I'm using JUnit and Mockito in order to test whether my SOAP web service handles SOAP faults gracefully and doesn't throw any unwanted exceptions for example.
So up until now, as you can see from the code below, I'm only testing whether a SOAPFaultException is being thrown (of course it does, I threw it). I wonder how I could check though whether any other exception would be thrown when receiving the SOAP fault.
Also is there any way to mock a SOAP fault without throwing an exception (SOAPFaultException)?
public class SOAPFaultsTest {
private MyObj myObj = (MyObj) mock(IMockClass.class);
#Before
public void create() {
SOAPFault soapFault = null;
try {
soapFault = SOAPFactory.newInstance(SOAPConstants.SOAP_1_1_PROTOCOL).createFault();
soapFault.setFaultString("unable to create new native thread");
soapFault.setFaultCode(QName.valueOf("soap:Server"));
} catch (SOAPException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
// Define behaviour of myObj mock object
when(myObj.randomMethod(any(RandomClass.class))).thenThrow(new SOAPFaultException(soapFault));
}
// Here I'm testing whether invoking myObj's randomMethod with a RandomClass object as an argument throws a SOAPFaultException.
// It does because this is how I defined its behaviour.
// What I really want to test is whether receiving a SOAP fault at any time is going to cause any trouble.
#Test(expected=SOAPFaultException.class)
public void testSOAPException() throws SOAPFaultException {
RandomClass rc = new RandomClass();
myObj.randomMethod(rc);
}
}
I suggest you go with a full-stack mock (i.e. spawn an Endpoint on a local socket, point the client there). Then create a soap fault and let the mock throw an appropriate exception over the wire. If you're using CXF, I've created a simple JUnit Rule which does this, see the test method SoapServiceRuleTest.processSoapCallWithException().
As a general strategy, I suggest you make an abstract 'happy case' unit test which you then sabotage one call at a time by doing reset on the mock with each test method and adding thenThrow(..) correspondingly.
If we use enum as one of the attribute in the Request invocation , it throws an UnsupportedOpeationException and does not even invoke the service method on the server.
#Service(value = DesignService.class, locator = DesignServiceLocator.class)
public interface DesignRequest extends RequestContext {
Request<List<DesignProxy>> findDesign(SortEnum sortorder);
}
when we invoke the designRequest.findDesign(sortorderEnum).fire() the UnsupportOperationException is thrown on the javascript console on chrome dev tools/Firebug console.
Looks like it is related to Issue 6504, which will throw an UnsupportedOperationException if it fails to find the type you are using - consider trying to change to class methods in your enum, or wait until 2.4 is released.
If you are not using anonymous enum instances, can you post more info about this error, such as where the exception is thrown from?
I posted this on the TypeMock forums, but am too impatient to wait for a response there. This is a very n00b question.
I'm trying to set up a fake IContainer. Here's what I have:
var container = Isolate.Fake.Instance<IContainer>();
var program = Isolate.Fake.Instance<IProgram>();
Isolate.WhenCalled(() => container.Resolve<IProgram>()).WillReturn(program);
(IProgram is an interface in my code).
When I try to run this code, I get an Autofac exception: "The requested service MyApp.IProgram has not been registered."
How could this exception be thrown though? I'm not actually calling container.Resolve(), right? I'm just setting it up to return a fake IProgram.
Unrelated background info: I'm trialing TypeMock because Autofac uses extension methods extensively and Moq won't mock them.
A couple of things that may help - first, you can mock Resolve() calls with Moq by setting up IComponentContext.Resolve(), which all of the extension methods delegate to.
Second, Autofac is designed so that you shouldn't have to use its interfaces from your components. See for examples:
http://nblumhardt.com/2010/01/the-relationship-zoo/
http://code.google.com/p/autofac/wiki/TypedNamedAndKeyedServices and
http://code.google.com/p/autofac/wiki/DelegateFactories
Where you need to use (and thus mock) IContainer or a similar interface, you can probably do the same thing using the Func, IIndex and/or Owned relationship types.
