Skip to main content

Unit Testing Workflow Code Activities - Part 1

When I first started looking into Windows Workflow one of the first things that I liked about it was how it separated responsibilities. The workflow was responsible for handling the procedural logic with all it's conditional statements, etc. Whilst individual code activities could be written to handle the business logic processing; created in small easily re-usable components. To try and realise my original perception this series of blog posts will cover the unit testing of bespoke code activities; broken down into:

  • Part One: Unit testing a code activity with a (generic) cast return type (this post)
  • Part Two: Unit testing a code activity that assigns it's (multiple) output to "OutArguments" (Not yet written)

So to make a start consider the following really basic code activity; it expects an InArgument<string> of "Input" and returns a string containing the processed output; in this case a reverse copy of the value held in "Input".

namespace ExampleCode.Workflow
{
using System.Activities;
using System.Linq;
 
public class StringReverse : CodeActivity<string>
{
public InArgument<string> Input { get; set; }
 
protected override string Execute(CodeActivityContext context)
{
var input = this.Input.Get(context);
return string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(input)
? input
: new string(Enumerable.Range(1, input.Length).Select(i => input[input.Length - i]).ToArray());
}
}
}

This code should have been extremely easy to unit test, apart from two immediate problems.

  1. The protected method "Execute" is not exposed to the calling code; making it impossible to call directly.
  2. I have no idea what is required to set up a "CodeActivityContext" or how to go about doing it - as a concrete implementation it's not possible to mock.
I don't really want to create a public method I can call directly without having to worry about the "context" as this is creating code for testing sake; something that is never a good idea. Just for completeness this could be implemented as follows, but I really wouldn't recommend it!

protected override string Execute(CodeActivityContext context)
{
return this.Process( this.Input.Get(context));
}
 
public string Process(string input)
{
return string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(input)
? input
: new string(Enumerable.Range(1, input.Length).Select(i => input[input.Length - i]).ToArray());
}

So if we don't want to create new code and expose protected functionality purely for testing, what can we do? the answer lies in the unit test itself. Checking the prototypes for the "Invoke" method of the static class WorkflowInvoker class highlights that it takes either an instance of Activity or an instance of Activity<TResult>; it's important to remember that even a complex XAML workflow is contained within a single Sequence or Flow activity, which both inherit from Activity! Checking the return value of the "Invoke" method further highlights that we should get back the return value of the code activity instance. This means our unit test can simply be:

namespace ExampleCode.Workflow.Tests
{
using System.Activities;
using Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting;
 
[TestClass]
public class StringReverseTests
{
[TestMethod]
public void TestMethod1()
{
var output = WorkflowInvoker.Invoke(new StringReverse { Input = new InArgument<string>("123") });
Assert.AreEqual("321", output);
}
}
}

It could be argued that it's not ideal because we really haven't isolated the code we want to test, but this solution doesn't require any test only changes to the code activity. It's also extremely easy to set up and call - given that I think it's an acceptable risk. No matter what logic is contained within the code activity, the only additional complexity in this instance is the number of input arguments. Things like external dependencies (Inversion of Control) and multiple output arguments will be covered in future posts.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Mocking HttpCookieCollection in HttpRequestBase

When unit testing ASP.NET MVC2 projects the issue of injecting HttpContext is quickly encountered.  There seem to be many different ways / recommendations for mocking HttpContextBase to improve the testability of controllers and their actions.  My investigations into that will probably be a separate blog post in the near future but for now I want to cover something that had me stuck for longer than it probably should have.  That is how to mock non abstract/interfaced classes within HttpRequestBase and HttpResponseBase – namely the HttpCookieCollection class.   The code sample below illustrates how it can be used within a mocked instance of HttpRequestBase.  Cookies can be added / modified within the unit test code prior to being passed into the code being tested.   After it’s been called, using a combination of MOQ’s Verify and NUnit’s Assert it is possible to check how many times the collection is accessed (but you have to include the set up calls) and that the relevant cookies have …

Do "Task Hours" add anything in Scrum (Agile)?

What do task hours add to the overall process in scrum?This was a question that has arisen from all team members in both instances that I've helped teams switch over to scrum. The benefits of artifacts like the comparative story point estimation, the 2 week sprints, stand-ups and the end of sprint demo have been self evident to the team, but as one I think every team member has expressed dismay when it comes to task planning and estimating each task in hours. Left unchecked there is a natural tendency for people to actually begin to dread the start of each sprint purely due to the task planning session.In my current role we've been lucky to investigate this further as a team.The team sat down to discuss the problems it was experiencing with estimating tasks in hours and the following common themes appeared:It is hard: Maybe it shouldn't be, but time estimation is hard! Story points are comparative and abstracted making them easier to determine, but time estimate is gen…

Why do my Android Notification only appear in the status bar?

I'm definitely getting back into Android development, I'm remembering that feeling of 'Surely this should be easier than this!'. All I wanted to do was to schedule a local notification which behaved similar to a push notification pop-up. That is, as well as showing the small icon in the status bar I wanted it to pop up on screen to notify the end user. All seems fairly easily, I found this code for how to schedule a notification. That all worked perfectly, apart from the notification would only appear in the status bar. Searching around I found loads of different answers / solutions, mostly all saying the same thing:It only worked if you used 'NotificationCompat.Builder' in place of 'Notification.Builder', orYou had to set the priority to 'NotificationCompat.PRIORITY_HIGH'As usually happens, none of these solutions worked for me until I added in the missing piece of the jigsaw:- '.setDefaults(Notification.DEFAULT_ALL)'. For me this…