Databases
StackOverflow2013
Postsdbo
POMocking Objects for Unit Tests
 

Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals
  1. POMocking Objects for Unit Tests
    primarykey
    data
    text
    <blockquote> <p><strong>Possible Duplicate:</strong><br> <a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4370617/hard-coded-mock-objects-vs-mocking-framework">Hard-Coded Mock Objects vs Mocking Framework</a> </p> </blockquote> <p>I think I'm finally beginning to understand what unit tests are intended to solve, but am still having trouble implementing all of the details. I've come to the conclusion that I may require a "mock" (and I use this term lightly since I'm not sure I need an entire framework like Moq) object to get the job done.</p> <p>As an example of the issue I have been running in to, consider an implementation of the Repository Pattern (or similar). As I currently understand, I would need (at a minimum) tests for each of the <code>Add()</code>, <code>Get()</code>, and <code>Remove()</code> class methods. This is fine, except suppose I want to test how the <code>Add()</code> method handles <code>null</code> references. In this case, would I merely define a simple class within the test project and set an instance of this to <code>null</code> within the appropriate unit test?</p> <p>Example Unit Test (Illustration):</p> <pre><code>[TestMethod] public void TestAdd_Null() { IRepository&lt;MockObject&gt; repository = (IRepository&lt;MockObject&gt;)(new Repository&lt;MockObject&gt;()); MockObject testObject = null; repository.Add(testObject); Assert.IsNotNull(repository.Entity); } // I'm thinking I should implement something like this exclusively within the Test project. // Is this reasonable? Or should I be looking into something else? internal class MockObject { public String Name { get; set; } } </code></pre>
    singulars
    1. PO
      singulars
      1. PTAnswer
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. PTQuestion
    1. USCommunity
    1. USBradford Fisher
    plurals
    1. PL
      singulars
      1. LTLinked
    2. PL
      singulars
      1. LTDuplicate
    3. PL
      singulars
      1. LTLinked
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. PO
      singulars
      1. PTAnswer
    1. VO
      singulars
      1. POMocking Objects for Unit Tests
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUpMod
    2. VO
      singulars
      1. POMocking Objects for Unit Tests
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUpMod
    3. VO
      singulars
      1. POMocking Objects for Unit Tests
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUpMod
    1. COWhy not just use `object`?
      singulars
      1. POMocking Objects for Unit Tests
      1. USRichard Szalay
    2. CO@Richard Szalay, that would work just the same. My intention with using `MockObject` was to make known my very limited understanding of mock objects and intended use. After having done some more research, I'm starting to think `MockObject` should have been `StubObject`. I guess I'll wait and see.
      singulars
      1. POMocking Objects for Unit Tests
      1. USBradford Fisher
 

Querying!

 
Guidance
A row detail

Detail views are divided into sections. All the information in the data section comes from columns in the selected row. The other sections display data from other, related rows.

Related data can be related in a to-one or a to-many fashion. Captions of data related in a to-many fashion link to a list view showing a filtered view of the table.

Try moving around until you find a non-empty to-many entry and click on the label to get to one. You can move back to the root by clicking on the database name in the header.

SQuiL has stopped working due to an internal error.

If you are curious you may find further information in the browser console, which is accessible through the devtools (F12).

Reload