Still learning code contracts. When I create a small test, I get the following message from the checker: CodeContracts: Invoking this method will always lead to an error. If this is wanted, consider adding Contract.Requires(false) to document it.
I don't understand what it is try to tell me. How would I add Contract.Requires(false) to this example so the warning is not shown?
This is the code. Note that this is a contrived example solely for the purpose of learning CC.
void DoSomething(object test) {
Contract.Requires(test != null);
MessageBox.Show(test.ToString());
}
void InvokeDoSomething() {
DoSomething(null);
}
Code Contracts have discovered that you
Require a parameter to a method to never be null
Literally call it with null
CC is basically telling you that your code will always fail. The contract seems fine, but your call is bad. The solution is of course not to add Contract.Requires(false) but to not call the method with null.
Related
I would like to know is the thing in the description possible and how to do it.
I know you can call original method and then do the Answer like this:
when(presenter, "myMethod").doAnswer(<CUSTOMANSWER>)
but I would like to order them differently, first do CUSTOMANSWER and then call the original method.
For followers, it's actually possible to doAnswer and callRealMethod at the same time...
doAnswer(new Answer<Object>() {
public Object answer(InvocationOnMock invocationOnMock) throws Throwable {
invocationOnMock.callRealMethod(); // this one
return null;
}
}).when(subject).method(...);
You won't ever see when(...).doAnswer() in Mockito. Instead, you'll see either of the following, which includes the "call real method" behavior you're describing. As usual with Mockito stubbing, Mockito will select the most recent chain of calls that matches the method call and argument values in the invocation, and do each action in the chain once until the final action (which it will do for all calls afterwards.
// Normal Mockito syntax assuming "myMethod" is accessible. See caveat below.
when(presenter.myMethod()).thenAnswer(customAnswer).thenCallRealMethod();
// ...or...
doAnswer(customAnswer).doCallRealMethod().when(presenter).myMethod();
That said, there's a deficiency in the PowerMockito API that makes this difficult, because after the first doAnswer call all subsequent calls you get a normal Mockito Stubber instance rather than a PowerMockitoStubber instance. The bug 599 was misinterpreted, so for the time being you'll still have to make the cast yourself.
((PowerMockitoStubber) doAnswer(customAnswer).doCallRealMethod())
.when(presenter, "myMethod");
Thanks in advance for the help -
I am new to mockito but have spent the last day looking at examples and the documentation but haven't been able to find a solution to my problem, so hopefully this is not too dumb of a question.
I want to verify that deleteLogs() calls deleteLog(Path) NUM_LOGS_TO_DELETE number of times, per path marked for delete. I don't care what the path is in the mock (since I don't want to go to the file system, cluster, etc. for the test) so I verify that deleteLog was called NUM_LOGS_TO_DELETE times with any non-null Path as a parameter. When I step through the execution however, deleteLog gets passed a null argument - this results in a NullPointerException (based on the behavior of the code I inherited).
Maybe I am doing something wrong, but verify and the use of isNotNull seems pretty straight forward...here is my code:
MonitoringController mockController = mock(MonitoringController.class);
// Call the function whose behavior I want to verify
mockController.deleteLogs();
// Verify that mockController called deleteLog the appropriate number of times
verify(mockController, Mockito.times(NUM_LOGS_TO_DELETE)).deleteLog(isNotNull(Path.class));
Thanks again
I've never used isNotNull for arguments so I can't really say what's going wrong with you code - I always use an ArgumentCaptor. Basically you tell it what type of arguments to look for, it captures them, and then after the call you can assert the values you were looking for. Give the below code a try:
ArgumentCaptor<Path> pathCaptor = ArgumentCaptor.forClass(Path.class);
verify(mockController, Mockito.times(NUM_LOGS_TO_DELETE)).deleteLog(pathCaptor.capture());
for (Path path : pathCaptor.getAllValues()) {
assertNotNull(path);
}
As it turns out, isNotNull is a method that returns null, and that's deliberate. Mockito matchers work via side effects, so it's more-or-less expected for all matchers to return dummy values like null or 0 and instead record their expectations on a stack within the Mockito framework.
