I have a class API which has full code coverage and uses DI to mock out all the logic in the main class function (Job.Run) which does all the work.
I found a bug in production where we werent doing some validation on one of the data input fields.
So, I added a stub function called ValidateFoo()... Wrote a unit test against this function to Expect a JobFailedException, ran the test - it failed obviously because that function was empty. I added the validation logic, and now the test passes.
Great, now we know the validation works. Problem is - how do I write the test to make sure that ValidateFoo() is actually called inside Job.Run()? ValidateFoo() is a private method of the Job class - so it's not an interface...
Is there anyway to do this with NMock2.0? I know TypeMock supports fakes of non interface types. But changing mock libs right now is not an option. At this point if NMock can't support it, I will simply just add the ValidateFoo() call to the Run() method and test things manually - which obviously I'd prefer not to do considering my Job.Run() method has 100% coverage right now. Any Advice? Thanks very much it is appreciated.
EDIT: the other option I have in mind is to just create an integration test for my Job.Run functionality (injecting to it true implementations of the composite objects instead of mocks). I will give it a bad input value for that field and then validate that the job failed. This works and covers my test - but it's not really a unit test but instead an integration test that tests one unit of functionality.... hmm..
EDIT2: IS there any way to do tihs? Anyone have ideas? Maybe TypeMock - or a better design?
The current version of NMock2 can mock concrete types (I don't remember exactly which version they added this, but we're using version 2.1) using the mostly familiar syntax:
Job job = mockery.NewMock<Job>(MockStyle.Transparent);
Stub.On(job).Method("ValidateFoo").Will(Return.Value(true));
MockStyle.Transparent specifies that anything you don't stub or expect should be handled by the underlying implementation - so you can stub and set expectations for methods on an instance you're testing.
However, you can only stub and set expectations on public methods (and properties), which must also be virtual or abstract. So to avoid relying on integration testing, you have two options:
Make Job.ValidateFoo() public and virtual.
Extract the validation logic into a new class and inject an instance into Job.
Since all private are all called by public methods (unless relying on reflection runtime execution), then those privates are being executed by public methods. Those private methods are causing changes to the object beyond simply executing code, such as setting class fields or calling into other objects. I'd find a way to get at those "results" of calling the private method. (Or mocking the things that shouldn't be executed in the private methods.)
I can't see the class under test. Another problem that could be pushing you to want access to the private methods is that it's a super big class with a boatload of private functionality. These classes may need to be broken down into smaller classes, and some of those privates may turn into simpler publics.
Related
TDD and Mockito testing newb here... I have recently discovered about injection of mocks of private fields and am trying to get my ideas straight.
It may well be that my thinking on this particular matter is all wrong, but it's just that I often find a situation where I want to test that calling a particular method has resulted in a private field being assigned: before the call it was null, and after the call it is set to an instance of whatever class.
A mocked private field is a subclass of the class in question by the time you start to run your test method, so obviously testing for null is meaningless/doesn't work. Equally, if your method results in an assignment of this field this means that the mock variable has been replaced by a genuine instance. Thus, even if methods are called on it it won't lead to any interaction with the mock variable. In any event, if the test is just to check on the creation and assignment there is no reason you would want to have any interaction with it in the test.
Obviously one answer is to create a public get() method or a public create() method in the app class. But this gives me a bad feeling as it is clearly just being done for testing purposes.
Incidentally there will be those, many no doubt much more experienced than me at TDD, who will say that I'm getting too fine-grained and shouldn't be testing something as specific as assignment of a field. But my understanding of the most extreme approach to TDD is "don't write a line of code without a test". I really am trying to stick with this at this stage as far as possible. With experience maybe I will have greater understanding of how and when to depart from this principle.
It's just that assignment of a field seems to me to be a "class event" (of the host class) as worthy as any other type of event, such as a call of a method on the field once an instance has been assigned to the field. Shouldn't we be able to test for it in some way...? What do the Mockito pros who accept that this may be a legitimate thing to test for do in these circumstances?
later...
