Search Results

Search found 544 results on 22 pages for 'tdd'.

Page 6/22 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

  • Test Driven Development Code Order

    - by Bobby Kostadinov
    I am developing my first project using test driven development. I am using Zend Framework and PHPUnit. Currently my project is at 100% code coverage but I am not sure I understand in what order I am supposed to write my code. Am I supposed to write my test FIRST with what my objects are expected to do or write my objects and then test them? Ive been working on completing a controller/model and then writing at test for it but I am not sure this is what TDD is about? Any advice? For example, I wrote my Auth plugin and my Auth controller and tested that they work properly in my browser, and then I sat down to write the tests for them, which proved that there were some logical errors in the code that did work in the browser.

    Read the article

  • Introduce unit testing when codebase is already available

    - by McMannus
    I've been working on a project in Flex for three years now without unit testing. The simple reason for that is the fact that I just didn't realize the importance of unit testing when being at the beginning of studies at university. Now my attitude towards testing changed completely and therefore I want to introduce it to the existing project (about 25000LOC). In order to do it, there are two approaches to choose from: 1) Discard the existing codebase and start from scratch with TDD 2) Write the tests and try to make them pass by changing the existing code Well, I would appreciate not having to write everything from scratch but I think by doing this, the design would be much better. What would you advise me to do? Thanks for replies in advance! Jan

    Read the article

  • Moving from mock to real objects?

    - by jjchiw
    I'm like doing TDD so I started everything mocking objects, creating interface, stubbing, great. The design seems to work, now I'll implement the stuff, a lot of the code used in the stubs are going to be reused in my real implementation yay! Now should I duplicate the tests to use the real object implementation (but keeping the mocks object of the sensitive stuff like Database and "services" that are out of my context (http calls, etc...)) Or just change the mocks and stubs of the actual tests to use the real objects....... So the question is that, keep two tests or replace the stubs, mocks? And after that, I should keep designing with the mocks, stubs or just go with real objects? (Just making myself clear I'll keep the mock object of the sensitive stuff like database and services that are out of my context, in both situations.)

    Read the article

  • « Le TDD est mort » pour le créateur de Ruby on rails, une position qui divise la communauté agile

    Le TDD est mort ? Non, pas vraiment, peut-être que oui La communauté agile taraudée par un débat autour du TDD« Le TDD est mort ? Ou pas ? » Telle est la question qui taraude l'esprit de la communauté agile en ce moment, vu l'importance du TDD (Test Driven Development ? Développement piloté par les tests) dans l'une des méthodes agiles les plus réputées : la méthode XP.À l'origine de ce débat houleux, David Heinemeier Hansson (DHH) auteur de Ruby on rails et fondateur du Basecamp et ses deux posts...

    Read the article

  • Do abstractions have to reduce code readability?

    - by Martin Blore
    A good developer I work with told me recently about some difficulty he had in implementing a feature in some code we had inherited; he said the problem was that the code was difficult to follow. From that, I looked deeper into the product and realised how difficult it was to see the code path. It used so many interfaces and abstract layers, that trying to understand where things began and ended was quite difficult. It got me thinking about the times I had looked at past projects (before I was so aware of clean code principles) and found it extremely difficult to get around in the project, mainly because my code navigation tools would always land me at an interface. It would take a lot of extra effort to find the concrete implementation or where something was wired up in some plugin type architecture. I know some developers strictly turn down dependency injection containers for this very reason. It confuses the path of the software so much that the difficulty of code navigation is exponentially increased. My question is: when a framework or pattern introduces so much overhead like this, is it worth it? Is it a symptom of a poorly implemented pattern? I guess a developer should look to the bigger picture of what that abstractions brings to the project to help them get through the frustration. Usually though, it's difficult to make them see that big picture. I know I've failed to sell the needs of IOC and DI with TDD. For those developers, use of those tools just cramps code readability far too much.

    Read the article

  • The art of Unit Testing with Examples in .NET

    - by outcoldman
    First time when I familiarized with unit testing was 5 or 6 years ago. It was start of my developing career. I remember that somebody told me about code coverage. At that time I didn’t write any Unit tests. Guy, who was my team lead, told me “Do you see operator if with three conditions? You should check all of these conditions”. So, after that I had written some code, I should go to interface and try to invoke all code which I wrote from user interface. Nice? At current time I know little more about tests and unit testing. I have not participated in projects, designed by Test Driven Development (TDD). Basics of my knowledge are a spying code of my colleagues, some articles and screencasts. I had decide that I should know much more, and became a real professional of unit testing, this is why I had start to read book The art of Unit Testing with Examples in .NET. More than, in my current job place looks like I’m just one who writing unit tests for my code. I should show good examples of my tests. ,a href="http://outcoldman.ru/en/blog/show/267"Read more...

    Read the article

  • Should we test all our methods?

    - by Zenzen
    So today I had a talk with my teammate about unit testing. The whole thing started when he asked me "hey, where are the tests for that class, I see only one?". The whole class was a manager (or a service if you prefer to call it like that) and almost all the methods were simply delegating stuff to a DAO so it was similar to: SomeClass getSomething(parameters) { return myDao.findSomethingBySomething(parameters); } A kind of boilerplate with no logic (or at least I do not consider such simple delegation as logic) but a useful boilerplate in most cases (layer separation etc.). And we had a rather lengthy discussion whether or not I should unit test it (I think that it is worth mentioning that I did fully unit test the DAO). His main arguments being that it was not TDD (obviously) and that someone might want to see the test to check what this method does (I do not know how it could be more obvious) or that in the future someone might want to change the implementation and add new (or more like "any") logic to it (in which case I guess someone should simply test that logic). This made me think, though. Should we strive for the highest test coverage %? Or is it simply an art for art's sake then? I simply do not see any reason behind testing things like: getters and setters (unless they actually have some logic in them) "boilerplate" code Obviously a test for such a method (with mocks) would take me less than a minute but I guess that is still time wasted and a millisecond longer for every CI. Are there any rational/not "flammable" reasons to why one should test every single (or as many as he can) line of code?

    Read the article

  • Unit testing and Test Driven Development questions

    - by Theomax
    I'm working on an ASP.NET MVC website which performs relatively complex calculations as one of its functions. This functionality was developed some time ago (before I started working on the website) and defects have occurred whereby the calculations are not being calculated properly (basically these calculations are applied to each user which has certain flags on their record etc). Note; these defects have only been observed by users thus far, and not yet investigated in code while debugging. My questions are: Because the existing unit tests all pass and therefore do not indicate that the defects that have been reported exist; does this suggest the original code that was implemented is incorrect? i.e either the requirements were incorrect and were coded accordingly or just not coded as they were supposed to be coded? If I use the TDD approach, would I disgregard the existing unit tests as they don't show there are any problems with the calculations functionality - and I start by making some failing unit tests which test/prove there are these problems occuring, and then add code to make them pass? Note; if it's simply a bug that is occurring that can be found while debugging the code, do the unit tests need to be updated since they are already passing?

    Read the article

  • What's wrong performing unit test against concrete implementation if your frameworks are not going to change?

    - by palm snow
    First a bit of background: We are re-architecting our product suite that was written 10 years ago and served its purpose. One thing that we cannot change is the database schema as we have 500+ client base using this system. Our db schema has over 150+ tables. We have decided on using Entity Framework 4.1 as DAL and still evaluating various frameworks for storing our business logic. I am investigation to bring unit testing into the mix but I also confused as to how far I need to go with setting up a full blown TDD environment. One aspect of setting up unit testing is by getting into implementing Repository, unit of work and mocking frameworks etc. This mean there will be cost and investment on the code-bloat associated with all these frameworks. I understand some of this could be auto-generated but when it comes to things like behaviors, that will be mostly hand written. Just to be clear, I am not questioning the important of unit testing your code. I am just not sure we need all its components (like repository, mocking etc.) when we are fairly certain of storage mechanism/framework (SQL Server/Entity Framework). All that code bloat with generic repositories make sense when you need a generic layers with ability to change this whenever you like however its very likely a YAGNI in our case. What we need is more of integration testing where we can unit-test our code with concrete repository objects and test data in database. In this scenario, just running integration test seem to be more beneficial in our case. Any thoughts if I am missing any thing here?

    Read the article

  • Are there any good resources for refactoring existing C# code to use LINQ while keeping your tests passing?

    - by Paddyslacker
    I've been teaching myself a little LINQ and an exercise I thought would be useful was to take my existing Project Euler C# code, which I built using Test Driven Development and gradually convert it to LINQ. I realise that LINQ is not always the best solution for all of the Project Euler problems, but I don't want to get into that here. I'm wondering whether or not it's feasible to refactor "traditional" OO C# code to use LINQ and functional programming syntax whilst keeping all of your tests passing. I can't find a way to make the tiny steps I'm used to making using TDD when converting to LINQ and this is a roadblock for me. I seem to have to make large changes to come up with a single function that I then replace whole chunks of my code with. I realise I could write this from scratch in LINQ, but in the real world, I'd like to be able to replace parts of my existing C# code to take advantage of LINQ where appropriate. Has anyone been successful with this approach? What resources did you find useful for refactoring existing C# code to use LINQ whilst taking a Test Driven Development approach?

    Read the article

  • Is it OK to introduce methods that are used only during unit tests?

    - by Mchl
    Recently I was TDDing a factory method. The method was to create either a plain object, or an object wrapped in a decorator. The decorated object could be of one of several types all extending StrategyClass. In my test I wanted to check, if the class of returned object is as expected. That's easy when plain object os returned, but what to do when it's wrapped within a decorator? I code in PHP so I could use ext/Reflection to find out a class of wrapped object, but it seemed to me to be overcomplicating things, and somewhat agains rules of TDD. Instead I decided to introduce getClassName() that would return object's class name when called from StrategyClass. When called from the decorator however, it would return the value returned by the same method in decorated object. Some code to make it more clear: interface StrategyInterface { public function getClassName(); } abstract class StrategyClass implements StrategyInterface { public function getClassName() { return \get_class($this); } } abstract class StrategyDecorator implements StrategyInterface { private $decorated; public function __construct(StrategyClass $decorated) { $this->decorated = $decorated; } public function getClassName() { return $this->decorated->getClassName(); } } And a PHPUnit test /** * @dataProvider providerForTestGetStrategy * @param array $arguments * @param string $expected */ public function testGetStrategy($arguments, $expected) { $this->assertEquals( __NAMESPACE__.'\\'.$expected, $this->object->getStrategy($arguments)->getClassName() ) } //below there's another test to check if proper decorator is being used My point here is: is it OK to introduce such methods, that have no other use than to make unit tests easier? Somehow it doesn't feel right to me.

    Read the article

  • Do unit tests sometimes break encapsulation?

