This post is seventh in a series about a group TDD experiment to build an application in
57 days using only tests. Read the beginning here.
Today is the day where we put it all together, wire up a user-interface and cross our fingers when we run the application. I joked with the team that “today is the day we find out what tests we missed.” Bugs are simply tests we didn’t think about.
Outstanding Design Concerns
At this point we have all the parts for our primary use case. And although we’ve designed the parts to be small with simple responsibilities, we’ve been vague about how the structure of the overall application. Before we can show a user-interface, we’ve got a few remaining design choices.
Associating the Command to the View
In the last post we looked at the NewProjectCommand. After reviewing our choices about the relationship between the Command and the ViewModel we decided that the most pragmatic choice was to have the Command hold a reference to the ViewModel, though we didn’t define where either object fit into the overall application. The next question presented to the team was whether we make the command independent of the ViewModel and reside in a menu-control or other top-level ViewModel, or should we add a Command property to the ViewModel?
The team decided to take the convenience route and put our NewProjectCommand as a property on our MainViewModel. Ultimately, this decision means that our MainViewModel becomes the top-level ViewModel that the View will bind to. This decision is largely view-centric and should be easy to change in the future if we need to reorganize the structure of the application.
With this decision resolved, we’ve got a better picture of how the user-interface and logical model will work. Before we start working on the xaml, we need to figure out how all these pieces come together.
Assembling the MainViewModel
The parts of our application have been designed with the Dependency Inversion Principle in mind – our objects don’t have a “top” and expect that the caller will pass in the proper configuration. Eventually, something must take the responsibility to configure the object graph. The next question is: where should this happen?
Someone suggested stitching the components together in the application start-up routine. While this is logically where this activity should occur, it doesn’t make sense to burden the start-up routine with these implementation details. If we did, we’d likely have a monster start-up routine that would change constantly. Plus, we’d have little means to test it without invoking the user-interface.
Achieving 100% code coverage, though a noble effort, is not always realistic. In most applications it’s likely that 10% of the codebase won’t have tests because those areas border on the extreme edges of the application. Writing unit tests for extreme edges is hard (“unit” tests for user-interface components is especially difficult) and it helps to have a balanced testing strategy that includes unit, system integration and functional UI automation to cover these areas.
Rather than including these details in the application start-up routine, we’ll move as much code as possible into testable components. The goal is to make the start-up routine so simple that it won’t require changes. This will minimize the untestable areas of the application.
To accomplish this, we decided to create a Factory for a MainViewModel.
Realizations for the MainViewModel Factory
The primary responsibility of our factory is to assemble our ViewModel with a fully configured NewProjectCommand. The test looks something like this:
[TestMethod] public void CreatingAViewModel_WithDefaults_ShouldSetupViewModel() { var factory = new MainViewModelFactory(); var viewModel = factory.Create(); Assert.IsNotNull(viewModel, "ViewModel was not created."); Assert.IsNotNull(viewModel.NewProject, "Command was not wired up."); }
In order to make the test pass, we’ll need to wire-up the all the components of our solution within the factory. The argument checking we’ve introduced in the constructors of our command and loader guarantees that. Ultimately, the factory looks like this:
public class MainViewModelFactory { public MainViewModel Create() { var vm = new MainViewModel(); IFileDialog dialog = new MockFileDialog(); IGraphDataParser graphParser = new NDependStreamParser(); var graphBuilder = new GraphBuilder(); var loader = new ProjectLoader(dialog, graphParser); vm.NewProject = new NewProjectCommand(vm, loader, graphBuilder); return vm; } }
With that all in place, the application start-up routine is greatly simplified. We could probably optimize it further, but we’re anxious to see our application running today, so this will do:
public partial class App : Application { protected override void OnStartup(StartupEventArgs e) { var shell = new Shell(); shell.DataContext = new MainViewModelFactory().Create(); shell.Show(); } }
Running the App for the first time
Ready for our first bug? We borrowed some XAML from Sacha’s post, and after we discovered that we needed a one-line user control, we wired up a crude Button to our NewProject command. Then we launched the app, crossed our fingers, and upon clicking the “New Project” button….. nothing happened!
We set a breakpoint and then walked through the command’s execution. Everything was perfect, except we had forgotten one small detail: we forgot to notify the user-interface that we had produced a graph.
As a teaching opportunity, we wrote a unit test for our first bug:
[TestClass] public class MainViewModelTests { [TestMethod] public void WhenGraphPropertyChanges_ShouldNotifyTheUI() { string propertyName = null; var viewModel = new MainViewModel(); viewModel.PropertyChanged += (sender,e) => propertyName = e.PropertyName; viewModel.Graph = new AssemblyGraph(); Assert.AreEqual("Graph", propertyName, "The user interface wasn't notified."); } }
And on second attempt (read: messing with xaml styles for a while) the app produces the following graph:
Next: Read about polishing off the File Dialog in Day Seven
No comments:
Post a Comment