The comment from Fabio highlights the tension which, as a newb, I find puzzling, between "never write a line without a test" and "test only public methods": the effect of this is inevitably to expose much more stuff than I want, purely for the sake of testing.
And what he says about "changing tests all the time" I also find problematic: if we inject mocked private fields, and use them, then we are going to have to change the tests if we change the "implementation details". Nor does this idea fill me with dread: a need for change is perceived, you look at the very explanatory names of your existing test methods and decide which ones no longer apply, and of course you create new ones... the testing code, like the app code, will have to change all the time, right?
Isn't the testing code like some sort of die or mould, which guides and constrains the app code but at the same time can be detached from it? By Mockito allowing us to mock private fields a privileged form of access is already granted... who's to say how far this privileged access should rightly extend?
even later...
Jeff Bowman suggests this is a dup with this. I'm not entirely convinced, since I am asking a very specific thing for which it's just possibly there may be a specific answer (some Mockito means of detecting assignment). But his answer there seems very comprehensive and I'm trying to fully understand it all... including the whole dependency injection thing... and the compromises you seem have to make in "distorting" your public interface to make an app class as testable as you want to make it.
Simple example: you need to write a class Class1 with two methods Method1 and Method2 which return values provided by some Helper class.
[Test] Start writing test for first method - it will not compile
[Production] Create class Class1 and Method1 - compile ok and
test fail
[Production] In Method1 you create new instance of Helper and call some of this methods which return expected value - test pass
[Test] Create another test case for same Method1 - test fail
[Production] Make changes in Method1 to satisfy both test cases - tests are green
[Production] Make some refactorings in Method1 if you see possibility - test must stay green
[Test] Create test for Method2 which will update some public field Field1 of Class1 - will not compile
[Production] Create method Method2 and field Field1 in Class1 - compile - ok, test fail
[Production] Create new instance of Helper class in Method2, call it method and update Field1 with expected value - test pass
[Test] Create another test case for Method2 - test fail
[Production] Make changes in Method2 to satisfy both test cases - tests are green
Now you have implemented needed behavior and noticed that both Method1 and Method2 create instance of Helper class.
[Production] So you decide to declare private field of type Helper and use it in both methods - all tests are failed - because your private field not instantiated.
[Production] - you instantiate new instance in the constructor - all tests are green
Later if you decide to move creation of Helper class outside and pass it to the Class1 as constructor's parameter, you just change your production code and tests will show you does you break anything without changing tests.
Main point of my answer, that if you think like "I want write this line of code - How I can test it" - it will goes you in thats kind of situation you got right now.
Try to first think what you want to test and after writing the test think how you will implement it.
First of all, I have to say, I'm new to mocking. So maybe I'm missing a point.
I'm also just starting to get used to the TDD approach.
So, in my actual project I'm working on a class in the business layer, while the data layer has yet to be deployed. I thought, this would be a good time to get started with mocking. I'm using Rhino Mocks, but I've come to the problem of needing to know the implementation details of a class before writing the class itself.
Rhino Mocks checks if alle the methods expected to be called are actually called. So I often need to know which mocked method is being called by the tested method first, even though they could be called in any order. Because of that I'm often writing complicated methods before I test them, because then I know already in which order the methods are being called.
simple example:
public void CreateAandB(bool arg1, bool arg2) {
if(arg1)
daoA.Create();
else throw new exception;
if(arg2)
daoB.Create();
else throw new exception;
}
if I want to test the error handling of this method, I'd have to know which method is being called first. But I don't want to be bugged about implementation details when writing the test first.
Am I missing something?
You have 2 choices. If the method should result in some change in your class the you can test the results of your method instead. So can you call CreateAandB(true,false) then then call some other method to see if the correct thing was created. In this situation your mock objects will probably be stubs which just provide some data.
If the doaA and doaB are objects which are injected into your class that actually create data in the DB or similar, which you can't verify the results of in the test, then you want to test the interaction with them, in which case you create the mocks and set the expectations, then call the method and verify that the expectations are met. In this situation your mock objects will be mocks and will verify the expected behaviour.