    - by user1288851
    I very often hear the following: "If you want to test private methods, you'd better put that in another class and expose it." While sometimes that's the case and we have a hiding concept inside our class, other times you end up with classes that have the same attributes (or, worst, every attribute of one class become a argument on a method in the other class) and exposes functionality that is, in fact, implementation detail. Specially on TDD, when you refactor a class with public methods out of a previous tested class, that class is now part of your interface, but has no tests to it (since you refactored it, and is a implementation detail). Now, I may be not finding an obvious better answer, but if my answer is the "correct", that means that sometimes writting unit tests can break encapsulation, and divide the same responsibility into different classes. A simple example would be testing a setter method when a getter is not actually needed for anything in the real code. Please when aswering don't provide simple answers to specific cases I may have written. Rather, try to explain more of the generic case and theoretical approach. And this is neither language specific. Thanks in advance. EDIT: The answer given by Matthew Flynn was really insightful, but didn't quite answer the question. Altough he made the fair point that you either don't test private methods or extract them because they really are other concern and responsibility (or at least that was what I could understand from his answer), I think there are situations where unit testing private methods is useful. My primary example is when you have a class that has one responsibility but the output (or input) that it gives (takes) is just to complex. For example, a hashing function. There's no good way to break a hashing function apart and mantain cohesion and encapsulation. However, testing a hashing function can be really tough, since you would need to calculate by hand (you can't use code calculation to test code calculation!) the hashing, and test multiple cases where the hash changes. In that way (and this may be a question worth of its own topic) I think private method testing is the best way to handle it. Now, I'm not sure if I should ask another question, or ask it here, but are there any better way to test such complex output (input)? OBS: Please, if you think I should ask another question on that topic, leave a comment. :)

    Read the article

  • TDD - Red-Light-Green_Light:: A critical view

    - by Renso
    Subject: The concept of red-light-green-light for TDD/BDD style testing has been around since the dawn of time (well almost). Having written thousands of tests using this approach I find myself questioning the validity of the principle The issue: False positive or a valid test strategy that can be trusted? A critical view: I agree that the red-green-light concept has some validity, but who has ever written 2000 tests for a system that goes through a ton of chnages due to the organic nature fo the application and does not have to change, delete or restructure their existing tests? If you asnwer to the latter question is" "Yes I had a situation(s) where I had to refactor my code and it caused me to have to rewrite/change/delete my existing tests", read on, else press CTRL+ALT+Del :-) Once a test has been written, failed the test (red light), and then you comlpete your code and now get the green light for the last test, the test for that functionality is now in green light mode. It can never return to red light again as long as the test exists, even if the test itself is not changed, and only the code it tests is changed to fail the test. Why you ask? because the reason for the initial red-light when you created the test is not guaranteed to have triggered the initial red-light result for the same reasons it is now failing after a code change has been made. Furthermore, when the same test is changed to compile correctly in case of a compile-breaking code change, the green-light once again has been invalidated. Why? Because there is no guarantee that the test code fix is in the same green-light state as it was when it first ran successfully. To make matters worse, if you fix a compile-breaking test without going through the red-light-green-light test process, your test fix is essentially useless and very dangerous as it now provides you with a false-positive at best. Thinking your code has passed all tests and that it works correctly is far worse than not having any tests at all, well at least for that part of the system that the test-code represents. What to do? My recommendation is to delete the tests affected, and re-create them from scratch. I have to agree. Hard to do and justify if it has a significant impact on project deadlines. What do you think?

    Read the article

  • TDD and WCF behavior

    - by Frederic Hautecoeur
    Some weeks ago I wanted to develop a WCF behavior using TDD. I have lost some time trying to use mocks. After a while i decided to just use a host and a client. I don’t like this approach but so far I haven’t found a good and fast solution to use Unit Test for testing a WCF behavior. To Implement my solution I had to : Create a Dummy Service Definition; Create the Dummy Service Implementation; Create a host; Create a client in my test; Create and Add the behavior; Dummy Service Definition This is just a simple service, composed of an Interface and a simple implementation. The structure is aimed to be easily customizable for my future needs.   Using Clauses : 1: using System.Runtime.Serialization; 2: using System.ServiceModel; 3: using System.ServiceModel.Channels; The DataContract: 1: [DataContract()] 2: public class MyMessage 3: { 4: [DataMember()] 5: public string MessageString; 6: } The request MessageContract: 1: [MessageContract()] 2: public class RequestMessage 3: { 4: [MessageHeader(Name = "MyHeader", Namespace = "http://dummyservice/header", Relay = true)] 5: public string myHeader; 6:  7: [MessageBodyMember()] 8: public MyMessage myRequest; 9: } The response MessageContract: 1: [MessageContract()] 2: public class ResponseMessage 3: { 4: [MessageHeader(Name = "MyHeader", Namespace = "http://dummyservice/header", Relay = true)] 5: public string myHeader; 6:  7: [MessageBodyMember()] 8: public MyMessage myResponse; 9: } The ServiceContract: 1: [ServiceContract(Name="DummyService", Namespace="http://dummyservice",SessionMode=SessionMode.Allowed )] 2: interface IDummyService 3: { 4: [OperationContract(Action="Perform", IsOneWay=false, ProtectionLevel=System.Net.Security.ProtectionLevel.None )] 5: ResponseMessage DoThis(RequestMessage request); 6: } Dummy Service Implementation 1: public class DummyService:IDummyService 2: { 3: #region IDummyService Members 4: public ResponseMessage DoThis(RequestMessage request) 5: { 6: ResponseMessage response = new ResponseMessage(); 7: response.myHeader = "Response"; 8: response.myResponse = new MyMessage(); 9: response.myResponse.MessageString = 10: string.Format("Header:<{0}> and Request was <{1}>", 11: request.myHeader, request.myRequest.MessageString); 12: return response; 13: } 14: #endregion 15: } Host Creation The most simple host implementation using a Named Pipe binding. The GetBinding method will create a binding for the host and can be used to create the same binding for the client. 1: public static class TestHost 2: { 3: 4: internal static string hostUri = "net.pipe://localhost/dummy"; 5:  6: // Create Host method. 7: internal static ServiceHost CreateHost() 8: { 9: ServiceHost host = new ServiceHost(typeof(DummyService)); 10:  11: // Creating Endpoint 12: Uri namedPipeAddress = new Uri(hostUri); 13: host.AddServiceEndpoint(typeof(IDummyService), GetBinding(), namedPipeAddress); 14:  15: return host; 16: } 17:  18: // Binding Creation method. 19: internal static Binding GetBinding() 20: { 21: NamedPipeTransportBindingElement namedPipeTransport = new NamedPipeTransportBindingElement(); 22: TextMessageEncodingBindingElement textEncoding = new TextMessageEncodingBindingElement(); 23:  24: return new CustomBinding(textEncoding, namedPipeTransport); 25: } 26:  27: // Close Method. 28: internal static void Close(ServiceHost host) 29: { 30: if (null != host) 31: { 32: host.Close(); 33: host = null; 34: } 35: } 36: } Checking the service A simple test tool check the plumbing. 1: [TestMethod] 2: public void TestService() 3: { 4: using (ServiceHost host = TestHost.CreateHost()) 5: { 6: host.Open(); 7:  8: using (ChannelFactory<IDummyService> channel = 9: new ChannelFactory<IDummyService>(TestHost.GetBinding() 10: , new EndpointAddress(TestHost.hostUri))) 11: { 12: IDummyService svc = channel.CreateChannel(); 13: try 14: { 15: RequestMessage request = new RequestMessage(); 16: request.myHeader = Guid.NewGuid().ToString(); 17: request.myRequest = new MyMessage(); 18: request.myRequest.MessageString = "I want some beer."; 19:  20: ResponseMessage response = svc.DoThis(request); 21: } 22: catch (Exception ex) 23: { 24: Assert.Fail(ex.Message); 25: } 26: } 27: host.Close(); 28: } 29: } Running the service should show that the client and the host are running fine. So far so good. Adding the Behavior Add a reference to the Behavior project and add the using entry in the test class. We just need to add the behavior to the service host : 1: [TestMethod] 2: public void TestService() 3: { 4: using (ServiceHost host = TestHost.CreateHost()) 5: { 6: host.Description.Behaviors.Add(new MyBehavior()); 7: host.Open();¨ 8: …  If you set a breakpoint in your behavior and run the test in debug mode, you will hit the breakpoint. In this case I used a ServiceBehavior. To add an Endpoint behavior you have to add it to the endpoints. 1: host.Description.Endpoints[0].Behaviors.Add(new MyEndpointBehavior()) To add a contract or an operation behavior a custom attribute should work on the service contract definition. I haven’t tried that yet.   All the code provided in this blog and in the following files are for sample use. Improvements I don’t like to instantiate a client and a service to test my behaviors. But so far I have' not found an easy way to do it. Today I am passing a type of endpoint to the host creator and it creates the right binding type. This allows me to easily switch between bindings at will. I have used the same approach to test Mex Endpoints, another post should come later for this. Enjoy !

    Read the article

  • How to unit test private methods in BDD / TDD?

    - by robert_d
    I am trying to program according to Behavior Driven Development, which states that no line of code should be written without writing failing unit test first. My question is, how to use BDD with private methods? How can I unit test private methods? Is there better solution than: - making private methods public first and then making them private when I write public method that uses those private methods; or - in C# making all private methods internal and using InternalsVisibleTo attribute. Robert

    Read the article

  • Any suggestions for improvement on this style for BDD/TDD?

    - by Sean B
    I was tinkering with doing the setups with our unit test specifciations which go like Specification for SUT when behaviour X happens in scenario Y Given that this thing And also this other thing When I do X... Then It should do ... And It should also do ... I wrapped each of the steps of the GivenThat in Actions... any feed back whether separating with Actions is good / bad / or better way to make the GivenThat clear? /// <summary> /// Given a product is setup for injection /// And Product Image Factory Is Stubbed(); /// And Product Size Is Stubbed(); /// And Drawing Scale Is Stubbed(); /// And Product Type Is Stubbed(); /// </summary> protected override void GivenThat() { base.GivenThat(); Action givenThatAProductIsSetupforInjection = () => { var randomGenerator = new RandomGenerator(); this.Position = randomGenerator.Generate<Point>(); this.Product = new Diffuser { Size = new RectangularProductSize( 2.Inches()), Position = this.Position, ProductType = Dep<IProductType>() }; }; Action andProductImageFactoryIsStubbed = () => Dep<IProductBitmapImageFactory>().Stub(f => f.GetInstance(Dep<IProductType>())).Return(ExpectedBitmapImage); Action andProductSizeIsStubbed = () => { Stub<IDisplacementProduct, IProductSize>(p => p.Size); var productBounds = new ProductBounds(Width.Feet(), Height.Feet()); Dep<IProductSize>().Stub(s => s.Bounds).Return(productBounds); }; Action andDrawingScaleIsStubbed = () => Dep<IDrawingScale>().Stub(s => s.PixelsPerFoot).Return(PixelsPerFoot); Action andProductTypeIsStubbed = () => Stub<IDisplacementProduct, IProductType>(p => p.ProductType); givenThatAProductIsSetupforInjection(); andProductImageFactoryIsStubbed(); andProductSizeIsStubbed(); andDrawingScaleIsStubbed(); andProductTypeIsStubbed(); }

    Read the article

  • How can I effectively test against the Windows API?

