I'm using Pex and Moles for my low-level unit testing, but I'm also exploring MSpec for business-logic validation, and would like to keep using Moles for consistency. The problem, I think, is that MSPec uses anonymous methods, so there's no way to apply the HostType("Moles") attribute. For example:
Because of = () =>
employeeList = EmployeeManager.GetUsersByRoles(rolesToLoad);
It should_return_a_list_of_employees = () =>
employeeList.ShouldNotBeNull();
I'm mocking the Roles provider called inside "GetUsersByRoles," and when I try to run this test via MSpec, I get the standard "Moles requires tests to be IN an instrumented process" error, with the instruction to add [HostType("Moles")] to my test method. Is there any workaround or other option available here?
Side note: I have downloaded MSMSpec.tt and modified it to include the attribute on the generated VSTests, but I'd like to be able to run the MSpec tests directly via its own runner or TestDriven.net so I can get the friendly output for BAs and business owners.
The workaround is to replace the anonymous method with one that is not. Moling Mspec is basically not possible.
Moles is not capable of detouring anonymous methods. The reason why is that the methods must be addressable, to be detoured. Anonymous methods are not implicitly addressable, because they are generated and referenced during runtime. Simply put, you can not call an anonymous method through the class, because it is, well... anonymous.
The Moles Manual states, "Moles can be used to detour any .NET method, including non-virtual and static methods in sealed types." Therefore, operating under the assumption that Moles uses reflection to identify class members is a safe bet. Anything that can not be called via delegate, Action, or Func, can not be moled.
Related
I have a Swift application that uses a module, and I need to call a global function that is in the application from the module, is this possible?
To perhaps explain a little better, this is a test app structure:
CallbackTestApp contains a function foo(), I would like to call it from Module1 or File, will swift allow this?
edit #1
More details have been requested on what is the background of my issue, hopefully, this will not turn out to be an XY situation.
There's a tool developed by my company that process the application source* code and in some places add function call (ignore the why etc, have to be generic here.). Those function calls are exactly to foo() which then does some magic (btw, no return value and no arguments are allowed), if the application does not use modules or if modules are excluded from the processing then all is fine (Linker does not complain that the function is not defined), if there are modules then nothing works since I did not found a way to inject foo() (yet).
*Not exactly the source code, actually the bitcode is processed, the tool get the source, use llvm toolchain to generate bitcode, do some more magic and then add the call to foo() by generating it's mangled name and adding a swiftcall
Not actually sure those additional details will help.
Besides REST-API Calls, I need to call my own Java-Class, which basically does something, which I want to confirm later in the test via REST-API-Calls.
When calling my Java-Class, there is an expected behavior: It may fail or not fail, depending on the actual Test-Case.
Is there any chance to code this expectation this into my test-class:
java("com.org.xyz.App").method("run").methodArgs(args).build();
As this is the Main-Class, which should be executed later in a automated fashion, I would prefer to validate the Return-Code.
However, I'm looking for any possible way (Exception-Assertion, Stdout-Check, ..) to verify the status of the program.
As you are using the Java DSL to write test cases I would suggest to go with custom test action implementation and/or initializing your custom class directly in the test method and call the method as you would do with any other API.
You can wrap the custom code in a custom AbstractTestAction implementation as you then have access to the TestContext and your custom code is integrated into the test action sequence.
The java("com.org.xyz.App").method("run").methodArgs(args) API is just for compliance to the XML DSL where you do not have the opportunity to initialize own Java class instances. Way too complicated for your requirement in my opinion.
This might be a special use case that I am dealing with here. Here is what my simple C# NUnit test that uses Moq looks like
Mock<ISomeRepository> mockR = new Mock<ISomeRepository>();
mockR.Setup(x => x.GetSomething).Returns(new Something(a=1,b=2);
--use the mocked repository here
Now later in this same unit test or another test case I want to invoke the real implementation of the method GetSomething() on this mockR object.
Is there a way to do that? My repository is Singleton at its heart. So even if I create a new object, the GetSomething method still returns the same Moq'd object.
That would largely depend on your implementation of that GetSomething, which is something you're not showing here ;). Also, I'm not sure that's even a valid setup, shouldn't there be a .Setup(..).Returns(..) there?
Mocks are used to represent dependencies of a class allowing that class to be tested without using their actual dependencies. Or you can do tests which involve the actual dependencies.
But using a mocked dependency and the real dependency within the same unit test sounds like you're not clear what your test is testing.
If it's another test case, it shouldn't be a problem either. Each test should not impact another, so if you set up the class under test separately that should be fine, even with a singleton.
I'm assuming that you're injecting the singleton dependency. If not, do that.
"The ambiguity, is in the box" - Monty Python.
Autofac is having a problem resolving an interface. See attached solution.
The Interface, IAmbiguous, is defined in project ACommon. It is implemented in project AInjectable. The AInjectable project does not / cannot reference ACommon. The AInjectable project defines IAmbiguous as an existing item brought in with a file link.
The UI project calls ACommon Inject and attempts to register the AInjectable assembly. IAmbiguous is not ambiguous initially but after a builder.RegisterAssemblyTypes command it becomes "ambiguous in the namespace." There is no error thrown when the container is built but the registration is not there.
Registration can be done "AsImplementedInterfaces" if Named and Keyed is not used. But then there is no way to Resolve the registration because the service IAmbiguous is "ambiguous in the namespace."
This question was double-posted as an issue on Autofac. It is not an Autofac problem. I will copy/paste the answer from the issue in here; for future readers, if you want to see the repro solution, go check out the full issue
What you're doing by including the same interface in two different assemblies isn't something you should be doing. Note that by doing that, your AInjectable class is not implementing the interface from the ACommon project. It's implementing a different but identically named interface.
This sort of thing is a problem - having the same type (interface, class, whatever) name in two different assemblies. We even had a problem (#782) where we had a System.SerializableAttribute in Autofac as a shim for .NET Core. You really just can't do that.
You'll also see the same thing if you try to make a static extension method class that has the same namespace and name as some other static extension method class. Ambiguous references.
Without doing Reflection.Emit style code generation, you won't be able to declare an interface in one assembly ("Assembly A") and implement that interface in a different assembly ("Assembly B") without having Assembly B reference Assembly A. That's just how .NET works. What you're seeing is a manifestation of that when you use Autofac, but it's not caused by Autofac. It's caused by you doing something you shouldn't be doing in .NET.
The fix is to define your interfaces in a separate assembly that everyone implementing the interfaces can reference. (Or you can try to dynamically generate code using Reflection.Emit or Roslyn or something, but that's waaaay harder.)
Let's say I have a number of GWT modules which are used as libraries, and one module with an entry point which inherits all of the library modules.
Each of the submodules needs to access a single instance of SomeClass.
If I call GWT.create(SomeClass.class) in modules A & B, do I get the same instance? If so, is this guaranteed?
No. GWT.create(SomeClass.class) compiles to new SomeClass(), unless there is a rebind rule of some kind - a replace-with or a generate-with rule will cause this to instead invoke the default constructor of whatever type is selected by those rules.
This means that GWT.create is not a suitable way to provide access to a singleton instance. Instead, consider some DI tool like Gin, or manual DI by always passing around the same instance. It is also possible to use the static keyword to keep a single instance where all code compiled into the same app can reference it.