Yes you are testing implementation details, but your are testing the details of if your method is using its dependencies correctly, which is what you want to test, not how it is using them, which are the details you are not really interested in.
EDIT
IDao daoA = MockRepository.GenerateMock<IDao>(); //create mock
daoA.Expect(dao=>dao.Create); //set expectation
...
daoA.VerifyExpectations(); //check that the Create method was called
you can ensure that the expectations happen in a certain order, but not using the AAA syntax I believe (source from 2009, might have changed since,EDIT see here for an option which might work), but it seems someone has developed an approach which might allow this here. I've never used that and can't verify it.
As for needing to know which method was called first so you can verify the exception you have a couple of choices:
Have a different message in your exception and check that to determine which exception was raised.
Expect a call to daoA in addition to expecting the exception. If you don't get the call to daoA then the test fails as the exception must have been the first one.
Often times you just need fake objects, not mocks. Mock objects are meant to test component interaction, and often you can avoid this by querying the state of SUT directly. Most practical uses of mocks are to test interaction with some external system (DB, file system, webservice, etc.), and for other things you should be able to query system state directly.
A very specific question from a novice to TDD:
I separate my tests and my application into different packages. Thus, most of my application methods have to be public for tests to access them. As I progress, it becomes obvious that some methods could become private, but if I make that change, the tests that access them won't work. Am I missing a step, or doing something wrong, or is this just one downfall of TDD?
This is not a downfall of TDD, but rather an approach to testing that believes you need to test every property and every method. In fact you should not care about private methods when testing because they should only exist to facilitate some public portion of the API.
Never change something from private to public for testing purposes!
You should be trying to verify only publicly visible behavior. The rest are implementation details and you specifically want to avoid testing those. TDD is meant to give you a set of tests that will allow you to easily change the implementation details without breaking the tests (changing behavior).
Let’s say I have a type: MyClass and I want to test the DoStuff method. All I care about is that the DoStuff method does something meaningful and returns the expected results. It may call a hundred private methods to get to that point, but I don't care as the consumer of that method.
You don't specify what language you are using, but certainly in most of them you can put the tests in a way that have more privileged access to the class. In Java, for example, the test can be in the same package, with the actual class file being in a different directory so it is separate from production code.
However, when you are doing real TDD, the tests are driving the class design, so if you have a method that exists just to test some subset of functionality, you are probably (not always) doing something wrong, and you should look at techniques like dependency injection and mocking to better guide your design.
This is where the old saying, "TDD is about design," frequently comes up. A class with too many public methods probably has too many responsibilities - and the fact that you are test-driving it only exposes that; it doesn't cause the problem.
When you find yourself in this situation, the best solution is frequently to find some subset of the public methods that can be extracted into a new class ("sprout class"), then give your original class an instance variable of the sprouted class. The public methods deserve to be public in the new class, but they are now - with respect to the API of the original class - private. And you now have better adherence to SRP, looser coupling, and higher cohesion - better design.
All because TDD exposed features of your class that would otherwise have slid in under the radar. TDD is about design.
At least in Java, it's good practice to have two source trees, one for the code and one for the tests. So you can put your code and your tests in the same package, while they're still in different directories:
src/org/my/xy/X.java
test/org/my/xy/TestX.java
Then you can make your methods package private.
I have a class called FooJob() which runs on a WCF windows service. This class has only 2 public methods, the constructor, and a Run() method.
When clients call my service, a Dim a new instance of the Job class, pass in some parameters to the ctor, then call Run()...
Run() will take the parameters, do some logic, send a (real time) request to an outside data vendor, take the response, do some business logic, then put it in the database...
Is it wise to only write a single unit test then (if even possible) on the Run() function? Or will I wind up killing myself here? In this case then should I drill into the private functions and unit test those of the FooJob() class? But then won't this 'break' the 'only test behavior' / public interface paradigm that some argue for in TDD?