    - by Billy ONeal
    I'm still having issues justifying TDD to myself. As I have mentioned in other questions, 90% of the code I write does absolutely nothing but Call some Windows API functions and Print out the data returned from said functions. The time spent coming up with the fake data that the code needs to process under TDD is incredible -- I literally spend 5 times as much time coming up with the example data as I would spend just writing application code. Part of this problem is that often I'm programming against APIs with which I have little experience, which forces me to write small applications that show me how the real API behaves so that I can write effective fakes/mocks on top of that API. Writing implementation first is the opposite of TDD, but in this case it is unavoidable: I do not know how the real API behaves, so how on earth am I going to be able to create a fake implementation of the API without playing with it? I have read several books on the subject, including Kent Beck's Test Driven Development, By Example, and Michael Feathers' Working Effectively with Legacy Code, which seem to be gospel for TDD fanatics. Feathers' book comes close in the way it describes breaking out dependencies, but even then, the examples provided have one thing in common: The program under test obtains input from other parts of the program under test. My programs do not follow that pattern. Instead, the only input to the program itself is the system upon which it runs. How can one effectively employ TDD on such a project?

    Read the article

  • Integrating JavaScript Unit Tests with Visual Studio

    - by Stephen Walther
    Modern ASP.NET web applications take full advantage of client-side JavaScript to provide better interactivity and responsiveness. If you are building an ASP.NET application in the right way, you quickly end up with lots and lots of JavaScript code. When writing server code, you should be writing unit tests. One big advantage of unit tests is that they provide you with a safety net that enable you to safely modify your existing code – for example, fix bugs, add new features, and make performance enhancements -- without breaking your existing code. Every time you modify your code, you can execute your unit tests to verify that you have not broken anything. For the same reason that you should write unit tests for your server code, you should write unit tests for your client code. JavaScript is just as susceptible to bugs as C#. There is no shortage of unit testing frameworks for JavaScript. Each of the major JavaScript libraries has its own unit testing framework. For example, jQuery has QUnit, Prototype has UnitTestJS, YUI has YUI Test, and Dojo has Dojo Objective Harness (DOH). The challenge is integrating a JavaScript unit testing framework with Visual Studio. Visual Studio and Visual Studio ALM provide fantastic support for server-side unit tests. You can easily view the results of running your unit tests in the Visual Studio Test Results window. You can set up a check-in policy which requires that all unit tests pass before your source code can be committed to the source code repository. In addition, you can set up Team Build to execute your unit tests automatically. Unfortunately, Visual Studio does not provide “out-of-the-box” support for JavaScript unit tests. MS Test, the unit testing framework included in Visual Studio, does not support JavaScript unit tests. As soon as you leave the server world, you are left on your own. The goal of this blog entry is to describe one approach to integrating JavaScript unit tests with MS Test so that you can execute your JavaScript unit tests side-by-side with your C# unit tests. The goal is to enable you to execute JavaScript unit tests in exactly the same way as server-side unit tests. You can download the source code described by this project by scrolling to the end of this blog entry. Rejected Approach: Browser Launchers One popular approach to executing JavaScript unit tests is to use a browser as a test-driver. When you use a browser as a test-driver, you open up a browser window to execute and view the results of executing your JavaScript unit tests. For example, QUnit – the unit testing framework for jQuery – takes this approach. The following HTML page illustrates how you can use QUnit to create a unit test for a function named addNumbers(). <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"> <html> <head> <title>Using QUnit</title> <link rel="stylesheet" href="http://github.com/jquery/qunit/raw/master/qunit/qunit.css" type="text/css" /> </head> <body> <h1 id="qunit-header">QUnit example</h1> <h2 id="qunit-banner"></h2> <div id="qunit-testrunner-toolbar"></div> <h2 id="qunit-userAgent"></h2> <ol id="qunit-tests"></ol> <div id="qunit-fixture">test markup, will be hidden</div> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://code.jquery.com/jquery-latest.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://github.com/jquery/qunit/raw/master/qunit/qunit.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> // The function to test function addNumbers(a, b) { return a+b; } // The unit test test("Test of addNumbers", function () { equals(4, addNumbers(1,3), "1+3 should be 4"); }); </script> </body> </html> This test verifies that calling addNumbers(1,3) returns the expected value 4. When you open this page in a browser, you can see that this test does, in fact, pass. The idea is that you can quickly refresh this QUnit HTML JavaScript test driver page in your browser whenever you modify your JavaScript code. In other words, you can keep a browser window open and keep refreshing it over and over while you are developing your application. That way, you can know very quickly whenever you have broken your JavaScript code. While easy to setup, there are several big disadvantages to this approach to executing JavaScript unit tests: You must view your JavaScript unit test results in a different location than your server unit test results. The JavaScript unit test results appear in the browser and the server unit test results appear in the Visual Studio Test Results window. Because all of your unit test results don’t appear in a single location, you are more likely to introduce bugs into your code without noticing it. Because your unit tests are not integrated with Visual Studio – in particular, MS Test -- you cannot easily include your JavaScript unit tests when setting up check-in policies or when performing automated builds with Team Build. A more sophisticated approach to using a browser as a test-driver is to automate the web browser. Instead of launching the browser and loading the test code yourself, you use a framework to automate this process. There are several different testing frameworks that support this approach: · Selenium – Selenium is a very powerful framework for automating browser tests. You can create your tests by recording a Firefox session or by writing the test driver code in server code such as C#. You can learn more about Selenium at http://seleniumhq.org/. LTAF – The ASP.NET team uses the Lightweight Test Automation Framework to test JavaScript code in the ASP.NET framework. You can learn more about LTAF by visiting the project home at CodePlex: http://aspnet.codeplex.com/releases/view/35501 jsTestDriver – This framework uses Java to automate the browser. jsTestDriver creates a server which can be used to automate multiple browsers simultaneously. This project is located at http://code.google.com/p/js-test-driver/ TestSwam – This framework, created by John Resig, uses PHP to automate the browser. Like jsTestDriver, the framework creates a test server. You can open multiple browsers that are automated by the test server. Learn more about TestSwarm by visiting the following address: https://github.com/jeresig/testswarm/wiki Yeti – This is the framework introduced by Yahoo for automating browser tests. Yeti uses server-side JavaScript and depends on Node.js. Learn more about Yeti at http://www.yuiblog.com/blog/2010/08/25/introducing-yeti-the-yui-easy-testing-interface/ All of these frameworks are great for integration tests – however, they are not the best frameworks to use for unit tests. In one way or another, all of these frameworks depend on executing tests within the context of a “living and breathing” browser. If you create an ASP.NET Unit Test then Visual Studio will launch a web server before executing the unit test. Why is launching a web server so bad? It is not the worst thing in the world. However, it does introduce dependencies that prevent your code from being tested in isolation. One of the defining features of a unit test -- versus an integration test – is that a unit test tests code in isolation. Another problem with launching a web server when performing unit tests is that launching a web server can be slow. If you cannot execute your unit tests quickly, you are less likely to execute your unit tests each and every time you make a code change. You are much more likely to fall into the pit of failure. Launching a browser when performing a JavaScript unit test has all of the same disadvantages as launching a web server when performing an ASP.NET unit test. Instead of testing a unit of JavaScript code in isolation, you are testing JavaScript code within the context of a particular browser. Using the frameworks listed above for integration tests makes perfect sense. However, I want to consider a different approach for creating unit tests for JavaScript code. Using Server-Side JavaScript for JavaScript Unit Tests A completely different approach to executing JavaScript unit tests is to perform the tests outside of any browser. If you really want to test JavaScript then you should test JavaScript and leave the browser out of the testing process. There are several ways that you can execute JavaScript on the server outside the context of any browser: Rhino – Rhino is an implementation of JavaScript written in Java. The Rhino project is maintained by the Mozilla project. Learn more about Rhino at http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/ V8 – V8 is the open-source Google JavaScript engine written in C++. This is the JavaScript engine used by the Chrome web browser. You can download V8 and embed it in your project by visiting http://code.google.com/p/v8/ JScript – JScript is the JavaScript Script Engine used by Internet Explorer (up to but not including Internet Explorer 9), Windows Script Host, and Active Server Pages. Internet Explorer is still the most popular web browser. Therefore, I decided to focus on using the JScript Script Engine to execute JavaScript unit tests. Using the Microsoft Script Control There are two basic ways that you can pass JavaScript