ASP.NET MVC TDD with LINQ and SQL database

Question

I am trying to start a new MVC project with tests and I thought the best way to go would have 2 databases. 1 for testing against and 1 for when I run the app and use it (also test really as it's not production yet).

For the test database I was thinking of putting create table scripts and fill data scripts within the test setup method and then deleting all this in the tear down method.

I am going to be using Linq to SQL though and I don't think that will allow me to do this?

Will I have to just go the ADO route if I want to do it this way? Or should I just use a mock object and store data as an array or something?.

Any tips on best practices?

How did Jeff go about doing this for StackOveflow?

Answer 1

I agree with much of the above, relating to unit testing. However, I think it's important to raise the point that using Mock Repositories and unit tests doesn't give you the same level of tests as a DB Integration Test would.

For example, our databases often have cascading deletes built right in to the schema. In this case, deleting a primary entity in an aggregate will automatically delete all child entities. However, this would not automatically apply in a mocked repository that was not backed up by a physical database with these business rules (unless you built all of those rules in to the Mock). This is important because if somebody comes along and changes the design of my schema, I need it to break my tests so I can adjust the code/schema accordingly. I appreciate that this is Integration Testing and not Unit Testing but thought it was worth mentioning.

My preferred option is to create a Master Design Database that contains sample data (the same sort of data you would create in your Mocks). During the start of each test run, I have an automated script that creates a backup of the MasterDB and restores it to "TestDB" (which all my tests use). That way, I maintain a repository of clean test data in Master than recreates itself upon each test run. My tests can play around with the data and test out all the scenarios needed.

When I debug the application, I have another script that backs up and restores the Master DB to a DEV database. I can play around with data here too without worrying about losing my sample data. I don't typically run this particular script every session because of the delay waiting for the DB to be recreated. I may run it once a day and then play around/debug the app throughout the day. If for example, I delete all the records from a table as part of my debugging, I would run the script to recreate the DevDB when I'm done.

These steps sound like they would add a huge amount of time to the process, but actually - they don't. Our application currently has in the region of 3500 tests, with about 3000 of them accessing the DB at some point. The database backup and restore typically takes around 10-12 seconds at the start of each test run. And since the whole test suite is only executed upon TFS checkin, we don't mind if we have to wait a while longer anyway. On an average day, our entire test suite takes about 15-20 minutes to run.

I appreciate and accept that integration testing is much slower than unit testing (because of the inherent need to use a real DB) but it more closely represents the 'real world' app. For example, Mock Repositories don't return DB error codes, the don't time-out, they don't lock up, they don't run out of disk space, etc.

Unit tests are ok for simple calculations, basic business rules, etc. and certainly they are absolutely the best choice for most operations that don't involve DB (or other resource) access. But I don't think they are as valuable as integration tests - people talk a lot about unit tests, but little is said about integration tests.

I expect those passionate about unit tests will be sending flames my way for this. That's fine - I'm just trying to bring some balance and to remind people that projects that are full of passed unit tests can still fail badly the moment you implement them in the field.

Answer 2

Consider these methods on DataContext:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.data.linq.datacontext.createdatabase.aspx

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.data.linq.datacontext.executecommand(v=VS.100).aspx

Answer 3

This article gives example of mocking linq to sql with typemock.

http://blog.benhall.me.uk/2007/11/how-to-unit-test-linq-to-sql-and.html

Answer 4

I checked out the link from tvanfosson and RikMigrations and after playing about with them I prefer the mocking datacontext method best. I realised I don't need to create tables and drop them all the time.

After a little more research I found Stephen Walther's article http://stephenwalther.com/blog/archive/2008/08/17/asp-net-mvc-tip-33-unit-test-linq-to-sql.aspx which to me seems easier and more reliable.

So I am going with this implementation.

Thanks for the help.

Answer 5

You may want to find some other way around actually hitting the database for your unit tests because it takes a lot more time. That being said, have you considered using Migrations for creating / deleting your tables instead of using sql scripts? RikMigrations is what I have been using to create my database so I can easily revision all of my code in one place. Justin Etheredge has a great article on using RikMigrations.

Answer 6

What I do is define an interface for a DataContext wrapper and use an implementation of the wrapper for the DataContext. This allows me to use an alternate, fake DataContext implementation in my tests (or mock it, if easier). This abstracts the database out of my unit tests completely. I found some starter code at http://andrewtokeley.net/archive/2008/07/06/mocking-linq-to-sql-datacontext.aspx, although I've extended it so that it handles the validation implementations on my entity classes.

I should also mention that I have a separate staging server for QA, so there is live testing of the entire system. I just don't use an actual database in my unit testing.