I realize this might be a vague question, but any advice / guidance or points in the right direction would be much appreciated.
Drew
do some logic, send a (real time) request to an outside data vendor, take the response, do some business logic, then put it in the database
The problem here is that you've listed your class as having multiple responsibilities... to be truly unit testable you need to follow the single responsibility principle. You need to pull those responsibilities out into separate interfaces. Then, you can test your implementations of these interfaces individually (as units). If you find that you can't easily test something your class is doing, another class should probably be doing that.
It seems like you'd need at least the following:
An interface for your business logic.
An interface defining the request to the outside vendor.
An interface for your data repository.
Then you can test that business logic, the process of communicating with the outside vendor, and the process of saving to your database separately. You can then mock out those interfaces for testing your Run() method, simply ensuring that the methods are called as you expect.
To do this properly, the class's dependencies (the interfaces defined above) should ideally be passed in to its constructor (i.e. dependency injection), but that's another story.
My advice would be to let your tests help with the design of your code. If you are struggling to execute statements or functions then your class is doing too much. Follow the single-responsibility-priciple, add some interfaces (allowing you to mock out the complicated stuff), maybe even read Fowler's 'Refactoring' or Feather's 'Working With Legacy Code', these taught me more about TDD than any other book to date.
It sounds like your run method is trying to do too much I would separate it up but if you're overall design won't allow it.
I would consider making the internal members protected then inheriting from the class in your test class to test them. Be careful though I have run into gotchas doing this because it doesn't reset the classes state so Setup and TearDown methods are essential.
Simple answer is - it depends. I've written a lot of unit tests that test the behaviour of private methods; I've done this so that I can be happy that I've covered various inputs and scenarios against the methods.
Now, many people think that testing private methods is a bad idea, since it's the public methods that matter. I get this idea, but in my case the public method for these private calls was also just a simple Run() method. The logic of the private methods included reading from config files and performing tasks on the file system, all "behind the scenes".
Had I just created a unit test that called Run() then I would have felt that my tests were incomplete. I used MSTest to create accessors for my class, so that I could call the private methods and create various scenarios (such as what happens when I run out of disk space, etc).
I guess it's each to their own with this private method testing do/or don't do argument. My advice is that, if you feel that your tests are incomplete, in other words, require more coverage, then I'd recommend testing the private methods.
Thanks everyone for the comments. I believe you are right - I need to seperate out into more seperate classes. This is one of the first projects im doing using true TDD, in that I did no class design at all and am just writing stub code... I gotta admit, I love writing code like this and the fact I can justify it to my mangagment with years of backed up successful results is purely friggin awesome =).
The only thing I'm iffy about is over-engineering and suffering from class-bloat, when I could have just written unit tests against my private methods... I guess common sense and programmers gut have to be used here... ?
C#, nUnit, and Rhino Mocks, if that turns out to be applicable.
My quest with TDD continues as I attempt to wrap tests around a complicated function. Let's say I'm coding a form that, when saved, has to also save dependent objects within the form...answers to form questions, attachments if available, and "log" entries (such as "blahblah updated the form." or "blahblah attached a file."). This save function also fires off emails to various people depending on how the state of the form changed during the save function.
This means in order to fully test out the form's save function with all of its dependencies, I have to inject five or six data providers to test out this one function and make sure everything fired off in the right way and order. This is cumbersome when writing the multiple chained constructors for the form object to insert the mocked providers. I think I'm missing something, either in the way of refactoring or simply a better way to set the mocked data providers.
Should I further study refactoring methods to see how this function can be simplified? How's the observer pattern sound, so that the dependent objects detect when the parent form is saved and handle themselves? I know that people say to split out the function so it can be tested...meaning I test out the individual save functions of each dependent object, but not the save function of the form itself, which dictates how each should save themselves in the first place?
First, if you are following TDD, then you don't wrap tests around a complicated function. You wrap the function around your tests. Actually, even that's not right. You interweave your tests and functions, writing both at almost exactly the same time, with the tests just a little ahead of the functions. See The Three Laws of TDD.