Hope this helps!
Nick
Unfortunately, there's currently a bug in Isolator, which prevents faking Autofac containers. We're working to resolve it as soon as possible.
In the mean time, is there a reason you're not using Autofac as intended, meaning have it return a fake instance, such as:
[TestFixture]
public class TestClass
{
private ContainerBuilder builder;
private IContainer container;
[SetUp]
public void SetUp()
{
builder = new ContainerBuilder();
}
[Test, Isolated]
public void Test1()
{
var fakeProgram = Isolate.Fake.Instance<IProgram>();
builder.RegisterInstance(fakeProgram).As<IProgram>();
container = builder.Build();
var program = container.Resolve<IProgram>();
Assert.AreEqual(fakeProgram, program);
}
}
We use TeamCity as our CI server, and I've just started seeing "TestFixtureSetUp Failed" in the test failure window.
Any idea how I go about debugging this problem? The tests run fine on my workstation (R# test runner in VS2008).
It is a bit of a flaw in the implementation of TestFixtureSetUp (and TestFixtureTearDown) that any exceptions are not well reported. I wrote the first implementation of them and I never got it to work the way it was supposed to. At the time the concepts in the NUnit code were tightly coupled to the idea that actions were directly related to a single test. So the reporting of everything was related to a test result. There wasn't really a space for reporting something that happened at the suite level without a huge re-write (it isn't a refactoring when you change a sheep into an escalator).
Because of that bit of history it's hard to find out what really happened in a TestFixtureSetUp. There isn't a good place to attach the error. The TestFixtureSetUp call is a side effect of running a test instead of being directly related to it.
#TrueWill has the right idea. Check the logs and then modify the test to add more logging if necessary. You might want to put at try/catch inside the TestFixtureSetup and log a lot in the catch block. I just thought I could add some background to it (in other words it's kind of my fault).
I'd check the Build Log first.
If it's not obvious from that, you could try including Console.WriteLines in the tests - I'm not positive, but I think those are written to the Build Log. Alternately you could log to a file (even using log4net if you wanted to get fancy).
If you have Visual Studio installed on the CI server, you could try running the build/tests from there. If it's a connectivity issue, that might resolve it.
I've seen path issues, though, where relative paths to files were no longer correct or absolute paths were used. These are harder to debug, and might require logging the paths and then checking if they exist on the build server.
I ran into this today when creating some integration tests that have long running setup that I don't want to duplicate. I ended up wrapping all the test fixture setup logic in a try/catch. I then add a SetUp method whose sole purpose is to see if a failure occurred during fixture setup and provide better logging.
Exception testFixtureSetupException = null;
[TestFixtureSetUp]
public void FixtureSetup()
{
try
{
// DoTestFixtureSetup
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
testFixtureSetupException = ex;
}
}
[SetUp]
// NUnit doesn't support very useful logging of failures from a TestFixtureSetUp method. We'll do the logging here.
public void CheckForTestFixturefailure()
{
if (testFixtureSetupException != null)
{
string msg = string.Format("There was a failure during test fixture setup, resulting in a {1} exception. You should check the state of the storage accounts in Azure before re-running the RenewStorageAccountE2ETests. {0}Exception Message: {3}{0}Stack Trace:{4}",
Environment.NewLine, testFixtureSetupException.GetType(), accountNamePrefix, testFixtureSetupException.Message, testFixtureSetupException.StackTrace);
Assert.Fail(msg);
}
}
I was getting the same error while running any test with SpecFlow using Visual NUnit. When I tried doing the same from the Unit Test Explorer(provided by Resharper), it gave a little more helpful message: Binding methods with more than 10 parameters are not supported. I realized I can't have a SpecFlow method with more than 10 params, had to remove the test.
