trjhtr

I've got some code which converts from type X to Z on a web service.
The X is from our database and we convert it to Z using the below code to send to the customer's required format . I've simplified it to keep it really basic.

So, let me give you my unit test:

OrderReleased orderReleased = new OrderReleased();
orderReleased.MessageId = 1234;
orderReleased.OrderId = "123";

// PS: Convert data from our type to customer's data-type
var orderReleased = Converter.Transform(orderReleased);

Assert.AreEqual(orderReleased.MessageId, orderReleasedReflex.message.msgId);
Assert.AreEqual(orderReleased.OrderId, orderReleasedReflex.message.orderId);

Though, there are many fields in these classes and many classes to test. Is there more of an elegent way of performing these test to ensure the data is been copied accross? And ensuring if any new fields are added that the test fails? Thank you.

Consider Reflection

With Reflection you can iterate over public properties and fields and verify that they're all set as expected, this means your tests will test all new fields and properties as they are added instead of relying on a developer to remember to update not just the converter, but also the converter tests.

Don't re-invent the wheel

The problem you have has been well-solved by Automapper, I recommend using their solution as it has already been thoroughly tested and is likely to be more flexible.

Use var

Using var for variable declarations where the assignment makes the type obvious saves you time in the future when you want to change the type. You already use var in the Act part of your testing pattern, may as well use it in the Arrange section, too.

Comments

The comment:

// PS: Convert data from our type to customer's data-type

Is not particularly helpful. This information can be gleaned from the code, and if the code changes odds are the comment will not be updated and end up out-of-date, actively harming understandability.

I recommend aiming for your comments to explain why you're doing something (when it is not apparent), not how you're doing it, unless your solution is so complex as to not be trivially understood by a maintainer (and in those cases simplify the code where possible instead of just adding comments).

Use an object initialiser

Object initialisers simplify code, so instead of:

var orderReleased = new OrderReleased();
orderReleased.MessageId = 1234;
orderReleased.OrderId = "123";

Use:

var orderReleased = new OrderReleased()

 MessageId = 1234,
 OrderId = "123"