When you follow these three laws, and are diligent about refactoring, then you never wind up with "a complicated function". Rather you wind up with many, tested, simple functions.
Now, on to your point. If you already have "a complicated function" and you want to wrap tests around it then you should:
Add your mocks explicitly, instead of through DI. (e.g. something horrible like a 'test' flag and an 'if' statement that selects the mocks instead of the real objects).
Write a few tests in order to cover the basic operation of the component.
Refactor mercilessly, breaking up the complicated function into many little simple functions, while running your cobbled together tests as often as possible.
Push the 'test' flag as high as possible. As you refactor, pass your data sources down to the small simple functions. Don't let the 'test' flag infect any but the topmost function.
Rewrite tests. As you refactor, rewrite as many tests as possible to call the simple little functions instead of the big top-level function. You can pass your mocks into the simple functions from your tests.
Get rid of the 'test' flag and determine how much DI you really need. Since you have tests written at the lower levels that can insert mocks through areguments, you probably don't need to mock out many data sources at the top level anymore.
If, after all this, the DI is still cumbersome, then think about injecting a single object that holds references to all your data sources. It's always easier to inject one thing rather than many.
Use an AutoMocking container. There is one written for RhinoMocks.
Imagine you have a class with a lot of dependencies injected via constructor injection. Here's what it looks like to set it up with RhinoMocks, no AutoMocking container:
private MockRepository _mocks;
private BroadcastListViewPresenter _presenter;
private IBroadcastListView _view;
private IAddNewBroadcastEventBroker _addNewBroadcastEventBroker;
private IBroadcastService _broadcastService;
private IChannelService _channelService;
private IDeviceService _deviceService;
private IDialogFactory _dialogFactory;
private IMessageBoxService _messageBoxService;
private ITouchScreenService _touchScreenService;
private IDeviceBroadcastFactory _deviceBroadcastFactory;
private IFileBroadcastFactory _fileBroadcastFactory;
private IBroadcastServiceCallback _broadcastServiceCallback;
private IChannelServiceCallback _channelServiceCallback;
[SetUp]
public void SetUp()
{
_mocks = new MockRepository();
_view = _mocks.DynamicMock<IBroadcastListView>();
_addNewBroadcastEventBroker = _mocks.DynamicMock<IAddNewBroadcastEventBroker>();
_broadcastService = _mocks.DynamicMock<IBroadcastService>();
_channelService = _mocks.DynamicMock<IChannelService>();
_deviceService = _mocks.DynamicMock<IDeviceService>();
_dialogFactory = _mocks.DynamicMock<IDialogFactory>();
_messageBoxService = _mocks.DynamicMock<IMessageBoxService>();
_touchScreenService = _mocks.DynamicMock<ITouchScreenService>();
_deviceBroadcastFactory = _mocks.DynamicMock<IDeviceBroadcastFactory>();
_fileBroadcastFactory = _mocks.DynamicMock<IFileBroadcastFactory>();
_broadcastServiceCallback = _mocks.DynamicMock<IBroadcastServiceCallback>();
_channelServiceCallback = _mocks.DynamicMock<IChannelServiceCallback>();
_presenter = new BroadcastListViewPresenter(
_addNewBroadcastEventBroker,
_broadcastService,
_channelService,
_deviceService,
_dialogFactory,
_messageBoxService,
_touchScreenService,
_deviceBroadcastFactory,
_fileBroadcastFactory,
_broadcastServiceCallback,
_channelServiceCallback);
_presenter.View = _view;
}
Now, here's the same thing with an AutoMocking container:
private MockRepository _mocks;
private AutoMockingContainer _container;
private BroadcastListViewPresenter _presenter;
private IBroadcastListView _view;
[SetUp]
public void SetUp()
{
_mocks = new MockRepository();
_container = new AutoMockingContainer(_mocks);
_container.Initialize();
_view = _mocks.DynamicMock<IBroadcastListView>();
_presenter = _container.Create<BroadcastListViewPresenter>();
_presenter.View = _view;
}
Easier, yes?
