Search Results

Search found 381 results on 16 pages for 'mocking'.

Page 1/16 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Auto Mocking using JustMock

    - by mehfuzh
    Auto mocking containers are designed to reduce the friction of keeping unit test beds in sync with the code being tested as systems are updated and evolve over time. This is one sentence how you define auto mocking. Of course this is a more or less formal. In a more informal way auto mocking containers are nothing but a tool to keep your tests synced so that you don’t have to go back and change tests every time you add a new dependency to your SUT or System Under Test. In Q3 2012 JustMock is shipped with built in auto mocking container. This will help developers to have all the existing fun they are having with JustMock plus they can now mock object with dependencies in a more elegant way and without needing to do the homework of managing the graph. If you are not familiar with auto mocking then I won't go ahead and educate you rather ask you to do so from contents that is already made available out there from community as this is way beyond the scope of this post. Moving forward, getting started with Justmock auto mocking is pretty simple. First, I have to reference Telerik.JustMock.Container.DLL from the installation folder along with Telerik.JustMock.DLL (of course) that it uses internally and next I will write my tests with mocking container. It's that simple! In this post first I will mock the target with dependencies using current method and going forward do the same with auto mocking container. In short the sample is all about a report builder that will go through all the existing reports, send email and log any exception in that process. This is somewhat my  report builder class looks like: Reporter class depends on the following interfaces: IReporBuilder: used to  create and get the available reports IReportSender: used to send the reports ILogger: used to log any exception. Now, if I just write the test without using an auto mocking container it might end up something like this: Now, it looks fine. However, the only issue is that I am creating the mock of each dependency that is sort of a grunt work and if you have ever changing list of dependencies then it becomes really hard to keep the tests in sync. The typical example is your ASP.NET MVC controller where the number of service dependencies grows along with the project. The same test if written with auto mocking container would look like: Here few things to observe: I didn't created mock for each dependencies There is no extra step creating the Reporter class and sending in the dependencies Since ILogger is not required for the purpose of this test therefore I can be completely ignorant of it. How cool is that ? Auto mocking in JustMock is just released and we also want to extend it even further using profiler that will let me resolve not just interfaces but concrete classes as well. But that of course starts the debate of code smell vs. working with legacy code. Feel free to send in your expert opinion in that regard using one of telerik’s official channels. Hope that helps

    Read the article

  • Mocking successive calls of similar type via sequential mocking

    - by mehfuzh
    In this post , i show how you can benefit from  sequential mocking feature[In JustMock] for setting up expectations with successive calls of same type.  To start let’s first consider the following dummy database and entity class. public class Person {     public virtual string Name { get; set; }     public virtual int Age { get; set; } }   public interface IDataBase {     T Get<T>(); } Now, our test goal is to return different entity for successive calls on IDataBase.Get<T>(). By default, the behavior in JustMock is override , which is similar to other popular mocking tools. By override it means that the tool will consider always the latest user setup. Therefore, the first example will return the latest entity every-time and will fail in line #12: Person person1 = new Person { Age = 30, Name = "Kosev" }; Person person2 = new Person { Age = 80, Name = "Mihail" };   var database = Mock.Create<IDataBase>();   Queue<Person> queue = new Queue<Person>();   Mock.Arrange(() => database.Get<Person>()).Returns(() => queue.Dequeue()); Mock.Arrange(() => database.Get<Person>()).Returns(person2);   // this will fail Assert.Equal(person1.GetHashCode(), database.Get<Person>().GetHashCode());   Assert.Equal(person2.GetHashCode(), database.Get<Person>().GetHashCode()); We can solve it the following way using a Queue and that removes the item from bottom on each call: Person person1 = new Person { Age = 30, Name = "Kosev" }; Person person2 = new Person { Age = 80, Name = "Mihail" };   var database = Mock.Create<IDataBase>();   Queue<Person> queue = new Queue<Person>();   queue.Enqueue(person1); queue.Enqueue(person2);   Mock.Arrange(() => database.Get<Person>()).Returns(queue.Dequeue());   Assert.Equal(person1.GetHashCode(), database.Get<Person>().GetHashCode()); Assert.Equal(person2.GetHashCode(), database.Get<Person>().GetHashCode()); This will ensure that right entity is returned but this is not an elegant solution. So, in JustMock we introduced a  new option that lets you set up your expectations sequentially. Like: Person person1 = new Person { Age = 30, Name = "Kosev" }; Person person2 = new Person { Age = 80, Name = "Mihail" };   var database = Mock.Create<IDataBase>();   Mock.Arrange(() => database.Get<Person>()).Returns(person1).InSequence(); Mock.Arrange(() => database.Get<Person>()).Returns(person2).InSequence();   Assert.Equal(person1.GetHashCode(), database.Get<Person>().GetHashCode()); Assert.Equal(person2.GetHashCode(), database.Get<Person>().GetHashCode()); The  “InSequence” modifier will tell the mocking tool to return the expected result as in the order it is specified by user. The solution though pretty simple and but neat(to me) and way too simpler than using a collection to solve this type of cases. Hope that helps P.S. The example shown in my blog is using interface don’t require a profiler  and you can even use a notepad and build it referencing Telerik.JustMock.dll, run it with GUI tools and it will work. But this feature also applies to concrete methods that includes JM profiler and can be implemented for more complex scenarios.

