In my application, I have a service that uses a function related to a model.
This function has already been tested (on its Unit Test), and in my Feature test, I just need to "use" its output value.
Because this function is "complicated", I would mock its value without warry about what the function does. This is the scenario:
Model
class MyModel
{
public function calculateSomething()
{
// Implementation, already unit tested
// Here i put some "crazy" logic (this is not real :) )
if ($this->field_a < 10 || $this->field_b > 15) {
return true;
}
if ($this->field_c !== null || $this->field_e < 50) {
return false;
}
return true;
}
}
In my Service i dont need to re-create those conditions, i just need to say "in this test calculateSomething will return true", dont care why it return true
Service
class MyService
{
public function myMethod($id)
{
$models = MyModel::all();
foreach($models as $model) {
if ($model->calculateSomething()) {
// Do domething here
} else {
// Do other stuff here
}
}
}
public function myMethodIsolated($model)
{
if ($model->calculateSomething()) {
// Do domething here
} else {
// Do other stuff here
}
}
}
Usually, I mock service, but I never mock a function inside a model, it's possible to mock the function calculateSomething ?
In my example, I provided an isolated version of the function, called myMethodIsolated where I pass the single instance.
Related
I have a problem with the behavior switch model.
I have a simple receive actor with 2 behaviors: Ready & DoJob.
The Ready one contains a message handler plus one instruction I need to be evaluated at each behavior switch (cpt++).
Below is the code of the actor:
public class BecomeUnbecome : ReceiveActor
{
private int cpt=0;
public BecomeUnbecome()
{
this.Become(this.Ready);
}
public void Ready()
{
cpt++;
Receive<BeginWork>(msg =>
{
Console.WriteLine($"Go and work!");
BecomeStacked(this.DoJob);
});
}
public void DoJob()
{
Receive<Work>(msg =>
{
Console.WriteLine("Start working...");
Console.WriteLine($"Counter: {cpt}\nWork done\n");
UnbecomeStacked();
});
}
}
The main code is:
int counter = 0;
while (counter < 10)
{
actor.Tell(new BeginWork());
actor.Tell(new Work());
counter++;
}
The program execution shows cpt++ in Ready() is evaluated once next to the call to Become in the constructor.
I cannot find any reasonable workaround to that.
Does anyone have any idea ?
This code is triggering the promptForUnSavedChanges function twice on exiting the page. How do I make it so that the prompt only displays once?
cleanupTransitionHook = $transitions.onExit({},
promptForUnsavedChanges);
function promptForUnsavedChanges() {
if (ctrl.forms.updateRecipe.$dirty || ctrl.changedPortionCount) {
if ($window.confirm('You will lose unsaved changes if you leave this page')) {
if (ctrl.changedPortionCount) {
ctrl.recipeModel.updateCurrentUserMetaPortionSizeRatio(ctrl.originalScaleFactor, ctrl.userRanges);
}
return true;
}
return false;
}
return true;
}
$transitions.onExit function return is deleter function.
so you call that function before return true
ex) cleanupTransitionHook();
I have the following base class:
class node_layer_manager_t : public layer_manager_t
{
protected:
//Devices
trx_t trx;
private:
std::vector<string> trx_dump_labels;
public:
node_layer_manager_t( xml::node_t& params );
~node_layer_manager_t();
virtual bool set_profile(void) override;
}
I created the following derived class:
class node_layer_manager_with_rad_t : public node_layer_manager_t
{
protected:
//Devices
radio_t radio;
public:
node_layer_manager_with_rad_t(xml::node_t& params );
~node_layer_manager_with_rad_t();
virtual bool set_profile(void) override;
virtual void radio_monitoring_job_function(void);
intervalues_t<double> radio_tmp;
ushort duration_seconds_for_radio_monitoring;
};
I want it so that the set profile will execute the set_profile of the base class and in addition some other action.
