Using a delegate as "factory method" for unit testing in C#

Question

The problem

Let's "draw" a picture of the situation:

I have a SUT. (a good thing to have :P )
I can inject some dependencies on my SUT.
In a method I do a: new OtherClass(ParametersObtainedFromDependancies).
I want to unit test that method in my SUT without handling the complexity of creating mock object that make sense for OtherClass to work correctly. This will imply to test OtherClass.

My solution to this was a factory method using a delegate:

public Func<OtherClass,Param1Type> GetOtherClass = 
       (param1) => new OtherClass(param1);

The bad: it's public. You could think on it as an optional dependency that you can override if need. But anyway, public smells.

The good: I don't need to create a MyTestSUT that will override this method, or even use a mock on the SUT to override that method.

Question

Is there any better solution? Is this correct?

Jon Skeet · Accepted Answer · 2011-12-03 12:41:39Z

2

Why have you made it a public field? It sounds like it's basically a dependency like any other: you want something which will provide you with an OtherClass when you give it some other values. Why not just make it a constructor parameter like other dependencies (or however you're doing the rest of your dependency injection)?

You can always provide a constructor overload without this parameter which delegates to the longer one, if you want to. That's how I normally provide "default" dependency implementations.

To put it another way: how is this logically different from (say) an IAuthenticator interface which, when provided with a username and password will return a UserProfile? You happen to be using a delegate as a short-cut to avoid declaring the interface, but that's just a detail IMO. You may find that as time goes on, you actually want to put more smarts in the "providing" part - e.g. caching.

answered Dec 3, 2011 at 12:41

Jon Skeet

1.5m893 gold badges9.3k silver badges9.3k bronze badges

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

3 Comments

graffic Over a year ago

I didn't want to create a Factory class with an interface that will contain one method that will create my class. Also the idea of a protected virtual method as a factory method gave me the same impression: too much code. My DI is done using public properties (Funq). So this would allow me to have a "default" dependency and be able to change it when testing. It's a "dilemma": it fits with my DI system, but it's the first time I do it.

Jon Skeet Over a year ago

@graffic: My point is that you've already got a factory class, basically - the delegate. It's as if you've created that interface yourself, but the delegate has more language support. If you think of it as a factory (or converter) then it's an entirely reasonable dependency.

graffic Over a year ago

+1 thank you for yor answer. It really helped me to clear my doubts.

the_drow · Accepted Answer · 2011-12-03 12:45:05Z

0

It sounds like you want to use something similar to AutoFixture with it's AutoMoq customization enabled. This will enable you to mock all or some of your public fields in your SUT along with your other constructor parameters if you wish.

answered Dec 3, 2011 at 12:45

the_drow

19.3k28 gold badges131 silver badges199 bronze badges

1 Comment

graffic Over a year ago

I use autofixture. But the work needed to make mock objects that "make sense" to the SUT dependencies is like testing again the SUT dependencies through the SUT. Something that I wouldn't like to do. Well... I tried but it was too much work

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

Using a delegate as "factory method" for unit testing in C#

The problem

Question

2 Answers 2

3 Comments

1 Comment

Your Answer

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

The problem

Question

2 Answers 2

3 Comments

1 Comment

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Related