Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Update: I will not be at the Seattle Code Camp, too much rescheduling.

I'll be presenting Pex at the Seattle Code Camp in Nov.

Pex – Automated White Box Unit Testing

Parameterized unit testing is becoming a mainstream feature of most unit test frameworks; MbUnit RowTest (and more), VSTS data tests, xUnit.net Theories, etc... Unfortunately, it is still the responsibility of the developer to figure out relevant parameter values to exercise the code. With Pex, this is no longer true. Pex is a unit test framework addin that can generate relevant parameter values for parameterized unit tests. Pex uses an automated white box analysis (i.e. it monitors the code execution at runtime) to systematically explore every branches in the code. In this talk, Peli will give an overview of the technology behind Pex (with juicy low-level .NET profiling goodness), then quickly jump to exiting live demos.

posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 8:36:52 AM UTC  #    Comments [0]
 Saturday, September 08, 2007

In a previous, we were looking at partial trust the lack of support for it. In this post, I'll show the key 'fixes' that we did to make Pex 'partial trust' aware.

Simulating Partial Trust

The easiest way to run under partial trust is to run your .net application from the network. However, in the context of a test framework, this would not work since many required permissions would not be granted (reflection, i/o, etc...). So we need a new AppDomain whose security policy considers the test framework assemblies as fully trusted.

  • Get a new AppDomain:
string trust = "LocalIntranet";
AppDomain domain = AppDomain.CreateAppDomain(trust);
  • Load the named permission set
PermissionSet permission = GetNamedPermissionSet(trust);
  • Create the code group structure that associate the partial trust permission to any code
UnionCodeGroup code= new UnionCodeGroup(
    new AllMembershipCondition(),
    new PolicyStatement(permission, PolicyStatementAttribute.Nothing));
  • give full trust to each test framework assembly:
StrongName strongName = CreateStrongName(typeof(TestFixtureAttribute).Assembly);
PermissionSet fullTrust = new PermissionSet(PermissionState.Unrestricted);
UnionCodeGroup fullTrustCode = new UnionCodeGroup(
new StrongNameMembershipCondition(strongName.PublicKey, strongName.Name, strongName.Version),
new PolicyStatement(fullTrust, PolicyStatementAttribute.Nothing));
code.AddChild(fullTrustCode);
  • Assign the policy to the AppDomain
PolicyLevel policy = PolicyLevel.CreateAppDomainLevel();
policy.RootCodeGroup = code;
domain.SetAppDomainPolicy(policy);

This is basically it (the rest of the details are left as an exercise :)).

Let them call you

Make sure to add the AllowPartiallyTrustedCallers to the test framework assembly otherwize users won't be allowed to call into it...

A twist...

Pex is bit invasive when it comes to partial trust. Pex rewrites the IL at runtime and turns all method bodies into... unsafe code (that is unverifiable). At this point, any will not run because of the SkipVerification permission.

No problemo, just add it to the permissionset:

permission.AddPermission(
    new SecurityPermission(SecurityPermissionFlag.SkipVerification)
    );

 

posted on Saturday, September 08, 2007 1:39:22 PM UTC  #    Comments [0]
 Thursday, August 23, 2007

A common requirement for unit test framework is the ability to test internal types.

That's easy! use InternalsVisibleToAttribute

With .Net 2.0 and up, this is a fairly easy task thanks to the InternalsVisibleToAttribute: add it to the product assembly to give 'visibility rights' to the test assembly.

// in assembly Foo
internal class Foo {}
// giving visibility rights to the Foo.Tests assembly
[assembly:InternalsVisibleTo("Foo.Tests")]

On the test assembly side, this works because unit test are 'closed' methods which do not expose any internal types.


