net, aspnet comments edit

Ran into an interesting gotcha while working with routing and a handler on a web site. We had a route set up like this:


Nothing too special, except the “value” route parameters are fairly long strings. In some cases 300 characters or more.

We were finding that in some cases things worked great, but in others IIS would return a 400 error claiming “invalid URL.”

The URL total length was less than 1000 characters, so it wasn’t that.

Turns out there’s a registry setting for indicating the maximum length of any individual path segment called “UrlMaxSegmentLength.” The default value is 260 characters. When our route value was longer than that, we’d get the 400 error.

The solution is to pass the value on the querystring rather than as a route value. Something to consider if you have route values that are going to be long.

Of course, this isn’t a problem with routing, just that you can get into the situation pretty easily when you get into the habit of pushing parameters into the route. It might be nice in future versions of routing to have some sort of max length check when generating full route URLs so you can’t generate a path segment greater than, say, 256 characters without getting an exception.

net, testing comments edit

Typemock Isolator is a cool and very powerful mocking framework. However, “with great power comes great responsibility,” and it’s easy to get into situations where there are errors appearing that are hard to troubleshoot. For example, you may end up with a test that passes if run by itself but when run as part of a fixture (or a full set of test fixtures) it fails inexplicably. This guide can help you look for “red flags” that, in my experience, can cause these hard-to-figure-out issues.

Almost every time you encounter one of these inexplicable errors it’s because someone corrupted the environment in a test. This is akin to having unit tests that run against a real database (these are really “integration tests,” not “unit tests”) and one test runs, fails, and doesn’t put the data back in the original state, which then causes other tests to fail. Since Isolator works on the Profiler API, a few more things are “global” than you might realize. Normally this doesn’t cause problems, but most problems, in my experience, boil down to one of three things:

  • Too much is being mocked - things that don’t actually need to be mocked.
  • Mocks are being set up and not properly cleaned up.
  • A static or application-wide variable is being set in a test or test fixture and isn’t being put back to its original value.

These tips generally have to do with finding and fixing these issues.



Prior to Typemock Isolator version 4.0, mocks needed to be manually cleaned up:


Some fixtures would have that in each individual test; some kept it in a central teardown method. For older fixtures that have not been updated for new syntax, make sure mocks get cleared after each test runs.

After Typemock Isolator version 4.0, you could decorate tests or test fixtures with attributes. For the older record/replay API, you would use:

public class MyTestFixture

For the newer Arrange-Act-Assert (AAA) API, you would use:

public class MyTestFixture

Ensure any test/fixture using Typemock Isolator is cleaning things up. Failing to clean things up can sometimes cause hard-to-troubleshoot issues.



While it technically shouldn’t matter if you clean up or verify mocks multiple times during the run of a test, occasionally you run into inexplicable trouble. I can’t give you a reason why this sometimes causes failure, just that it does, so if you see it, you’ll want to fix it.

For example, if you see something like this:

public class MyTestFixture
  public void TearDown()

…this is a problem. In this example, mocks will actually be cleaned up three times after each test:

  1. The TearDown method manually calls MockManager.ClearAll().
  2. The [VerifyMocks] attribute verifies the mock calls and clears the mocks after each test.
  3. The [ClearMocks] attribute clears the mocks after each test.

If you see redundant cleaning like this, it needs to be fixed.

The best way to solve this problem is to:

  1. Add the [VerifyMocks] attribute to the test fixture. Let it do the verify and clean steps for you.
  2. Remove all MockManager.ClearAll() calls from the entire fixture.
  3. Remove all MockManager.Verify() calls from the entire fixture.

Note this example is for the older record/replay mocking API. You can get into less over-cleaning trouble by using the newer AAA API, where there’s only one [Isolated] attribute to put on your test fixture.



It is especially tempting, especially in the old record/replay API, to use something akin to the MockManager.MockAll() method to just mock everything you think might be needed even if you’re not sure. Let’s call this “kitchen sink mocking” because you’re mocking everything including the kitchen sink.

Don’t mock anything that you aren’t going to actually use.

The problem with over-mocking is twofold:

  • You lose the focus between what you’re isolating and what you’re testing. Many times use of “MockAll” results in you testing your mocks rather than the code you’re isolating, particularly if you’re not being careful.
  • “MockAll” has historically been a notorious problem for cleanup to deal with, especially if there are a lot of things getting mocked with “MockAll.” (This was addressed in newer versions of Isolator.)

Look at your code and see if you’re mocking “globally” - using constructs like “MockAll” should be a red-flag. This isn’t to say you shouldn’t use them, just that you should triple-check to make sure you absolutely have to. And, if you do, triple-check the cleanup on that fixture to make sure they don’t leak into other fixtures.

