I have code in my function that I try test:

 Xrm.Page.getControl("zepcis_isbranch").setDisabled(true);

I init my XrmObjectModel :

  XrmMockGenerator.initialise();
           XrmMockGenerator.Attribute.createBool('zepcis_isbranch', true);

and when start testing then have exception:

FAILED TESTS:
  Company module
    Main form
      × test
        PhantomJS 2.1.1 (Windows 8 0.0.0)
      null is not an object (evaluating 'Xrm.Page.getControl('zepcis_isbranch').setDisabled')
      setAvailabilityLegalRelatedFields@tests/Entities/Company.spec.ts:9:615373
      OnLoad@tests/Entities/Company.spec.ts:9:608441
      tests/Entities/Company.spec.ts:9:231581

npm ERR! Test failed.  See above for more details.

but i haven't posibility create control with type bool. XrmMockGenerator.Control.createBool() function not exist.

The Definitely Typed standard is to not preface interfaces with "I". Didn't know if we wanted to follow that standard, or continue to use the "I" prefix? I believe the reason they don't do it, is because pretty much everything could be an interface, so it get's a little verbose.

getEntityTypes
setEntityTypes
removePreSearch
addOnLookupTagClick
removeOnLookupTagClick

The following code mocks a grid control:
XrmMockGenerator.initialise(); XrmMockGenerator.Control.createGrid("ContactGrid", true, "Contacts");
However if the function under test is purposed to hide/show that grid the test will fail with the following error:
"Method not implemented."

This appears to be due to src/xrm-mock/controls/gridcontrol/gridcontrol.mock.ts implementing a setVisible function that just throws the error. I suppose this is probably planned for a future release... but it could also be moved to the extended ControlMock class and implemented there.

as the title. i can mock field. but i cannot test the OnChange.

if yes, pls give me an example. thanks.

A section will always have a controls ItemCollection value. default it to empty.

XrmMockGenerator.Control.createString generates a compile error since it is an instance, and doesn't expose the static methods

Our team use js test with this framework.

But we don't know how to mock the formType = 2 to check the form.

Please help me the example code.

Thanks.

Since the attribute already has a name, when using the generator functions, name should not be a required field for the control, since it already is on the name.

Implement addNotification, clearNotification, and setNotification
Create applyNotification function to trigged the notification action
Create getNotifications to return the notifications for the mock standard control

Hi, it is not working with the latest @types/xrm.
It just needs a small fix.

The fireOnChange mock is passing in the attribute to any event handlers when it should be passing in the execution context. That makes it difficult to test onChange methods since you need that execution context to get a form context.

Hi,

When l try to get the example running, I have an error on initialising the global object. When do I miss?

Thanks

Hi,

I am trying to add an empty lookup on form using:
XrmMockGenerator.Attribute.createLookup("parentaccountid", null);

then I try to find it on form using:

var formContext = XrmMockGenerator.getEventContext().getFormContext();
var lookupAttribute = formContext.getAttribute("parentaccountid");
var lookupAttributeValue = lookupAttribute.getValue();

I expect null ... but it returns an empty array
I checked behavior on real Dynamics form (tried both: v8.2 and v9.2) - lookup attribute is on the form but has no value - in both (v8.2 and v9.2) formContext.getAttribute().getValue() returns null as expected
What am I missing?
Thank you!

Here is the original code for .createLookup() call from xrm-mock package

Would benefit ease of validating element visibility as they are toggled using Xrm (attributes, sections, tabs, notifications etc.)

Perhaps using React.

I'm getting an error in my project due to this line of code in autolookupcontrol.mock.js

var standardcontrol_mock_1 = require("./../standardcontrol/standardcontrol.mock");

Apparently my module loader doesn't like the "./.." syntax... But the actual code base had/has this syntax:

var standardcontrol_mock_1 = require("../standardcontrol/standardcontrol.mock");

So apparently, the methodology for building the npm package didn't generate the latest source...

Hello,

When compiling the ts files I am getting the following errors:

node_modules/xrm-mock/dist/xrm-mock/attributes/lookupattribute/lookupattribute.mock.d.ts:4:22 - error TS2420: Class 'LookupAttributeMock' incorrectly implements interface 'LookupAttribute'.
Types of property 'controls' are incompatible.
Type 'ItemCollectionMock' is not assignable to type 'ItemCollection'.
Types of property 'forEach' are incompatible.
Type '{ (delegate: () => void): void; (delegate: IterativeDelegate): void; }' is not assignable to type '(delegate: IterativeDelegate) => void'.
Types of parameters 'delegate' and 'delegate' are incompatible.

