I am trying to write unit tests for a bit of code involving Events. Since I need to raise an event at will, I've decided to rely upon RhinoMocks to do so for me, and then make sure that the results of the events being raised are as expected (when they click a button, values should change in a predictable manner, in this example, the height of the object should decrease)
So, I do a bit of research and realize I need an Event Raiser for the event in question. Then it's as simple as calling eventraiser.Raise(); and we're good.
The code for obtaining an event raiser I've written as is follows (written in C#) (more or less copied straight off the net)
using (mocks.Record())
{
MyControl testing = mocks.DynamicMock<MyControl>();
testing.Controls.Find("MainLabel",false)[0].Click += null;
LastCall.IgnoreArguments();
LastCall.Constraints(Rhino.Mocks.Constraints.Is.NotNull());
Raiser1 = LastCall.GetEventRaiser();
}
I then test it as In playback mode.
using (mocks.Playback())
{
MyControl thingy = new MyControl();
int temp=thingy.Size.Height;
Raiser1.Raise();
Assert.Greater(temp, thingy.Size.Height);
}
The problem is, when I run these tests through NUnit, it fails. It throws an exception at the line testing.Controls.Find("MainLabel",false)[0].Click += null; which complains about trying to add null to the event listener. Specifically, "System.NullReferenceException: Object Reference not set to an instance of the Object"
Now, I was under the understanding that any code under the Mocks.Record heading wouldn't actually be called, it would instead create expectations for code calls in the playback. However, this is the second instance where I've had a problem like this (the first problem involved classes/cases that where a lot more complicated) Where it appears in NUnit that the code is actually being called normally instead of creating expectations. I am curious if anyone can point out what I am doing wrong. Or an alternative way to solve the core issue.
I'm not sure, but you might get that behaviour if you haven't made the event virtual in MyControl. If methods, events, or properties aren't virtual, then I don't think DynamicMock can replace their behaviour with recording and playback versions.
Personally, I like to define interfaces for the classes I'm going to mock out and then mock the interface. That way, I'm sure to avoid this kind of problem.
Related
Hey im trying to get an object which is referenced in another script (dictionary).
But when i try to get the object in the start method it seems like the dictionary isnt populated jet.
Error: NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
If I run this line of code in the update method it works completely fine.
Is there an easy way to let this line run after the dictionary is populated?
Grid Manager Script
Camera Movement Script
Both your code snippets run in Start.
There is no way to predict in which order these two Start messages will be invoked (at least not from the user perspective).
To solve this kind of race conditions (see Order of execution for event functions).
The Awake function is called on all objects in the Scene before any object's Start function is called.
my general thumb-rule is:
Use Awake
to initialize the component itself where it doesn't depend on values
from other components.
E.g. initializing your fields, filling your collections, using GetComponent etc to initialize references (but stop there)
Use Start to then initialize things where you do depend on other components being already initialized.
Like in your case access the collections of the other component
This usually covers most of the cases.
In your case simply converting GridManager.Start to GridManager.Awake should already solve the issue.
Where this is not enough you either can start and tweak the Script Execution Order and basically enforce a certain order in which the event methods get invoked or implement a more complex event based initialization system
Populate the dictionary in Awake() method instead of Start(), then it would be ready by the time you need it in Start() of another script.
I have a class with a simple user interface and want to write unit tests for all public member functions.
One of my buttons issues a warning via dialog. I use the uiconfirm function and assign the result to a variable to block the function until the user confirms the dialog.
classdef UI
properties
fig matlab.ui.Figure
button matlab.ui.control.Button
end
methods
function obj = UI()
obj.fig = uifigure();
obj.button = uibutton(obj.fig);
obj.button.Text = "click me";
obj.button.ButtonPushedFcn = #(~, ~) obj.click();
end
end
methods
function click(obj)
[~] = uiconfirm(obj.fig, "Something failed.", "Warning", ...
"Options", {'OK'}, "Icon", "warning");
end
end
end
I use class based unit tests:
https://de.mathworks.com/help/matlab/class-based-unit-tests.html
How can I test the click function?
