.NET/ASP.NET/C#/VB.NET PDF Document SDK

Listing 10-26. The Actual Service Call to Be Tested final UserAccount actualAccount = service.findUser(username);

50 70 55

10 10 25

winforms pdf 417 reader, winforms qr code reader, winforms upc-a reader, winforms data matrix reader, winforms gs1 128, winforms ean 13 reader, itextsharp remove text from pdf c#, itextsharp replace text in pdf c#, winforms code 39 reader, itextsharp remove text from pdf c#,

The service implementation will (we hope) make the corresponding call to the DAO to receive from it the account object specified in Listing 10-25, and return that. So, subsequent to this call, the actualAccount reference shown in Listing 10-26 should refer to the same object as the account reference passed into the andReturn() method of Listing 10-25. Finally, we validate the resulting state, as shown in Listing 10-27. We call an EasyMock method to verify that the expected methods were called on the mock object, and we use a normal JUnit assertion to verify that the service returns the correct account object instance.

0 0 0

verify(mockUserAccountDao); assertTrue(actualAccount == account); The usage of mock class generation demonstrated here is not exclusively applicable to testing the service layer. You can use a generated mock class anywhere that you need a mock class to stand in as the container of data that would otherwise be passed to, or obtained from, other components. The checks to determine ordering of method calls can be disabled

To translate 40 units over the y axis s positive direction, all you need to do is to add 40 to each y position, and you have the new coordinates for the vertices, shown here:

or enabled as appropriate, and numerous additional facilities allow you to apply other tests to the method calls, their parameters, and their return values.

1 2 3

Testing the presentation layer components is not notably different from testing the service layer. Again, we have a layer that predominantly performs its actions by calling through to another layer (although here we are one level higher up calling into the service layer instead of into the DAO layer). The source code available from the Source Code/Download area of the Apress website (www.apress.com) includes an EasyMock-based test of a Spring MVC controller and its validation class. Testing a Spring Web Flow implementation class presents an additional challenge, however. The configuration of the test shown in Listing 10-28 is very much as you would expect: the only real departure from the sort of mock object based testing we have seen before is the creation (shown in bold) and use of the MockRequestContext object. This object is provided as a standard part of the Web Flow libraries specifically to make testing easier.

50 70 55

50 50 65

private final EventFactorySupport support = new EventFactorySupport(); private CreateUserAction action; @Override protected void setUp() throws Exception { action = new CreateUserAction(); action.setFormObjectName("command"); action.setFormObjectClass(CreateUserForm.class); } public void testEdit() throws Exception { // Setup test data final MockRequestContext context = new MockRequestContext(); // Carry out the action final Event event = action.edit(context); // Verify success assertNotNull(event); final String successEventId = support.success(action).getId(); assertEquals(successEventId,event.getId()); }

0 0 0

Although it would be possible for us to implement the object by using a generated or custom created mock class, we have a problem: the population of the context object from the request parameters is normally carried out within the implementation of the action class s parent classes, and a similarly opaque method call within the action class getFormObject is used to retrieve the populated command object from the context itself. This detail is hidden within the Web Flow library classes. Even if we knew exactly what methods were called upon the context during the getFormObject method invocation, we would have no guarantee that the exact details would not change in a future implementation making our test dependent on a specific version of an external library and potentially hindering us in the use of future versions. The testEdit() method of Listing 10-28 makes limited use of the context, but the need is much more conspicuous in Listing 10-29, where the contents of the RequestContext object will be used to determine the UserAccount object to manipulate in the calls into the service classes (the scripting of which is shown in bold).