to the JScript Script Engine and execute the code: use the Microsoft Windows Script Interfaces or use the Microsoft Script Control. The difficult and proper way to execute JavaScript using the JScript Script Engine is to use the Microsoft Windows Script Interfaces. You can learn more about the Script Interfaces by visiting http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/t9d4xf28(VS.85).aspx The main disadvantage of using the Script Interfaces is that they are difficult to use from .NET. There is a great series of articles on using the Script Interfaces from C# located at http://www.drdobbs.com/184406028. I picked the easier alternative and used the Microsoft Script Control. The Microsoft Script Control is an ActiveX control that provides a higher level abstraction over the Window Script Interfaces. You can download the Microsoft Script Control from here: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=d7e31492-2595-49e6-8c02-1426fec693ac After you download the Microsoft Script Control, you need to add a reference to it to your project. Select the Visual Studio menu option Project, Add Reference to open the Add Reference dialog. Select the COM tab and add the Microsoft Script Control 1.0. Using the Script Control is easy. You call the Script Control AddCode() method to add JavaScript code to the Script Engine. Next, you call the Script Control Run() method to run a particular JavaScript function. The reference documentation for the Microsoft Script Control is located at the MSDN website: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa227633%28v=vs.60%29.aspx Creating the JavaScript Code to Test To keep things simple, let’s imagine that you want to test the following JavaScript function named addNumbers() which simply adds two numbers together: MvcApplication1\Scripts\Math.js function addNumbers(a, b) { return 5; } Notice that the addNumbers() method always returns the value 5. Right-now, it will not pass a good unit test. Create this file and save it in your project with the name Math.js in your MVC project’s Scripts folder (Save the file in your actual MVC application and not your MVC test application). Creating the JavaScript Test Helper Class To make it easier to use the Microsoft Script Control in unit tests, we can create a helper class. This class contains two methods: LoadFile() – Loads a JavaScript file. Use this method to load the JavaScript file being tested or the JavaScript file containing the unit tests. ExecuteTest() – Executes the JavaScript code. Use this method to execute a JavaScript unit test. Here’s the code for the JavaScriptTestHelper class: JavaScriptTestHelper.cs   using System; using System.IO; using Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting; using MSScriptControl; namespace MvcApplication1.Tests { public class JavaScriptTestHelper : IDisposable { private ScriptControl _sc; private TestContext _context; /// <summary> /// You need to use this helper with Unit Tests and not /// Basic Unit Tests because you need a Test Context /// </summary> /// <param name="testContext">Unit Test Test Context</param> public JavaScriptTestHelper(TestContext testContext) { if (testContext == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException("TestContext"); } _context = testContext; _sc = new ScriptControl(); _sc.Language = "JScript"; _sc.AllowUI = false; } /// <summary> /// Load the contents of a JavaScript file into the /// Script Engine. /// </summary> /// <param name="path">Path to JavaScript file</param> public void LoadFile(string path) { var fileContents = File.ReadAllText(path); _sc.AddCode(fileContents); } /// <summary> /// Pass the path of the test that you want to execute. /// </summary> /// <param name="testMethodName">JavaScript function name</param> public void ExecuteTest(string testMethodName) { dynamic result = null; try { result = _sc.Run(testMethodName, new object[] { }); } catch { var error = ((IScriptControl)_sc).Error; if (error != null) { var description = error.Description; var line = error.Line; var column = error.Column; var text = error.Text; var source = error.Source; if (_context != null) { var details = String.Format("{0} \r\nLine: {1} Column: {2}", source, line, column); _context.WriteLine(details); } } throw new AssertFailedException(error.Description); } } public void Dispose() { _sc = null; } } }     Notice that the JavaScriptTestHelper class requires a Test Context to be instantiated. For this reason, you can use the JavaScriptTestHelper only with a Visual Studio Unit Test and not a Basic Unit Test (These are two different types of Visual Studio project items). Add the JavaScriptTestHelper file to your MVC test application (for example, MvcApplication1.Tests). Creating the JavaScript Unit Test Next, we need to create the JavaScript unit test function that we will use to test the addNumbers() function. Create a folder in your MVC test project named JavaScriptTests and add the following JavaScript file to this folder: MvcApplication1.Tests\JavaScriptTests\MathTest.js /// <reference path="JavaScriptUnitTestFramework.js"/> function testAddNumbers() { // Act var result = addNumbers(1, 3); // Assert assert.areEqual(4, result, "addNumbers did not return right value!"); }   The testAddNumbers() function takes advantage of another JavaScript library named JavaScriptUnitTestFramework.js. This library contains all of the code necessary to make assertions. Add the following JavaScriptnitTestFramework.js to the same folder as the MathTest.js file: MvcApplication1.Tests\JavaScriptTests\JavaScriptUnitTestFramework.js var assert = { areEqual: function (expected, actual, message) { if (expected !== actual) { throw new Error("Expected value " + expected + " is not equal to " + actual + ". " + message); } } }; There is only one type of assertion supported by this file: the areEqual() assertion. Most likely, you would want to add additional types of assertions to this file to make it easier to write your JavaScript unit tests. Deploying the JavaScript Test Files This step is non-intuitive. When you use Visual Studio to run unit tests, Visual Studio creates a new folder and executes a copy of the files in your project. After you run your unit tests, your Visual Studio Solution will contain a new folder named TestResults that includes a subfolder for each test run. You need to configure Visual Studio to deploy your JavaScript files to the test run folder or Visual Studio won’t be able to find your JavaScript files when you execute your unit tests. You will get an error that looks something like this when you attempt to execute your unit tests: You can configure Visual Studio to deploy your JavaScript files by adding a Test Settings file to your Visual Studio Solution. It is important to understand that you need to add this file to your Visual Studio Solution and not a particular Visual Studio project. Right-click your Solution in the Solution Explorer window and select the menu option Add, New Item. Select the Test Settings item and click the Add button. After you create a Test Settings file for your solution, you can indicate that you want a particular folder to be deployed whenever you perform a test run. Select the menu option Test, Edit Test Settings to edit your test configuration file. Select the Deployment tab and select your MVC test project’s JavaScriptTest folder to deploy. Click the Apply button and the Close button to save the changes and close the dialog. Creating the Visual Studio Unit Test The very last step is to create the Visual Studio unit test (the MS Test unit test). Add a new unit test to your MVC test project by selecting the menu option Add New Item and selecting the Unit Test project item (Do not select the Basic Unit Test project item): The difference between a Basic Unit Test and a Unit Test is that a Unit Test includes a Test Context. We need this Test Context to use the JavaScriptTestHelper class that we created earlier. Enter the following test method for the new unit test: [TestMethod] public void TestAddNumbers() { var jsHelper = new JavaScriptTestHelper(this.TestContext); // Load JavaScript files jsHelper.LoadFile("JavaScriptUnitTestFramework.js"); jsHelper.LoadFile(@"..\..\..\MvcApplication1\Scripts\Math.js"); jsHelper.LoadFile("MathTest.js"); // Execute JavaScript Test jsHelper.ExecuteTest("testAddNumbers"); } This code uses the JavaScriptTestHelper to load three files: JavaScripUnitTestFramework.js – Contains the assert functions. Math.js – Contains the addNumbers() function from your MVC application which is being tested. MathTest.js – Contains the JavaScript unit test function. Next, the test method calls the JavaScriptTestHelper ExecuteTest() method to execute the testAddNumbers() JavaScript function. Running the Visual Studio JavaScript Unit Test After you complete all of the steps described above, you can execute the JavaScript unit test just like any other unit test. You can use the keyboard combination CTRL-R, CTRL-A to run all of the tests in the current Visual Studio Solution. Alternatively, you can use the buttons in the Visual Studio toolbar to run the tests: (Unfortunately, the Run All Impacted Tests button won’t work correctly because Visual Studio won’t detect that your JavaScript code has changed. Therefore, you should use either the Run Tests in Current Context or Run All Tests in Solution options instead.) The results of running the JavaScript tests appear side-by-side with the results of running the server tests in the Test Results window. For example, if you Run All Tests in Solution then you will get the following results: Notice that the TestAddNumbers() JavaScript test has failed. That is good because our addNumbers() function is hard-coded to always return the value 5. If you double-click the failing JavaScript test, you can view additional details such as the JavaScript error message and the line number of the JavaScript code that failed: Summary The goal of this blog entry was to explain an approach to creating JavaScript unit tests that can be easily integrated with Visual Studio and Visual Studio ALM. I described how you can use the Microsoft Script Control to execute JavaScript on the server. By taking advantage of the Microsoft Script Control, we were able to execute our JavaScript unit tests side-by-side with all of our other unit tests and view the results in the standard Visual Studio Test Results window. You can download the code discussed in this blog entry from here: http://StephenWalther.com/downloads/Blog/JavaScriptUnitTesting/JavaScriptUnitTests.zip Before running this code, you need to first install the Microsoft Script Control which you can download from here: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=d7e31492-2595-49e6-8c02-1426fec693ac

