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.
Related
Hi I am trying to learn JAVA deeply and so I am digging into the JDK source code in the following lines:
URL url = new URL("http://www.google.com");
URLConnection tmpConn = url.openConnection();
I attached the source code and set the breakpoint at the second line and stepped into the code. I can see the code flow is: URL.openConnection() -> sun.net.www.protocol.http.Handler.openConnection()
I have two questions about this
First In URL.openConnection() the code is:
public URLConnection openConnection() throws java.io.IOException {
return handler.openConnection(this);
}
handler is an object of URLStreamHandler, define as blow
transient URLStreamHandler handler;
But URLStreamHandler is a abstract class and method openConnection() is not implement in it so when handler calls this method, it should go to find a subclass who implement this method, right? But there are a lot classes who implement this methods in sun.net.www.protocol (like http.Hanlder, ftp.Handler ) How should the code know which "openConnection" method it should call? In this example, this handler.openConnection() will go into http.Handler and it is correct. (if I set the url as ftp://www.google.com, it will go into ftp.Handler) I cannot understand the mechanism.
second. I have attached the source code so I can step into the JDK and see the variables but for many classes like sun.net.www.protocol.http.Handler, there are not source code in src.zip. I googled this class and there is source code online I can get but why they did not put it (and many other classes) in the src.zip? Where can I find a comprehensive version of source code?
Thanks!
First the easy part:
... I googled this class and there is source code online I can get but why they did not put it (and many other classes) in the src.zip?
Two reasons:
In the old days when the Java code base was proprietary, this was treated as secret-ish ... and not included in the src.zip. When they relicensed Java 6 under the GPL, they didn't bother to change this. (Don't know why. Ask Oracle.)
Because any code in the sun.* tree is officially "an implementation detail subject to change without notice". If they provided the code directly, it helps customers to ignore that advice. That could lead to more friction / bad press when customer code breaks as a result on an unannounced change to sun.* code.
Where can I find a comprehensive version of source code?
You can find it in the OpenJDK 6 / 7 / 8 repositories and associated download bundles:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk6/jdk6 - http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk6/
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7 - http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7/
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/jdk8
Now for the part about "learning Java deeply".
First, I think you are probably going about this learning in a "suboptimal" fashion. Rather than reading the Java class library, I think you should be reading books on java and design patterns and writing code for yourself.
To the specifics:
But URLStreamHandler is a abstract class and method openConnection() is not implement in it so when handler calls this method, it should go to find a subclass who implement this method, right?
At the point that the handler calls than method, it is calling it on an instance of the subclass. So finding the right method is handled by the JVM ... just like any other polymorphic dispatch.
The tricky part is how you got the instance of the sun.net.www.protocol.* handler class. And that happens something like this:
When a URL object is created, it calls getURLStreamHandler(protocol) to obtain a handler instance.
The code for this method looks to see if the handler instance for the protocol already exists and returns that if it does.
Otherwise, it sees if a protocol handler factory exists, and if it does it uses that to create the handler instance. (The protocol handler factory object can be set by an application.)
Otherwise, searches a configurable list of Java packages to find a class whose FQN is package + "." + protocol + "." + "Handler", loads it, and uses reflection to create an instance. (Configuration is via a System property.)
The reference to handler is stored in the URL's handler field, and the URL construction continues.
So, later on, when you call openConnection() on the URL object, the method uses the Handler instance that is specific to the protocol of the URL to create the connection object.
The purpose of this complicated process is to support URL connections for an open-ended set of protocols, to allow applications to provide handlers for new protocols, and to substitute their own handlers for existing protocols, both statically and dynamically. (And the code is more complicated than I've described above because it has to cope with multiple threads.)
This is making use of a number of design patterns (Caches, Adapters, Factory Objects, and so on) together with Java specific stuff such as the system properties and reflection. But if you haven't read about and understood those design patterns, etcetera, you are unlikely to recognize them, and as a result you are likely to find the code totally bamboozling. Hence my advice above: learn the basics first!!
Take a look at URL.java. openConnection uses the URLStreamHandler that was previously set in the URL object itself.
The constructor calls getURLStreamHandler, which generates a class name dynamically and loads, and the instantiates, the appropriate class with the class loader.
But URLStreamHandler is a abstract class and method openConnection()
is not implement in it so when handler calls this method, it should go
to find a subclass who implement this method, right?
