what faking is about
// faked method returns simply data your test method expects
};
var contextFactory = new Mock<IContextFactory>();
contextFactory.Setup(f => f.GetContext()).Returns(new FakeContext());
var queryProvider = new Mock<IUserQueryProvider>();
queryProvider.Setup(f => f.GetUser(It.IsAny<IContextFactory>(), id)).Returns(user);
// Execution of method under test
var myBLClass = new MyBLClass(contextFactory.Object, queryProvider.Object);
myBLClass.MyBLMethod(id);
// Test validation
// Assert something you expect to happen on user instance
// inside MyBLMethod
}
}
It would be little bit different in case of repository which should have reference to context passed to its constructor prior to injecting it to your business class.
Your business class can still define some queries which are never use in any other classes - those queries are most probably part of its logic. You can also use extension methods to define some reusable part of queries but you must always use those extension methods outside of your core business logic which you want to unit test (either in query execution methods or in query provider / repository). That will allow you easy faking query provider or query execution methods.
I saw your previous question and thought about writing a blog post about that topic but the core of my opinion about testing with EF is in this answer.
Edit:
Repository is different topic which doesn't relate to your original question. Specific repository is still valid pattern. We are not against repositories, we are against generic repositories because they don't provide any additional features and don't solve any problem.
The problem is that repository alone doesn't solve anything. There are three patterns which have to be used together to form proper abstraction: Repository, Unit of Work and Specifications. All three are already available in EF: DbSet / ObjectSet as repositories, DbContext / ObjectContext as Unit of works and Linq to Entities as specifications. The main problem with custom implementation of generic repositories mentioned everywhere is that they replace only repository and unit of work with custom implementation but still depend on original specifications => abstraction is incomplete and it is leaking in tests where faked repository behaves in the same way as faked set / context.
The main disadvantage of my query provider is explicit method for any query you will need to execute. In case of repository you will not have such methods you will have just few methods accepting specification (but again those specifications should be defined in DRY principle) which will build query filtering conditions, ordering etc.
public interface IUserRepository
{
User Find(int userId);
IEnumerable<User> FindAll(ISpecification spec);
}
The discussion of this topic is far beyond the scope of this question and it requires you to do some self study.
Btw. mocking and faking has different purpose - you fake a call if you need to get testing data from method in the dependency and you mock the call if you need to assert that method on dependency was called with expected arguments.

Function Import and Repository pattern with Entity Framework 4.0

Could anyone advise me on how they've implemented the use of Function Imports when using the Repository pattern against EF 4.0?
We have a table mapped to a Candidate Entity and also a Function Import off an existing sproc that maps to Candidate. This works great in EF but we're abstracting by use of Repositories which take on their constructor the IObjectSet where T is the POCO entity. However this means I'm unable to get a reference to the function import. The only way I can see of doing this is passing a reference to the ObjectContext to the repositories that need it but this feels like a bit of a design smell to me.
Even though several of our Repositories are extended with custom interfaces we're still faced with the same issue.
public class CandidateRepository : Repository<Candidate>, ICandidateRepository
{
public CandidateRepository(IObjectSet<Candidate> entities)
: base(entities)
{
}
public Candidate GetByEmail(string email)
{
return Entities.SingleOrDefault(c => c.EmailAddress.Equals(email));
}
public bool CandidateExists(string candidateNumber)
{
return Entities.SingleOrDefault(c => c.Number.Equals(candidateNumber)) != null;
}
public Candidate GetByNumber(string number)
{
return Entities.SingleOrDefault(c => c.Number.Equals(number));
}
public Candidate GetMember(string number)
{
return new Candidate(); //This one needs to return from the Function Import
}
}
Any advice greatly appreciated.
To solve your problem directly you can cast entities to ObjectSet<T> and use entites.Context property to get ObjectContext.
public Candidate GetMember(string number)
{
var objectSet = Enities as ObjectSet<Candidate>;
if(objectSet == null) throw new Exception("Oh, it's not EF IObjectSet implementation");
return objectSet.Context.MyCustomFunction(string number);
}
As you can see this code relies on specific IObjectSet implementation which is not good at all.
The better idea is to create repositories for aggregate roots only rather then for each table. So it will be more natural to pass ObjectContext to repository ctor.
I have went down this route and i have experienced that it is less of a pain when you pass in an interface implementation of the ObjectContext to your repository. The interface implementation should have some way of calling the function. So when you pass in the concrete implementation of the ObjectContext everything should work fine.