TestContext.CurrentContext.Test has several properties like FullName which can be parsed to get the current test method within NUnit. However, these don't help at all when the test's name is overridden using the TestName property on the TestCase attribute.
Is there a simple way to get the MethodInfo for the current test method from within an NUnit test? I can't simply use a stack trace, because I need this information in SetUp and TearDown when the test method is not on the stack.
I'm using NUnit 2.6.2
One thing that comes to my mind is writing a custom NUnit EventListener addin.
Then you could hook into the runcycle of the test runner and at least on the TestStarted overload you will have the TestName object. This won't have the MethodInfo available directly, but you may get it by playing around with the given properties there.
Good luck!
NUnit by default does not provide such information - but it can be queries via private fields and properties. Following code could be used for example (Tested with NUnit 3.13.2):
/// <summary>
/// Accesses private class type via reflection.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="_o">input object</param>
/// <param name="propertyPath">List of properties in one string, comma separated.</param>
/// <returns>output object</returns>
object getPrivate(object _o, string propertyPath)
{
object o = _o;
var flags = BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Public;
foreach (var name in propertyPath.Split('.'))
{
System.Type type = o.GetType();
if (char.IsUpper(name[0]))
o = type.GetProperty(name, flags).GetValue(o);
else
o = type.GetField(name, flags).GetValue(o);
}
return o;
}
[SetUp]
public void EachSpecSetup()
{
var mi = (MemberInfo)getPrivate(TestContext.CurrentContext.Test, "_test.Method.MethodInfo");
// Alternative method - using Exposed nuget package:
//dynamic test = Exposed.From(TestContext.CurrentContext.Test)._test;
//dynamic method = Exposed.From(test)._method;
FactAttribute attr = mi.GetCustomAttribute<FactAttribute>();
string path = attr.FilePath;
string funcName = attr.FunctionName;
}
Like mentioned in code above it's also possible to use Exposed.From - but main example should be theoretically faster.
Code will throw exception if any field / property is not valid - and this is intentional - use Visual studio watch window to identify type / field / properties.
Related
Hi if we drag an drop an operation into an activity diagram it would create as a CallOperationAction type of action. In CallOperationAction we have a property called behaviour under the call tab .
The values which we give here will be stored in the table t_object.ClassifierGUID.But unfortunately there isn't any property called ClassifierGUID in the element class. Is there any other way to get the value other than querying ?
I even tried the classifierID property but no luck :(
No that property is not exposed by the API, but you can still get it.
In my framework I use the following code in the class CallOperationAction
/// <summary>
/// The operation to be invoked by the action execution.
/// </summary>
public UML.Classes.Kernel.Operation operation {
get{
// first get the operations guid which is stored in the Classifier_guid column
XmlDocument operationGUIDxml = this.model.SQLQuery(#"select o.Classifier_guid from t_object o
where o.Object_ID = " + this.id.ToString());
XmlNode operationGUIDNode = operationGUIDxml.SelectSingleNode(this.model.formatXPath("//Classifier_guid"));
return this.model.getOperationByGUID(operationGUIDNode.InnerText);
}
}
With the help of other Stackoverflow users, I have gone some way to my solution but have come to a halt.
I would like to build some generic classes in an app_code .cshtml file eg one would be to return property values from documents from a function eg
public static string docFieldValue(int docID,string strPropertyName){
var umbracoHelper = new Umbraco.Web.UmbracoHelper(Umbraco.Web.UmbracoContext.Current);
var strValue = "";
try{
strValue = umbracoHelper.Content(docID).GetPropertyValue(strPropertyName).ToString();
}
catch(Exception ex){
strValue = "Error - invalid document field name (" + strPropertyName + ")";
}
var nContent = new HtmlString(strValue);
return nContent;
}
This works ok for returning one field (ie property) from a document. However, if I wanted to return 2 or more, ideally, I would store the returned node in a variable or class and then be able to fetch property values repeatedly without having to look up the document with each call
ie without calling
umbracoHelper.Content(docID).GetPropertyValue(strPropertyName).ToString();
with different strPropertyName parameters each time, as I assume that will mean multiple reads from the database).
I tried to build a class, with its properties to hold the returned node
using Umbraco.Web;
using Umbraco.Core.Models;
...
public static Umbraco.Web.UmbracoHelper umbracoHelper = new Umbraco.Web.UmbracoHelper(Umbraco.Web.UmbracoContext.Current);
public static IPublishedContent docNode;
...
docNode = umbracoHelper.Content(docID);
but this crashed the code. Can I store the node in a property on a class, and if so, what type is it?
First of all, using a .cshtml file is unnecessary, use a .cs file instead :-) CSHTML files are for Razor code and HTML and stuff, CS files are for "pure" C#. That might also explain why your last idea crashes.
