Integration test in SharePoint

(1)

Introduction Unit testing Integration testing

Integration test in SharePoint

Allan Hvam Petersen

Codecamp, SharePoint User Group

(2)

Introduction Unit testing Integration testing

Me

Education

B.Sc. in Computer Science

AP in Computer Science

SharePoint experience

SharePoint Developer at ProActive since 2007

Questions B Just ask

Q: Do you have any practical experiences with the topic?

A: No, testing has been a small spare time project.

(3)

Introduction

Unit testing Integration testing

Agenda

Software testing

Automated functional testing

Agenda

1

Introduction

Agenda

Software testing

Automated functional testing

2

Unit testing

Dependency inversion

Mocking

TypeMock Isolator

3

Integration testing

Considerations

TypeMock Challenges

Future Plans

(4)

Introduction

Agenda

Software testing

Types

Functional testing

Performance testing

Usability testing

etc.

Functional testing

Manual testing

(5)

Introduction

Agenda Software testing

Automated functional testing

Extent

Unit testing (Units in isolation)

Integration testing (Interaction between Modules)

System testing (All components)

(6)

Introduction Unit testing Integration testing Dependency inversion Mocking TypeMock Isolator

DEMO 1

Using a testing framework and writing a unit test

Write tests before implementation

Testing is easy and fun

(7)

DEMO 1

Using a testing framework and writing a unit test

Write tests before implementation

(8)

Dependency inversion

Goal

Decouple high-level components from low-level components

Patterns

Plugin

Service Locator

Dependency Injection

others?

(9)

DEMO 2

_{Dependency inversion}

Use of patterns and interfaces can make testing easier

Fakes vs. Stubs

(10)

DEMO 2

_{Dependency inversion}

Use of patterns and interfaces can make testing easier

Fakes vs. Stubs

(11)

Test Doubles

Fake (Simple implemnetation)

1 p u b l i c int M e t h o d () { r e t u r n 0; }

Stub (Records information)

1 p u b l i c int M e t h o d () { M e t h o d C a l l e d = t r u e; r e t u r n 0; }

Mock (Pre-programmed expectations)

(12)

DEMO 3

_{Writing a mocking framework}

(13)

DEMO 3

_{Writing a mocking framework}

(14)

DEMO 4

_{Using a mocking framework}

(15)

DEMO 4

_{Using a mocking framework}

(16)

Limitations of inheritance based mocking

Sealed classes

Non virtual methods

Static methods

(17)

TypeMock Isolator

Hooks into the CLR profile API and injects code runtime.

TypeMock API

1 var web = I s o l a t e . F a k e . I n s t a n c e < SPWeb > ( ) ;

2 I s o l a t e . S w a p . A l l I n s t a n c e s < SPWeb > ( ) . W i t h ( web );

3 I s o l a t e . S w a p . N e x t I n s t a n c e < SPWeb > ( ) . W i t h ( web );

4 I s o l a t e . N o n P u b l i c . W h e n C a l l e d ( web , " I n v a l i d a t e " ).

5 D o I n s t e a d ( c o n t e x t = > { r e t u r n; });

6 I s o l a t e . S w a p . C a l l s O n ( a ). W i t h C a l l s T o ( b );

Criticism: Too powerful

(18)

DEMO 5

_{Testing an SharePoint application}

MVP Pattern

Service Locator Pattern

TypeMock Isolator API

(19)

DEMO 5

_{Testing an SharePoint application}

MVP Pattern

Service Locator Pattern

TypeMock Isolator API

(20)

Introduction Unit testing Integration testing Considerations TypeMock Challenges Future Plans

Comparison

Unit

Integration

System

Speed

Fast

Medium

Slow

Mocking

Every

Some

None

Wrinting

Hard

Medium

Easy

(21)

Integration testing

Approaches

Big Bang

Top-Down

Button-Up

Goals

Independent

Fast

Reproducible

(22)

First thoughts

New farm for each test

1

Reinstall script

2

VMware Snapshots

Concerns: cumbersome and slow

Mock SharePoint

1

_{Middle layer/SharePoint Repository}

(23)

Using Typemock Isolator for Integration Tests

1

1 u s i n g(var s i t e = new S P S i t e ( " h t t p :// i n t e g r a t i o n - test - s i t e " )

2 { 3 I s o l a t e . W h e n C a l l e d (()= > S P F a r m . L o c a l ). W i l l R e t u r n ( 4 s i t e . W e b A p p l i c a t i o n . F a r m ); 5 6 var c o n t e x t = S P C o n t e x t . G e t C o n t e x t ( s i t e ); 7 I s o l a t e . W h e n C a l l e d (()= > S P C o n t e x t . C u r r e n t ). W i l l R e t u r n ( c o n t e x t ); 8 9 // Arrange , Act , A s s e r t 10 }

(24)

SharePoint Integration Testing

Making the Split:

(25)

SharePoint Integration Testing

Making the Split:

(26)

SharePoint Configuration Database

1 [ G u i d ( " 3 B60B328 - F4D6 -4902 - BEC6 - E 9 0 4 1 7 9 F A 2 4 6 " )] 2 p u b l i c c l a s s S P P e r s i s t e d O b j e c t : ... 3 { 4 [ P e r s i s t e d ] 5 p r i v a t e H a s h t a b l e m _ P r o p e r t i e s ; 6 ... 1 < O b j e c t Id = " 2 6 9 0 8 0 da -0041 -4 b34 - 9 1 7 c - . . . " 2 C l a s s I d = " 674 da553 - ea77 -44 a3 - b9f8 - . . . " 3 P a r e n t I d = " 2 6 9 0 8 0 da -0041 -4 b34 - 9 1 7 c - . . . " 4 N a m e = " T y p e M o c k F a r m " ... > 5 6 < o b j e c t t y p e = " ... S P F a r m ... " > 7 ... 8 < fld n a m e = " m _ P r o p e r t i e s " t y p e = " n u l l " / > 9 ... 10 < / o b j e c t > 11 12 < / O b j e c t >

(27)

SharePoint Configuration Database

1 [ G u i d ( " 3 B60B328 - F4D6 -4902 - BEC6 - E 9 0 4 1 7 9 F A 2 4 6 " )] 2 p u b l i c c l a s s S P P e r s i s t e d O b j e c t : ... 3 { 4 [ P e r s i s t e d ] 5 p r i v a t e H a s h t a b l e m _ P r o p e r t i e s ; 6 ... 1 < O b j e c t Id = " 2 6 9 0 8 0 da -0041 -4 b34 - 9 1 7 c - . . . " 2 C l a s s I d = " 674 da553 - ea77 -44 a3 - b9f8 - . . . " 3 P a r e n t I d = " 2 6 9 0 8 0 da -0041 -4 b34 - 9 1 7 c - . . . " 4 N a m e = " T y p e M o c k F a r m " ... > 5 6 < o b j e c t t y p e = " ... S P F a r m ... " > 7 ... 8 < fld n a m e = " m _ P r o p e r t i e s " t y p e = " n u l l " / > 9 ... 10 < / o b j e c t > 11 12 < / O b j e c t >

(28)

SharePoint Configuration Database

1 [ G u i d ( " 3 B60B328 - F4D6 -4902 - BEC6 - E 9 0 4 1 7 9 F A 2 4 6 " )] 2 p u b l i c c l a s s S P P e r s i s t e d O b j e c t : ... 3 { 4 [ P e r s i s t e d ] 5 p r i v a t e H a s h t a b l e m _ P r o p e r t i e s ; 6 ... 1 < O b j e c t Id = " 2 6 9 0 8 0 da -0041 -4 b34 - 9 1 7 c - . . . " 2 C l a s s I d = " 674 da553 - ea77 -44 a3 - b9f8 - . . . " 3 P a r e n t I d = " 2 6 9 0 8 0 da -0041 -4 b34 - 9 1 7 c - . . . " 4 N a m e = " T y p e M o c k F a r m " ... > 5 6 < o b j e c t t y p e = " ... S P F a r m ... " > 7 ...

(29)

TypeMock Challenges

Faking internal types

1 p u b l i c s t a t i c o b j e c t I n s t a n c e ( 2 t h i s I F a k e r faker , 3 T y p e t , 4 M e m b e r s b e h a v i o r ) 5 { 6 var f a k e r T y p e = t y p e o f( I F a k e r ); 7 var m e t h o d = f a k e r T y p e . G e t M e t h o d ( " I n s t a n c e " , 8 new[] { t y p e o f( M e m b e r s ) }); 9 var g e n e r i c M e t h o d = m e t h o d . M a k e G e n e r i c M e t h o d ( t ); 10 r e t u r n g e n e r i c M e t h o d . I n v o k e ( I s o l a t e . Fake , 11 new o b j e c t[] { b e h a v i o r }); 12 }

(30)

TypeMock Challenges

Dynamic new behavior, interception

1 u s i n g T y p e M o c k . I n t e r n a l . H o o k s ; 2 3 E v e n t T u n n e l . S h o u l d I n t e r c e p t D e c i s i o n = S h o u l d I n t e r c e p t D e c i s i o n ; 4 E v e n t T u n n e l . D u r i n g M e t h o d C a l l = D u r i n g M e t h o d C a l l ; 1 p r i v a t e s t a t i c v o i d S h o u l d I n t e r c e p t D e c i s i o n ( 2 T M S h o u l d I n t e r c e p t E v e n t A r g s e v e n t A r g s ) 3 { 4 e v e n t A r g s . R e t u r n s ( I n t e r c e p t B e h a v i o r . L e t I s o l a t o r D e c i d e ); 5 6 if ( e v e n t A r g s . M e t h o d N a m e == " . c t o r " ) 7 {

(31)

TypeMock Challenges

Dynamic new behavior, swapping

1 p r i v a t e s t a t i c v o i d D u r i n g M e t h o d C a l l ( 2 T M D u r i n g C a l l E v e n t A r g s e v e n t A r g s ) 3 { 4 if ( e v e n t A r g s . M e t h o d N a m e == " . c t o r " ) 5 { 6 D i s a b l e E v e n t F i r i n g (); 7 8 var obj = ... // M o c k e d o b j e c t 9 10 E n a b l e E v e n t F i r i n g (); 11 12 S w a p . C a l l s O n ( e v e n t A r g s . C o n t e x t ). W i t h C a l l s T o ( obj ); 13 14 e v e n t A r g s . R e t u r n s ( I s o l a t i o n B e h a v i o r . S k i p M e t h o d ); 15 }

(32)

DEMO 6

Testing an SharePoint application in-memory

(33)

DEMO 6

Testing an SharePoint application in-memory

(34)

Current Status & Future Plans

Current status

Can read most objects from the configuration database

Found 3 bugs in TypeMock during development, none fixed

The bugs prevent me from Update() and SPSite lookup

Future Plans (if I get time)

Do Update() and SPSite lookup

Model the content databases

Mock the timer services?

(35)

Pex - Automated White box Testing for .NET

Peli de Halleux and Nikolai Tillmann: Unit Testing SharePoint

Services with Pex

2

Moles

1 M S P S i t e . N e w S t r i n g = ( site , _ u r l ) = > { 2 new M S P S i t e ( s i t e ) { 3 O p e n W e b = () = > new M S P W e b () { 4 D i s p o s e = () = > { } , 5 L i s t s G e t = () = > new M S P L i s t C o l l e c t i o n () { 6 // ... 7 }. I n s t a n c e 8 }. I n s t a n c e 9 }; 10 };

(36)

Pex - Automated White box Testing for .NET

Peli de Halleux and Nikolai Tillmann: Unit Testing SharePoint

Services with Pex

2

Moles

1 M S P S i t e . N e w S t r i n g = ( site , _ u r l ) = > { 2 new M S P S i t e ( s i t e ) { 3 O p e n W e b = () = > new M S P W e b () { 4 D i s p o s e = () = > { } , 5 L i s t s G e t = () = > new M S P L i s t C o l l e c t i o n () { 6 // ... 7 }. I n s t a n c e 8 }. I n s t a n c e 9 };

(37)