Unplanned
Last Updated: 21 Feb 2020 11:53 by ADMIN
Created by: Toshio
Comments: 0
Type: Bug Report
0
An attempt to use future mocking fails. The attached sample demonstrates the issue.
Unplanned
Last Updated: 21 Feb 2020 11:51 by ADMIN

Hi

When enabling JUSTMOCK Profiler it stops a MS rdlc report to render.

I have attached a simple sample demonstrating the error.

The error that the render gives back is the following.

The definition of this report is not valid or supported by this version of Reporting Services. The report definition may have been created with a later version of Reporting Services, or contain content that is not well-formed or not valid based on Reporting Services schemas. Details: Deserialization failed: An attempt was made to load a program with an incorrect format. (Exception from HRESULT: 0x8007000B) Line 2, position 2.

I have tried to different target version of the .NET framework 4.5.2; 4.6.2, different platform targets "ANY,x86,x64", different VS IDE "2012, 2015", different Microsoft.ReportViewer.WinForm  ver. 11,12,14

Completed
Last Updated: 20 Feb 2020 07:05 by ADMIN

Hello,

According to the JustMock documentation, to validate a method on the mock was called it should be done like so:

[TestMethod] 
public void ShouldThrowExceptionWhenMustBeCalledSetupIsNeverInvoked() 
{ 
    // Arrange 
    var foo = new Foo(); 

    Mock.Arrange(() => foo.Execute()).MustBeCalled(); 

    // Assert 
    Assert.Throws<AssertFailedException>(() => Mock.Assert(foo)); 
}

When I do that, the application fails to compile saying the type AssertFailedException does not exist, even though I have the using statement for the Telerik.JustMock assembly at the top of my file. If I try to fully qualify it like so:

Assert.Throws<Telerik.JustMock.Xunit.AssertFailedException>

I get the same message for the "Xunit" namespace.

I know that the type should exist since when I run the test asserting a different type of Exception, the test fails saying it expects an exception of type Telerik.JustMock.Xunit.AssertFailedException.

I am attaching a couple of images that illustrate the problem.

Thank you.

 

Completed
Last Updated: 20 Feb 2020 07:04 by ADMIN
When I try to create a new JustMock test project for .NET Framework the version of .NET Framework that I select is not respected. The result is that the used version of .NET Framework is always 4.5.2
Completed
Last Updated: 20 Feb 2020 06:56 by ADMIN

Currently, there are a lot of JustMock project templates with different targeted categories. There are templates targeting just one search category and there are other templates targeting different categories.

Optimize the templates to be available in all relevant search categories and lower their number.

Completed
Last Updated: 20 Feb 2020 06:53 by ADMIN

The integration does not work as expected when the tests are run on the command line outside Visual Studio via dotnet test command. The coverage is used as Microsoft.CodeCoverage NuGet package.

 

 
In Development
Last Updated: 19 Feb 2020 08:24 by ADMIN
Completed
Last Updated: 05 Feb 2020 10:56 by ADMIN
Asynchronous test execution might be run in a separate thread (it depends of the environment and it is completely transparent) which causes arrangements to lose their context. That is why the expected mocked return value for DateTime.UtcNow calls the original code and finally the test fails.
Completed
Last Updated: 15 Jan 2020 14:57 by ADMIN
Just like the core mocking API has ArrangeSet/AssertSet methods, so should the MockingContainer have them.
Completed
Last Updated: 15 Jan 2020 14:56 by ADMIN

Implement integration between JustMock and the code coverage provided by Visual Studio for .net core applications.

Steps representing the missing feature:

Create a .net core test project.

Include JustMock tests.

Execute the tests with code coverage provided by Visual Studio Enterprise.

