how to unit test asp.net core application with constructor dependency injection

Question

I have a asp.net core application that uses dependency injection defined in the startup.cs class of the application:

    public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
    {

        services.AddDbContext<ApplicationDbContext>(options =>
            options.UseSqlServer(Configuration["Data:FotballConnection:DefaultConnection"]));


        // Repositories
        services.AddScoped<IUserRepository, UserRepository>();
        services.AddScoped<IUserRoleRepository, UserRoleRepository>();
        services.AddScoped<IRoleRepository, RoleRepository>();
        services.AddScoped<ILoggingRepository, LoggingRepository>();

        // Services
        services.AddScoped<IMembershipService, MembershipService>();
        services.AddScoped<IEncryptionService, EncryptionService>();

        // new repos
        services.AddScoped<IMatchService, MatchService>();
        services.AddScoped<IMatchRepository, MatchRepository>();
        services.AddScoped<IMatchBetRepository, MatchBetRepository>();
        services.AddScoped<ITeamRepository, TeamRepository>();

        services.AddScoped<IFootballAPI, FootballAPIService>();

This allows something like this:

[Route("api/[controller]")]
public class MatchController : AuthorizedController
{
    private readonly IMatchService _matchService;
    private readonly IMatchRepository _matchRepository;
    private readonly IMatchBetRepository _matchBetRepository;
    private readonly IUserRepository _userRepository;
    private readonly ILoggingRepository _loggingRepository;

    public MatchController(IMatchService matchService, IMatchRepository matchRepository, IMatchBetRepository matchBetRepository, ILoggingRepository loggingRepository, IUserRepository userRepository)
    {
        _matchService = matchService;
        _matchRepository = matchRepository;
        _matchBetRepository = matchBetRepository;
        _userRepository = userRepository;
        _loggingRepository = loggingRepository;
    }

This is very neat. But becomes a problem when I want to unit test. Because my test library does not have a startup.cs where I setup dependency injection. So a class with these interfaces as params will just be null.

namespace TestLibrary
{
    public class FootballAPIService
    {
        private readonly IMatchRepository _matchRepository;
        private readonly ITeamRepository _teamRepository;

        public FootballAPIService(IMatchRepository matchRepository, ITeamRepository teamRepository)

        {
            _matchRepository = matchRepository;
            _teamRepository = teamRepository;

In the code above, in the test library, _matchRepository and _teamRepository, will just be null. :(

Can I do something like ConfigureServices, where I define dependency injection in my test library project?

Solution 1

Your controllers in .net core have dependency injection in mind from the start, but this does not mean you are required to use a dependency injection container.

Given a simpler class like:

public class MyController : Controller
{

    private readonly IMyInterface _myInterface;

    public MyController(IMyInterface myInterface)
    {
        _myInterface = myInterface;
    }

    public JsonResult Get()
    {
        return Json(_myInterface.Get());
    }
}

public interface IMyInterface
{
    IEnumerable<MyObject> Get();
}

public class MyClass : IMyInterface
{
    public IEnumerable<MyObject> Get()
    {
        // implementation
    }
}

So in your app, you're using the dependency injection container in your startup.cs, which does nothing more than provide a concretion of MyClass to use when IMyInterface is encountered. This does not mean it is the only way of getting instances of MyController however.

In a unit testing scenario, you can (and should) provide your own implementation (or mock/stub/fake) of IMyInterface as so:

public class MyTestClass : IMyInterface
{
    public IEnumerable<MyObject> Get()
    {
        List<MyObject> list = new List<MyObject>();
        // populate list
        return list;
    }        
}

and in your test:

[TestClass]
public class MyControllerTests
{

    MyController _systemUnderTest;
    IMyInterface _myInterface;

    [TestInitialize]
    public void Setup()
    {
        _myInterface = new MyTestClass();
        _systemUnderTest = new MyController(_myInterface);
    }

}

So for the scope of unit testing MyController, the actual implementation of IMyInterface does not matter (and should not matter), only the interface itself matters. We have provided a "fake" implementation of IMyInterface through MyTestClass, but you could also do this with a mock like through Moq or RhinoMocks.

Bottom line, you do not actually need the dependency injection container to accomplish your tests, only a separate, controllable, implementation/mock/stub/fake of your tested classes dependencies.

Solution 2

Although @Kritner's answer is correct, I prefer the following for code integrity and better DI experience:

[TestClass]
public class MatchRepositoryTests
{
    private readonly IMatchRepository matchRepository;

    public MatchRepositoryTests()
    {
        var services = new ServiceCollection();
        services.AddTransient<IMatchRepository, MatchRepositoryStub>();

        var serviceProvider = services.BuildServiceProvider();

        matchRepository = serviceProvider.GetService<IMatchRepository>();
    }
}

Solution 3

A simple way, I wrote a generic dependency resolver helper class and then built the IWebHost in my unit test class.