    Read the article

  • Mscorlib mocking minus the attribute

    - by mehfuzh
    Mocking .net framework members (a.k.a. mscorlib) is always a daunting task. It’s the breed of static and final methods and full of surprises. Technically intercepting mscorlib members is completely different from other class libraries. This is the reason it is dealt differently. Generally, I prefer writing a wrapper around an mscorlib member (Ex. File.Delete(“abc.txt”)) and expose it via interface but that is not always an easy task if you already have years old codebase. While mocking mscorlib members first thing that comes to people’s mind is DateTime.Now. If you Google through, you will find tons of example dealing with just that. May be it’s the most important class that we can’t ignore and I will create an example using JustMock Q2 with the same. In Q2 2012, we just get rid of the MockClassAtrribute for mocking mscorlib members. JustMock is already attribute free for mocking class libraries. We radically think that vendor specific attributes only makes your code smelly and therefore decided the same for mscorlib. Now, I want to fake DateTime.Now for the following class: public class NestedDateTime { public DateTime GetDateTime() { return DateTime.Now; } } It is the simplest one that can be. The first thing here is that I tell JustMock “hey we have a DateTime.Now in NestedDateTime class that we want to mock”. To do so, during the test initialization I write this: .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; } Mock.Replace(() => DateTime.Now).In<NestedDateTime>(x => x.GetDateTime());.csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; } I can also define it for all the members in the class, but that’s just a waste of extra watts. Mock.Replace(() => DateTime.Now).In<NestedDateTime>(); Now question, why should I bother doing it? The answer is that I am not using attribute and with this approach, I can mock any framework members not just File, FileInfo or DateTime. Here to note that we already mock beyond the three but when nested around a complex class, JustMock was not intercepting it correctly. Therefore, we decided to get rid of the attribute altogether fixing the issue. Finally, I write my test as usual. [TestMethod] public void ShouldAssertMockingDateTimeFromNestedClass() { var expected = new DateTime(2000, 1, 1); Mock.Arrange(() => DateTime.Now).Returns(expected); Assert.Equal(new NestedDateTime().GetDateTime(), expected); } .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; } That’s it, we are good. Now let me do the same for a random one, let’s say I want mock a member from DriveInfo: Mock.Replace<DriveInfo[]>(() => DriveInfo.GetDrives()).In<MsCorlibFixture>(x => x.ShouldReturnExpectedDriveWhenMocked()); Moving forward, I write my test: [TestMethod] public void ShouldReturnExpectedDriveWhenMocked() { Mock.Arrange(() => DriveInfo.GetDrives()).MustBeCalled(); DriveInfo.GetDrives(); Mock.Assert(()=> DriveInfo.GetDrives()); } .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; } Here is one convention; you have to replace the mscorlib member before executing the target method that contains it. Here the call to DriveInfo is within the MsCorlibFixture therefore it should be defined during test initialization or before executing the test method. Hope this gives you the idea.

