Skip to main content

Testing time based observable in Rx is so easy...

If you've been doing Rx for a while it's very likely you're also be into testing with TDD. In which case you'll have come across testing observable timers but if not then what follows is how easy this is.

So lets say I want to test the following method, it generates a 'tick' according to the time span parameter:

   1:  public IObservable<Unit> TickEvery(TimeSpan timeSpan)
   2:  {
   3:      return Observable.Interval(timeSpan).TimeInterval()
   4:          .Select(_ => new Unit());
   5:  }

When testing this I don't want to be dependent on the scheduler clock, what I mean is you don't want the test code to have to do some kind of 'wait' operation whilst the Observable.Interval is generating values.

The answer is to use the Reactive Extensions Testing Library. It provides the TestScheduler which allows to manipulate the underlying clock using the AdvanceBy & AdvanceTo methods which then means you can trigger any observable timer in a timely manner!

This means you do have to use the overloaded Observable.Interval to pass the scheduler to the method, I've wrapped the method into a class and I'm using DI to pass in the scheduler:

   1:  public class MyTicker
   2:  {
   3:      private readonly IScheduler _scheduler;
   4:   
   5:      public MyTicker(IScheduler scheduler)
   6:      {
   7:          _scheduler = scheduler;
   8:      }
   9:   
  10:      public IObservable<Unit> TickEvery(TimeSpan timeSpan)
  11:      {
  12:          return Observable.Interval(timeSpan, _scheduler).TimeInterval()
  13:              .Select(_ => new Unit());
  14:      }
  15:  }

So now I need a test, I want to simulate generating ticks every minute and I want to receive only 2 ticks:

   1:  [TestFixture]
   2:  public class MyTickerTests
   3:  {
   4:      private long _minuteInTicks;
   5:      private TestScheduler _scheduler;
   6:   
   7:      [SetUp]
   8:      public void SetUp()
   9:      {
  10:          // a minute in ticks...
  11:          _minuteInTicks = new TimeSpan(0, 0, 1, 0).Ticks;
  12:   
  13:          // this is the important bit...
  14:          _scheduler = new TestScheduler();
  15:      }
  16:          
  17:      [Test]
  18:      public void should_tick_twice_in_three_minutes()
  19:      {
  20:          // ARRANGE
  21:          var ticker = new MyTicker(_scheduler);
  22:          var tickInternval = TimeSpan.FromMinutes(1);
  23:          var count = 0;
  24:              
  25:          // ACT
  26:          using (ticker.TickEvery(tickInternval)
  27:              .Subscribe(_ => count++))
  28:          {
  29:              _scheduler.AdvanceBy(_minuteInTicks);
  30:              _scheduler.AdvanceBy(_minuteInTicks);
  31:          }
  32:   
  33:          _scheduler.AdvanceBy(_minuteInTicks);
  34:   
  35:          // ASSERT
  36:          Assert.AreEqual(count, 2, "the count should have only been incremented twice...");
  37:      }
  38:  }

Which passes as expected...


Labels:
Location: Stoke Newington, London Borough of Hackney, London N16 1AZ, UK

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Implementing a busy indicator using a visual overlay in MVVM

This is a technique we use at work to lock the UI whilst some long running process is happening - preventing the user clicking on stuff whilst it's retrieving or rendering data. Now we could have done this by launching a child dialog window but that feels rather out of date and clumsy, we wanted a more modern pattern similar to the way <div> overlays are done on the web. Imagine we have the following simple WPF app and when 'Click' is pressed a busy waiting overlay is shown for the duration entered into the text box. What I'm interested in here is not the actual UI element of the busy indicator but how I go about getting this to show & hide from when using MVVM. The actual UI elements are the standard Busy Indicator coming from the WPF Toolkit : The XAML behind this window is very simple, the important part is the ViewHost. As you can see the ViewHost uses a ContentPresenter element which is bound to the view model, IMainViewModel, it contains 3 child v
Post a Comment
Read more

Showing a message box from a ViewModel in MVVM

I was doing a code review with a client last week for a WPF app using MVVM and they asked ' How can I show a message from the ViewModel? '. What follows is how I would (and have) solved the problem in the past. When I hear the words ' show a message... ' I instantly think you mean show a transient modal message box that requires the user input before continuing ' with something else ' - once the user has interacted with the message box it will disappear. The following solution only applies to this scenario. The first solution is the easiest but is very wrong from a separation perspective. It violates the ideas behind the Model-View-Controller pattern because it places View concerns inside the ViewModel - the ViewModel now knows about the type of the View and specifically it knows how to show a message box window: The second approach addresses this concern by introducing the idea of messaging\events between the ViewModel and the View. In the example below
5 comments
Read more

Custom AuthorizationHandler for SignalR Hubs

How to implement IAuthorizationRequirement for SignalR in Asp.Net Core v5.0 Been battling this for a couple of days, and eventually ended up raising an issue on Asp.Net Core gitHub  to find the answer. Wanting to do some custom authorization on a SignalR Hub when the client makes a connection (Hub is created) and when an endpoint (Hub method) is called:  I was assuming I could use the same Policy for both class & method attributes, but it ain't so - not because you can't, because you need the signatures to be different. Method implementation has a resource type of HubInnovationContext: I assumed class implementation would have a resource type of HubConnectionContext - client connects etc... This isn't the case, it's infact of type DefaultHttpContext . For me I don't even need that, it can be removed completely  from the inheritence signature and override implementation. Only other thing to note, and this could be a biggy, is the ordering of the statements in th
Post a Comment
Read more