I was able to see that I was not creating my test database correctly by doing a quick switch to VS Unit Testing. In my Case it was able to return a better response to the reason why it failed. I usually use NUnit.
"Unable to create instance of class X. Error: System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException: A file activation error occurred. The physical file name '\DbTest.mdf' may be incorrect. Diagnose and correct additional errors, and retry the operation.
CREATE DATABASE failed. Some file names listed could not be created. Check related errors..
"
Run the unit test in debug mode. You may find a runtime error in the the setup.
If you are using SpecFlow and C# in Visual Studio, look at the auto-generated <whatever>.feature.cs file after the test fails. On the public partial class <whatever>Feature line, you should see a symbol which when hovered over will show the reason that the NUnit fixture setup failed. In my case, it was that some of my BeforeFeature methods in my TestHooks class were not static. All BeforeTestRun, AfterTestRun, BeforeFeature, and AfterFeature methods need to be static.
I had this issue and it was caused by adding a private readonly Dictionary in the class, much the same way that you add a private const string.
I tried to make the Dictionary a constant but you can't do that at compile time. I solved this by putting my Dictionary in a method that returns it.
I was troubled by this today. I did the following to get the actual error.
(1) Write another test in a separate fixture which initializes an instance of the troubling test fixture, explicitly calls setup methods such as TestFixtureSetUp and SetUp if any, and then executes the target test method.
(2) Add exception handling code for the new code above, and log / output the actual exception to somewhere.
You can catch the exception and write it in the console on the TearDown
Something like:
[SetUpFixture]
public class BaseTest
{
private Exception caughtException = null;
[SetUp]
public void RunBeforeAnyTests()
{
try
{
throw new Exception("On purpose");
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
caughtException = ex;
}
}
[TearDown]
public void RunAfterAnyTests()
{
if (caughtException != null)
{
Console.WriteLine(string.Format("TestFixtureSetUp failed in {0} - {1}", this.GetType(), caughtException.Message));
}
}
}
And the result will be:
TestFixtureSetUp failed in IntegratedTests.Services.BaseTest - On purpose
I had this symptom caused by an error during field initialization. If you initialize your fields in the [SetUp] method, you should see a better error message.
[TestFixture]
internal class CommandParserTest
{
// obscure error message
private CommandParser parser = new CommandParser(...);
...
}
[TestFixture]
internal class CommandParserTest
{
private CommandParser parser;
[SetUp]
public void BeforeTest()
{
// better error message
parser = new CommandParser(...);
}
...
}
When executing the second line of this code Rhino Mocks throws an InvalidOperationException with a message "This action is invalid when the mock object is in replay state"
var mockScanner = MockRepository.GenerateMock<PortScanner>(null);
mockScanner.Expect((scanner => { scanner.Scan(null, null); }));
Stepping through the code in a debugger one can see the debugger run the method defined in the class and directly after control leaves this method the exception occurs.
This similar code in another test does work without issue
var mockView = MockRepository.GenerateMock<IScanView>(null);
mockView.Expect(view => { view.Close(); });
var controller = new ScanController(mockView);
controller.Exit();
mockView.VerifyAllExpectations();
The only difference that I can think of that might be of any consequense between theese two tests is that Exit is a member on an interface while Scan is a virtual member on a class
What am I missing?
Update
Further exploration has indicated that this is related to the way Rhino handles virtual methods. I am focusing mmy study of the documentation here now
The exception was caused because Rhino Mocks did not have the required level of access to the type in order to mock it properly. Granting internal access to the Rhino Mocks assembly using InternalsVisibleTo solved the problem.
It's noteworthy that this does not affect interfaces. I believe the reason for this is because the mocking framework needs to override the implementation on a class where there is none on an interface.
What happens if you remove the extra set of parentheses from the first expression?
var mockScanner = MockRepository.GenerateMock<PortScanner>(null);
mockScanner.Expect( scanner => { scanner.Scan(null, null); } );