Should I be using mock objects when unit testing?_问答_开发者

In my ASP.Net MVC application I am using IoC to facilitate unit testing. The structure of my application is a Controller -> Service Class -> Repository type of structure. In order to do unit testing, I have I have an InMemoryRepository class that inherits my IRepository, which instead of going out to a database, it uses an internal List<T> member. When I construct my unit tests, I just pass an instance of an internal repository instead of my EF repository.

My service classes retrieve objects from the repository through an AsQueryable interface that my repository classes implement, thus allowing me to use Linq in my service classes without the service class while still abstracting the data access layer out. In practice this seems to work well.

The problem that I am seeing is that every time I see Unit Testing talked about, they are using mock objects instead of the internal method that I see. On the face value it makes sense, because if my 开发者_StackOverflow社区InMemoryRepository fails, not only will my InMemoryRepository unit tests fail, but that failure will cascade down into my service classes and controllers as well. More realistically I am more concerned about failures in my service classes affecting controller unit tests.

My method also requires me to do more setup for each unit test, and as things become more complicated (e.g. I implement authorization into the service classes) the setup becomes much more complicated, because I then have to make sure each unit test authorizes it with the service classes correctly so the main aspect of that unit test doesn't fail. I can clearly see how mock objects would help out in that regard.

However, I can't see how to solve this completely with mocks and still have valid tests. For example, one of my unit tests is that if I call _service.GetDocumentById(5), It gets the correct document from the repository. The only way this is a valid unit test (as far as I understand it) is if I have 2 or 3 documents stored, and my GetdocumentById() method correctly retrieves the one with an Id of 5.

How would I have a mocked repository with an AsQueryable call, and how would I make sure I don't mask any issues I make with my Linq statements by hardcoding the return statements when setting up the mocked repository? Is it better to keep my service class unit test using the InMemoryRepository but change my controller unit tests to use mocked service objects?

Edit: After going over my structure again I remembered a complication that is preventing mocking in controller unit tests, as I forgot my structure is a bit more complicated than I originally said.

A Repository is a data store for one type of object, so if my document service class needs document entities, it creates a IRepository<Document>.

Controllers are passed an IRepositoryFactory. The IRepositoryFactory is a class which is supposed to make it easy to create repositories without having to repositories directly into the controller, or having the controller worry about what service classes require which repositories. I have an InMemoryRepositoryFactory, which gives the service classes InMemoryRepository<Entity> instantiations, and the same idea goes for my EFRepositoryFactory.

In the controller's constructors, private service class objects are instantiated by passing in the IRepositoryFactory object that is passed into that controller.

So for example

public class DocumentController : Controller
{
    private DocumentService _documentService;

    public DocumentController(IRepositoryFactory factory)
    {
        _documentService = new DocumentService(factory);
    }
    ...
}

I can't see how to mock my service layer with this architecture so that my controllers are unit tested and not integration tested. I could have a bad architecture for unit testing, but I'm not sure how to better solve the issues that made me want to make a repository factory in the first place.

One solution to your problem is to change your controllers to demand IDocumentService instances instead of constructing the services themselves:

public class DocumentController : Controller
{
    private IDocumentService _documentService;

    // The controller doesn't construct the service itself
    public DocumentController(IDocumentService documentService)
    {
        _documentService = documentService;
    }
    ...
}

In your real application, let your IoC container inject IRepositoryFactory instances into your services. In your controller unit tests, just mock the services as needed.

(And see Misko Hevry's article about constructors doing real work for an extended discussion of the benefits of restructuring your code like this.)

Personally, I would design the system around the Unit of Work pattern that references repositories. This could make things much simpler and allows you to have more complex operations running atomically. You would typically have a IUnitOfWorkFactory that is supplied as dependency in the Service classes. A service class would create a new unit of work and that unit of work references repositories. You can see an example of this here.

If I understand correctly you are concerned about errors in one piece of (low level) code failing a lot of tests, making it harder to see the actual problem. You take InMemoryRepository as a concrete example.

While your concern is valid, I personally wouldn't worry about a failing InMemoryRepository. It is a test objects, and you should keep those tests objects as simple as possible. This prevents you from having to write tests for your test objects. Most of the time I assume they are correct (however, I sometimes use self checks in such a class by writing Assert statements). A test will fail when such an object misbehaves. It's not optimal, but you would normally find out quick enough what the problem is in my experience. To be productive, you will have to draw a line somewhere.

