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.
Related
I have a servicereference with a method I need to use in a test.
The servicereference class is defined as:
public class MyServiceReference : Clientbase<IMyServiceReference>, IMyServiceReference
{
public MyServiceReference()
{
}
..... methods is then defined
}
From my testmethod I have tried both
private MyServiceReference myServiceReferenceFake = A.Fake<MyServiceReference>();
// And
private MyServiceReference myServiceReference = new MyServiceReference();
For both of these is crashes in the constructor with the message:
System.InvalidOperationException: Could not find default endpoint element that references contract.
All I need is to have a callto definition from a method in that class.
How can this be solved?
I've no experience with Clientbase, which I assume to be a System.ServiceModel.ClientBase<TChannel>,but I can make some general comments.
Since you tried first to fake a MyServiceReference, I'll assume that you're not testing that class, and you want to use it as a collaborator for the system under test. In that case, your best bet is to try faking IMyServiceReference. interfaces are very easy to fake, since they don't bring along any behaviour or baggage like faking a class does.
If you feel you really need to fake a MyServiceReference, then we have to contend with the fact that FakeItEasy will eventually call MyServiceReference(), which will call ClientBase<IMyServiceReference>(), whose documentation says
Initializes a new instance of the ClientBase<TChannel> class using the default target endpoint from the application configuration file.
Based on the error you reported, I assume that the application configuration file is not found or does not include the configuration required to create a MyServiceReference. The fact that you get the same error when you just try to instantiate a MyServiceReference directly strengthens my belief.
So I think your paths forward are either to try faking IMyServiceReference or to provide the configuration that ClientBase<IMyServiceReference> needs.
I like the jhipster entity generator.
I often get to change my model and regen all entities.
I wish to keep the generated stuff and override for my needs.
On angular side, it is quite easy to create a new service extending the default entity service to do my stuff.
On java side, it is more complicated.
For example, I override src/main/java/xxx/web/rest/xxxResource.java with src/main/java/xxx/web/rest/xxxOverrideResource.java
I have to comment #RestController in xxxResource.java. I tried to give it a different bundle name from the overrided class but it is not sufficient : #RestController("xxxResource")
In xxxOverrideResource.java, I have to change all #xxxMapping() to different paths
In xxxOverrideResource.java, I have to change all method names
This allow me to keep the CRUD UI and API, and overload it using another MappingPath.
Some code to make it more visual. Here is the generated xxxResource.java
/**
* REST controller for managing WorldCommand.
*/
// Commented to prevent bean dupplicated error.
// #RestController
#RequestMapping("/api")
public class WorldCommandResource {
private final WorldCommandService worldCommandService;
public WorldCommandResource(WorldCommandService worldCommandService) {
this.worldCommandService = worldCommandService;
}
#PutMapping("/world-commands")
#Timed
public ResponseEntity<WorldCommand> updateWorldCommand(#Valid #RequestBody WorldCommand worldCommand)
throws URISyntaxException {
log.debug("REST request to update WorldCommand : {}", worldCommand);
...
}
Here is my overloaded version : xxxOverrideResource.java
/**
* REST controller for managing WorldCommand.
*/
#RestController("WorldCommandOverrideResource")
#RequestMapping("/api")
public class WorldCommandOverrideResource extends WorldCommandResource {
private final WorldCommandOverrideService worldCommandService;
public WorldCommandOverrideResource(WorldCommandOverrideService worldCommandService) {
super(worldCommandService);
log.warn("USING WorldCommandOResource");
this.worldCommandService = worldCommandService;
}
#PutMapping("/world-commands-override")
#Timed
public ResponseEntity<WorldCommand> updateWorldCommandOverride(#Valid #RequestBody WorldCommand worldCommand)
throws URISyntaxException {
throw new RuntimeException("WorldCommand updating not allowed");
}
With the xxxResource overrided, it is easy to override the xxxService and xxxRepository by constructor injection.
I feel like I am over thinking it. As it is not an external component but code from a generator, maybe the aim is to use the tool to write less code and then do the changes you need.
Also, I fear this overriding architecture will prevent me from creating abstract controller if needed.
Do you think keeping the original generated code is a good pratice or I should just make my changes in the generated class and be carefull when regenerating an entity ?
Do you know a better way to override a Spring controller ?
Your approach looks like the side-by-side approach described here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WVpwIUEty0
I often found that the generated REST API is only useful for managing data in a backoffice and I usually write a complete separate API with different endpoints, authorizations and DTOs that is consumed by mobile or end-users. So I don't see much value in overriding REST controllers, after all they are supposed to be quite thin with as little business logic as possible.