    Read the article

  • Creating a dynamic proxy generator with c# – Part 4 – Calling the base method

    - by SeanMcAlinden
    Creating a dynamic proxy generator with c# – Part 1 – Creating the Assembly builder, Module builder and caching mechanism Creating a dynamic proxy generator with c# – Part 2 – Interceptor Design Creating a dynamic proxy generator with c# – Part 3 – Creating the constructors   The plan for calling the base methods from the proxy is to create a private method for each overridden proxy method, this will allow the proxy to use a delegate to simply invoke the private method when required. Quite a few helper classes have been created to make this possible so as usual I would suggest download or viewing the code at http://rapidioc.codeplex.com/. In this post I’m just going to cover the main points for when creating methods. Getting the methods to override The first two notable methods are for getting the methods. private static MethodInfo[] GetMethodsToOverride<TBase>() where TBase : class {     return typeof(TBase).GetMethods().Where(x =>         !methodsToIgnore.Contains(x.Name) &&                              (x.Attributes & MethodAttributes.Final) == 0)         .ToArray(); } private static StringCollection GetMethodsToIgnore() {     return new StringCollection()     {         "ToString",         "GetHashCode",         "Equals",         "GetType"     }; } The GetMethodsToIgnore method string collection contains an array of methods that I don’t want to override. In the GetMethodsToOverride method, you’ll notice a binary AND which is basically saying not to include any methods marked final i.e. not virtual. Creating the MethodInfo for calling the base method This method should hopefully be fairly easy to follow, it’s only function is to create a MethodInfo which points to the correct base method, and with the correct parameters. private static MethodInfo CreateCallBaseMethodInfo<TBase>(MethodInfo method) where TBase : class {     Type[] baseMethodParameterTypes = ParameterHelper.GetParameterTypes(method, method.GetParameters());       return typeof(TBase).GetMethod(        method.Name,        BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.NonPublic,        null,        baseMethodParameterTypes,        null     ); }   /// <summary> /// Get the parameter types. /// </summary> /// <param name="method">The method.</param> /// <param name="parameters">The parameters.</param> public static Type[] GetParameterTypes(MethodInfo method, ParameterInfo[] parameters) {     Type[] parameterTypesList = Type.EmptyTypes;       if (parameters.Length > 0)     {         parameterTypesList = CreateParametersList(parameters);     }     return parameterTypesList; }   Creating the new private methods for calling the base method The following method outline how I’ve created the private methods for calling the base class method. private static MethodBuilder CreateCallBaseMethodBuilder(TypeBuilder typeBuilder, MethodInfo method) {     string callBaseSuffix = "GetBaseMethod";       if (method.IsGenericMethod || method.IsGenericMethodDefinition)     {                         return MethodHelper.SetUpGenericMethod             (                 typeBuilder,                 method,                 method.Name + callBaseSuffix,                 MethodAttributes.Private | MethodAttributes.HideBySig             );     }     else     {         return MethodHelper.SetupNonGenericMethod             (                 typeBuilder,                 method,                 method.Name + callBaseSuffix,                 MethodAttributes.Private | MethodAttributes.HideBySig             );     } } The CreateCallBaseMethodBuilder is the entry point method for creating the call base method. I’ve added a suffix to the base classes method name to keep it unique. Non Generic Methods Creating a non generic method is fairly simple public static MethodBuilder SetupNonGenericMethod(     TypeBuilder typeBuilder,     MethodInfo method,     string methodName,     MethodAttributes methodAttributes) {     ParameterInfo[] parameters = method.GetParameters();       Type[] parameterTypes = ParameterHelper.GetParameterTypes(method, parameters);       Type returnType = method.ReturnType;       MethodBuilder methodBuilder = CreateMethodBuilder         (             typeBuilder,             method,             methodName,             methodAttributes,             parameterTypes,             returnType         );       ParameterHelper.SetUpParameters(parameterTypes, parameters, methodBuilder);       return methodBuilder; }   private static MethodBuilder CreateMethodBuilder (     TypeBuilder typeBuilder,     MethodInfo method,     string methodName,     MethodAttributes methodAttributes,     Type[] parameterTypes,     Type returnType ) { MethodBuilder methodBuilder = typeBuilder.DefineMethod(methodName, methodAttributes, returnType, parameterTypes); return methodBuilder; } As you can see, you simply have to declare a method builder, get the parameter types, and set the method attributes you want.   Generic Methods Creating generic methods takes a little bit more work. /// <summary> /// Sets up generic method. /// </summary> /// <param name="typeBuilder">The type builder.</param> /// <param name="method">The method.</param> /// <param name="methodName">Name of the method.</param> /// <param name="methodAttributes">The method attributes.</param> public static MethodBuilder SetUpGenericMethod     (         TypeBuilder typeBuilder,         MethodInfo method,         string methodName,         MethodAttributes methodAttributes     ) {     ParameterInfo[] parameters = method.GetParameters();       Type[] parameterTypes = ParameterHelper.GetParameterTypes(method, parameters);       MethodBuilder methodBuilder = typeBuilder.DefineMethod(methodName,         methodAttributes);       Type[] genericArguments = method.GetGenericArguments();       GenericTypeParameterBuilder[] genericTypeParameters =         GetGenericTypeParameters(methodBuilder, genericArguments);       ParameterHelper.SetUpParameterConstraints(parameterTypes, genericTypeParameters);       SetUpReturnType(method, methodBuilder, genericTypeParameters);       if (method.IsGenericMethod)     {         methodBuilder.MakeGenericMethod(genericArguments);     }       ParameterHelper.SetUpParameters(parameterTypes, parameters, methodBuilder);       return methodBuilder; }   private static GenericTypeParameterBuilder[] GetGenericTypeParameters     (         MethodBuilder methodBuilder,         Type[] genericArguments     ) {     return methodBuilder.DefineGenericParameters(GenericsHelper.GetArgumentNames(genericArguments)); }   private static void SetUpReturnType(MethodInfo method, MethodBuilder methodBuilder, GenericTypeParameterBuilder[] genericTypeParameters) {     if (method.IsGenericMethodDefinition)     {         SetUpGenericDefinitionReturnType(method, methodBuilder, genericTypeParameters);     }     else     {         methodBuilder.SetReturnType(method.ReturnType);     } }   private static void SetUpGenericDefinitionReturnType(MethodInfo method, MethodBuilder methodBuilder, GenericTypeParameterBuilder[] genericTypeParameters) {     if (method.ReturnType == null)     {         methodBuilder.SetReturnType(typeof(void));     }     else if (method.ReturnType.IsGenericType)     {         methodBuilder.SetReturnType(genericTypeParameters.Where             (x => x.Name == method.ReturnType.Name).First());     }     else     {         methodBuilder.SetReturnType(method.ReturnType);     }             } Ok, there are a few helper methods missing, basically there is way to much code to put in this post, take a look at the code at http://rapidioc.codeplex.com/ to follow it through completely. Basically though, when dealing with generics there is extra work to do in terms of getting the generic argument types setting up any generic parameter constraints setting up the return type setting up the method as a generic All of the information is easy to get via reflection from the MethodInfo.   Emitting the new private method Emitting the new private method is relatively simple as it’s only function is calling the base method and returning a result if the return type is not void. ILGenerator il = privateMethodBuilder.GetILGenerator();   EmitCallBaseMethod(method, callBaseMethod, il);   private static void EmitCallBaseMethod(MethodInfo method, MethodInfo callBaseMethod, ILGenerator il) {     int privateParameterCount = method.GetParameters().Length;       il.Emit(OpCodes.Ldarg_0);       if (privateParameterCount > 0)     {         for (int arg = 0; arg < privateParameterCount; arg++)         {             il.Emit(OpCodes.Ldarg_S, arg + 1);         }     }       il.Emit(OpCodes.Call, callBaseMethod);       il.Emit(OpCodes.Ret); } So in the main method building method, an ILGenerator is created from the method builder. The ILGenerator performs the following actions: Load the class (this) onto the stack using the hidden argument Ldarg_0. Create an argument on the stack for each of the method parameters (starting at 1 because 0 is the hidden argument) Call the base method using the Opcodes.Call code and the MethodInfo we created earlier. Call return on the method   Conclusion Now we have the private methods prepared for calling the base method, we have reached the last of the relatively easy part of the proxy building. Hopefully, it hasn’t been too hard to follow so far, there is a lot of code so I haven’t been able to post it all so please check it out at http://rapidioc.codeplex.com/. The next section should be up fairly soon, it’s going to cover creating the delegates for calling the private methods created in this post.   Kind Regards, Sean.

