Single Responsibility Principle, Test Driven Development, and Functional Design - tdd

I am fairly new to Test Driven Development and I just started learning the SOLID principles so I was hoping someone could help me out. I'm having some conceptual trouble understanding the Single Responsibility Principle in the context of developing unit tests and methods in the TDD paradigm. For instance, say I want to develop a method that deletes an item from a database- before my code would have looked like the following...
I'd start with defining a test case:
"Delete_Item_ReturnsTrue": function() {
//Setup
var ItemToDelete = "NameOfSomeItem";
//Action
var BooleanResult = Delete( ItemToDelete );
//Assert
if ( BooleanResult === true ) {
return true;
} else {
console.log("Test: Delete_Item_ReturnsTrue() - Failed.");
return false;
}
}
I'd run the test to make sure it failed, then I'd develop the method...
function Delete( ItemToDelete ) {
var Database = ConnectToDatabase();
var Query = BuildQuery( ItemToDelete );
var QueryResult = Database.Query( Query );
if ( QueryResult.error !== true ) {
//if there's no error then...
return true;
} else {
return false;
}
}
If I'm understanding the Single Responsibility Principle correctly, the method that I originally wrote had the responsibilities of deleting the item AND returning true if there wasn't an error. So if I follow the SOLID paradigm the original method should be refactored to look something like...
function Delete( WhatToDelete, WhereToDeleteItFrom ) {
WhereToDeleteItFrom.delete( WhatToDelete );
}
Doing the design as such, changed my method from a boolean function to a void function so now I can't really test the new method in the same manner I was testing my old method.
I guess I could test for thrown exceptions but then doesn't that make it an integration test rather than a unit test because there's no actual exception thrown in the method?
Do I design and implement an extra function which checks the database for use in my unit test?
Do I just not test it because it's void? How exactly does that work in TDD?
Do I pass in a mock repository and then return it after it's state has changed? Doesn't that just essientially bring me back to square one?
Do I pass in a reference to a mock repository and then just test against the repository after the method completes? Wouldn't that be considered a side effect though?

So the single responsibility principle says: They should be exact one reason when I need to change a function.
So let's look at your function:
function Delete( ItemToDelete ) {
var Database = ConnectToDatabase();
var Query = BuildQuery( ItemToDelete );
var QueryResult = Database.Query( Query );
if ( QueryResult.error !== true ) {
//if there's no error then...
return true;
} else {
return false;
}
}
Database changes: ConnectToDatabese() needs a change, but not this function
Changes in the db structure: BuildQuery() needs to be changed (maybe)
...
So on the first look, your function looks good. The naming on some places is a little bit confusing. A function should be start with a small letter. For example "connectToDatabase()". It is a little bit surprising that connectToDatabase returns an Object.
The name BuildQuery seems to be wrong, because BuildQuery( myItem ) returns a query wich is deleting something.
But I would never have such a long complicated function which just one testcase.
You need to write more test cases.
For the first test case you could write the function like that:
function Delete( ItemToDelete) {
return true
}
The next testcase could be "call the buildDeleteQuery function with the item id". At that point you need to think about how you call your db. If you have a dbObject, which does that you could mock that Object.
function Delete( ItemToDelete ) {
buildDeleteQuery( ItemToDelete.id )
return true
}
Now more and more test cases. Remember that there will be also test cases for buildDeleteQuery. But for the outer function you could mock buildDeleteQuery.
Now to answer some of your questions:
When you first write the test and then write the code, you will have testable code.
That code looks different, because the tests should be not to complicated. When you want easy tests you will automaticly have more smaller functions.
Yes, you will write a test for every function you call.
Maybe you will mock objects. And if you are not able to test your db call without a wrapping function you will create a function, which allows you to test that functionality.
Remember your tests are the documentation of your code. So keep them simple as possible.
But the most important thing: Keep practicing! When you start with TDD it takes some time. A good and fun resource is: Uncle Bobs Bowling Kata Just download the slides from the website and look how tdd is done step by step.