The AutoMocking container automatically creates mocks for every dependency in the constructor, and you can access them for testing like so:
using (_mocks.Record())
{
_container.Get<IChannelService>().Expect(cs => cs.ChannelIsBroadcasting(channel)).Return(false);
_container.Get<IBroadcastService>().Expect(bs => bs.Start(8));
}
Hope that helps. I know my testing life has been made a whole lot easier with the advent of the AutoMocking container.
You're right that it can be cumbersome.
Proponent of mocking methodology would point out that the code is written improperly to being with. That is, you shouldn't be constructing dependent objects inside this method. Rather, the injection API's should have functions that create the appropriate objects.
As for mocking up 6 different objects, that's true. However, if you also were unit-testing those systems, those objects should already have mocking infrastructure you can use.
Finally, use a mocking framework that does some of the work for you.
I don't have your code, but my first reaction is that your test is trying to tell you that your object has too many collaborators. In cases like this, I always find that there's a missing construct in there that should be packaged up into a higher level structure. Using an automocking container is just muzzling the feedback you're getting from your tests. See http://www.mockobjects.com/2007/04/test-smell-bloated-constructor.html for a longer discussion.
In this context, I usually find statements along the lines of "this indicates that your object has too many dependencies" or "your object has too many collaborators" to be a fairly specious claim. Of course a MVC controller or a form is going to be calling lots of different services and objects to fulfill its duties; it is, after all, sitting at the top layer of the application. You can smoosh some of these dependencies together into higher-level objects (say, a ShippingMethodRepository and a TransitTimeCalculator get combined into a ShippingRateFinder), but this only goes so far, especially for these top-level, presentation-oriented objects. That's one less object to mock, but you've just obfuscated the actual dependencies via one layer of indirection, not actually removed them.
One blasphemous piece of advice is to say that if you are dependency injecting an object and creating an interface for it that is quite unlikely to ever change (Are you really going to drop in a new MessageBoxService while changing your code? Really?), then don't bother. That dependency is part of the expected behavior of the object and you should just test them together since the integration test is where the real business value lies.
The other blasphemous piece of advice is that I usually see little utility in unit testing MVC controllers or Windows Forms. Everytime I see someone mocking the HttpContext and testing to see if a cookie was set, I want to scream. Who cares if the AccountController set a cookie? I don't. The cookie has nothing to do with treating the controller as a black box; an integration test is what is needed to test its functionality (hmm, a call to PrivilegedArea() failed after Login() in the integration test). This way, you avoid invalidating a million useless unit tests if the format of the login cookie ever changes.
Save the unit tests for the object model, save the integration tests for the presentation layer, and avoid mock objects when possible. If mocking a particular dependency is hard, it's time to be pragmatic: just don't do the unit test and write an integration test instead and stop wasting your time.
The simple answer is that code that you are trying to test is doing too much. I think sticking to the Single Responsibility Principle might help.
The Save button method should only contain a top-level calls to delegate things to other objects. These objects can then be abstracted through interfaces. Then when you test the Save button method, you only test the interaction with mocked objects.
The next step is to write tests to these lower-level classes, but thing should get easier since you only test these in isolation. If you need a complex test setup code, this is a good indicator of a bad design (or a bad testing approach).
Recommended reading:
Clean Code: A Handbook of Agile Software Craftsmanship
Google's guide to writing testable code
Constructor DI isn't the only way to do DI. Since you're using C#, if your constructor does no significant work you could use Property DI. That simplifies things greatly in terms of your object's constructors at the expense of complexity in your function. Your function must check for the nullity of any dependent properties and throw InvalidOperation if they're null, before it begins work.
When it is hard to test something, it is usually symptom of the code quality, that the code is not testable (mentioned in this podcast, IIRC). The recommendation is to refactor the code so that the code will be easy to test. Some heuristics for deciding how to split the code into classes are the SRP and OCP. For more specific instructions, it would be necessary to see the code in question.