I am told that my unit test should be ignorant of the specific type of implementation
This is incorrect. It is completely normal and good practice to let tests use both fake implementations and the class under test directly.
You however, are using the DI container in your unit tests, and that actually is bad practice. Although the use of the DI container is okay when you're writing integration tests (since you want to test components in integration with other components), using the DI library in unit tests leads to hard to read and maintain tests. With unit tests, you test code in isolation. This means that you usually create the class under test by hand, and inject the required fake dependencies to get the test running.
I would therefore expect such unit test to look like this:
public void CanSave_CurrentUserHasNoPermission_ReturnsFalse() {
// Arrange
var noPermission = new FakeSecurity { CurrentUserHasPermission = false };
var viewModel = new MaintainColorsViewModel(noPermission);
// Act
bool actualResult = viewModel.CanSave;
// Assert
Assert.IsFalse(actualResult);
}
public void CanSave_CurrentUserHasPermission_ReturnsTrue() {
// Arrange
var hasPermission = new FakeSecurity { CurrentUserHasPermission = true };
var viewModel = new MaintainColorsViewModel(hasPermission);
// Act
bool actualResult = viewModel.CanSave;
// Assert
Assert.IsTrue(actualResult);
}
public void CanSave_Always_QueriesTheSecurityForTheSaveColorsPermission() {
// Arrange
var security = new FakeSecurity();
var viewModel = new MaintainColorsViewModel(security);
// Act
bool temp = viewModel.CanSave;
// Assert
Assert.IsTrue(security.RequestedPermissions.Contains("Save Colors"));
}
There are a few things to note about this code:
- Both the
FakeSecurity and the MaintainColorsViewModel are created directly in the tests here; no DI library is used. This makes the tests much more readable and maintainable (and faster).
- I considerably simplified the
FakeSecurity class (shown below), because you want fake classes to be as simple as possible.
- A third test is added to check explicitly whether the
MaintainColorsViewModel requests the expected permission.
- The AAA pattern (Arrange/Act/Assert) is implemented explicitly.
To allow these tests to be written the way they are, the following change has been made to the ISecurity abstraction:
interface ISecurity
{
bool UserHasPermission(string permission);
}
The userId parameter has been removed from the UserHasPermission method. The reason for this is that the ISecurity implementation will be able to find out who the current user is by itself. Allowing consumers of ISecurity to pass this parameter along only means that the API is getting more complex, there is more code to write, there's a bigger chance of programming errors, and we therefore need more supporting tests. In other words, the sole addition of this userId property forces a lot of extra production and test code to write and maintain.
Here is the simpflified FakeSecurity class:
class FakeSecurity : ISecurity
{
public bool CurrentUserHasPermission;
public List<string> RequestedPermissions = new List<string>();
public bool UserHasPermission(string permission)
{
this.RequestedPermissions.Add(permission);
return this.CurrentUserHasPermission;
}
}
The FakeSecurity class now has very little code and that makes it, just by looking at it, very easy to check for correctness. Remember, test code should be as simple as possible. Side note: replacing this class with a generated mock object, doesn't make our code easier. In most cases it will actually make our unit tests harder to read, understand and maintain.
One reason for developers to start using a DI container inside their unit tests is because the manual creation of the class under test (with all its fake dependencies) causes maintenance issues in their tests. This is true actually; if the MaintainColorsViewModel has multiple dependencies, and we would create that MaintainColorsViewModel in each test, the addition of a single dependency would cause us to change all our MaintainColorsViewModel tests. This often is a reason for developers to either use a DI container -or- revert to mocking frameworks.
This however is not a good reason to start using a DI container or mocking library. A simple refactoring can completely remove the maintenance problem; we just have to create a factory method as follows:
private static MaintainColorsViewModel CreateViewModel(params object[] dependencies) {
return new MaintainColorsViewModel(
dependencies.OfType<ISecurity>().SingleOrDefault() ?? new FakeSecurity(),
dependencies.OfType<ILogger>().SingleOrDefault() ?? new FakeLogger(),
dependencies.OfType<ITimeProvider>().SingleOrDefault() ?? new FakeTimeProvider(),
dependencies.OfType<IUserContext>().SingleOrDefault() ?? new FakeUserContext());
}
Here I assume that the MaintainColorsViewModel contains 4 dependencies (namely ISecurity, ILogger, ITimeProvider and IUserContext). The CreateViewModel factory method allows passing in all dependencies using a params array, and the method tries to get each abstraction from the array and when missing replaces it with the default fake implementation.
With this factory, we can now rewrite our tests to the following:
[TestMethod]
public void CanSave_CurrentUserHasNoPermission_ReturnsFalse()
{
// Arrange
var noPermission = new FakeSecurity { CurrentUserHasPermission = false };
MaintainColorsViewModel viewModel = CreateViewModel(noPermission);
// Act
bool actualResult = viewModel.CanSave;
// Assert
Assert.IsFalse(actualResult);
}
Or we can pass in multiple dependencies if the test requires this:
[TestMethod]
public void CanSave_CurrentUserHasNoPermission_LogsWarning()
{
// Arrange
var logger = new FakeLogger();
var noPermission = new FakeSecurity { CurrentUserHasPermission = false };
MaintainColorsViewModel viewModel = CreateViewModel(logger, noPermission);
// Act
bool temp = viewModel.CanSave;
// Assert
Assert.IsTrue(logger.Entries.Any());
}
Do note that this test is just here for educational purposes. I don't suggest the view model to actually do the logging; that should not be its responsibility.
The moral of the story here is actually that good design can simplify your testing efforts considerably to the point that you can write less code and less tests, while improving the quality of your software.
