Am having a little trouble understanding what and what cannot be done using FakeItEasy. Suppose I have a class
public class ToBeTested{
public bool MethodToBeTested(){
SomeDependentClass dependentClass = new SomeDependentClass();
var result = dependentClass.DoSomething();
if(result) return "Something was true";
return "Something was false";
}
}
And I do something like below to fake the dependent class
var fakedDepClass = A.Fake<DependentClass>();
A.CallTo(fakedDepClass).WithReturnType<bool>().Returns(true);
How can i use this fakedDepClass when am testing MethodToBeTested. If DependentClass was passed as argument, then I can pass my fakedDepClass, but in my case it is not (also this is legacy code that I dont control).
Any ideas?
Thanks
K
Calling new SomeDependentClass() inside MethodToBeTested means that you get a concrete actual SomeDependentClass instance. It's not a fake, and cannot be a FakeItEasy fake.
You have to be able to inject the fake class into the code to be tested, either (as you say) via an argument to MethodToBeTested or perhaps through one of ToBeTested's constructors or properties.
If you can't do that, FakeItEasy will not be able to help you.
If you do not have the ability to change ToBeTested (and I'd ask why you're writing tests for it, but that's an aside), you may need to go with another isolation framework. I have used TypeMock Isolator for just the sort of situation you describe, and it did a good job.
Is there any way to create a fake from a System.Type object in FakeItEasy? Similar to:
var instance = A.Fake(type);
I try to write a fake container for AutoFac that automatically return fakes for all resolved types. I have looked in the code for FakeItEasy and all methods that support this is behind internal classes but I have found the interface IFakeObjectContainer that looks pretty interesting, but the implementations still need registration of objects that is the thing that I want to come around.
As of FakeItEasy 2.1.0 (but do consider upgrading to the latest release for more features and better bugfixes), you can create a fake from a Type like so:
using FakeItEasy.Sdk;
…
object fake = Create.Fake(type);
If you must use an earlier release, you could use some reflection based approach to create a method info for the A.Fake() method. (since it's about auto mocking this shouldn't be a problem really).
This is best done using a registration handler. You should look into how AutofacContrib.Moq implements its MoqRegistrationHandler. You'll see that it is actually using the generic method MockRepository.Create to make fake instances. Creating a similar handler for FakeItEasy should be quite simple.
I'm adding autofac to an existing project and some of the service implementations require their Initialize method to be called and passed configuration information. Currently I'm using the code:
builder.Register(context =>
{
var service =
new SqlTaxRateProvider(context.Resolve<IUserProvider>());
service.Initialize(config);
return service;
}
).As<ITaxService>()
.SingleInstance();
which works but I'm still creating the object myself which is what I'm trying to get away from this and allow autofac to handle it for me. Is it possible to configure a post create operation that would carry out the custom initialisation?
To give you an idea of what I'm after ideally this would be the code:
builder.RegisterType<SqlTaxRateProvider>()
.As<ITaxService>()
.OnCreated(service=> service.Initialize(config))
.SingleInstance();
Update:
I am using Autofac-2.1.10.754-NET35
.OnActivating(e => e.Instance.Initialize(...))
should do the trick.
You might also investigate the Startable module (see the Startable entry in the Autofac wiki).
Mark's suggestion to do initialisation in the constructor is also a good one. In that case use
.WithParameter(new NamedParameter("config", config))
to merge the config parameter in with the other constructor dependencies.
I have 2 databases that my site uses including a central user database that relates to other site-specific databases.
Sometimes it is adequate to call new User(array('db'=>'adapter1')); (but never convenient); other times, though, such as when declaring relationships between tables on different databases, there is no way to do this.
Does anyone know a way to specify which database adapter to use from within the Zend_Db_Table_Abstract class?
Thanks!
Getting back to this pretty late, but none of the answers here quite did it for me. A select few of my database models needed to use 'tdb' and the following code was added to each of those classes to have that happen automatically:
protected function _setupDatabaseAdapter()
{
$this->_db = Zend_Registry::get('tdb');
parent::_setupDatabaseAdapter();
}
I thank you all for your suggestions along the way!
Zend_Db_Table_Abstract provides a static method to set the default database adapter. Do this as follows:
Zend_Db_Table_Abstract::setDefaultAdapter($adapter);
Now, all your Table objects will use your adapter by default.
Note: the online docs sometimes don't make this obvious, so your second best place to check is in the API here: http://framework.zend.com/apidoc/core/
You could set the class variable $_db to the correct adapter in the constructor.
global $adapter1; //There are better ways than using a global variable
$this->_db = $adapter1;
Assuming the adapter object can be referenced in the constructor. That doesn't seem to portable, but I believe it would work.
