Tag Archives: XUnit

Introduction to Unit Tests (with examples in .Net) – Part 4 – Mocking (Including fakes and stubs)

In this, forth (and probably final) post on the subject of Unit Tests, we’re going to dive a little deeper into the subject of mocking. We’ll discuss what the difference is between a mock, a stub, and a fake; we’ll also talk about mocking frameworks.

A Fake, Stubby, Mock

These terms are often used interchangeably, and that’s fine – but they can mean different things. There are a couple of sources (that I could find) that have defined the difference between these terms:

Mocks Aren’t Stubs – an article from 2007 by Martin Fowler.

xUnit Test Patterns – a book on Unit Testing.

Broadly, they both say the same, which is this:

A Stub is a replacement for functionality that will return a given value without actually executing any life-like code.

A Mock is similar to a stub, but allows for analysis of that behaviour – for example, you can determine whether or not the method was called, or how many times.

A Fake is a replacement for functionality that is intended to mimic the actual functionality of the code.

A Test Double is a generic term to encompass all three.

Let’s have a look at an example for each. We’ll stick with manual test doubles for now. Let’s consider one of the manual mocks that we created in the last post:

    public class MockInputOutputWrapper : IInputOutputWrapper
    {
        private readonly string _inputValue;

        public MockInputOutputWrapper(string inputValue) =>
            _inputValue = inputValue;        

        public string GetInput(string prompt) => _inputValue;        

        public void Output(string text) { }
    }

Stub

Our first call is the stub, which is the Output method in the code above. It provides a method to call, but no functionality whatsoever.

Mock

Let’s imagine that we wanted to ascertain how many times we called Output – we may do something like this:

public class MockInputOutputWrapper : IInputOutputWrapper
{
    private readonly string _inputValue;
    private int _outputCount = 0;

    public MockInputOutputWrapper(string inputValue) =>
        _inputValue = inputValue;        

    public string GetInput(string prompt) => _inputValue;        

    public void OutputCallsMustBe(int count)
    {
        if (count != _outputCount) throw new Exception("Output Calls Incorrect");
    }

    public void Output(string text) 
    {
        _outputCount++;
    }
}

Now Output is a mock, rather than a stub. For this post, I won’t go to the extent of writing a mocking framework, but I think the code above illustrates the point. That is, we can ascertain that Output has been called, say, once:

[Fact]
public void Output_ValidGuess_CalledOnce()
{
    // Arrange
    var inputOutputWrapper = new MockInputOutputWrapper("12");
    var randomNumberChooser = new MockRandomNumberChooser();
    var sut = new Game(inputOutputWrapper, randomNumberChooser);

    // Act
    string result = sut.RunMethod();

    // Assert
    Assert.Equal("Well done, you guessed!", result);
    inputOutputWrapper.OutputCallsMustBe(1);
}

Finally, we’ll discuss what a fake is.

Fake

Fakes allow for functionality to be replicated in a way that’s more conducive to the test. The stub allowed us to essentially ignore the functionality altogether; the mock allowed us to assert that, despite replacing the functionality, it had actually been invoked (or would have been); the fake allows us to substitute that functionality. A good example here is a database – in order to test the interaction with a database, you may find it necessary to actually store some data in memory. Using our example, what if we needed to ascertain that the game dealt with different random numbers; we could write this:

[Fact]
public class MockRandomNumberChooser : IRandomNumberChooser
{
    private int[] _numberList = new[] { 12, 3, 43 };
    private int _index = 0;
    public int Choose() => _numberList[_index++];
}

Now that we understand the difference, we’ll see that it can be very academic, especially when dealing with mocking frameworks.

There’s a lot of boiler plate code here. Manually creating these classes does the job, but imagine the following scenario: you have 5 different mock classes, and you add a method to the interface IRandomNumberChooser. You now need to manually go through each of those mocks and add the functionality necessary to mock out the new function – you are very likely to not care about the new function in most of those methods, but nevertheless, you would need to go and honour the interface.

Mocking Frameworks

Mocking frameworks aim to solve this problem by creating a mechanism to mock or subclass an object. There are currently two main mocking frameworks for .Net: Nsubstitute and Moq. There’s also Microsoft Fakes.

We won’t cover all of these, and the principle behind them is broadly the same, with a slightly different implementation bias. I’ve always found NSubstitute much more intuitive, so we’ll cover that.

We’ll start by simply deleting the MockRandomNumberChooser. Now install Nsubstitute:

Install-Package NSubstitute

The next part is to simply tell NSubstitute to do the same thing that you had done using the mock class:

var randomNumberChooser = Substitute.For<IRandomNumberChooser>();
randomNumberChooser.Choose().Returns(12);

If you run the test, you’ll see absolutely no difference. Based on our discussion earlier in the post, we have created a stub, but we can create both Mocks and Fakes using the same class. If you want to create a mock, you’ll do so like this:

randomNumberChooser.Received(1).Choose();

Fakes are a little different, however, you can still replace the functionality.