You must also consider how long you want to keep this compatibility with generated code. As your app grows in complexity you might want to refactor your code and organize it around feature packages rather than by technical packages (repository, rest controllers, services, ...). For many reasons, sooner or later the way the generated code is setup will get in your way, so I would not put too much effort into this compatibility goal that has no real business value especially when you know that the yearly released major version may break it because of changes in the generator itself or more likely because of changes in underlying frameworks.
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");
I'm in the process of trying to migrate a R# extension project from R# 6 to R# 8. (I've taken over a project that someone wrote, and I'm new to writing extensions.)
In the existing v6 project there is a class that derives from RenameWorkflow, and the constructor used to look like this;
public class RenameStepWorkflow : RenameWorkflow
{
public RenameStepWorkflow(ISolution Solution, string ActionId)
: base(Solution, ActionId)
{
}
This used to work in R# SDK v 6, but now in V8, RenameWorkflow no longer has a constructor that takes Solution and actionId. The new constructor signature now looks like this;
public RenameWorkflow(
IShellLocks locks,
SearchDomainFactory searchDomainFactory,
RenameRefactoringService renameRefactoringService,
ISolution solution,
string actionId);
now heres my problem that I need help with (I think)
I've copied the constructor, and now the constructor of this class has to satisfy these new dependancies. Through some digging I've managed to find a way to satisfy all the dependencies, except for 'SearchDomainFactory'. The closest I can come to instantiating via the updated constructor is as follows;
new RenameStepWorkflow(Solution.Locks, JetBrains.ReSharper.Psi.Search.SearchDomainFactory.Instance, RenameRefactoringService.Instance, this.Solution, null)
All looks good, except that JetBrains.ReSharper.Psi.Search.SearchDomainFactory.Instance is marked as Obsolete, and gives me a compile error that I cannot work around, even using #pragma does not allow me to compile the code. The exact error message I get when I compile is Error 16 'JetBrains.ReSharper.Psi.Search.SearchDomainFactory.Instance' is obsolete: 'Inject me!'
Obvious next question..ok, how? How do I 'inject you'? I cannot find any documentation over this new breaking change, in fact, I cannot find any documentation (or sample projects) that even mentions DrivenRefactoringWorkflow or RenameWorkflow, (the classes that now require the new SearchDomainFactory), or any information on SearchDomainFactory.Instance suddenly now obsolete and how to satisfy the need to 'inject' it.
Any help would be most appreciated! Thank you,
regards
Alan
ReSharper has its own IoC container, which is responsible for creating instances of classes, and "injecting" dependencies as constructor parameters. Classes marked with attributes such as [ShellComponent] or [SolutionComponent] are handled by the container, created when the application starts or a solution is loaded, respectively.
Dependencies should be injected as constructor parameters, rather than using methods like GetComponent<TDependency> or static Instance properties, as this allows the container to control dependency lifetime, and ensure you're depending on appropriate components, and not creating leaks - a shell component cannot depend on a solution component for instance, it won't exist when the shell component is being created.
ReSharper introduced the IoC container a few releases ago, and a large proportion of the codebase has been updated to use it correctly, but there are a few hold-outs, where things are still done in a less than ideal manner - static Instance properties and calls to GetComponent. This is what you've encountered. You should be able to get an instance of SearchDomainFactory by putting it as a constructor parameter in your component.
You can find out more about the Component Model (the IoC container and related functionality) in the devguide: https://www.jetbrains.com/resharper/devguide/Platform/ComponentModel.html
I have started using Code Contracts and have found that it makes it difficult to immediately spot the 'guts' of a method.
Take this (very simple) example:
public static void UserAddNew(string domain, string username, string displayName)
{
Contract.Assert(!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(domain));
Contract.Assert(!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(username));
Contract.Assert(!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(displayName));
LinqDal.User.UserAddNew(domain, username, displayName);
}
Now I'm tempted to put the contracts in a region, so that they can be hidden away, but then I'm concerned that I'm losing a nice advantage of being able to glance at the method and see what it expects.
What do you do to keep your contracts 'tidy'? Or am I just being too picky?
Have a look at the ContractClass and ContractClassFor attributes. This allows you to write classes with the code contracts in separate assemblies. This allows you to have the contracts available for dev work, doesn't clutter your code and also means you don't have to deploy the contracts with the live code:
Contract Class Attribute
Contract Class For Attribute