I'm getting started with TDD (and MoQ). I have a method that takes in an Order and creates a unique CustomerId for that Order.
public class CustomerService
{
public CustomerService(IOrderRepository orderRepo)
{
_orderRepo = orderRepo;
}
public string Create(Order order)
{
//1. Save the Order that comes in, irrespective of being valid or not.
_orderRepo.Save(order);
//2. If the order is invalid, throw an exception.
if (!isValid(order))
throw new ArgumentException();
//3. Create a Customer, generate a unique CustomerId and return that.
return createCustomerAndGenerateCustomerId(order);
}
}
The following test doesn't seem to be working correctly:
[Test]
[ExpectedException(typeof(ArgumentException))]
public void Create_WhenPassedInvalidOrder_StillPersistsIt()
{
//Arrange
var order = new Order(); //This is invalid, as it has some mandatory fields missing
var mockOrderRepo = new Mock<IOrderRepository>();
var customerService = new CustomerService(mockOrderRepo.Object);
//Act
customerService.Create(order); //This should call Save() on the order repo, but still throw an exception.
//Assert
mockOrderRepo.Verify(o => o.Save(order), Times.Once());
}
This test is always passing, even if I don't call _orderRepo.Save(). What am I doing wrong?
You cannot use ExpectedException in this scenario because Nunit will try/catch the exception on the test level so your mockOrderRepo.Verify never gets called.
So you manually need to try catch your customerService.Create call - and if you want manually assert on the thrown exception - or you the Assert.Throws if you're using Nunit 2.5 or higher:
[Test]
public void Create_WhenPassedInvalidOrder_StillPersistsIt()
{
//Arrange
var order = new Order();
var mockOrderRepo = new Mock<IOrderRepository>();
var customerService = new CustomerService(mockOrderRepo.Object);
//Act
Assert.Throws<ArgumentException>(() => customerService.Create(order));
//Assert
mockOrderRepo.Verify(o => o.Save(order), Times.Once());
}
Related
We are using ASP.NET Zero and are running into issues with parallel processing from an AppService. We know requests must be transactional, but unfortunately we need to break out to slow running APIs for numerous calls, so we have to do parallel processing.
As expected, we are running into a DbContext contingency issue on the second database call we make:
System.InvalidOperationException: A second operation started on this context
before a previous operation completed. This is usually caused by different
threads using the same instance of DbContext, however instance members are
not guaranteed to be thread safe. This could also be caused by a nested query
being evaluated on the client, if this is the case rewrite the query avoiding
nested invocations.
We read that a new UOW is required, so we tried using both the method attribute and the explicit UowManager, but neither of the two worked.
We also tried creating instances of the referenced AppServices using the IocResolver, but we are still not able to get a unique DbContext per thread (please see below).
public List<InvoiceDto> CreateInvoices(List<InvoiceTemplateLineItemDto> templateLineItems)
{
List<InvoiceDto> invoices = new InvoiceDto[templateLineItems.Count].ToList();
ConcurrentQueue<Exception> exceptions = new ConcurrentQueue<Exception>();
Parallel.ForEach(templateLineItems, async (templateLineItem) =>
{
try
{
XAppService xAppService = _iocResolver.Resolve<XAppService>();
InvoiceDto invoice = await xAppService
.CreateInvoiceInvoiceItem();
invoices.Insert(templateLineItems.IndexOf(templateLineItem), invoice);
}
catch (Exception e)
{
exceptions.Enqueue(e);
}
});
if (exceptions.Count > 0) throw new AggregateException(exceptions);
return invoices;
}
How can we ensure that a new DbContext is availble per thread?
I was able to replicate and resolve the problem with a generic version of ABP. I'm still experiencing the problem in my original solution, which is far more complex. I'll have to do some more digging to determine why it is failing there.
For others that come across this problem, which is exactly the same issue as reference here, you can simply disable the UnitOfWork through an attribute as illustrated in the code below.