Generic Dependency Resolver

        using Microsoft.AspNetCore.Hosting;
        using Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc;
        using Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration;
        using Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection;
        using Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting;
        public class DependencyResolverHelper
        {
            private readonly IWebHost _webHost;
    
            /// <inheritdoc />
            public DependencyResolverHelper(IWebHost webHost) => _webHost = webHost;
    
            public T GetService<T>()
            {
                var serviceScope = _webHost.Services.CreateScope();
                var services = serviceScope.ServiceProvider;
                try
                {
                  var scopedService = services.GetRequiredService<T>();
                  return scopedService;
                }
                catch (Exception e)
                {
                   Console.WriteLine(e);
                   throw;
                }
            }
        }
    }

Unit Test Project:

      [TestFixture]
        public class DependencyResolverTests
        {
            private DependencyResolverHelper _serviceProvider;

            public DependencyResolverTests()
            {

                var webHost = WebHost.CreateDefaultBuilder()
                    .UseStartup<Startup>()
                    .Build();
                _serviceProvider = new DependencyResolverHelper(webHost);
            }
    
            [Test]
            public void Service_Should_Get_Resolved()
            {
                
                //Act
                var YourService = _serviceProvider.GetService<IYourService>();
    
                //Assert
                Assert.IsNotNull(YourService);
            }
    

        }

Solution 4

If you are using the Program.cs + Startup.cs convention and want to get this working quickly you can reuse your existing host builder with a one-liner:

using MyWebProjectNamespace;

public class MyTests
{
    readonly IServiceProvider _services = 
        Program.CreateHostBuilder(new string[] { }).Build().Services; // one liner

    [Test]
    public void GetMyTest()
    {
        var myService = _services.GetRequiredService<IMyService>();
        Assert.IsNotNull(myService);
    }
}

Sample Program.cs file from web project:

using Microsoft.AspNetCore.Hosting;
using Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting;

namespace MyWebProjectNamespace
{
    public class Program
    {
        public static void Main(string[] args) =>
            CreateHostBuilder(args).Build().Run();

        public static IHostBuilder CreateHostBuilder(string[] args) =>
            Host.CreateDefaultBuilder(args)
                .ConfigureWebHostDefaults(webBuilder =>
                {
                    webBuilder.UseStartup<Startup>();
                });
    }
}

Solution 5

You can use asp.net core DI and inject mocked instance objects in your tests. Here is a full working example :

For the sake of the example :

• I only kept the IMatchService dependency from the code snippet of the initial question
• I added a DoSomething action in the MatchController so that there is someting to test.
• I added an Add method to the IMatchService and the MatchService classes so that there is soemthing to mock.

Please note that the methods that will have a Setup with Moq should be virtual.

[Route("api/[controller]")]
public class MatchController : AuthorizedController
{
  private readonly IMatchService _matchService;

  public MatchController(IMatchService matchService)
  {
    _matchService = matchService;
  }

  public virtual int DoSomething()
  {
    return _matchService.Add(1, 2);
  }
}

public interface IMatchService
{
  int Add(int a, int b);
}

public class MatchService : IMatchService
{
  public virtual int Add(int a, int b)
  {
    return a + b;
  }
}

It's always possible to get the Mock by calling the Mock.Get method. For conveniance for each dependency, I create two properties like MatchService and MockedMatchService.

public class MyTests
{
  protected IMatchService MatchService { get; set; }

  protected Mock<IMatchService> MockedMatchService => Mock.Get(MatchService);

  private IServiceProvider ServicesProvider { get; set; }

  [SetUp]
  public void SetupBeforeEachTest()
  {
    // Configure DI container
    ServiceCollection services = new ServiceCollection();
    ConfigureServices(services);
    ServicesProvider = services.BuildServiceProvider();

    // Use DI to get instances of IMatchService
    MatchService = ServicesProvider.GetService<IMatchService>();
  }

  // In this test I mock the Add method of the dependency (IMatchService) so that it returns a value I choose
  [Test]
  public void TestMethod()
  {
    // Prepare
    var matchController = ServicesProvider.GetService<MatchController>();
    int expectedResult = 5;
    MockedMatchService.Setup(x => x.Add(It.IsAny<int>(), It.IsAny<int>())).Returns(expectedResult);

    // Act - This will call the real DoSomething method because the MatchController has comes from a Mock with CallBase = true
    int result = matchController.DoSomething();

    // Check
    Assert.AreEqual(expectedResult, result);
  }

  private static void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
  {
    services.AddScoped<IMatchService>();
    services.AddScoped<MatchController>();
  }
}

View more solutions

Comments

[ganjan]

Package RhinoMocks 3.6.1 is not compatible with netcoreapp1.0 (.NETCoreApp,Version=v1.0). Package RhinoMocks 3.6.1 supports: net (.NETFramework,Version=v0.0)

[Alexandru Marculescu]

Other frameworks are slowly taking this set.