The unexpected part of this is that your MonitoringController.deleteLog is actually calling your code, rather than calling Mockito's verification code. Typically this happens because deleteLog is final: Mockito works through subclasses (actually dynamic proxies), and because final prohibits subclassing, the compiler basically skips the virtual method lookup and inlines a call directly to the implementation instead of Mockito's mock. Double-check that methods you're trying to stub or verify are not final, because you're counting on them not behaving as final in your test.
It's almost never correct to call a method on a mock directly in your test; if this is a MonitoringControllerTest, you should be using a real MonitoringController and mocking its dependencies. I hope your mockController.deleteLogs() is just meant to stand in for your actual test code, where you exercise some other component that depends on and interacts with MonitoringController.
Most tests don't need mocking at all. Let's say you have this class:
class MonitoringController {
private List<Log> logs = new ArrayList<>();
public void deleteLogs() {
logs.clear();
}
public int getLogCount() {
return logs.size();
}
}
Then this would be a valid test that doesn't use Mockito:
#Test public void deleteLogsShouldReturnZeroLogCount() {
MonitoringController controllerUnderTest = new MonitoringController();
controllerUnderTest.logSomeStuff(); // presumably you've tested elsewhere
// that this works
controllerUnderTest.deleteLogs();
assertEquals(0, controllerUnderTest.getLogCount());
}
But your monitoring controller could also look like this:
class MonitoringController {
private final LogRepository logRepository;
public MonitoringController(LogRepository logRepository) {
// By passing in your dependency, you have made the creator of your class
// responsible. This is called "Inversion-of-Control" (IoC), and is a key
// tenet of dependency injection.
this.logRepository = logRepository;
}
public void deleteLogs() {
logRepository.delete(RecordMatcher.ALL);
}
public int getLogCount() {
return logRepository.count(RecordMatcher.ALL);
}
}
Suddenly it may not be so easy to test your code, because it doesn't keep state of its own. To use the same test as the above one, you would need a working LogRepository. You could write a FakeLogRepository that keeps things in memory, which is a great strategy, or you could use Mockito to make a mock for you:
#Test public void deleteLogsShouldCallRepositoryDelete() {
LogRepository mockLogRepository = Mockito.mock(LogRepository.class);
MonitoringController controllerUnderTest =
new MonitoringController(mockLogRepository);
controllerUnderTest.deleteLogs();
// Now you can check that your REAL MonitoringController calls
// the right method on your MOCK dependency.
Mockito.verify(mockLogRepository).delete(Mockito.eq(RecordMatcher.ALL));
}
This shows some of the benefits and limitations of Mockito:
You don't need the implementation to keep state any more. You don't even need getLogCount to exist.
You can also skip creating the logs, because you're testing the interaction, not the state.
You're more tightly-bound to the implementation of MonitoringController: You can't simply test that it's holding to its general contract.
Mockito can stub individual interactions, but getting them consistent is hard. If you want your LogRepository.count to return 2 until you call delete, then return 0, that would be difficult to express in Mockito. This is why it may make sense to write fake implementations to represent stateful objects and leave Mockito mocks for stateless service interfaces.
I have looking at many threads about the exception "cannot pass a GCHandle across AppDomains" but I still don't get it....
I'm working with an RFID Reader which is driven by a DLL. I don't have source code for this DLL but only a sample to show how to use it.
The sample works great but I have to copy some code in another project to add the reader to the middleware Microsoft Biztalk.
The problem is that the process of Microsoft Biztalk works in another AppDomain. The reader handle events when a tag is read. But when I run it under Microsoft Biztalk I got this annoying exception.
I can't see any solution on how to make it work...
Here is some code that may be interesting :
// Let's connecting the result handlers.
// The reader calls a command-specific result handler if a command is done and the answer is ready to send.
// So let's tell the reader which functions should be called if a result is ready to send.
