Building unit tests for MVC2 AsyncControllers - asp.net-mvc-2

I'm considering re-rewriting some of my MVC controllers to be async controllers. I have working unit tests for these controllers, but I'm trying to understand how to maintain them in an async controller environment.
For example, currently I have an action like this:
public ContentResult Transaction()
{
do stuff...
return Content("result");
}
and my unit test basically looks like:
var result = controller.Transaction();
Assert.AreEqual("result", result.Content);
Ok, that's easy enough.
But when your controller changes to look like this:
public void TransactionAsync()
{
do stuff...
AsyncManager.Parameters["result"] = "result";
}
public ContentResult TransactionCompleted(string result)
{
return Content(result);
}
How do you suppose your unit tests should be built? You can of course invoke the async initiator method in your test method, but how do you get at the return value?
I haven't seen anything about this on Google...
Thanks for any ideas.

As with any async code, unit testing needs to be aware of thread signalling. .NET includes a type called AutoResetEvent which can block the test thread until an async operation has been completed:
public class MyAsyncController : Controller
{
public void TransactionAsync()
{
AsyncManager.Parameters["result"] = "result";
}
public ContentResult TransactionCompleted(string result)
{
return Content(result);
}
}
[TestFixture]
public class MyAsyncControllerTests
{
#region Fields
private AutoResetEvent trigger;
private MyAsyncController controller;
#endregion
#region Tests
[Test]
public void TestTransactionAsync()
{
controller = new MyAsyncController();
trigger = new AutoResetEvent(false);
// When the async manager has finished processing an async operation, trigger our AutoResetEvent to proceed.
controller.AsyncManager.Finished += (sender, ev) => trigger.Set();
controller.TransactionAsync();
trigger.WaitOne()
// Continue with asserts
}
#endregion
}
Hope that helps :)

I've written short AsyncController extension method that simplifies unit testing a bit.
static class AsyncControllerExtensions
{
public static void ExecuteAsync(this AsyncController asyncController, Action actionAsync, Action actionCompleted)
{
var trigger = new AutoResetEvent(false);
asyncController.AsyncManager.Finished += (sender, ev) =>
{
actionCompleted();
trigger.Set();
};
actionAsync();
trigger.WaitOne();
}
}
That way we can simply hide threading 'noise':
public class SampleAsyncController : AsyncController
{
public void SquareOfAsync(int number)
{
AsyncManager.OutstandingOperations.Increment();
// here goes asynchronous operation
new Thread(() =>
{
Thread.Sleep(100);
// do some async long operation like ...
// calculate square number
AsyncManager.Parameters["result"] = number * number;
// decrementing OutstandingOperations to value 0
// will execute Finished EventHandler on AsyncManager
AsyncManager.OutstandingOperations.Decrement();
}).Start();
}
public JsonResult SquareOfCompleted(int result)
{
return Json(result);
}
}
[TestFixture]
public class SampleAsyncControllerTests
{
[Test]
public void When_calling_square_of_it_should_return_square_number_of_input()
{
var controller = new SampleAsyncController();
var result = new JsonResult();
const int number = 5;
controller.ExecuteAsync(() => controller.SquareOfAsync(number),
() => result = controller.SquareOfCompleted((int)controller.AsyncManager.Parameters["result"]));
Assert.AreEqual((int)(result.Data), number * number);
}
}
If you want to know more I've written a blog post about how to Unit test ASP.NET MVC 3 asynchronous controllers using Machine.Specifications
Or if you want to check this code it's on a github