4 export declare class LookupAttributeMock extends AttributeMock<LookupControlMock, Xrm.LookupValue[]> implements Xrm.Attributes.LookupAttribute {
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

node_modules/xrm-mock/dist/xrm-mock/controls/lookupcontrol/lookupcontrol.mock.d.ts:16:5 - error TS2416: Property 'removePreSearch' in type 'LookupControlMock'
is not assignable to the same property in base type 'LookupControl'.
Type '(handler: () => void) => void' is not assignable to type '(handler: ContextSensitiveHandler) => void'.
Types of parameters 'handler' and 'handler' are incompatible.

16 removePreSearch(handler: () => void): void;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

node_modules/xrm-mock/dist/xrm-mock/controls/tab/tab.mock.d.ts:2:22 - error TS2420: Class 'TabMock' incorrectly implements interface 'Tab'.
Type 'TabMock' is missing the following properties from type 'Tab': addTabStateChange, removeTabStateChange

2 export declare class TabMock implements Xrm.Controls.Tab {
~~~~~~~

node_modules/xrm-mock/dist/xrm-mock/webapi/webapi.mock.d.ts:8:5 - error TS2416: Property 'createRecord' in type 'WebApiMock' is not assignable to the same property in base type 'WebApi'.
Type '(entityLogicalName: string, record: any) => PromiseLike' is not assignable to type '(entityLogicalName: string, record: any) => PromiseLike'.
Type 'PromiseLike' is not assignable to type 'PromiseLike'.
Type 'string' is not assignable to type 'CreateResponse'.

8 createRecord(entityLogicalName: string, record: any): Xrm.Async.PromiseLike;
~~~~~~~~~~~~

node_modules/xrm-mock/dist/xrm-mock/webapioffline/webapioffline.mock.d.ts:4:5 - error TS2416: Property 'createRecord' in type 'WebApiOfflineMock' is not assignable to the same property in base type 'WebApiOffline'.
Type '(entityLogicalName: string, record: any) => PromiseLike' is not assignable to type '(entityLogicalName: string, record: any) => PromiseLike'.
Type 'PromiseLike' is not assignable to type 'PromiseLike'.