Can I just write it this way?
bool node_layer_manager_with_rad_t::set_profile(void)
{
bool success;
node_layer_manager_t::set_profile();
try
{
string_t profile_tag = "logs/trx_dump/node:"+get_id();
dev_tx = profile->get_decendant(profile_tag.c_str());
cout<<"sarit id= "<< get_id()<<endl;
success = true;
}
catch(...)
{
cout<<"sarit profile error: "<<endl;
success = false;
}
return success; //**
}
**Or should I reurn the follwing:
return (success && node_layer_manager_t::set_profile());
If you have to call parent set_profile regardless what you have to do in derived class, you should adopt design which take care about this constraint.
Typically, you should mark based class set_porfile as final and manage call of a dedicated derived class method inside based class:
class node_layer_manager_t : public layer_manager_t
{
protected:
....
// set_profile actions of derived class
// proposed a default without side effect implementation if
// derived class doesn't need to overload this.
virtual bool set_profile_child() { return true; };
private:
....
public:
.....
// Manage here call of derived
virtual bool set_profile() override final
{
// actions before derived specific actions
....
// Call specific derived class actions
bool success = set_profile_child();
// actions after derived specific actions
if (success)
{
//do based class action
}
return success;
}
}
and in child:
class node_layer_manager_with_rad_t : public node_layer_manager_t
{
protected:
....
public:
virtual bool set_profile_child() override;
};
// Manage only there own action, regardless of needs of based class
bool node_layer_manager_with_rad_t::set_profile(void)
{
try
{
// Do what you're in charge, and only what you're in charge!
}
catch(...)
{
cout<<"sarit profile error: "<<endl;
success = false;
}
return success; //**
}
With this kind of design, each class do only what it have to manage, and only its. Derived class doesn't have to deal with needs of based class.
If you want to offer to your derived class ability to decided if code is executed before or after generic behavior, you can replace or add to set_profile_child() two methods: bool pre_set_profile() and bool post_set_profile()
At first, you haven't declared success anywhere (so actually, this is not a mcve, the code should not compile as is).
Still I get it - and tThe answer is: it depends on what you actually want to do...
Do you want to call the super class first or after the sub class code? Your example implies the former, your alternative the latter. Do you want to abort if the super class function fails or still execute your code?
Your inital example calls the super class function, ignores the result and does its own stuff afterwards.
This calls the super class function first and continues only on success:
bool success = node_layer_manager_t::set_profile();
if(success)
{
try { /*...*/ } // <- no need to set success to true, it is already
catch(...) { /*...*/ success = false; }
}
This executes both, but combines the result:
bool success = node_layer_manager_t::set_profile();
try { /*...*/ } // <- do not modify success, must remain false if super class failed!
catch(...) { /*...*/ success = false; }
Your alternative hints to executing the sub class code first and only call the super class function, if nothing went wrong.
Any of these approaches might be appropriate, none of them might be. You have to get a clear image of what your requirements are - and then implement the code such that your needs are satisfied...
hopefully you can help me. First of all, let me explain what my problem is.
I have two ViewModels. The first one has e.g. stored information in several textboxes.
For example
private static string _tbxCfgLogfile;
public string TbxCfgLogfile
{
get { return _tbxCfgLogfile; }
set
{
_tbxCfgLogfile = value;
NotifyOfPropertyChange(() => TbxCfgLogfile);
}
}
The other ViewModel has a Button where i want to save this data from the textboxes.
It does look like this
public bool CanBtnCfgSave
{
get
{
return (new PageConfigGeneralViewModel().TbxCfgLogfile.Length > 0 [...]);
}
}
public void BtnCfgSave()
{
new Functions.Config().SaveConfig();
}
How can i let "CanBtnCfgSave" know that the condition is met or not?