    Read the article

  • Writing Unit Tests for ASP.NET Web API Controller

    - by shiju
    In this blog post, I will write unit tests for a ASP.NET Web API controller in the EFMVC reference application. Let me introduce the EFMVC app, If you haven't heard about EFMVC. EFMVC is a simple app, developed as a reference implementation for demonstrating ASP.NET MVC, EF Code First, ASP.NET Web API, Domain-Driven Design (DDD), Test-Driven Development (DDD). The current version is built with ASP.NET MVC 4, EF Code First 5, ASP.NET Web API, Autofac, AutoMapper, Nunit and Moq. All unit tests were written with Nunit and Moq. You can download the latest version of the reference app from http://efmvc.codeplex.com/ Unit Test for HTTP Get Let’s write a unit test class for verifying the behaviour of a ASP.NET Web API controller named CategoryController. Let’s define mock implementation for Repository class, and a Command Bus that is used for executing write operations.  [TestFixture] public class CategoryApiControllerTest { private Mock<ICategoryRepository> categoryRepository; private Mock<ICommandBus> commandBus; [SetUp] public void SetUp() {     categoryRepository = new Mock<ICategoryRepository>();     commandBus = new Mock<ICommandBus>(); } The code block below provides the unit test for a HTTP Get operation. [Test] public void Get_All_Returns_AllCategory() {     // Arrange        IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense> fakeCategories = GetCategories();     categoryRepository.Setup(x => x.GetCategoryWithExpenses()).Returns(fakeCategories);     CategoryController controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage()                 {                     Properties = { { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, new HttpConfiguration() } }                 }     };     // Act     var categories = controller.Get();     // Assert     Assert.IsNotNull(categories, "Result is null");     Assert.IsInstanceOf(typeof(IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense>),categories, "Wrong Model");             Assert.AreEqual(3, categories.Count(), "Got wrong number of Categories"); }        The GetCategories method is provided below: private static IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense> GetCategories() {     IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense> fakeCategories = new List<CategoryWithExpense> {     new CategoryWithExpense {CategoryId=1, CategoryName = "Test1", Description="Test1Desc", TotalExpenses=1000},     new CategoryWithExpense {CategoryId=2, CategoryName = "Test2", Description="Test2Desc",TotalExpenses=2000},     new CategoryWithExpense { CategoryId=3, CategoryName = "Test3", Description="Test3Desc",TotalExpenses=3000}       }.AsEnumerable();     return fakeCategories; } In the unit test method Get_All_Returns_AllCategory, we specify setup on the mocked type ICategoryrepository, for a call to GetCategoryWithExpenses method returns dummy data. We create an instance of the ApiController, where we have specified the Request property of the ApiController since the Request property is used to create a new HttpResponseMessage that will provide the appropriate HTTP status code along with response content data. Unit Tests are using for specifying the behaviour of components so that we have specified that Get operation will use the model type IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense> for sending the Content data. The implementation of HTTP Get in the CategoryController is provided below: public IQueryable<CategoryWithExpense> Get() {     var categories = categoryRepository.GetCategoryWithExpenses().AsQueryable();     return categories; } Unit Test for HTTP Post The following are the behaviours we are going to implement for the HTTP Post: A successful HTTP Post  operation should return HTTP status code Created An empty Category should return HTTP status code BadRequest A successful HTTP Post operation should provide correct Location header information in the response for the newly created resource. Writing unit test for HTTP Post is required more information than we write for HTTP Get. In the HTTP Post implementation, we will call to Url.Link for specifying the header Location of Response as shown in below code block. var response = Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.Created, category); string uri = Url.Link("DefaultApi", new { id = category.CategoryId }); response.Headers.Location = new Uri(uri); return response; While we are executing Url.Link from unit tests, we have to specify HttpRouteData information from the unit test method. Otherwise, Url.Link will get a null value. The code block below shows the unit tests for specifying the behaviours for the HTTP Post operation. [Test] public void Post_Category_Returns_CreatedStatusCode() {     // Arrange        commandBus.Setup(c => c.Submit(It.IsAny<CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>())).Returns(new CommandResult(true));     Mapper.CreateMap<CategoryFormModel, CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>();          var httpConfiguration = new HttpConfiguration();     WebApiConfig.Register(httpConfiguration);     var httpRouteData = new HttpRouteData(httpConfiguration.Routes["DefaultApi"],         new HttpRouteValueDictionary { { "controller", "category" } });     var controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage(HttpMethod.Post, "http://localhost/api/category/")         {             Properties =             {                 { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, httpConfiguration },                 { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpRouteDataKey, httpRouteData }             }         }     };     // Act     CategoryModel category = new CategoryModel();     category.CategoryId = 1;     category.CategoryName = "Mock Category";     var response = controller.Post(category);               // Assert     Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.Created, response.StatusCode);     var newCategory = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<CategoryModel>(response.Content.ReadAsStringAsync().Result);     Assert.AreEqual(string.Format("http://localhost/api/category/{0}", newCategory.CategoryId), response.Headers.Location.ToString()); } [Test] public void Post_EmptyCategory_Returns_BadRequestStatusCode() {     // Arrange        commandBus.Setup(c => c.Submit(It.IsAny<CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>())).Returns(new CommandResult(true));     Mapper.CreateMap<CategoryFormModel, CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>();     var httpConfiguration = new HttpConfiguration();     WebApiConfig.Register(httpConfiguration);     var httpRouteData = new HttpRouteData(httpConfiguration.Routes["DefaultApi"],         new HttpRouteValueDictionary { { "controller", "category" } });     var controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage(HttpMethod.Post, "http://localhost/api/category/")         {             Properties =             {                 { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, httpConfiguration },                 { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpRouteDataKey, httpRouteData }             }         }     };     // Act     CategoryModel category = new CategoryModel();     category.CategoryId = 0;     category.CategoryName = "";     // The ASP.NET pipeline doesn't run, so validation don't run.     controller.ModelState.AddModelError("", "mock error message");     var response = controller.Post(category);     // Assert     Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest, response.StatusCode);   } In the above code block, we have written two unit methods, Post_Category_Returns_CreatedStatusCode and Post_EmptyCategory_Returns_BadRequestStatusCode. The unit test method Post_Category_Returns_CreatedStatusCode  verifies the behaviour 1 and 3, that we have defined in the beginning of the section “Unit Test for HTTP Post”. The unit test method Post_EmptyCategory_Returns_BadRequestStatusCode verifies the behaviour 2. For extracting the data from response, we call Content.ReadAsStringAsync().Result of HttpResponseMessage object and deserializeit it with Json Convertor. The implementation of HTTP Post in the CategoryController is provided below: // POST /api/category public HttpResponseMessage Post(CategoryModel category) {       if (ModelState.IsValid)     {         var command = new CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand(category.CategoryId, category.CategoryName, category.Description);         var result = commandBus.Submit(command);         if (result.Success)         {                               var response = Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.Created, category);             string uri = Url.Link("DefaultApi", new { id = category.CategoryId });             response.Headers.Location = new Uri(uri);             return response;         }     }     else     {         return Request.CreateErrorResponse(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest, ModelState);     }     throw new HttpResponseException(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest); } The unit test implementation for HTTP Put and HTTP Delete are very similar to the unit test we have written for  HTTP Get. The complete unit tests for the CategoryController is given below: [TestFixture] public class CategoryApiControllerTest { private Mock<ICategoryRepository> categoryRepository; private Mock<ICommandBus> commandBus; [SetUp] public void SetUp() {     categoryRepository = new Mock<ICategoryRepository>();     commandBus = new Mock<ICommandBus>(); } [Test] public void Get_All_Returns_AllCategory() {     // Arrange        IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense> fakeCategories = GetCategories();     categoryRepository.Setup(x => x.GetCategoryWithExpenses()).Returns(fakeCategories);     CategoryController controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage()                 {                     Properties = { { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, new HttpConfiguration() } }                 }     };     // Act     var categories = controller.Get();     // Assert     Assert.IsNotNull(categories, "Result is null");     Assert.IsInstanceOf(typeof(IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense>),categories, "Wrong Model");             Assert.AreEqual(3, categories.Count(), "Got wrong number of Categories"); }        [Test] public void Get_CorrectCategoryId_Returns_Category() {     // Arrange        IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense> fakeCategories = GetCategories();     categoryRepository.Setup(x => x.GetCategoryWithExpenses()).Returns(fakeCategories);     CategoryController controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage()         {             Properties = { { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, new HttpConfiguration() } }         }     };     // Act     var response = controller.Get(1);     // Assert     Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.OK, response.StatusCode);     var category = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<CategoryWithExpense>(response.Content.ReadAsStringAsync().Result);     Assert.AreEqual(1, category.CategoryId, "Got wrong number of Categories"); } [Test] public void Get_InValidCategoryId_Returns_NotFound() {     // Arrange        IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense> fakeCategories = GetCategories();     categoryRepository.Setup(x => x.GetCategoryWithExpenses()).Returns(fakeCategories);     CategoryController controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage()         {             Properties = { { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, new HttpConfiguration() } }         }     };     // Act     var response = controller.Get(5);     // Assert     Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.NotFound, response.StatusCode);            } [Test] public void Post_Category_Returns_CreatedStatusCode() {     // Arrange        commandBus.Setup(c => c.Submit(It.IsAny<CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>())).Returns(new CommandResult(true));     Mapper.CreateMap<CategoryFormModel, CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>();          var httpConfiguration = new HttpConfiguration();     WebApiConfig.Register(httpConfiguration);     var httpRouteData = new HttpRouteData(httpConfiguration.Routes["DefaultApi"],         new HttpRouteValueDictionary { { "controller", "category" } });     var controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage(HttpMethod.Post, "http://localhost/api/category/")         {             Properties =             {                 { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, httpConfiguration },                 { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpRouteDataKey, httpRouteData }             }         }     };     // Act     CategoryModel category = new CategoryModel();     category.CategoryId = 1;     category.CategoryName = "Mock Category";     var response = controller.Post(category);               // Assert     Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.Created, response.StatusCode);     var newCategory = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<CategoryModel>(response.Content.ReadAsStringAsync().Result);     Assert.AreEqual(string.Format("http://localhost/api/category/{0}", newCategory.CategoryId), response.Headers.Location.ToString()); } [Test] public void Post_EmptyCategory_Returns_BadRequestStatusCode() {     // Arrange        commandBus.Setup(c => c.Submit(It.IsAny<CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>())).Returns(new CommandResult(true));     Mapper.CreateMap<CategoryFormModel, CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>();     var httpConfiguration = new HttpConfiguration();     WebApiConfig.Register(httpConfiguration);     var httpRouteData = new HttpRouteData(httpConfiguration.Routes["DefaultApi"],         new HttpRouteValueDictionary { { "controller", "category" } });     var controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage(HttpMethod.Post, "http://localhost/api/category/")         {             Properties =             {                 { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, httpConfiguration },                 { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpRouteDataKey, httpRouteData }             }         }     };     // Act     CategoryModel category = new CategoryModel();     category.CategoryId = 0;     category.CategoryName = "";     // The ASP.NET pipeline doesn't run, so validation don't run.     controller.ModelState.AddModelError("", "mock error message");     var response = controller.Post(category);     // Assert     Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest, response.StatusCode);   } [Test] public void Put_Category_Returns_OKStatusCode() {     // Arrange        commandBus.Setup(c => c.Submit(It.IsAny<CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>())).Returns(new CommandResult(true));     Mapper.CreateMap<CategoryFormModel, CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>();     CategoryController controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage()         {             Properties = { { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, new HttpConfiguration() } }         }     };     // Act     CategoryModel category = new CategoryModel();     category.CategoryId = 1;     category.CategoryName = "Mock Category";     var response = controller.Put(category.CategoryId,category);     // Assert     Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.OK, response.StatusCode);    } [Test] public void Delete_Category_Returns_NoContentStatusCode() {     // Arrange              commandBus.Setup(c => c.Submit(It.IsAny<DeleteCategoryCommand >())).Returns(new CommandResult(true));     CategoryController controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage()         {             Properties = { { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, new HttpConfiguration() } }         }     };     // Act               var response = controller.Delete(1);     // Assert     Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.NoContent, response.StatusCode);   } private static IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense> GetCategories() {     IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense> fakeCategories = new List<CategoryWithExpense> {     new CategoryWithExpense {CategoryId=1, CategoryName = "Test1", Description="Test1Desc", TotalExpenses=1000},     new CategoryWithExpense {CategoryId=2, CategoryName = "Test2", Description="Test2Desc",TotalExpenses=2000},     new CategoryWithExpense { CategoryId=3, CategoryName = "Test3", Description="Test3Desc",TotalExpenses=3000}       }.AsEnumerable();     return fakeCategories; } }  The complete implementation for the Api Controller, CategoryController is given below: public class CategoryController : ApiController {       private readonly ICommandBus commandBus;     private readonly ICategoryRepository categoryRepository;     public CategoryController(ICommandBus commandBus, ICategoryRepository categoryRepository)     {         this.commandBus = commandBus;         this.categoryRepository = categoryRepository;     } public IQueryable<CategoryWithExpense> Get() {     var categories = categoryRepository.GetCategoryWithExpenses().AsQueryable();     return categories; }   // GET /api/category/5 public HttpResponseMessage Get(int id) {     var category = categoryRepository.GetCategoryWithExpenses().Where(c => c.CategoryId == id).SingleOrDefault();     if (category == null)     {         return Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.NotFound);     }     return Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.OK, category); }   // POST /api/category public HttpResponseMessage Post(CategoryModel category) {       if (ModelState.IsValid)     {         var command = new CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand(category.CategoryId, category.CategoryName, category.Description);         var result = commandBus.Submit(command);         if (result.Success)         {                               var response = Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.Created, category);             string uri = Url.Link("DefaultApi", new { id = category.CategoryId });             response.Headers.Location = new Uri(uri);             return response;         }     }     else     {         return Request.CreateErrorResponse(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest, ModelState);     }     throw new HttpResponseException(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest); }   // PUT /api/category/5 public HttpResponseMessage Put(int id, CategoryModel category) {     if (ModelState.IsValid)     {         var command = new CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand(category.CategoryId, category.CategoryName, category.Description);         var result = commandBus.Submit(command);         return Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.OK, category);     }     else     {         return Request.CreateErrorResponse(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest, ModelState);     }     throw new HttpResponseException(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest); }       // DELETE /api/category/5     public HttpResponseMessage Delete(int id)     {         var command = new DeleteCategoryCommand { CategoryId = id };         var result = commandBus.Submit(command);         if (result.Success)         {             return new HttpResponseMessage(HttpStatusCode.NoContent);         }             throw new HttpResponseException(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest);     } } Source Code The EFMVC app can download from http://efmvc.codeplex.com/ . The unit test project can be found from the project EFMVC.Tests and Web API project can be found from EFMVC.Web.API.

    Read the article

  • Creating a dynamic proxy generator with c# – Part 3 – Creating the constructors

