I'm writing an integration test for a third party C# library in an F# code base. There are some constraints to this integration test.
For regulatory reasons I must test with MsTest
The library only works with a valid license
We cannot commit the license into our repository
I don't want to hardcode the location of the valid license into the test
I've got the failing test passing, but can't figure out how to write the test with a valid license. The function Initialize is just a wrapper for the third party library to initialize the library with the license and returns the Result.
[<TestClass>]
type ``Test Local Initialize`` () =
[<TestMethod>]
member this.``When loading an invalid INI file`` () =
let actual =
$#"{AppDomain.CurrentDomain.BaseDirectory}Resources\DummyLicense.INI"
|> Initialize
match actual with
| Ok _ -> Assert.Fail("Should not initialize with an invalid configuration.")
| Error e -> Assert.IsNotNull(e, "Should error with an invalid configuration")
The test I want to write is "given a valid license file, initializing the library should return a Result of OK."
In C#, I would use the .runsettings to point to a license folder, but I'm pretty new to F# and I'm not really sure how I would add the TestContext to the test. Since the tests are defined as a type, I'm guessing they don't hold state or fields.
So my questions are:
Is there a way to load the TextContext in F#?
Is there a more idiomatic way to achieve this in F#?
It works much the same as in C#. In your test class, mark a static member with the ClassInitialize or AssemblyInitialize attribute and specify a context parameter:
[<TestClass>]
type TestClass () =
static let mutable myValue = ""
[<ClassInitialize>]
static member Setup(context : TestContext) =
myValue <- string context.Properties.["MyValue"]
[<TestMethod>]
member this.TestMyValue() =
Assert.AreEqual("xyzzy", myValue)
Related
I can't get this piece of code to pass.
[<Test>]
member public this.Test() =
let mock = new Mock<IList<string>>()
let mockObj = mock.Object
mockObj.Add("aaa")
mock.Verify(fun m -> m.Add(It.IsAny<string>()), Times.Once())
Exception I get:
System.ArgumentException : Expression of type 'System.Void' cannot be used for constructor parameter of type 'Microsoft.FSharp.Core.Unit'
I believe it has something to do with F# not inferring properly the data type of labda expression but I don't know how to fix that.
You are correct, this an issue with F# type inference when calling an overloaded method that accepts either Action or Func.
One option is to download the Moq.FSharp.Extensions from Nuget and change your Verify to an explicit VerifyAction, i.e.
open Moq.FSharp.Extensions
type MyTests() =
[<Test>]
member public this.Test() =
let mock = new Mock<IList<string>>()
let mockObj = mock.Object
mockObj.Add("aaa")
mock.VerifyAction((fun m -> m.Add(any())), Times.Once())
Underneath the covers the Moq.FSharp.Extensions simply defines an extension method VerifyAction that only takes an Action to avoid ambiguity:
type Moq.Mock<'TAbstract> when 'TAbstract : not struct with
member mock.VerifyAction(expression:Expression<Action<'TAbstract>>) =
mock.Verify(expression)
Another option is to use Foq, a mocking library with a similar API to Moq but designed specifically for use from F#, also available via Nuget:
[<Test>]
member public this.Test() =
let mock = Mock.Of<IList<string>>()
mock.Add("aaa")
Mock.Verify(<# mock.Add(any()) #>, once)
So I have been doing research on interfaces on F#. I have found these 2 articles on it. The MSDN and F# for fun and profit But unfortunately they are only skin deep.
UPDATED
here is my module with my interfaces
//open statements omitted for brevity
module DrawingInterfaces =
///gets a string representation of the SVG code representation of the object
type IRepresentable_SVG =
abstract member getSVGRepresenation : unit -> string
//other interfaces omitted for brevity
Now within the same namespace and physical folder also I have this:
type lineSet (x1off,x2off,y1off,y2off,x1,x2,y1,y2,rot,rotOff,count) =
//tons of member vals omitted for brevity
member val x1Start = x1 with get, set
interface DrawingInterfaces.IRepresentable_SVG with
member __.getSVGRepresenation() =
let mutable svg = ""
let mutable currentx1 = x1Start
svg
This used to give me 2 errors, before I was using the __. notation for the member. The first error was on the interface line. And a second on the member line.
The errors were respectively:
The type 'IRepresentable_SVG' is not defined
This instance member needs a parameter to represent the object being invoked.
I was able to fix the first one by changing the file order. Thanks to John Palmer.
The second one is nearly fixed./
After using the __ . notation I was able to get rid of the second error. However, now a new error pops up when I try to use type members in my interface implementation.
let mutable currentx1 = x1Start
x1Start shows as not being defined. I need to be able to use values stored in my other members within my implementation.
