I have a simple method for sending emails:
public void notifyEmail(string messageSubject, string messageBody)
{
MailMessage message = new MailMessage(from, to);
message.Subject = messageSubject;
message.Body = messageBody;
SmtpClient client = new SmtpClient(smtp_client);
client.Send(message);
message.Dispose();//release everything related
}
And a unit test (I'm learning):
[TestMethod()]
public void notifyEmailTest()
{
eMail target = new eMail("TEST Subject","TEST Body"); // TODO: Initialize to an appropriate value
bool testSent = true;
try
{
target.notifyEmail();
}
catch (Exception)
{
testSent = false;
}
Assert.IsTrue(testSent);
}
I deliberately set the smtp_client variable value to something invalid.
Running the code in my project results in an error.
Running the test method results in a Pass. Should my test or method be structured differently so that errors will fail the test?
I always do everything I can to avoid putting try-catch clauses on my unit tests. Instead try using the ExpectedException attribute (the attribute is the same for NUnit and MSTest) and set the type to the exception you are expecting i.e.
[TestMethod]
[ExpectedException(typeof(NetworkException))]
public void ShouldThrowNetworkExceptionIfSmtpServerIsInvalid)
{
//... test code here.
}
Another approach that I have used is to create a static class with an AssertExpectedException method since sometimes a method can throw the same type of exception for different reasons and the only way to know for sure if the accurate message is being returned is with custom code since the attribute does not assert the message the thrown exception is returning.
Hope this helps.
Regards.
If you expect that target.notifyEmail() should be throwing an exception, then that's what you should be testing for. If you were using NUnit you could use Assert.Throws<T>, e.g.
[Test]
public void notifyEmailTestFails()
{
// TODO: Initialize to an appropriate value
eMail target = new eMail("TEST Subject","TEST Body");
Assert.Throws<InvalidOperationException>(target.notifyEmail());
}
However, now I see you're using VSUnit you should be using [ExpectedException(typeof(...))]
as mentioned in other answers.
In general you should have separate tests for success, failure, and for exception conditions.
The way I normally do this is to decorate the test with ExpectedException (
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/microsoft.visualstudio.testtools.unittesting.expectedexceptionattribute(v=vs.80).aspx)
. But you want to catch something MUCH less generic than "Exception."
If you don't want to use expected exception, then instead of:
bool testSent = true;
try
{
target.notifyEmail();
}
catch (Exception)
{
testSent = false;
}
Assert.IsTrue(testSent);
You can be a little less verbose:
try{
target.notifyEmail();
Assert.Fail("Expected an exception here");
}
catch (SmtpException){
}
I would highly recommend you to try the FluenAssertions:
http://fluentassertions.codeplex.com/
They are simple awesome and Elegant
And they let you check the exception message (You can not do that with the ExpectedException attribute)
Example:
using FluentAssertions;
[TestMethod]
public void notifyEmailTest()
{
eMail target = new eMail("TEST Subject","TEST Body"); // TODO: Initialize to an appropriate value
target.Invoking(x => x.notifyEmail())
.ShouldThrow<YourExcpectedException>()
.WithMessage("Your expected message", FluentAssertions.Assertions.ComparisonMode.Substring);
}
Related
I have a logic like this
public function __construct(DataFetcherInterface $fetcher, Alert $alert) {
$this->data = $fetcher->getData();
foreach($this->data as $info) {
try {
$fetcher->assoicateAddress($info);
} catch (Exception $e) {
$alert->sendAlert($info)
}
}
}
and I want to test logic here, for example if sendAlert() will be called in case of exception.
public function it_should_throw_exception(
DataFetcherInterface $fetcher,
Alert $alert
): void {
$fetcher->getData()->willReturn(
// data here
)->shouldBeCalled();
$fetcher->assoicateAddress(
// data here
)->willThrow(Excpetion::class)->shouldBeCalled();
$alert->sendAlert()->shouldBeCalled(
// data here
);
$this->beConstructedWith($fetcher, $logger); // <== not sure how to do it here
}
and it's not working, error:
- it should throw exception
some predictions failed:
DataFetcherInterface\P3:
No calls have been made that match:
DataFetcherInterface\P3->getData()
but expected at least one.
I know php spec is for TDD, and I should start from tests, but at the moment I start adding tests I already had some come, for new code I'll use TDD approach.