Related

.net core: run big tasks in the background

I created a .net core web api project. It has gotten kinda big and I want to program a "delete" operation which deletes a lot of stuff from the database. Since there are a lot of things to delete, this will be a long running process. So I thought maybe I can run this in the background and just write status updates somewhere for the user to see whats happening.
I googled this and I found BackgroundWorkerQueue and thought this might be my solution.
So I registered the service and everything and here is my method that calls it:
public class DeleteController : ControllerBase {
private readonly BackgroundWorkerQueue _backgroundWorkerQueue;
public AdminController(BackgroundWorkerQueue backgroundWorkerQueue){
_backgroundWorkerQueue = backgroundWorkerQueue;
}
public async Task<ActionResult> HugeDeleteMethod(int id)
{
// some prechecks here...
// and here I thought I'd start the background task
_backgroundWorkerQueue.QueueBackgroundWorkItem(async token =>
{
var a = _context.StatusTable.Find(id);
a.Status += "Blablablabla\n";
_context.StatusTable.Update(a);
await _context.SaveChangesAsync();
//now start doing delete operations
});
}
}
And that class looks like this:
public class BackgroundWorkerQueue
{
private ConcurrentQueue<Func<CancellationToken, Task>> _workItems = new ConcurrentQueue<Func<CancellationToken, Task>>();
private SemaphoreSlim _signal = new SemaphoreSlim(0);
public async Task<Func<CancellationToken, Task>> DequeueAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
await _signal.WaitAsync(cancellationToken);
_workItems.TryDequeue(out var workItem);
return workItem;
}
public void QueueBackgroundWorkItem(Func<CancellationToken, Task> workItem)
{
if (workItem == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(workItem));
}
_workItems.Enqueue(workItem);
_signal.Release();
}
}
There is also a DeleteService, which is also called in my startup, but I am not sure what it does:
public class DeleteService : BackgroundService
{
private readonly BackgroundWorkerQueue queue;
public NukeService(BackgroundWorkerQueue queue)
{
this.queue = queue;
}
protected override async Task ExecuteAsync(CancellationToken stoppingToken)
{
while (!stoppingToken.IsCancellationRequested)
{
var workItem = await queue.DequeueAsync(stoppingToken);
await workItem(stoppingToken);
}
}
}
Both are added in my startup.cs:
services.AddHostedService<DeleteService>();
services.AddSingleton<BackgroundWorkerQueue>();
Well, maybe I'm going about this all wrong. This is never called it seems, the StatusTable field "Status" is always empty. So how do I do this?
You just need to subclass BackgroundService class or implement IHostedService and than register your service as hosted service.
This will run a service in the background. Than in your service you can leverage the BlockingQueue that will perform tasks only when they are added, e.g. like this:
public class MyService : BackgroundService {
private readonly BlockingCollection<long> queue;
public MyService(){
this.queue = new BlockingCollection<long>();
Task.Run(async () => await this.Execute());
}
public void AddId(long id) {
this.queue.Add(id);
}
private async Task Execute()
{
foreach (var id in this.queue.GetConsumingEnumerable())
{
... do your stuff ...
}
}
}
services.AddHostedService<MyService>();
Here is the docu: Background services in .net core