Let's first make it work and then point to your problems. I define below 2 separate modules in 2 separate .fs files within the same namespace Example for interface definition in module Example.DrawingInterfacesand interface implementation in module Example.UseInterface and also a console app that will use the interface from third (implicit) module Program. In my project correspondent code files are in the following order: DefInterface.fs, UseInterface,fs, Program.fs (I also made few idiomatic styling changes and more brevity omissions)
File: DefInterface.fs
namespace Example
module DrawingInterfaces =
type IRepresentable_SVG =
abstract member GetSVGRepresenation : unit -> string
File: UseInterface.fs
namespace Example
module UseInterface =
type LineSet (x1) =
member val X1Start = x1 with get, set
interface DrawingInterfaces.IRepresentable_SVG with
member __.GetSVGRepresenation() = "test" + " " + __.X1Start.ToString()
File: Program.fs
open Example
open System
[<EntryPoint>]
let main argv =
let lineSet = UseInterface.LineSet(5)
let example : DrawingInterfaces.IRepresentable_SVG = lineSet :> _
example.GetSVGRepresenation() |> printfn "%A"
lineSet.X1Start <- 10
example.GetSVGRepresenation() |> printfn "%A"
0
Compile, run and make sure it works.
Now to problems in your code:
first error message stems from the need to refer to the full implemented interface name in UseInterface.fs, which is Example.DrawingInterfaces.IRepresentable_SVG although as both modules belong to the same namespace the Example prefix may be omitted
second error message points to the need of using instance method in implementation class UseInterface.LineSet, which is achieved by prepending self-identifier __. to the method signature
Finally, notice the usage of your interface in Program.fs that imports namespace, provides module names for definition and implementation respectively, and also explicitly casts implementation LineSet to IRepresentable_SVG.
EDIT: I've added X1Start property to the original LineSet to show how it can be used from interface implementation per question author's request. Now self-id __. is more involved and probably using self. or even this. instead would make more sense.
Updated below...
I recently started experimenting with ServiceStack in F#, so naturally I started with porting the Hello World sample:
open ServiceStack.ServiceHost
open ServiceStack.ServiceInterface
open ServiceStack.WebHost.Endpoints
[<CLIMutable; Route("/hello"); Route("/hello/{Name}")>]
type Hello = { Name : string }
[<CLIMutable>]
type HelloResponse = { Result : string }
type HelloService() =
inherit Service()
member x.Any(req:Hello) =
box { Result = sprintf "Hello, %s!" req.Name }
type HelloAppHost() =
inherit AppHostBase("Hello Web Services", typeof<HelloService>.Assembly)
override x.Configure container = ()
type Global() =
inherit System.Web.HttpApplication()
member x.Application_Start() =
let appHost = new HelloAppHost()
appHost.Init()
That works great. It's very concise, easy to work with, I love it. However, I noticed that the routes defined in the sample allow for the Name parameter to not be included. Of course, Hello, ! looks kind of lame as output. I could use String.IsNullOrEmpty, but it is idiomatic in F# to be explicit about things that are optional by using the Option type. So I modified my Hello type accordingly to see what would happen:
[<CLIMutable; Route("/hello"); Route("/hello/{Name}")>]
type Hello = { Name : string option }
As soon as I did this, the F# type system forced me to deal with the fact that Name might not have a value, so I changed HelloService to this to get everything to compile:
type HelloService() =
inherit Service()
member x.Any(req:Hello) =
box { Result =
match req.Name with
| Some name -> sprintf "Hello, %s!" name
| None -> "Hello!" }
This compiles, and runs perfectly when I don't supply a Name parameter. However, when I do supply a name...
KeyValueDataContractDeserializer: Error converting to type: Type
definitions should start with a '{', expecting serialized type
'FSharpOption`1', got string starting with: World
This wasn't a complete surprise of course, but it brings me to my question:
It would be trivial for me to write a function that can wrap an instance of type T into an instance of type FSharpOption<T>. Are there any hooks in ServiceStack that would let me provide such a function for use during deserialization? I looked, but I couldn't find any, and I'm hoping I was just looking in the wrong place.
This is more important for F# use than it might seem at first, because classes defined in F# are by default not allowed to be null. So the only (satisfying, non-hacky) way of having one class as an optional property of another class is with, you guessed it, the Option type.
Update:
I was able to sort-of get this working by making the following changes:
In the ServiceStack source, I made this type public:
ServiceStack.Text.Common.ParseFactoryDelegate
...and I also made this field public:
ServiceStack.Text.Jsv.JsvReader.ParseFnCache
With those two things public, I was able to write this code in F# to modify the ParseFnCache dictionary. I had to run this code prior to creating an instance of my AppHost - it didn't work if I ran it inside the AppHost's Configure method.
JsvReader.ParseFnCache.[typeof<Option<string>>] <-
ParseFactoryDelegate(fun () ->
ParseStringDelegate(fun s -> (if String.IsNullOrEmpty s then None else Some s) |> box))
This works for my original test case, but aside from the fact that I had to make brittle changes to the internals of ServiceStack, it sucks because I have to do it once for each type I want to be able to wrap in an Option<T>.
