Following my previous post, I’m building Asp.Net Core web application and I’m running my tests in XUnit. Default VSTS template for Asp.Net Core application runs the tests but it does not publish any results of test execution, so going into Tests results panel can be sad:

And even if you have a task that publishes test results after dotnet test, you will not get far.

As it turns out command dotnet test does not publish any xml files with tests execution results. That was a puzzle for me.

Luckily there were good instructions on XUnit page that explained how to do XUnit with Dotnet Core properly. In *test.csproj file you need to add basically the following stuff:

<Project Sdk="Microsoft.NET.Sdk">

  <PropertyGroup>
    <TargetFramework>netcoreapp1.1</TargetFramework>
  </PropertyGroup>

  <ItemGroup>
    <PackageReference Include="xunit" Version="2.3.0-beta2-build3683" />
    <DotNetCliToolReference Include="dotnet-xunit" Version="2.3.0-beta2-build3683" />
  </ItemGroup>

</Project>

Make sure you don’t miss the DotNetCliToolReference line – this is the key here.

Run dotnet restore and dotnet xunit inside the folder with this project. If you try to run this command outside of this folder you’ll get an error.

Command dotnet xunit has an option to output test results as XML file: dotnet xunit -xml .\test-results.xml.

Because this needs to be executed inside of the tests folder we can’t use “.Net Core” build task from VSTS – there is no option to configure what is the base execution folder. Instead you can just add “Command Line” task to execute what we need and from the correct folder:

Add “Command Line” task. As Tool option give it dotnet, for arguments say xunit -xml ./test-results.xml and make sure you specify the working folder – for my case that was src/Tests.

After that add “Publish Test Results”, tell it to use XUnit format, the rest of the default parameters worked for me.

And BOOM! We have tests results published at the end of the build:

I’m a big fan of unit tests. But not everything can and should be unit tested. Also I do love CQRS architecture – it provides awesome separation of read and writes and isolates each read from the next read via query classes. Usually my queries are reading data from a database, though they can use any persistence i.e. files. About 90% of my queries are run against database with Entity Framework or with some micro ORM (currently I’m a fan of PetaPoco, though Dapper is also grand).

And no amount of stubs/mocks or isolating frameworks will help you with testing your database-access layer without actual database. To test your database-related code you need to have a database. Full stop, don’t even argue about this. If you say you can do unit-tests for your db-layer, I say your tests are worth nothing.

A while ago I’ve blogged about integration tests and that article seems to be quite popular – in top 10 by visitors in the last 2 years. So I decided to write an update.

Continue reading

Stackoverflow is useful until you have a quite specific question and you have used Google before asking a question. My last 11 questions were left with no answers for one or another reason.

Today was not an exception. My question about debugging process during OpenXml development was left unnoticed. So I had to figure out for myself! Sigh!

UPDATE: I have discovered Open XML SDK Tool that adds a lot of features to this game

Anyway, I digress. My current task involves generating a MS Word document from C#. For that I’m using OpenXml library available in .Net. This is my first time touching OpenXml and maybe I’m talking about basic stuff, but this was not easily googleable.

Many times after writing a Word file, I try to open it and see this message:

The file .docx cannot be opened because there are problems with the contents. Details: Unspecified error

The file .docx cannot be opened because there are problems with the contents. Details: Unspecified error

Continue reading

There is a follow-up article about integration tests in 2016. Recommended for reading if you are using VSTS and looking at Cake build system

Unit tests are fine and dandy, but if you persist your data in database, persistence code must be tested as well. Some possible bugs will never be picked up only by unit tests. One of the issues I’ve been burned by is entity validation, another is a missing foreign key relationship.

Validation issues can burn you very easy. Look at this bit of code:

public class Person 
{
    [Key]
    public Guid PersonId { get; set; }

    [Required]
    public String FirstName { get; set; }

    [Required]
    public String LastName { get; set; }
}

public void CreatePerson(string firstName, string lastName)
{
    var newPerson = new Person();
    newPerson.FirstName = firstName;

    // dbContext was injected via constructor
    dbContext.Persons.Add(newPerson); 
    dbContext.SaveChanges();
}

NB: This is just a sample code. Nowhere in my projects we do such things.

Continue reading

After initial excitement about xUnit and how cool your tests become with AutoDataAttribute. My itch to convert all my tests into xUnit have died down. And I’m not excited as much. XUnit is certainly not the silver bullet.

I do agree with certain things that are in xUnit, like not providing [SetUp] and [TearDown], rather have constructor and destructor, but can’t agree with other things. And the authors of xUnit have not been listening to their community which is unfortunate. I’ll list the annoyances I discovered in the order I faced them.

Continue reading

One of the tasks have performed lately in our massive web-application is restructuring menu. And for the menu to work correctly we had to make sure that every page is somewhere on the menu.

For Menu generation we use MvcSitemapProvider. And for strongly-typed references to our controllers/actions we generate static classes via T4MVC. Task of making sure that every controller action (out of ~600) has a SiteMapAttribute is very tedious. And with development of new features, this can easily be forgotten, leading to bugs in our menu. So we decided to write a test. This turned out to be yet another massive reflection exercise and it took a while to get it correctly. So I’d like to share this with you.

Theory of the test are simple – find all controllers, on every controller find all the methods and check that every method has a custom attribute of type
MvcSiteMapNodeAttribute. But in practice this was more complex because we used T4MVC.

Continue reading

UPDATE: After initial excitement about xUnit, I needed to deal with some specifics. And now I don’t advise to move ALL your tests to xUnit. I’d recommend go into that slow and read through my rant here, before you commit to converting.

Nunit is a great testing framework. Only it is a little old now and new testing approaches are no longer fit into Nunit concepts. I’m talking about using Autofixture for generating test data. So I decided to see how xUnit will pan out for our projects and should we convert all our tests into xUnit or not.

Benefits of xUnit over NUnit are simple for me: AutoData attribute from Autofixture does not play nicely with NUnit due to architectural wirings. There are ways to have Autodata for
Nunit
, but this does not work nicely with Resharper 8.1 and NCrunch.

Continue reading

I did write about uploading files to Azure Storage via REST API before. It turns out that implementation is very naive. As soon as I tried uploading anything larger that 64Mb, I hid a brick wall with exceptions.

Azure Blob Storage has 2 types of blobs: Page Blobs and Block Blobs. Page Blobs are optimised for random read-write operations. Block Blobs are storage. Here more about Page vs Block blobs. If you are just storing files in Azure, you’ll most likely will use Block Blobs.

It turns out that Block Blob storage has some limitations on the upload front. In one go you can upload up to 64Mb: 1024 * 1024 * 64. Add one extra byte and you get an error from the API (I
tested it). So instead of uploading large files, you need to cut them into blocks and then upload separate pieces of no larger that 4Mb. And once all the pieces (Blocks) are uploaded, you need
to commit them all and give order in which they should appear.

Continue reading

Entity Framework relies on models to have a default constructor with no parameters. But if you are working with DDD often you would like to have some parameters in your constructors. And then slam a protected default constructor just for EF not to throw exceptions.

So you end up with code like this:

public class Product
{
    protected Product()
    {
        // This is required for EF
    }

    public Product(String name)
    {
        Name = name;
    }

    public String Name { get; set; }
}

The first constructor must not be used by developers, so you make it protected – this is good enough for EF.

Continue reading

CQRS architecture seems to be very popular. And I’m on that wave as well. In short CQRS is separating all read-actions from write-actions. And you have different classes for reading and writing. Queries for reading. Commands for writing.

For queries you would have IQuery and IQueryHandler interfaces:

public interface IQuery<out TResult>
{
}

public interface IQueryHandler<in TQuery, out TResult> where TQuery : IQuery<TResult>
{
    TResult Handle(TQuery query);
}

For command you would have very similar set of interfaces:

public interface ICommand
{
}

public interface ICommandHandler<in TCommand>
{
    void Handle(TCommand command);
}

Continue reading