NUnit with Rhino Mocks exception: Why is it throwing this exception? - nunit

I'm getting an exception that really makes no sense to me whatsoever.
I have an Expect call for a method that takes 3 arguments into it: The types are called CallContext, IDal, and List.
NUnit throws me 2 exceptions: One for not expecting a method call that happened where the types are CallContext, System.Object, and List, and one for expecting a call that didn't happen where the types are the correct ones. The fun thing is that the only way to call the method is with the 3 types mentioned above. There is no method call with type object!
Here is the code:
private IDal mockDal;
private CallContext mockContext;
private IWorkbooksLogic mockWLogic;
private ICommercialSpaceLogic mockCLogic;
private CmWorkbook mockWorkbook;
private IList<Workbook> mockList;
private MockRepository mock;
private Random random;
[SetUp]
public void Setup() {
mock = new MockRepository();
random = new Random();
this.mockDal = mock.StrictMock<IDal>() as IDal;
this.mockContext = new CallContext();
this.mockWLogic = mock.StrictMock<IWorkbooksLogic>() as IWorkbooksLogic;
this.mockCLogic = mock.StrictMock<ICommercialSpaceLogic>() as ICommercialSpaceLogic;
this.mockWorkbook = new CmWorkbook();
this.mockList = mock.StrictMock<IList<Workbook>>() as IList<Workbook>;
}
[Test]
public void ShouldFailWhenCreateWorkbookFails() {
int randBudget = random.Next(50);
int randEntity = random.Next(50);
int randWork = random.Next(50);
WorkbookDefinitions work = new WorkbookDefinitions {
WorkbookDefinitionID = randWork
};
Budget budget = new Budget {
BudgetID = randBudget,
WorkbookDefinitions = new List<WorkbookDefinitions> { work },
};
CommercialProperty property = new CommercialProperty {
CommercialPropertyID = randEntity,
CMEntity = new CMEntity {
EntityBase = new EntityEntity { EntityCode = "random.Next(50)" }
}
};
CmWorkbook book = new CmWorkbook {
WorkbookName = String.Format("CM — {0}", property.CMEntity.EntityBase.EntityCode)
};
OperationResults results = new OperationResults();
this.mockList.Add(book);
using (mock.Record()) {
Expect.On(this.mockDal).Call(this.mockDal.GetObject<Budget, int>(randBudget)).Return(budget);
Expect.On(this.mockDal).Call(this.mockDal.GetObject<CommercialProperty, int>(randEntity)).Return(property);
Expect.On(this.mockWLogic).Call(this.mockWLogic.Create(this.mockContext, this.mockDal, this.mockList)).Return(null);
}
using (mock.Playback()) {
results = CmWorkbookLogic.CreateWorkbook(mockContext, mockDal, mockWLogic, mockCLogic, randBudget, randEntity);
}
Assert.IsFalse(results.AllSuccessful);
}
The method being called is: workbooksLogic.Create(context, dal, new List { workbook })
Here is the NUnit error:
ShouldFailWhenCreateWorkbookFails:
Rhino.Mocks.Exceptions.ExpectationViolationException : ICRUDBaseLogic`1.Create(CallContext, System.Object, System.Collections.Generic.List`1[Workbook]); Expected #0, Actual #1.
ICRUDBaseLogic`1.Create(CallContext, IDalProxy8768e63f86da4601993b4791c696ada6, System.Collections.Generic.List`1[Workbook]); Expected #1, Actual #0.
I have no idea what the heck is going on with this. Anyone have any ideas?

Rhino Mocks uses the overloaded Equals method to compare arguments of the expected invocation and the invocation that actually happened. Some of the objects you are supplying as arguments don't have Equals overloaded (i.e. List class, not sure about the others), so the only way it would work if the supplied arguments had the same references (so were the same objects) as the ones you used to set up the expectation.
You have a few options:
Use IgnoreArguments, so that arguments will not be checked at all
Provide your own constraints, so that you can check if the arguments are what you expect them to be, but without using Equals()
Make sure these are exactly the same objects (if possible)