In the AAA syntax, you should look for calls to Isolate.Swap.AllInstances()… though historically the AAA syntax has been less afflicted with the over-mocking problems that the record/replay syntax has.



Prior to Typemock Isolator version 5.0, all mocking was done using a record/replay style of syntax. This used classes named things like RecorderManager and MockManager. A sample record/replay mock looks like this:

using(RecordExpectations recorder = RecorderManager.StartRecording())
  int dummy = someObject.PropertyToMock;
Mock mock = MockManager.Mock(typeof(SomeOtherObject));
mock.ExpectAndReturn("SomeMethod", returnValue);

When you clean up after record/replay mocks, you usually use the [VerifyMocks] attribute on your test fixture. (See above for more info on mock cleanup.)

After 5.0, a new Arrange-Act-Assert (AAA) syntax was added. Mocks in AAA almost always start with Isolate, like:

var mock = Isolate.Fake.Instance();
Isolate.WhenCalled(() => mock.SomeMethod()).WillReturn(expectedValue);

When you clean up after AAA mocks, you usually use the [Isolated] attribute on your test fixture. (See above for more info on mock cleanup.)

NEVER mix mock types in the same test. EVER. This is a recipe for disaster and is not supported by Typemock, even if it might “work” when you run the test.

To keep things easy, you probably should not mix mock types in the same test fixture, though it is technically possible and supported.

If you see a fixture with BOTH [VerifyMocks] and [Isolated] attributes at the top, it is wrong. That’s mixing mocks. You can’t have both attributes run on the same fixture. Again, you can technically have them on different tests, just not at the fixture level.

PROBLEM: Two different mock cleanup attributes on the same fixture

Here’s an example showing the issue:

// BAD CODE: Two mock cleanup attributes.
public class MyFixture
  public void AaaMockTest()
    // Test code that uses Isolate.* mocking.
  public void RecordReplayMockTest()
    // Test code that uses RecorderManager/MockManager mocking.

SOLUTION: Move the mock attributes to the test level. If you HAVE to mix mock types in a fixture, you’ll need to mark each test that uses the mocks with the appropriate cleanup attribute. Note if you move the attribute to the test level, you need to remove it from the top-level fixture.

// BETTER CODE: Different mock cleanup attributes on the associated tests.
public class MyFixture
  public void AaaMockTest()
    // Test code that uses Isolate.* mocking.
  public void RecordReplayMockTest()
    // Test code that uses RecorderManager/MockManager mocking.

PROBLEM: Two different mock types in the same test

Here’s an example showing the issue:

// BAD CODE: Two mock types in the same test.
public class MyFixture
  public void MixedMockTest()
    var mock1 = Isolate.Fake.Instance();
    var mock2 = RecorderManager.CreateMockedObject();

SOLUTION: Refactor the test to use only one type of mocks. You have no easy choice in this scenario. You have to rewrite the test so only one mock type is being used. All things being equal, try to use the new AAA syntax over the older record/replay syntax. That said, if the entire rest of the fixture is in the old syntax, don’t introduce a new AAA syntax in just because. It’s better to have all the tests in the fixture using the same syntax so you don’t run into the multiple-attribute issue.



Not necessarily a Typemock-specific issue, but something that is commonly seen and causes issues is when tests set static values or environment variables during a test and don’t reset them.

For example, an ASP.NET MVC test may make use of the System.Web.Mvc.DependencyResolver. In those tests, there is a desire to set the current IDependencyResolver to a test value. The problem is, it is easy to overlook ‘‘putting back the original value’’ on both success and failure conditions. Not putting back the default value can corrupt later tests.

The same can be said for other environmental settings. Look for things like…

  • Setting the current thread principal.
  • Setting the current thread culture.
  • Modifying environment variables.
  • Modifying registry keys.
  • Writing actual physical files.
  • Storing things in a static cache (like HttpRuntime.Cache).
  • Reading values that get cached in static variables (for example, in configuration-related classes where the config gets read, deserialized, and cached in a static).



It is possible to auto-deploy and auto-register Typemock Isolator from a build script. This is an OK practice on a build server that doesn’t have Typemock installed, but it causes issues on machines that may already have it installed. Auto-deploy/auto-register running if Typemock is already installed will corrupt the existing Typemock installation and will generally create a corrupt new installation. The only way to repair this is to run the Typemock installer and run a repair. (You may also have to repair NCover or any other profiler/coverage tool you have installed.)