Is it a bad practice to have such logic in constructor?? I have other methods in the class as well, but I want it to be instantiated with all needed data, and I'm using Visitor pattern to get all data while initializing object
We are using Spring Integration to process a JSON payload passed into a RESTful endpoint. As part of this flow we are using a filter to validate the JSON:
.filter(schemaValidationFilter, s -> s
.discardFlow(f -> f
.handle(message -> {
throw new SchemaValidationException(message);
}))
)
This works great. However, if the validation fails we want to capture the parsing error and return that to the user so they can act on the error. Here is the overridden accept method in the SchemaValidationFilter class:
#Override
public boolean accept(Message<?> message) {
Assert.notNull(message);
Assert.isTrue(message.getHeaders().containsKey(TYPE_NAME));
String historyType = (String)message.getHeaders().get(TYPE_NAME);
JSONObject payload = (JSONObject) message.getPayload();
String jsonString = payload.toJSONString();
try {
ProcessingReport report = schemaValidator.validate(historyType, payload);
return report.isSuccess();
} catch (IOException | ProcessingException e) {
throw new MessagingException(message, e);
}
}
What we have done is in the catch block we throw a MessageException which seems to solve the problem. However this seems to break what a filter should do (simply return a true or false).
Is there a best practice for passing the error details from the filter to the client? Is the filter the right solution for this use case?
Thanks for your help!
John
I'd say you go correct way. Please, refer to the XmlValidatingMessageSelector, so your JsonValidatingMessageSelector should be similar and must follow the same design.
Since we have a throwExceptionOnRejection option we always can be sure that throwing Exception instead of just true/false is correct behavior.
What Gary says is good, too, but according to the existing logic in that MessageSelector impl we can go ahead with the same and continue to use .filter(), but, of course, already without .discardFlow(), because we won't send invalid message to the discardChannel.
When your JsonValidatingMessageSelector is ready, feel free to contribute it back to the Framework!
It's probably more correct to do the validation in a <service-activator/>...
public Message<?> validate(Message<?> message) {
...
try {
ProcessingReport report = schemaValidator.validate(historyType, payload);
return message;
}
catch (IOException | ProcessingException e) {
throw new MessagingException(message, e);
}
}
...since you're never really filtering.
Currently i am using spring declarative transaction manager in my application. During DB operations if any constraint violated i want to check the error code against the database. i mean i want to run one select query after the exception happened. So i am catching the DataIntegrityViolationException inside my Catch block and then i am trying to execute one more error code query. But that query is not get executed . I am assuming since i am using the transaction manager if any exception happened the next query is not getting executed. Is that right?. i want to execute that error code query before i am returning the results to the client. Any way to do this?
#Override
#Transactional
public LineOfBusinessResponse create(
CreateLineOfBusiness createLineOfBusiness)
throws GenericUpcException {
logger.info("Start of createLineOfBusinessEntity()");
LineOfBusinessEntity lineOfBusinessEntity =
setLineOfBusinessEntityProperties(createLineOfBusiness);
try {
lineOfBusinessDao.create(lineOfBusinessEntity);
return setUpcLineOfBusinessResponseProperties(lineOfBusinessEntity);
}
// Some db constraints is failed
catch (DataIntegrityViolationException dav) {
String errorMessage =
errorCodesBd.findErrorCodeByErrorMessage(dav.getMessage());
throw new GenericUpcException(errorMessage);
}
// General Exceptions handling
catch (Exception exc) {
logger.debug("<<<<Coming inside General >>>>");
System.out.print("<<<<Coming inside General >>>>");
throw new GenericUpcException(exc.getMessage());
}
}
public String findErrorCodeByErrorMessage(String errorMessage)throws GenericUpcException {
try{
int first=errorMessage.indexOf("[",errorMessage.indexOf("constraint"));
int last=errorMessage.indexOf("]",first);
String errorCode=errorMessage.substring(first+1, last);
//return errorCodesDao.find(errorCode);
return errorCode;
}
catch(Exception e)
{
throw new GenericUpcException(e.getMessage());
}
}
Please help me.
I don't think problem you're describing has anything to do with Transaction management. If DataIntegrityViolationException happens within your try() block you code within catch() should execute. Perhaps exception different from DataIntegrityViolationException happens or your findErrorCodeByErrorMessage() throwing another exception. In general, Transaction logic would be applied only once you return from your method call, until then you could do whatever you like using normal Java language constructs. I suggest you put breakpoint in your error error handler or some debug statements to see what's actually happening.
I am using MSTest and in a [TestMethod] I have an object whose code throws an exception and I catch it; in certain circumstances, I re-throw it, other times I don't, but the test always fails indicating that the exception was thrown, even though I do not re-throw it some times. How do I conditionally ignore an exception? Because it is conditional, whether or not I re-throw the exception, I can't use [ExpectedException].
You should be testing your method in deterministic circumstances, i.e. with a set of arguments that always returns the same response. If your method sometimes throws an exception and sometimes doesn't, you should have one test for the cases where it throws, and another for when it doesn't.
If you do not have control over the conditions for which you throw an exception, it is a sign that you need to refactor your code so that you extract the condition, and are able to test the method in a deterministic way.