Related

How to get Unit component? Can i use addAsync for get solution?

I want to built a program which is get problems and I found that my first batches of tests involving custom components would tend to follow code:
import mx.core.Application;   
 import mx.events.FlexEvent;
 import flexunit.framework.TestCase;
public class CustomComponentTest extends TestCase {
private var component:CustomComponent;
public function testSomeAspect() : void {
component = new CustomComponent();
component.addEventListener(FlexEvent.CREATION_COMPLETE,
addAsync(verifySomeAspect, 5000));
component.height = 0;
component.width = 0;
Application.application.addChild(component);
}
public function verifySomeAspect(event:FlexEvent) : void {}
override public function tearDown() : void {
 try {
if (component) {
Application.application.removeChild(component);
component = null;
}
} catch (e:Error) {
 }
}
First, you need to make sure the component has been fully initialized before you can reliably verify anything about it, and in Flex this happens asynchronously after it has been added to the display list. So you need to setup a callback (using FlexUnit's addAsync function) to be notified when that's happened.
Lately i've been just manually calling the methods that the runtime would call for you in the necessary places, so now my tests tend to look more like this:
import flexunit.framework.TestCase;
public class CustomComponentTest extends TestCase {
public function testSomeAspect() : void {
var component:CustomComponent = new CustomComponent();
 component.initialize();
component.validateProperties();
}
This is much easier to follow, but it kinda feels like I'm cheating a little either way. The first case is slamming it into the current Application (which would be the unit test runner shell app), and the latter isn't a "real" environment.I was wondering how other people would handle this sort of situation?
I can agree that the second version is shorter, but I'm not sure that I think it's easier to follow. The test does a lot of things that you wouldn't normally do, whereas the first example is more true to how you would use the component outside the test environment.
Also, in the second form you have to make sure that you do exactly what the framework would do, miss one step and your test isn't relevant, and each test must repeat this code. Seems to me it's better to test it in a situation that is as close to the real thing as possible.
You could have a look at dpUint's sequences, they made component testing a little more declarative:
public function testLogin():void {
var passThroughData:Object = new Object();
passThroughData.username = "myuser1";
passThroughData.password = "somepsswd";
var sequence:SequenceRunner = new SequenceRunner(this);
sequence.addStep(new SequenceSetter(form.usernameTI,
{text:passThroughData.username}));
sequence.addStep(new SequenceWaiter(form.usernameTI,
FlexEvent.VALUE_COMMIT, 100));
sequence.addStep(new SequenceSetter(form.passwordTI,
{text:passThroughData.password}));
sequence.addStep(new SequenceWaiter(form.passwordTI, FlexEvent.VALUE_COMMIT, 100));
sequence.addStep(new SequenceEventDispatcher(form.loginBtn,
new MouseEvent("click", true, false)));
sequence.addStep(new SequenceWaiter(form, "loginRequested", 100));
sequence.addAssertHandler(handleLoginEvent, passThroughData);
sequence.run();}

Can you record accessed methods in Visual Studio?