    Read the article

  • Mocking successive calls of similar type via sequential mocking

    In this post , i show how you can benefit from  sequential mocking feature[In JustMock] for setting up expectations with successive calls of same type.  To start lets first consider the following dummy database and entity class. public class Person { public virtual string Name { get; set; } public virtual int Age { get; set; } }   public interface IDataBase { T Get<T>(); } Now, our test goal is to return different entity for successive calls on IDataBase.Get<T>()....Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • Mocking concrete class - Not recommended

    - by Mik378
    I've just read an excerpt of "Growing Object-Oriented Software" book which explains some reasons why mocking concrete class is not recommended. Here some sample code of a unit-test for the MusicCentre class: public class MusicCentreTest { @Test public void startsCdPlayerAtTimeRequested() { final MutableTime scheduledTime = new MutableTime(); CdPlayer player = new CdPlayer() { @Override public void scheduleToStartAt(Time startTime) { scheduledTime.set(startTime); } } MusicCentre centre = new MusicCentre(player); centre.startMediaAt(LATER); assertEquals(LATER, scheduledTime.get()); } } And his first explanation: The problem with this approach is that it leaves the relationship between the objects implicit. I hope we've made clear by now that the intention of Test-Driven Development with Mock Objects is to discover relationships between objects. If I subclass, there's nothing in the domain code to make such a relationship visible, just methods on an object. This makes it harder to see if the service that supports this relationship might be relevant elsewhere and I'll have to do the analysis again next time I work with the class. I can't figure out exactly what he means when he says: This makes it harder to see if the service that supports this relationship might be relevant elsewhere and I'll have to do the analysis again next time I work with the class. I understand that the service corresponds to MusicCentre's method called startMediaAt. What does he mean by "elsewhere"? The complete excerpt is here: http://www.mockobjects.com/2007/04/test-smell-mocking-concrete-classes.html

    Read the article

  • Using mocks to set up object even if you will not be mocking any behavior or verifying any interaction with it?

    - by smp7d
    When building a unit test, is it appropriate to use a mocking tool to assist you in setting up an object even if you will not be mocking any behavior or verifying any interaction with that object? Here is a simple example in pseudo-code: //an object we actually want to mock Object someMockedObject = Mock(Object.class); EqualityChecker checker = new EqualityChecker(someMockedObject); //an object we are mocking only to avoid figuring out how to instantiate or //tying ourselves to some constructor that may be removed in the future ComplicatedObject someObjectThatIsHardToInstantiate = Mock(ComplicatedObject.class); //set the expectation on the mock When(someMockedObject).equals(someObjectThatIsHardToInstantiate).return(false); Assert(equalityChecker.check(someObjectThatIsHardToInstantiate)).isFalse(); //verify that the mock was interacted with properly Verify(someMockedObject).equals(someObjectThatIsHardToInstantiate).oneTime(); Is it appropriate to mock ComplicatedObject in this scenario?

    Read the article

  • In few words, what can be said about Mocking process in TDD

    - by Richard77
    Hello, I'd like to brush my brain to avoid confusions. In few words, what can be said about Mocking process in TDD What's the GREAT idea behind MOCKING? Mocking frameworks are meant to be used only to avoid accessing DB during tests or they can be used for something else? For new comers (like me), are all the frameworks equal or I need to choose one for this or that reason? Thanks for helping

    Read the article

  • Is mocking for unit testing appropriate in this scenario?

    - by Vinoth Kumar
    I have written around 20 methods in Java and all of them call some web services. None of these web services are available yet. To carry on with the server side coding, I hard-coded the results that the web-service is expected to give. Can we unit test these methods? As far as I know, unit testing is mocking the input values and see how the program responds. Are mocking both input and ouput values meaningful? Edit : The answers here suggest I should be writing unit test cases. Now, how can I write it without modifying the existing code ? Consider the following sample code (hypothetical code) : public int getAge() { Service s = locate("ageservice"); // line 1 int age = s.execute(empId); // line 2 return age; // line 3 } Now How do we mock the output ? Right now , I am commenting out 'line 1' and replacing line 2 with int age= 50. Is this right ? Can anyone point me to the right way of doing it ?

    Read the article

  • Is Google Mock a good mocking framework ?

    - by des4maisons
    I am pioneering unit testing efforts at my company, and need need to choose a mocking framework to use. I have never used a mocking framework before. We have already chosen Google Test, so using Google Mock would be nice. However, my initial impressions after looking at Google Mock's tutorial are: The need for re-declaring each method in the mocking class with a MOCK_METHODn macro seems unnecessary and seems to go against the DRY principle. Their matchers (eg, the '_' in EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(_));) and the order of matching seem almost too powerful. Like, it would be easy to say something you don't mean, and miss bugs that way. I have high confidence in google's developers, and low confidence in my own ability to judge mocking frameworks, never having used them before. So my question is: Are these valid concerns? Or is there no better way to define a mock object, and are the matchers intuitive to use in practice? I would appreciate answers from anyone who has used Google Mock before, and comparisons to other C++ frameworks would be helpful.

