How to mock Request.IsAjaxRequest() to true using FakeItEasy? - asp.net-mvc

Following is the code snippet for which I want to write unit tests:
[HttpGet]
public ActionResult Edit(string id)
{
if (Request.IsAjaxRequest())
{
EditModel model = new EditModel();
.....
}
return View();
}
I want to write unit tests for this action where I can fake the result of Request.IsAjaxRequest() to true so that I can write tests for rest of the code of the action.
I have tried following but it doesn't work. _request.Headers is always empty, and Request.IsAjaxRequest() is always returning false:
[Fact]
public void Get_Edit_AjaxRequest_ExpectedActionCalled()
{
HttpRequestBase _request = A.Fake<HttpRequestBase>();
_request.Headers.Add("X-Requested-With", "XMLHttpRequest");
_controller.ControllerContext = A.Fake<ControllerContext>();
_controller.ControllerContext.HttpContext = _request;
A.CallTo(() => _controller.Request).Returns(_request);
var result = _controller.Edit(1) as RedirectToRouteResult;
}
I always get Request.IsAjaxRequest() as false. Any help on this much appreciated. Thanks

I managed to muddle past the compilation errors and use some information from Chapter 10 of FakeItEasy Succinctly, which is all about ASP.NET MVC.
Generally speaking, the ASP.NET MVC classes are not designed in a way to make them easily fakeable, but I have a test setup that causes IsAjaxRequest to return true. The two main hurdles were getting the controller to use the request object and to make sure that the request object was returning the headers we wanted.
The first part was not hard, but the second required us to have the request object use a concrete NameValueCollection. The faked one that it had been providing by default was not useful, because the right properties weren't virtual. Fortunately, using a real NameValueCollection did the trick.
Try this:
[Fact]
public void Get_Edit_AjaxRequest_ExpectedActionCalled_Blair()
{
HttpRequestBase _request = A.Fake<HttpRequestBase>();
// NameValueCollection is effectively unfakeable due to non-virtual properties,
// but a real one works just fine, so make sure the headers use one of those.
A.CallTo(() => _request.Headers).Returns(new NameValueCollection());
_request.Headers["X-Requested-With"] = "XMLHttpRequest";
var httpContext = A.Fake<HttpContextBase>();
A.CallTo(() => httpContext.Request).Returns(_request);
_controller.ControllerContext = new ControllerContext(
new RequestContext(httpContext, new RouteData()),
_controller);
var result = _controller.Edit(1) as RedirectToRouteResult;
}
Be warned that there will be lots of pitfalls like this in the MVC framework, and continuing to fake them may continue to be frustrating. You may find a more sustainable approach is to extract as much of your logic as is feasible out into plain old testable business classes that don't rely on the MVC framework.

Related

ASP.NET MVC ClaimsPrincipalPermission.CheckAccess Imperative Calls and Unit Tests

I've got code that uses CheckAccess with claims permission as so:
public ActionResult Index()
{
ClaimsPrincipalPermission.CheckAccess("foo", "bar");
return View();
}
I have a unit test like this:
[TestMethod]
public void TestIndex()
{
HomeController controller = new HomeController();
ViewResult result = controller.Index() as ViewResult;
Assert.IsTrue(result.View != null);
}
How do I mock ClaimsPrincipalPermission to always return successfully? I know that i can move this code to an attribute which will solve the problem. However, there are cases where I wish to call CheckAccess imperatively.
I would recommend wrapping this functionality into a dependency and using Dependancy Injection to make the code "Testable".
This involes "Extracting over overriding" this functionality into a different class and injecting the class into the controller.
By doing this removes your reliance on Static methods to an instance based method and will ensure you get a reliable result for testing purposes.
http://www.asp.net/mvc/tutorials/hands-on-labs/aspnet-mvc-4-dependency-injection

