Should BatchWrite<T> implement an interface?

[safv12]

I'm trying to write a unit test to validate the BatchWrite.Execute invocation, but I'm struggling with the mock of the CreateBatchWrite<T> method because I'm not able to instantiate the BatchWrite<T> class.

I'm using Moq to build the mocks, the code looks like:

this.dynamoDbMock
    .Setup(m => m.CreateBatchWrite<SomeType>(It.IsAny<DynamoDBOperationConfig>()))
    .Returns(Mock.Of<BatchWrite<SomeType>>());

But the Returns part is throwing an error because the BatchWrite class does not have a default constructor.

Possible Solution

I think is a good idea to define an interface for the BatchWrite class. In this way, the unit test will be easier to write.

public class BatchWrite<T> : BatchWrite, IBatchWriteOperations

[github-actions]

We have noticed this issue has not recieved attention in a year. We will close this issue for now. If you think this is in error, please feel free to comment and reopen the issue.

[Kralizek]

@ashishdhingra any comment on this? This is just one of many issues regarding the hard testability of code using DynamoDB.

[ashishdhingra]

@ashishdhingra any comment on this? This is just one of many issues regarding the hard testability of code using DynamoDB.

@Kralizek Some DynamoDB revamp work is planned in the coming sprints and this feature request might be included as well. We would post any updates here.

[jakubbujak]

This is one of the worst libraries regarding testability. Shame on you Amazon, shame 😡