    Read the article

  • How do functional languages handle a mocking situation when using Interface based design?

    - by Programmin Tool
    Typically in C# I use dependency injection to help with mocking; public void UserService { public UserService(IUserQuery userQuery, IUserCommunicator userCommunicator, IUserValidator userValidator) { UserQuery = userQuery; UserValidator = userValidator; UserCommunicator = userCommunicator; } ... public UserResponseModel UpdateAUserName(int userId, string userName) { var result = UserValidator.ValidateUserName(userName) if(result.Success) { var user = UserQuery.GetUserById(userId); if(user == null) { throw new ArgumentException(); user.UserName = userName; UserCommunicator.UpdateUser(user); } } ... } ... } public class WhenGettingAUser { public void AndTheUserDoesNotExistThrowAnException() { var userQuery = Substitute.For<IUserQuery>(); userQuery.GetUserById(Arg.Any<int>).Returns(null); var userService = new UserService(userQuery); AssertionExtensions.ShouldThrow<ArgumentException>(() => userService.GetUserById(-121)); } } Now in something like F#: if I don't go down the hybrid path, how would I test workflow situations like above that normally would touch the persistence layer without using Interfaces/Mocks? I realize that every step above would be tested on its own and would be kept as atomic as possible. Problem is that at some point they all have to be called in line, and I'll want to make sure everything is called correctly.

    Read the article

  • Mocking my custom dependencies with Spring

    - by Brabster
    Is is possible to declare mocks using some mocking framework for my own classes declaratively with Spring? I know there are some standard mocks available in Spring, but I'd like to be able to mock out my own classes declaratively too. Just to check I'm not going about this the wrong way: the idea is to have a pair of JUnit test and Spring config for each integration test I want to do, mocking everything except the specific integration aspect I'm testing (say I had a dependency on two different data services, test one at a time) and minimising the amount of repeated Java code specifying the mocks.

    Read the article

  • Mocking attributes - C#

    - by bob
    I use custom Attributes in a project and I would like to integrate them in my unit-tests. Now I use Rhino Mocks to create my mocks but I don't see a way to add my attributes (and there parameters) to them. Did I miss something, or is it not possible? Other mocking framework? Or do I have to create dummy implementations with my attributes? example: I have an interface in a plugin-architecture (IPlugin) and there is an attribute to add meta info to a property. Then I look for properties with this attribute in the plugin implementation for extra processing (storing its value, mark as gui read-only...) Now when I create a mock can I add easily an attribute to a property or the object instance itself? EDIT: I found a post with the same question - link. The answer there is not 100% and it is Java... EDIT 2: It can be done... searched some more (on SO) and found 2 related questions (+ answers) here and here Now, is this already implemented in one or another mocking framework?

    Read the article

  • Mocking ImportError in Python

    - by Attila Oláh
    I'm trying this for almost two hours now, without any luck. I have a module that looks like this: try: from zope.cpomonent import queryUtility # and things like this except ImportError: # do some fallback operations <-- how to test this? Later in the code: try: queryUtility(foo) except NameError: # do some fallback actions <-- this one is easy with mocking # zope.component.queryUtility to raise a NameError Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Mocking using 'traditional' Record/Replay vs Moq model

    - by fung
    I'm new to mocks and am deciding on a mock framework. The Moq home quotes Currently, it's the only mocking library that goes against the generalized and somewhat unintuitive (especially for novices) Record/Reply approach from all other frameworks. Can anyone explain simply what the Record/Replay approach is and how Moq differs? What are the pros and cons of each especially from the point of deciding a framework? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Advice on Mocking System Calls

    - by Robert S. Barnes
    I have a class which calls getaddrinfo for DNS look ups. During testing I want to simulate various error conditions involving this system call. What's the recommended method for mocking system calls like this? I'm using Boost.Test for my unit testing.

    Read the article

  • Mocking imported modules in Python

    - by Evgenyt
    I'm trying to implement unit tests for function that uses imported external objects. For example helpers.py is: import os import pylons def some_func(arg): ... var1 = os.path.exist(...) var2 = os.path.getmtime(...) var3 = pylons.request.environ['HTTP_HOST'] ... So when I'm creating unit test for it I do some mocking (minimock in my case) and replacing references to pylons.request and os.path: import helpers def test_some_func(): helpers.pylons.request = minimock.Mock("pylons.request") helpers.pylons.request.environ = { 'HTTP_HOST': "localhost" } helpers.os.path = minimock.Mock(....) ... some_func(...) # assert ... This does not look good for me. Is there any other better way or strategy to substitute imported function/objects in Python?