Using Ninject.MockingKernel with Asp.Net Web API

I've set up a Web API project using Ninject, and I've used the fix detailed here for getting it to work with the latest version of the Web API. Everything is working fine, but I'm now trying to write some tests.
I'm using in-memory hosting to run the project for the tests, as detailed here, as I have a DelegatingHandler that performs authentication and then sets a property on the request message that is used by all the Api Controllers.
So, I've got a base class for my tests, and have a SetUp method where I set up the HttpServer and configuration, which I've pretty much taken from my working Ninject code:
[SetUp]
public void Setup()
{
bootstrapper = new Bootstrapper();
DynamicModuleUtility.RegisterModule(
typeof(OnePerRequestHttpModule));
DynamicModuleUtility.RegisterModule(
typeof(NinjectHttpModule));
bootstrapper.Initialize(CreateKernel);
var config = new HttpConfiguration();
config.Routes.MapHttpRoute("Login",
"api/auth/token",
new { controller = "Users", action = "Login" });
config.IncludeErrorDetailPolicy =
IncludeErrorDetailPolicy.Always;
config.DependencyResolver =
new NinjectResolver(CreateKernel());
config.MessageHandlers.Add(
new AuthenticationHandler(CreateUserManager()));
Server = new HttpServer(config);
}
This is how I create the MoqMockingKernel:
private static IKernel CreateKernel()
{
var kernel = new MoqMockingKernel();
kernel.Bind<Func<IKernel>>()
.ToMethod(ctx => () => new Bootstrapper().Kernel);
kernel.Bind<IHttpModule>()
.To<HttpApplicationInitializationHttpModule>();
RegisterServices(kernel);
GlobalConfiguration.Configuration.DependencyResolver =
new NinjectResolver(kernel);
return kernel;
}
And this is how I register the objects to use:
private static void RegisterServices(IKernel kernel)
{
kernel.Bind<IUserManager>().ToMock();
kernel.Bind<UsersController>().ToSelf();
}
While I'm not testing the Controller per se, I do want a proper instance of it to be called, which is why I'm binding it ToSelf. I must admit that I am assuming that this is correct. This is an example of a test:
public void UserCannotLogin()
{
System.Net.Http.HttpClient client =
new System.Net.Http.HttpClient(Server);
string json = string.Format(
"{{ \"Username\": \"{0}\", \"Password\": \"{1}\" }}",
"wrong", "wrong");
HttpRequestMessage request =
CreateRequest(#"api/auth/token", json, HttpMethod.Get);
Action action = () => client.SendAsync(request);
using (var response = client.SendAsync(request).Result)
{
response.StatusCode.Should()
.Be(HttpStatusCode.Unauthorized);
}
}
I'm basically getting a 404 error. When I debug it, it does go to my DelegatingHandler, but it doesn't go to my controller.
I get the feeling that I'm fundamentally missing a point here, and it may not even be possible to do what I'm trying to do, but if anyone has any suggestions for either how to do this, or a different way to achieve the same thing, I'm all ears.
Update I think that it's because the default behaviour of the MockingKernel is to provide a Mock unless told otherwise, so it is returning a Mock of IHttpControllerSelector. I've set up a couple of default ones now:
kernel.Bind<IHttpControllerSelector>()
.To<DefaultHttpControllerSelector>();
kernel.Bind<IContentNegotiator>()
.To<DefaultContentNegotiator>();
It's still not working, I think because there are no formatters specified. I'll try that tomorrow and see if that gets me there.
Ok, I think that I was correct when I said that I was fundamentally missing a point here, but I'll answer this in case it helps someone else avoid the same mistake!
The Ninject MockingKernel is, I think, primarily about auto-mocking, so where you have a lot of interfaces you don't care about how they are set up in your test, you can ignore them in your tests and they will be automatically created for you.
In the case of the Web API, this is most definitely not the case, as you don't want the controller selector class to be auto mocked, otherwise you won't end up calling your controllers.
So, the solution I've come up with is to stick with using a standard Ninject Kernel, and then bind your interface to a constant Mock object:
kernel.Bind<IUserManager>().ToConstant(CreateUserManager());
private IUserManager CreateUserManager()
{
Mock<IUserManager> userManager = new Mock<IUserManager>();
// Set up the methods you want mocked
return userManager.Object;
}
Doing this, I've been able to successfully write tests that use an HttpClient to call an in-memory HttpServer that successfully call my DelegatingHandler and then end up at my controllers.

