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."
Related
I've created a significant number of methods to help me perform unit test assertions in Visual Studio 2010. I've also enabled "Double-click a Failed or Inconclusive unit test result displays the point of failure in the test" option in the Test Execution options. My issue is that with these helper methods, I'd like the point of failure to be the stack frame calling my helper method, not the exception being thrown within the helper method.
Obviously, I can do "ShowDetails" and click higher in the stack, but that will pretty much cancel out any time saved by using the helper method.
I've tried using the various [Debugger*] attributes on my method without success.
Here's some example code to illustrate my issue.
public void MyTest()
{
// ACT
var res = DoSomething();
// ASSERT
AssertDateRange(res, TimeSpan.FromDays(7));
}
public static void AssertDateRange(DateTime value, TimeSpan range)
{
var difference = DateTime.Now.Subtract(value);
if (Math.Abs(range.TotalMilliseconds) - Math.Abs(difference.TotalMilliseconds) < 0)
{
throw new AssertFailedException("DateTime was not within the expected range from now.");
}
}
I'd like for the double-click to place me on the method call within the MyTest method, while it now places me on the throw within the AssertDateRange method.
I am writing unittest for void method actually that method load the collection in
ViewData["CityList"] method is
public void PopulateCityCombo() {
IEnumerable<Cities> c= service.GetCities();
ViewData["CityList"] = c.Select(e => new Cities{ ID = e.ID, Name = e.Name});
}
now i do not know how to unit test using Moq since controller method is void and not returning data, can any one tell i will achive that.
On a side note, I would shy away from using ViewData within controller methods as per your example. The ViewData dictionary approach is fast and fairly easy to implement, however it can lead to typo's and errors that are not caught at compile time. An alternative would be to use the ViewModel pattern which allows you to use strongly-typed classes for the specific view you need to expose values or content within. Ultimately giving you type safe and compile time checking along with intellisense.
Switching to the ViewModel pattern would allow you to call the PopulateCityCombo() method from your controller to populate a ViewModel that in turn would passed to the corresponding view.
From there you would need to inject a mock service layer into your controllers constructor from your unit test.
// arrange
var mock = new Mock<servicelayer>();
mock.Setup(x=>x.GetCities()).Returns(expectedData);
var controller = new YourController(mock.Object);
// act
var result = controller.ControllerMethod() as ViewResult;
var resultData = (YourViewModel)result.ViewData.Model;
// assert
// Your assertions
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);
I have a extension method. Can any one help me how to test this method with Moq?
public static string GetBaseUrl(this UrlHelper urlHelper)
{
Uri contextUri = new Uri(urlHelper.RequestContext.HttpContext.Request.Url, urlHelper.RequestContext.HttpContext.Request.RawUrl);
UriBuilder realmUri = new UriBuilder(contextUri) { Path = urlHelper.RequestContext.HttpContext.Request.ApplicationPath, Query = null, Fragment = null };
string url = realmUri.Uri.AbsoluteUri;
if (url.EndsWith("/"))
{
url = url.Remove(url.Length - 1, 1);
}
return url;
}
many thanks.
As TrueWill points out, you can't use Moq directly with UrlHelper.RequestContext because it isn't virtual. On the other hand, UrlHelper is a public class that you can instantiate for use with unit testing.
At some point, however, you will encounter the need to assign a HttpContextBase to create the UrlHelper, and Moq can help you to do that.
Here's a test that shows that I can at least write a unit test that invokes your GetBaseUrl without throwing any exceptions:
[TestMethod]
public void Test1()
{
var httpCtxStub = new Mock<HttpContextBase>();
httpCtxStub.SetupGet(x => x.Request).Returns(() =>
{
var reqStub = new Mock<HttpRequestBase>();
reqStub.SetupGet(r => r.RawUrl).Returns("http://foo");
reqStub.SetupGet(r => r.Url).Returns(new Uri("http://foo"));
return reqStub.Object;
});
var requestCtx = new RequestContext(httpCtxStub.Object, new RouteData());
var urlHelper = new UrlHelper(requestCtx, new RouteCollection());
var result = urlHelper.GetBaseUrl();
// Assert something
}
However, this isn't the simplest unit test to write and maintain, so I support TrueWill's comment that you might make life simpler for yourself if you hide UrlHelper behind an interface.
The UrlHelper.RequestContext property is non-virtual. Moq isn't going to be of help in this case, to the best of my knowledge.
You could create a wrapper class for UrlHelper that implements an interface, but that would seem to defeat the purpose of using an extension method.
Typemock would probably do what you want, if you have the budget for a commercial program. (I haven't tried it; I use Moq myself.)
Another option would be to write integration tests against this method; while they would run more slowly than unit tests, I suspect this method is unlikely to version often.
A larger issue is coupling to UrlHelper reducing testability in the rest of your application. Perhaps other posters can suggest answers to that issue.
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.