    Read the article

  • How do Java mocking frameworks work?

    - by Amir Rachum
    This is NOT a question about which is the best framework, etc. I have never used a mocking framework and I'm a bit puzzled by the idea. How does it know how to create the mock object? Is it done in runtime or generates a file? How do you know its behavior? And most importantly - what is the work flow of using such a framework (what is the step-by-step for creating a test). Can anyone explain? You can choose whichever framework you like for example, just say what it is.

    Read the article

  • Navigation properties not set when using ADO.NET Mocking Context Generator

    - by olenak
    I am using ADO.NET Mocking Context Generator plugin for my Entity Framework model. I have not started on using mocks yet, just trying to fix generated entity and context classes to make application run as before without exceptions. I've already fixed T4 template to support SaveChanges method. Now I've got another problem: when I try to access any navigation property it is set to null. All the primitive fields inherited from DB table are set and correct. So what I am doing is the following using (var context = MyContext()) { var order = context.Orders.Where(p => p.Id == 7); var product = order.Products; } in this case product is set to null. But that was not a case while using default code generator, it used to return real product object. Thanks ahead for any suggestions!

    Read the article

  • Mocking inter-method dependencies

    - by Zecrates
    I've recently started using mock objects in my tests, but I'm still very inexperienced with them and unsure of how to use them in some cases. At the moment I'm struggling with how to mock inter-method dependencies (calling method A has an effect on the results of method B), and whether it should even be mocked (in the sense of using a mocking framework) at all? Take for example a Java Iterator? It is easy enough to mock the next() call to return the correct values, but how do I mock hasNext(), which depends on how many times next() has been called? Currently I'm using a List.Iterator as I could find no way to properly mock one. Does Martin Fowler's distinction between mocks and stubs come into play here? Should I rather write my own IteratorMock? Also consider the following example. The method to be tested calls mockObject.setX() and later on mockObject.getX(). Is there any way that I can create such a mock (without writing my own) which will allow the returned value of getX to depend on what was passed to setX?

    Read the article

  • Mocking objects with complex Lambda Expressions as parameters

    - by iCe
    Hi there, I´m encountering this problem trying to mock some objects that receive complex lambda expressions in my projects. Mostly with with proxy objects that receive this type of delegate: Func<Tobj, Fun<TParam1, TParam2, TResult>> I have tried to use Moq as well as RhinoMocks to acomplish mocking those types of objects, however both fail. (Moq fails with NotSupportedException, and in RhinoMocks simpy does not satisgy expectation). This is simplified example of what I´m trying to do: I have a Calculator object that does calculations: public class Calculator { public Calculator() { } public int Add(int x, int y) { var result = x + y; return result; } public int Substract(int x, int y) { var result = x - y; return result; } } I need to validate parameters on every method in the Calculator class, so to keep with the Single Responsability principle, I create a validator class. I wire everything up using a Proxy class, that prevents having duplicate code: public class CalculatorProxy : CalculatorExample.ICalculatorProxy { private ILimitsValidator _validator; public CalculatorProxy(Calculator _calc, ILimitsValidator _validator) { this.Calculator = _calc; this._validator = _validator; } public int Operation(Func&lt;Calculator, Func&lt;int, int, int&gt;&gt; operation, int x, int y) { _validator.ValidateArgs(x, y); var calcMethod = operation(this.Calculator); var result = calcMethod(x, y); _validator.ValidateResult(result); return result; } public Calculator Calculator { get; private set; } } Now, I´m testing a component that does use the CalculatorProxy, so I want to mock it, for example using Rhino Mocks: [TestMethod] public void ParserWorksWithCalcultaroProxy() { var calculatorProxyMock = MockRepository.GenerateMock&lt;ICalculatorProxy&gt;(); calculatorProxyMock.Expect(x =&gt; x.Calculator).Return(_calculator); calculatorProxyMock.Expect(x =&gt; x.Operation(c =&gt; c.Add, 2, 2)).Return(4); var mathParser = new MathParser(calculatorProxyMock); mathParser.ProcessExpression("2 + 2"); calculatorProxyMock.VerifyAllExpectations(); } However I cannot get it to work! Any ideas about how this can be done? Thanks a lot!