Testing Account/Logon Action

I'm testing the Account/Loggon action using the built-in testing tool of Visual Studio 2010 and the class library from this article to create a fake controller context.
When I run the test method, this code line:
FormsAuthentication.SetAuthCookie(username, false);
throws an exception: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
To test the loggon action, I think I should create a controller with a fake controller context that has a cookie collection. Here is my testing code block:
AccountController controller = new AccountController();
var cookies = new HttpCookieCollection();
controller.ControllerContext = new FakeControllerContext(controller, cookies);
ActionResult result = controller.RemoteLogOn(username, password);
I'm not sure if this is the right way, but this is what we do, and it works.
Instead of directly using FormsAuthentication.SetAuthCookie, abstract it into an interface, e.g IFormsAuthenticationService, and implement as per regular.
Accept that in your MVC controllers where required, e.g:
public AccountController(IFormsAuthenticationService formsAuthenticationService)
{
_formsAuthenticationService = formsAuthenticationService; // should use DI here
}
public ActionResult LogOn(string username, string pw)
{
if (yourLogicWhichChecksPw)
_formsAuthenticationService.SetAuthCookie(username, false);
return RedirectToAction("Index");
}
Then in your unit-test, use something like Moq to fake out the interface.
var username = "blah";
var pw = "blah";
var fakesFormsAuth = new Mock<IFormsAuthenticationService>();
fakeFormsAuth.Verify(x => x.SetAuthCookie(username, false), Times.AtLeastOnce());
var controller = new AccountController(fakedFormsAuth.Object);
controller.LogOn(username, pw);
The reason for mocking this is because there is absolutely no need to unit-test Forms Authentication. It's a built-in, well tested and stable part of the ASP.NET framework. That's why we mock things where we don't care about the underlying implementation, instead we only test that certain conditions were met (it was called, exception was thrown, some variable was set, etc).
Test your own code, not the mechanics of .NET.
As for Stephen Walther's article, that's more for faking the RequestContext when certain code your testing expects data in the Request. Such as the User.Identity, Request.IsAuthenticated, Form variables, etc. That's where you need to fake the context, such as the following code:
public ActionResult Save(SomeModel)
{
var user = Request.User.Identity; // this will be null, unless you fake the context.
}

How do I unit test a custom ActionFilter in ASP.Net MVC

So I'm creating a custom ActionFilter that's based mostly on this project http://www.codeproject.com/KB/aspnet/aspnet_mvc_restapi.aspx.
I want a custom action filter that uses the http accept headers to return either JSON or Xml. A typical controller action will look like this:
[AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Get)]
[AcceptTypesAttribute(HttpContentTypes.Json, HttpContentTypes.Xml)]
public ActionResult Index()
{
var articles = Service.GetRecentArticles();
return View(articles);
}
The custom filter overrides the OnActionExecuted and will serialize the object (in this example articles) as either JSON or Xml.
My question is: how do I test this?
What tests do I write? I'm a TDD novice and am not 100% sure what I should be testing and what not to test. I came up with AcceptsTypeFilterJson_RequestHeaderAcceptsJson_ReturnsJson(), AcceptsTypeFilterXml_RequestHeaderAcceptsXml_ReturnsXml() and AcceptsTypeFilter_AcceptsHeaderMismatch_ReturnsError406().
How do I test an ActionFilter in MVC that is testing the Http Accept Headers?
Thanks.
You just need to test the filter itself. Just create an instance and call the OnActionExecuted() method with test data then check the result. It helps to pull the code apart as much as possible. Most of the heavy lifting is done inside the CsvResult class which can be tested individually. You don't need to test the filter on an actual controller. Making that work is the MVC framework's responsibility.
public void AcceptsTypeFilterJson_RequestHeaderAcceptsJson_ReturnsJson()
{
var context = new ActionExecutedContext();
context.HttpContext = // mock an http context and set the accept-type. I don't know how to do this, but there are many questions about it.
context.Result = new ViewResult(...); // What your controller would return
var filter = new AcceptTypesAttribute(HttpContentTypes.Json);
filter.OnActionExecuted(context);
Assert.True(context.Result is JsonResult);
}
I just stumbled upon this blog post which seems the right way to me. He uses Moq.
What this chap is doing is mocking the HTTPContext, but also we need to set up a ContentType in the request:
// Mock out the context to run the action filter.
var request = new Mock<HttpRequestBase>();
request.SetupGet(r => r.ContentType).Returns("application/json");
var httpContext = new Mock<HttpContextBase>();
httpContext.SetupGet(c => c.Request).Returns(request.Object);
var routeData = new RouteData(); //
routeData.Values.Add("employeeId", "123");
var actionExecutedContext = new Mock<ActionExecutedContext>();
actionExecutedContext.SetupGet(r => r.RouteData).Returns(routeData);
actionExecutedContext.SetupGet(c => c.HttpContext).Returns(httpContext.Object);
var filter = new EmployeeGroupRestrictedActionFilterAttribute();
filter.OnActionExecuted(actionExecutedContext.Object);
Note - I have not tested this myself.