Related

Reactor spring mongodb repository combine multiple results together

I'm kind of new to reactive programing and currently working on a spring webflux based application. I'm stuck between few questions.
public class FooServiceImpl {
#Autowired
private FooDao fooDao;
#Autowired
private AService aService;
#Autowired
private BService bService;
public long calculateSomething(long fooId) {
Foo foo = fooDao.findById(fooId); // Blocking call one
if (foo == null) {
foo = new Foo();
}
Long bCount = bService.getCountBByFooId(fooId); // Blocking call two
AEntity aEntity = aService.getAByFooId(fooId); // Blocking call three
// Do some calculation using foo, bCount and aEntity
// ...
// ...
return someResult;
}
}
This is the way we write a blocking code which uses three external API call results (let's consider as DB calls). I'm struggling to convert this into a reactive code, If all three becomes mono and if I subscribe all three will the outer subscriber get blocked?
public Mono<Long> calculateSomething(long fooId) {
return Mono.create(sink -> {
Mono<Foo> monoFoo = fooDao.findById(fooId); // Reactive call one
monoFoo.subscribe(foo -> {
if (foo == null) {
foo = new Foo();
}
Mono<Long> monoCount = bService.getCountBByFooId(fooId); // Reactive call two
monoCount.subscribe(aLong -> {
Mono<AEntity> monoA = aService.getAByFooId(fooId); // Reactive call three
monoA.subscribe(aEntity -> {
//...
//...
sink.success(someResult);
});
});
});
};
}
I saw there is a function called zip, but it only works with two results, So is there a way to apply it here?
Also what will happen if we get subscribe for something inside create method, Will it block the thread?
Would be very thankful if you could help me.
If you gave me the calculation you want you do with those values, it would be easier for me to show the reactor way of doing it. But lets suppose you want to read a value from database and then use that value for another thing. Use flatmaps and make a unique Flux reducing the lines of code and complexity, no need to use subscribe() as told by the other people. Example:
return fooDao.findById(fooId)
.flatmap(foo -> bService.getCountBByFooId(foo))
.flatmap(bCount -> aService.getAByFooId(fooId).getCount()+bCount);

Assign Mapped Object to Expression Result in LINQ to Entities

I have the following child object that we use an expression to map our 'entity' to our 'domain' model. We use this when specifically calling our ChildRecordService method GetChild or GetChildren:
public static Expression<Func<global::Database.Models.ChildRecord, ChildRecord>> MapChildRecordToCommon = entity => new ChildRecord
{
DateTime = entity.DateTime,
Type = entity.Type,
};
public static async Task<List<ChildRecord>> ToCommonListAsync(this IQueryable<global::Database.Models.ChildRecord> childRecords)
{
var items = await
childRecords.Select(MapChildRecordToCommon).ToListAsync().EscapeContext();
return items;
}
public async Task<List<ChildRecord>> GetChildRecords()
{
using (var uow = this.UnitOfWorkFactory.CreateReadOnly())
{
var childRecords= await uow.GetRepository<IChildRecordRepository>().GetChildRecords().ToCommonListAsync().EscapeContext();
return childRecords;
}
}
So that all works just fine. However we have another object that is a parent to that child, that in SOME cases, we also wish to get the child during the materialisation and mapping process.
In other words the standard object looks as such:
private static Expression<Func<global::Database.Models.Plot, Plot>> MapPlotToCommonBasic = (entity) => new Plot
{
Id = entity.Id,
Direction = entity.Direction,
Utc = entity.Utc,
Velocity = entity.Velocity,
};
However what I also want to map is the Plot.ChildRecord property, using the expression MapChildRecordToCommon I have already created. I made a second expression just to test this:
private static Expression<Func<global::Database.Models.Plot, Plot>> MapPlotToCommonAdvanced = (entity) => new Plot
{
ChildRecord = MapChildRecordToCommon.Compile() (entity.ChildRecord)
};
This fails:
System.NotSupportedException
The LINQ expression node type 'Invoke' is not supported in LINQ to Entities.
Is there a way to reuse my existing expression for ChildRecord, to materialise the object of ChildRecord (ie. one to one/singular not multiple) on the Plot object? I think my trouble is caused by there being just one object and being unable to use the .Select(Map) method. I am not too great at expressions and have hit a wall with this.
For reference, there are actually up to 5 or 6 other child objects on the "Plot" object that I also want to make expressions for.
I resolved this by using the third party library LinqKit.
The library allowed the use of 2 methods, .AsExpandable() (which allows for the expressions to properly compile and be invoked as I understand), and .Invoke() as an extension method to an expression, rather than calling Expression.Invoke(yourexpression). I included a null check just in case.
My code now looks as follows:
public static async Task<List<Plot>> ToCommonListAsync(this IQueryable<global::Database.Models.Plot> plots)
{
var items = await
plots.AsExpandable().Select(MapPlotToCommon).ToListAsync().EscapeContext();
return items;
}
private static Expression<Func<global::Database.Models.Plot, Plot>> MapPlotToCommon = (entity) => new Plot
{
Id = entity.Id,
Direction = entity.Direction,
Utc = entity.Utc,
Velocity = entity.Velocity,
ChildRecord = entity.ChildRecord != null ? MapChildRecordToCommon.Invoke(entity.ChildRecord) : default
};
public static Expression<Func<global::Database.Models.ChildRecord, ChildRecord>> MapChildRecordToCommon = entity => new ChildRecord
{
DateTime = entity.DateTime,
Type = entity.Type,
};