One way to solve this is to add a condition to your auto-deploy task in your build script. For example, in a developer environment there may be a setting such that the build configuration is always “Debug” and on the build server it’s always “Release.” You could set up an MSBuild task like this to only auto-deploy/register Typemock when it’s a Release environment:




When you install Typemock Isolator, it installs a Tracer utility that lets you watch as tests run to see what Isolator is setting up behind the scenes and which expectations have been fulfilled. This is a great tool to use when things are failing when they should pass, or passing when they should fail. There is some good online documentation on how to use it so I won’t repeat all that here, but something not in the docs:

You have to run the Tracer utility and the unit tests as Administrator for it to work.

This may change in a future release, but as of this writing, that’s the case. If you don’t run Tracer and the unit tests both as Administrator, the Tracer doesn’t display anything and there’s no explanation why.

personal comments edit

I don’t really participate on StackOverflow. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve asked a couple of questions and I’ve answered a couple, too, but by and large, I don’t go there.

At first I thought it was because of the Fastest Gun in the West problem. I like to take my time and give nice, thorough, sometimes lengthy, but always complete answers. I like that because it serves as a better reference for the future - it doesn’t just answer the question for that one person, it answers the question with context for the future person asking. And that’s still something I take issue with because, contrary to the current top answer on that problem, I don’t believe people read through every answer to the question. I don’t believe there’s a “long game.” I don’t believe the asker of the question comes back to their questions to review any new, more complete answers and switch what they mark as the “official answer.” I don’t believe people come in and upvote more complete/correct answers. We already know people don’t up-or-down-vote questions.

But I got thinking… and while the Fastest Gun thing does irritate me, that’s not really the reason I don’t often visit StackOverflow. The real reasons, I think, are:

1. A high percentage of the questions could be answered with a trivial effort on Google.

I can’t tell you how many questions I see fly past that are so simple, so “RTFM,” that anyone worth their salt couldn’t have just hit Google, typed the question in there, and got the actual documentation - with samples - to answer the question. So many questions could be answered with a “Let Me Google That For You” (or, if you prefer, the Bing equivalent) link that… I don’t even want to think about it. Cats and dogs living together - mass hysteria.

The reason this bugs me is that it really throws off the signal-to-noise ratio of questions on the site. It also, in my opinion, just serves to inflate the reputation of the Fastest Gun answerers - sit and search for trivial questions all day, answer, get points. The latter issue of reputation is sort of a self-solving issue since I’m not too concerned with reputation or answering trivial questions, but the signal-to-noise thing really is annoying.

2. People can not figure out how to ask a question.

There’s a whole FAQ on this even. It’s not that hard, but it kills me that people just can’t figure it out. Titles of questions like “Problem with ASP.NET” or “Migrating to MVC3.” Really? Both of those sound amazingly totally unlike questions. Even if you phrased the titles as questions (“How do I fix a problem with ASP.NET?”) they’re still too broad, so you have to go in and read them to figure them out. Once you’re in there, it’s one of three things:

  • A “plz send me the codez” question that somehow never gets moderated away, regardless of flagging, etc.
  • Something so broad that you should send them an Amazon gift card so they can buy some books and read up.
  • Very specific to a problem in their system, and while they describe the error that’s happening they don’t provide any context, code, stack trace, or additional data that would possibly be needed to assist them.

I’m not sure how to solve it.

I sort of thought StackOverflow (and the whole StackExchange thing) was supposed to be sort of self-moderating, but I feel like maybe they err on the side of less actual moderation just so they can build content. That’s great from a business model perspective because more content generally equates to more visitors. On the other hand, quantity is not the same as quality, and these two issues so drastically reduce the quality of what’s there that it’s hard for me to value the site as a resource. I can’t be alone here. This makes me wonder if I’m even the target audience for StackOverflow. Maybe I’m not. I guess I’ll just keep checking in to see if it gets better.

General Ramblings comments edit

Hypothetical situation:

A coworker approaches you and asks you to help them out with something. It’s a simple task like copying a file or changing a setting. This isn’t the first time they’ve asked you to help them do this, and they say they can’t do it themselves because of something they’ve known about for a while but haven’t gotten around to addressing - their machine is malfunctioning, their account should have permissions on something but it doesn’t, that sort of thing.

Do you help?

Honestly, in situations like this, I’m torn.

The first time or two, sure, I’ll help out, but after a couple of “please help with this quick little task” requests, I balk. It’s not that I don’t want to be unhelpful or *gasp* not a team player, but that I’d rather treat the cause instead of the symptom. if the reason the person can’t take care of things is something known that they need addressed, I’d much rather help them through the process of getting the root issue resolved so they can take care of the small things on their own. Even if the issue is education (“You know how to do this but I don’t, so can you just do it for me?”) I’d rather train the person than just keep fielding little help requests.

Of course, there are always exceptions (e.g., when there’s a huge deadline that solving the root issue would jeopardize, etc.) but by-and-large, I’d rather things just be fixed.