I am testing emails with sfTestMailer (delivery stratagy is none) How can I extract some text from sent email body?
I think you would have to extend the sfTesterMailer to get the message (which is there, but is protected). Right in your functional test maybe you can do this:
class myTesterMailer extends sfTesterMailer {
public function getMessage() {
return $this->message;
}
}
class myTestFunc extends sfTestFunctional {
public function getMessage() {
$message = $this->with('mailer')->getMessage();
return $message;
}
}
$browser = new myTestFunc(new sfBrowser(), null, array('mailer' => 'myTesterMailer'));
$message = $browser->getMessage();
... do tests on $message->getBody() ...
If you have properly configured your factories, this should work:
$browser->
//the rest of your test here
with('mailer')->begin()->
checkHeader('Subject', '/Hello world/')->
checkBody('/Hello stack overflow/')->
end();
More info is available in the documentation.
Related
I've created a Calendar module in laminas MVC which interacts with Google Calendar and then created another Todo module which is supposed to interact with my Calendar module. The signature of CalendarController in Calendar module is like
public function __construct(
ListProcess $listProcess,
AddProcess $addProcess,
EditProcess $editProcess,
DeleteProcess $deleteProcess
)
Now my code in Todo module that is supposed to initiate the scheduling process is as below
public function execute(): array
{
$todo = json_decode((new CrmApiService())->getTodo($this->getTodoId()), true);
$eventData["summary"] = $todo->title;
$eventData["description"] = $todo->content;
$eventData["startDateTime"] = $todo->nextActionDate;
$eventData["endDateTime"] = $todo->nextActionDate;
$calendar = new CalendarController();
return $calendar->scheduleFromAnotherSource($eventData);
}
when I execute this, I get an error like below
Too few arguments to function CalendarModule\Controller\CalendarController::__construct(), 0 passed in D:\laminas\todo-module-integrated\vendor\iss-module\todo-module\src\Process\TodoScheduleProcess.php on line 53 and exactly 4 expected
I know that I'm not supposed to call the CalendarController directly rather it should be through a Service.
My question is, how should I create a Service in Todo module that has the dependency on Calendar module and it should interact with Calendar module without requiring the involvement of CalendarController which has further dependencies?
Thanks for all the help.
Here's how I've implemented it. (May it'll help someone)
In my Calendar-module, the logic of adding is separate from CalendarController and its called AddProcess, this is how I add an event from the controller. $result = $this->addProcess->execute($this->params()->fromPost());. The Google authentication is being handled through a separate service CalendarClientService. All my processes access this service to authenticate as below and then get executed.
$client = $this->calendarClientService->getClient();
if (!$this->calendarClientService->authenticateClient($client)) {
return ["error" => "authentication", "url" => filter_var($client->createAuthUrl(), FILTER_SANITIZE_URL)];
}
Now I've created a new service in Calendar-module as below where I just called AddProcess and passed it the new eventData.
class CalendarService
{
protected AddProcess $addProcess;
public function __construct(AddProcess $addProcess)
{
$this->addProcess = $addProcess;
}
public function scheduleAsEvent($eventData)
{
$eventData["startDateTime"] = Carbon::parse($eventData["startDateTime"])->format("Y-m-d\TH:i");
$eventData["endDateTime"] = Carbon::parse($eventData["endDateTime"])->format("Y-m-d\TH:i");
return $this->addProcess->execute($eventData);
}
}
Then from my Todo-module, I access this service as below
namespace TodoModule\Process;
use Carbon\Carbon;
use Google\Exception;
use Laminas\Cache\Exception\ExceptionInterface;
use Laminas\Mvc\Controller\AbstractActionController;
use CalendarModule\Service\CalendarService;
use TodoModule\Service\CrmApiService;
class TodoScheduleProcess extends AbstractActionController
{
protected int $todoID;
protected CalendarService $calendarService;
public function __construct(CalendarService $calendarService)
{
$this->calendarService = $calendarService;
}
public function execute(): array
{
$todo = json_decode((new CrmApiService())->getTodo($this->getTodoId()));
$eventData["summary"] = $todo->title;
$eventData["description"] = $todo->content;
$eventData["startDateTime"] = $todo->nextActionDate;
$eventData["endDateTime"] = $todo->nextActionDate;
return $this->calendarService->scheduleAsEvent($eventData);
}
public function getTodoId()
{
return $this->todoID;
}
public function setTodoId($id)
{
$this->todoID = $id;
}
}```
I'm developing a web application with ASP.NET Core (MVC) that will display some information to a group of users. They will be authenticated using Windows Athentication. I recently started using SignalR because I want them to receive push notifications based on certain actions that are triggered from another program that is written in Python. That Python program send HTTP post requests to an API controller within the web app. However I want those notifications to be sent to specific users.