    - by SeanMcAlinden
    Creating a dynamic proxy generator with c# – Part 1 – Creating the Assembly builder, Module builder and caching mechanism Creating a dynamic proxy generator with c# – Part 2 – Interceptor Design For the latest code go to http://rapidioc.codeplex.com/ When building our proxy type, the first thing we need to do is build the constructors. There needs to be a corresponding constructor for each constructor on the passed in base type. We also want to create a field to store the interceptors and construct this list within each constructor. So assuming the passed in base type is a User<int, IRepository> class, were looking to generate constructor code like the following:   Default Constructor public User`2_RapidDynamicBaseProxy() {     this.interceptors = new List<IInterceptor<User<int, IRepository>>>();     DefaultInterceptor<User<int, IRepository>> item = new DefaultInterceptor<User<int, IRepository>>();     this.interceptors.Add(item); }     Parameterised Constructor public User`2_RapidDynamicBaseProxy(IRepository repository1) : base(repository1) {     this.interceptors = new List<IInterceptor<User<int, IRepository>>>();     DefaultInterceptor<User<int, IRepository>> item = new DefaultInterceptor<User<int, IRepository>>();     this.interceptors.Add(item); }   As you can see, we first populate a field on the class with a new list of the passed in base type. Construct our DefaultInterceptor class. Add the DefaultInterceptor instance to our interceptor collection. Although this seems like a relatively small task, there is a fair amount of work require to get this going. Instead of going through every line of code – please download the latest from http://rapidioc.codeplex.com/ and debug through. In this post I’m going to concentrate on explaining how it works. TypeBuilder The TypeBuilder class is the main class used to create the type. You instantiate a new TypeBuilder using the assembly module we created in part 1. /// <summary> /// Creates a type builder. /// </summary> /// <typeparam name="TBase">The type of the base class to be proxied.</typeparam> public static TypeBuilder CreateTypeBuilder<TBase>() where TBase : class {     TypeBuilder typeBuilder = DynamicModuleCache.Get.DefineType         (             CreateTypeName<TBase>(),             TypeAttributes.Class | TypeAttributes.Public,             typeof(TBase),             new Type[] { typeof(IProxy) }         );       if (typeof(TBase).IsGenericType)     {         GenericsHelper.MakeGenericType(typeof(TBase), typeBuilder);     }       return typeBuilder; }   private static string CreateTypeName<TBase>() where TBase : class {     return string.Format("{0}_RapidDynamicBaseProxy", typeof(TBase).Name); } As you can see, I’ve create a new public class derived from TBase which also implements my IProxy interface, this is used later for adding interceptors. If the base type is generic, the following GenericsHelper.MakeGenericType method is called. GenericsHelper using System; using System.Reflection.Emit; namespace Rapid.DynamicProxy.Types.Helpers {     /// <summary>     /// Helper class for generic types and methods.     /// </summary>     internal static class GenericsHelper     {         /// <summary>         /// Makes the typeBuilder a generic.         /// </summary>         /// <param name="concrete">The concrete.</param>         /// <param name="typeBuilder">The type builder.</param>         public static void MakeGenericType(Type baseType, TypeBuilder typeBuilder)         {             Type[] genericArguments = baseType.GetGenericArguments();               string[] genericArgumentNames = GetArgumentNames(genericArguments);               GenericTypeParameterBuilder[] genericTypeParameterBuilder                 = typeBuilder.DefineGenericParameters(genericArgumentNames);               typeBuilder.MakeGenericType(genericTypeParameterBuilder);         }           /// <summary>         /// Gets the argument names from an array of generic argument types.         /// </summary>         /// <param name="genericArguments">The generic arguments.</param>         public static string[] GetArgumentNames(Type[] genericArguments)         {             string[] genericArgumentNames = new string[genericArguments.Length];               for (int i = 0; i < genericArguments.Length; i++)             {                 genericArgumentNames[i] = genericArguments[i].Name;             }               return genericArgumentNames;         }     } }       As you can see, I’m getting all of the generic argument types and names, creating a GenericTypeParameterBuilder and then using the typeBuilder to make the new type generic. InterceptorsField The interceptors field will store a List<IInterceptor<TBase>>. Fields are simple made using the FieldBuilder class. The following code demonstrates how to create the interceptor field. FieldBuilder interceptorsField = typeBuilder.DefineField(     "interceptors",     typeof(System.Collections.Generic.List<>).MakeGenericType(typeof(IInterceptor<TBase>)),       FieldAttributes.Private     ); The field will now exist with the new Type although it currently has no data – we’ll deal with this in the constructor. Add method for interceptorsField To enable us to add to the interceptorsField list, we are going to utilise the Add method that already exists within the System.Collections.Generic.List class. We still however have to create the methodInfo necessary to call the add method. This can be done similar to the following: Add Interceptor Field MethodInfo addInterceptor = typeof(List<>)     .MakeGenericType(new Type[] { typeof(IInterceptor<>).MakeGenericType(typeof(TBase)) })     .GetMethod     (        "Add",        BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.NonPublic,        null,        new Type[] { typeof(IInterceptor<>).MakeGenericType(typeof(TBase)) },        null     ); So we’ve create a List<IInterceptor<TBase>> type, then using the type created a method info called Add which accepts an IInterceptor<TBase>. Now in our constructor we can use this to call this.interceptors.Add(// interceptor); Building the Constructors This will be the first hard-core part of the proxy building process so I’m going to show the class and then try to explain what everything is doing. For a clear view, download the source from http://rapidioc.codeplex.com/, go to the test project and debug through the constructor building section. Anyway, here it is: DynamicConstructorBuilder using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Reflection; using System.Reflection.Emit; using Rapid.DynamicProxy.Interception; using Rapid.DynamicProxy.Types.Helpers; namespace Rapid.DynamicProxy.Types.Constructors {     /// <summary>     /// Class for creating the proxy constructors.     /// </summary>     internal static class DynamicConstructorBuilder     {         /// <summary>         /// Builds the constructors.         /// </summary>         /// <typeparam name="TBase">The base type.</typeparam>         /// <param name="typeBuilder">The type builder.</param>         /// <param name="interceptorsField">The interceptors field.</param>         public static void BuildConstructors<TBase>             (                 TypeBuilder typeBuilder,                 FieldBuilder interceptorsField,                 MethodInfo addInterceptor             )             where TBase : class         {             ConstructorInfo interceptorsFieldConstructor = CreateInterceptorsFieldConstructor<TBase>();               ConstructorInfo defaultInterceptorConstructor = CreateDefaultInterceptorConstructor<TBase>();               ConstructorInfo[] constructors = typeof(TBase).GetConstructors();               foreach (ConstructorInfo constructorInfo in constructors)             {                 CreateConstructor<TBase>                     (                         typeBuilder,                         interceptorsField,                         interceptorsFieldConstructor,                         defaultInterceptorConstructor,                         addInterceptor,                         constructorInfo                     );             }         }           #region Private Methods           private static void CreateConstructor<TBase>             (                 TypeBuilder typeBuilder,                 FieldBuilder interceptorsField,                 ConstructorInfo interceptorsFieldConstructor,                 ConstructorInfo defaultInterceptorConstructor,                 MethodInfo AddDefaultInterceptor,                 ConstructorInfo constructorInfo             ) where TBase : class         {             Type[] parameterTypes = GetParameterTypes(constructorInfo);               ConstructorBuilder constructorBuilder = CreateConstructorBuilder(typeBuilder, parameterTypes);               ILGenerator cIL = constructorBuilder.GetILGenerator();               LocalBuilder defaultInterceptorMethodVariable =                 cIL.DeclareLocal(typeof(DefaultInterceptor<>).MakeGenericType(typeof(TBase)));               ConstructInterceptorsField(interceptorsField, interceptorsFieldConstructor, cIL);               ConstructDefaultInterceptor(defaultInterceptorConstructor, cIL, defaultInterceptorMethodVariable);               AddDefaultInterceptorToInterceptorsList                 (                     interceptorsField,                     AddDefaultInterceptor,                     cIL,                     defaultInterceptorMethodVariable                 );               CreateConstructor(constructorInfo, parameterTypes, cIL);         }           private static void CreateConstructor(ConstructorInfo constructorInfo, Type[] parameterTypes, ILGenerator cIL)         {             cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Ldarg_0);               if (parameterTypes.Length > 0)             {                 LoadParameterTypes(parameterTypes, cIL);             }               cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Call, constructorInfo);             cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Ret);         }           private static void LoadParameterTypes(Type[] parameterTypes, ILGenerator cIL)         {             for (int i = 1; i <= parameterTypes.Length; i++)             {                 cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Ldarg_S, i);             }         }           private static void AddDefaultInterceptorToInterceptorsList             (                 FieldBuilder interceptorsField,                 MethodInfo AddDefaultInterceptor,                 ILGenerator cIL,                 LocalBuilder defaultInterceptorMethodVariable             )         {             cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Ldarg_0);             cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Ldfld, interceptorsField);             cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Ldloc, defaultInterceptorMethodVariable);             cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Callvirt, AddDefaultInterceptor);         }           private static void ConstructDefaultInterceptor             (                 ConstructorInfo defaultInterceptorConstructor,                 ILGenerator cIL,                 LocalBuilder defaultInterceptorMethodVariable             )         {             cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Newobj, defaultInterceptorConstructor);             cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Stloc, defaultInterceptorMethodVariable);         }           private static void ConstructInterceptorsField             (                 FieldBuilder interceptorsField,                 ConstructorInfo interceptorsFieldConstructor,                 ILGenerator cIL             )         {             cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Ldarg_0);             cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Newobj, interceptorsFieldConstructor);             cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Stfld, interceptorsField);         }           private static ConstructorBuilder CreateConstructorBuilder(TypeBuilder typeBuilder, Type[] parameterTypes)         {             return typeBuilder.DefineConstructor                 (                     MethodAttributes.Public | MethodAttributes.SpecialName | MethodAttributes.RTSpecialName                     | MethodAttributes.HideBySig, CallingConventions.Standard, parameterTypes                 );         }           private static Type[] GetParameterTypes(ConstructorInfo constructorInfo)         {             ParameterInfo[] parameterInfoArray = constructorInfo.GetParameters();               Type[] parameterTypes = new Type[parameterInfoArray.Length];               for (int p = 0; p < parameterInfoArray.Length; p++)             {                 parameterTypes[p] = parameterInfoArray[p].ParameterType;             }               return parameterTypes;         }           private static ConstructorInfo CreateInterceptorsFieldConstructor<TBase>() where TBase : class         {             return ConstructorHelper.CreateGenericConstructorInfo                 (                     typeof(List<>),                     new Type[] { typeof(IInterceptor<TBase>) },                     BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.NonPublic                 );         }           private static ConstructorInfo CreateDefaultInterceptorConstructor<TBase>() where TBase : class         {             return ConstructorHelper.CreateGenericConstructorInfo                 (                     typeof(DefaultInterceptor<>),                     new Type[] { typeof(TBase) },                     BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.NonPublic                 );         }           #endregion     } } So, the first two tasks within the class should be fairly clear, we are creating a ConstructorInfo for the interceptorField list and a ConstructorInfo for the DefaultConstructor, this is for instantiating them in each contructor. We then using Reflection get an array of all of the constructors in the base class, we then loop through the array and create a corresponding proxy contructor. Hopefully, the code is fairly easy to follow other than some new types and the dreaded Opcodes. ConstructorBuilder This class defines a new constructor on the type. ILGenerator The ILGenerator allows the use of Reflection.Emit to create the method body. LocalBuilder The local builder allows the storage of data in local variables within a method, in this case it’s the constructed DefaultInterceptor. Constructing the interceptors field The first bit of IL you’ll come across as you follow through the code is the following private method used for constructing the field list of interceptors. private static void ConstructInterceptorsField             (                 FieldBuilder interceptorsField,                 ConstructorInfo interceptorsFieldConstructor,                 ILGenerator cIL             )         {             cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Ldarg_0);             cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Newobj, interceptorsFieldConstructor);             cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Stfld, interceptorsField);         } The first thing to know about generating code using IL is that you are using a stack, if you want to use something, you need to push it up the stack etc. etc. OpCodes.ldArg_0 This opcode is a really interesting one, basically each method has a hidden first argument of the containing class instance (apart from static classes), constructors are no different. This is the reason you can use syntax like this.myField. So back to the method, as we want to instantiate the List in the interceptorsField, first we need to load the class instance onto the stack, we then load the new object (new List<TBase>) and finally we store it in the interceptorsField. Hopefully, that should follow easily enough in the method. In each constructor you would now have this.interceptors = new List<User<int, IRepository>>(); Constructing and storing the DefaultInterceptor The next bit of code we need to create is the constructed DefaultInterceptor. Firstly, we create a local builder to store the constructed type. Create a local builder LocalBuilder defaultInterceptorMethodVariable =     cIL.DeclareLocal(typeof(DefaultInterceptor<>).MakeGenericType(typeof(TBase))); Once our local builder is ready, we then need to construct the DefaultInterceptor<TBase> and store it in the variable. Connstruct DefaultInterceptor private static void ConstructDefaultInterceptor     (         ConstructorInfo defaultInterceptorConstructor,         ILGenerator cIL,         LocalBuilder defaultInterceptorMethodVariable     ) {     cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Newobj, defaultInterceptorConstructor);     cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Stloc, defaultInterceptorMethodVariable); } As you can see, using the ConstructorInfo named defaultInterceptorConstructor, we load the new object onto the stack. Then using the store local opcode (OpCodes.Stloc), we store the new object in the local builder named defaultInterceptorMethodVariable. Add the constructed DefaultInterceptor to the interceptors field collection Using the add method created earlier in this post, we are going to add the new DefaultInterceptor object to the interceptors field collection. Add Default Interceptor private static void AddDefaultInterceptorToInterceptorsList     (         FieldBuilder interceptorsField,         MethodInfo AddDefaultInterceptor,         ILGenerator cIL,         LocalBuilder defaultInterceptorMethodVariable     ) {     cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Ldarg_0);     cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Ldfld, interceptorsField);     cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Ldloc, defaultInterceptorMethodVariable);     cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Callvirt, AddDefaultInterceptor); } So, here’s whats going on. The class instance is first loaded onto the stack using the load argument at index 0 opcode (OpCodes.Ldarg_0) (remember the first arg is the hidden class instance). The interceptorsField is then loaded onto the stack using the load field opcode (OpCodes.Ldfld). We then load the DefaultInterceptor object we stored locally using the load local opcode (OpCodes.Ldloc). Then finally we call the AddDefaultInterceptor method using the call virtual opcode (Opcodes.Callvirt). Completing the constructor The last thing we need to do is complete the constructor. Complete the constructor private static void CreateConstructor(ConstructorInfo constructorInfo, Type[] parameterTypes, ILGenerator cIL)         {             cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Ldarg_0);               if (parameterTypes.Length > 0)             {                 LoadParameterTypes(parameterTypes, cIL);             }               cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Call, constructorInfo);             cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Ret);         }           private static void LoadParameterTypes(Type[] parameterTypes, ILGenerator cIL)         {             for (int i = 1; i <= parameterTypes.Length; i++)             {                 cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Ldarg_S, i);             }         } So, the first thing we do again is load the class instance using the load argument at index 0 opcode (OpCodes.Ldarg_0). We then load each parameter using OpCode.Ldarg_S, this opcode allows us to specify an index position for each argument. We then setup calling the base constructor using OpCodes.Call and the base constructors ConstructorInfo. Finally, all methods are required to return, even when they have a void return. As there are no values on the stack after the OpCodes.Call line, we can safely call the OpCode.Ret to give the constructor a void return. If there was a value, we would have to pop the value of the stack before calling return otherwise, the method would try and return a value. Conclusion This was a slightly hardcore post but hopefully it hasn’t been too hard to follow. The main thing is that a number of the really useful opcodes have been used and now the dynamic proxy is capable of being constructed. If you download the code and debug through the tests at http://rapidioc.codeplex.com/, you’ll be able to create proxies at this point, they cannon do anything in terms of interception but you can happily run the tests, call base methods and properties and also take a look at the created assembly in Reflector. Hope this is useful. The next post should be up soon, it will be covering creating the private methods for calling the base class methods and properties. Kind Regards, Sean.