[Ric .Net]

Perfect answer. I would even go as far as not using a DI container at all ever in your unit test. Offcourse except for unit tests aiming to test the correctness of the DI configuration, like the order of applied decorators for example

[Sinaesthetic]

I'm not sure how helpful this is when you have classes upon classes that all need a number of dependencies to be injected. What I'd like to do is be able to register default implementations (or mocks with default behaviors) so that I can instantiate those object graphs without having to setup 30 dependencies first, but rather reconfigure the ones that I need for the test.

[Neville Nazerane]

GetService<> has some overloads that can be found with using Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection

[Neville Nazerane]

I just tested this out. this is a far more valid answer than the marked answer. This uses DI. I tried using this over the same extension function that I use for the website. this feature works perfectly

[lnaie]

a nice example about how to replace Autofac with Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection

[Fabian Bigler]

Added "using Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection" but "AddTransient" is still missing from ServiceCollection. Any1 knows how to fix this?

[facundofarias]

Yes, this should be the default answer. We have placed an entire suite testing all the services to be injected, and it works like a charm. Thanks!

[Erik Philips]

This does not Unit-Test the Service, this is an Integration-Test with Microsofts DI. Microsoft already has unit tests to test DI, so there is no reason to do this. If you want to test that and object is registered, that is a separation of concerns and should be in it's own test. Unit-Testing and object means testing the object itself with no external dependencies.

[Erik Philips]

@Sinaesthetic that's what Testing and Mocking frameworks are for. nUnit allows you to create one-time or run-per-test methods that allow you to mock everything, then in your tests only be concerned with configuring the method you are testing. Actually using DI for a Test means it's not longer a Unit-Test but an Integration-Test with Microsofts (or 3rd Partys) DI.

[Sinaesthetic]

"Actually using DI for a Test means it's not longer a Unit-Test" can't really agree with you there, at least not at face value. Oftentimes, the DI is necessary to simply initialize the class so that the unit can be tested. The point being that the dependencies are mocked so that you can test the unit's behavior around the dependency. I think you might be referring to a scenario where one would be injecting a fully functional dependency, then it might be an integration test, unless the dependencies of that object are also mocked. There are many one-off scenarios that could be discussed.

[Eugene Podskal]

Disposing the scope seems wrong to me - docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/… - Once Dispose is called, any scoped services that have been resolved from ServiceProvider will be disposed..

[Mosta]

You may need to remove the "using" statement to avoid "disposed object error" on your DBcontexts

[Casey Crookston]

I don't understand what IWebHost is, and how I would translate this into my own unit test project.

[Paul Carlton]

We use dependency injection heavily in our unit tests. We use them extensively for mocking purposes. I'm not sure why at all you would not want to use DI in your tests. We're not software engineering our infrastructure for tests, but rather we're using DI to make it really easy to mock and inject objects that a test would need. And we can fine tune what objects are available in our ServiceCollection from the start. It's particularly helpful for scaffolding, and it's helpful for integration tests too so... yeah I'd be FOR using DI in your tests.

[Nexus]

Fabulous! Thank you very much. I can see how setting up a new ServiceCollection in [SetUp] could be useful, or even mocking the dependencies. But really, what I wanna do is use the same service collection used by my web app, and run tests against the same environment. Cheers!

[Yanal-Yves Fargialla]

I agree with @Sinaesthetic, please have a look at my answer below where I use asp.net core DI and Moq to inject mock instance objects : stackoverflow.com/questions/37724738/…

[AndyS]

Brilliant in it's simplicity!

[user357086]

Awesome. Just that one liner got me going fairly quick on bunch of unit tests that I wanted to write. Thank you Matthew!

[Stephen Garside]

Nice concise approach, thanks for sharing

[zola25]

This is absolutely the correct answer. I can't believe it's not the highest voted answer - all the higher voted answers are missing the point. The point is you should isolate the part of the system under test, when you use a DI container, you are recreating the whole system. You shouldn't use a DI container in your unit tests, except when you use it in your system under test, which is usually unnecessary. If you've got a lot of dependencies, you can mock them using e.g. NSubstitute. If that still feels like a lot of effort for each test, you've probably got too many dependencies

[Stephen Garside]

Thanks for sharing! Just to reiterate the comment above about the Using Statement and DbContext being disposed. Got me for a few hours that one!

[Joshua Duxbury]

No problem, glad everyone is finding it useful, I've updated the code and removed the using statement so no one else runs into that issue @StephenGarside