我想在这里创建一个清晰的代码示例，您可以在任何想要测试私有方法的类上使用它。

在您的测试用例类中只包括这些方法，然后按照指示使用它们。

  /**
   *
   * @var Class_name_of_class_you_want_to_test_private_methods_in
   * note: the actual class and the private variable to store the 
   * class instance in, should at least be different case so that
   * they do not get confused in the code.  Here the class name is
   * is upper case while the private instance variable is all lower
   * case
   */
  private $class_name_of_class_you_want_to_test_private_methods_in;

  /**
   * This uses reflection to be able to get private methods to test
   * @param $methodName
   * @return ReflectionMethod
   */
  protected static function getMethod($methodName) {
    $class = new ReflectionClass('Class_name_of_class_you_want_to_test_private_methods_in');
    $method = $class->getMethod($methodName);
    $method->setAccessible(true);
    return $method;
  }

  /**
   * Uses reflection class to call private methods and get return values.
   * @param $methodName
   * @param array $params
   * @return mixed
   *
   * usage:     $this->_callMethod('_someFunctionName', array(param1,param2,param3));
   *  {params are in
   *   order in which they appear in the function declaration}
   */
  protected function _callMethod($methodName, $params=array()) {
    $method = self::getMethod($methodName);
    return $method->invokeArgs($this->class_name_of_class_you_want_to_test_private_methods_in, $params);
  }

$this->_callMethod（'_someFunctionName'， array（param1，param2，param3））;

只需要按照它们在原始私有函数中出现的顺序发出参数

有时，测试私有声明是很好的。 基本上，编译器只有一个公共方法:Compile(string outputFileName, params string[] sourceSFileNames)。我相信您可以理解，如果不测试每个“隐藏”声明，就很难测试这样的方法!

这就是为什么我们创建了Visual t#:来简化测试。它是一个免费的。net编程语言(兼容c# v2.0)。

我们增加了‘。——“操作符。它就像'。操作符，除了您还可以从测试中访问任何隐藏的声明，而无需更改已测试项目中的任何内容。

看看我们的网站:免费下载。

我很惊讶还没有人说过这一点，但我采用的一个解决方案是在类内部创建一个静态方法来测试自身。这使您可以访问用于测试的所有公共和私有内容。

此外，在脚本语言(具有OO功能，如Python、Ruby和PHP)中，您可以在运行时对文件本身进行测试。确保您的更改不会破坏任何东西的快速方法。这显然为测试所有类提供了可伸缩的解决方案:只需运行所有类即可。(你也可以用void main在其他语言中这样做，它也总是运行它的测试)。

对于任何想要运行私有方法的人来说。这适用于任何单元测试框架，只使用旧的Reflection。

public class ReflectionTools
{
    // If the class is non-static
    public static Object InvokePrivate(Object objectUnderTest, string method, params object[] args)
    {
        Type t = objectUnderTest.GetType();
        return t.InvokeMember(method,
            BindingFlags.InvokeMethod |
            BindingFlags.NonPublic |
            BindingFlags.Instance |
            BindingFlags.Static,
            null,
            objectUnderTest,
            args);
    }
    // if the class is static
    public static Object InvokePrivate(Type typeOfObjectUnderTest, string method, params object[] args)
    {
        MemberInfo[] members = typeOfObjectUnderTest.GetMembers(BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Static);
        foreach(var member in members)
        {
            if (member.Name == method)
            {
                return typeOfObjectUnderTest.InvokeMember(method, BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Static | BindingFlags.InvokeMethod, null, typeOfObjectUnderTest, args);
            }
        }
        return null;
    }
}

然后在你的实际测试中，你可以这样做:

Assert.AreEqual( 
  ReflectionTools.InvokePrivate(
    typeof(StaticClassOfMethod), 
    "PrivateMethod"), 
  "Expected Result");

Assert.AreEqual( 
  ReflectionTools.InvokePrivate(
    new ClassOfMethod(), 
    "PrivateMethod"), 
  "Expected Result");

MbUnit有一个很好的包装，叫做Reflector。

Reflector dogReflector = new Reflector(new Dog());
dogReflector.Invoke("DreamAbout", DogDream.Food);

您还可以从属性中设置和获取值

dogReflector.GetProperty("Age");

关于“私人测试”，我同意…在完美的世界里。做私有单元测试是没有意义的。但在现实世界中，您可能最终希望编写私有测试，而不是重构代码。

I don't agree with the "you should only be interested in testing the external interface" philosophy. It's a bit like saying that a car repair shop should only have tests to see if the wheels turn. Yes, ultimately I'm interested in the external behavior but I like my own, private, internal tests to be a bit more specific and to the point. Yes, if I refactor, I may have to change some of the tests, but unless it's a massive refactor, I'll only have to change a few and the fact that the other (unchanged) internal tests still work is a great indicator that the refactoring has been successful.

You can try to cover all internal cases using only the public interface and theoretically it's possible to test every internal method (or at least every one that matters) entirely by using the public interface but you may have to end up standing on your head to achieve this and the connection between the test cases being run through the public interface and the internal portion of the solution they're designed to test may be difficult or impossible to discern. Having pointed, individual tests that guarantee that the internal machinery is working properly is well worth the minor test changes that come about with refactoring - at least that's been my experience. If you have to make huge changes to your tests for every refactoring, then maybe this doesn't make sense, but in that case, maybe you ought to rethink your design entirely. A good design should be flexible enough to allow for most changes without massive redesigns.