How to Unittest a Factory with dependencies

How can I test my factory with the entity manager? I have an error because I need to make my container return an instance of a class created from doctrine ( I do not even know what there is returned).
How can I create a test that I can make pass?
// factory i want to test
public function __invoke(ContainerInterface $container, $requestedName, array $options = null)
{
$googleAppOption = $container->get(GoogleAppOptions::class);
$em = $container->get('doctrine.entity_manager.orm_default');
return new GoogleTokenHandler($googleAppOption, new GoogleTokenClient(), $em);
}
//test function
public function testReturnsTokenHandlerInstance()
{
$googleOptionsFactory = new GoogleOptionsFactory();
$googleOptions = $googleOptionsFactory($this->container->reveal(), null);
$this->container->get(GoogleAppOptions::class)->willReturn($googleOptions);
$googleTokenHandlerFactory = new GoogleTokenHandlerFactory($this->container);
$tokenHandler = $googleTokenHandlerFactory($this->container->reveal(), null);
$this->assertInstanceof(GoogleTokenHandler::class, $tokenHandler);
}
Th fact that this is hard to test is a good sign that there is something smelly about this. In your case it's quite obviously the container being injected and then being used to locate services to work upon. I would recommend rewriting this class to inject both the OptionsFactory (or even better just the options) and the EntityManager as well as the dynamically created GoogleClient in the constructor. What you would arrive at is an invoke that pretty much looks like this:
return new GoogleTokenHandler(
$this->optionsFactory,
$this->tokenClient,
$this->entityManager
);
As you can see you neither use the $requestedName nor the optional $options being passed to your __invoke. That's a bit odd, but that won't bother us with the tests. Now you can simply mock out the services in your test and check whether invoke returns the correct instance:
public function testFactoryInvokeReturnsInstance()
{
$optionsFactory = $this->prophesize(OptionsFactory::class);
$tokenClient = $this->prophesize(GoogleTokenClient::class);
$entityManager = $this->prophesize(EntityManager::class);
$factory = new MyFactory(
$optionsFactory->reveal(),
$tokenClient->reveal(),
$entityManager->reveal()
);
$this->assertInstanceOf(GoogleTokenHandler::class, $factory->__invoke());
// Alternatively you can use the __invoke-magic directly:
$this->assertInstanceOf(GoogleTokenHandler::class, $factory());
}
You could do the same with your class but basically you would have to add a Container and then stub out the get-method for all of the services being fetched from it. For example you are missing the entity manager in your snippet. Should the GoogleTokenClient being created in your method require some arguments/options there is no way to mock that behavior and in fact you won't be able to switch it out without changing the code. Whereas by injecting it in the constructor you can just re-configure your container to pass in a different object.
For posterity, your complete factory would probably look something like this:
class Factory {
private $optionsFactory;
private $tokenClient;
private $entityManager;
public function __construct(GoogleTokenClient $tokenClient, ...)
{
$this->tokenClient = $tokenClient;
...
}
public function __invoke() { return new GoogleTokenHandler(...); }
}

