I'm new to Moq, and having what seems to be a silly problem.
If I perform the setup based on a loop it iwll not match, but if I do the "identicatal" setup by hand I do get a match.
I am using Moq 4.0.10827, from NuGet
My interface being mocked is simple:
public interface IMyInterface
{
string GetValue(string input);
}
The test-entire program is below.
The expected output is identical for both methods, but "Foo" is not printed for Version2()
Code:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Version1();
Console.WriteLine("---------");
Version2();
Console.WriteLine("---------");
Console.ReadKey();
}
private static void Version1()
{
var mock = new Mock<IMyInterface>();
mock.Setup(x => x.GetValue(It.Is<string>(s => s == "Foo"))).Returns("Foo");
mock.Setup(x => x.GetValue(It.Is<string>(s => s == "Bar"))).Returns("Bar");
IMyInterface obj = mock.Object;
Console.WriteLine(obj.GetValue("Foo"));
Console.WriteLine(obj.GetValue("Bar"));
}
private static void Version2()
{
var mock = new Mock<IMyInterface>();
string[] keys = new string[] { "Foo", "Bar" };
foreach (string key in keys)
{
mock.Setup(x => x.GetValue(It.Is<string>(s => s == key))).Returns(key);
}
IMyInterface obj = mock.Object;
Console.WriteLine(obj.GetValue("Foo")); // Does not match anything
Console.WriteLine(obj.GetValue("Bar"));
}
}
I take it I am missing something.. but what ?
Program output:
Foo
Bar
---------
Bar
---------
Edit: Output from program
Here's a more generic way, this setup alone will let you return what you get from the parameter.
mock.Setup(item => item.GetValue(It.IsAny<string>())).Returns((string input) => input);
By using It.Is<string>(s => s == "Bar") you are probably overwriting first predicate. Try to change the order or string and check it behaves that way.
If you want to check values seperetely, you can do something like this
mock.Setup(item => item.GetValue("Foo")).Returns("Foo");
mock.Setup(item => item.GetValue("Bar")).Returns("Bar");
In a loop:
foreach (string key in keys)
{
mock.Setup(x => x.GetValue(key)).Returns(key);
}
#Ufuk is correct. To clarify, this has nothing to do with Moq. It's the classic "Access to modified closure" issue (that's the warning message ReSharper gives for it).
For example:
void Main()
{
var actions = new List<Func<string, bool>>();
string[] keys = new string[] { "Foo", "Bar" };
foreach (string key in keys)
{
actions.Add(s => s == key);
}
foreach (var action in actions)
{
Console.WriteLine("Is Foo: " + action("Foo"));
Console.WriteLine("Is Bar: " + action("Bar"));
Console.WriteLine();
}
}
Results:
Is Foo: False
Is Bar: True
Is Foo: False
Is Bar: True
See Jon Skeet's answer to C# Captured Variable In Loop and Eric Lippert's Closing over the loop variable considered harmful.
Related
Let say we have an object:
#:checkDirty
class Test {
var a:Int;
var b(default, default):String;
var c(get, set):Array<Int>;
public function new() {
...
}
public function get_c() {
...
}
public function set_c(n) {
...
}
}
Could we write a macro checkDirty so that any change to field/properties would set property dirty to true. Macro would generate dirty field as Bool and clearDirty function to set it to false.
var test = new Test();
trace(test.dirty); // false
test.a = 12;
trace(test.dirty); // true
test.clearDirty();
trace(test.dirty); //false
test.b = "test"
trace(test.dirty); //true
test.clearDirty();
test.c = [1,2,3];
trace(test.dirty); //true
Just to note - whenever you consider proxying access to an object, in my experience, there are always hidden costs / added complexity. :)
That said, you have a few approaches:
First, if you want it to be pure Haxe, then either a macro or an abstract can get the job done. Either way, you're effectively transforming every property access into a function call that sets the value and also sets dirty.
For example, an abstract using the #:resolve getter and setter can be found in the NME source code, replicated here for convenience:
#:forward(decode,toString)
abstract URLVariables(URLVariablesBase)
{
public function new(?inEncoded:String)
{
this = new URLVariablesBase(inEncoded);
}
#:resolve
public function set(name:String, value:String) : String
{
return this.set(name,value);
}
#:resolve
public function get(name:String):String
{
return this.get(name);
}
}
This may be an older syntax, I'm not sure... also look at the operator overloading examples on the Haxe manual:
#:op(a.b) public function fieldRead(name:String)
return this.indexOf(name);
#:op(a.b) public function fieldWrite(name:String, value:String)
return this.split(name).join(value);
Second, I'd just point out that if the underlying language / runtime supports some kind of Proxy object (e.g. JavaScript Proxy), and macro / abstract isn't working as expected, then you could build your functionality on top of that.
I wrote a post (archive) about doing this kind of thing (except for emitting events) before - you can use a #:build macro to modify class members, be it appending an extra assignment into setter or replacing the field with a property.