I'm retroactively documenting and writing unit tests for some C# code. I would like to determine what code is actually being used and when.
In Visual Studio 2012, is there a way to record all the methods accessed and in what order while walking through specific scenarios?
You could run your application with a profiler attached, which will give you all accessed methods, call chains, counts, etc.
The Visual Studio Profiler will give you the time spent in each method, and let you inspect the call heirarchy. I don't know if it will give you the exact order they were called in though.
EDIT: Apparently attaching the profiler to a running unit test is harder in VS2012.
Are you wanting to execute a test method that make sure that a particular method on a class was invoked ? If so i dont know of a way to do it in VS alone, but you can use a mock framework to create dependency mocks and check values on them. Here is a snippet of a unit test:
[TestMethod]
public void HttpPostPrivacyPolicyFacadeSvcErrorTest()
{
var controller = ControllerHelper.GetRouteController();
controller.Session[SessionVariable.User] = new UserInfo() { UserName = Config.Data.Username };
var idmSvcMock = new Mock<IUserServiceDAO>();
var facadeSvcMock = new Mock<IFacadeSvcDAO>();
//setup the facade mock to throw exception to simulate FacadeServiceException
facadeSvcMock.Setup(x => x.SetPrivacyAcceptanceStatus(It.IsAny<UserInfo>())).Throws<Exception>();
var userCollectorMock = new Mock<IUserInfoCollector>();
userCollectorMock.Setup(x => x.GetUserInfo()).Returns(new UserInfo() { UserName = Config.Data.Username });
controller.FacadeSvc = facadeSvcMock.Object;
controller.UserServiceDAO = idmSvcMock.Object;
controller.UserCollector = userCollectorMock.Object;
controller.DefaultErrorId = "Route_errors_Unabletoprocess";
//action
var res = controller.Privacy(new FormCollection());
//assert
//make sure we go to the right controller, action, with the correct params.
res.AssertActionRedirect().ToController("Errors").ToAction("Index").WithParameter("id", "Route_errors_Unabletoprocess");
//did we call setprivacy once on the mock?
facadeSvcMock.Verify(x => x.SetPrivacyAcceptanceStatus(It.IsAny<UserInfo>()), Times.Exactly(1));
In the test above i check that SetPrivacyAcceptance was invoked once and only once on my facadeSvcMock instance. More on moq here: Moq
this block of code is actually checking how many times SetPrivacyAcceptanceStatus was invoked:
//did we call setprivacy once on the mock?
facadeSvcMock.Verify(x => x.SetPrivacyAcceptanceStatus(It.IsAny()), Times.Exactly(1));
the It.IsAny() is the one parameter to that method, so the line above says basically "For any input parameter of type UserInfo verify that we invoked SetPrivacyAcceptanceStatus exactly once."

System.IObservable<string> to System.IObservable<System.Collections.Generic.List<string>>

How can I convert System.IObservable<string> to System.IObservable<System.Collections.Generic.List<string>>?
public static IObservable<List<string>> GetUrlList(Uri url) {
var result = (from request in Observable.Return(GetWebRequest(url, false))
from response in Observable.FromAsyncPattern<WebResponse>(
request.BeginGetResponse, request.EndGetResponse)()
from item in GetUrlCollection(response).ToObservable()
select item);
return result;
}
Here the type of the item is "list of string". I need to convert that to IObservable List of strings. How can I achieve this?
Try this:
public static IObservable<List<string>> GetUrlList(Uri url)
{
var result = (
from request in Observable.Return(
GetWebRequest(url, false))
from response in Observable.FromAsyncPattern<WebResponse>(
request.BeginGetResponse, request.EndGetResponse)()
from item in GetUrlCollection(response)
.ToObservable()
.ToArray()
select item
.ToList());
return result;
}
My only concern with this whole approach is that your GetUrlCollection(response) is returning an enumerable. You really should code this to return an observable.
Hmmm I think Observable.Start is your friend here. You have a bunch of code that it looks like you are forcing into Observable Sequences, when they really don't look like they are.
Remember Rx is designed to work with sequences of push data. You seem to have a sequence of 1 that happens to be a List. TPL/Task/async would be a good fit here.
If you do want to use Rx, I would suggest avoiding boucing around between IEnumable and IObservable. Doing so is a quick way to creating nasty race conditions and confusing the next developer.
public static IObservable<List<string>> GetUrlList(Uri url)
{
return Observable.Start(()=>
{
var request = GetWebRequest(url, false);
return GetUrlCollection(request);//Code change here??
});
}
Here you can happily be synchronous in your Observable.Start delegate. This should be a lot easier for the next guy to understand (i.e. this is a single value sequence with the UrlCollection as the value).