Second of all, UmbracoHelper uses Umbracos own cache, which means that the database is NOT touched with every request. I would at least define the umbracoHelper object outside of the method (so it gets reused every time the method is called instead of reinitialised).
Also, beware that property values can contain all kinds of other object types than strings.
EDIT
This is an example of the entire class file - my example namespace is Umbraco7 and my example class name is Helpers:
using Umbraco.Web;
namespace Umbraco7
{
public class Helpers
{
private static UmbracoHelper umbracoHelper = new UmbracoHelper(UmbracoContext.Current);
private static dynamic docNode;
public static string docFieldValue(int docID, string strPropertyName)
{
docNode = umbracoHelper.Content(docID);
return docNode.GetPropertyValue(strPropertyName).ToString();
}
}
}
This is an example how the function is called inside a View (.cshtml file inside Views folder):
#Helpers.docFieldValue(1076, "introduction")
Helpers, again, is the class name I chose. It can be "anything" you want. I've just tested this and it works.
I suggest you read up on general ASP.NET MVC and Razor development, since this is not very Umbraco specific.
This is more a solution / work around than an actual question. I'm posting it here since I couldn't find this solution on stack overflow or indeed after a lot of Googling.
The Problem:
I have an MVC 3 webapp using EF 4 code first that I want to write unit tests for. I'm also using NCrunch to run the unit tests on the fly as I code, so I'd like to avoid backing onto an actual database here.
Other Solutions:
IDataContext
I've found this the most accepted way to create an in memory datacontext. It effectively involves writing an interface IMyDataContext for your MyDataContext and then using the interface in all your controllers. An example of doing this is here.
This is the route I went with initially and I even went as far as writing a T4 template to extract IMyDataContext from MyDataContext since I don't like having to maintain duplicate dependent code.
However I quickly discovered that some Linq statements fail in production when using IMyDataContext instead of MyDataContext. Specifically queries like this throw a NotSupportedException
var siteList = from iSite in MyDataContext.Sites
let iMaxPageImpression = (from iPage in MyDataContext.Pages where iSite.SiteId == iPage.SiteId select iPage.AvgMonthlyImpressions).Max()
select new { Site = iSite, MaxImpressions = iMaxPageImpression };
My Solution
This was actually quite simple. I simply created a MyInMemoryDataContext subclass to MyDataContext and overrode all the IDbSet<..> properties as below:
public class InMemoryDataContext : MyDataContext, IObjectContextAdapter
{
/// <summary>Whether SaveChanges() was called on the DataContext</summary>
public bool SaveChangesWasCalled { get; private set; }
public InMemoryDataContext()
{
InitializeDataContextProperties();
SaveChangesWasCalled = false;
}
/// <summary>
/// Initialize all MyDataContext properties with appropriate container types
/// </summary>
private void InitializeDataContextProperties()
{
Type myType = GetType().BaseType; // We have to do this since private Property.Set methods are not accessible through GetType()
// ** Initialize all IDbSet<T> properties with CollectionDbSet<T> instances
var DbSets = myType.GetProperties().Where(x => x.PropertyType.IsGenericType && x.PropertyType.GetGenericTypeDefinition() == typeof(IDbSet<>)).ToList();
foreach (var iDbSetProperty in DbSets)
{
var concreteCollectionType = typeof(CollectionDbSet<>).MakeGenericType(iDbSetProperty.PropertyType.GetGenericArguments());
var collectionInstance = Activator.CreateInstance(concreteCollectionType);
iDbSetProperty.SetValue(this, collectionInstance,null);
}
}
ObjectContext IObjectContextAdapter.ObjectContext
{
get { return null; }
}
public override int SaveChanges()
{
SaveChangesWasCalled = true;
return -1;
}
}
In this case my CollectionDbSet<> is a slightly modified version of FakeDbSet<> here (which simply implements IDbSet with an underlying ObservableCollection and ObservableCollection.AsQueryable()).
This solution works nicely with all my unit tests and specifically with NCrunch running these tests on the fly.
Full Integration Tests
These Unit tests test all the business logic but one major downside is that none of your LINQ statements are guaranteed to work with your actual MyDataContext. This is because testing against an in memory data context means you're replacing the Linq-To-Entity provider but a Linq-To-Objects provider (as pointed out very well in the answer to this SO question).
To fix this I use Ninject within my unit tests and setup InMemoryDataContext to bind instead of MyDataContext within my unit tests. You can then use Ninject to bind to an actual MyDataContext when running the integration tests (via a setting in the app.config).
if(Global.RunIntegrationTest)
DependencyInjector.Bind<MyDataContext>().To<MyDataContext>().InSingletonScope();
else
DependencyInjector.Bind<MyDataContext>().To<InMemoryDataContext>().InSingletonScope();
Let me know if you have any feedback on this however, there are always improvements to be made.