How to resolve generic type at runtime

I'm trying to build a command processor that can take any command that implements a marker interface (or maybe descends from a base class). The processor will handle the command that it is asked to process. However I'm struggling with resolving the true generic type as Resolve(Type) returns an object.
I'm not sure is how to cast this if at all possible?
public void Process(ICommand command)
{
var c = command.GetType();
var t = typeof(ICommandHandler<>).MakeGenericType(new[] { c });
var o = container.Resolve(t);
//((ICommandHandler)o).Handle(command); *** This doesn't work
}
The calling code would be something like this -
Dispatcher.Process(new SomeCommand(Guid.NewGuid(),"Param1",12345));
If you absolutely have to call the ICommandHandler<T>.Handle method and you have no other control over the design of the system, then reflection may be your only choice. There's no great way to deal with the switch from generic to non-generic.
Otherwise, you may have a couple of options.
First, if your Dispatcher.Process can be made generic, you can save all the casting.
public static class Dispatcher
{
public static void Process<T>(T command) where T : ICommand
{
var handler = container.Resolve<ICommandHandler<T>>();
handler.Handle(command);
}
}
This is a pretty common solution to a problem like this that I've seen out in the wild.
If you can't do that, then you may be able to make your ICommandHandler<T> interface implement a non-generic ICommandHandler base interface.
public interface ICommandHandler
{
void Handle(ICommand command);
}
public interface ICommandHandler<T> : ICommandHandler
{
void Handle(T command);
}
In this latter case you'd have to switch your strongly-typed command handler implementations to call the same internal logic for generic or basic handling or you'll get different handling based on the call, which would be bad:
public class SomeCommandHandler : ICommandHandler<SomeCommand>
{
public void Handle(ICommand command)
{
var castCommand = command as SomeCommand;
if(castCommand == null)
{
throw new NotSupportedException("Wrong command type.");
}
// Hand off to the strongly-typed version.
this.Handle(castCommand);
}
public void Handle(SomeCommand command)
{
// Here's the actual handling logic.
}
}
Then when you resolve the strongly-typed ICommandHandler<T> your cast down to ICommandHandler (as shown in your question's sample code) will work.
This is also a pretty common solution, but I've seen it more in systems that existed before generics were available where an updated API was being added.
However, in all cases here, the problem really isn't that Autofac is returning an object; it's a class/type design problem that affects any generic-to-non-generic conversion scenario.
Using Reflection - but is this the best way to approach this?
public void Process(Command command)
{
var c = command.GetType();
var ot = typeof(ICommandHandler<>);
var type = ot.MakeGenericType(new[] { c });
var mi = type.GetMethod("Handle");
var o = container.Resolve(type);
mi.Invoke(o, new object[] { command });
}

EFPocoAdapter -- PopulatePocoEntity has null PocoEntity

I'm trying EF with the EFPocoAdapter for the first time. I have a relatively simple TPH scenario with one table and two types, each inheriting from an abstract base class.
My model validates through EdmGen, and my PocoAdapter.cs and xxxEntities.cs files generate fine as well. (well, actually, there are some namespace problems that I'm currently tweaking by hand until we figure out where to go next.)
When I run a simple test to retrieve data:
using (CINFulfillmentEntities context = new CINFulfillmentEntities())
{
// use context
var alerts = from p in context.Notifications.OfType<Alert>()
select p;
foreach (var alert in alerts)
{
Assert.IsNotNull(alert);
}
}
I get an error in the PocoAdapter class, claiming that PocoEntity is null is the following method inside my base class's adapter:
public override void PopulatePocoEntity(bool enableProxies)
{
base.PopulatePocoEntity(enableProxies);
PocoEntity.Owner = _Owner.CreatePocoStructure();
if (!(PocoEntity is IEntityProxy))
{
}
}
Any ideas from anyone?
So, after a little more debugging, I think this is related to proxies. Inside PocoAdapterBase we have the following method:
protected PocoAdapterBase(TPocoClass pocoObject)
{
_context = ThreadLocalContext.Current;
bool allowProxies = false;
if (_context != null)
{
allowProxies = _context.EnableChangeTrackingUsingProxies;
}
_pocoEntity = pocoObject ?? (TPocoClass)(allowProxies ? CreatePocoEntityProxy() : CreatePocoEntity());
Init();
InitCollections(allowProxies);
RegisterAdapterInContext();
}
The line that sets _pocoEntity calls CreatePocoEntityProxy, which returns null.
More info as I find it.