[Test]
public void FooTest() {
    Foo foo = new Foo(); // we're using the internal type Foo
                         // but it's hidden in the unit test
}

What about parameterized tests? Make them internal as well

If one of the parameters of the test is internal, the test method will have to be internal as well in order to compile:

[PexTest]
internal void FooTest(Foo foo) {
   ...
}

Not pretty but still gets the job done. Pex will generate public unit test methods that invoke the internal parameterized test method, and we'll be happy:

[Test]
public void FooTest_12345() {
    this.FooTest(null);
}

What about MbUnit RowTest?

This issue was never faced by MbUnit RowTest because it only accepts intrinsic types such as int, long, etc... Those types are obviously public :)

posted on Friday, August 24, 2007 12:24:08 AM UTC  #    Comments [0]
 Sunday, May 27, 2007

.Net 2.0 has been out for a while and it seems that 'generics' have not made it into unit test frameworks (that I know of). When I write unit tests for generics, I don't want to have to instantiate them!

For example, if I have an generic interface,

interface IFoo<T> {...}

then I'd really like to write this kind of test and let the test framework figure out an interresting instantiation (i.e. choice of T):

[Test]
public void Test<T>(IFoo<T> foo) { ... }

In the example above, System.Object can be trivially used to instantiate IFoo<T>. Of course, things get more interresting when mixing type argument, method argument and constraints :)

interface IFoo<T>
{
    R Bar<R>(T t)
     where R : IEnumerable<T>
}

In Pex, we've started to look at this problem... stay tuned.

posted on Sunday, May 27, 2007 1:09:00 PM UTC  #    Comments [3]
 Wednesday, April 11, 2007

MbUnit supports different flavors of parameterized unit tests: RowTest, CombinatorialTest, etc... If you are already using those features, it would be very easy for you to 'pexify' them:

namespace MyTest
{
     using MbUnit.Framework;
     using Microsoft.Pex.Framework;

     [TestFixture, PexClass]
     public partial class MyTestFixture
{
[RowTest]
[Row("a", "b")]
[PexTest]

public void Test(string a, string b)
{
...
}


}
}

Isn't this nice? :)

Some little notes:

  • 'partial' is helpfull to emit the generated unit test in the same class... but not the same file. Pex also support another mode where partial is not required.
  • the Pex attributes do not 'interfere' with the MbUnit ones. Your unit tests will still run exactly the same with MbUnit.
posted on Wednesday, April 11, 2007 11:47:27 AM UTC  #    Comments [2]
 Thursday, March 08, 2007

Pex

I'm thrilled to present the project I joined last October: 'Pex' (for Program EXploration). Pex is a powerfull plugin for unit test frameworks that let the user write parameterized unit tests**. Pex does the hard work of computing the relevant values for those parameters, and serializing them as classic unit tests.

Here's a short screencast where we test and implement a string chunker. In the screencast, we use a parameterized unit test to express that for *any* string input and *any* chunk length, the concatenation of the chunks should be equal to the original sting.

http://research.microsoft.com/pex/screencast.aspx

More info on Pex is available at http://research.microsoft.com/pex/.

** It's actually much more than that... but let's keep that for later :)

posted on Friday, March 09, 2007 1:58:36 AM UTC  #    Comments [5]
 Saturday, September 09, 2006

After 2 years in the CLR, I'm moving job (and building) to Microsoft Research. I will be working on Parametrized Unit Testing.

 

posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006 1:21:39 AM UTC  #    Comments [3]
 Wednesday, July 21, 2004

The API Design Guidelines encourage developers to check all their arguments and thereby avoid throwing a NullReferenceException.  If an argument is null and the contract of the method forbids null arguments an ArgumentNullException should be thrown. Brad Adams 

So you agree with Brad (I do) and you always check that arguments are not null before using them. This means a little bit more of code but it is worth it. But this means also a lot more of test code because, ideally, you should test that all your methods check all their arguments. This means writing hundreds of boring, repetitive test cases.... and you don't want to do that.

At least I don't so I added a new feature to MbUnit that does it for me.