Errors in the controller caused by the service are another cup of tea IMO. While you could mock the service, this would make testing more difficult and less trustworthy. It would be better to NOT test the service at all. Only test the controller! The controller will call into the service and if your service doens't behave well, your controller tests would find out. This way you only test the top level objects in your application. Code coverage will help you spot parts of your code you don't test. Of course this isn't possible in all scenario's, but this often works well. When the service works with a mocked repository (or unit of work) this would work very well.

Your second concern was that those depedencies make you have much test setup. I've got two things to say about this.

First of all, I try to minimize my dependency inversion to only what I need to be able to run my unit tests. Calls to the system clock, database, Smtp server and file system should be faked to make unit tests fast and reliable. Other things I try not to invert, because the more you mock, the less reliable the tests become. You are testing less. Minimizing the dependency inversion (to what you need to have good RTM unit tests) helps making test setup easier.

But (second point) you also need to write your unit tests in a way that they are readable and maintainable (the hard part about unit testing, or in fact making software in general). Having big test setups makes them hard to understand and makes test code hard to change when a class gets a new dependency. I found out that one of the best ways to make tests more readable and maintainable is to use simple factory methods in your test class to centralize the creation of types that you need in the test (I never use mocking frameworks). There are two patterns that I use. One is a simple factory method, such as one that creates a valid type:

FakeDocumentService CreateValidService()
{
    return CreateValidService(CreateInitializedContext());
}

FakeDocumentService CreateValidService(InMemoryUnitOfWork context)
{
    return new FakeDocumentSerice(context);
}

This way tests can simply call these methods and when they need a valid object they simply call one of the factory methods. Of course when one of these methods accidentally creates an invalid object, many tests will fail. It's hard to prevent this, but easily fixed. And easily fixed means that the tests are maintainable.

The other pattern I use is the use of a container type that holds the arguments/properties of the actual object you want to create. This gets especially useful when an object has many different properties and/or constructor arguments. Mix this with a factory for the container and a builder method for the object to create and you get very readable test code:

[TestMethod]
public void Operation_WithValidArguments_Succeeds()
{
    // Arrange
    var validArgs = CreateValidArgs();

    var service = BuildNewService(validArgs);

    // Act
    service.Operation();
}

[TestMethod]
[ExpectedException(typeof(InvalidOperationException))]
public void Operation_NegativeAge_ThrowsException()
{
    // Arrange
    var invalidArgs = CreateValidArgs();

    invalidArgs.Age = -1;

    var service = BuildNewService(invalidArgs);

    // Act
    service.Operation();
}

This allows you to let the test only specify what matters! This is very important to make tests readable! The CreateValidArgs() method could create an container with over 100 arguments that would make a valid SUT (system under test). You now centralized in one place the default valid configuration. I hope this makes sense.

Your third concern was about not being able to test if LINQ queries behave expectedly with the given LINQ provider. This is a valid problem, because it is quite easy to write LINQ (to Expression tree) queries that run perfectly when used over in-memory objects, but fail when querying the database. Sometimes it is impossible to translate a query (because you call an .NET method that has no counterpart in the database) or the LINQ provider has limitations (or bugs). Especially the LINQ provider of Entity Framework 3.5 sucks hard.

However, this is a problem you cannot solve with unit tests per definition. Because when you call the database in your tests, it's not a unit test anymore. Unit tests however never totally replace manual testing :-)

Still, it's a valid concern. In addition to unit testing you can do integration testing. In this case you run your code with the real provider and a (dedicated) test database. Run each test within a database transaction and rollback the transaction at the end of the test (TransactionScope works great with this!). Note however that writing maintainable integration tests is even harder than writing maintainable unit tests. You have to make sure that the model of your test database is in sync. Each integration test should insert the data it needs for that test in the database, which is often a lot of work to write and maintain. Best is to keep the amount of integration tests to a minimum. Have enough integration tests to make you feel confident about making changes to the system. For instance, having to call a service method with a complicated LINQ statement in a single test will often be enough to test if your LINQ provider is able to build valid SQL out of it. Most of the time I just assume the LINQ provider will have the same behavior as the LINQ to Objects (.AsQueryable()) provider. Again, you will have to draw the line somewhere.

I hope this helps.

I think your approach is sound for testing the service layer itself, but, as you suggested, it would be better if the service layer is mocked out completely for your business logic and other high-level testing. This makes your higher-level tests easier to implement/maintain, as there's no need to exercise the service layer again if it's already been tested.