// result handler for reading EPCs synchronous
Reader.KSRWSetResultHandlerSyncGetEPCs(ResultHandlerSyncGetEPCs);
[...]
var readerErrorCode = Reader.KSRWSyncGetEPCs();
if (readerErrorCode == tKSRWReaderErrorCode.KSRW_REC_NoError)
{
// No error occurs while sending the command to the reader. Let's wait until the result handler was called.
if (ResultHandlerEvent.WaitOne(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10)))
{
// The reader's work is done and the result handler was called. Let's check the result flag to make sure everything is ok.
if (_readerResultFlag == tKSRWResultFlag.KSRW_RF_NoError)
{
// The command was successfully processed by the reader.
// We'll display the result in the result handler.
}
else
{
// The command can't be proccessed by the reader. To know why check the result flag.
logger.error("Command \"KSRWSyncGetEPCs\" returns with error {0}", _readerResultFlag);
}
}
else
{
// We're getting no answer from the reader within 10 seconds.
logger.error("Command \"KSRWSyncGetEPCs\" timed out");
}
}
[...]
private static void ResultHandlerSyncGetEPCs(object sender, tKSRWResultFlag resultFlag, tKSRWExtendedResultFlag extendedResultFlag, tKSRWEPCListEntry[] epcList)
{
if (Reader == sender)
{
// Let's store the result flag in a global variable to get access from everywhere.
_readerResultFlag = resultFlag;
// Display all available epcs in the antenna field.
Console.ForegroundColor = ConsoleColor.White;
foreach (var resultListEntry in epcList)
{
handleTagEvent(resultListEntry);
}
// Let's set the event so that the calling process knows the command was processed by reader and the result is ready to get processed.
ResultHandlerEvent.Set();
}
}
You are having a problem with the gcroot<> helper class. It is used in the code that nobody can see, inside that DLL. It is frequently used by C++ code that was designed to interop with managed code, gcroot<> stores a reference to a managed object. The class uses the GCHandle type to add the reference. The GCHandle.ToIntPtr() method returns a pointer that the C++ code can store. The operation that fails is GCHandle.FromIntPtr(), used by the C++ code to recover the reference to the object.
There are two basic explanations for getting this exception:
It can be accurate. Which will happen when you initialized the code in the DLL from one AppDomain and use it in another. It isn't clear from the snippet where the Reader class object gets initialized so there are non-zero odds that this is the explanation. Be sure to keep it close to the code that uses the Reader class.
It can be caused by another bug, present in the C++ code inside the DLL. Unmanaged code often suffers from pointer bugs, the kind of bug that can accidentally overwrite memory. If that happens with the field that stores the gcroot<> object then nothing goes wrong for a while. Until the code tries to recover the object reference again. At that point the CLR notices that the corrupted pointer value no longer matches an actual object handle and generates this exception. This is certainly the hard kind of bug to solve since this happens in code you cannot fix and showing the programmer that worked on it a repro for the bug is very difficult, such memory corruption problems never repro well.
Chase bullet #1 first. There are decent odds that Biztalk runs your C# code in a separate AppDomain. And that the DLL gets loaded too soon, before or while the AppDomain is created. Something you can see with SysInternals' ProcMon. Create a repro of this by writing a little test program that creates an AppDomain and runs the test code. If that reproduces the crash then you'll have a very good way to demonstrate the issue to the RFID vendor and some hope that they'll use it and work on a fix.
Having a good working relationship with the RFID reader vendor to get to a resolution is going to be very important. That's never not a problem, always a good reason to go shopping elsewhere.
I'm using code contract (actually, learning using this).
I'm facing something weird to me... I override a method, defined in a 3rd party assembly. I want to add a Contract.Require statement like this:
public class MyClass: MyParentClass
{
protected override void DoIt(MyParameter param)
{
Contract.Requires<ArgumentNullException>(param != null);
this.ExecuteMyTask(param.Something);
}
protected void ExecuteMyTask(MyParameter param)
{
Contract.Requires<ArgumentNullException>(param != null);
/* body of the method */
}
}
However, I'm getting warnings like this:
Warning 1 CodeContracts:
Method 'MyClass.DoIt(MyParameter)' overrides 'MyParentClass.DoIt(MyParameter))', thus cannot add Requires.