Here's my post method in the api controller:
[HttpPost]
public void Post([FromBody] Notice notice)
{
//_pushHub.Clients.All.SendAsync("ReceiveMessage", notice.Title, notice.Body);
_pushHub.Clients.User(_nuidProvider.GetUserId(_connection)).SendAsync("ReceiveMessage", notice.Title, notice.Body);
}
It receives an object of class Notice which has two fields: Title and Body.
Then I send those values by using the method SendAsync(). When I execute it for all clients, it gets sent successfully. However, since I need it to be sent to specific users, I tried following these instructions: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/signalr/authn-and-authz?view=aspnetcore-5.0
I created this class as suggested:
namespace MyApp.Services
{
public class NameUserIdProvider : IUserIdProvider
{
public string GetUserId(HubConnectionContext connection)
{
return connection.User?.Identity?.Name;
}
}
}
Then I added this to the StartUp at ConfigureServices:
services.AddSingleton<IUserIdProvider, NameUserIdProvider>();
services.AddSignalR();
And lastly, I modified the JS file to include the sentence: options.UseDefaultCredentials = true; as suggested in the instructions:
const conn = new signalR.HubConnectionBuilder().withUrl('/pushHub', options => {
options.UseDefaultCredentials = true;
}).build();
conn.on('ReceiveMessage', (title, body) => {
const t = title.replace(/&/g, '&').replace(/</g, '<').replace(/>/g, '>');
const b = body.replace(/&/g, '&').replace(/</g, '<').replace(/>/g, '>');
const date = new Date().toLocaleTimeString();
const msg = date + ' ' + t + ' ' + b;
const li = document.createElement('li');
li.innerHTML = msg;
document.getElementById('msgsList').appendChild(li);
Push.create(title, {
body: body,
timeout: 9000
});
});
conn.start().catch(err => console.error(err.toString()));
The complete api controller looks like this, but I'm not sure if I'm doing it right:
namespace MyApp.Controllers.api
{
[Route("api/[controller]")]
[ApiController]
public class NoticesController : ControllerBase
{
private readonly IHubContext<PushHub> _pushHub;
private readonly IUserIdProvider _nuidProvider;
private readonly HubConnectionContext _connection;
public NoticesController(IHubContext<PushHub> pushHub, IUserIdProvider nuidProvider, HubConnectionContext connection)
{
_pushHub = pushHub;
_nuidProvider = nuidProvider;
_connection = connection;
}
// POST api/<NoticesController>
[HttpPost]
public void Post([FromBody] Notice notice)
{
//_pushHub.Clients.All.SendAsync("ReceiveMessage", notice.Title, notice.Body);
_pushHub.Clients.User(_nuidProvider.GetUserId(_connection)).SendAsync("ReceiveMessage", notice.Title, notice.Body);
}
}
}
I think I'm not passing a proper connection object to the GetUserId method.