4 createRecord(entityLogicalName: string, record: any): Xrm.Async.PromiseLike;
~~~~~~~~~~~~

node_modules/xrm-mock/dist/xrm-mock/webapionline/webapionline.mock.d.ts:8:5 - error TS2416: Property 'createRecord' in type 'WebApiOnlineMock' is not assignable to the same property in base type 'WebApiOnline'.
Type '(entityLogicalName: string, record: any) => PromiseLike' is not assignable to type '(entityLogicalName: string, record: any) => PromiseLike'.
Type 'PromiseLike' is not assignable to type 'PromiseLike'.

8 createRecord(entityLogicalName: string, record: any): Xrm.Async.PromiseLike;

Not sure if I am doing something incorrectly. Any help please?

Regards,
Jorge.

ForEach shouldn't modify the collection, just call the delegate for each item in the collection. Currently it is mapping the delegate, and updating the collection to the results of the map.

What's the provision to mock the "ExecutionContext" that gets passed as the first parameter of a function called by Dynamics 365?

Hi.

In the code below, I am trying to remove an option from an option set field but when I call getOptions() the option still there.

Code

import { } from "mocha";
import { expect } from "chai";
import { XrmMockGenerator } from "xrm-mock";

describe("On Load Form", () => {
    beforeEach(() => {
        XrmMockGenerator.initialise();
        XrmMockGenerator.Attribute.createOptionSet("countries", 0, [
            { text: "Austria", value: 0 },
            { text: "France", value: 1 },
            { text: "Spain", value: 2 }
        ]);
    });

    it("Filter optionset", () => {
        let formContext = XrmMockGenerator.eventContext.getFormContext();
        let control = formContext.getControl<Xrm.Controls.OptionSetControl>("countries");

        control.removeOption(2);

        let length = formContext.getAttribute<Xrm.Attributes.OptionSetAttribute>("countries").getOptions().length;

        expect(length).to.equal(2);
    });
});

Result

The business process flow tests that I am writing need the "moveNext" function but it throws a not implemented error, I can see that not all functions are implemented

How might I go about stubbing things like this, and are there plans to include in a future release?

Hello,

I'm starting to use this for unit testing my front end code, so I need some help moving forward.

I have a Date attribute that will make an Xrm.WebApi.retrieveMultipleRecords call on the onChange handler. I saw the code sample on how to use sinon to mock the call, but it is sill async and I can't await it since fireOnChange is not "awaitable" (AFAIK).

Please point me in the right direction if there's any techniques or design patterns I'm missing.
Thanks in advace

Hi,

Our app targets Dynamics v8, so we have bunch of tests for v8
At the same time we plan to migrate to v9, so in parallel we update the code and write tests against v9

We use aliases to add both xrm types (v8 and v9)

"@types/xrm8": "npm:@types/xrm@^8.2.8",
"@types/xrm9": "npm:@types/xrm@^9.0.70"

When initializing fake Xrm using XrmMockGenerator.initialize() clientContext in ContextMock can't be created via ClientContextMock because this mock object does not implement "isNetworkAvailable" property
Targeting just "@types/xrm8": "npm:@types/xrm@^8.2.8" because Xrm.Static does not have this "isNetworkAvailable" property in earlier version

Thank you!

Loading all of the files is taking almost 2 seconds... Looks like we should look to build it into a single file:

Dynamics does not have an ability to peek what notifications are set on form.

But for a test it would be helpful to have an ability to check that notifications were indeed set.

getVisbile, setVisible on formselector is not implemented. headersection, footersection on Ui obeject are also available.

How do I write unit testing for the following implementations.

To hide the form selector:

formContext.ui.formSelector.items.forEach((f)=>{
function(f){
f.setVisible(false);
}
}

To deal with footer and header sections.

formContext.ui.headerSection.setBodyVisible(false);
formContext.ui.headersection.setCommandbarVisible(false);
formContext.ui.footerSection.setVisble(false);

I am using following target packages :
"@types/xrm": "9.0.7"
"xrm-mock": "3.4.12",

When compiling the ts files I am getting the following errors:

Error TS2416 (TS) Property 'addOnLoad' in type 'GridControlMock' is not assignable to the same property in base type 'GridControl'.
Type '(handler: () => void) => void' is not assignable to type '(handler: ContextSensitiveHandler) => void'.
Types of parameters 'handler' and 'handler' are incompatible.
node_modules\xrm-mock\dist\xrm-mock\controls\gridcontrol\gridcontrol.mock.d.ts

Error TS2416 (TS) Property 'body' in type 'ExecuteResponseMock' is not assignable to the same property in base type 'ExecuteResponse'.
Type 'string' is not assignable to type 'ReadableStream'.
node_modules\xrm-mock\dist\xrm-mock\executeresponse\executeresponse.mock.d.ts

Error TS2416 (TS) Property 'type' in type 'ExecuteResponseMock' is not assignable to the same property in base type 'ExecuteResponse'.
Type 'string' is not assignable to type 'ResponseType'.
node_modules\xrm-mock\dist\xrm-mock\executeresponse\executeresponse.mock.d.ts

the Mock types should be super sets of the xrm.d.ts types, so people can always cast down, it's just not obvious at times that they can cast up.

Hello @camelCaseDave ,

I saw that you started migration of xrm-mock-generator into this project so I'm gonna put this issue/question here. Are you going to implement creating control along with creating attribute , ie. via XrmMockGenerator.Attribute.createOptionSet method? Xrm.Page.getControl is not working (it returns Cannot read property 'getName' of undefined - in StandardControlMock.prototype.getName = function () { return this.control.getName(); };).

Have a nice day!

When an onSave event is fired, the "getFormContext" method is not implemented in the returned event.

The code below throws an Error with the message "getFormContext not implemented.".

let formContext: Xrm.FormContext;
entity.addOnSave((saveContext: Xrm.Events.SaveEventContext) => {
    formContext = saveContext.getFormContext();
});

entity.save();

There is at least two ways to create controls in xrm-mock:

• implicitly by just running Attribute.createLookup without passing controls parameter (default control is created);