Unit testing a controller in ASP.NET MVC 2 with RedirectToAction

I have a controller that implements a simple Add operation on an entity and redirects to the Details page:
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Add(Thing thing)
{
// ... do validation, db stuff ...
return this.RedirectToAction<c => c.Details(thing.Id));
}
This works great (using the RedirectToAction from the MvcContrib assembly).
When I'm unit testing this method I want to access the ViewData that is returned from the Details action (so I can get the newly inserted thing's primary key and prove it is now in the database).
The test has:
var result = controller.Add(thing);
But result here is of type: System.Web.Mvc.RedirectToRouteResult (which is a System.Web.Mvc.ActionResult). It doesn't hasn't yet executed the Details method.
I've tried calling ExecuteResult on the returned object passing in a mocked up ControllerContext but the framework wasn't happy with the lack of detail in the mocked object.
I could try filling in the details, etc, etc but then my test code is way longer than the code I'm testing and I feel I need unit tests for the unit tests!
Am I missing something in the testing philosophy? How do I test this action when I can't get at its returned state?
I am using MVC2 RC2 at the moment and the answer from rmacfie didn't quite work for me but did get me on the right track.
Rightly or wrongly I managed to do this in my test instead:
var actionResult = (RedirectToRouteResult)logonController.ForgotUsername(model);
actionResult.RouteValues["action"].should_be_equal_to("Index");
actionResult.RouteValues["controller"].should_be_equal_to("Logon");
Not sure if this will help someone but might save you 10 minutes.
There is MVC Contrib TestHelper that are fantastic for testing most of the ActionResult
You can get it here:
http://mvccontrib.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=TestHelper
Here is an example of the syntax:
var controller = new TestController();
controller.Add(thing)
.AssertActionRedirect()
.ToAction<TestController>(x => x.Index());
To test if the data has been persisted successfully, you should maybe ask your database directly, I don't know if you're using an ORM or something, but you should do something to get the last insterted item in your database, then compare with the value you provided to your Add ActionResult and see if this is ok.
I don't think that testing your Details ActionResult to see if your data is persisted is the right approach. That would not be an unit test, more a functional test.
But you should also unit test your Details method to make sure that your viewdata object is filled with the right data coming from your database.
You seem to be doing way too much for a unit test. The validation and data access would typically be done by services that you call from the controller action. You mock those services and only test that they were called properly.
Something like this (using approximate syntax for Rhino.Mocks & NUnit):
[Test]
public void Add_SavesThingToDB()
{
var dbMock = MockRepository.GenerateMock<DBService>();
dbMock.Expect(x => x.Save(thing)).Repeat.Once();
var controller = new MyController(dbMock);
controller.Add(new Thing());
dbMock.VerifyAllExpectations();
}
[Test]
public void Add_RedirectsAfterSave()
{
var dbMock = MockRepository.GenerateMock<DBService>();
var controller = new MyController(dbMock);
var result = (RedirectToRouteResult)controller.Add(new Thing());
Assert.That(result.Url, Is.EqualTo("/mynew/url"));
}
I have a static helper method that tests redirection.
public static class UnitTestHelpers
{
public static void ShouldEqual<T>(this T actualValue, T expectedValue)
{
Assert.AreEqual(expectedValue, actualValue);
}
public static void ShouldBeRedirectionTo(this ActionResult actionResult, object expectedRouteValues)
{
RouteValueDictionary actualValues = ((RedirectToRouteResult)actionResult).RouteValues;
var expectedValues = new RouteValueDictionary(expectedRouteValues);
foreach (string key in expectedValues.Keys)
{
Assert.AreEqual(expectedValues[key], actualValues[key]);
}
}
}
Then creating a redirection test is very easy.
[Test]
public void ResirectionTest()
{
var result = controller.Action();
result.ShouldBeRedirectionTo(
new
{
controller = "ControllerName",
action = "Index"
}
);
}

Resources