So a modified version might look like so:
class Macro {
public static macro function build():Array<Field> {
var fields = Context.getBuildFields();
for (field in fields.copy()) { // (copy fields so that we don't go over freshly added ones)
switch (field.kind) {
case FVar(fieldType, fieldExpr), FProp("default", "default", fieldType, fieldExpr):
var fieldName = field.name;
if (fieldName == "dirty") continue;
var setterName = "set_" + fieldName;
var tmp_class = macro class {
public var $fieldName(default, set):$fieldType = $fieldExpr;
public function $setterName(v:$fieldType):$fieldType {
$i{fieldName} = v;
this.dirty = true;
return v;
}
};
for (mcf in tmp_class.fields) fields.push(mcf);
fields.remove(field);
case FProp(_, "set", t, e):
var setter = Lambda.find(fields, (f) -> f.name == "set_" + field.name);
if (setter == null) continue;
switch (setter.kind) {
case FFun(f):
f.expr = macro { dirty = true; ${f.expr}; };
default:
}
default:
}
}
if (Lambda.find(fields, (f) -> f.name == "dirty") == null) fields.push((macro class {
public var dirty:Bool = false;
}).fields[0]);
return fields;
}
}
which, if used as
#:build(Macro.build())
#:keep class Some {
public function new() {}
public var one:Int;
public var two(default, set):String;
function set_two(v:String):String {
two = v;
return v;
}
}
Would emit the following JS:
var Some = function() {
this.dirty = false;
};
Some.prototype = {
set_two: function(v) {
this.dirty = true;
this.two = v;
return v;
}
,set_one: function(v) {
this.one = v;
this.dirty = true;
return v;
}
};
Is it possible to mock getter and setter of the property by Mockito? Something like this:
#Test
fun three() {
val m = mock<Ddd>() {
// on { getQq() }.doReturn("mocked!")
}
assertEquals("mocked!", m.qq)
}
open class Ddd {
var qq : String = "start"
set(value) {
field = value + " by setter"
}
get() {
return field + " by getter"
}
}
To mock getter just write:
val m = mock<Ddd>()
`when`(m.qq).thenReturn("42")
also i suggest to use mockito-kotlin, to use useful extensions and functions like whenever:
val m = mock<Ddd>()
whenever(m.qq).thenReturn("42")
Complementing IRus' answer, you could also use the following syntax:
val mockedObj = mock<SomeClass> {
on { funA() } doReturn "valA"
on { funB() } doReturn "valB"
}
or
val mockedObj = mock<SomeClass> {
on(it.funA()).thenReturn("valA")
on(it.funB()).thenReturn("valB")
}
I need to know, what would be proper way to implement Maps with 64 bit keys. There will not be so many items in them, I just need to use various bits of the key for various things with large enough address space and I need it to be very fast, so String keys would probably be too slow. So far I tried:
import haxe.Int64;
import haxe.Unserializer;
import haxe.Serializer;
class Test {
static function main () {
var key:Int64 = 1 << 63 | 0x00000001;
var omap:Map<Int64, String> = new Map<Int64, String>();
omap.set(key, "test");
var smap:Map<Int64, String> = Unserializer.run(Serializer.run(omap));
var key2:Int64 = 1 << 63 | 0x00000001;
trace(key+" "+smap.get(key2));
}
}
http://try.haxe.org/#7CDb2
which obviously doesn't work, because haxe.Int64 creates an object instance. Using cpp.Int64 works, because it for some reason falls back to 32 bit integer in my cpp code and I don't know what am I doing wrong. How can I force it to "stay" 64 bit, or should I do it some other way?
EDIT: This is currently not working on native targets due to bug / current implementation in hxcpp: https://github.com/HaxeFoundation/hxcpp/issues/523
I figured out this workaround / wrapper, which may not be the most efficient solution possible, but it seems to work.
import haxe.Int64;
import haxe.Unserializer;
import haxe.Serializer;
class Test {
static function main () {
var key:Int64 = Int64.make(1000,1);
var omap:Int64Map<String> = new Int64Map();
omap.set(key, "test");
var smap:Int64Map<String> = Unserializer.run(Serializer.run(omap));
var key2:Int64 = Int64.make(1000,1);
trace(key+" "+smap.get(key2));
}
}
class Int64Map<V> {
private var map:Map<Int64,V>;
public function new() : Void {
this.map = new Map<Int64,V>();
}
public function set(key:Int64, value:V):Void {
this.map.set(key, value);
}
public inline function get(key:Int64):Null<V> {
var skey:Null<Int64> = getMapKey(key);
if (skey != null) return this.map.get(skey);
return null;
}
public inline function exists(key:Int64):Bool {
return (getMapKey(key) != null);
}
public function remove( key : Int64 ) : Bool {
var skey:Null<Int64> = getMapKey(key);
if (skey != null) return this.map.remove(skey);
return false;
}
public function keys() : Iterator<Int64> {
return this.map.keys();
}
public function toString() : String {
return this.map.toString();
}
public function iterator() : Iterator<V> {
return this.map.iterator();
}
private function getMapKey(key:Int64):Null<Int64> {
for (ikey in this.map.keys()){
if (Int64.eq(key, ikey)){
return ikey;
}
}
return null;
}
}
http://try.haxe.org/#57686
I thought that I got threads in .NET, but when I have added LINQ expression it made me a little confused.