MVP with Moq - loading a mocked view

I've read a lot about mocking/stubbing/faking - and still hit my mental roadblocks.
I'm trying to adapt MVP (Model View Presenter) with a "fun" weight loss tracking system I'm building for my own Fatty McFatter-self. I'm trying to TDD & 'by the book' this but hit many mental blocks and stall out.
I am building my Presenter and mocking my Service & View at the moment. Here's my test: again note: service and view are mocked with Moq
[Test]
public void GetLog_WithExistingDate_ViewSetWithExistingLog()
{
WeightLogModel model = new WeightLogModel
{
EntryDate = DateTime.Now,
Waist = 42,
Weight = 242
};
service.Setup(x => x.GetLog(It.IsAny<DateTime>())).Returns(model);
presenter.Display(DateTime.Now);
IWeightLogView myView = view.Object;
Assert.AreEqual(model.Weight, myView.Weight);
}
and in my Presenter - this is my Display method:
public void Display(DateTime date)
{
var weightLog = service.GetLog(date);
if(weightLog == null) return;
View.EntryDate = weightLog.EntryDate;
View.Waist = weightLog.Waist;
View.Weight = weightLog.Weight;
}
Now - if I debug as Display is being called - I see the weightLog is filled with the correct info I've setup in the mock. But as it's suppose to set View.EntryDate, View.Waist, etc - the View values never change. They stay zero or 0001/1/1
Is there some way to make it work? Or is this just a bad test and I'm floundering in confusion?
Thanks to Phil for starting me in motion. Although I didn't want to explicitly set what I was going to return - I wanted the mock view to behave like my view. You can have the mocked setter behave as normal by calling SetupProperty --> view.SetupProperty(x => x.Weight) //in my case... here's the test that will now pass asserting the weight was set
[Test]
public void GetLog_WithExistingDate_ViewSetWithExistingLog()
{
WeightLogModel model = new WeightLogModel
{
EntryDate = DateTime.Now,
Waist = 42,
Weight = 242
};
service.Setup(x => x.GetLog(It.IsAny<DateTime>())).Returns(model);
// I ADDED THIS ONE LINE
view.SetupProperty(x => x.Weight);
presenter.Display(DateTime.Now);
IWeightLogView myView = view.Object;
Assert.AreEqual(model.Weight, myView.Weight);
}
You are not showing all your setup code here, nor the dependencies between classes.
However if you are indeed mocking the view called "myView", it's going to return what you have the mock set up to return, or defaults for each type if you haven't specified anything for it to return (which sounds like what is happening).
From your comment:
I am trying to setup the
service.GetLog(date) to return the
WeightLogModel I have in the test. My
thinking is that doing so - would make
that WeightLogModel available in my
presenter
So far that seems like it is working from your original question.
to assign to my mocked view - where
View.EntryDate = weightLog.EntryDate
.... in this case weightLog is what is
setup in the test.... I hope I'm clear
as to where my head is... I'm not
saying I'm right - this is what my
thinking is though.
Where are you going wrong is where you say "to assign to my mocked view". It's not clear from your code whether or not the View property is in fact your mocked view (because your code is incomplete).
Although, in this case, it actually doesn't matter. If the View property is in fact a mock, it will only return what you tell it to return--its properties are not going to behave like "normal" properties.
So the following will fail without explicit setup:
mockView.MyProperty = "hello";
Assert.AreEqual("hello", mock.MyProperty);

