这里有一篇关于私有方法单元测试的好文章。但是我不知道哪个更好，是让你的应用程序专门为测试而设计(就像只为测试而创建测试)还是使用反射来测试。 我敢肯定大多数人都会选择第二种方式。

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");

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

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.

如果你正在使用。net，你应该使用InternalsVisibleToAttribute。

我认为应该问的一个更基本的问题是，为什么要首先测试私有方法。这是一种代码气味，你试图通过类的公共接口测试私有方法，而该方法是私有的，因为它是一个实现细节。人们应该只关心公共接口的行为，而不是它在背后是如何实现的。

如果我想测试私有方法的行为，通过使用公共重构，我可以将其代码提取到另一个类中(可能具有包级可见性，以确保它不是公共API的一部分)。然后我可以单独测试它的行为。

重构的产物意味着私有方法现在是一个独立的类，它已经成为原始类的合作者。通过它自己的单元测试，它的行为将被很好地理解。

然后，当我试图测试原始类时，我可以模拟它的行为，这样我就可以集中精力测试该类公共接口的行为，而不必测试公共接口的组合爆炸及其所有私有方法的行为。

我认为这类似于开车。当我开车时，我不会把引擎盖打开，这样我就能看到发动机在工作。我依靠汽车提供的接口，即转速计数器和速度计来知道发动机是否在工作。我依靠的是当我踩下油门踏板时，汽车实际上在移动。如果我想测试引擎，我可以单独检查它。: D

当然，如果您有遗留应用程序，直接测试私有方法可能是最后的手段，但我更希望对遗留代码进行重构，以实现更好的测试。迈克尔·费瑟就这个主题写了一本很棒的书。http://www.amazon.co.uk/Working-Effectively-Legacy-Robert-Martin/dp/0131177052