Why does the property I want to mock need to be vi

问题:

I'm doing some unit testing, and mocking some properties using Moq.

Now, this is a Controller test (ASP.NET MVC 3). My Controllers derive from an abstract controller, called AbstractController.

This controller has a dependency on the Http Context (in order to do things like theming, domain-specific logic based on HTTP HOST headers, etc).

This is done via a property called WebSiteSettings:

public abstract class AbstractController : Controller
{
   public WebSiteSettings WebSiteSettings { get; private set; }

   // other code
}

Notice the private set - the ctor sets it up. So, i changed it to used an interface, and that's what i've mocked:

public IWebSiteSettings WebSiteSettings { get; private set; }

I then created a "FakeWebSiteSettings", which mocks the Http Context in order for it to read the HTTP headers.

The problem is, when i run the test, i get a NotSupportedException:

Invalid setup on a non-virtual (overridable in VB) member: x => x.WebSiteSettings

Here's the relevant mocking code:

var mockWebSiteSettings = new Mock<FakeWebSiteSettings>();
var mockController = new Mock<MyController>(SomeRepository);
mockController.Setup(x => x.WebSiteSettings).Returns(mockWebSiteSettings.Object);

_controller = mockController.Object;

var httpContextBase = MvcMockHelpers.FakeHttpContext();
httpContextBase.Setup(x => x.Request.ServerVariables).Returns(new NameValueCollection
    {
        {"HTTP_HOST","localhost.www.mydomain.com"}, 
});
_controller.SetFakeControllerContext(httpContextBase.Object);

If i make the WebsiteSettings property virtual - the test passes.

But i can't understand why i need to do this. I'm not actually overriding the property, i'm simply mocking how it is setup.

Am i missing something, or doing this wrong?

回答1:

Moq and other similar mocking frameworks can only mock interfaces, abstract methods/properties (on abstract classes) or virtual methods/properties on concrete classes.

This is because it generates a proxy that will implement the interface or create a derived class that overrides those overrideable methods in order to intercept calls.

回答2:

I've created an interface and wrapper class. e.g.

    public interface IWebClient
    {
        string DownloadString(string url);
    }

    public class WebClient : IWebClient
    {
        private readonly System.Net.WebClient _webClient = new System.Net.WebClient();

        public string DownloadString(string url)
        {
            return _webClient.DownloadString(url);
        }
    }

and then in your unit tests just mock out the interface:

        var mockWebClient = new Mock<IWebClient>();

Obviously you may need to include more properties / methods. But does the trick.

Another useful trick for other mocking problems, such as modifying the current date time (I always use UTC date time):

public interface IDateTimeUtcNowProvider
{
    DateTime UtcNow { get; } 
}

public class DateTimeUtcNowProvider : IDateTimeUtcNowProvider
{
    public DateTime UtcNow { get { return DateTime.UtcNow; } }
}

e.g. if you have a service that runs every x minutes you can just mock out the IDateTimeProvider and return a time that is later to check the service ran again... or whatever.

回答3:

"So....what i did is the only way?"

No not the only way - you are much better off implementing an interface and mocking that. Then your actual methods can be virtual or not as you choose.

回答4:

Although, all that was said before is true, it's worth to know that the proxy-mocking approach (like the one that moq uses)i s not the only one possible.

Check http://www.typemock.com/ for a comprehensive, solution, that allows you to mock both sealed classes, non-virtual methods etc. Pretty powerful.