The tests fail with a message pointing the integration between JustMock and the code coverage tool.
Completed
Last Updated: 15 Jan 2020 09:58 by ADMIN
The JustMock tests are failing when the "Test platform version" option in the JustMock VSTest v.2 task is set to value "Installed by Tools Installer".
Declined
Last Updated: 05 Dec 2019 15:32 by ADMIN

Visual Studio debugger arrowhead pointer is messed when profiler is enabled with .Net Core 2.1, in VS2107/2019

Steps

  • Use elevated features like static mocking using JustMock
  • Enable profiler from VS JustMock extension
  • Run the test in debug mode

Code Snippet

Mock.SetupStatic(typeof(ElasticOperationsHelper), Behavior.Strict, StaticConstructor.Mocked);

Mock.Arrange(() => elasticRepository.IndexDocumentInElastic<IndexDocText>(Arg.IsAny<IndexDocText>(), Arg.IsAny<string>(), null)).Returns(response);

 

While debugging it's found the arrowhead pointer of VS debugger is messed up and pointing to wrong line numbers. It's quite difficult to develop unit tests at this situation. Is there any resolution of this problem.

I found an article in the support page has been declined due to same problem. Is this totally dependent on "CLR" fix and .Net profiler. If so could you please provide me the Bug details of Microsoft for the same?

I would also like to know why it's necessary to have profiler enabled for scenarios like "Static Mocking", "Non virtual method mocking", "Private Mocking" etc. 

Is this only happening for .Net core? 

Hyland Software is evaluating this product as their Mocking framework for unit testing of all .net core projects.

If there is no solution, how can any prospective customer consider this as a good fit for their usage? If there is any workaround possible at this moment?

Declined
Last Updated: 05 Dec 2019 15:24 by ADMIN
The debugger arrowhead pointer is not positioned to the correct execution line when debugging .Net Core. Stepping the code line by line advances the yellow arrowhead pointer based on the initial offset/messed position. When the arrowhead leaves the method the remaining lines are executed at once.
Completed
Last Updated: 05 Dec 2019 14:51 by ADMIN
The JutMock task for Azure Pipeline is missing the option to execute the tests with Visual Studio 2019. Check the attached screenshot.
Completed
Last Updated: 02 Dec 2019 10:39 by ADMIN
Mocking a method that is not used in the test execution logic could lead to unwanted recursive mocking behavior for the rest of the methods in the class. 
The unwanted behavior could later result in an exception if the affected methods are called during the arrangement of another method.
Completed
Last Updated: 02 Dec 2019 10:38 by ADMIN

After upgrading to .NET Core 3.0 an exception is thrown for some of the JustMock methods like DoNothing() and Throw(). In the case for DoNothing() the exception is thrown only for methods that are returning value.

Here is the full exception:
System.InvalidCastException : Unable to cast object of type 'System.AppDomainSetup' to type 'YourType' 

Unplanned
Last Updated: 26 Nov 2019 10:08 by ADMIN
.Net for application developers prefer writing their build script using cake. It is necessary for JustMock to have a cake utility to work with. 
Unplanned
Last Updated: 28 Oct 2019 15:00 by ADMIN
Created by: Mihail
Comments: 0
Type: Feature Request
0
Consider the scenario where a class has a string field which is his main data. This class has defined an implicit cast operator to string. When that cast operator is executed the resulted string will contain the value from the class field.

Implement support for mocking of an operator such as the one described. 
Completed
Last Updated: 25 Sep 2019 08:46 by ADMIN

The CallMethod of the PrivateAccessor is using reflection to invoke the required method. When an exception is thrown inside that method it will be wrapped by the reflection in a TargetInvocationException which is received in the test method.

Instead of the TargetInvocationException, throw the original exception.

Declined
Last Updated: 24 Sep 2019 10:12 by ADMIN
Created by: Scott
Comments: 2
Type: Bug Report
0

I just installed it onto desktop, loaded Visual Studio 2019 (Ent) and i see no visual reference or otherwise to JustMock.

Honestly If i had have spent the $$ by now i'd have uninstalled and given up.

1 2 3 4 5 6