I'm not quite sure if you're familiar with Matlab App Testing Framework. The App Testing Framework allows you to programmatically interact with appdesigner/uifigure apps. Take a look at the component-gesture availability matrix to help accelerate your UI Testing needs. Having said that, as of today, app testing framework doesn't yet support directly interacting with blocking UI Dialog's like uiconfirm.
An obvious brute force way of solving the blocking problem is to shadow the uiconfirm function in test with your custom version that could be non-blocking. If this is an easy enough acceptable solution for you, go forward with it. However, as your app changes and scales up, the mocks might need to get complicated too and thus become hard to maintain.
With that in mind, A better approach to test your app programmatically is to use a mocking framework to create a mock object to define the behavior of uiconfirm. The best way to achieve this is via Dependency Injection. In your case, the App could take/have a property that could store a context aware "UIConfirm [name it according to your workflow]" object . By default in a production environment, it would call the real uiconfirm command, but a “mock” or “stub” delegator could supply deterministic outputs to make the system more testable (and avoid the “blocking” dialog issue altogether) It’s certainly added overhead to do this in an otherwise simple App, but I get the sense that you value testing as much as we do!
Also please take a look at this detailed Mocking-App Testing example https://www.mathworks.com/help/matlab/matlab_prog/write-test-that-uses-app-testing-and-mocking-frameworks.html
What is the difference between those two methods? Why should i prefer one?
1)
GameObject.FindGameObjectWithTag("").GetComponent<Rocket>().active = true;
2)
GameObject.FindGameObjectWithTag("").GetComponent<Rocket>().SendMessage("setActive");
thanks!
Sending a message searches through all the components of the gameObject and invokes any function that has the same name as the message. Not a 100% sure but Im sure this uses reflection which is generally considered slow.
SetActive() or the active variable set the gameObject as active or not. If its not active it wont render in the scene and vice versa.
First of all it seems there are several inconsistencies with your code above:
1) Components (and MonoBehavior) don't have an active property (active belongs to GameObject), so the first line of code shouldn't compile. In addition the most recente version of unity don't have active anymore, it's substitued with activeSelf and activeInHierarchy.
And btw, both activeSelf and activeInHierarchy are read only, so you can't assing directly a value to them. For changing their value use SetActive method.
2)
The second line of code shouldn't work either (unless Unity does some magic behind the scenes) because SetActive methods belong to GameObject and not to your Rocket Component.
Now, I suppose your question was the difference between:
gameObject.SetActive(true);
and
gameObject.SendMessage("SetActive",true);
The result is the same, but in the second way Unity3D will use reflection to find the proper method to be called, if any. Reflection has an heavy impact on performance, so I suggest you to avoid it as much as possible.
Consider testing the project you've just implemented. If it's using the system's clock in anyway, testing it would be an issue. The first solution that comes to mind is simulation; manually manipulate system's clock to fool all the components of your software to believe the time is ticking the way you want it to. How do you implement such a solution?
My solution is:
Using a virtual environment (e.g. VMWare Player) and installing a Linux (I leave the distribution to you) and manipulating virtual system's clock to create the illusion of time passing. The only problem is, clock is ticking as your code is running. Me, myself, am looking for a solution that time will actually stop and it won't change unless I tell it to.
Constraints:
You can't confine the list of components used in project, as they might be anything. For instance I used MySQL date/time functions and I want to fool them without amending MySQL's code in anyway (it's too costy since you might end up compiling every single component of your project).
Write a small program that changes the system clock when you want it, and how much you want it. For example, each second, change the clock an extra 59 seconds.
The small program should
Either keep track of what it did, so it can undo it
Use the Network Time Protocol to get the clock back to its old value (reference before, remember difference, ask afterwards, apply difference).
From your additional explanation in the comments (maybe you cold add them to your question?), my thoughts are:
You may already have solved 1 & 2, but they relate to the problem, if not the question.
1) This is a web application, so you only need to concern yourself with your server's clock. Don't trust any clock that is controlled by the client.
2) You only seem to need elapsed time as opposed to absolute time. Therefore why not keep track of the time at which the server request starts and ends, then add the elapsed server time back on to the remaining 'time-bank' (or whatever the constraint is)?