What would be better is if I could do this in a generic way. In C# terms, it would be awesome if I could provide to ServiceStack a Func<T, Option<T>> and ServiceStack would, when deserializing a property whose generic type definition matches that of the return type of my function, deserialize T and then pass the result into my function.
Something like that would be amazingly convenient, but I could live with the once-per-wrapped-type approach if it were actually part of ServiceStack and not my ugly hack that probably breaks something somewhere else.
So there are a couple of extensibility points in ServiceStack, on the framework level you can add your own Custom Request Binder this allows you to provide your own model binder that's used, e.g:
base.RequestBinders.Add(typeof(Hello), httpReq => {
var requestDto = ...;
return requestDto;
});
But then you would need to handle the model binding for the different Content-Types yourself, see CreateContentTypeRequest for how ServiceStack does it.
Then there are hooks at the JSON Serializer level, e.g:
JsConfig<Hello>.OnDeserializedFn = dto => newDto;
This lets you modify the instance of the type returned, but it still needs to be the same type but it looks like the F# option modifier changes the structural definition of the type?
But I'm open to adding any hooks that would make ServiceStack more palatable for F#.
What does the code look like to generically convert a normal Hello type to an F# Hello type with option?
The only thing I can think of is to replace the option type with your own type, one that has an implicit conversion from string to myOption, and anything else you need.
Not all that nice, but workable. Your type would probably also need to be serializable.
type myOption =
| None
| Some of string
static member public op_Implicit (s:string) = if s <> null then Some s else None
member public this.Value = match this with
| Some s -> s
| _ -> null
member this.Opt = match this with
| Some s -> Option.Some s
| None -> Option.None
Your record type would then be
[<CLIMutable>]
type Hello =
{ Name : myOption }
On the other hand, ServiceStack is open source, so maybe something could be done there.
I have a file with a module with some routines that take parameters and return unit, these routines have side-effects. I noticed that when accessing these f# routines from c# they're actually properties of type unit and when I try to access 1 property, it runs all properties in the module.
From the F# documentation all top level do bindings are run on type initialization.
What is the preferred way to write functions that should not be run on type initialization but are also not associated with other state i.e. a class with functions and member variables?
Should I put these functions inside a type and just have no records in the type?
Code example:
namespace test_space
open System.Diagnostics;
module test =
let test_1 =
Debug.WriteLine ("One")
let test_2 =
Debug.WriteLine ("Two")
I'm running this code with C#:
static void Main (string [] args)
{
Object o;
o = test.test_2;
}
And the output is:
One
Two
The problem is you didn't create functions but value bindings. test_1 is a value. test_1() is a function of type unit -> unit. Make sure you put () after the function name.
I don't fully understand the scenario you're describing - F# functions declared in a module will generally appear as methods and values will appear as properties. The code that is executed when you first access module (type initialization) is the initialization of values.
If you write just:
module Foo =
let Operation () =
printfn "hello"
...then calling Operation will be a method and calling Foo.Operation() will run the side-effect. If you can post some code that behaves unexpectedly, then someone can explain it.
Anyway, if you want to be sure about the behavior, you can write operations as static members of a class:
type Foo =
static member Operation() =
printfn "hello"
Then you can be sure that F# will compile them as static members of a class in a predictable way.
I've been struggling to get this to compile for about an hour. It must be something stupid. Can you spot it?
in my lib project:
namespace TravelerStuff
open System
type Traveler =
abstract GetData : unit -> unit
type public DeltaTraveler() =
interface Traveler with
member v.GetData () =
printf "hello"
and in my console test app:
[<EntryPoint>] let main _ =
let traveler = new TravelerStuff.DeltaTraveler()
traveler.GetData // this line won't compile: (The field, constructor or member 'GetData' is not defined)
As gradbot says, F# doesn't currently implicitly convert values to interfaces when searching for members. Also, F# only uses explicit interface implementation (as known from C#) and not implicit implementation where members are not only compiled as implementation of an interface, but also as ordinary (directly visible) members of the type.
Aside from casting, you can duplicate the member in the type definition:
type DeltaTraveler() =
member v.GetData () = printf "hello"
interface Traveler with
member v.GetData () = v.GetData()
Also, if you just want to implement an interface, but don't need to add any members, you can use F# object expressions (which are more lightweight):
let deltaTraveler() =
{ new Traveler with
member v.GetData () = printf "hello" }
// The function directly returns value of type 'Traveler'
let t = deltaTraveler()
t.GetData()
You need to upcast. F# currently won't do it for you in this situation.
(traveler :> TravelerStuff.Traveler).GetData()
// open the namespace to reduce typing.
open TravelerStuff
(traveler :> Traveler).GetData()
Snip from F# docs.
In many object-oriented languages,
upcasting is implicit; in F#, the
rules are slightly different.
Upcasting is applied automatically
when you pass arguments to methods on
an object type. However, for let-bound
functions in a module, upcasting is
not automatic, unless the parameter
type is declared as a flexible type.
For more information, see Flexible Types (F#).