Dialog interaction requests using IObservable

I'm using reactive programming to build an MVVM app and am trying to figure out how my view model can raise a question and wait for a dialog to prompt the user for an answer.
For example, when the user clicks a Rename button I want a dialog to pop up that allows the user to change the text. My approach is for the view model to expose an IObservable<string> property. Code-behind in the View listens for emitted values and might display a UWP ContentDialog. If the user changes the text and clicks OK, code in that dialog would call ReportResult(string newText) on view model. I've got some code below to show how it works. Two questions:
Is this a reasonable approach for collecting information from the user?
Also, I've got two subtly different approaches for building this and don't know which is better.
interface IServiceRequest<TSource, TResult> : ISubject<TResult, TSource> { }
// Requests for information are just 'passed through' to listeners, if any.
class ServiceRequestA<TSource, TResult> : IServiceRequest<TSource, TResult>
{
IObservable<TSource> _requests;
Subject<TResult> _results = new Subject<TResult>();
public ServiceRequestA(IObservable<TSource> requests)
{
_requests = requests;
}
public IObservable<TResult> Results => _results;
public void OnCompleted() => _results.OnCompleted();
public void OnError(Exception error) => _results.OnError(error);
public void OnNext(TResult value) => _results.OnNext(value);
public IDisposable Subscribe(IObserver<TSource> observer) => _requests.Subscribe(observer);
}
// Requests for information are 'parked' inside the class even if there are no listeners
// This happens when InitiateRequest is called. Alternately, this class could implement
// IObserver<TSource>.
class ServiceRequestB<TSource, TResult> : IServiceRequest<TSource, TResult>
{
Subject<TSource> _requests = new Subject<TSource>();
Subject<TResult> _results = new Subject<TResult>();
public void InitiateRequest(TSource request) => _requests.OnNext(request);
public IObservable<TResult> Results => _results;
public void OnCompleted() => _results.OnCompleted();
public void OnError(Exception error) => _results.OnError(error);
public void OnNext(TResult value) => _results.OnNext(value);
public IDisposable Subscribe(IObserver<TSource> observer) => _requests.Subscribe(observer);
}
class MyViewModel
{
ServiceRequestA<string, int> _serviceA;
ServiceRequestB<string, int> _serviceB;
public MyViewModel()
{
IObservable<string> _words = new string[] { "apple", "banana" }.ToObservable();
_serviceA = new ServiceRequestA<string, int>(_words);
_serviceA
.Results
.Subscribe(i => Console.WriteLine($"The word is {i} characters long."));
WordSizeServiceRequest = _serviceA;
// Alternate approach using the other service implementation
_serviceB = new ServiceRequestB<string, int>();
IDisposable sub = _words.Subscribe(i => _serviceB.InitiateRequest(i)); // should dispose later
_serviceB
.Results
.Subscribe(i => Console.WriteLine($"The word is {i} characters long."));
WordSizeServiceRequest = _serviceB;
}
public IServiceRequest<string, int> WordSizeServiceRequest { get; set; }
// Code outside the view model, probably in the View code-behind, would do this:
// WordSizeServiceRequest.Select(w => w.Length).Subscribe(WordSizeServiceRequest);
}
Based on comments from Lee Campbell, here is a different approach. Maybe he'll like it better? I'm actually not sure how to build the IRenameDialog. Before it was just a bit of code-behind in the View.
public interface IRenameDialog
{
void StartRenameProcess(string original);
IObservable<string> CommitResult { get; }
}
public class SomeViewModel
{
ObservableCommand _rename = new ObservableCommand();
BehaviorSubject<string> _name = new BehaviorSubject<string>("");
public SomeViewModel(IRenameDialog renameDialog,string originalName)
{
_name.OnNext(originalName);
_rename = new ObservableCommand();
var whenClickRenameDisplayDialog =
_rename
.WithLatestFrom(_name, (_, n) => n)
.Subscribe(n => renameDialog.StartRenameProcess(n));
var whenRenameCompletesPrintIt =
renameDialog
.CommitResult
.Subscribe(n =>
{
_name.OnNext(n);
Console.WriteLine($"The new name is {n}");
};
var behaviors = new CompositeDisposable(whenClickRenameDisplayDialog, whenRenameCompletesPrintIt);
}
public ICommand RenameCommand => _rename;
}
Hmm.
The first block of code looks like a re-implementation of IObservable<T>, actually I think event worse ISubject<T>, so that raises alarm bells.
Then the MyViewModel class does other things like pass IObservable<string> as a parameter (Why?), create subscriptions (side effects) in the constructor, and expose a Service as a public property. You also metion having code in your view code behind, which is often a code-smell in MVVM too.
I would suggest reading up on MVVM (solved problem for 10yrs) and havnig a look at how other Client applications use Rx/Reactive programming with MVVM (solved problem for ~6yrs)
Lee shamed me into coming up with a better solution. The first and best turned out to be very simple. I pass into the constructor one of these:
public interface IConfirmationDialog
{
Task<bool> Show(string message);
}
Inside my view model, I can do something like this...
IConfirmationDialog dialog = null; // provided by constructor
_deleteCommand.Subscribe(async _ =>
{
var result = await dialog.Show("Want to delete?");
if (result==true)
{
// delete the file
}
});
Building a ConfirmationDialog wasn't hard. I just create one of these in the part of my code that creates view models and assigns them to views.
public class ConfirmationDialogHandler : IConfirmationDialog
{
public async Task<bool> Show(string message)
{
var dialog = new ConfirmationDialog(); // Is subclass of ContentDialog
dialog.Message = message;
var result = await dialog.ShowAsync();
return (result == ContentDialogResult.Primary);
}
}
So the solution above is pretty clean; dependencies my view model needs are provided in the constructor. Another approach similar to what Prism and ReactiveUI do is one where the ViewModel is constructed without the dependency it needs. Instead there is a bit of code-behind in the view to fill in that dependency. I don't need to have multiple handlers, so I just have this:
public interface IInteractionHandler<TInput, TOutput>
{
void SetHandler(Func<TInput, TOutput> handler);
void RemoveHandler();
}
public class InteractionBroker<TInput, TOutput> : IInteractionHandler<TInput, TOutput>
{
Func<TInput, TOutput> _handler;
public TOutput GetResponse(TInput input)
{
if (_handler == null) throw new InvalidOperationException("No handler has been defined.");
return _handler(input);
}
public void RemoveHandler() => _handler = null;
public void SetHandler(Func<TInput, TOutput> handler) => _handler = handler ?? throw new ArgumentNullException();
}
And then my ViewModel exposes a property like this:
public IInteractionHandler<string,Task<bool>> Delete { get; }
And handles the delete command like this:
_deleteCommand.Subscribe(async _ =>
{
bool shouldDelete = await _deleteInteractionBroker.GetResponse("some file name");
if (shouldDelete)
{
// delete the file
}
});

