I really appreciate Moq\'s Loose
mocking behaviour that returns default values when no expectations are set. It\'s convenient and saves me code, and it also act
There is a way to call the real method and have a call back when the method is void
, but it's really hacky. You have to make your call back call it explicitly and trick Moq into calling the real one.
For example, given this class
public class MyInt
{
public bool CalledBlah { get; private set; }
public virtual void Blah()
{
this.CalledBlah = true;
}
}
You can write your test this way:
[Test]
public void Test_MyRealBlah()
{
Mock<MyInt> m = new Mock<MyInt>();
m.CallBase = true;
bool calledBlah = false;
m.When(() => !calledBlah)
.Setup(i => i.Blah())
.Callback(() => { calledBlah = true; m.Object.Blah(); })
.Verifiable();
m.Object.Blah();
Assert.IsTrue(m.Object.CalledBlah);
m.VerifyAll();
}
The key aspect is that you track if the fake version has been called, and then you set the mock up to not call the fake if it's already been called.
You can still do something similar if you take args and the value matters:
public class MyInt
{
public List<int> CalledBlahArgs { get; private set; }
public MyInt()
{
this.CalledBlahArgs = new List<int>();
}
public virtual void Blah(int a)
{
this.CalledBlahArgs.Add(a);
}
}
[Test]
public void Test_UpdateQueuedGroups_testmockcallback()
{
Mock<MyInt> m = new Mock<MyInt>();
m.CallBase = true;
List<int> fakeBlahArgs = new List<int>();
m.Setup(i => i.Blah(It.Is<int>(a => !fakeBlahArgs.Contains(a))))
.Callback<int>((a) => { fakeBlahArgs.Add(a); m.Object.Blah(a); })
.Verifiable();
m.Object.Blah(1);
Assert.AreEqual(1, m.Object.CalledBlahArgs.Single());
m.Verify(b => b.Blah(It.Is<int>(id => 1 == id)));
}
Since nobody's answered this question for ages and I think it deserves an answer, I'm going to focus on the highest-level question you asked: how to keep these benefits when the method under test happens to be virtual.
Quick answer: you can't do it with Moq, or at least not directly. But, you can do it.
Let's say that you have two aspects of behaviour, where aspect A is virtual and aspect B is not. That pretty much mirrors what you've got in your class. B can use other methods or not; it's up to you.
At the moment, your class Foo
is doing two things - both A and B. I can tell that they're separate responsibilities just because you want to mock A out and test B on its own.
Instead of trying to mock out the virtual method without mocking out anything else, you can:
Foo
through Foo
's constructorNow you can mock A, and still call the real code for B..N without actually invoking the real A. You can either keep A virtual or access it through an interface and mock that. This is in line with the Single Responsibility Principle, too.
You can cascade constructors with Foo
- make the constructor Foo()
call the constructor Foo(new A())
- so you don't even need a dependency injection framework to do this.
Hope this helps!
I believe Lunivore's answer was correct at the time it was written.
In newer versions of Moq (I think since version 4.1 from 2013) it is possible to do what you want with the exact syntax you propose. That is:
mock.Setup(m => m.VirtualMethod()).CallBase();
This sets up the loose mock to call the base implementation of VirtualMethod
instead of just returning default(WhatEver)
, but for this member (VirtualMethod
) only.
As user BornToCode notes in the comments, this will not work if the method has return type void
. When the VirtualMethod
is non-void, the Setup
call gives a Moq.Language.Flow.ISetup<TMock, TResult>
which inherits the CallBase()
method from Moq.Language.Flow.IReturns<TMock, TResult>
. But when the method is void, we get a Moq.Language.Flow.ISetup<TMock>
instead which lacks the desired CallBase()
method.
Update: andrew.rockwell notes below that it works now for void
methods, and apparently that was fixed in version 4.10 (from 2018).