References

https://www.pmichaels.net/2018/03/22/using-nsubstitute-for-partial-mocks/

https://github.com/nsubstitute/NSubstitute/

https://github.com/moq

Introduction to Unit Tests (with examples in .Net) – Part 3 – Test Frameworks and Manual Mocks

So far, in this series of posts on the basics of unit tests, we’ve spoken about concepts and methodologies, but we’ve steered away from using any specific frameworks or tools. In this post, we’ll investigate what a test framework can do for us.

We’ll continue to work with the code that we created in the previous post, but we’ll address the issues that we still had at the end of that post.

A Recap of the Story So Far

At the end of the previous post, we had the following code:

for (int i = 1; i <= 100; i++)
{
    // Arrange
    Func<string> mockInput = () => "5";
 
    // Act
    string result = RunMethod(mockInput);
 
    // Assert
    if (result == "Well done, you guessed!")
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Test Passed");
        break;
    }
}
 
for (int i = 1; i <= 100; i++)
{
    // Arrange
    Func<string> mockInput = () => "5";
 
    // Act
    string result = RunMethod(mockInput);
 
    // Assert
    if (result.StartsWith("Sorry, that was the wrong number"))
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Test Passed");
        break;
    }
}
 
{
    // Arrange
    Func<string> mockInput = () => "";
 
    // Act
    string result = RunMethod(mockInput);
 
    // Assert
    if (result == "Invalid guess")
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Test Passed");
    }
}

We had yet to introduce any tools or frameworks, but we had managed to test our code. We still had the following issues, however:

1. The tests passed, but we visually have to visually ascertain that.
2. We were outputting to the console needlessly.
3. Our tests were not resilient – a change of a single character in the user output, and the tests would break.
4. The tests were not deterministic – they were dependent on the result of a pseudo random number.

In this post, we’ll address these issues in order (apart from the third one, but we’ll come back to that) : we’ll start with the first.

1. The tests passed, but we visually have to visually ascertain that

How can we ascertain the result of a test without watching to see what happens with the test. One thing we could do is something similar to the following:

int RunTest1()
{
    for (int i = 1; i <= 100; i++)
    {
        // Arrange
        Func<string> mockInput = () => "5";

        // Act
        string result = RunMethod2(mockInput);

        // Assert
        if (result == "Well done, you guessed!")
        {
            Console.WriteLine("Test Passed");
            return 0;
        }
    }
    return 1;
}

int RunTest2()
{
    for (int i = 1; i <= 100; i++)
    {
        // Arrange
        Func<string> mockInput = () => "5";

        // Act
        string result = RunMethod2(mockInput);

        // Assert
        if (result.StartsWith("Sorry, that was the wrong number"))
        {
            Console.WriteLine("Test Passed");
            return 0;
        }
    }
    return 1;
}

int RunTest3()
{
    // Arrange
    Func<string> mockInput = () => "";

    // Act
    string result = RunMethod2(mockInput);

    // Assert
    if (result == "Invalid guess")
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Test Passed");
        return 0;
    }
    return 1;
}

Console.WriteLine(RunTest1());
Console.WriteLine(RunTest2());
Console.WriteLine(RunTest3());

There’s a lot of code here, but all we’ve actually done is wrap the tests up in functions, and then returned a value based on the result of the test. This means that we can write something like this:

if (RunTest1() != 0 | RunTest2() != 0 | RunTest3() != 0)
{
    Console.WriteLine("Some tests failed");
}

In case you didn’t know, the single pipe (|) in C# in a bitwise or – that is, it will execute all conditions regardless of the result and then evaluate the result, a logical or (||) would only run the tests until one failed and then exit the condition.

This approach also helps with the second issue.

2. We were outputting to the console needlessly

We’re outputting to the console for two reasons: the first is to validate the tests; we can now simply remove all of those from the test, since we have an actual value that we can test against. The second reason is that the code itself outputs to the console. As has been mentioned in a previous post, there are ways to redirect the output of the console without mocking it; however, I’m trying to keep this series generic, and that is specific to the .Net console (although I strongly suspect that most languages provide a similar concept).

To get around this, we could replicate what we did in the second post; however, we can also take a slightly different approach and wrap the entire input / output functionality in its own class; for example:

    internal class ConsoleInputOutputWrapper
    {
        public void Output(string text) => Console.WriteLine(text);
        public string GetInput(string prompt)
        {
            Output(prompt);
            return Console.ReadLine();
        }
    }

This idea gives us some additional benefits – as you can see, we already have the prompt and input in a single method; and we could go further – we could do some validation inside the method, too; what if the user doesn’t enter anything:

        public string GetInput(string prompt)
        {            
            while (true)
            {
                Output(prompt);
                string? answer = Console.ReadLine();
                if (!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(answer)) return answer;
            }
        }

We can now replace the direct references to Console with references to this:

string RunMethod(Func<string> readData)
{
    var io = new ConsoleInputOutputWrapper();
    int myNumber = Random.Shared.Next(100) + 1;

    io.Output("Guess the number that I'm thinking between 1 - 100");
    string? guess = readData();
    string result = BusinessLogic2(myNumber, guess);
    io.Output(result);
    return result;
}

We haven’t actually changed anything here, though – the console is still being written to. We need to be able to replace the functionality within the system for our test. We can do that by replacing the concrete class with an interface.