public class InvoiceAppService : ApplicationService
{
private readonly InvoiceItemAppService _invoiceItemAppService;
public InvoiceAppService(InvoiceItemAppService invoiceItemAppService)
{
_invoiceItemAppService = invoiceItemAppService;
}
// Just add this attribute
[UnitOfWork(IsDisabled = true)]
public InvoiceDto GetInvoice(List<int> invoiceItemIds)
{
_invoiceItemAppService.Initialize();
ConcurrentQueue<InvoiceItemDto> invoiceItems =
new ConcurrentQueue<InvoiceItemDto>();
ConcurrentQueue<Exception> exceptions = new ConcurrentQueue<Exception>();
Parallel.ForEach(invoiceItemIds, (invoiceItemId) =>
{
try
{
InvoiceItemDto invoiceItemDto =
_invoiceItemAppService.CreateAsync(invoiceItemId).Result;
invoiceItems.Enqueue(invoiceItemDto);
}
catch (Exception e)
{
exceptions.Enqueue(e);
}
});
if (exceptions.Count > 0) {
AggregateException ex = new AggregateException(exceptions);
Logger.Error("Unable to get invoice", ex);
throw ex;
}
return new InvoiceDto {
Date = DateTime.Now,
InvoiceItems = invoiceItems.ToArray()
};
}
}
public class InvoiceItemAppService : ApplicationService
{
private readonly IRepository<InvoiceItem> _invoiceItemRepository;
private readonly IRepository<Token> _tokenRepository;
private readonly IRepository<Credential> _credentialRepository;
private Token _token;
private Credential _credential;
public InvoiceItemAppService(IRepository<InvoiceItem> invoiceItemRepository,
IRepository<Token> tokenRepository,
IRepository<Credential> credentialRepository)
{
_invoiceItemRepository = invoiceItemRepository;
_tokenRepository = tokenRepository;
_credentialRepository = credentialRepository;
}
public void Initialize()
{
_token = _tokenRepository.FirstOrDefault(x => x.Id == 1);
_credential = _credentialRepository.FirstOrDefault(x => x.Id == 1);
}
// Create an invoice item using info from an external API and some db records
public async Task<InvoiceItemDto> CreateAsync(int id)
{
// Get db record
InvoiceItem invoiceItem = await _invoiceItemRepository.GetAsync(id);
// Get price
decimal price = await GetPriceAsync(invoiceItem.Description);
return new InvoiceItemDto {
Id = id,
Description = invoiceItem.Description,
Amount = price
};
}
private async Task<decimal> GetPriceAsync(string description)
{
// Simulate a slow API call to get price using description
// We use the token and credentials here in the real deal
await Task.Delay(5000);
return 100.00M;
}
}
Below is my code:
Controller/Action:
[HttpPost]
[AllowAnonymous]
[ValidateAntiForgeryToken]
public async Task<IActionResult> Register(CustomerViewModel model, string returnUrl = null)
{
try
{
ViewData["ReturnUrl"] = returnUrl;
// when debugging the test, _dbContext.Customers throws exception
CustomerDoc existingCustomer = await _dbContext.Customers.Find(o => o.email == model.email).FirstOrDefaultAsync();
if (existingCustomer != null)
{
ModelState.AddModelError("Email", "email already used.");
}
// other checkings
if (!ModelState.IsValid)
{
return View(model);
}
// if model state is valid, do something here
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
return View(model);
}
return View(model);
}
And my unit test code is:
[Fact]
public async Task should_return_view_with_errors_when_email_already_exists()
{
IEnumerable<CustomerDoc> customers = new List<CustomerDoc>
{
new CustomerDoc
{
email = "test#test.com"
}
};
_dbContextMock.SetupAllProperties();
// below line is causing the error
_dbContextMock.Setup(c => c.Customers).Returns(() =>(IMongoCollection<CustomerDoc>)customers);
CustomerViewModel model = new CustomerViewModel
{
email = "test#test.com"
};
CreateController();
var result = await _controller.Register(model);
Assert.IsType<ViewResult>(result);
Assert.False(_controller.ModelState.IsValid);
Assert.True(_controller.ModelState.ContainsKey("Email"));
}
As you can see in my unit test code comment, I am trying to mock a IMongoCollection to return some data. But I am not able to do so because _dbContext.Customers is throwing exception.
How can I mock IMongoCollection to return some predefined data?
I am using
asp.net core 2.1.0
mongodb driver 2.7.0
You declare customers as a List:
IEnumerable<CustomerDoc> customers = new List<CustomerDoc>
but then try to cast it to IMongoCollection
() =>(IMongoCollection<CustomerDoc>)customers
There's two immediate directions (but both have further issues to deal with):
1) Just return the list without the cast
() => customers
but I can't see the type of c.Customers so I suspect this will just move the issue. I'll take a guess that it's IMongoCollection<CustomerDoc> which is why you're trying to do the cast in the first place? This is problematic as the .Returns would need to be be associated with a function performing the equivalent of c.Customer.Find(). Even so, it's probably better than the alternative.
2) Changing the customers variable to a type that implements IMongoCollection.
Option 1 feels like the way to go as option 2 forces you to start dealing with lots of logic that really shouldn't be relevant to this piece of code.
I understand that the MOQ framework wasn't really designed to help in this instance, but perhaps you might be able to help...
I have a method that uses a try/catch that calls a notification method whenever an exception is thrown. What I am trying to do is create an integration/unit test that checks to make sure SendNotification is called when any exception is thrown.
Method Under Test:
public virtual void MonitorIntradayBuilds(IIntradayBuilds intradayBuilds)
{
try
{
var intradayBuildFound = intradayBuilds.CheckForIntradayBuilds();
if (intradayBuildFound && !IntradayBuildsComplete && !DailyBuildsFound)
{
IntradayBuildsComplete = intradayBuilds.StartIntradayBuilds();
//should start daily builds?
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
SendNotification("MonitorIntradayBuilds threw an exception", ex);
}
}
Test Case:
[Test]
public void it_should_notify_developers_immediately_if_there_is_a_problem_when_checking_for_intraday_builds()
{
//Arrange
var mockDua = new Mock<DUA>();
var mockIB = new Mock<IIntradayBuilds>();
//Act
mockIB.Setup(x => x.CheckForIntradayBuilds()).Throws(new Exception());
mockDua.Object.MonitorIntradayBuilds(mockIB.Object);
//Assert
mockDua.Verify(x => x.SendNotification(It.IsAny<string>(), It.IsAny<Exception>()), Times.Once);
}
I keep hitting a Moq.MockException and then see that SendNotification "expected an invocation on the mock once, but was 0 times..."
I've tried using the [ExpectedException] attribute on the test case, but to no avail. It makes the test pass, but still doesn't call the SendNotification method.
Any ideas?
Solved it.
Turns out you need to set the CallBase property on the System Under Test that you are mocking up.
Test case is now:
[Test]
public void it_should_notify_developers_immediately_if_there_is_a_problem_when_checking_for_intraday_builds()
{
//Arrange
var mockDua = new Mock<DUA>();
var mockIB = new Mock<IIntradayBuilds>();
mockDua.CallBase = true; // <<<< Added this line!
//Act
mockIB.Setup(x => x.CheckForIntradayBuilds()).Throws(new Exception());
mockDua.Object.MonitorIntradayBuilds(mockIB.Object);
//Assert
mockDua.Verify(x => x.SendNotification(It.IsAny<string>(), It.IsAny<Exception>()), Times.Once);
}
Hopefully someone else finds it helpful :)
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'm writing a DAL class using EF4.0, I've read
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/43367/ADO-NET-Entity-Framework-as-Data-Access-Layer
and
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc700340.aspx
But when I test their code, I meet some problem with the Update and Delete method.
The DAL class all code is below:
public class FriendlinkDA : IDisposable
{
private EdiBlogEntities context;
public FriendlinkDA()
{
context = new EdiBlogEntities();
}
public void Dispose()
{
context.Dispose();
}
public FriendLink GetFriendLink(Guid id)
{
return context.FriendLink.FirstOrDefault(f => f.Id == id);
}
public void Update(FriendLink model)
{
// Way 1: (throw exception)
//context.Attach(model);
//model.SetAllModified(context);
//context.SaveChanges();
// Way 2:
EntityKey key;
object originalItem;
key = context.CreateEntityKey("FriendLink", model);
if (context.TryGetObjectByKey(key, out originalItem))
{
context.ApplyCurrentValues(key.EntitySetName, model);
//context.ApplyPropertyChanges(key.EntitySetName, model);
}
context.SaveChanges();
}
public void Delete(FriendLink model)
{
// Way 1:
context.Attach(model);
context.DeleteObject(model);
context.SaveChanges();
// Way 2:
//var item = context.FriendLink.FirstOrDefault(f => f.Id == model.Id);
//context.DeleteObject(item);
//context.SaveChanges();
}
}
The extension method is:
public static void SetAllModified<T>(this T entity, ObjectContext context) where T : IEntityWithKey
{
var stateEntry = context.ObjectStateManager.GetObjectStateEntry(entity.EntityKey);
var propertyNameList = stateEntry.CurrentValues.DataRecordInfo.FieldMetadata.Select
(pn => pn.FieldType.Name);
foreach (var propName in propertyNameList)
stateEntry.SetModifiedProperty(propName);
}
In the application, I am use the DAL like this:
// Delete
using (var optFriendlink = new FriendlinkDA())
{
var test = optFriendlink.GetFriendLink(new Guid("81F58198-D396-41DE-A240-FC306C7343E8"));
optFriendlink.Delete(test);
}
// Update
using (var optFriendlink = new FriendlinkDA())
{
var testLink = optFriendlink.GetFriendLink(new Guid("62FD0ACF-40C3-4BAD-B438-38BB540A6080"));
testLink.Title = "ABC";
optFriendlink.Update(testLink);
}
Question 1:
In Delete(), both way 1 and way 2 can work. Which one is better?
Question 2:
In Update(), way 1 give me an exception: The object cannot be attached because it is already in the object context. An object can only be reattached when it is in an unchanged state.
on this statment: context.Attach(model);
but way 2 is fine.
why is this happening? I also attach the model in Delete(), why Delete() is working fine? how I can write the update correctly?
The exception says it all:
An object can only be reattached when it is in an unchanged state.
You change the object in the code snippet under // Update, so that's why it cannot be re-attached.
As to which method is better. Normally you would get an object from a context, dispose of the context, do something with the object and then use a new context to save the object. In that case using Attach is much more comfortable then getting an object by Id first.