Testing code in a custom NancyFx Bootstrapper

I have a custom Nancy Bootstrapper which uses StructureMapNancyBootstrapper but the issue is the same regardless of container.
public class CustomNancyBootstrapper : StructureMapNancyBootstrapper
{
protected override void RequestStartup(IContainer container, IPipelines pipelines, NancyContext context)
{
var auth = container.GetInstance<ICustomAuth>();
auth.Authenticate(context);
}
}
I want to write a test to assert that Authenticate is called with the context... something like this...
[Test]
public void RequestStartup_Calls_CustomAuth_Authenticate_WithContext()
{
// set up
var mockAuthentication = new Mock<ICustomAuth>();
var mockContainer = new Mock<IContainer>();
var mockPipelines = new Mock<IPipelines>();
var context = new NancyContext();
mockContainer.Setup(x => x.GetInstance<ICustomAuth>()).Returns(mockAuthentication.Object);
// exercise
_bootstrapper.RequestStartup(_mockContainer.Object, _mockPipelines.Object, context);
// verify
mockAuthentication.Verify(x => x.Authenticate(context), Times.Once);
}
The problem is that I can't call RequestStartup because it's protected as defined in NancyBootstrapperBase.
protected virtual void RequestStartup(TContainer container, IPipelines pipelines, NancyContext context);
Is there a "proper"/"offical" Nancy way to do this without creating another derived class and exposing the methods as that just seems like a hack?
Thanks
I guess you can "fake" the request by using Browser from Nancy.Testing:
var browser = new Browser(new CustomNancyBootstrapper());
var response = browser.Get("/whatever");
There is a good set of articles about testing NancyFx application:
http://www.marcusoft.net/2013/01/NancyTesting1.html
Turns out Nancy offers a IRequetStartup interface so you can take the code out of the custom bootstrapper and do something like this...
public class MyRequestStart : IRequestStartup
{
private readonly ICustomAuth _customAuthentication;
public MyRequestStart(ICustomAuth customAuthentication)
{
if (customAuthentication == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(customAuthentication));
}
_customAuthentication = customAuthentication;
}
public void Initialize(IPipelines pipelines, NancyContext context)
{
_customAuthentication.Authenticate(context);
}
}
and the test is easy and concise
[Test]
public void When_Initialize_Calls_CustomAuth_Authenticate_WithContext()
{
// set up
var mockAuth = new Mock<ICustomAuth>();
var requestStartup = new MyRequestStart(mockAuth.Object);
var mockPipeline = new Mock<IPipelines>();
var context = new NancyContext();
// exercise
requestStartup.Initialize(mockPipeline.Object, context);
// verify
mockAuth.Verify(x => x.Authenticate(context), Times.Once);
}
https://github.com/NancyFx/Nancy/wiki/The-Application-Before%2C-After-and-OnError-pipelines#implementing-interfaces