Adding an Interface

Adding an interface is much simpler than it may sound. Let’s see what needs to change in our ConsoleInputOutputWrapper class:

internal class ConsoleInputOutputWrapper : IInputOutputWrapper

We’ve implemented an interface that we’ve named IInputOutputWrapper – we’ve named it this because it’s more generic (that is, it doesn’t actually need to be a Console).

The interface just needs to specify the public methods in the class:

    internal interface IInputOutputWrapper
    {
        void Output(string text);
        string GetInput(string prompt);
    }

Whilst this syntax is specific to C#, the concept of an interface is not.

While we’re introducing an interface, and to clean our code a little, we can extract both our RunMethod and BusinessLogic methods into their own class – let’s call it Game:

    internal class Game
    {
        public string RunMethod(Func<string> readData)
        {
            var io = new ConsoleInputOutputWrapper();
            int myNumber = Random.Shared.Next(100) + 1;

            io.Output("Guess the number that I'm thinking between 1 - 100");
            string? guess = readData();
            string result = BusinessLogic(myNumber, guess);
            io.Output(result);
            return result;
        }

        public string BusinessLogic(int myNumber, string guessedNumber)
        {
            if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(guessedNumber))
            {
                return "Invalid guess";
            }

            if (int.Parse(guessedNumber) == myNumber)
            {
                return "Well done, you guessed!";
            }
            else
            {
                return $"Sorry, that was the wrong number, I was thinking of {myNumber}";
            }
        }

    }

This makes things much simpler. We can now create a constructor, and pass in our new interface:

    internal class Game
    {
        private readonly IInputOutputWrapper _inputOutputWrapper;

        public Game(IInputOutputWrapper inputOutputWrapper)
        {
            _inputOutputWrapper = inputOutputWrapper;
        }

Now that we have this instance, we can simply replace the method with a reference to this instead:

        public string RunMethod()
        {            
            int myNumber = Random.Shared.Next(100) + 1;
            
            string guess = _inputOutputWrapper.GetInput("Guess the number that I'm thinking between 1 - 100");
            string result = BusinessLogic(myNumber, guess);
            _inputOutputWrapper.Output(result);
            return result;
        }

We can now update our tests to call this new class, but we can pass in our own version of the IInputOutputWrapper, which may look like this:

    internal class MockInputOutputWrapper : IInputOutputWrapper
    {
        public string GetInput(string prompt)
        {
            return "5";
        }

        public void Output(string text) { }
    }

The test would then look something like this:

    for (int i = 1; i <= 100; i++)
    {
        // Arrange
        var inputOutputWrapper = new MockInputOutputWrapper();
        var sut = new Game(inputOutputWrapper);

        // Act
        string result = sut.RunMethod();

        // Assert
        if (result == "Well done, you guessed!")
        {            
            return 0;
        }
    }
    return 1;

Next, we’ll skip number 3 and jump to 4.

4. The tests were not deterministic – they were dependent on the result of a pseudo random number

We can use the same pattern to create a wrapper for our random number chooser:

    internal class RandomNumberChooser : IRandomNumberChooser
    {
        public int Choose() =>
            Random.Shared.Next(100) + 1;        
    }

We can then mock that out, as before:

internal class MockRandomNumberChooser : IRandomNumberChooser
{
    public int Choose() => 12;
}

This definitely works, but it’s not brilliant. We have a few remaining issues – for example, if we want to test the number are the same, or different, we’ll need two mock classes. There are ways around this, too – for example:

    internal class MockInputOutputWrapper : IInputOutputWrapper
    {
        private readonly string _inputValue;

        public MockInputOutputWrapper(string inputValue) =>
            _inputValue = inputValue;        

        public string GetInput(string prompt) => _inputValue;        

        public void Output(string text) { }
    }

We’ll come back to neater ways to achieve this in a future post, but for now, let’s put all this together and introduce a test framework.

Introducing a Test Framework

Test frameworks give you four basic things (some, in fact most, do more, but these are the absolute basics that you need – otherwise, you might as well roll your own):

1. A return value from the test run to determine whether the tests pass or fail
2. An ability to assert a value is in a given state
3. Some kind of integration into your IDE
4. Method discovery (that is, some way to mark your tests as tests)

For this example, we’ll use xUnit.net. Every language has its own options here – in .Net I’ve used MS Test, Nunit, and xUnit – and they’re all broadly the same; I’ve also seen libraries in Javascript and Python and, again, they mostly do the same stuff.

We’ll need to install the following libraries:

Install-Package Microsoft.Test.Sdk
install-package Xunit
Install-Package Xunit.Runner.Console
Install-Package Xunit.Runner.VisualStudio

This will enable you to create a test such as this:

[Fact]
public void RunMethod_GuessedCorrectly_CorrectTextReturned()
{
    // Arrange
    var inputOutputWrapper = new MockInputOutputWrapper("12");
    var randomNumberChooser = new MockRandomNumberChooser();
    var sut = new Game(inputOutputWrapper, randomNumberChooser);

    // Act
    string result = sut.RunMethod();

    // Assert
    Assert.Equal("Well done, you guessed!", result);
}

We no longer need to run this 100 times, because we can force a correct and incorrect guess:

        [Fact]
        public void RunMethod_GuessedIncorrectly_CorrectTestReturned()
        {
            // Arrange
            var inputOutputWrapper = new MockInputOutputWrapper("13");
            var randomNumberChooser = new MockRandomNumberChooser();
            var sut = new Game(inputOutputWrapper, randomNumberChooser);

            // Act
            string result = sut.RunMethod();

            // Assert
            Assert.StartsWith("Sorry, that was the wrong number", result);
        }

Summary

We’ve now seen how we can manually mock functionality, and how that can help us to accurately test methods; we’ve also introduced a testing framework. In the next post, we’ll discuss mocking frameworks, and how they can make this even easier. We’ll also re-visit the test resilience.

Introduction to Unit Tests (with examples in .Net) – Part 2 – Refactoring and Mocking

This forms the second in a short series of posts on unit tests. You can find the first post in this series here.

In this post, I’ll be expanding the points raised in the first post to cover a slightly more realistic scenario, and offering some tips of how re-factoring might help with the creation of unit tests. We’ll also cover the basic principles behind mocking – I’m intending to cover this in more detail in a future post of this series.

A Quick Recap

You’re welcome (and encouraged) to go back to the first post in the series; however, to summarise, we discussed the Arrange/Act/Assert pattern, and how it can help us structure a unit test; we spoke about the FIRST principles of testing, and thereby the attributes that we should look for in a good unit test.

What we specifically didn’t cover was any testing frameworks, the concept of mocking or any mocking frameworks, or how to write a unit test in a scenario where you’re not simply adding two numbers together.

A More Realistic Unit Test

If we take an example of any level of complexity, we might question some of the points that were made in the first post. After all, very few methods would simply take two numbers and add them together – or, if they do, perhaps we need to reconsider the language that we’re using.

Let’s look at a simple console application:

int myNumber = Random.Shared.Next(100) + 1;

Console.WriteLine("Guess the number that I'm thinking between 1 - 100");
var guess = Console.ReadLine();
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(guess))
{
    Console.WriteLine("Invalid guess");
    return;
}

if (int.Parse(guess) == myNumber)
{
    Console.WriteLine("Well done, you guessed!");
}
else
{
    Console.WriteLine($"Sorry, that was the wrong number, I was thinking of {myNumber}");
}

If you had to test this code, how would you do it?

In fact, it’s really difficult, because every time you run it, the number is different. This is a simple piece of code, there’s only 3 code paths; arguably, your strategy could be: run it once and enter a blank value, run it once and enter a non-numeric value, run it 100 more times and hope that you’ll get the number right once.

Writing a Test

As before, let’s start with the manual test that we’ve just described; arguably, we could simply automate this. We’d probably do something like this:

        public static void RunTest()
        {
            // Run method here - check that a blank entry works

            // Run method here - check that a numeric entry works

            for (int i = 0 ; i < 100; i++)
            {
                // Run method here - exit this loop once we've determined that we have a correct and incorrect guess

            }
        }

In fact, running that exact test would be possible – we could simply redirect the console input and output; however, for the purposes of this post, we’ll bypass that method (as it is quite specific to writing a .Net Console app), and we’ll re-factor our code a little.

Refactoring

We can refactor it by splitting the method into two; one method that accepts the input, and one that runs the business logic:

void RunMethod()
{
    int myNumber = Random.Shared.Next(100) + 1;

    Console.WriteLine("Guess the number that I'm thinking between 1 - 100");
    var guess = Console.ReadLine();
    BusinessLogic(myNumber, guess);
}

void BusinessLogic(int myNumber, string guessedNumber)
{
    if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(guessedNumber))
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Invalid guess");
        return;
    }

    if (int.Parse(guessedNumber) == myNumber)
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Well done, you guessed!");
    }
    else
    {
        Console.WriteLine($"Sorry, that was the wrong number, I was thinking of {myNumber}");
    }
}

All we’ve done here is split the method into two methods – the code is exactly the same as it was before. However, now we can run the code in our test without worrying about the input:

        public static void RunTest()
        {
            // Check that a blank entry works
            BusinessLogic(3, "");

            // Check that a non-numeric entry works
            BusinessLogic(3, "aardvark");

            for (int i = 1; i <= 100; i++)
            {
                // Check that false and true numbers work
                BusinessLogic(i, "2");
            }
        }

It still feels a lot like we’re only testing half of the code. We aren’t testing the calling method.

Mocking

Let’s refactor a little further. Instead of using the console, we’ll simply create our own method that performs the same task:

private static string? GetInput() => Console.ReadLine();    

Again, no real change here, we’re just wrapping the code that accepts input in a method that we control.

Now that we’ve done this, we can use our own method to accept input, instead of the Console methods. There’s a number of ways we could do this but, perhaps the easiest, is to pass the GetInput method into the RunMethod method as a parameter:

public static void RunMethod(Func<string> readData)
    {

        int myNumber = Random.Shared.Next(100) + 1;

        Console.WriteLine("Guess the number that I'm thinking between 1 - 100");
        string? guess = readData();
. . .

Here, we’re simply changing two things: we’re accepting a delegate into our main method, and then we’re calling that, instead of the Console.ReadLine().

What’s the point of doing that? Well, now that we control that function as a parameter, we can mock the function, and replace it with our own functionality.

In fact, we are not technically discussing a mock here, but a stub. For the purpose of this post, we’ll simply group them together with the working definition that a mock is: “anything that replaces functionality for the purpose of testing”. I intend to re-visit this in a future post and go into more detail on the difference between the two.

Let’s jump to our test.

Arrange

In the test, we can now replace this functionality with a specific value:

        public static void RunTest()
        {
             // Arrange
            Func<string> mockInput = () => "5"; . . .

We’ve now established the input of the method, the next step is to be able to assert that the test worked. In fact, that’s very difficult with the code as it currently is, because we just display output to the user. To finish this post off, we’ll refactor this as little as we can; imagine we take the business logic function and change it to be like this:

string BusinessLogic(int myNumber, string guessedNumber)
{
    if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(guessedNumber))
    {        
        return "Invalid guess";
    }

    if (int.Parse(guessedNumber) == myNumber)
    {
        return "Well done, you guessed!";
    }
    else
    {
        return $"Sorry, that was the wrong number, I was thinking of {myNumber}";
    }
}

All we’ve changed here is that we’re returning the string, instead of outputting it. We can then change the calling method to do the output:

string RunMethod(Func<string> readData)
{
    int myNumber = Random.Shared.Next(100) + 1;

    Console.WriteLine("Guess the number that I'm thinking between 1 - 100");
    string? guess = readData();
    string result = BusinessLogic(myNumber, guess);
    Console.WriteLine(result);
    return result;
}

Same idea again, a very small change of writing the output, and returning the result again. The functionality hasn’t changed, but now we have something to test against.

Assert

We can now write out test method to look something like this:

for (int i = 1; i <= 100; i++)
{
    // Arrange
    Func<string> mockInput = () => "5";

    // Act
    string result = RunMethod(mockInput);

    // Assert
    if (result == "Well done, you guessed!")
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Test Passed");
        break;
    }
}

for (int i = 1; i <= 100; i++)
{
    // Arrange
    Func<string> mockInput = () => "5";

    // Act
    string result = RunMethod(mockInput);

    // Assert
    if (result.StartsWith("Sorry, that was the wrong number"))
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Test Passed");
        break;
    }
}

{
    // Arrange
    Func<string> mockInput = () => "";

    // Act
    string result = RunMethod(mockInput);

    // Assert
    if (result == "Invalid guess")
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Test Passed");
    }
}

There’s three distinct tests here and, unless unlucky, they’ll all pass. There’s definitely some work left to do here, as we still have the following problems:

1. Although the tests can pass, we have to visually ascertain that.
2. We’re outputting to the console needlessly.
3. Our tests are not resilient – if I change a single character in the user output, the tests will break.
4. The tests are not deterministic – they are dependent on the result of a pseudo random number.

In the next post, we’ll address these issues: we’ll introduce a test framework, and further refactor this code such that we can be confident that cosmetic changes will not break the tests.

Testing an Asp.Net Web App Using Integration Testing

I’ve recently been playing around with a tool called Scrutor. I’m using this in a project and it’s working really well; however, I came across an issue (not related to the tool per se). I had created an interface, but hadn’t yet written a class to implement it. Scrutor realised this was the case and started moaning at me. Obviously, I hadn’t written any unit tests around the non-existent class, but I did have a reasonably good test coverage for the rest of the project; however the project wouldn’t actually run.

To be clear, what I’m saying here is that, despite the test suite that I had running successfully, the program wouldn’t even start. This feels like a very askew state of affairs.

Some irrelevant background, I had a very strange issue with my Lenovo laptop, whereby, following a firmware update, the USB-C ports just stopped working – including to accept charge – so my laptop died. Sadly, I hadn’t followed good practice, with commits, and so part of my code was lost.

I’ve previously played around with the concept of integration tests in Asp.Net Core+, so I thought that’s probably what I needed here. There are a few articles and examples out there, but I couldn’t find anything that worked with Asp.Net 6 – so this is that.

In this post, we’ll walk through the steps necessary to add a basic test to your Asp.Net 6 web site. Note that this is not comprehensive – some dependencies will trip this up (e.g. database access); however, it’s a start. The important thing is that the test will fail where there are basic set-up and configuration issues with the web app.

The Test Project

The first step is to configure a test project. Obviously, your dependencies will vary based on what tools you decide to use, but the following will work for Xunit:

<PackageReference Include="Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Testing" Version="6.0.5" />
<PackageReference Include="Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk" Version="17.2.0" />		
<PackageReference Include="xunit" Version="2.4.1" />
<PackageReference Include="xunit.runner.console" Version="2.4.1" />
<PackageReference Include="xunit.runner.visualstudio" Version="2.4.5" />

(See this post on Xunit libraries for details on the basic Xunit dependency list for .Net 6.)

The key here is to set-up the Web Application Factory:

var appFactory = new WebApplicationFactory<Program>();
var httpClient = appFactory.CreateClient();

We’ll come back to some specific issues with this exact code shortly, but basically, we’re setting up the in-memory test harness for the service (which in this case, is our web-app). You can obviously do this for an API in exactly the same manner. The rest of our test then looks like this:

using var response = await httpClient.GetAsync("/");

Assert.True(response.IsSuccessStatusCode);

If your test fails, and you want a fighting chance of working out why, you may wish to replace the assertion with this:

var content = await response.Content.ReadAsStringAsync();

That’s basically it; however, as that currently stands, you’ll start getting errors (some that you can see, and some that you cannot). It makes sense to make the HttpClient static, or at least raise it to the class level, as you only need to actually create it once.

Accessing the Main Project

The other issue that you’ll get here is that, because we’re using .Net 6 top level statements in Program.cs, it will tell you that it’s inaccessible. In fact, top level code does generate an implicit class, but it’s internal. This can be worked around my simply adding the following to the end of your Program.cs code:

public partial class Program { } // so you can reference it from tests

(See the references below for details of where this idea came from.)

Summary

In this post, we’ve seen how you can create an integration test that will assert that, at the very least, your web app runs. This method is much faster than constantly having to actually run your project. It obviously makes no assertions about how it runs, and whether what it’s doing is correct.

References

Example of testing top level statements

GitHub Issue reporting error with top level statements being tested

Stack Overflow question on how to access Program.cs from in program using top level statements

Tutorial video on integration tests

Xunit Tests Won’t Run After Upgrade to .Net 6

Some time ago, while trying to get .Net Core 3.1 to work with Xunit, I discovered that 2.4.1 was the correct library to use for xunit.runner.visualstudio. At the time, I wasn’t sure why this was the case.

Recently, after upgrading an Azure Function to .Net 6 from 5, I came across almost the reverse problem. It turns out that 2.4.3 actually works fine for xunit.runner.visualstudio, however, you need to include the following library as well:

Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk

For .Net 6, if you want to run Xunit, then you need the following libraries:

<ItemGroup>

	<PackageReference Include="Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk" Version="17.0.0" />

	<PackageReference Include="xunit" Version="2.4.1" />
	<PackageReference Include="xunit.runner.console" Version="2.4.1" />
	<PackageReference Include="xunit.runner.visualstudio" Version="2.4.3" />
</ItemGroup>

References

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/69972184/xunit-tests-no-longer-working-after-upgrade-from-net-5-to-net-6-q-a

Git Bisect with Automated Tests

Some time ago, I saw a talk at DDD North about git bisect (it may well have been this one). I blogged about it here. I can honestly say that it’s one of, if not the, most useful thing I’ve ever learnt in 10 minutes!

However, the problem with it is that you, essentially, have to tell it what’s good and what’s bad. In this post, I’ll be detailing how you can write automated tests to determine this, and then link them in.

Using existing tests to determine where something broke

In this example, I’ll be using this repository (feel free to do the same). The code in the repository is broken, but it hasn’t always been, and there are some tests within the repository that clearly weren’t run before check-in, and are now broke (I know this, because I purposely broke the code – although this does happen in real life, and often with good intentions – or at least not bad).

We’re using xUnit here; but I’m confident that any test framework would do the same. The trick is the dotnet test command; from the docs on that command:

If all tests are successful, the test runner returns 0 as an exit code; otherwise if any test fails, it returns 1.

As with the previous post, we need to start with a good and bad commit; for the purpose of this post, we’ll assume the current commit is bad, and the first ever commit was good.

git log

Will give a list of commits:

We need the first, which, for this repo, is:

3cbd757dd4e92d8ab2424c6a1e46a73bef23e056

Now we need to go through the process of setting up git bisect; the process is: you tell git that you wish to start a bisect:

git bisect start

Next, you tell git which commit is bad. In our case, that’s the current one:

git bisect bad

Finally, you tell it which was the last known good one – in our case, the first:

git bisect good 3cbd757dd4e92d8ab2424c6a1e46a73bef23e056

Now that we’re in a bisect, you could just tell git each time which is good and which bad (see the previous post on how you might do that), but here you can simply tell it to run the test:

git bisect run dotnet test GitBisectDemo/

This will then iterate through the commits and come back with the breaking commit:

That’s great, but in most cases you didn’t actually have a breaking test – something has stopped working, and you don’t know why or when. In these cases, you can write a new breaking test, and then give that to git bisect for it to tell you the last time that test passed.

Create a new test to determine where something broke

Firstly, the new test must not be checked in to source control, as this works by checking out code from previous releases. Then create your new test; for example:

namespace GitBisectDemo.Tests
{
    public class CalculationTests2
    {
        [Fact]
        public void DoCalculation_ReturnsCorrectValue()
        {
            // Arrange
            var calculationEngine = new CalculationEngine();

            // Act
            float result = calculationEngine.DoCalculation(2, 3);

            // Assert
            Assert.True(result > 4);
        }

    }
}

This is a new class, and it’s not checked into source control.

Executing a specific test from the command line

We now want to execute just one test, and you can do that using dotnet test like so:

dotnet test GitBisectDemo/ --filter "FullyQualifiedName=GitBisectDemo.Tests.CalculationTests2.DoCalculation_ReturnsCorrectValue"

You need to give it the full namespace and class name; we can now incorporate that into our git bisect:

git bisect start
git bisect bad
git bisect good 3cbd757dd4e92d8ab2424c6a1e46a73bef23e056

These are the same as before.

Note: if, at any time, you wish to cancel the bisect, it’s git bisect reset

Now, we feed the filtered test run into git bisect:

git bisect run dotnet test GitBisectDemo/ --filter  "FullyQualifiedName=GitBisectDemo.Tests.CalculationTests2.DoCalculation_ReturnsCorrectValue"

And we get a result when the new test would have broken.

That’s two cases covered. The final case is the situation whereby the thing that has broken cannot be determined by an automated test; say, for example, that an API call isn’t working correctly, or a particular process has slowed down. In this situation, we can have git bisect call out to an external executable.

Custom Console App

The first step here is to return a value (exit code) from the console app. In fact, this is deceptively simple:

static int Main(string[] args)
{
    var calculationEngine = new CalculationEngine();
    float result = calculationEngine.DoCalculation(3, 1);

    return (result == 4) ? 0 : -1;
}

Notice that all we’ve done here is change the Main signature to return an int. This console app could now be calling an external API, running a performance test, or anything that has a verifiable result.

Publish the console app

Because we’re calling this from another location, we’ll need to publish this test as a self-contained console app:

dotnet publish -r win-x64

Run the test

Again, the same set-up:

git bisect start
git bisect bad
git bisect good 3cbd757dd4e92d8ab2424c6a1e46a73bef23e056

Finally, we call the console app to run the test:

git bisect run GitBisectDemo/GitBisectDemo.ConsoleTest/bin/Debug/netcoreapp3.1/win-x64/GitBisectDemo.ConsoleTest.exe

References

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/tools/dotnet-test

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/155610/how-do-i-specify-the-exit-code-of-a-console-application-in-net

My XUnit Tests won’t run in a .Net Standard 2.0 Class Library

Firstly, this isn’t a bug, or something that you might have done wrong; it’s intentional. Essentially, you can’t run a .Net Standard Library, so your tests aren’t runnable.

Okay – so I want to convert to .Net Core 3.0!

Yep – that’s exactly what you want, and it’s this easy; open up the csproj file – it’ll look like this:

<Project Sdk="Microsoft.NET.Sdk">
  <PropertyGroup>
    <TargetFramework>netstandard2.0</TargetFramework>
  </PropertyGroup>

And replace it with this:

<Project Sdk="Microsoft.NET.Sdk">
  <PropertyGroup>
    <TargetFramework>netcoreapp3.0</TargetFramework>
  </PropertyGroup>

And that’s it – your tests should now run!

Short Walks – XUnit Warning

As with many of these posts – this is more of a “note to self”.

Say you have an assertion that looks something like this in your Xunit test:

Assert.True(myEnumerable.Any(a => a.MyValue == "1234"));

In later versions (not sure exactly which one this was introduced it), you’ll get the following warning:

warning xUnit2012: Do not use Enumerable.Any() to check if a value exists in a collection.

So, Xunit has a nice little feature where you can use the following syntax instead:

Assert.Contains(myEnumerable, a => a.MyValue == "1234");

Using NSubstitute for partial mocks

I have previously written about how to, effectively, subclass using Nsubstitute; in this post, I’ll cover how to partially mock out that class.

Before I get into the solution; what follows is a workaround to allow badly written, or legacy code to be tested without refactoring. If you’re reading this and thinking you need this solution then my suggestion would be to refactor and use some form of dependency injection. However, for various reasons, that’s not always possible (hence this post).

Here’s our class to test:

public class MyFunkyClass
{
    public virtual void MethodOne()
    {        
        throw new Exception("I do some direct DB access");
    }
 
    public virtual int MethodTwo()
    {
        throw new Exception("I do some direct DB access and return a number");

        return new Random().Next(5);
    }
 
    public virtual int MethodThree()
    {
        MethodOne();
        if (MethodTwo() <= 3)
        {
            return 1;
        }
 
        return 2;
    }
}

The problem

Okay, so let’s write our first test:

[Fact]
public void Test1()
{
    // Arrange
    MyFunkyClass myFunkyClass = new MyFunkyClass();
 
    // Act
    int result = myFunkyClass.MethodThree();
 
    // Assert
    Assert.Equal(2, result);
}

So, what’s wrong with that?

Well, we have some (simulated) DB access, so the code will error.

Not the but a solution

The first thing to do here is to mock out MethodOne(), as it has (pseudo) DB access:

[Fact]
public void Test1()
{
    // Arrange
    MyFunkyClass myFunkyClass = Substitute.ForPartsOf<MyFunkyClass>();
    myFunkyClass.When(a => a.MethodOne()).DoNotCallBase();
 
    // Act
    int result = myFunkyClass.MethodThree();
 
    // Assert
    Assert.Equal(2, result);
}

Running this test now will fail with:

Message: System.Exception : I do some direct DB access and return a number

We’re past the first hurdle. We can presumably do the same thing for MethodTwo:

[Fact]
public void Test1()
{
    // Arrange
    MyFunkyClass myFunkyClass = Substitute.ForPartsOf<MyFunkyClass>();
    myFunkyClass.When(a => a.MethodOne()).DoNotCallBase();
    myFunkyClass.When(a => a.MethodTwo()).DoNotCallBase();
 
    // Act
    int result = myFunkyClass.MethodThree();
 
    // Assert
    Assert.Equal(2, result);
}

Now when we run the code, the test still fails, but it no longer accesses the DB:

Message: Assert.Equal() Failure
Expected: 2
Actual: 1

The problem here is that, even though we don’t want MethodTwo to execute, we do want it to return a predefined result. Once we’ve told it not to call the base method, you can then tell it to return whatever we choose (there are separate events – see the bottom of this post for a more detailed explanation of why); for example:

[Fact]
public void Test1()
{
    // Arrange
    MyFunkyClass myFunkyClass = Substitute.ForPartsOf<MyFunkyClass>();
    myFunkyClass.When(a => a.MethodOne()).DoNotCallBase();
    myFunkyClass.When(a => a.MethodTwo()).DoNotCallBase();
    myFunkyClass.MethodTwo().Returns(5);
 
    // Act
    int result = myFunkyClass.MethodThree();
 
    // Assert
    Assert.Equal(2, result);
}

And now the test passes.

TLDR – What is this actually doing?

To understand this better; we could do this entire process manually. Only when you’ve felt the pain of a manual mock, can you really see what mocking frameworks such as NSubtitute are doing for us.

Let’s assume that we don’t have a mocking framework at all, but that we still want to test MethodThree() above. One approach that we could take is to subclass MyFunkyClass, and then test that subclass:

Here’s what that might look like:

class MyFunkyClassTest : MyFunkyClass
{
    public override void MethodOne()
    {
        //base.MethodOne();
    }
 
    public override int MethodTwo()
    {
        //return base.MethodTwo();
        return 5;
    }
}

As you can see, now that we’ve subclassed MyFunkyClass, we can override the behaviour of the relevant virtual methods.

In the case of MethodOne, we’ve effectively issued a DoNotCallBase(), (by not calling base!).

For MethodTwo, we’ve issued a DoNotCallBase, and then a Returns statement.

Let’s add a new test to use this new, manual method:

[Fact]
public void Test2()
{
    // Arrange 
    MyFunkyClassTest myFunkyClassTest = new MyFunkyClassTest();
 
    // Act
    int result = myFunkyClassTest.MethodThree();
 
    // Assert
    Assert.Equal(2, result);
}

That’s much cleaner – why not always use manual mocks?

It is much cleaner if you always want MethodThree to return 5. Once you need it to return 2 then you have two choices, either you create a new mock class, or you start putting logic into your mock. The latter, if done wrongly can end up with code that is unreadable and difficult to maintain; and if done correctly will end up in a mini version of NSubstitute.

Finally, however well you write the mocks, as soon as you have more than one for a single class then every change to the class (for example, changing a method’s parameters or return type) results in a change to more than one test class.

It’s also worth mentioning again that this problem is one that has already been solved, cleanly, by dependency injection.

Short Walks – XUnit Tests Not Appearing in Test Explorer

On occasion, there may be a case where you go into Test Explorer, knowing that you have XUnit tests within the solution; the Xunit tests are in a public class, they are public, and they are decorated correctly (for example, [Fact]). However, they do not appear in the Text Explorer.

If you have MS Test tests, you may find that they do appear in the Test Explorer – only the XUnit tests do not.

Why?

To run Xunit tests from the command line, you’ll need this package.

To run Xunit tests from Visual Studio, you’ll need this package.

References

https://xunit.github.io/docs/nuget-packages.html