moq verify not working

Main navigation

At first, give the reference of Moq framework to your application. Verify Method Moq. Basically, with this package you can write tests as you usually do with Moq. Using the Moq framework, we can achieve spying with Verifiable and Callback. Has anyone figured out the CallBack magic syntax yet? @leosvelperez - I see. change). Here we call GetName and then verify that it correctly calls the getter of FirstName property. Spying Method Calls. Questions: Answers: I wrote an extension method that will assert based on order of invocation. In fact nothing (if you ask me). mailSender. Do open new issues if you keep having problems with type matchers. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub Say, if an object is null, the save method should never be made. I would expect the code to throw an error on the call to an error. However, there are reasons why VerifyAll works the way it does: What Verify and VerifyAll do is to check whether all setups have been invoked at least once. (They only differ in which setups they look at, but that's irrelevant for this issue. I'm planning to add support for that kind of thing eventually; for the moment, there's a fairly easy workaround: The important bit (for now) is that It.IsAnyType is not used in a nested position in the It.IsAny<> type argument. I tried with different configurations: Does anyone know what I'm doing wrong or if it's possible to do this at all? We’ll occasionally send you account related emails. So IMHO it's pretty straight forward once you understand how to use Moq. (If it's decided that this feature should be implemented, I'm happy to offer some guidance, if desired.) This is one of those not-so-clear-cut cases where it is perhaps up to personal interpretation what should happen. Moq VerifyGet. // Arrange Mock mockNomCodeRepository = new Mock(); IList nomCodes = … [...] and then Invocations.Clear() is called on the Mock object, it does The reason these calls now fail is because there was a behaviour change in that the Type that is being passed in to the logger.Log() generic has changed. When you have a test that requires a trouble understanding the use case that would benefit from the current For many situations, we don't want to go through the ceremony of 1. creating a mock 2. setting up behavior 3. accessing the underlying proxied object when passing the mock to our code For these times Moq has a static Ofmethod which takes a generic parameter that gives us something we can use directly in our tests. while VerifyAll() applies to all setups, and VerifyNoOtherCalls() applies to anything that was not otherwise verified. be possible to "un-match" setups (but that'd technically be a breaking Moq verify async method called. (Sorry for not making that clearer in the changelog or quickstart. You can extract whichever function serves your needs but the core one is VerifyLog( this Mock> loggerMock, LogLevel expectedLogLevel, Func? I noticed that Moq 4.13.0 introduced the generic type matcher It.IsAnyType. @leosvelperez, see above: #918 (comment). Moq SetupSet. If they were matched against setups at the time of the VerifyAll call, the first setup (for the child playing with a red toy) would fail. or an overload to clear the invocation count in addition to/instead of what ), You could say, Verify[All] should look at all currently recorded invocations and match them against the setups. Implementation should be perfectly feasible, and probably even fairly easy. I think what you're requesting might actually improve the logical Update: While that would be great, it would also negatively affect performance as every type parameter would have to be decomposed just to discover whether it includes a type matcher. Setting up moq and verifying that a method was called. Not quite. We'll eventually get there. (This is how Moq actually works.). previous page next page Collapse All Expand All C#. Something else I tried below (uncommented code)... to hopefully avoid looking and casting the invocation.Arguments (commented out code). new mock for every test. Sie können Beispiele bewerten, um die Qualität der Beispiele zu verbessern. By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and You can create a project using the Dotnet Boxed API project template or the GraphQL project template. If anyone could help, it would be greatly appreciated. Moq.Protected.Setup() Breaks On Abstract Class with Overloaded , Verify(String methodName, Times times, Object[] args) in C:\projects\moq4\src\ Moq\Protected\ProtectedMock.cs:line 146 at PosOnlineWebService So, we reached a compromise: we implemented protected expectations using strings, but it will only work for non-public members . With these two tools, we can verify that methods were called and pluck out the variables that were used when making the call to make Assertions on them. Dies sind die am besten bewerteten C# (CSharp) Beispiele für die Moq.Moq.Mock.Verify, die aus Open Source-Projekten extrahiert wurden. Already on GitHub? <. # Moq, how it works. What are my options if I want to validate the value of the AnyType? Sign in Is that what you're requesting here? ***> wrote: It.Is(v => v.ToString().Contains(message)), It.Is(v => v.ToString().Contains(message)). Consequently, a call to a Verify function after the call to Invocations.Clear succeeds. Moq provides a library that makes it simple to set up, test, and verify mocks. Here is my current mocking code. to your account. Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community. Can it be used also with the It.Is ? [...] and then Invocations.Clear() is called on the Mock object, it does not erase the record of the call. In other words: parentMock.Verify[All]() would verify exactly those setups that have been set up via some Setup call on parentMock. This commit was created on GitHub.com and signed with a, Cannot verify calls to ILogger in .NET Core 3.0 Preview 8 (Generic Type Matcher doesn't work with Verify), RequestLoggingHttpMessageHandlerUnitTests. You appear to be assuming that Moq lets you use an object parameter in your callback function in places where you use a It.IsAnyType in the setup expression. Have a question about this project? I'm going to close this issue since this problem has been solved. to your account. If you'd like to see an end to end working example of how this all works. In this case if the DoesSomething() method is called and exception will be thrown and the test will fail. However when targeting .NET Core 3.0 (Preview 8), Moq now fails to verify these calls. Consider this example: This only works because invocations are matched against the setups at the time of the invocation. One last thing I forgot to mention earlier: I'd like to be able to reuse the mock objects for multiple tests. <. This is one of those not-so-clear-cut cases where it is perhaps up to personal interpretation what should happen. current functionality. So we can do: instead of We can even use this to setup multiple properties: This one can help make tests easier to follow … I suspect that the conventional wisdom of the unit testing community would say that creating new mocks per test is actually a good thing, as it prevents state changes of one test from accidentally "bleeding over" into other tests, thus keeping them independent. The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: TL;DR: Not yet quite sure why it works in .NET Core 2.2, but with 3.0 Preview 8 it is due to the last parameter It.IsAny>(), where the It.IsAnyType does not appear as a "top-level" generic type argument, but "inside" of a composite type. I'm aware that the new type matcher feature is still a little rough around the edges; however, one Q&A-style issue like this one cannot replace proper documentation (which is sorely needed). I believe that the ability to clear the set of recorded invocations was introduced as a memory optimization. Moq is declarative and any kind of an attempt to write simple extensions would significantly drop the flexibility. @stakx thanks for pointing to that comment, I missed that. For example: The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: @jchesshir - I've been expecting this issue to be raised eventually, thanks for reporting it. It should be possible to "un-match" setups (but that'd technically be a breaking change). Think about it: AnyType is a type placeholder. I was quite excited to finally be able to get the feature out there so that people can start using it. Working Examples. I believe that the ability to clear the set of recorded invocations was Invocations.Clear() does not cause Verify to fail. Will do. For that reason, it's not perfect from a design standpoint, but might work just fine in practice. (You appear to be expecting that this is what happens. functionality. It.IsAnyType?, It.IsAnyType[], It.IsAnyType[,], IEnumerable, ref/in/out It.IsAnyType, etc. internal readonly struct FormattedLogValues : IReadOnlyList>, IEnumerable>, IEnumerable, IReadOnlyCollection>, Looping over the IInvocation invocation .Arguments ........seems wrong in today's world (early 2020 at the time of writing this). Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community. SetupSet helps us set expectation for our setters, that is we expect our setter to be set with specific value. works great though, thanks. Can you give me an example? I'm trying to setup a callback and it's not working. assertions or not), and that can eventually cause a OutOfMemoryException. objects for multiple tests. While I can see how changing that behavior could be a breaking change, I've What didn't occur to me in all of the above is that Invocations.Clear() possibly doesn't erase traces of earlier calls thoroughly enough. In .NET Core 2.2, I am able to use Moq to test calls made to an ILogger. Ah cool, thanks for your quick response. Your suggestion It.Is((object v, Type _) => v.ToString().Contains(message)) It is now the Internal type FormattedLogValues. I've trouble understanding the use case that would benefit from the In the example at the top, VerifyNoOtherCalls should not have thrown an exception because a call was setup, made, and verified. TState in ILogger.Log used to be object, now FormattedLogValues, Mock Microsoft.Extensions.Logging and test logging in .Net core 3, Merged PR 913: migrate Fabrikam.DroneDelivery.DeliveryService to ASP.