• by explicitly passing ControlComponent to Attribute.createLookup;
• by running Control.createLookup.

But looks like neither of this functions fill getAttribute('name').controls array. This list is useful when we want to apply some validation to all controls of the attribute, for example.

Hi,
The library looks very promising for mocking Xrm .
I am trying to write unit test using jest but "XrmMockGenerator.initialise()" is giving undefined.

Sample code.
var XrmMockGenerator = require('xrm-mock');

test('trying xrm-mock', () => {
var Xrm = XrmMockGenerator.initialise();

});

I see in /src/xrm-mock/navigation/navigation.mock.ts that not all Xrm.Navigation functions are mocked. There's an error message suggesting to use Sinon.JS to stub certain functions, which I am attempting by attempting a very simple test:

it("should stub Xrm.Navigation.navigateTo", function() {
        const navigateToStub = sinon.stub(Xrm.Navigation, "navigateTo");
    });

This results in the following error:

TypeError: Cannot stub non-existent property navigateTo

It's not a deal-breaker even though the method under test navigates to a different entity after a specific function succeeds. It's just out of curiosity that I am trying to figure out how one might stub a function that is not implemented by xrm-mock just yet.

Hi, I have something like this in my controller I would like to test:

formContext.getAttribute("fieldName").controls.forEach(control => control.setVisible(true));

In my test I am setting this field like this:
xrmMockGenerator.XrmMockGenerator.Attribute.createString({
name: "fieldName", // Applies to all attributes
value: false // Applies to all standard attributes, but type is attribute specific
},
[
{
visible: true
}, {
visible: false
}
]
);

function setVisible(true) do nothing. setDisabled(true) works just fine.

Please am I doing something wrong or?

Thank you

What is the correct way to add a statecode attribute to the formContext? I have been creating string attributes as shown in the examples i.e.

const stringAttribute = XrmMockGenerator.Attribute.createString("firstname", "Joe");

Then adding them to the formContext like

context.data.attributes = new ItemCollectionMock([stringAttribute]);

If I try to create a statecode though as below

const statecode = XrmMockGenerator.Attribute.createOptionSet("statecode", 0, [
  { text: "Active", value: 0 },
  { text: "Inactive", value: 1 },
]);

I get an error about a circular reference.

Thanks, Alan

Are there any plans to support the new object model for version 9?

Hi Dave!

I've accidentally came across this repo after checking some of Jason Lattimer's one! :)

I'm running 2 open source projects for Unit testing Dynamics CRM. FakeXrmEasy and FakeXrmEasy.js. First one is pretty mature now and I'll be spending more time on the other one now for mocking web api calls.

Was going to start a new repo for mocking the Xrm Page cause the only one I found was from Patrick Verbateen in CodePlex but it looks abandoned .... until I came across yours!

I think with your xrm mock project, plus the 2 FakeXrmEasy ones, then we're covered in terms of unit testing pretty much any CRM extension :)

Is it possible to remove the reference ///
from page.mock.ts and page.mock.d.ts?

Hi Dave!

Hope all is ok! :)

This is somehow related to #6 .

At the minute trying to build the project against latest version of @types/xrm (9.0.14) breaks the build. However, running against version 9.0.7 works fine.

I think we could use a strict versioning to be added to the dependencies of package.json (i.e. use exactly "9.0.7" instead of "^9.0.7") it would make it more obvious which version this project depends on. And so when we have a version of xrm-mock compatible with latest xrm/types we could upgrade the package accordingly and also any package depending on xrm-mock will use exactly the same.

Any plans to add support for mocking GlobalContext , EventContext etc to be able to mock a form event with executionContext and mock currently logged in user? Any help would be highly appreciated :)

We are using Event and Form Context in our forms, and when writing tests with xrm-mock, the changes that are done in the code are then not reflected in the test.

Here is the test result:
Expected: "Notes (2)" Received: "Notes"

This is how my test looks like:

import { XrmMockGenerator }  from "xrm-mock"
import account from "../account_main"
import * as sinon from "sinon"

describe("account", () => {
    beforeEach(() => {
      XrmMockGenerator.initialise();
    });
   
    it("count notes and update the label", () => {
      XrmMockGenerator.Tab.createTab("notes", "Notes", true);
      var context = XrmMockGenerator.getEventContext();
      
      const stub = sinon.stub(Xrm.WebApi, "retrieveMultipleRecords").resolves({
        entities: ["1", "2"],
        nextLink: null
      });

      account.showAttachmentCount(context);
    
      let tab = context.formContext.ui.tabs.get('notes');

      expect(tab.getLabel()).toBe("Notes (2)"); // Pass
    });
   
});

This is the function that is being tested:

static showAttachmentCount(context: Xrm.Events.EventContext) {
        const formContext = context.getFormContext();

        var filter = "?$select=subject&$filter=_objectid_value eq (" + formContext.data.entity.getId() + ")";

        Xrm.WebApi.retrieveMultipleRecords("annotation", filter).then(notes => {
            if (notes.entities.length > 0) {
                var tab = formContext.ui.tabs.get('notes');
                
                if (tab !== null) {
                    console.log(tab.getLabel());
                    tab.setLabel(tab.getLabel() + ' (' + notes.entities.length.toString() + ')');
                }
            }
        }).catch();
    }

What am I doing wrong here?
Do I need to apply the changes to the context somehow?

When testing a save event handler, it is currently not possible to have the "getSaveEventArgs" function return save modes other than "save", "saveandclose", and "saveandnew".

Event Types:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/powerapps/developer/model-driven-apps/clientapi/reference/save-event-arguments/getsavemode

Given a connection string to a Dynamics CRM organisation and a form ID, xrm-mock-generator could create a fake Xrm object based on the given form.

Removes the need to manually create individual form attributes.