It has to be declared or abstract or implemented in URLStreamHandler. If you then give an instance of a class that extends URLStreamHandler with type URLStreamHandler and call the openConnection() method, it will call the one you have overriden in the instance of the class that extends URLStreamHandler if any, if none it will try to call the one in URLStreamHandler if implemented and else it will probably throw an exception or something.
Recently I was looking at some source code provided by community leaders in their open source implementations. One these projects made use of IOC. Here is sample hypothetical code:
public class Class1
{
private ISomeInterface _someObject;
public Class1(ISomeInterface someObject)
{
_someObject = someObject;
}
// some more code and then
var someOtherObject = new SomeOtherObject();
}
My question is not about what the IOCs are for and how to use them in technical terms but rather what are the guidelines regarding object creation. All that effort and then this line using "new" operator. I don't quite understand. Which object should be created by IOC and for which ones it is permissible to be created via the new operator?
As a general rule of thumb, if something is providing a service which may want to be replaced either for testing or to use a different implementation (e.g. different authentication services) then inject the dependency. If it's something like a collection, or a simple data object which isn't providing behaviour which you'd ever want to vary, then it's fine to instantiate it within the class.
Usually you use IoC because:
A dependency that can change in the future
To code against interfaces, not concrete types
To enable mocking these dependencies in Unit Testing scenarios
You could avoid using IoC in the case where you don't control the dependency, for example an StringBuilder is always going to be an StringBuilder and have a defined behavior, and you usually don't really need to mock that; while you might want to mock an HttpRequestBase, because it's an external dependency on having an internet connection, for example, which is a problem during unit tests (longer execution times, and it's something out of your control).
The same happens for database access repositories and so on.
Looks like the class that is generated for PlaceHistoryMapper is hard-coded to use AbstractPlaceHistoryMapper as the super class.
So, I am trying to work around this by trying to replace this AbstractPlaceHistoryMapper with a custom mapper of mine using deferred binding . I am using the following rule in my *.gwt.xml:
<replace-with class="com.google.gwt.place.impl.AbstractPlaceHistoryMapper">
<when-type-is class="com.test.sampleapp.CustomPlaceHistoryMapper" />
</replace-with>
But for some reason the replace does not seem to be happening. CustomPlaceHistoryMapper is not getting kicked in and the generated class still uses AbstractPlaceHistoryMapper.
Any thoughts/pointers as to what might be resulting this behavior are much appreciated.
Note: I have also posted this on the GWT group but haven't received an answer so far.
To make the deferred binding work a class must be created with GWT.create(). However, AbstractPlaceHistoryMapper is only used as an extended class. So it will never be created via GWT.create, but always by instantiation the subclass. And therefor deferred binding won't work in this case. If you want a complete different implementation you have to implement a custom PlaceHistoryMapper, and manage the known tokens yourself. This also means you can't use the History annotations either.
As a side note the classnames in your rule should be swapped. But for the end result this doesn't matter, since it won't work in the first place.
It is absolutely possible to have custom history tokens (eg. #mail or #mail/bla instead of only #mail:inbox) using the out-of-the-box Place-related classes that GWT (2.0) provides.
Instead of replacing AbstractPlaceHistoryMapper you could instantiate the default PlaceHistoryMapper passing in it's constructor your implementation of PlaceHistoryMapper<T> or PlaceHistoryMapperWithFactory<T>.
eg.:
final PlaceHistoryHandler placeHistoryHandler = new PlaceHistoryHandler(new CustomHistoryMapper());
You will be able then to map tokens as you wish.
I personally recommend you to use an unique PlaceTokenizer in you mapper custom implementation so that I dont have to have an inner PlaceTokenizer class in each of your Places.
Hope that helps. Feel free to ask any doubts.
I have a question, and I'm going to tag this subjective since that's what I think it evolves into, more of a discussion. I'm hoping for some good ideas or some thought-provokers. I apologize for the long-winded question but you need to know the context.
The question is basically:
How do you deal with concrete types in relation to IoC containers? Specifically, who is responsible for disposing them, if they require disposal, and how does that knowledge get propagated out to the calling code?
Do you require them to be IDisposable? If not, is that code future-proof, or is the rule that you cannot use disposable objects? If you enforce IDisposable-requirements on interfaces and concrete types to be future-proof, whose responsibility is objects injected as part of constructor calls?
Edit: I accepted the answer by #Chris Ballard since it's the closest one to the approach we ended up with.