Any advice will be completely appreciated. Thanks!
i am following a getting started tutorial on zend framework 2, in one of the topics it suggests using tests, the code it suggests is:
namespace ApplicationTest\Controller;
use ApplicationTest\Bootstrap;
use Zend\Mvc\Router\Http\TreeRouteStack as HttpRouter;
use Application\Controller\IndexController;
use Zend\Http\Request;
use Zend\Http\Response;
use Zend\Mvc\MvcEvent;
use Zend\Mvc\Router\RouteMatch;
use PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase;
class IndexControllerTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase
{
protected $controller;
protected $request;
protected $response;
protected $routeMatch;
protected $event;
protected function setUp()
{
$serviceManager = Bootstrap::getServiceManager();
$this->controller = new IndexController();
$this->request = new Request();
$this->routeMatch = new RouteMatch(array('controller' => 'index'));
$this->event = new MvcEvent();
$config = $serviceManager->get('Config');
$routerConfig = isset($config['router']) ? $config['router'] : array();
$router = HttpRouter::factory($routerConfig);
$this->event->setRouter($router);
$this->event->setRouteMatch($this->routeMatch);
$this->controller->setEvent($this->event);
$this->controller->setServiceLocator($serviceManager);
}
public function testIndexActionCanBeAccessed()
{
$this->routeMatch->setParam('action', 'index');
$result = $this->controller->dispatch($this->request);
$response = $this->controller->getResponse();
$this->assertEquals(200, $response->getStatusCode());
}
}
as you can see there is no __autoload($class).
to manually make it work i added include "../../Bootstrap.php"; it did solve the problem but i remember once i could get this code to work, and the tutorial doesn't seem to forget something conceptually obvious and there is no feedback about it in the Topic comments , there may be something I am missing, how would the code above probably work?
I managed to get it working but noticed you couldn't use phpUnit's extended Request and Response objects. These are the instructions for early 2.0 release. At least after 2.0.7, the instructions are much different and the code is cleaner:
http://zf2.readthedocs.org/en/latest/user-guide/unit-testing.html
<?php
namespace ApplicationTest\Controller;
use Zend\Test\PHPUnit\Controller\AbstractHttpControllerTestCase;
class IndexControllerTest extends AbstractHttpControllerTestCase
{
public function setUp()
{
$this->setApplicationConfig(
include '/path/to/application/config/test/application.config.php'
);
parent::setUp();
}
public function testIndexActionCanBeAccessed()
{
$this->dispatch('/');
$this->assertResponseStatusCode(200);
$this->assertModuleName('application');
$this->assertControllerName('application_index');
$this->assertControllerClass('IndexController');
$this->assertMatchedRouteName('home');
}
}
In this example testing is carried out by extending Zend's controller test case, which was the way controller tests were carried out with zf1.
I have a method which looks like the one below
public List<Rajnikanth> GetRajnis()
{
string username = Utility.Helpers.GetLoggedInUserName();
return _service.GetRajni(username);
}
Utility.Helper is a static class,
public static class Helpers
{
public static String GetLoggedInUserName()
{
string username = "";
if (System.Web.HttpContext.Current.User.Identity.IsAuthenticated)
{
username = ((System.Web.Security.FormsIdentity)HttpContext.Current.User.Identity).Ticket.Name;
}
return username;
}
}
I want to test : GetRajnis()
I want to mock : GetLoggedInUserName()
So my test method looks something like...
[TestMethod]
public void TestGetRajnis()
{
SomeController s = new SomeController(new SomeService());
var data = s.GetRajnis();
Assert.IsNotNull(data);
}
how do I mock the static method GetLoggedInUserName() ?
The Simplest Approach: Override the return value
If you are looking to mock a return value, then this is very simple. You can modify the Utility.Helper class to include a property called OverrideLoggedInUserName. When someone calls GetLogedInUserName(), if the override property is set, it is returned, otherwise the normal code to get the value from the HttpContext is used to get the return value.
public static class Helper
{
// Set this value to override the return value of GetLoggedInUserName().
public static string OverrideLoggedInUserName { get; set; };
public static string GetLoggedInUserName()
{
// Return mocked value if one is specified.
if ( !string.IsNullOrEmpty( OverrideLoggedInUserName ) )
return OverrideLoggedInUserName;
// Normal implementation.
string username = "";
if ( System.Web.HttpContext.Current.User.Identity.IsAuthenticated )
{
username = ( (System.Web.Security.FormsIdentity)HttpContext.Current.User.Identity ).Ticket.Name;
}
return username;
}
}
This will effectively allow you to override the return value, which technically isn't a mock--it's a stub (according to the excellent article Mocks Aren't Stubs by Martin Fowler). This allows you to stub a return value, but won't allow you to assert whether the method was called or not. Anyhow as long as you only want to manipulate the return value this works fine.