    Read the article

  • EFMVC Migrated to .NET 4.5, Visual Studio 2012, ASP.NET MVC 4 and EF 5 Code First

    - by shiju
    I have just migrated my EFMVC app from .NET 4.0 and ASP.NET MVC 4 RC to .NET 4.5, ASP.NET MVC 4 RTM and Entity Framework 5 Code First. In this release, the EFMVC solution is built with Visual Studio 2012 RTM. The migration process was very smooth and did not made any major changes other than adding simple unit tests with NUnit and Moq. I will add more unit tests on later and will also modify the existing solution. Source Code You can download the source code from http://efmvc.codeplex.com/

    Read the article

  • Building an HTML5 App with ASP.NET

    - by Stephen Walther
    I’m teaching several JavaScript and ASP.NET workshops over the next couple of months (thanks everyone!) and I thought it would be useful for my students to have a really easy to use JavaScript reference. I wanted a simple interactive JavaScript reference and I could not find one so I decided to put together one of my own. I decided to use the latest features of JavaScript, HTML5 and jQuery such as local storage, offline manifests, and jQuery templates. What could be more appropriate than building a JavaScript Reference with JavaScript? You can try out the application by visiting: http://Superexpert.com/JavaScriptReference Because the app takes advantage of several advanced features of HTML5, it won’t work with Internet Explorer 6 (but really, you should stop using that browser). I have tested it with IE 8, Chrome 8, Firefox 3.6, and Safari 5. You can download the source for the JavaScript Reference application at the end of this article. Superexpert JavaScript Reference Let me provide you with a brief walkthrough of the app. When you first open the application, you see the following lookup screen: As you type the name of something from the JavaScript language, matching results are displayed: You can click the details link for any entry to view details for an entry in a modal dialog: Alternatively, you can click on any of the tabs -- Objects, Functions, Properties, Statements, Operators, Comments, or Directives -- to filter results by type of syntax. For example, you might want to see a list of all JavaScript built-in objects: You can login to the application to make modification to the application: After you login, you can add, update, or delete entries in the reference database: HTML5 Local Storage The application takes advantage of HTML5 local storage to store all of the reference entries on the local browser. IE 8, Chrome 8, Firefox 3.6, and Safari 5 all support local storage. When you open the application for the first time, all of the reference entries are transferred to the browser. The data is stored persistently. Even if you shutdown your computer and return to the application many days later, the data does not need to be transferred again. Whenever you open the application, the app checks with the server to see if any of the entries have been updated on the server. If there have been updates, then only the updates are transferred to the browser and the updates are merged with the existing entries in local storage. After the reference database has been transferred to your browser once, only changes are transferred in the future. You get two benefits from using local storage. First, the application loads very fast and works very fast after the data has been loaded once. The application does not query the server whenever you filter or view entries. All of the data is persisted in the browser. Second, you can browse the JavaScript reference even when you are not connected to the Internet (when you are on the proverbial airplane). The JavaScript Reference works as an offline application for browsers that support offline applications (unfortunately, not IE). When using Google Chrome, you can easily view the contents of local storage by selecting Tools, Developer Tools (CTRL-SHIFT I) and selecting Storage, Local Storage: The JavaScript Reference app stores two items in local storage: entriesLastUpdated and entries. HTML5 Offline App For browsers that support HTML5 offline applications – Chrome 8 and Firefox 3.6 but not Internet Explorer – you do not need to be connected to the Internet to use the JavaScript Reference. The JavaScript Reference can execute entirely on your machine just like any other desktop application. When you first open the application with Firefox, you are presented with the following warning: Notice the notification bar that asks whether you want to accept offline content. If you click the Allow button then all of the files (generated ASPX, images, CSS, JavaScript) needed for the JavaScript Reference will be stored on your local computer. Automatic Script Minification and Combination All of the custom JavaScript files are combined and minified automatically whenever the application is built with Visual Studio. All of the custom scripts are contained in a folder named App_Scripts: When you perform a build, the combine.js and combine.debug.js files are generated. The Combine.config file contains the list of files that should be combined (importantly, it specifies the order in which the files should be combined). Here’s the contents of the Combine.config file:   <?xml version="1.0"?> <combine> <scripts> <file path="compat.js" /> <file path="storage.js" /> <file path="serverData.js" /> <file path="entriesHelper.js" /> <file path="authentication.js" /> <file path="default.js" /> </scripts> </combine>   jQuery and jQuery UI The JavaScript Reference application takes heavy advantage of jQuery and jQuery UI. In particular, the application uses jQuery templates to format and display the reference entries. Each of the separate templates is stored in a separate ASP.NET user control in a folder named Templates: The contents of the user controls (and therefore the templates) are combined in the default.aspx page: <!-- Templates --> <user:EntryTemplate runat="server" /> <user:EntryDetailsTemplate runat="server" /> <user:BrowsersTemplate runat="server" /> <user:EditEntryTemplate runat="server" /> <user:EntryDetailsCloudTemplate runat="server" /> When the default.aspx page is requested, all of the templates are retrieved in a single page. WCF Data Services The JavaScript Reference application uses WCF Data Services to retrieve and modify database data. The application exposes a server-side WCF Data Service named EntryService.svc that supports querying, adding, updating, and deleting entries. jQuery Ajax calls are made against the WCF Data Service to perform the database operations from the browser. The OData protocol makes this easy. Authentication is handled on the server with a ChangeInterceptor. Only authenticated users are allowed to update the JavaScript Reference entry database. JavaScript Unit Tests In order to build the JavaScript Reference application, I depended on JavaScript unit tests. I needed the unit tests, in particular, to write the JavaScript merge functions which merge entry change sets from the server with existing entries in browser local storage. In order for unit tests to be useful, they need to run fast. I ran my unit tests after each build. For this reason, I did not want to run the unit tests within the context of a browser. Instead, I ran the unit tests using server-side JavaScript (the Microsoft Script Control). The source code that you can download at the end of this blog entry includes a project named JavaScriptReference.UnitTests that contains all of the JavaScripts unit tests. JavaScript Integration Tests Because not every feature of an application can be tested by unit tests, the JavaScript Reference application also includes integration tests. I wrote the integration tests using Selenium RC in combination with ASP.NET Unit Tests. The Selenium tests run against all of the target browsers for the JavaScript Reference application: IE 8, Chrome 8, Firefox 3.6, and Safari 5. For example, here is the Selenium test that checks whether authenticating with a valid user name and password correctly switches the application to Admin Mode: [TestMethod] [HostType("ASP.NET")] [UrlToTest("http://localhost:26303/JavaScriptReference")] [AspNetDevelopmentServerHost(@"C:\Users\Stephen\Documents\Repos\JavaScriptReference\JavaScriptReference\JavaScriptReference", "/JavaScriptReference")] public void TestValidLogin() { // Run test for each controller foreach (var controller in this.Controllers) { var selenium = controller.Value; var browserName = controller.Key; // Open reference page. selenium.Open("http://localhost:26303/JavaScriptReference/default.aspx"); // Click login button displays login form selenium.Click("btnLogin"); Assert.IsTrue(selenium.IsVisible("loginForm"), "Login form appears after clicking btnLogin"); // Enter user name and password selenium.Type("userName", "Admin"); selenium.Type("password", "secret"); selenium.Click("btnDoLogin"); // Should set adminMode == true selenium.WaitForCondition("selenium.browserbot.getCurrentWindow().adminMode==true", "30000"); } }   The results for running the Selenium tests appear in the Test Results window just like the unit tests: The Selenium tests take much longer to execute than the unit tests. However, they provide test coverage for actual browsers. Furthermore, if you are using Visual Studio ALM, you can run the tests automatically every night as part of your standard nightly build. You can view the Selenium tests by opening the JavaScriptReference.QATests project. Summary I plan to write more detailed blog entries about this application over the next week. I want to discuss each of the features – HTML5 local storage, HTML5 offline apps, jQuery templates, automatic script combining and minification, JavaScript unit tests, Selenium tests -- in more detail. You can download the source control for the JavaScript Reference Application by clicking the following link: Download You need Visual Studio 2010 and ASP.NET 4 to build the application. Before running the JavaScript unit tests, install the Microsoft Script Control. Before running the Selenium tests, start the Selenium server by running the StartSeleniumServer.bat file located in the JavaScriptReference.QATests project.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >