C# 使用最小起订量来验证通话顺序是否正确
我需要测试以下方法:C# 使用最小起订量来验证通话顺序是否正确,c#,unit-testing,nunit,moq,sequential,C#,Unit Testing,Nunit,Moq,Sequential,我需要测试以下方法: CreateOutput(IWriter writer) { writer.Write(type); writer.Write(id); writer.Write(sender); // many more Write()s... } 我已经创建了一个Moq'dIWriter,我想确保以正确的顺序调用Write()方法 我有以下测试代码: var mockWriter = new Mock<IWriter>(MockBehav
CreateOutput(IWriter writer)
{
writer.Write(type);
writer.Write(id);
writer.Write(sender);
// many more Write()s...
}
我已经创建了一个Moq'dIWriter
,我想确保以正确的顺序调用Write()
方法
我有以下测试代码:
var mockWriter = new Mock<IWriter>(MockBehavior.Strict);
var sequence = new MockSequence();
mockWriter.InSequence(sequence).Setup(x => x.Write(expectedType));
mockWriter.InSequence(sequence).Setup(x => x.Write(expectedId));
mockWriter.InSequence(sequence).Setup(x => x.Write(expectedSender));
var mockWriter=newmock(MockBehavior.Strict);
var sequence=新的MockSequence();
mockWriter.InSequence(sequence).Setup(x=>x.Write(expectedType));
mockWriter.InSequence(sequence).Setup(x=>x.Write(expectedId));
mockWriter.InSequence(sequence).Setup(x=>x.Write(expectedSender));
但是,在CreateOutput()
中对Write()
的第二次调用(用于写入id
值)抛出一个MockException
,消息为“IWriter.Write()调用失败,模拟行为严格。模拟上的所有调用都必须具有相应的设置。”
我还发现很难找到任何确定的、最新的Moq序列文档/示例
我是做错了什么,还是不能用同样的方法设置序列?
如果没有,我是否可以使用其他方法(最好使用Moq/NUnit)?我怀疑expectedId不是您所期望的 然而,我可能只编写我自己的IWriter实现来验证在这种情况下。。。可能要容易得多(而且以后更容易更改) 对不起,没有直接的最低起订量建议。我喜欢它,但还没有这样做
您是否需要在每次安装结束时添加.Verify()?(尽管我担心这确实是一个猜测)。我已经设法获得了我想要的行为,但它需要从下载第三方库 然后可以使用以下方法测试序列:
var mockWriter = new Mock<IWriter>(MockBehavior.Strict);
using (Sequence.Create())
{
mockWriter.Setup(x => x.Write(expectedType)).InSequence();
mockWriter.Setup(x => x.Write(expectedId)).InSequence();
mockWriter.Setup(x => x.Write(expectedSender)).InSequence();
}
var mockWriter=newmock(MockBehavior.Strict);
使用(Sequence.Create())
{
mockWriter.Setup(x=>x.Write(expectedType)).InSequence();
mockWriter.Setup(x=>x.Write(expectedId)).InSequence();
mockWriter.Setup(x=>x.Write(expectedSender)).InSequence();
}
我添加这个作为一个答案,部分是为了帮助记录这个解决方案,但我仍然对是否可以单独使用Moq 4.0实现类似的功能感兴趣
我不确定Moq是否仍在开发中,但是修复MockSequence
的问题,或者在Moq中包含Moq sequences扩展将是一件好事。当出现错误时。它肯定会在Moq库的后续版本中修复(您也可以通过更改Moq.MethodCall.Matches
实现手动修复)
如果只想使用Moq,则可以通过回调验证方法调用顺序:
int callOrder = 0;
writerMock.Setup(x => x.Write(expectedType)).Callback(() => Assert.That(callOrder++, Is.EqualTo(0)));
writerMock.Setup(x => x.Write(expectedId)).Callback(() => Assert.That(callOrder++, Is.EqualTo(1)));
writerMock.Setup(x => x.Write(expectedSender)).Callback(() => Assert.That(callOrder++, Is.EqualTo(2)));
最近,我为Moq整合了两个特性:VerifyInSequence()和VerifyNotInSequence()。即使是松散的模拟,它们也能工作。但是,这些仅在moq存储库中可用: 并等待更多的意见和测试,然后再决定是否可以将其纳入官方的最低起订量。但是,没有什么可以阻止您将源代码作为ZIP下载,将其构建到dll中并进行尝试。使用这些功能,您需要的序列验证可以这样编写: var mockWriter = new Mock<IWriter>() { CallSequence = new LooseSequence() }; //perform the necessary calls mockWriter.VerifyInSequence(x => x.Write(expectedType)); mockWriter.VerifyInSequence(x => x.Write(expectedId)); mockWriter.VerifyInSequence(x => x.Write(expectedSender)); var mockWriter=new Mock(){CallSequence=new LooseSequence()}; //执行必要的呼叫 mockWriter.VerifyInSequence(x=>x.Write(expectedType)); mockWriter.VerifyInSequence(x=>x.Write(expectedId)); mockWriter.VerifyInSequence(x=>x.Write(expectedSender)); (请注意,您可以根据需要使用其他两个序列。松散序列将允许在要验证的序列之间进行任何调用。StrictSequence不允许这样做,StrictAnytimeSequence与StrictSequence类似(已验证的调用之间没有方法调用),但允许在序列之前进行任意数量的调用 如果您决定尝试此实验功能,请就以下内容发表评论:
谢谢!我编写了一个扩展方法,它将根据调用顺序进行断言
public static class MockExtensions
{
public static void ExpectsInOrder<T>(this Mock<T> mock, params Expression<Action<T>>[] expressions) where T : class
{
// All closures have the same instance of sharedCallCount
var sharedCallCount = 0;
for (var i = 0; i < expressions.Length; i++)
{
// Each closure has it's own instance of expectedCallCount
var expectedCallCount = i;
mock.Setup(expressions[i]).Callback(
() =>
{
Assert.AreEqual(expectedCallCount, sharedCallCount);
sharedCallCount++;
});
}
}
}
公共静态类扩展
{
public static void ExpectsInOrder(此模拟,参数表达式[]表达式),其中T:class
{
//所有闭包都具有相同的sharedCallCount实例
var sharedCallCount=0;
for(var i=0;i
{
AreEqual(expectedCallCount、sharedCallCount);
sharedCallCount++;
});
}
}
}
它利用了闭包对作用域变量的工作方式。由于sharedCallCount只有一个声明,所有闭包都将引用同一个变量。使用expectedCallCount,循环的每次迭代都会实例化一个新实例(而不是在闭包中简单地使用i)。这样,每个闭包都有一个i的副本,作用域仅限于其自身,以便在调用表达式时与sharedCallCount进行比较
这里是扩展的一个小单元测试。请注意,此方法是在安装部分调用的,而不是在断言部分调用的
[TestFixture]
public class MockExtensionsTest
{
[TestCase]
{
// Setup
var mock = new Mock<IAmAnInterface>();
mock.ExpectsInOrder(
x => x.MyMethod("1"),
x => x.MyMethod("2"));
// Fake the object being called in order
mock.Object.MyMethod("1");
mock.Object.MyMethod("2");
}
[TestCase]
{
// Setup
var mock = new Mock<IAmAnInterface>();
mock.ExpectsInOrder(
x => x.MyMethod("1"),
x => x.MyMethod("2"));
// Fake the object being called out of order
Assert.Throws<AssertionException>(() => mock.Object.MyMethod("2"));
}
}
public interface IAmAnInterface
{
void MyMethod(string param);
}
[TestFixture]
公共类MockExtensionsTest
{
[测试用例]
{
//设置
var mock=new mock();
模拟预期订单(
x=>x.MyMethod(“1”),
x=>x.MyMethod(“2”);
//伪造按顺序调用的对象
mock.Object.MyMethod(“1”);
mock.Object.MyMethod(“2”);
}
[测试用例]
{
//设置
var mock=new mock();
模拟预期订单(
x=>x.MyMethod(“1”),
x=>x.MyMethod(“2”);
//假装正在调用的对象出现故障
Assert.Throws(()=>mock.Object.MyMethod(“2”);
}
}
公共接口接口
{
void MyMethod(字符串参数);
}
最简单的解决方案是使用:
var expectedParameters=new队列(new[]{expectedType,expectedId,expectedSender});
mockWriter.Setup(x=>x.Write(expectedType))
.Callback((字符串s)=>Assert.AreEqual(例如
var expectedParameters = new Queue<string>(new[]{expectedType,expectedId,expectedSender});
mockWriter.Setup(x => x.Write(expectedType))
.Callback((string s) => Assert.AreEqual(expectedParameters.Dequeue(), s));
public interface IWriter
{
void WriteA ();
void WriteB ();
void WriteC ();
}
var writer = new Mock<IWriter> ();
new SUT (writer.Object).Run ();
Assert.Equal (
writer.Invocations.Select (invocation => invocation.Method.Name),
new[]
{
nameof (IWriter.WriteB),
nameof (IWriter.WriteA),
nameof (IWriter.WriteC),
});
expected
["WriteB", "WriteA", "WriteC"]
but was
["WriteA", "WriteB"]
public static void VerifyInvocations<T>(this Mock<T> mock, params Expression<Action<T>>[] expressions) where T : class
{
Assert.AreEqual(mock.Invocations.Count, expressions.Length,
$"Number of invocations did not match expected expressions! Actual invocations: {Environment.NewLine}" +
$"{string.Join(Environment.NewLine, mock.Invocations.Select(i => i.Method.Name))}");
for (int c = 0; c < mock.Invocations.Count; c++)
{
IInvocation expected = mock.Invocations[c];
MethodCallExpression actual = expressions[c].Body as MethodCallExpression;
// Verify that the same methods were invoked
Assert.AreEqual(expected.Method, actual.Method, $"Did not invoke the expected method at call {c + 1}!");
// Verify that the method was invoked with the correct arguments
CollectionAssert.AreEqual(expected.Arguments.ToList(),
actual.Arguments
.Select(arg =>
{
// Expressions treat the Argument property as an Expression, do this to invoke the getter and get the actual value.
UnaryExpression objectMember = Expression.Convert(arg, typeof(object));
Expression<Func<object>> getterLambda = Expression.Lambda<Func<object>>(objectMember);
Func<object> objectValueGetter = getterLambda.Compile();
return objectValueGetter();
})
.ToList(),
$"Did not invoke step {c + 1} method '{expected.Method.Name}' with the correct arguments! ");
}
}
//arrange
var someServiceToTest = new SomeService();
var expectedCallOrder = new List<string>
{
"WriteA",
"WriteB",
"WriteC"
};
var actualCallOrder = new List<string>();
var mockWriter = new Mock<IWriter>();
mockWriter.Setup(x => x.Write("A")).Callback(() => { actualCallOrder.Add("WriteA"); });
mockWriter.Setup(x => x.Write("B")).Callback(() => { actualCallOrder.Add("WriteB"); });
mockWriter.Setup(x => x.Write("C")).Callback(() => { actualCallOrder.Add("WriteC"); });
//act
someServiceToTest.CreateOutput(_mockWriter.Object);
//assert
Assert.AreEqual(expectedCallOrder, actualCallOrder);