Basically, we always return a type that looks like this:
public interface IService<T> : IDisposable
where T: class
{
T Instance { get; }
Boolean Success { get; }
String FailureMessage { get; } // in case Success=false
}
We then return an object implementing this interface back from both .Resolve and .TryResolve, so that what we get in the calling code is always the same type.
Now, the object implementing this interface, IService<T> is IDisposable, and should always be disposed of. It's not up to the programmer that resolves a service to decide whether the IService<T> object should be disposed or not.
However, and this is the crucial part, whether the service instance should be disposed or not, that knowledge is baked into the object implementing IService<T>, so if it's a factory-scoped service (ie. each call to Resolve ends up with a new service instance), then the service instance will be disposed when the IService<T> object is disposed.
This also made it possible to support other special scopes, like pooling. We can now say that we want minimum 2 service instances, maximum 15, and typically 5, which means that each call to .Resolve will either retrieve a service instance from a pool of available objects, or construct a new one. And then, when the IService<T> object that holds the pooled service is disposed of, the service instance is released back into its pool.
Sure, this made all code look like this:
using (var service = ServiceContainer.Global.Resolve<ISomeService>())
{
service.Instance.DoSomething();
}
but it's a clean approach, and it has the same syntax regardless of the type of service or concrete object in use, so we chose that as an acceptable solution.
Original question follows, for posterity
Long-winded question comes here:
We have a IoC container that we use, and recently we discovered what amounts to a problem.
In non-IoC code, when we wanted to use, say, a file, we used a class like this:
using (Stream stream = new FileStream(...))
{
...
}
There was no question as to whether this class was something that held a limited resource or not, since we knew that files had to be closed, and the class itself implemented IDisposable. The rule is simply that every class we construct an object of, that implements IDisposable, has to be disposed of. No questions asked. It's not up to the user of this class to decide if calling Dispose is optional or not.
Ok, so on to the first step towards the IoC container. Let's assume we don't want the code to talk directly to the file, but instead go through one layer of indirection. Let's call this class a BinaryDataProvider for this example. Internally, the class is using a stream, which is still a disposable object, so the above code would be changed to:
using (BinaryDataProvider provider = new BinaryDataProvider(...))
{
...
}
This doesn't change much. The knowledge that the class implements IDisposable is still here, no questions asked, we need to call Dispose.
But, let's assume that we have classes that provide data that right now doesn't use any such limited resources.
The above code could then be written as:
BinaryDataProvider provider = new BinaryDataProvider();
...
OK, so far so good, but here comes the meat of the question. Let's assume we want to use an IoC container to inject this provider instead of depending on a specific concrete type.
The code would then be:
IBinaryDataProvider provider =
ServiceContainer.Global.Resolve<IBinaryDataProvider>();
...
Note that I assume there is an independent interface available that we can access the object through.
With the above change, what if we later on want to use an object that really should be disposed of? None of the existing code that resolves that interface is written to dispose of the object, so what now?
The way we see it, we have to pick one solution:
Implement runtime checking that checks that if a concrete type that is being registered implements IDisposable, require that the interface it is exposed through also implements IDisposable. This is not a good solution
Enfore a constraint on the interfaces being used, they must always inherit from IDisposable, in order to be future-proof
Enforce runtime that no concrete types can be IDisposable, since this is specifically not handled by the code using the IoC container
Just leave it up to the programmer to check if the object implements IDisposable and "do the right thing"?
Are there others?
Also, what about injecting objects in constructors? Our container, and some of the other containers we've looked into, is capable of injecting a fresh object into a parameter to a constructor of a concrete type. For instance, if our BinaryDataProvider need an object that implements the ILogging interface, if we enforce IDispose-"ability" on these objects, whose responsibility is it to dispose of the logging object?
What do you think? I want opinions, good and bad.
One option might be to go with a factory pattern, so that the objects created directly by the IoC container never need to be disposed themselves, eg
IBinaryDataProviderFactory factory =
ServiceContainer.Global.Resolve<IBinaryDataProviderFactory>();
using(IBinaryDataProvider provider = factory.CreateProvider())
{
...
}
Downside is added complexity, but it does mean that the container never creates anything which the developer is supposed to dispose of - it is always explicit code which does this.
If you really want to make it obvious, the factory method could be named something like CreateDisposableProvider().
