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)。

1)如果你有一个遗留代码，那么测试私有方法的唯一方法就是反射。

2)如果它是新代码，那么你有以下选项:

使用反射(使之复杂) 在同一个类中编写单元测试(使生产代码变得丑陋 其中还包含测试代码) 在某种util类中重构并使方法为公共 使用@VisibleForTesting注释并删除private

I prefer the annotation method, simplest and least complicated. The only issue is that we have increased the visibility which I think is not a big concern. We should always be coding to interface, so if we have an interface MyService and an implementation MyServiceImpl then we can have the corresponding test classes that is MyServiceTest (test interface methods) and MyServiceImplTest (test private methods). All clients should anyway be using the interface so in a way even though the visibility of the private method has been increased it should not really matter.

在c#中，您可以使用我下面提供的代码。尽管我认为只有在绝对需要的时候才应该进行私有方法的单元测试。我遇到过一些我觉得有必要这样做的案例。下面是我在UnitTestBase类中创建的一些c#方法，我继承了我的UnitTest类(你也可以把它放在一个静态的“助手”类中)。HTH

protected internal static TResult? InvokePrivateInstanceMethod<TType, TResult>(string methodName, object?[]? methodArguments = null, params object?[]? constructorArguments)
{
    var classType = typeof(TType);
    var instance = Activator.CreateInstance(classType, constructorArguments);
    var privateMethodInfo = classType.GetMethods(BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance)
                                        .FirstOrDefault(m => m.IsPrivate &&
                                            m.Name.Equals(methodName, StringComparison.Ordinal) &&
                                            m.ReturnType.Equals(typeof(TResult)));
 
    if (privateMethodInfo is null)
    {
        throw new MissingMethodException(classType.FullName, methodName);
    }

    var methodResult = privateMethodInfo.Invoke(instance, methodArguments);
    if (methodResult is not null)
    {
        return (TResult)methodResult;
    }

    return default;
}

protected internal static async Task<TResult?> InvokePrivateInstanceMethodAsync<TType, TResult>(string methodName, object?[]? methodArguments = null, params object?[]? constructorArguments)
{
    var classType = typeof(TType);
    var instance = Activator.CreateInstance(classType, constructorArguments);
    var privateMethodInfo = classType.GetMethods(BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance)
                                        .FirstOrDefault(m => m.IsPrivate &&
                                            m.Name.Equals(methodName, StringComparison.Ordinal) &&
                                            m.ReturnType.Equals(typeof(Task<TResult>)));
            
    if (privateMethodInfo is null)
    {
        throw new MissingMethodException(classType.FullName, methodName);
    }

    var methodResult = privateMethodInfo.Invoke(instance, methodArguments);
    if (methodResult is not null)
    {
        return await (Task<TResult>)methodResult;
    }

    return default;
}

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.

测试私有方法可能没有用处。然而，我有时也喜欢从测试方法调用私有方法。大多数时候为了防止代码重复用于测试数据生成…

微软为此提供了两种机制:

访问器

转到类定义的源代码 右键单击类名 选择“创建私有访问器” 选择要在其中创建访问器的项目 你将得到一个名为foo_accessor的新类。 该类将在编译期间动态生成，并提供所有公共成员。

然而，当涉及到原始类的接口更改时，该机制有时有点棘手。所以，大多数时候我避免使用这个。

PrivateObject类 另一种方法是使用microsoft。visualstudio。testtools。unittest。privateobject

// Wrap an already existing instance
PrivateObject accessor = new PrivateObject( objectInstanceToBeWrapped );

// Retrieve a private field
MyReturnType accessiblePrivateField = (MyReturnType) accessor.GetField( "privateFieldName" );

// Call a private method
accessor.Invoke( "PrivateMethodName", new Object[] {/* ... */} );

在我看来，你应该只对类的公共API进行单元测试。

为了对方法进行单元测试，将其设为公共，会破坏封装，暴露实现细节。

一个好的公共API解决了客户端代码的直接目标，并且完全解决了这个目标。