For example:
[TestMethod]
public void SomeMethodDoesntFail()
{
var obj = new objectUnderTest();
var shouldThrow = false;
var result = obj.SomeMethod(shouldThrow);
Assert.IsEqual(*expected result*, result);
}
[TestMethod, ExpectedException]
public void SomeMethodFails()
{
var obj = new objectUnderTest();
var shouldThrow = true;
var result = obj.SomeMethod(shouldThrow);
}
I'm creating a ASP.NET MVC 3.0 website, and have a couple of different database initializations based on whether the site is intended for development, testing, or production. I'm stuck on the testing initialization, as I'm trying to get a test user created. I can get the user to create just fine, however when I try to add some profile values, I get: System.Web.HttpException: Request is not available in this context. Is there a way to add Profile values in a situation where the request isn't going to be available?
Following code is what is being run:
protected void Application_Start()
{
AreaRegistration.RegisterAllAreas();
RegisterGlobalFilters(GlobalFilters.Filters);
RegisterRoutes(RouteTable.Routes);
if (ApplicationServices.GetInitialCatalog() != "tasktracker")
{
Database.SetInitializer(new TaskTrackerDropCreateDatabaseIfModelChanges());
}
else
{
Database.SetInitializer(new TaskTrackerCreateDatabaseIfNotExists());
}
using (var db = new TaskTrackerContext())
{
db.Database.Initialize(false);
}
}
public class TaskTrackerDropCreateDatabaseIfModelChanges : DropCreateDatabaseIfModelChanges<TaskTrackerContext>
{
protected override void Seed(TaskTrackerContext context)
{
// Set up the membership, roles, and profile systems.
ApplicationServices.InstallServices(SqlFeatures.Membership | SqlFeatures.Profile | SqlFeatures.RoleManager);
// Create the default accounts and roles.
if (ApplicationServices.GetInitialCatalog() == "tasktracker_testing")
{
if (Membership.GetUser("testuser", false) == null)
{
Membership.CreateUser("testuser", "password", "testuser#test.com");
MembershipUser user = Membership.GetUser("testuser", false);
user.IsApproved = true;
var profile = ProfileBase.Create("testuser");
profile.SetPropertyValue("FirstName", "test");
profile.SetPropertyValue("LastName", "user");
profile.SetPropertyValue("TimeZone", "US Mountain Standard Time");
profile.Save();
}
}
}
}
Interesting question. Have you looked at using the new Universal Providers? Dunno if you will run into the same httpcontext issue but may be worth a look: http://www.hanselman.com/blog/IntroducingSystemWebProvidersASPNETUniversalProvidersForSessionMembershipRolesAndUserProfileOnSQLCompactAndSQLAzure.aspx
Did you try to do a call of "Initialize()" :
profile.Initialize(username, true)
after your create action to see if the context should be Initialized.
By using Reflector i saw the ProfileBase of Initialize (see below) creates this kind of context from the settings:
public void Initialize(string username, bool isAuthenticated)
{
if (username != null)
{
this._UserName = username.Trim();
}
else
{
this._UserName = username;
}
SettingsContext context = new SettingsContext();
context.Add("UserName", this._UserName);
context.Add("IsAuthenticated", isAuthenticated);
this._IsAuthenticated = isAuthenticated;
base.Initialize(context, s_Properties, ProfileManager.Providers);
}
It seems working here, the SettingsContext() seems taking account of my custom properties declared in the web.config.
Regards,
I come back again because the solution I added with the "Initialize()" function in fact not run really after an other test. So in fact I found a way which runs correctly.
The problem of "request is not available in this context" in application_start in your case could be due to the application mode "Integrated" which is new from II7 instead of the Classic mode.
To see a good explain you ca go on the Mike Volodarsky's blog IIS7 Integrated mode: Request is not available in this context exception in Application_Start .
I copy/paste an extract which could indicate the main reason:
" *This error is due to a design change in the IIS7 Integrated pipeline that makes the request context unavailable in Application_Start event. When using the Classic mode (the only mode when running on previous versions of IIS), the request context used to be available, even though the Application_Start event has always been intended as a global and request-agnostic event in the application lifetime. Despite this, because ASP.NET applications were always started by the first request to the app, it used to be possible to get to the request context through the static HttpContext.Current field.* "
To solve this you can use a workaround that moves your first-request initialization from Application_Start to BeginRequest and performs the request-specific initialization on the first request.
A good example of code is done in his blog :
void Application_BeginRequest(Object source, EventArgs e)
{
HttpApplication app = (HttpApplication)source;
HttpContext context = app.Context;
// Attempt to peform first request initialization
FirstRequestInitialization.Initialize(context);
}
class FirstRequestInitialization
{
private static bool s_InitializedAlready = false;
private static Object s_lock = new Object();
// Initialize only on the first request
public static void Initialize(HttpContext context)
{
if (s_InitializedAlready)
{
return;
}
lock (s_lock)
{
if (s_InitializedAlready)
{
return;
}
// Perform first-request initialization here
//
// You can use your create profile code here....
//---
s_InitializedAlready = true;
}
}
}