正如许多人已经指出的那样，尽管您想要测试私有方法，但您不应该通过修改代码或编译器来让它为您工作。现代的TypeScript会拒绝人们迄今为止提供的大部分hack。

解决方案

TLDR;如果一个方法需要测试，那么您应该将代码解耦到一个类中，以便将该方法公开以供测试。

你拥有私有方法的原因是因为功能不一定属于那个类，因此如果功能不属于那里，它应该解耦到它自己的类中。

例子

我偶然看到了这篇文章，它很好地解释了应该如何处理私有方法的测试。它甚至涵盖了这里的一些方法，以及为什么它们是糟糕的实现。

https://patrickdesjardins.com/blog/how-to-unit-test-private-method-in-typescript-part-2

注意:这段代码摘自上面链接的博客(我复制了以防链接后面的内容发生变化)

之前

class User {
    public getUserInformationToDisplay() {
        //...
        this.getUserAddress();
        //...
    }
 
    private getUserAddress() {
        //...
        this.formatStreet();
        //...
    }

    private formatStreet() {
        //...
    }
}

后

class User {
    private address: Address;

    public getUserInformationToDisplay() {
        //...
        address.format();
        //...
    }
}

class Address {
    private format: StreetFormatter;

    public format() {
        //...
        format.toString();
        //...
    }
}

class StreetFormatter {
    public toString() {
        // ...
    }
}

结束笔记

You can implicitly test your private methods by making sure that conditions are met such that the code is called through the public interface. If the public interface does not call out to the private methods then that code is not providing any function and should be removed. In the example above there should be some effect that calling the private method should return ie: an object with an address. If there's not, for example the code emits an event in a private method, then you should start looking to decouple that so that it can be tested -- even in that example you would likely listen/subscribe to that event and would be able to test it that way. Decoupling leads to better testability and easier code maintenance later down the road as well.

Aaron的答案是最好的，对我来说也很有用:) 我会给它投票，但遗憾的是我不能(失去声誉)。

我不得不说，测试私有方法是使用它们并在另一方面有干净代码的唯一方法。

例如:

class Something {
  save(){
    const data = this.getAllUserData()
    if (this.validate(data))
      this.sendRequest(data)
  }
  private getAllUserData () {...}
  private validate(data) {...}
  private sendRequest(data) {...}
}

不一次测试所有这些方法是很有意义的，因为我们需要模拟出那些私有方法，我们不能模拟出来，因为我们不能访问它们。这意味着我们需要对一个单元测试进行大量的配置，以将其作为一个整体进行测试。

这就是说，测试上述方法的所有依赖关系的最佳方法是端到端测试，因为这里需要集成测试，但如果您正在实践TDD(测试驱动开发)，则端到端测试对您没有帮助，但测试任何方法都有帮助。

由于大多数开发人员不建议测试私有函数，为什么不测试它呢?

Eg.

YourClass.ts

export class FooBar {
  private _status: number;

  constructor( private foo : Bar ) {
    this.initFooBar({});
  }

  private initFooBar(data){
    this.foo.bar( data );
    this._status = this.foo.foo();
  }
}

TestYourClass.spec.ts

describe("Testing foo bar for status being set", function() {

...

//Variable with type any
let fooBar;

fooBar = new FooBar();

...
//Method 1
//Now this will be visible
fooBar.initFooBar();

//Method 2
//This doesn't require variable with any type
fooBar['initFooBar'](); 
...
}

感谢@Aaron， @Thierry Templier。

我同意你的观点，尽管“只对公共API进行单元测试”是一个很好的目标，但有时它看起来并不那么简单，你会觉得你在API和单元测试之间做出选择。你已经知道了，因为这正是你想要做的，所以我就不多说了。:)

在TypeScript中，我发现了一些为了单元测试而访问私有成员的方法。考虑这个类:

class MyThing {

    private _name:string;
    private _count:number;

    constructor() {
        this.init("Test", 123);
    }

    private init(name:string, count:number){
        this._name = name;
        this._count = count;
    }

    public get name(){ return this._name; }

    public get count(){ return this._count; }

}

尽管TS使用private、protected、public来限制对类成员的访问，但编译后的JS没有private成员，因为这在JS中是不存在的。它纯粹用于TS编译器。因此:

You can assert to any and escape the compiler from warning you about access restrictions: (thing as any)._name = "Unit Test"; (thing as any)._count = 123; (thing as any).init("Unit Test", 123); The problem with this approach is that the compiler simply has no idea what you are doing right of the any, so you don't get desired type errors: (thing as any)._name = 123; // wrong, but no error (thing as any)._count = "Unit Test"; // wrong, but no error (thing as any).init(0, "123"); // wrong, but no error This will obviously make refactoring more difficult. You can use array access ([]) to get at the private members: thing["_name"] = "Unit Test"; thing["_count"] = 123; thing["init"]("Unit Test", 123); While it looks funky, TSC will actually validate the types as if you accessed them directly: thing["_name"] = 123; // type error thing["_count"] = "Unit Test"; // type error thing["init"](0, "123"); // argument error To be honest I don't know why this works. This is apparently an intentional "escape hatch" to give you access to private members without losing type safety. This is exactly what I think you want for your unit-testing.

下面是TypeScript Playground中的一个工作示例。

编辑为TypeScript 2.6

另一个选项是使用// @ts-ignore(在TS 2.6中添加)，它简单地抑制了下面一行的所有错误:

// @ts-ignore
thing._name = "Unit Test";

这样做的问题是，它抑制了下面一行的所有错误:

// @ts-ignore
thing._name(123).this.should.NOT.beAllowed("but it is") = window / {};

我个人认为@ts-ignore是一种代码气味，正如文档所说:

我们建议您尽量少使用这些注释。(强调原创)

这招对我很管用:

而不是:

sut.myPrivateMethod();

这样的:

sut['myPrivateMethod']();

“不要测试私有方法”的重点实际上是像使用它的人那样测试类。

如果你有一个带有5个方法的公共API，你的类的任何消费者都可以使用这些方法，因此你应该测试它们。使用者不应该访问类的私有方法/属性，这意味着在公共公开功能保持不变的情况下，可以更改私有成员。

如果依赖内部可扩展功能，请使用protected而不是private。 注意protected仍然是一个公共API(!)，只是使用方式不同。

class OverlyComplicatedCalculator {
    public add(...numbers: number[]): number {
        return this.calculate((a, b) => a + b, numbers);
    }
    // can't be used or tested via ".calculate()", but it is still part of your public API!
    protected calculate(operation, operands) {
        let result = operands[0];
        for (let i = 1; i < operands.length; operands++) {
            result = operation(result, operands[i]);
        }
        return result;
    }
}

单元测试保护的属性与消费者使用它们的方式相同，通过子类化:

it('should be extensible via calculate()', () => {
    class TestCalculator extends OverlyComplicatedCalculator {
        public testWithArrays(array: any[]): any[] {
            const concat = (a, b) => [].concat(a, b);
            // tests the protected method
            return this.calculate(concat, array);
        }
    }
    let testCalc = new TestCalculator();
    let result = testCalc.testWithArrays([1, 'two', 3]);
    expect(result).toEqual([1, 'two', 3]);
});