Test for ArgumentNullException, first iteration:

 Let's see how it works with an example:

public class ArgumentNullDummyClass
{
    public object ClassicMethod(Object nullable, Object notNullable, int valueType)
    {
        if (notNullable == null)
            throw new ArgumentNullException("notNullable");
        return String.Format("{0}{1}{2}",nullable,notNullable,valueType);
    }
}

As one can see, the nullable parameter can be null, while the notNullable parameter is tested. Now, let's create a fixture that tests this method. We will be using the TestSuiteFixture because we will build a TestSuite:

[TestSuiteFixture]
public class MethodTestSuiteDemo
{
    public delegate object MultiArgumentDelegate(Object o,Object b, int i);
    
    [TestSuite]
    public ITestSuite AutomaticClassicMethodSuite()
    {
        ArgumentNullDummyClass dummy = new ArgumentNullDummyClass();

        MethodTester suite = new MethodTester(
            "ClassicMethod",
            new MultiArgumentDelegate(dummy.ClassicMethod),
            "hello",
            "world",
            1
            );
            suite.AddAllThrowArgumentNull();
        return suite.Suite;
    }
}

The MethodTester class takes the following argument: a name, a delegate  and valid parameters of the delegate. By valid I mean parameters that should not make the delegate invokation fail. The AddAllThrowArgumentNull looks for nullable parameters and create a TestCase that will invoke the delegate with the corresponding parameter nulled. In the example, this means that ClassicMethod will be called with:

  • null, "world", 1
  • "hello", null, 1

Test for ArgumentNullException, second iteration:

There are things I don't like in the example above:

  • you need to create a delegate (tedious),
  • you need to create 1 method tester per method (tedious),

Ok, so let's build a ClassTester class that does that for us... The test code now looks as follows:

[TestSuiteFixture]
public class ClassTesterDemo
{
    [TestSuite]
    public ITestSuite AutomaticClassSuite()
    {
        ArgumentNullDummyClass dummy = new ArgumentNullDummyClass();
        ClassTester suite = new ClassTester("DummyClassTest",dummy);
        suite.Add("ClassicMethod","hello","world",1);
        return suite.Suite;
    }
}

That's much better: delegate is gone and we could add more methods to be tested in a single call.

Test for ArgumentNullException, third iteration:

There is still one problem with this technique: there is no way to tell that an argument is authorized to be nulled! In the example, the nullable parameter can be null and the TestCase will always fail because it does not throw ArgumentNullException.

The solution of this problem is done in two steps: first, you, the developper, tag the parameters that can be nulled with a NullableAttribute attribute (could be any of your attributes). In the example, we add a SmartMethod method and the MyNullableAttribute:

[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Parameter,AllowMultiple=false,Inherited=true)]
public class MyNullableAttribute : Attribute
{}

public class ArgumentNullDummyClass
{
    public object ClassicMethod(Object nullable, Object notNullable, int valueType)
    {...}
    public object SmartMethod([MyNullable]Object nullable, Object notNullable, int valueType)
    {...}
}

Next, you must tell MbUnit which attribute is used to tag nullable parameters. This is done with the NullableAttributeAttribute at the assembly level:

[assembly: NullableAttribute(typeof(MbUnit.Demo.MyNullableAttribute))]

Ok, now we just need to update our test case to load the SmartMethod:

[TestSuite]
public ITestSuite AutomaticClassSuite()
{
    ArgumentNullDummyClass dummy = new ArgumentNullDummyClass();
    ClassTester suite = new ClassTester("DummyClassTest",dummy);

    suite.Add("ClassicMethod","hello","world",1);
    suite.Add("SmartMethod","hello","world",1);

    return suite.Suite;
}

The result in MbUnit GUI is as follows: the parameters of ClassicMethod were all tested, nullable included which we want to avoid. The parameters of SmartMethod were all tested excluded nullable because it was tagged. :)

Test for ArgumentNullException, fourth iteration:

 

The more I think about this problem, the more I think FxCop should do that for us...

posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 12:37:00 AM UTC  #    Comments [0]