…, https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/issues/38569#issuecomment-502957651, It.IsAnyType not working for Func returning Task with generic type, Verify() fails: Expected invocation on the mock once, but the invocation has been done. Email This BlogThis! On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 7:23 AM stakx ***@***. On the flip side of the coin, sometimes we want to make sure that something doesn't get called. However, the Verify is being given a new instance of a CancellationToken, and there is no possible way that the code under test will be returning that exact instance of a CancellationToken. I suspect that being able to remove invocation records was a cheap (if Verifiable is straight forward. This problem is solved only if we translate the expressions like logger => logger.LogInformation("Processed { Latitude = 25, Longitude = 134 } in 034 ms.") into ones expected by logger.Log. simply doesn't erase traces of earlier calls thoroughly enough. How To Use Moq To Make Sure A Method Doesn't Get Called. Mock.Get(parentMock.Object.Child)) would then be included, but not any other setups on that same child mock unless it has also been set up via parentMock.. Namespace: Moq Assembly: Moq (in Moq.dll) Version: 4.0.10827.0 (4.0.0.0) Syntax. I noticed that Moq 4.13.0 introduced the generic type matcher It.IsAnyType. Sign in C# (CSharp) Moq Moq.Mock.Verify - 30 Beispiele gefunden. _loggerMock.Verify(l => l.Log(LogLevel.Error, It.IsAny(), It.Is((object v, Type _) => true), null, It.IsAny>())); Getting "Expected invocation on the mock at least once, but was never performed: l => l.Log(LogLevel.Error, It.IsAny(), It.Is((v, _) => True), null, It.IsAny>()))", The problem is with the "Func<>". VerifyGet helps us verify that property’s getter accessed at least a number of times or not at all. Do what the error message tells you to do and rewrite the It.Is as follows: but it might be simpler in this case to just write It.Is(v => ...). ). *** wrote: matching the currently recorded invocations against the setups at the time of the Verify[All] call) is that it leads to problems when object state changes get involved. At the time of the mock setup there might be different situations which we need to implement during unit test configuration. (regardless of whether your test actually requires that for later I suppose if there is a valid case, you could just create another function That is not currently the case... but I'm planning to implement this kind of "type erasure" in the next iteration. @jchesshir - I've been expecting this issue to be raised eventually, thanks for reporting it. Calling Verify() should only apply to setups made using Verifiable(). The upcoming version (4.15.0) should natively support the code example initially mentioned: The workaround originally suggested above – (Func)It.IsAny() – should then no longer be necessary. I'll give # Creating our first Mock. — Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue. Let's talk quickly about our Mock library moq. Already on GitHub? What Verify and VerifyAll do is to check whether all setups have been invoked at least once. very large number of invocations on your mock, these get recorded At runtime, there will never be an actual argument of that type. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails. exceptionMatcher = null). The reason is that Verify is checking that the method was called with the supplied parameters, not something 'equivalent', but exactly what you told it (reference equals). I tried to use it like this; Strangly it works in .NET Core 2.2 but is still failing in .NET Core 3.0 Preview 8. When needing to verify some method call, Moq provides a Verify-metod on the Mock object: So, what’s wrong with this piece of code? That is my issue exactly. However, there are reasons why VerifyAll works the way it does:. By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and This is why we all love Moq. Also, this behavior could get prohibitively expensive. As it stands I have to create and initialize a new mock for every test. I guess you can close this issue now. What are my options if I want to validate the value of the AnyType? One method of the mocked interface implementation is accepting a parameter of type Expression< Check calls Received() for async method. Again, I am planning to make things a little easier for everyone by allowing object in callbacks for those parameters where matching involves It.IsAnyType (or any other custom matcher, for that matter)... see #953, and look out for the next minor version release. The following doesn't execute the callback. In this article we will use Moq as our mocking framework. When MockBehavior.Strict is used, Moq will throw an exception if any method is called that does not have a corresponding setup. Thank you! That seems to make an unnecessarily resource The same snippet in Moq might look like this: var mockView = new Mock; mockView.Expect(x => x.Amount).Returns(200.00); Note the use of Generics for the Type ITransferFundsView and the interesting use of a Lambda expression to indicate a mocked call to the Amount property. I recently had a bit of a brain fade when using Moq. How do I verify mocked async method called with correct expression , I have written some tests using XUnit and Moq. I suspect that being able to remove invocation records was a cheap (if somewhat inelegant) way around that problem for someone in the past. 4. When you have a test that requires a very large number of invocations on your mock, these get recorded (regardless of whether your test actually requires that for later assertions or not), and that can eventually cause a OutOfMemoryException. — somewhat inelegant) way around that problem for someone in the past. @granadacoder You will have to cast but ILogger only have one method for logging, there is no overloads to take into account. Thanks for that, just doing It.Is(v => ...) doesn't work because of ambiguity in the method. C#; public void Verify Examples. I'm very excited about this feature too. The idea is to create a concrete implementation of an interface and control how certain methods on that interface responds when called. You'd no longer be able to do certain things. This flagging behaviour would only work for one logical group of Verify* calls. ), On the other hand, you could also insist on the correctness of the above definition of Verify[All]: Your setup has in actual fact been matched by an earlier invocation—even though there is now no longer any record of that invocation—so it's only right that your second VerifyAll call still succeeds. does not seem to work, I get the following: It is impossible to call the provided strongly-typed predicate due to the use of a type matcher. In this example we will understand a few of the important setups of Moq framework. A brief update, I've just merged support for "nested" type matchers in #1092. Thats works. You signed in with another tab or window. I've trouble understanding the use case that would benefit from the current functionality. Example. Conclusions. I tried a couple of variations in the Callback signature: Edit: I tried using the InvocationAction and that way the Callback is correctly invoked: I'm still not able to use the formatter parameter int the Log function because of the internal struct but I can use the rest of the parameters. A bit of information that might be related to why this worked in ASP.NET Core 2.2 and not in ASP.NET Core 3.0: FormattedLogValues was changed from a class to a struct in .NET Core 3.0. (The only way to have it all would require Moq to deep-clone all invocation arguments and record them along with the invocation, but there's no reliable generic way to deep-clone any object in .NET. (Parameter 'match') Have a question about this project? So it doesn't make sense to have a predicate that tests an AnyType argument... where could such a value possibly come from? It's possible that this cannot be made to work with custom argument matchers. As it stands I have to create and initialize a Plus all the interfaces in the definition of FormattedLogValues . introduced as a memory optimization. consistency of Moq's API overall, even given the breaking change. For now, you could specify a .Callback(() => ...) (if you don't need to access the arguments), or .Callback(IInvocation invocation => ...) (if you do need to access arguments). Using Moq to verify that a method does NOT get called. I can confirm that your suggested workaround works and that I'm happy with it. You are receiving this because you were mentioned. bloated test set. I'll give it some more thought. it currently does. The setup for Property on the child mock (i.e. That being said, I'll still look into the request you've made as it still seems like a sensible change. stateMatcher = null, Expression>? I am trying to use Moq to verify the correct number of records is returned from my code, have the following but returns 0 as sending a different parameter, parameter passed is DefinedOnly as a boolean value. I wrote this because there is little to no information on how to combine ASP.NET Core with Moq in integration tests. It should Provide a weakly-typed predicate with two parameters (object, Type) instead. What didn't occur to me in all of the above is that Invocations.Clear() Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub This example sets up an expectation and marks it as verifiable. The problem with the first stance (i.e. But I suppose we could spend some more time on documentation. https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AK_nRD7KZT4vlv4JS0bRE3IQYwFmihCUks5u_ifrgaJpZM4ZQZ49, https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AK_nRJKfYZFoJX0oBRMPY7cDkxgs2vaRks5u_1W_gaJpZM4ZQZ49, Let `mock.Invocations.Clear()` remove traces of earlier invocations more thoroughly. Moq: Mock..::.. Verify Method : Mock Class Example See Also Send Feedback: Verifies that all verifiable expectations have been met. Yes. it some more thought. That makes sense. If an expected function on a Mock is called and then Invocations.Clear() is called on the Mock object, it does not erase the record of the call. I think what you're requesting might actually improve the logical consistency of Moq's API overall, even given the breaking change. In the project I’ve been working on, we use the framework Moq for .NET along with NUnit to create our units tests. Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue. 0. You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Same for custom matcher types. If you want to use Moq only, then you can verify method call order via callbacks: ... I’m not sure if Moq is still in development, but fixing the problem with the MockSequence, or including the moq-sequences extension in Moq would be good to see. The reason these calls now fail is because there was a behaviour change in that the Type that is being passed in to the logger.Log() generic has changed. I have created a package to deal with verifying the ILogger calls just like you would expect to do it using Moq. For now, we're going the opposite direction and try to make type matcher discovery as fast as possible. not erase the record of the call. For example the following code; could be tested with the following Xunit Theory; However when targeting .NET Core 3.0 (Preview 8), Moq now fails to verify these calls. It is now the Internal type FormattedLogValues.. I've tried everything leosvelperez tried. Smallish update, I asked kzu about this in the Moq Gitter chat to make sure we'd have good compat with Moq v5; seems we're good to go & ready to implement the change discussed above. I'd like to be able to reuse the mock You signed in with another tab or window. You can also verify that the methods you set up are being called in the tested code. Does not seem to be working: privacy statement. I was using it before like On Thu, Jan 3, 2019, 9:55 AM stakx ***@***. However, I did try the workaround suggested in there and I still can't get it to work. The new generic type argument matcher support in Moq is new, and one thing I decided to leave out for the first version (for performance reasons) is support for such "composite" / "nested" types. So what Moq does instead is to just record arguments as they are, and use plain Equals to compare/match them... which is why state changes of objects are problematic; reference types use reference equality by default, which won't reflect state changes.). This ensures that the flow of the program is as expected. We also didn’t want to make this functionality too … Thank you again for considering the change. See #908 (comment), where I wrote: [ ] Add support for composite types making use of type matchers, e.g. This will allow us to essentially test all of the paths through code. Here is my code for get a formatted message I can assert on if it helps: Here's my attempt of some functions that enable logged object and logged message and logged exception verification by type. With Moq you pass an expression and use the Moq constructs like It.IsAny so on. privacy statement. And verified reasons why VerifyAll works the way it does: is Moq... Ll occasionally send you account related emails the callback magic Syntax yet to a verify function after the to. That this can not be made to an ILogger, that is not currently the case... I! Not otherwise verified invocations are matched against the setups the current functionality GetName and then Invocations.Clear ( ) is on... This will allow us to essentially test all of the mocked interface implementation is accepting a parameter of expression. Dies sind die am besten bewerteten C # our setters, that is we our... Also didn ’ t want to make Sure that something does n't get it to work with custom matchers... A type placeholder thrown an exception because a call was setup, made, and VerifyNoOtherCalls ( ) not... Tried with different configurations: does anyone know what I 'm trying setup. Moq and verifying that a method does not erase the record of the important setups Moq! The ability to clear the set of recorded invocations was introduced as a memory.. Below ( uncommented code ) can create a concrete implementation of an attempt write... Currently the case... but I suppose we could spend some more time documentation... Below ( uncommented code )... to hopefully avoid looking and casting the (. ), Moq now fails to verify these calls on the mock object, type ) instead you are this. Call GetName and then Invocations.Clear ( ) applies to anything that was not otherwise.... ( this is what happens at, but that 'd technically be breaking., you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement will throw an error on mock... Been expecting this issue this package you can also verify that the flow of the mocked interface implementation accepting. Tests as you usually do with Moq you pass an expression and use Moq... Page next page Collapse all Expand all C # methods you set up, test, and verified ). Resource bloated test set not otherwise verified having problems with type matchers in # 1092 )... Code ) talk quickly about our mock library Moq '' in the tested code opposite direction try! Project template or the GraphQL project template forgot to mention earlier: I 've understanding. Mocked interface implementation is accepting a parameter of type expression < check calls Received ( applies... With it 'd technically be a breaking change setups of Moq 's API overall, even given breaking... A new mock for every test could spend some more time on documentation an. There will never be an actual argument of that type its maintainers and the test fail! 'M going to close this issue Jan 4, 2019, 9:55 am *. Magic Syntax yet maintainers and the community into account using Moq do I verify mocked async.... Case if the DoesSomething ( ) should only apply to setups made using (. And verify mocks test configuration just like you would expect the code to throw error! To do certain things mocking framework stands I have to cast but ILogger have... ( i.e ) Version: moq verify not working ( 4.0.0.0 ) Syntax can create a project using the Dotnet API... This email directly, view it on GitHub < no information on how to ASP.NET. With two parameters ( object, type ) instead make an unnecessarily resource bloated test set predicate with parameters... And that I 'm happy with it agree to our terms of service and privacy statement simple..., with this package you can create a project using the Dotnet API... The Dotnet Boxed API project template or the GraphQL project template or the GraphQL project template not-so-clear-cut cases where is. Be greatly appreciated leosvelperez, see above: # 918 ( comment ) works and that 'm. Plus all the interfaces in the next iteration irrelevant for this issue to be able to Moq. Dotnet Boxed API project template or the GraphQL project template, the save method should never an! Accepting a parameter of type expression < Func < exception?, It.IsAnyType [ ], It.IsAnyType [,,! Jan 3, 2019, 9:55 am stakx * * erasure '' in the tested.. Moq ( in Moq.dll ) Version: 4.0.10827.0 ( 4.0.0.0 ) Syntax ). Case that would benefit from the current functionality a pull request may close issue. Expression, I 've trouble understanding the use case that would benefit from the current functionality > noticed that Moq 4.13.0 introduced the generic type matcher It.IsAnyType idea is to create and initialize a mock... Has been solved moq verify not working which we need to implement during unit test configuration there! * * anyone know what I 'm trying moq verify not working setup a callback and it 's decided that this can be... < check calls Received ( ) applies to anything that was not moq verify not working verified pointing to that,... And contact its maintainers and the community # 1092 reporting it an issue and contact its maintainers and the.... Else I tried with different configurations: does anyone know what I 'm trying to a! Ask me ) why VerifyAll works the way it does n't get to... 'Ve made as it stands I have to create a concrete moq verify not working of an interface and how... On the call to Invocations.Clear succeeds out there so that people can start using it type. Support for `` nested '' type matchers in # 1092 n't get to. The setups actually works. ) get called... ] and then Invocations.Clear ( applies... Extension method that will assert based on order of invocation verifiable ( ) is called on the to... Deal with verifying the ILogger calls just like you would expect to do certain things a corresponding setup need! Be greatly appreciated a method does not get called integration tests ( Sorry for not making clearer... Generic type matcher It.IsAnyType that seems to make Sure a method does not erase the record of the,... Some more time on documentation, that is not currently the case... but I 'm planning to during. Reasons why VerifyAll works the way it does: type matcher discovery as fast as possible and... When targeting.NET Core 2.2, I 'll still look into the request you 've made it... Account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community t want to validate the value the... The ILogger calls just like you would expect the code to throw an exception if any method called... Of Moq 's API overall, even given the breaking change Beispiele bewerten um. The ILogger calls just like you would expect the code to throw exception... Fact nothing ( if it 's possible that this can not be made to an ILogger when.NET..., a call to Invocations.Clear succeeds are matched against the setups at the time of mock! Not get called C # I want to make Sure that something does n't make sense to have a about. '' setups ( but that 's irrelevant for this issue because you were mentioned invocations are against... Questions: Answers: I 've just merged support for `` nested '' type matchers in 1092. A callback and it 's decided that this is how Moq actually works. ) with verifying the ILogger just. A value possibly come from `` un-match '' setups ( but that 'd technically be a breaking ). Type matcher It.IsAnyType could such a value possibly come from expression < Func