As per my comment in the question, this was more to help others searching for this problem on SO. But as pointed out in the comments underneath the question there are quite a few other design approaches that would fix this problem.
I would like to be able to run tests on my fake repository (that uses a list)
and my real repository (that uses a database) to make sure that both my mocked up version works as expected and my actual production repository works as expected. I thought the easiest way would be to use TestCase
private readonly StandardKernel _kernel = new StandardKernel();
private readonly IPersonRepository fakePersonRepository;
private readonly IPersonRepository realPersonRepository;
[Inject]
public PersonRepositoryTests()
{
realPersonRepository = _kernel.Get<IPersonRepository>();
_kernel = new StandardKernel(new TestModule());
fakePersonRepository = _kernel.Get<IPersonRepository>();
}
[TestCase(fakePersonRepository)]
[TestCase(realPersonRepository)]
public void CheckRepositoryIsEmptyOnStart(IPersonRepository personRepository)
{
if (personRepository == null)
{
throw new NullReferenceException("Person Repostory never Injected : is Null");
}
var records = personRepository.GetAllPeople();
Assert.AreEqual(0, records.Count());
}
but it asks for a constant expression.
Attributes are a compile-time decoration for an attribute, so anything that you put in a TestCase attribute has to be a constant that the compiler can resolve.
You can try something like this (untested):
[TestCase(typeof(FakePersonRespository))]
[TestCase(typeof(PersonRespository))]
public void CheckRepositoryIsEmptyOnStart(Type personRepoType)
{
// do some reflection based Activator.CreateInstance() stuff here
// to instantiate the incoming type
}
However, this gets a bit ugly because I imagine that your two different implementation might have different constructor arguments. Plus, you really don't want all that dynamic type instantiation code cluttering the test.
A possible solution might be something like this:
[TestCase("FakePersonRepository")]
[TestCase("TestPersonRepository")]
public void CheckRepositoryIsEmptyOnStart(string repoType)
{
// Write a helper class that accepts a string and returns a properly
// instantiated repo instance.
var repo = PersonRepoTestFactory.Create(repoType);
// your test here
}
Bottom line is, the test case attribute has to take a constant expression. But you can achieve the desired result by shoving the instantiation code into a factory.
You might look at the TestCaseSource attribute, though that may fail with the same error. Otherwise, you may have to settle for two separate tests, which both call a third method to handle all of the common test logic.
I'm using the NUnit 2.5.3 TestCaseSource attribute and creating a factory to generate my tests. Something like this:
[Test, TestCaseSource(typeof(TestCaseFactories), "VariableString")]
public void Does_Pass_Standard_Description_Tests(string text)
{
Item obj = new Item();
obj.Description = text;
}
My source is this:
public static IEnumerable<TestCaseData> VariableString
{
get
{
yield return new TestCaseData(string.Empty).Throws(typeof(PreconditionException))
.SetName("Does_Reject_Empty_Text");
yield return new TestCaseData(null).Throws(typeof(PreconditionException))
.SetName("Does_Reject_Null_Text");
yield return new TestCaseData(" ").Throws(typeof(PreconditionException))
.SetName("Does_Reject_Whitespace_Text");
}
}
What I need to be able to do is to add a maximum length check to the Variable String, but this maximum length is defined in the contracts in the class under test. In our case its a simple public struct:
public struct ItemLengths
{
public const int Description = 255;
}
I can't find any way of passing a value to the test case generator. I've tried static shared values and these are not picked up. I don't want to save stuff to a file, as then I'd need to regenerate this file every time the code changed.
I want to add the following line to my testcase:
yield return new TestCaseData(new string('A', MAX_LENGTH_HERE + 1))
.Throws(typeof(PreconditionException));
Something fairly simple in concept, but something I'm finding impossible to do. Any suggestions?
Change the parameter of your test as class instead of a string. Like so:
public class StringTest {
public string testString;
public int maxLength;
}
Then construct this class to pass as an argument to TestCaseData constructor. That way you can pass the string and any other arguments you like.
Another option is to make the test have 2 arguments of string and int.
Then for the TestCaseData( "mystring", 255). Did you realize they can have multiple arguments?
Wayne
I faced a similar problem like yours and ended up writing a small NUnit addin and a custom attribute that extends the NUnit TestCaseSourceAttribute. In my particular case I wasn't interested in passing parameters to the factory method but you could easily use the same technique to achieve what you want.
It wasn't all that hard and only required me to write something like three small classes. You can read more about my solution at: blackbox testing with nunit using a custom testcasesource.
PS. In order to use this technique you have to use NUnit 2.5 (at least) Good luck.