Postsharp Aspect with Async methods

I'm using Trial Ultimate version of PostSharp 4.0 but this doesn't work for me. Can you please check my code and advise. The error doesn't gets logged. And if i put the breakpoint doesn't hit onException method
This is code that I've written for Error handling Aspect
[Serializable]
public class MyMethodAspectAttribute : OnMethodBoundaryAspect
{
public MyMethodAspectAttribute()
{
this.ApplyToStateMachine = true;
}
public override void OnEntry(MethodExecutionArgs args)
{
Console.Write("Method Entry");
}
public override void OnException(MethodExecutionArgs args)
{
Console.Write(args.Exception.Message);
args.ReturnValue = null;
args.FlowBehavior = FlowBehavior.Return;
}
}
This is class where I've implemented this aspect
public class ErrorMethods
{
[MyMethodAspect]
public Task<int> Calculate(int i, int j)
{
var task = Task.Factory.StartNew(
() => i / j);
return task;
}
}
This is how I've used this method
private async void Button_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
var obj = new ErrorMethods();
var result = await obj.Calculate(1, 0);
if (null == result)
{
MessageBox.Show("error");
}
}
The Calculate method in your example is not an async method, so setting ApplyToStateMachine aspect's property doesn't have effect on this method. The exception is thrown when a newly created task executes in the background and the aspect has no chance of catching it.
If you change your Calculate method to async method, then the async state machine execution can be intercepted by the aspect and OnException handler is invoked upon exception.
Note, however that setting the ReturnValue and FlowBehavior does not alter the flow of the state machine, so the exception will not be swallowed.
public class ErrorMethods
{
[MyMethodAspect]
public async Task<int> Calculate( int i, int j )
{
return await Task.Factory.StartNew( () => i / j );
}
}

How to pass values across test cases in NUnit 2.6.2?

I am having two Methods in Unit Test case where First Insert Records into Database and Second retrieves back data. I want that input parameter for retrieve data should be the id generated into first method.
private int savedrecordid =0;
private object[] SavedRecordId{ get { return new object[] { new object[] { savedrecordid } }; } }
[Test]
public void InsertInfo()
{
Info oInfo = new Info();
oInfo.Desc ="Some Description here !!!";
savedrecordid = InsertInfoToDb(oInfo);
}
[Test]
[TestCaseSource("SavedRecordId")]
public void GetInfo(int savedId)
{
Info oInfo = GetInfoFromDb(savedId);
}
I know each test case executed separately and separate instance we can't share variables across test methods.
Please let me know if there is way to share parameters across the test cases.
The situation you describe is one of unit tests' antipatterns: unit tests should be independent and should not depend on the sequence in which they run. You can find more at the xUnit Patterns web site:
Unit test should be implemented using Fresh Fixture
Anti pattern Shared Fixture
And both your unit tests have no asserts, so they can't prove whether they are passing or not.
Also they are depend on a database, i.e. external resource, and thus they are not unit but integration tests.
So my advice is to rewrite them:
Use mock object to decouple from database
InsertInfo should insert info and verify using the mock that an appropriate insert call with arguments has been performed
GetInfo should operate with a mock that returns a fake record and verify that it works fine
Example
Notes:
* I have to separate B/L from database operations…
* … and make some assumptions about your solution
// Repository incapsulates work with Database
public abstract class Repository<T>
where T : class
{
public abstract void Save(T entity);
public abstract IEnumerable<T> GetAll();
}
// Class under Test
public class SomeRule
{
private readonly Repository<Info> repository;
public SomeRule(Repository<Info> repository)
{
this.repository = repository;
}
public int InsertInfoToDb(Info oInfo)
{
repository.Save(oInfo);
return oInfo.Id;
}
public Info GetInfoFromDb(int id)
{
return repository.GetAll().Single(info => info.Id == id);
}
}
// Actual unittests
[Test]
public void SomeRule_InsertInfo_WasInserted() // ex. InsertInfo
{
// Arrange
Info oInfo = new Info();
oInfo.Desc = "Some Description here !!!";
var repositoryMock = MockRepository.GenerateStrictMock<Repository<Info>>();
repositoryMock.Expect(m => m.Save(Arg<Info>.Is.NotNull));
// Act
var savedrecordid = new SomeRule(repositoryMock).InsertInfoToDb(oInfo);
// Assert
repositoryMock.VerifyAllExpectations();
}
[Test]
public void SomeRule_GetInfo_ReciveCorrectInfo() // ex. GetInfo
{
// Arrange
var expectedId = 1;
var expectedInfo = new Info { Id = expectedId, Desc = "Something" };
var repositoryMock = MockRepository.GenerateStrictMock<Repository<Info>>();
repositoryMock.Expect(m => m.GetAll()).Return(new [] { expectedInfo }.AsEnumerable());
// Act
Info receivedInfo = new SomeRule(repositoryMock).GetInfoFromDb(expectedId);
// Assert
repositoryMock.VerifyAllExpectations();
Assert.That(receivedInfo, Is.Not.Null.And.SameAs(expectedInfo));
}
ps: full example availabel here