AutoMoq | Auto mocking provider for Moq | Mock library
kandi X-RAY | AutoMoq Summary
kandi X-RAY | AutoMoq Summary
AutoMoqer is an "auto-mocking" container that creates objects for you. Just tell it what class to create and it will create it.
Support
Quality
Security
License
Reuse
Top functions reviewed by kandi - BETA
Currently covering the most popular Java, JavaScript and Python libraries. See a Sample of AutoMoq
AutoMoq Key Features
AutoMoq Examples and Code Snippets
Community Discussions
Trending Discussions on AutoMoq
QUESTION
Say that I have the following interface:
...ANSWER
Answered 2022-Mar-26 at 16:40First of all, you may want to use AutoMoqDataAttribute to create a mock of the ITeam
interface:
QUESTION
I created some unit tests on an existing project. I am using AutoMoq to inject data into some of the tests. Upon running the test, it complains of recursion error. I solved the error using the below code:
...ANSWER
Answered 2022-Mar-23 at 16:39This post https://stackoverflow.com/a/70957998/3036650 solved my challenge on this question. The issue has to do with circular reference caused when using Entity framework. So the code can totally replace or be added to the content of customize method in the OmitRecursionCustomization class. The class looks like this now:
QUESTION
ANSWER
Answered 2022-Jan-26 at 08:09It is not the responsibility of the AutoDataAttribute
to know how to cover your code. It is the developers responsibility to express intent and explicitly cover the scenario.
In your case the uncovered branches are the null guards. Luckily AutoFixture provides a library just for that, AutoFixture.Idioms.
This library provides idiomatic assertions, that encapsulate most basic test scenarios like null
guards, property setters, equality members and so on.
Using this library you can write a test like the following.
QUESTION
I'm using AutoFixture in my unit tests. The SUT is using AutoMapper. During execution of the unit test, I noticed that IMapper (interface of AutoMapper) was getting mocked by AutoFixture and thus disregarding any mapping profiles I have in my code.
So I wrote a customization to be able to pass in an IMapper instance so that AutoFixture will not mock this interface. But now it looks like that AutoFixture won't mock any other interfaces as well. This used to work before I introduced the AutoMapper customization.
...ANSWER
Answered 2021-Jul-12 at 07:39AutoFixture can only build upon the testing framework only as much as it allows itself to be extended.
In xUnit 2 each provided DataAttribute
is considered, a distinct provider of arguments for the test, which is why they are isolated during runtime.
The recommended option here is to create a data attribute that will apply both AutoMoq and the AutoMapper customization.
You can achieve this by using a CompositeCustomization
and then using it in a custom AutoDataAttribute
implementation.
QUESTION
Let's say that I have the following code example:
...ANSWER
Answered 2021-Jun-28 at 02:18Based on the following article I would suggest refactoring your test
QUESTION
In a solution, I have 600 unit tests splitted in various libraries, and 450 of them are present in a single library. When running the tests on that specific library on my computer using Visual Studio (last version), everything goes well. But, on our build server, some tests never ends using the dotnet.exe test command.
...ANSWER
Answered 2021-May-18 at 09:24I finally found the issue.
Using the "Parallel Stacks" tool (Debug -> Windows -> Parallel Stacks) of Visual Studio, I was able to locate the class/method where the deadlock occured.
Multiple tests where calling this methods :
QUESTION
I am using AutoFixture with AutoMoq to mock my dependencies in a unit test like this
...ANSWER
Answered 2021-May-08 at 20:51The suggestion from the comments was close. The part that was missing is setting the CofnigureMembers
property on AutoMoqCustomization
to true
so that AutoFixture can resolve the instances of the members.
QUESTION
I am using Moq and AutoFixture.
Given the following interfaces:
...ANSWER
Answered 2021-Mar-02 at 23:53To put it simply, you end up with a different mock instance for the Int2
property, after you set the return value for the Prop1
property. To fulfill your request Moq will generate a new mock, that will return the expected value for Prop1
.
You can look at it as being equivalent to the following test:
QUESTION
I am trying to unit test code that uses SearchClient.SearchAsync()
method. I am using AutoFixture.AutoMoq nuget package.
Here is what I tried:
...ANSWER
Answered 2020-Oct-01 at 23:39See https://github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-net/blob/master/sdk/core/Azure.Core/README.md#mocking for information. Basically, you can use Response.FromValue
along with the SearchModelFactory
(a pattern we follow with all our Azure.* client SDKs for models that can't be fully mocked with a constructor and/or settable properties) to create a mock like so (using Moq, since I'm unfamiliar with AutoMoq, but should be similar):
QUESTION
My tests use Moq and AutoFixture, and often they are very verbose because they have many mock Setup() calls to configure mocks to return values created by AutoFixture. To make the tests easier to read and maintain I am trying to use AutoMoqCustomization with the ConfigureMembers feature to avoid unnecessary Setup() calls.
Mostly this is working as expected, however I have some interfaces with generic functions (AutoMapper mostly) that the AutoMoqCustomization does not seem to handle. Instead of returning an instance of the type from AutoFixture I receive a mocked instance.
I can achieve the behavior that I want by including a Setup() call for the generic function, but my goal was to remove as many of these Setup calls as possible.
I have set up the example below to reproduce the problem (in practice I am using AutoFixture to inject an IMapper instance via the constructor of another object, and that object makes the call to the IMapper interface, but that is not necessary to see the problematic behavior).
What I expect is for the call to Including the commented line in the example that sets up the return value for Are generic functions supposed to auto-configured? Am I setting it up incorrectly?sut.Map() to work like the call to
sut.Map()
, returning the instance of object
frozen in the fixture. Instead in variable retB
I see an instance of ObjectProxy
.
Map() will cause the test to pass, but I would prefer to omit this call in the same way that I can omit the Setup() call for
Map()
.
ANSWER
Answered 2020-Aug-24 at 20:08Indeed, generic methods aren't currently supported by the AutoMoq customization in autofixture, due to a limitation of how it's written, but there's an issue/PR that would integrate it: https://github.com/AutoFixture/AutoFixture/issues/1139
As far as I can tell, it's just not merged yet because it would pull in a higher Moq dependency version. It makes use of the relatively-recently introduced DefaultValueProvider
property of Moq to delegate all the 'default value' duties to AutoFixture instead of having Moq recursively introduce mocked objects. Sounds like exactly what you want.
From the issue, here's an example of what it would look like to use if you were to introduce a customization similar to the one that the pull request introduces:
Community Discussions, Code Snippets contain sources that include Stack Exchange Network
Vulnerabilities
No vulnerabilities reported
Install AutoMoq
Support
Reuse Trending Solutions
Find, review, and download reusable Libraries, Code Snippets, Cloud APIs from over 650 million Knowledge Items
Find more librariesStay Updated
Subscribe to our newsletter for trending solutions and developer bootcamps
Share this Page