Here is how you would use this in a test.
[ TestMethod ]
public void TestGetRajnis()
{
// Set logged in user name to be "Bob".
Helper.OverrideLoggedInUserName = "Bob";
SomeController s = new SomeController( new SomeService() );
var data = s.GetRajnis();
// Any assertions...
}
This design does have one drawback. Because it's a static class, if you set the override value, it remains set until you un-set it. So you must remember to re-set it to null.
A Better Approach: Inject the dependency
A better approach may be to create a class that retrieves the logged in user name, and pass it into the constructor of SomeController. We call this dependency injection. This way, you can inject a mocked instance into it for testing, but pass the real instance (that gets the user from the HttpContext) when not testing. This is a much cleaner and clearer approach. Plus, you can leverage all the power of whatever mocking framework you are using, since they are designed specifically to handle this approach. Here is what that would look like.
// Define interface to get the logged in user name.
public interface ILoggedInUserInfo
{
string GetLoggedInUserName();
}
// Implementation that gets logged in user name from HttpContext.
// This class will be used in production code.
public class LoggedInUserInfo : ILoggedInUserInfo
{
public string GetLoggedInUserName()
{
// This is the same code you had in your example.
string username = "";
if ( System.Web.HttpContext.Current.User.Identity.IsAuthenticated )
{
username = ( (System.Web.Security.FormsIdentity)HttpContext.Current.User.Identity ).Ticket.Name;
}
return username;
}
}
// This controller uses the ILoggedInUserInfo interface
// to get the logged in user name.
public class SomeController
{
private SomeService _service;
private ILoggedInUserInfo _userInfo;
// Constructor allows you inject an object that tells it
// how to get the logged in user info.
public SomeController( SomeService service, ILoggedInUserInfo userInfo )
{
_service = service;
_userInfo = userInfo;
}
public List< Rajnikanth > GetRajnis()
{
// Use the injected object to get the logged in user name.
string username = _userInfo.GetLoggedInUserName();
return _service.GetRajni( username );
}
}
And here is a test using Rhino Mocks to inject a stub object into the controller.
[ TestMethod ]
public void TestGetRajnis()
{
// Create a stub that returns "Bob" as the current logged in user name.
// This code uses Rhino Mocks mocking framework...
var userInfo = MockRepository.GenerateStub< ILoggedInUserInfo >();
userInfo.Stub( x => x.GetLoggedInUserName() ).Return( "Bob" );
SomeController s = new SomeController( new SomeService(), userInfo );
var data = s.GetRajnis();
// Any assertions...
}
The disadvantage here is that you can't just call Helper.GetLoggedInUserName() from anywhere in your code, because it's no longer static. However, you no longer have the need to reset the stubbed username every time you finish a test. Because it's not static, it it automatically reset. You just recreate it for the next test and set a new return value.
I hope this helps.
Get rid of the static class if you are looking for testability. A simple fix for now would be to create a wrapper around the static class. Unless you use something like TypeMock or something equally as powerful, then you cannot alter the logic of a static class. Nor do I suggest it. If you have to stub a static class, it probably should not be a static class.
public class StaticWrapper
{
public virtual String GetLoggedInUserName()
{
Utility.Helpers.GetLoggedInUserName();
}
}
I am trying to write a unit test for our log out method. Among other things it FormsAuthentication.SignOut(). However, it throws a System.NullReferenceException.
I've created a mock; HttpContext (using Moq), but it is obviously missing something.
My mock context contains:
A mocked HttpRequestBase on Request
A mocked HttpResponseBase on Response
With a HttpCookieCollection on Request.Cookies and another on Response.Cookies
A mocked IPrincipal on User
I am aware I could go the wrapper route and inject an empty FormsAuth wrapper object in it's place, but I would really like to avoid the 3 additional files just to fix one line of code. That and I am still curious for an answer
So my question is "What is needed in the HttpContext to allow FormsAuthentication.SignOut() to execute."
The NullReferenceException in this case is actually being thrown by the call:
current.Request.Browser["supportsEmptyStringInCookieValue"]
You can test this assertion by calling:
HttpContext.Current.Request.Browser.SupportsEmptyStringInCookieValue
...which will also return the NullReferenceException. Contrary to the accepted answer, if you attempt to call:
CookielessHelperClass.UseCookieless(current, false, CookieMode)
...from the immediate window, this will return without error.
You can fix the exception like this:
HttpContext.Current.Request.Browser = new HttpBrowserCapabilities() { Capabilities = new Dictionary<string, string> { { "supportsEmptyStringInCookieValue", "false" } } };
...and the FormsAuthentication.SignOut() call will now succeed.
You can always wrap FormsAuthentication.SignOut() into another method and stub / mock it.
Create IFormsAuthenticationWrap interface.
public interface IFormsAuthenticationWrap
{
void SignOut();
}
Create wrap class that implements IFormsAuthenticationWrap
public class FormsAuthenticationWrap : IFormsAuthenticationWrap
{
public void SignOut()
{
FormsAuthentication.SignOut();
}
}
Your calling class is going to look something like this:
public class LogOutClass
{
private readonly IFormsAuthenticationWrap _formsAuthentication;
public LogOutClass() : this (new FormsAuthenticationWrap())
{
}
public LogOutClass(IFormsAuthenticationWrap formsAuthentication)
{
_formsAuthentication = formsAuthentication;
}
public void LogOutMethod()
{
// Code before SignOut
_formsAuthentication.SignOut();
// Code after SignOut
}
}
Now let's get to our test. You can stub / mock with Moq but I'm going to show here how you can do it manually.
Create your stub / mock class:
public class FormsAuthenticationStub : IFormsAuthenticationWrap
{
public void SignOut()
{
}
}
And the last write the test:
[TestMethod]
public void TestLogOutMethod()
{
var logOutClass = new LogOutClass(new FormsAuthenticationStub());
logOutClass.LogOutMethod();
}
Here's the code for signout.
public static void SignOut()
{
Initialize();
HttpContext current = HttpContext.Current;
bool flag = current.CookielessHelper.DoesCookieValueExistInOriginal('F');
current.CookielessHelper.SetCookieValue('F', null);
if (!CookielessHelperClass.UseCookieless(current, false, CookieMode) || current.Request.Browser.Cookies)
{
string str = string.Empty;
if (current.Request.Browser["supportsEmptyStringInCookieValue"] == "false")
{
str = "NoCookie";
}
HttpCookie cookie = new HttpCookie(FormsCookieName, str);
cookie.HttpOnly = true;
cookie.Path = _FormsCookiePath;
cookie.Expires = new DateTime(0x7cf, 10, 12);
cookie.Secure = _RequireSSL;
if (_CookieDomain != null)
{
cookie.Domain = _CookieDomain;
}
current.Response.Cookies.RemoveCookie(FormsCookieName);
current.Response.Cookies.Add(cookie);
}
if (flag)
{
current.Response.Redirect(GetLoginPage(null), false);
}
}
Looks like you need a CookielessHelperClass instance. Too bad it's internal and sealed - there's no way to mock it unless you're using TypeMock. +1 for wrapper suggestions :)
The wrapper is the clean way to go.
You mentioned in a comment that "this is going to be quite a big application", that's another argument to use the wrapper not the opposite. In a big application you want to have clear dependencies, and you want tests to be done easily.
You are trading clean dependencies that can be easily injected over obscure dependencies to the internal workings of asp.net in your tests.
On a different note: Use Reflector. I honestly don't know the inner dependencies of this specific part of asp.net, but you can clear any doubts with reflector.
Don't mock HttpContext, use a real one in your tests. This way you don't have to mock all these Http* stuff. You can use Ivonna and test your method directly, without mocking all these dependencies and getting mysterious exceptions.