    Read the article

  • Mocking a concrete class : templates and avoiding conditional compilation

    - by AshirusNW
    I'm trying to testing a concrete object with this sort of structure. class Database { public: Database(Server server) : server_(server) {} int Query(const char* expression) { server_.Connect(); return server_.ExecuteQuery(); } private: Server server_; }; i.e. it has no virtual functions, let alone a well-defined interface. I want to a fake database which calls mock services for testing. Even worse, I want the same code to be either built against the real version or the fake so that the same testing code can both: Test the real Database implementation - for integration tests Test the fake implementation, which calls mock services To solve this, I'm using a templated fake, like this: #ifndef INTEGRATION_TESTS class FakeDatabase { public: FakeDatabase() : realDb_(mockServer_) {} int Query(const char* expression) { MOCK_EXPECT_CALL(mockServer_, Query, 3); return realDb_.Query(); } private: // in non-INTEGRATION_TESTS builds, Server is a mock Server with // extra testing methods that allows mocking Server mockServer_; Database realDb_; }; #endif template <class T> class TestDatabaseContainer { public: int Query(const char* expression) { int result = database_.Query(expression); std::cout << "LOG: " << result << endl; return result; } private: T database_; }; Edit: Note the fake Database must call the real Database (but with a mock Server). Now to switch between them I'm planning the following test framework: class DatabaseTests { public: #ifdef INTEGRATION_TESTS typedef TestDatabaseContainer<Database> TestDatabase ; #else typedef TestDatabaseContainer<FakeDatabase> TestDatabase ; #endif TestDatabase& GetDb() { return _testDatabase; } private: TestDatabase _testDatabase; }; class QueryTestCase : public DatabaseTests { public: void TestStep1() { ASSERT(GetDb().Query(static_cast<const char *>("")) == 3); return; } }; I'm not a big fan of that compile-time switching between the real and the fake. So, my question is: Whether there's a better way of switching between Database and FakeDatabase? For instance, is it possible to do it at runtime in a clean fashion? I like to avoid #ifdefs. Also, if anyone has a better way of making a fake class that mimics a concrete class, I'd appreciate it. I don't want to have templated code all over the actual test code (QueryTestCase class). Feel free to critique the code style itself, too. You can see a compiled version of this code on codepad.

    Read the article

  • Mocking the CAL EventAggregator with Moq

    - by toxvaerd
    Hi, I'm using the Composite Application Library's event aggregator, and would like to create a mock for the IEventAggregator interface, for use in my unit test. I'm planning on using Moq for this task, and an example test so far looks something like this: var mockEventAggregator = new Mock<IEventAggregator>(); var mockImportantEvent = new Mock<ImportantEvent>(); mockEventAggregator.Setup(e => e.GetEvent<SomeOtherEvent>()).Returns(new Mock<SomeOtherEvent>().Object); mockEventAggregator.Setup(e => e.GetEvent<SomeThirdEvent>()).Returns(new Mock<SomeThirdEvent>().Object); // ... mockEventAggregator.Setup(e => e.GetEvent<ImportantEvent>()).Returns(mockImportantEvent.Object); mockImportantEvent.Setup(e => e.Publish(It.IsAny<ImportantEventArgs>())); // ...Actual test... mockImportantEvent.VerifyAll(); This works fine, but I would like know, if there is some clever way to avoid having to define an empty mock for every event-type my code might encounter (SomeOtherEvent, SomeThirdEvent, ...)? I could of course define all my events this way in a [TestInitialize] method, but I would like to know if there is a more clever way? :-)

    Read the article

  • Mocking User.Identity in ASP.NET MVC

    - by Trey Carroll
    I need to create Unit Tests for an ASP.NET MVC 2.0 web site. The site uses Windows Authentication. I've been reading up on the necessity to mock the HTTP context for code that deals with the HttpContext. I feel like I'm starting to get a handle on the DI pattern as well. (Give the class an attribute of type IRepository and then pass in a Repository object when you instantiate the controller.) What I don't understand, however, is the proper way to Mock the Windows Principal object available through User.Identity. Is this part of the HttpContext? Does any body have a link to an article that demonstrates this (or a recommendation for a book)? Thanks, Trey Carroll

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >