I started working with CodedUI few months before to automate a desktop Application(WPF).
Just checking out for the best ways to create a framework for my Application.
As, I have seen in other automation tools, I feel the heart of an automation framework using any tool(UI Based) is the way it's object Repository is created i.e. how well the UI objects are defined. A Cleaner and well defined Object Repository always proves to be very helpful when it comes to updating your tests.
I am trying to discover the best way to store my UIObjects so that in case of any UI changes in my Application, I have to put minimum effort to update my automation test.
Also, If an Object changes in application, updating it only at one place should solve the problem.
This can be any kind of change like :
->change in just a property(This I feel would be very easy to update in automation Test. The best and Easiet way I feel is to simply update the .uitest file(the xml file) if possible.)
->change in hierarchy and position
->entirely new object added
For the 2nd and 3rd changes, updating scripts become a difficult job, esp if the UIObject is being referred at may places, in many TestMethods, or Modules.
Also, I have generally seen that in Test Methods, Variable Declarations are done to create a reference to the UIMap objects and those variables are further used in the TestMethod Code.
So, in this case If the UI of my application changes, I will have to update the variable decalaration in each of the Test Methods. I want to reduce this effort to changing the variable decalaration only at one place. OfCourse, I cannot have all the code inside only one Test Method. One way that came to my mind is as:
Can't I have simply one common place for all these Variable decalarations. We can give a unique and understandable name to each UIObject e.g.: The decalratoions will look like:
UITabPage UITabPage = this.UIMap.UISimWindow.UISelectEquipmentTabList.UITabPage;
WpfRow UIRow = this.UIMap.UISimWindow.UISelectEquipmentTabList.UITabPage.UIEquipmentDetailsTable.UIRow;
WpfText UIEquipmentTagText = this.UIMap.UISimWindow.UISelectEquipmentTabList.UITabPage.UIEquipmentDetailsTable.UIRow.UITagCell.UIEquipmentTagText;
WpfCheckBox UIEquipmentCheckBox = this.UIMap.UISimWindow.UISelectEquipmentTabList.UITabPage.UIEquipmentDetailsTable.UIRow.UICheckBoxCell.UICheckBox;
....
....
and use these variables wherever required. Hence, In case of any chnages also, there will be only one place where you will need to update thse objects.
But for this, These varaibles must be made STATIC. What can be problem with making these Object Variables static?
Please provide your suggestion on this topic. May be what I am thinking is not possible or practical. I just want to choose the best way to start with before I go too far with the automation scripts and realize later that my approach wasn't a good one.
Thanks in Advance,
Shruti
Look into using descriptive programming instead of using the UIMaps.
Make a static class with generic functions to assist. Going to give you some examples of how to set it up.
For example:
public WinWindow parentwin(string ParentControlName)
{
var parentwin = new WinWindow();
parentwin.SearchProperties.Add("Control Name", ParentControlName);
return parentwin;
}
public WinWindow childwin(string ChildWinControlName, string ParentControlName)
{
var childwin = new WinWindow(parentwin(ParentControlName));
childwin.SearchProperties.Add("Control Name", ChildWinControlName);
return childwin;
}
public WinButton button(string ButtonName,string ChildWinControlName, string ParentControlName)
{
var childwin = childwin(ChildWinControlName,ParentControlName);
var button = new WinButton(childwin);
button.SearchProperties.Add("Name", ButtonName);
}
public void ClickButton(string ButtonName,string ChildWinControlName, string ParentControlName)
{
var button = button(ButtonName,ChildWinControlName,ParentControlName);
Mouse.Click(button);
}
public void ChangeFocus(WinWindow NewFocus)
{
var NewFocus = new NewFocus();
NewFocus.SetFocus();
}
public void ChangeFocus(WinWindow NewFocusChild, string c)
{
var a = new NewFocus();
a.SetFocus();
}
ChangeFocus(childwin("WelcomeForm", "MainForm");
ClickButton("&OK", "WelcomeForm", "MainForm");
Related
I need to perform a search on several entities with the same string then order the results.
I've heard/read a little about FOSElasticaBundle, would this bundle be able to do it? It seems (to me) to have almost to much features for this purpose and I'm not sure it could run on a shared server (hostgator).
The other solution I can think of at the moment is doing the search "manually" (by using join and union) but I'm wondering where should I put such a function: in an existing controller, a new one, a new bundle or somewhere else?
I'm worried as well that this manual solution could come to a cost, especially on some non-indexable fields.