The init function can be used, it is not used in Zend_Db_Adapter_Abstract, can be used in your class to setup whatever needs to be done. _setAdapter accepts a string naming a Registry Key.
public function init()
{
$this->_setAdapter('tdb');
}
I'm writing a Windows application and using a Listbox control. I'm developing with Visual Studio C# 2008 Express Edition.
I've got a data object that looks something like this
public class RootObject
{
public List<SubObject> MySubObjects{ get; set;}
}
I've got a ListBox on my form, and also a property "MyRootObject" which, obviously, holds a RootObject. When the control is initialized, I set:
_listBox.DataSource = MyRootObject.MySubObjects;
Now, when the form loads, I debug and see that the DataSource is being set correctly. But nothing is displayed. I've overridden SubObject's ToString() method and it's not even being called. I tried setting _listBox.DisplayMember to a property of SubObject just to see if there was some problem there, but still nothing. I tried calling _listBox.Update() and _listBox.Refresh() after setting the DataSource, but still no love. The DataSource has all the data... it's just refusing to display it.
So while debugging, I wondered WTF and I decided to just do
_listBox.DataSource = new List<SubObject>{ new SubObject(), new SubObject() };
Sure enough, this worked, and I see two things listed in my listbox.
So then, really curious, I decided to try copying the list of objects and putting that in the listbox, like so:
_listBox.DataSource = MyRootObject.MySubObjects.ToArray();
This works! And it's a workaround to my problem for now... but a very annoying one. Does anyone know why I need to basically copy the list of objects like this to get it to work, rather than just setting the _listBox.DataSource = MyRootObject.MySubObjects; ? Again, the DataSource has all the right data either way after setting it... it's just when it's copied data, it actually displays, and when it's not, it's not displayed.
((CurrencyManager)_listBox.BindingContext[_listBox.DataSource]).Refresh();
Sux0r I know, but this works.
(originally found answer here)
Off the top of my head, this is because the ListBox.DataSource property must contain something that implements the IList interface. Your generic List<SubObject> does not implement IList; it implements IList<T> (in the System.Collections.Generic namespace). Array objects, on the other hand do inherit from IList, so handing the data in via that kind of object works.
You could try pulling an Enumerator (which also implements IList) out of your List<SubObject> object and plug that in. If it works, then the issue I've described is your problem. If it doesn't, then I'm talking out of my hat.
If this is indeed the issue, I am surprised that shoving in an unsupported object doesn't throw an exception.
so far that i know, whenever you want to set a collection to a
[ComboBox,ListBox].DataSource
you have to set the DisplayMember and ValueMember. DisplayMember and ValueMember are filled with the property name of the Class in the collection that is assigned to the listbox/combobox. Ex.
//Populate the data
RootObject root = new RootObject();
root.MySubObjects.Add(new SubObject("1", "data 1"));
root.MySubObjects.Add(new SubObject("2", "data 2"));
//Assign data to the data source
_listBox.DisplayMember = "DisplayProperty";
_listBox.ValueMember = "ValueProperty";
_listBox.DataSource = root.MySubObjects;
root.MySubObjects returns List of SubObject, and SubObject has to have properties called DisplayProperty and ValueProperty, ex.
public class RootObject
{
public List<SubObject> MySubObjects { get; set; }
}
public class SubObject
{
public string ValueProperty { get; set; }
public string DisplayProperty { get; set; }
}
I think you have to call Bind method after assigning to the list box data source
something like _listBox.DataSource.bind()
and you will have your listbox disappeared
you could try and use a BindingSource
( http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.windows.forms.bindingsource.aspx )
inbetween the Listbox and your collection. Bindingsources handles a bunch of stuff and also includes Suspend/ResumeBinding properies that can be useful when updating the list
you could also try out wpf as its databinding is far superior to that of winforms :) but maybe thats not possible in your case
I believe you need to call _listbox.DataBind(); after assigning the datasource.
However, I've never used a property as a datasource before, I've only used methods. Have you tried changing your property to a method to see if that's the problem?
You could try
_listBox.DataSource = new BindingList<SubObject> (MyRootObject.MySubObjects);
instead. BindingList implements some more interfaces than List, which are essential for DataBinding.
I have a special rule for problems like this that I always try to remember before wasting an entire day hammering on it (believe me, I've spent many days hammering!). The rule is: when system behavior is really strange, the underlying cause must be very stupid. As intelligent programmers, we have a tendancy to search for esoteric causes or bugs in framework code to explain our problems. Sometimes the answer is that we were in a hurry and made a careless mistake that we haven't yet caught.
To quote Sherlock Holmes, "when you've removed the impossible, then whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth". In this case, the improbable truth is that the MySubObjects property of MyRoot object is null.