Like I wrote in the topic of this discussion I dont why the thread doesnt return control to the main action of my controller.
I have written what makes me silly in comments, so let me skip to the true example:
public class ValuesController : ApiController
{
public async Task<List<SomeProduct>> Get()
{
var collection = new List<Mother>() {
new Mother()
{
internalField = new List<Child>()
{
new Child()
{
theLastOne = "VAL"
},
new Child()
{
theLastOne = "VAL"
}
}
}
};
var oss =
from m in collection
from s in m.internalField
select Convert(m, s).Result;
//1-The above code doesnt enter into CONVERT function (I have a breakpoint there)
return oss.ToList();//2- this list enter into COnvertt
}
private async Task<SomeProduct> Convert(Mother ms, Child ss)
{
var ossNEW = new SomeProduct();
await update(ossNEW, ms);
return ossNEW;
}
private async Task update(SomeProduct oss, Mother ms)
{//3 - Naturally it comes here
await Task.Run(()=>
{
//This task is executed (It is example code, pls do not care, that threads do not have any sense
oss.copyOfTheLastOne = ms.internalField.First().theLastOne;
oss.valeFromAnUpdateFunction = "works";
}); //Flow comes here and THIS line does not return control to the main action, why? :)
}
}
public class SomeProduct
{
public string copyOfTheLastOne;
public string valeFromAnUpdateFunction;
}
public class Mother
{
public List<Child> internalField;
}
public class Child
{
public string theLastOne;
}
I have solved this example by adding an "executor", which takes list of the tasks and manage it.
public class ValuesController : ApiController
{
public async Task<List<SomeProduct>> Get()
{
var collection = new List<Mother>() {
new Mother()
{
internalField = new List<Child>()
{
new Child()
{
theLastOne = "VAL"
},
new Child()
{
theLastOne = "VAL"
}
}
}
};
var oss =
from m in collection
from s in m.internalField
select Convert(m, s);
List<Task<SomeProduct>> downloadTasks = oss.ToList();
List<SomeProduct> ossNew = new List<SomeProduct>();
while (downloadTasks.Count > 0)
{
var firstFinishedTask = await Task.WhenAny(downloadTasks);
downloadTasks.Remove(firstFinishedTask);
ossNew.Add(await firstFinishedTask);
}
return ossNew;
}
private async Task<SomeProduct> Convert(Mother ms, Child ss)
{
var ossNEW = new SomeProduct();
await update(ossNEW, ms);
return ossNEW;
}
private async Task update(SomeProduct oss, Mother ms)
{
await Task.Run(()=>
{
oss.copyOfTheLastOne = ms.internalField.First().theLastOne;
oss.valeFromAnUpdateFunction = "works";
});
}
To fully understand the problem, I would like to know why the UPDATE function does not return control to the main action and why RESULT on CONVERT function does not force to run program synchronously?
I would like to know why the UPDATE function does not return control to the main action and why RESULT on CONVERT function does not force to run program synchronously?
You're running into a common deadlock problem that I explain in full on my blog, due to the use of Result. Use await instead of Result and your problem goes away (in your case, since you have a collection, you'll want to await Task.WhenAll):
public async Task<SomeProduct[]> Get()
{
var collection = new List<Mother>() {
new Mother()
{
internalField = new List<Child>()
{
new Child()
{
theLastOne = "VAL"
},
new Child()
{
theLastOne = "VAL"
}
}
}
};
var oss =
from m in collection
from s in m.internalField
select Convert(m, s);
return Task.WhenAll(oss);
}
On a side note, you shouldn't use Task.Run in your implementations, particularly on ASP.NET. On ASP.NET, Task.Run completely removes all the benefits of async and adds overhead.
Is it possible for me to do the following?
public static T Merge<T>()
{
object x = Activator.CreateInstance<T>();
//Do some stuff with x
return (T)x;
}
private static Type[] GetTypesInNamespace(Assembly assembly, string nameSpace)
{
return assembly.GetTypes().Where(
t => String.Equals(t.Namespace, nameSpace, StringComparison.Ordinal) &
!t.IsInterface).ToArray();
}
public static void Main()
{
Type[] typelist = GetTypesInNamespace(
Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly(), "Myapplication.Web.DomainObjects");
Parallel.ForEach(typelist, type =>
{
var task1 = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => Merge<type>());
// is it possible to do this way? Merge<type> ??
});
}
No, you can't do this - Generics are used when you know the type in advance at compile time, however you don't in this case.
I believe that what you really want to do is something a little like this:
public static object Merge(Type type)
{
object x = Activator.CreateInstance(type);
//Do some stuff with x
return x;
}
Your foreach statement now looks slightly different:
Parallel.ForEach(typelist, type =>
{
var task1 = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => Merge(type));
});
If you want to call a generic method with a type you don't know at compile time, you need to use reflection :
Parallel.ForEach(typelist, type => {
var methodInfo = typeof(YourClass).GetMethod("Merge").MakeGenericMethod(type);
var task1 = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => methodInfo.Invoke(null, new object[0]));
});