[edit] changed the code a bit to show alternatives issues [/edit]
If I remove the Contract.Requires in the DoIt method, I get another warning, telling me I have to provide unproven param != null
I don't understand this warning. What is the cause, and can I solve it?
You can't add extra requirements which your callers may not know about. It violates Liskov's Subtitution Principle. The point of polymorphism is that a caller should be able to treat a reference which actually refers to an instance of your derived class as if it refers to an instance of the base class.
Consider:
MyParentClass foo = GetParentClassFromSomewhere();
DoIt(null);
If that's statically determined to be valid, it's wrong for your derived class to hold up its hands and say "No! You're not meant to call DoIt with a null argument!" The aim of static analysis of contracts is that you can determine validity of calls, logic etc at compile-time... so no extra restrictions can be added at execution time, which is what happens here due to polymorphism.
A derived class can add guarantees about what it will do - what it will ensure - but it can't make any more demands from its callers for overridden methods.
I'd like to note that you can do what Jon suggested (this answers adds upon his) but also have your contract without violating LSP.
You can do so by replacing the override keyword with new.
The base remains the base; all you did is introduce another functionality (as the keywords literally suggest).
It's not ideal for static-checking because the safety could be easily casted away (cast to base-class first, then call the method) but that's a must because otherwise it would violate LSP and you do not want to do that obviously. Better than nothing though, I'd say.
In an ideal world you could also override the method and call the new one, but C# wouldn't let you do so because the methods would have the same signatures (even tho it would make perfect sense; that's the trade-off).
Since I don't know exactly what part of it alone that triggers the error, I'm not entirely sure how to better label it.
This question is a by-product of the SO question c# code seems to get optimized in an invalid way such that an object value becomes null, which I attempted to help Gary with yesterday evening. He was the one that found out that there was a problem, I've just reduced the problem to a simpler project, and want verification before I go further with it, hence this question here.
I'll post a note on Microsoft Connect if others can verify that they too get this problem, and of course I hope that either Jon, Mads or Eric will take a look at it as well :)
It involves:
3 projects, 2 of which are class libraries, one of which is a console program (this last one isn't needed to reproduce the problem, but just executing this shows the problem, whereas you need to use reflector and look at the compiled code if you don't add it)
Incomplete references and type inference
Generics
The code is available here: code repository.
I'll post a description below of how to make the projects if you rather want to get your hands dirty.
The problem exhibits itself by producing an invalid cast in a method call, before returning a simple generic list, casting it to something strange before returning it. The original code ended up with a cast to a boolean, yes, a boolean. The compiler added a cast from a List<SomeEntityObject> to a boolean, before returning the result, and the method signature said that it would return a List<SomeEntityObject>. This in turn leads to odd problems at runtime, everything from the result of the method call being considered "optimized away" (the original question), or a crash with either BadImageFormatException or InvalidProgramException or one of the similar exceptions.
During my work to reproduce this, I've seen a cast to void[], and the current version of my code now casts to a TypedReference. In one case, Reflector crashes so most likely the code was beyond hope in that case. Your mileage might vary.
Here's what to do to reproduce it:
Note: There is likely that there are more minimal forms that will reproduce the problem, but moving all the code to just one project made it go away. Removing the generics from the classes also makes the problem go away. The code below reproduces the problem each time for me, so I'm leaving it as is.