(Disclaimer: I'm answering this based on java stuff. Although I program C# I haven't proxied anything in C# but I know it's possible. Sorry about the java terminology)
You could let the IoC framework inspect the object being constructed to see if it supports
IDisposable. If not, you could use a dynamic proxy to wrap the actual object that the IoC framework provides to the client code. This dynamic proxy could implement IDisposable, so that you'd always deliver a IDisposable to the client. As long as you're working with interfaces that should be fairly simple ?
Then you'd just have the problem of communicating to the developer when the object is an IDisposable. I'm not really sure how this'd be done in a nice manner.
You actually came up with a very dirty solution: your IService contract violates the SRP, wich is a big no-no.
What I recommend is to distinguish so-called "singleton" services from so-called "prototype" services. Lifetime of "singleton" ones is managed by the container, which may query at runtime whether a particular instance implements IDisposable and invoke Dispose() on shutdown if so.
Managing prototypes, on the other hand, is totally the responsibility of the calling code.
When Instantiating a class, Windsor by default treats all public properties of the class as optional dependencies and tries to satisfy them. In my case, this creates a rather complicated circular dependency which causes my application to hang.
How can I explicitly tell Castle Windsor that it should not be trying to satisfy a public property? I assume there must be an attribute to that extent. I can't find it however so please let me know the appropriate namespace/assembly.
If there is any way to do this without attributes (such as Xml Configuration or configuration via code) that would be preferable since the specific library where this is happening has to date not needed a dependency on castle.
You can use the Castle.Core.DoNotWireAttribute attribute to stop a property from being wired up by the IoC container (this is in the Castle.Core assembly, which means your library only needs to take a dependency on the lightweight Castle.Core assembly - if for example you want to use the code without an inversion of control container altogether, or in a different IoC container).
I don't believe there's any way to prevent wiring from occurring in the Xml configuration, but it would be reasonably easy to add support for this - if I had to do this I would probably:
Introduce some kind of attribute on the property declaration in the xml: <myprop wire="false" />
Inherit from PropertiesDependenciesModelInspector, overriding the InspectProperties method to apply some additional logic to identifying which properties should be added as dependencies to the components model (inspecting the model.Configuration for the wire="false" attribute/value pair).
Inherit from DefaultComponentModelBuilder and override the InitializeContributors to include your replacement PropertiesDependenciesModelInspector - or just remove the existing properties contributor and add your own at run time via the AddContributor/RemoveContributor methods.
Replace the ComponentModelBuilder service instance assigned to the kernel of your container.
Another approach which could work for you is to just manually remove the dependencies from the model before any instances of the service are requested ie.
kernel.GetHandler(typeof(MyComponent)).ComponentModel.Dependencies.RemoveAll(d => d.DependencyKey == "PropertyThatShouldNotBeWired");
YMMV with that approach though - especially if you have startable services or other facilities which may be eagerly instantiating your component after it's registered.
I created a facility to help with this:
Castle.Facilities.OptionalPropertyInjection
I do not know which version of Castle you guys were using at that time, but none of the solution mentioned were working. Plus, there is a lot of dead links.
With castle 3.1, here the solution I came up with (thanks to some castle source code digging):
container.Register(Component.For(type)
.LifestyleTransient()
.Properties( propertyInfo => propertyInfo.PropertyType != typeof(MyOtherType)));
The 'Properties' function adds a property filter used by castle when constructing the ComponentModel. In my case, all properties dependency will be satisfied except the property type 'MyOtherType'.
Maybe it will be helpful for someone. In Windsor 4.1 there is PropertiesIgnore method during registration.
Component.For<Role>().LifestyleTransient().PropertiesIgnore((model, propertyInfo) => true)
DoNotWireAttribute
Class: http://svn.castleproject.org:8080/svn/castle/trunk/Core/Castle.Core/Attributes/DoNotWireAttribute.cs
Test: http://svn.castleproject.org:8080/svn/castle/trunk/InversionOfControl/Castle.Windsor.Tests/IgnoreWireTestCase.cs
This can be achieved by the following code:
var container = new WindsorContainer();
// We don't want to inject properties, only ctors
var propInjector = container.Kernel.ComponentModelBuilder
.Contributors
.OfType<PropertiesDependenciesModelInspector>()
.Single();
container.Kernel.ComponentModelBuilder.RemoveContributor(propInjector);
Source Castle Windsor Documentation
Posted this on the google groups forum too here: http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel/browse_thread/thread/43aa513817bd057a