Broloco

OK, so it's not crap. It's great for web sites, disseminating and formatting information, and linking content across the entire world. In fact, it's pretty amazing. But ... it is crap for writing applications.

Over the years we have jumped through all sort of hoops to get round the (extreme) limitations of HTML and browser technology. We have invented ways of maintaining user state by keeping cookies on browsers, by adding cryptic information to URLs, by posting hidden values in forms, and by restoring large state objects on the server to overcome some of these problems.

We have invented increasingly complicated frameworks to allow us to split presentation logic over two physical tiers with a (typically) compiled language running on the server while Javascript manipulates widgets on the client, and then found more and more ingenious ways of making this seem slick to the user. We have made code more complicated by the fact that these two separate tiers have to communicate in some fashion, and we convince ourselves that the solution is elegant.

As soon as we have to target more than one type of browser (or even different versions of the same browser) it is not going to look the same on what is essentially different platforms. (Not to mention the difficulties of actually writing and debugging for two versions of IE on the same machine.) You would have to be nuts to choose a platform where the output will be unpredictable, right?!

A common argument with the customer might go something like this:

Programmer: You have high expectations of usability. It is best to use a rich client.
Customer: It needs to be a web (HTML) application.
Programmer: Um ... why?
Customer: Because that's what we want.
Programmer: You do realise it will take twice as long to write, and be less usable?
Customer: It needs to be a web (HTML) application.
Three months later the programmer is blamed for the product not being amazingly slick, being slightly behind the time-scales, and the customer is insisting that they need their spelling mistakes underlined 'just like MS Word'!

Another common reason for a customer to insist on a web application is for ease of deployment, but it is not hard to push rich applications to the desktop using technologies like ClickOnce these days either.

The only people who most often have a genuine need to target such a low common denominator are those writing applications that target the Internet (e.g., Amazon, eBay, etc.) But even then it is clear that for years the best looking stuff on the web has Flash content.

In summary:

Choose WPF;
Choose Windows Forms;
Choose Silverlight;
Choose Flash;
Just don't choose HTML.

Choosing to write an HTML application, especially when you are going to deploy in a company intranet, is nothing short of insanity these days ... it's long past the time for developers to make customers realise this.

Submit this story to DotNetKicks Shout it

The Challenge

You have a Compact Framework application to write. You've chosen to make it a rich client (Windows Forms), and you want a suite of automated tests covering the code.

Passive View

I investigated the options for testing directly on the Compact Framework itself, but this turns out to be tricky and ties you to running inside the emulator (a virtual machine).

However the Compact Framework uses a .Net feature called retargeting. This allows your Compact Framework code to be run in the full .Net environment as long as it doesn't reference any classes that are unique to the Compact Framework (e.g., the SIP).

If you use Passive View, you can take your controller class and test it in the regular .Net Framework using NUnit leaving only a tiny bit of code in the View that is specific to the Compact Framework.

Creating the View

In the example code below I created a simple GUI that would show or hide a message, allow the user to change the colour of the message from a drop-down, and would prompt the user for confirmation before hiding the message. This provides a simple enough example to cover in a blog, while being complex enough to demonstrate several useful techniques for testing using Passive View.

The view can be created directly in Visual Studio (with the Window Mobile 6 SDK installed). The designer gives you an excellent rendition of a PDA client making it easy to design a user interface (notwithstanding that WPF would have been nicer - but hasn't been implemented on the Compact Framework yet).

To create the view:

  • Create a Form;
  • Create the controls;
  • Name the controls, and mark them with the modifier 'Public';
  • Wire up a controller when the View is instantiated.

To wire up a controller, create a controller class (which is going to hold all the application's presentation logic), and construct it when the View is instantiated.

internal class MainController
{

    private MainView _view;

    public MainController(MainView view)
    {
        _view = view;
        ...
        
public partial class MainView : Form
{

    public MainView()
    {
        InitializeComponent();
        new MainController(this);
        ...
        

And that's it. No other logic should exist in the View.

Handling User Input

Most of the user input can be handled directly on the View in the tests. To simulate someone typing into a text-box, simply set the Text property. To simulate someone making a selection from a drop-down, set the SelectedIndex property.

Simulating a button 'click' requires a tiny bit of reflection to invoke the protected method:

private void Click(Button button)
{
    if (!button.Enabled)
        Assert.Fail("Attempt to click button '"
            + button.Text
            + "' while it is not enabled");

    MethodInfo onClick = button.GetType()
        .GetMethod("OnClick",
                    BindingFlags.NonPublic
                    | BindingFlags.Instance);
    onClick.Invoke(button, new object[] { null });
}
        

You end up with a fairly readable test:

[Test]
public void Test_WhenShowMessageIsClicked_Then_…
    MessageIsDisplayed_And_ColourSelectionIsPopulated()
{
    MainView view = new TestableView();

    Click(view.ShowMessage);

    Assert.AreEqual(false,
                    view.ShowMessage.Enabled);
    ...
        

Handling the Visible Property

You can set most properties directly on the real framework classes. However, some properties don't always behave correctly outside of the Windows Forms runtime. The Visible property is one such case.

You could mock/stub the Visible property on the controls, however typically these might get called many times in a single test; mocking could make your tests very brittle. Alternatively you could have an adapter/proxy for each of the controls that let you simulate events/properties.

I find it easier to have a fake implementation I can use just inside the tests. In this example I wrapped all calls to the Visible property with a (virtual) method:

public partial class MainView : Form
{
    ...
    public virtual void SetVisible(
                            Control control,
                            bool    isVisible)
    {
        control.Visible = isVisible;
    }

    public virtual bool IsVisible(Control control)
    {
        return control.Visible;
    }
    ...
        

