Friday, October 19, 2007

Mocking frameworks are growing more and more in popularity these days, because to some degree Unit Testing, via TDD or otherwise, has been growing in popularity.  This week at the Heartland Developer Conference I gave a talk on what I call "practical" TDD.  The talk goes over the basics of TDD quickly, but is really targeted at those who have tried to do TDD but found it difficult because they are not working on a team that has adopted the practice, or they are not working a project that was built to be testable.  I spent a good bit of time working no what is the easiest path to help such people adopt TDD, because adoption of such good practices is far more important to me than perfection in them.  As has been said many times, Good Enough is by definition, Good Enough.

After a good bit of research on the subject of mocking frameworks, I have come to the simple conclusion that:

  1. This is an area that is growing still, as nearly every major framework differs on the coding approach.  This is in stark contrast to testing frameworks which, to a one in .NET, all have settled on the NUnit 2.0 model of using attributes.
  2. That if you're not using TypeMock then you're just working to damned hard.

Now, I'm sure my friends (and there are many) who use Rhino Mocks will believe that I must be over-stating the issue, but I tell you clearly I am not.  TypeMock is not built like any other mocking framework currently available, it uses the profiling APIs and not polymorphism or encapsulation in order to intercept calls and provide return values.  Let me give you just a few examples of things which TypeMock can do in a few short lines of code which Rhino Mocks simply cannot do at all.

Mocking Static Methods

Take the following code, and assume that we wish to mock MessageBox.Show which is a static method:

        private void MyCoolMethod(string msg)
        {
            if (MessageBox.Show(msg) == DialogResult.OK)
                Console.WriteLine("OK");
            else
                Console.WriteLine("Not OK! Not OK!");
        }

The following test will work perfectly to mock this call.  No other hidden setup, nothing more than a reference to TypeMock.dll and the following code:

        [Test]
        public void MockMessageBoxShow()
        {
            MockManager.Init();

            Mock mbMock = MockManager.Mock(typeof(MessageBox));
            mbMock.ExpectAndReturn("Show", DialogResult.OK);

            MyCoolMethod("Here we go again.");

            // Ensure that all expectations were met.
            MockManager.Verify();
        }

And with just that little code, just 4 lines dedicated to the mock, 2 of which should be refactored to Setup and TearDown methods, we can mock a static method.

Not cool enough for you? Ok, fine.

Mocking Events

So you have something which expects an object to return certain events.  This example does require a professional license of TypeMock, it will not work under the Community Edition, but if you need this functionality then really pay the nice folks their money.

    public class GUI
    {
        public string LovingCSharp { get; set; }

        public void Initialize()
        {
            this.LovingCSharp = string.Empty;
            Button button = new Button();
            button.Click += new EventHandler(button_Click);
        }

        private void button_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
        {
            this.LovingCSharp += "LOVE!";
        }
    }

Now let's mock this up, call that event three times, and assert that our property is set correctly. 

        [Test]
        public void MockFormWithEvents()
        {
            MockManager.Init();

            // Mock button so that we can...
            Mock btnMock = MockManager.MockAll(typeof(Button));

            // Handle all calls to add an event handler.
            MockedEvent evntMock = btnMock.ExpectAddEventAlways("Click");

            GUI frm = new GUI();
            frm.Initialize();
            evntMock.Fire(this, EventArgs.Empty);
            evntMock.Fire(this, EventArgs.Empty);
            evntMock.Fire(this, EventArgs.Empty);

            Assert.AreEqual("LOVE!LOVE!LOVE!", frm.LovingCSharp);

            // Ensure that all expectations were met.
            MockManager.Verify();
        }
    }

Summary

These are just two examples, and don't even delve into the whole "Natural Mocks" portion of TypeMock.  Do yourself a favor, download the evaluation, they'll give you 30 days of all the features (which you can make any individual 30 days you'd like BTW) and ask yourself why you're jumping through all those hoops just to  be able to mock dependencies.  With this project, you don't have to create dependency injection constructors just to make your classes testable.

Friday, October 19, 2007 10:25:41 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
 Thursday, September 28, 2006

This TLA (Three Letter Acronym) littered post is about how to add PDB (Program DataBase) files to the GAC (Global Assembly Cache). 

Today my current client had the need to get the true source of an exception.  They had a catch statement which logged the exception (via log4net) to a file, but the location in question was a poorly designed component with hundreds of lines of code all wrapped within a very large Try-Catch which logged errors.  The error was likewise unhelpful as to the source because it was an array out of bounds exception, and this code did alot of string array manipulation.  The solution was clear to me, we needed to load the PDB files onto the server so that when an exception was thrown there would be line number information to go with it. 

The problem?  The assembly was being called by BizTalk Server and as such it was strongly named and in the GAC.

The solution?  Add the PDB files to the GAC, of course.

 The Global Assembly Cache which is located at %WINDIR%\assembly ("c:\windows\assembly" on most boxes) is in fact organized into many different directories all of which exist under %WINDIR%\assembly but which by default are hidden from view by Explorer.  Fortunately, the command prompt does not suffer the same problems.  If you open a command prompt and "cd %windir%\assembly" and do a "dir" you will see several directories as you can see in the first image.

If you change directory to "GAC" you will see a directory for every single assembly in the GAC.  From here, cd to the directory for the assembly you want, in my example nunit.framework, and you will see another interesting set of directories.  Here you will see one directory for every combination of version number and public key in the GAC.  You need to know what version you are working with, and the public key for that.  cd into that directory and you will find a copy of your assembly.  Now all you have to do is copy your PDB file to this location and your next exception should contain line numbers for the offending code. 

Since the work to generate line numbers is only done when an exception is being thrown there is little to no reason not to include the PDB files in all your production deployments to the GAC.  Yes, generating them takes time, but if you're throwing an exception this shouldn't be a problem.  After all, you are treating exceptions as exceptional, right?

.NET | ASP.NET | CSharp | VB | BizTalk Server
Thursday, September 28, 2006 8:18:45 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
 Friday, January 07, 2005

Well, comment spam on blogs simply must be an epidemic, as it has found my sorely under-used blog today.  As such, I went searching for a simple .Text solution, and after a little GoogleFu I found a solution at :

http://blogs.clearscreen.com/migs

Miguel Jimenez has been kind enough to implement a simple user-control which I could add to the .ascx for my comment posting whichin turn provided quick and easy CAPTCHA like protection.  This will stop the 'bots from posting, and if I need to do more later, I will.

Friday, January 07, 2005 4:03:00 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
 Sunday, June 27, 2004

With much thanks to DataGridGirl for sending me an invitation, I now have a GMail account which I will be using for my various mailing lists and other purposes.

My first read on the interface is that I absolutely love the threading and labeling features.  I knew GMail would be a fit after I heard the system described because I am a fanatic user of search folders in Outlook 2003, so a mail system powered by the finest search engine in the world was a sure thing.

If you haven't checked out Marcie's blog, you really should.

Sunday, June 27, 2004 10:31:00 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)