No OnDevice examples in the unit tests project even though the docs say there are

[mrlacey]

The documentation page for OnDeviceExtension says that there "You can find more examples in the unit tests."
I can't find any such tests.

Please can the documentation for this page be updated.

If there are unit tests for this class can the link point to the specific tests rather than the root of the UnitTests directory.
If no tests exist, remove the link and text saying to look for them.

If there really are no such tests, is there an issue somewhere to track adding them? Have there never been tests for this functionality? How much other code in the toolkit is without tests? 😟🤔

---

Document Details

⚠ Do not edit this section. It is required for docs.microsoft.com ➟ GitHub issue linking.

• ID: 60d3b7a7-60dd-a7f9-ec19-742c83c0f8ae
• Version Independent ID: d9167035-d063-39a3-8358-11002de9eaed
• Content: OnDeviceExtension - Windows Community Toolkit
• Content Source: docs/extensions/OnDeviceExtension.md
• Product: community-toolkit
• GitHub Login: @sonnemaf
• Microsoft Alias: mhawker

[Kyaa-dost]

Thanks, @mrlacey for highlighting this issue. Looping in @RosarioPulella and see if he can provide insight on the unit test ⬆️

[michael-hawker]

Yeah, I don't think we had unit tests here. Think this would be hard to add some for, as we'd just be mocking the system API to fake which device is going on...

@mrlacey thoughts on adding unit tests or just removing that section from the doc?

[mrlacey]

@mrlacey thoughts on adding unit tests or just removing that section from the doc?

I'd start by removing that section from the doc.

I found this because I was looking at how this functionality was documented and tested. (Because I'm looking to document and test similar functionality elsewhere.)

I agree that most of the functionality here would have little value from having unit tests added. However, I worry (generally--about all code, not just this repo) that saying "this code is hard to test so we won't do any" is a bad precedent. At the very least, I'd hope any code base with code that can't easily have automated code tests added has written instructions for manual testing of that functionality. Without any kind of documentation for what a piece of functionality is supposed to do (and not do) or how to test it, it makes it increasingly susceptible to becoming broken in the future because it's easy to forget about or not spot edge cases or non-obvious behaviors that someone modifying this in the future may not know about.

For example, does this markup extension work with things other than hardcoded values. (I haven't checked--yet!) What if it does but a future change stops that from working? It's likely that this wouldn't be discovered until someone using it in production reported the break in functionality.

Potential separate issues prompted by thinking about this:
How many other places do the docs have a general pointer to the unit tests when there aren't any?
How many other places do the docs have a general pointer to the unit tests rather than specific examples?
Where is pointing to the unit tests a cop-out for providing useful examples in the docs?

[mrlacey]

I haven't checked--yet!

I have now.
It does work with resources.
But, I can't find a way to get it work with localized content without using code-behind at which point the value of using the markup extension becomes questionable.

[sonnemaf]

Sorry for my late response, I was out of office. It is true that there are no Unit tests. I have no Idea how I would be able to implement this. It should be removed from the docs.