This was replaced with a fake implementation in the tests:

public class TestableView : MainView
{
    ...
    private Dictionary<Control, bool>
        _controlVisibility
            = new Dictionary<Control, bool>();

    public override void SetVisible(
                            Control control,
                            bool    isVisible)
    {
        _controlVisibility[control] = isVisible;
    }

    public override bool IsVisible(Control control)
    {
        if (!_controlVisibility.ContainsKey(control))
            Assert.Fail("Control '" + control.Name
                + "' visibility has not been set by…
                SetVisible()");

        return _controlVisibility[control];
    }
    ...
        

Handling User Interaction

Another thing that needs to be tested is user interaction (e.g., clicking yes/no on a message box). While you could use a test double/stub for this, it does tend get a little tedious (you typically end up with a different stub method for every test).

It is better to Mock the user input by (in this case) creating a proxy to the message box class instead of going to the (hard to test) static methods directly:

public class DialogHandler
{

    public virtual DialogResult ShowMessageBox(
        string                  text,
        string                  caption,
        MessageBoxButtons       buttons,
        MessageBoxIcon          icon,
        MessageBoxDefaultButton defaultButton)
        ...
        

In this example I've used the excellent Rhino Mocks to mock the DialogHandler implementation. So you can set expectations, and their responses, directly in the tests:

[Test]
public void Test_WhenHideMessageIsClicked_…
    AndUserConfirms_Then_MessageIsHidden()
{
    MockRepository mocks = new MockRepository();
    DialogHandler dialogHandler =
        mocks.StrictMock<DialogHandler>();
    MainView view = new TestableView(dialogHandler);

    Expect
        .Call(dialogHandler
            .ShowMessageBox(
                "Are you sure?",
                "Check",
                MessageBoxButtons.YesNo,
                MessageBoxIcon.Question,
                MessageBoxDefaultButton.Button1))
        .Return(DialogResult.Yes);

    mocks.ReplayAll();
    Click(view.ShowMessage);
    Click(view.HideMessage);
    mocks.VerifyAll();
    ...
        

Summary

Now you have the highest possible test-coverage on your presentation layer, without resorting to (heavyweight) full integration/acceptance tests.

The example code (link below) demonstrates each of the above sections using:

  • NAnt and NUnit - to automate the build and tests;
  • Retargeting - to allow the Compact Framework classes to be tested inside the regular .Net Framework;
  • Passive View - to allow testing of as much of the application as possible while not requiring the Windows Forms runtime;
  • Test Double - (specifically a fake ) to allow testing of properties that normally only work in the Windows Forms runtime;
  • Mocks - using the excellent Rhino Mocks to test user interaction in the tests.

Worth noting is that there is nothing here that is special to the Compact Framework. I would use exactly the same technique to test any presentation layer (e.g., WPF/Silverlight). The Compact Framework is merely a useful demonstration of where the real runtime is not easy to use, and these design patterns and testing techniques shine.


Passive View Demo
download, unzip, run CommandPrompt.bat, and type 'NAnt'

Submit this story to DotNetKicks Shout it

In my continuing adventures with legacy code I've inherited a code base that initially had over 500 compiler warnings. Now many of these warnings were pretty straightforward to fix but some of them are proving a little more interesting. My current personal favourite is CS0252.

I've got around half a dozen places where it's really unclear as to exactly what the original programmer was intending to do. Was he/she really meaning to do a reference comparison? Unlikely. So now I've got an interesting predicament. Do I change the code to remove the warning or do I leave the code as is and accept that as it's a legacy system the code must work fine. Safety (and sadly professionalism) must win and in these situations I must leave the code as is until I get round to covering the relevant code with tests. However it's like a real stone in my shoe and I've got to ask: wouldn't it have been so much nicer if the original programmer simply looked at the warning and thought, "I don't think that's quite right...."?

So the moral of the story is please pay attention to your compiler warnings. They'll help you identify potential bugs in your code and they might even help write code that's easier to understand and consequently more maintainable.

Submit this story to DotNetKicks Shout it

In my professional life I'm finding it's more and more common for me to be working with a legacy code base. Whether that's because a system we've written is simply long-standing and has become legacy or whether it's because we've inherited a system to support and maintain, the problems you encounter are pretty similar. However I think it's worth pointing out one of the major differences, and why it's sometimes better to be involved in the latter situation rather than the former.

I'm a big fan of egoless programming but trying to separate people from their code can be hard to achieve. Indeed, if you were responsible for creating the system that has become legacy it can be extremely difficult to be entirely honest with yourself about what state the system is in. Now that's not to say people cannot admit their own mistakes, just that sometimes because your head is filled with all the history of why certain decisions where taken it can be difficult to look at things entirely objectively. Ultimately, the system is where it is and how it got there is relatively unimportant.

As it transpires though, I'm currently involved in working with a legacy system where I've inherited the code. The original developers are gone and whilst their experience and skills are most definitely missed, their absence allows a certain amount of freedom in moving things forward.

I think being able to look at a system without the baggage that often builds up helps in two ways:

  1. You don't have any pre-existing priorities about the things you want to fix - I know that whenever I deliver any system there are always things I'm not happy with and this can sometimes cloud my judgement about what is really important.
  2. You don't worry about upsetting anyone - I know from painful experience that developers can be sensitive souls and sometimes they simply cannot be separated from their code.

So from my experience I'm convinced that it's always nicer not to have had a hand in the original system development if you're going to moving it forward...

Submit this story to DotNetKicks Shout it

I've just recently download Windows Live Writer to help me out with my blog posting.... maybe it'll make me write more stuff! 

This is just a wee test post to make it works like I want.

Submit this story to DotNetKicks Shout it