You would do custom entity repositories. Check out the docs. Basically this extends the default FindAll, FindOneBy, etc.
You would have a function like so:
class MyEntityRepository extends Doctrine\ORM\EntityRepository {
public function findByCustomRule(){
//this is mapped to your entity (automatically adds the select)
$queryBuilder = $this->createQueryBuilder('someAlias');
$queryBuilder->orderBy('...');
//this is mapped to any entity
$queryBuilder = $this->getEntityManager()->createQueryBuilder();
$queryBuilder->select('...');
//result
$result = $queryBuilder->getQuery()->getResult();
}
}
This class is defined in the doctrine mapping and lives inside the Entity folder.. Check the docs out and you should get a basic idea.
In my plugin code, I use early bound entities (generated via the crmsvcutil). Within my code, I am using MemberExpression to retrieve the name of the property. For instance, if I want the full name of the user who initiated the plugin I do the following
SystemUser pluginExecutedBy = new SystemUser();
pluginExecutedBy = Common.RetrieveEntity(service
, SystemUser.EntityLogicalName
, new ColumnSet(new string[] {Common.GetPropertyName(() => pluginExecutedBy.FullName)})
, localContext.PluginExecutionContext.InitiatingUserId).ToEntity<SystemUser>();
The code for GetPropertyName is as follows
public static string GetPropertyName<T>(Expression<Func<T>> expression)
{
MemberExpression body = (MemberExpression)expression.Body;
return body.Member.Name.ToLower();
}
The code for RetrieveEntity is as follows
public static Entity RetrieveEntity(IOrganizationService xrmService, string entityName, ColumnSet columns, Guid entityId)
{
return (Entity)xrmService.Retrieve(entityName, entityId, columns);
}
My solution architect's comments:
Instead of writing the code like above, why not write it like this (hardcoding the name of the field - or use a struct).
SystemUser pluginExecutedBy = null;
pluginExecutedBy = Common.RetrieveEntity(service
, SystemUser.EntityLogicalName
, new ColumnSet(new string[] {"fullname"})
, localContext.PluginExecutionContext.InitiatingUserId).ToEntity<SystemUser>();
Reason:
Your code unnecessarily creates an object before it requires it (as you instantiate the object with the new keyword before the RetrieveEntity in order to use it with my GetProperty method) which is bad programming practice. In my code, I have never used the new keyword, but merely casting it and casting does not create a new object. Now, I am no expert in C# or .NET, but I like to read and try out different things. So, I looked up the Microsoft.Xrm.Sdk.dll and found that ToEntity within Sdk, actually did create a new Entity using the keyword new.
If the Common.Retrieve returns null, your code has unnecessarily allocated memory which will cause performance issues whereas mine would not?
A managed language like C# "manages the memory" for me, does it not?
Question
Is my code badly written? If so, why? If it is better - why is it? (I believe it is a lot more cleaner and even if a field name changes as long as as the early bound class file is regenerated, I do not have to re-write any code)
I agree that cast does not create a new object, but does my code unnecessarily create objects?
Is there a better way (a completely different third way) to write the code?
Note: I suggested using the GetPropertyName because, he was hard-coding attribute names all over his code and so in a different project which did not use early bound entities I used structs for attribute names - something like below. I did this 3 weeks into my new job with CRM 2011 but later on discovered the magic of MemberExpression. He was writing a massive cs file for each of the entity that he was using in his plugin and I told him he did not have to do any of this as he could just use my GetPropertyName method in his plugin and get all the fields required and that prompted this code review comments. Normally he does not do a code review.
public class ClientName
{
public struct EntityNameA
{
public const string LogicalName = "new_EntityNameA";
public struct Attributes
{
public const string Name = "new_name";
public const string Status = "new_status";
}
}
}
PS: Or is the question / time spent analyzing just not worth it?
Early Bound, Late Bound, MemberExpression, bla bla bla :)
I can understand the "philosophy", but looking at your code a giant alarm popup in my head:
public static Entity RetrieveEntity(IOrganizationService xrmService, string entityName, ColumnSet columns, Guid entityId)
{
return (Entity)xrmService.Retrieve(entityName, entityId, columns);
}
the Retrieve throws an exception if the record is not found.
About the other things, the GetPropertyName is ok, but are always choices, for example I try to use always late bound in plugins, maybe in a project I prefer to use early bound, often there is more than one way to resolve a problem.
Happy crm coding!
Although GetPropertyName is a quite a clever solution I don't like it, and that's entirely to do with readability. To me its far easier to understand what is going on with: new ColumnSet(new string[] {"fullname"}).
But that's pretty much personal preference, but its important to remember that your not just writing code for yourself you are writing it for your team, they should be able to easily understand the work you have produced.
As a side a hardcoded string probably performs better at runtime. I usually hardcode all my values, if the entity model in CRM changes I will have to revisit to make changes in any case. There's no difference between early and late bound in that situation.
I don't understand the point of this function,
public static Entity RetrieveEntity(IOrganizationService xrmService, string entityName, ColumnSet columns, Guid entityId)
{
return (Entity)xrmService.Retrieve(entityName, entityId, columns);
}
It doesn't do anything (apart from cast something that is already of that type).
1.Your code unnecessarily creates an object before it requires it (as you instantiate the object with the new keyword before the
RetrieveEntity in order to use it with my GetProperty method) which is
bad programming practice. In my code, I have never used the new
keyword, but merely casting it and casting does not create a new
object.
I believe this refers to; SystemUser pluginExecutedBy = new SystemUser(); I can see his/her point here, in this case new SystemUser() doesn't do much, but if the object you were instantiating did something resource intensive (load files, open DB connections) you might be doing something 'wasteful'. In this case I would be surprised if changing SystemUser pluginExecutedBy = null; actually yielded any significant performance gain.
2.If the Common.Retrieve returns null, your code has unnecessarily allocated memory which will cause performance issues
I would be surprised if that caused a performance issue, and anyway as Guido points out that function wont return null in any case.
Overall there is little about this code I strongly feel needs changing - but things can be always be better and its worth discussing (e.g. the point of code review), although it can be hard not to you shouldn't be precious about your code.
Personally I would go with hardcoded attribute names and dump the Common.RetrieveEntity function as it doesn't do anything.
pluginExecutedBy = service.Retrieve(SystemUser.EntityLogicalName, localContext.PluginExecutionContext.InitiatingUserId, new ColumnSet(new String[] {"fullname"} ));
I've taken a read to the Advantages of message based web services article and am wondering if there is there a recommended style/practice to versioning Restful resources in ServiceStack? The different versions could render different responses or have different input parameters in the Request DTO.
I'm leaning toward a URL type versioning (i.e /v1/movies/{Id}), but I have seen other practices that set the version in the HTTP headers (i.e Content-Type: application/vnd.company.myapp-v2).
I'm hoping a way that works with the metadata page but not so much a requirement as I've noticed simply using folder structure/ namespacing works fine when rendering routes.
For example (this doesn't render right in the metadata page but performs properly if you know the direct route/url)
/v1/movies/{id}
/v1.1/movies/{id}
Code
namespace Samples.Movies.Operations.v1_1
{
[Route("/v1.1/Movies", "GET")]
public class Movies
{
...
}
}
namespace Samples.Movies.Operations.v1
{
[Route("/v1/Movies", "GET")]
public class Movies
{
...
}
}
and corresponding services...
public class MovieService: ServiceBase<Samples.Movies.Operations.v1.Movies>
{
protected override object Run(Samples.Movies.Operations.v1.Movies request)
{
...
}
}
public class MovieService: ServiceBase<Samples.Movies.Operations.v1_1.Movies>
{
protected override object Run(Samples.Movies.Operations.v1_1.Movies request)
{
...
}
}
Try to evolve (not re-implement) existing services
For versioning, you are going to be in for a world of hurt if you try to maintain different static types for different version endpoints. We initially started down this route but as soon as you start to support your first version the development effort to maintain multiple versions of the same service explodes as you will need to either maintain manual mapping of different types which easily leaks out into having to maintain multiple parallel implementations, each coupled to a different versions type - a massive violation of DRY. This is less of an issue for dynamic languages where the same models can easily be re-used by different versions.
Take advantage of built-in versioning in serializers
My recommendation is not to explicitly version but take advantage of the versioning capabilities inside the serialization formats.
E.g: you generally don't need to worry about versioning with JSON clients as the versioning capabilities of the JSON and JSV Serializers are much more resilient.
Enhance your existing services defensively
With XML and DataContract's you can freely add and remove fields without making a breaking change. If you add IExtensibleDataObject to your response DTO's you also have a potential to access data that's not defined on the DTO. My approach to versioning is to program defensively so not to introduce a breaking change, you can verify this is the case with Integration tests using old DTOs. Here are some tips I follow:
Never change the type of an existing property - If you need it to be a different type add another property and use the old/existing one to determine the version
Program defensively realize what properties don't exist with older clients so don't make them mandatory.
Keep a single global namespace (only relevant for XML/SOAP endpoints)
I do this by using the [assembly] attribute in the AssemblyInfo.cs of each of your DTO projects:
[assembly: ContractNamespace("http://schemas.servicestack.net/types",
ClrNamespace = "MyServiceModel.DtoTypes")]
The assembly attribute saves you from manually specifying explicit namespaces on each DTO, i.e:
namespace MyServiceModel.DtoTypes {
[DataContract(Namespace="http://schemas.servicestack.net/types")]
public class Foo { .. }
}
If you want to use a different XML namespace than the default above you need to register it with:
SetConfig(new EndpointHostConfig {
WsdlServiceNamespace = "http://schemas.my.org/types"
});
Embedding Versioning in DTOs
Most of the time, if you program defensively and evolve your services gracefully you wont need to know exactly what version a specific client is using as you can infer it from the data that is populated. But in the rare cases your services needs to tweak the behavior based on the specific version of the client, you can embed version information in your DTOs.
With the first release of your DTOs you publish, you can happily create them without any thought of versioning.
class Foo {
string Name;
}
But maybe for some reason the Form/UI was changed and you no longer wanted the Client to use the ambiguous Name variable and you also wanted to track the specific version the client was using:
class Foo {
Foo() {
Version = 1;
}
int Version;
string Name;
string DisplayName;
int Age;
}
Later it was discussed in a Team meeting, DisplayName wasn't good enough and you should split them out into different fields:
class Foo {
Foo() {
Version = 2;
}
int Version;
string Name;
string DisplayName;
string FirstName;
string LastName;
DateTime? DateOfBirth;
}
So the current state is that you have 3 different client versions out, with existing calls that look like:
v1 Release:
client.Post(new Foo { Name = "Foo Bar" });
v2 Release:
client.Post(new Foo { Name="Bar", DisplayName="Foo Bar", Age=18 });
v3 Release:
client.Post(new Foo { FirstName = "Foo", LastName = "Bar",
DateOfBirth = new DateTime(1994, 01, 01) });
You can continue to handle these different versions in the same implementation (which will be using the latest v3 version of the DTOs) e.g:
class FooService : Service {
public object Post(Foo request) {
//v1:
request.Version == 0
request.Name == "Foo"
request.DisplayName == null
request.Age = 0
request.DateOfBirth = null
//v2:
request.Version == 2
request.Name == null
request.DisplayName == "Foo Bar"
request.Age = 18
request.DateOfBirth = null
//v3:
request.Version == 3
request.Name == null
request.DisplayName == null
request.FirstName == "Foo"
request.LastName == "Bar"
request.Age = 0
request.DateOfBirth = new DateTime(1994, 01, 01)
}
}
Framing the Problem
The API is the part of your system that exposes its expression. It defines the concepts and the semantics of communicating in your domain. The problem comes when you want to change what can be expressed or how it can be expressed.
There can be differences in both the method of expression and what is being expressed. The first problem tends to be differences in tokens (first and last name instead of name). The second problem is expressing different things (the ability to rename oneself).
A long-term versioning solution will need to solve both of these challenges.
Evolving an API
Evolving a service by changing the resource types is a type of implicit versioning. It uses the construction of the object to determine behavior. Its works best when there are only minor changes to the method of expression (like the names). It does not work well for more complex changes to the method of expression or changes to the change of expressiveness. Code tends to be scatter throughout.
Specific Versioning
When changes become more complex it is important to keep the logic for each version separate. Even in mythz example, he segregated the code for each version. However, the code is still mixed together in the same methods. It is very easy for code for the different versions to start collapsing on each other and it is likely to spread out. Getting rid of support for a previous version can be difficult.
Additionally, you will need to keep your old code in sync to any changes in its dependencies. If a database changes, the code supporting the old model will also need to change.
A Better Way
The best way I've found is to tackle the expression problem directly. Each time a new version of the API is released, it will be implemented on top of the new layer. This is generally easy because changes are small.
It really shines in two ways: first all the code to handle the mapping is in one spot so it is easy to understand or remove later and second it doesn't require maintenance as new APIs are developed (the Russian doll model).
The problem is when the new API is less expressive than the old API. This is a problem that will need to be solved no matter what the solution is for keeping the old version around. It just becomes clear that there is a problem and what the solution for that problem is.
The example from mythz's example in this style is:
namespace APIv3 {
class FooService : RestServiceBase<Foo> {
public object OnPost(Foo request) {
var data = repository.getData()
request.FirstName == data.firstName
request.LastName == data.lastName
request.DateOfBirth = data.dateOfBirth
}
}
}
namespace APIv2 {
class FooService : RestServiceBase<Foo> {
public object OnPost(Foo request) {
var v3Request = APIv3.FooService.OnPost(request)
request.DisplayName == v3Request.FirstName + " " + v3Request.LastName
request.Age = (new DateTime() - v3Request.DateOfBirth).years
}
}
}
namespace APIv1 {
class FooService : RestServiceBase<Foo> {
public object OnPost(Foo request) {
var v2Request = APIv2.FooService.OnPost(request)
request.Name == v2Request.DisplayName
}
}
}
Each exposed object is clear. The same mapping code still needs to be written in both styles, but in the separated style, only the mapping relevant to a type needs to be written. There is no need to explicitly map code that doesn't apply (which is just another potential source of error). The dependency of previous APIs is static when you add future APIs or change the dependency of the API layer. For example, if the data source changes then only the most recent API (version 3) needs to change in this style. In the combined style, you would need to code the changes for each of the APIs supported.
One concern in the comments was the addition of types to the code base. This is not a problem because these types are exposed externally. Providing the types explicitly in the code base makes them easy to discover and isolate in testing. It is much better for maintainability to be clear. Another benefit is that this method does not produce additional logic, but only adds additional types.
I am also trying to come with a solution for this and was thinking of doing something like the below. (Based on a lot of Googlling and StackOverflow querying so this is built on the shoulders of many others.)
First up, I don’t want to debate if the version should be in the URI or Request Header. There are pros/cons for both approaches so I think each of us need to use what meets our requirements best.
This is about how to design/architecture the Java Message Objects and the Resource Implementation classes.
So let’s get to it.
I would approach this in two steps. Minor Changes (e.g. 1.0 to 1.1) and Major Changes (e.g 1.1 to 2.0)
Approach for minor changes
So let’s say we go by the same example classes used by #mythz
Initially we have
class Foo { string Name; }
We provide access to this resource as /V1.0/fooresource/{id}
In my use case, I use JAX-RS,
#Path("/{versionid}/fooresource")
public class FooResource {
#GET
#Path( "/{id}" )
public Foo getFoo (#PathParam("versionid") String versionid, (#PathParam("id") String fooId)
{
Foo foo = new Foo();
//setters, load data from persistence, handle business logic etc
Return foo;
}
}
Now let’s say we add 2 additional properties to Foo.
class Foo {
string Name;
string DisplayName;
int Age;
}
What I do at this point is annotate the properties with a #Version annotation
class Foo {
#Version(“V1.0")string Name;
#Version(“V1.1")string DisplayName;
#Version(“V1.1")int Age;
}
Then I have a response filter that will based on the requested version, return back to the user only the properties that match that version. Note that for convenience, if there are properties that should be returned for all versions, then you just don’t annotate it and the filter will return it irrespective of the requested version
This is sort of like a mediation layer. What I have explained is a simplistic version and it can get very complicated but hope you get the idea.
Approach for Major Version
Now this can get quite complicated when there is a lot of changes been done from one version to another. That is when we need to move to 2nd option.
Option 2 is essentially to branch off the codebase and then do the changes on that code base and host both versions on different contexts. At this point we might have to refactor the code base a bit to remove version mediation complexity introduced in Approach one (i.e. make the code cleaner) This might mainly be in the filters.
Note that this is just want I am thinking and haven’t implemented it as yet and wonder if this is a good idea.
Also I was wondering if there are good mediation engines/ESB’s that could do this type of transformation without having to use filters but haven’t seen any that is as simple as using a filter. Maybe I haven’t searched enough.
Interested in knowing thoughts of others and if this solution will address the original question.
i am trying to refactor my project to improve testability, therefor i'm introducing an abstract factory.
My application collects data from different sources by using ICrawlers.
These ICrawlers use 3rd party libraries to access different sources, like e.g. twitter.
Example: My TwitterCrawler uses TweetSharp to access twitter data.
My first version strongly coupled the TweetSharp client to the Crawler. Now i abstracted the TweetSharp to a ITwitterClient and a TweetSharpTwitterClient implementation.
Next step is to introduce a ITwitterClientFactory with a DefaultTwitterClientFactory that creates TweetSharpTwitterClients. This should bring me closer to my goal (testability) because i can switch the factory to MockTwitterClientFactory that creates a MockTwitterClient, that delivers some test output.
Now, let me come to my point.
I am using MEF for dependency injection (but i'm rather new to it). What I'm doing is this:
public class TwitterCrawler : CrawlerBase, ICrawler
{
[Import]
public ITwitterClientFactory TwitterClientFactory {get; set;}
public override Process()
{
ITwitterClient twitterClient = TwitterClientFactory.MakeSingletonClient();
// do something with twitterClient
}
}
Whereas my DefaultTwitterClientFactory exports itself to MEF:
[Export(typeof(ITwitterClient))]
public class DefaultTwitterClientFactory: ITwitterClientFactory
{
// implementation of ITwitterClientFactory
// provides methods to create instances of ITwitterClient implementations
}
Now, while this works so far, my question is, how to switch the factory?
How can i create a unit test and use the MockClientFactory instead of the DefaultTwitterClientFactory?
Is my approach good at all? Is it better to manually set the factory that is to be used?
Somewhere something like
... new TwitterCrawler(mockedTwitterClientFactory)
or even
.... new TwitterCrawler(mockedTwitterClient)?
This actually only moves the problem outside of TwitterClient, but still somewhere i have to decide how to construct the ITwitterClient and what factory to use for that purpose.
Should i dive more into the mechanics of MEF (ExportProvider?)
You shouldn't need to use the composer/container in your unit tests - just wire the SUT directly with the Test Doubles.
Something like this:
var sut = new TwitterCrawler();
sut.TwitterClientFactory = new FakeTwitterClientFactory();
However, you should really refactor from Property Injection to Constructor Injection, as the property implies that the dependency is optional.
BTW, your DefaultTwitterClientFactory doesn't export itself, it exports ITwitterClient.
When I enabled code contracts on my WPF control project I ran into a problem with an auto generated file which was created at compile time (XamlNamespace.GeneratedInternalTypeHelper). Note, the generated file is called GeneratedInternalTypeHelper.g.cs and is not the same as the GeneratedInternalTypeHelper.g.i.cs which there are several obsolete blog posts about.
I'm not exactly sure what its purpose is, but I am assuming it is important for some internal reflection to resolve XAML. The problem is that it does not have code contracts, nor is the code contract system smart enough to recognize it as an auto generated file. This leads to a bunch of errors from the static checker.
I tried searching for a solution to this problem, but it seems like nobody is developing WPF controls and using code contracts. I did come across an interesting attribute, ContractVerificationAttribute, which takes a boolean value to set whether the assembly or class is to be verified. This allows you to decorate a class as not verified. Sadly the GeneratedInternalTypeHelper is regenerated with every compile, so it is not possible to exclude just this one class. The inverse scenario is possible though, decorate the assembly as not verified and then opt in for every class.
To mitigate the obvious hack I wanted to create a test that would at least verify that the exposed classes have code contract verification with a test like the following to ensure that own classes were at least being verified:
[Fact]
public void AllAssemblyTypesAreDecoratedWithContractVerificationTrue()
{
var assembly = typeof(someType).Assembly;
var exposedTypes = assembly.GetTypes().Where(t=>!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(t.Namespace) && t.Namespace.StartsWith("MyNamespace") && !t.Name.StartsWith("<>"));
var areAnyNotContractVerified = exposedTypes.Any(t =>
{
var verificationAttribute = t.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(ContractVerificationAttribute), true).OfType<ContractVerificationAttribute>();
return verificationAttribute.Any() && verificationAttribute.First().Value;
});
Assert.False(areAnyNotContractVerified);
}
As you can see it takes all classes in the controls assembly and finds the one from the company namespace which are not also auto generated anonymous types (<>WeirdClassName).
(I also need to exclude Resources and settings, but I hope you get the idea).
I'm not loving the solution since there are ways of avoiding contract verification, but currently it's the best I can come up with. If anyone has a better solution, please let me know.
So you can treat this class exactly like you would treat any other "3rd party" class or library. I'm sure certain assumptions would hold with the interaction with this generated class so at the interaction points, decorate your own code with Contract.Assume(result != null) or similar.
var result = new GennedClass().GetSomeValue();
Contract.Assume(result != null);
What this does is translate into an assertion that is checked at run time, but it allows the static analyzer to reason about the rest of the code that you do control.