I apologize for the escaped html characters in the code below, this is Markdown playing a trick on me, if anyone knows how I can rectify it, please let me know, or just edit the question
Create a new Visual Studio 2010 solution containing a console application, for .NET 4.0
Add two new projects, both class libraries, also .NET 4.0 (I'm going to assume they're named ClassLibrary1 and ClassLibrary2)
Adjust all the projects to use the full .NET 4.0 runtime, not just the client profile
Add a reference in the console project to ClassLibrary2
Add a reference in ClassLibrary2 to ClassLibrary 1
Remove the two Class1.cs files that was added by default to the class libraries
In ClassLibrary1, add a reference to System.Runtime.Caching
Add a new file to ClassLibrary1, call it DummyCache.cs, and paste in the following code:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Runtime.Caching;
namespace ClassLibrary1
{
public class DummyCache<TModel> where TModel : new()
{
public void TriggerMethod<T>()
{
}
// Try commenting this out, note that it is never called!
public void TriggerMethod<T>(T value, CacheItemPolicy policy)
{
}
public CacheItemPolicy GetDefaultCacheItemPolicy()
{
return null;
}
public CacheItemPolicy GetDefaultCacheItemPolicy(IEnumerable<string> dependentKeys, bool createInsertDependency = false)
{
return null;
}
}
}
Add a new file to ClassLibrary2, call it Dummy.cs and paste in the following code:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using ClassLibrary1;
namespace ClassLibrary2
{
public class Dummy
{
private DummyCache<Dummy> Cache { get; set; }
public void TryCommentingMeOut()
{
Cache.TriggerMethod<Dummy>();
}
public List<Dummy> GetDummies()
{
var policy = Cache.GetDefaultCacheItemPolicy();
return new List<Dummy>();
}
}
}
Paste in the following code in Program.cs in the console project:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using ClassLibrary2;
namespace ConsoleApplication23
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Dummy dummy = new Dummy();
// This will crash with InvalidProgramException
// or BadImageFormatException, or a similar exception
List<Dummy> dummies = dummy.GetDummies();
}
}
}
Build, and ensure there are no compiler errors
Now try running the program. This should crash with one of the more horrible exceptions. I've seen both InvalidProgramException and BadImageFormatException, depending on what the cast ended up as
Look at the generated code of Dummy.GetDummies in Reflector. The source code looks like this:
public List<Dummy> GetDummies()
{
var policy = Cache.GetDefaultCacheItemPolicy();
return new List<Dummy>();
}
however reflector says (for me, it might differ in which cast it chose for you, and in one case Reflector even crashed):
public List<Dummy> GetDummies()
{
List<Dummy> policy = (List<Dummy>)this.Cache.GetDefaultCacheItemPolicy();
TypedReference CS$1$0000 = (TypedReference) new List<Dummy>();
return (List<Dummy>) CS$1$0000;
}
Now, here's a couple of odd things, the above crash/invalid code aside:
Library2, which has Dummy.GetDummies, performs a call to get the default cache policy on the class from Library1. It uses type inference var policy = ..., and the result is an CacheItemPolicy object (null in the code, but type is important).
However, ClassLibrary2 does not have a reference to System.Runtime.Caching, so it should not compile.
And indeed, if you comment out the method in Dummy that is named TryCommentingMeOut, you get:
The type 'System.Runtime.Caching.CacheItemPolicy' is defined in an assembly that is not referenced. You must add a reference to assembly 'System.Runtime.Caching, Version=4.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b03f5f7f11d50a3a'.
Why having this method present makes the compiler happy I don't know, and I don't even know if this is linked to the current problem or not. Perhaps it is a second bug.
There is a similar method in DummyCache, if you restore the method in Dummy, so that the code again compiles, and then comment out the method in DummyCache that has the "Try commenting this out" comment above it, you get the same compiler error
OK, I downloaded your code and can confirm the problem as described.
I have not done any extensive tinkering with this, but when I run & reflector a Release build all seems OK (= null ref exception and clean disassembly).
Reflector (6.10.11) crashed on the Debug builds.
One more experiment: I wondered about the use of CacheItemPolicies so I replaced it with my own MyCacheItemPolicy (in a 3rd classlib) and the same BadImageFormat exception pops up.
The exception mentions : {"Bad binary signature. (Exception from HRESULT: 0x80131192)"}