Comments on: Testing fun with ASP.NET MVC http://lostechies.com/jimmybogard/2008/10/29/testing-fun-with-asp-net-mvc/ Strong opinions, weakly held Sun, 19 May 2013 03:22:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: mbratton http://lostechies.com/jimmybogard/2008/10/29/testing-fun-with-asp-net-mvc/#comment-988 mbratton Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:32:18 +0000 /blogs/jimmy_bogard/archive/2008/10/29/testing-fun-with-asp-net-mvc.aspx#comment-988 I always wondered why this wasn't an interface. Now I wish I didn't know. I always wondered why this wasn’t an interface. Now I wish I didn’t know.

]]> By: bogardj http://lostechies.com/jimmybogard/2008/10/29/testing-fun-with-asp-net-mvc/#comment-987 bogardj Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:28:03 +0000 /blogs/jimmy_bogard/archive/2008/10/29/testing-fun-with-asp-net-mvc.aspx#comment-987 @Karthik Yeah, such a weird argument...and "throw new NotImplementedExceptoin" is an improvement? @Karthik

Yeah, such a weird argument…and “throw new NotImplementedExceptoin” is an improvement?

]]> By: Karthik http://lostechies.com/jimmybogard/2008/10/29/testing-fun-with-asp-net-mvc/#comment-986 Karthik Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:09:17 +0000 /blogs/jimmy_bogard/archive/2008/10/29/testing-fun-with-asp-net-mvc.aspx#comment-986 This issue was well discussed when they first changed HttpContext into an Abstract base class instead of an Interface. It was originally wrote it to be an IHttpContext but was changed in later previews to be an abstract base class. This was because someone decided that making it an interface would "break too many people's code" if they modified the interface definition in further releases of the framework. Because your code is supposed to compile on the first try when you upgrade your framework, right? :P This issue was well discussed when they first changed HttpContext into an Abstract base class instead of an Interface.

It was originally wrote it to be an IHttpContext but was changed in later previews to be an abstract base class.

This was because someone decided that making it an interface would “break too many people’s code” if they modified the interface definition in further releases of the framework. Because your code is supposed to compile on the first try when you upgrade your framework, right? :P

]]> By: Colin Jack http://lostechies.com/jimmybogard/2008/10/29/testing-fun-with-asp-net-mvc/#comment-985 Colin Jack Thu, 30 Oct 2008 09:38:47 +0000 /blogs/jimmy_bogard/archive/2008/10/29/testing-fun-with-asp-net-mvc.aspx#comment-985 Didn't realize thats how HttpContectBase behaves, smelllly. I personally feel like some of the ASP.NET MVC design has been very poor. Lots of unbelievably heavyweight abstract classes being flung about the place and little thought about ease of testing. Worst example I've seen so far (in preview 5) was that your IModelBinder takes a ControllerContext which is a ridiculously heavyweight class thats difficult to mock. Plus in reality the first thing you're going to want to do is access the Form collection which involves navigating through a very long chain of objects (whilst I don't always follow LOD it certainly needed to be applied better here). Didn’t realize thats how HttpContectBase behaves, smelllly.

I personally feel like some of the ASP.NET MVC design has been very poor. Lots of unbelievably heavyweight abstract classes being flung about the place and little thought about ease of testing.

Worst example I’ve seen so far (in preview 5) was that your IModelBinder takes a ControllerContext which is a ridiculously heavyweight class thats difficult to mock. Plus in reality the first thing you’re going to want to do is access the Form collection which involves navigating through a very long chain of objects (whilst I don’t always follow LOD it certainly needed to be applied better here).

]]>