Asserting that a method is called exactly one time

I want to assert that a method is called exactly one time. I'm using RhinoMocks 3.5.
Here's what I thought would work:
[Test]
public void just_once()
{
var key = "id_of_something";
var source = MockRepository.GenerateStub<ISomeDataSource>();
source.Expect(x => x.GetSomethingThatTakesALotOfResources(key))
.Return(new Something())
.Repeat.Once();
var client = new Client(soure);
// the first call I expect the client to use the source
client.GetMeMyThing(key);
// the second call the result should be cached
// and source is not used
client.GetMeMyThing(key);
}
I want this test to fail if the second invocation of GetMeMyThing() calls source.GetSomethingThatTakesALotOfResources().
Here's how I'd verify a method is called once.
[Test]
public void just_once()
{
// Arrange (Important to GenerateMock not GenerateStub)
var a = MockRepository.GenerateMock<ISomeDataSource>();
a.Expect(x => x.GetSomethingThatTakesALotOfResources()).Return(new Something()).Repeat.Once();
// Act
// First invocation should call GetSomethingThatTakesALotOfResources
a.GetMeMyThing();
// Second invocation should return cached result
a.GetMeMyThing();
// Assert
a.VerifyAllExpectations();
}
I have been using the AssertWasCalled extension to get around this problem. This is the best I could find/come up with but it would be better if I didn't have to specify the call twice.
[Test]
public void just_once()
{
var key = "id_of_something";
var source = MockRepository.GenerateStub<ISomeDataSource>();
// set a positive expectation
source.Expect(x => x.GetSomethingThatTakesALotOfResources(key))
.Return(new Something())
.Repeat.Once();
var client = new Client(soure);
client.GetMeMyThing(key);
client.GetMeMyThing(key);
source.AssertWasCalled(x => x.GetSomethingThatTakesALotOfResources(key),
x => x.Repeat.Once());
source.VerifyAllExpectations();
}
You may be interested in this bit from the Rhino Mocks 3.5 Documentation (quoted below). Looks like you need to mock the class, not stub it, for it to work the way you expect.
The difference between stubs and mocks
...
A mock is an object that we can set
expectations on, and which will verify
that the expected actions have indeed
occurred. A stub is an object that you
use in order to pass to the code under
test. You can setup expectations on
it, so it would act in certain ways,
but those expectations will never be
verified. A stub's properties will
automatically behave like normal
properties, and you can't set
expectations on them.
If you want to verify the behavior of
the code under test, you will use a
mock with the appropriate expectation,
and verify that. If you want just to
pass a value that may need to act in a
certain way, but isn't the focus of
this test, you will use a stub.
IMPORTANT: A stub will never cause a
test to fail.
Here is what I just did (as recommended by Ray Houston). I would still appreciate a more elegant solution...
[Test]
public void just_once()
{
var key = "id_of_something";
var source = MockRepository.GenerateStub<ISomeDataSource>();
// set a positive expectation
source.Expect(x => x.GetSomethingThatTakesALotOfResources(key))
.Return(new Something())
.Repeat.Once();
var client = new Client(soure);
client.GetMeMyThing(key);
// set a negative expectation
source.Expect(x => x.GetSomethingThatTakesALotOfResources(key))
.Return(new Something())
.Repeat.Never();
client.GetMeMyThing(key);
}
You can pass a delegate to WhenCalled to count calls:
...
uint callCount = 0;
source.Expect(x => x.GetSomethingThatTakesALotOfResources(key))
.Return(new Something())
.WhenCalled((y) => { callCount++; });
...
Assert.AreEqual(1, callCount);
Also, you should use a mock not a stub, and verify expectations on the mock too.
You can create strict mock, if you want to ensure that a method is called only once.
var mock = MockRepository.GenerateStrictMock<IMustOnlyBeCalledOnce>();
mock.Expect(a => a.Process()).Repeat.Once();
var helloWorld= new HelloWorld(mock);
helloworld.Process()
mock.VerifyAllExpectations();
Having a feature called "Exactly" would be handy to write tests on code that might otherwise get into an infinite loop. I would love to write a test such that the second call to a method would raise an exception.
Some libraries for python allow you to sequence expectations, so the first returns false and the second raises an exception.
Rhino won't do that. A partial mock with .Once will intercept the first call, and the rest will be passed on to the original method. So that sucks, but it's true.
You'll have to create a hand-mock. Derive a "testable" class, and give it the ability to raise after the first call.

Resources