3) As far as testing goes, you don't need to concern yourself with any actual 'clock' at all. As Gilbert Le Blanc suggests, write a wrapper around your system calls that you can then use to return dummy test data. So if you had a method getTime() which returned the current system time, you could wrap it in another method or overload it with a parameter that returns an arbitrary offset.
Encapsulate your system calls in their own methods, and you can replace the system calls with simulation calls for testing.
Edited to show an example.
I write Java games. Here's a simple Java Font class that puts the font for the game in one place, in case I decide to change the font later.
package xxx.xxx.minesweeper.view;
import java.awt.Font;
public class MinesweeperFont {
protected static final String FONT_NAME = "Comic Sans MS";
public static Font getBoldFont(int pointSize) {
return new Font(FONT_NAME, Font.BOLD, pointSize);
}
}
Again, using Java, here's a simple method of encapsulating a System call.
public static void printConsole(String text) {
System.out.println(text);
}
Replace every instance of System.out.println in your code with printConsole, and your system call exists in only one place.
By overriding or modifying the encapsulated methods, you can test them.
Another solution would be to debug and manipulate values returned by time functions to set them to anything you want
I am creating function (for example) to validate content, then if it is valid, close the view, if it is not, present further instructions to the user. (Or other such actions.) When I go to name it, I find myself wondering, should I call it -doneButtonPressed or -validateViewRepairAndClose? Would it be better to name the method after what UI action calls it, or name it after what it does? Sometimes it seems simple, things like -save are pretty clear cut, other times, and I can't thing of a specific example right off, but I know some have seemed like naming them after what they do is just so long and confusing it seems better to just call them xButtonPressed where x is the word on the button.
It's a huge problem!!! I have lost sleep over this.
Purely FWIW ... my vote is for "theSaveButton" "theButtonAtTheTopRight" "userClickedTheLaunchButton" "doubleClickedOnTheRedBox" and so on.
Generally we name all those routines that way. However .. often I just have them go straight to another routine "launchTheRocket" "saveAFile" and so on.
Has this proved useful? It has because often you want to launch the rocket yourself ... in that case call the launchTheRocket routine, versus the user pressing the button that then launches the rocket. If you want to launch the rocket yourself, and you call userClickedTheLaunchButton, it does not feel right and looks more confusing in the code. (Are you trying to specifically simulate a press on the screen, or?) Debugging and so on is much easier when they are separate, so you know who called what.
It has proved slightly useful for example in gathering statistics. The user has requested a rocket launch 198 times, and overall we've launched the rocket 273 times.
Furthermore -- this may be the clincher -- say from another part of your code you are launching the rocket, using the launch-the-rocket message. It makes it much clearer that you are actually doing that rather than something to do with the button. Conversely the userClickedTheLaunchButton concept could change over time, it might normally launch the rocket but sometimes it might just bring up a message, or who knows what.
Indeed, clicking the button may also trigger ancillary stuff (perhaps an animation or the like) and that's the perfect place to do that, inside 'clickedTheButton', as well as then calling the gutsy function 'launchTheRocket'.
So I actually advocate the third even more ridiculously complicated solution of having separate "userDidThis" functions, and then having separate "startANewGame" functions. Even if that means normally the former does almost nothing, just calling the latter!
BTW another naming option would be combining the two... "topButtonLaunchesRockets" "glowingCubeConnectsSocialWeb" etc.
Finally! Don't forget you might typically set them up as an action, which changes everything stylistically.
[theYellowButton addTarget:.. action:#selector(launchRockets) ..];
[theGreenButton addTarget:.. action:#selector(cleanUpSequence) ..];
[thatAnimatingButtonSallyBuiltForUs addTarget:.. action:#selector(resetAll) ..];
[redGlowingArea addTarget:.. action:#selector(tryGetRatingOnAppStore) ..];
perhaps that's the best way, documentarily wise! This is one of the best questions ever asked on SO, thanks!
I would also go with something along the lines of xButtonPressed: or handleXTap: and then call another method from within the handler.
- (IBAction)handleDoneTap:(id)sender {
[self closeView];
}
- (void)closeView {
if ([self validate]) {
// save and close
}
else {
// display error information
}
}