My first try was
private static string _tbxCfgLogfile;
public string TbxCfgLogfile
{
get { return _tbxCfgLogfile; }
set
{
_tbxCfgLogfile = value;
NotifyOfPropertyChange(() => TbxCfgLogfile);
NotifyOfPropertyChange(() => new ViewModels.OtherViewModel.CanBtnCfgSave);
}
}
It does not work. When i do remember right, i can get the data from each ViewModel, but i cannot set nor Notify them without any effort. Is that right? Do i have to use an "Event Aggregator" to accomplish my goal or is there an alternative easier way?
Not sure what you are doing in your viewmodels - why are you instantiating viewmodels in property accessors?
What is this line doing?
return (new PageConfigGeneralViewModel().TbxCfgLogfile.Length > 0 [...]);
I can't be sure from your setup as you haven't mentioned much about the architecture, but sincce you should have an instance of each viewmodel, there must be something conducting/managing the two (or one managing the other)
If you have one managing the other and you are implementing this via concrete references, you can just pick up the fields from the other viewmodel by accessing the properties directly, and hooking the PropertyChanged event of the child to notify the parent
class ParentViewModel : PropertyChangedBase
{
ChildViewModel childVM;
public ParentViewModel()
{
// Create child VM and hook up event...
childVM = new ChildViewModel();
childVM.PropertyChanged = ChildViewModel_PropertyChanged;
}
void ChildViewModel_PropertyChanged(object sender, System.ComponentModel.PropertyChangedEventArgs e)
{
// When any properties on the child VM change, update CanSave
NotifyOfPropertyChange(() => CanSave);
}
// Look at properties on the child VM
public bool CanSave { get { return childVM.SomeProperty != string.Empty; } }
public void Save() { // do stuff }
}
class ChildViewModel : PropertyChangedBase
{
private static string _someProperty;
public string SomeProperty
{
get { return _someProperty; }
set
{
_someProperty = value;
NotifyOfPropertyChange(() => SomeProperty);
}
}
}
Of course this is a very direct way to do it - you could just create a binding to CanSave on the child VM if that works, saving the need to create the CanSave property on the parent
i have a doubt..
i would like to create a function and it will look like this...
public class A //this is just a class file
{
function dowork()
{
//work 1
INPUT = here in this line it should call a delegate function or raise event etc...
//work 2 using INPUT
}
}
public class B
{
function myfn()
{
A objA = new A();
objA.dowork();
}
}
In the "Class A" we will raise event or so & it will display a windows form to user and then user will input some value & we need to return that value to Class A -> dowork method.... then only we should continue "work 2"
this should also support multi threading... anyone have idea how we can implement this??
thanks :)
You can use ManulResetEvent for this purpose: You run your input form and when it done that form set the event so you can catch it from A.dowork method. While the input in action you run the infinite loop, check event state and process application event to make you app responsible in this time:
public class A //this is just a class file
{
private ManualResetEvent _event;
public void dowork()
{
//work 1
_event = new ManualResetEvent(false);
//INPUT = here in this ...
Worker worker = new Worker();
worker.DoInput(_event);
while(true)
{
if(_event.WaitOne())
break;
Application.DoEvents();
}
//work 2 using INPUT
}
}
class Worker
{
private ManualResetEvent _event;
public void DoInput(ManualResetEvent #event)
{
_event = #event;
// Show input form here.
// When it done, you call: _event.Set();
}
}
Also, I suggest you (if you can) use Async library (it is available as a standalone setup). There you can implement it in much more straightforward way:
public class A //this is just a class file
{
public async void dowork()
{
//work 1
//INPUT = here in this ...
Worker worker = new Worker();
wait worker.DoInput();
//work 2 using INPUT
}
}
class Worker
{
public async void DoInput()
{
InputForm form = new InputForm();
wait form.ShowInput();
}
}
public class B
{
async void myfn()
{
A objA = new A();
wait objA.dowork();
}
}
As you see you just wait while other piece of code get executed without any UI locking and events.
I can provide deeper explanation of how async/wait works here if you need.