我正在构建一个类库,它将有一些公共和私有方法。我希望能够对私有方法进行单元测试(主要是在开发过程中,但也可以用于将来的重构)。
正确的做法是什么?
我正在构建一个类库,它将有一些公共和私有方法。我希望能够对私有方法进行单元测试(主要是在开发过程中,但也可以用于将来的重构)。
正确的做法是什么?
当前回答
在CodeProject上,有一篇文章简要讨论了测试私有方法的优缺点。然后它提供一些反射代码来访问私有方法(类似于Marcus上面提供的代码)。我在这个示例中发现的唯一问题是代码没有考虑重载方法。
你可以在这里找到文章:
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cs/testnonpublicmembers.aspx
其他回答
JAVA语言
在这里,您可以使用模拟行为覆盖测试类的特定方法。
对于下面的代码:
public class ClassToTest
{
public void methodToTest()
{
Integer integerInstance = new Integer(0);
boolean returnValue= methodToMock(integerInstance);
if(returnValue)
{
System.out.println("methodToMock returned true");
}
else
{
System.out.println("methodToMock returned true");
}
System.out.println();
}
private boolean methodToMock(int value)
{
return true;
}
}
测试类将是:
public class ClassToTestTest{
@Test
public void testMethodToTest(){
new Mockup<ClassToTest>(){
@Mock
private boolean methodToMock(int value){
return true;
}
};
....
}
}
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.
首先,您不应该测试代码的私有方法。你应该测试“公共接口”或API,即类的公共内容。API是所有公开给外部调用者的公共方法。
原因是一旦您开始测试类的私有方法和内部结构,您就将类的实现(私有的东西)耦合到您的测试中。这意味着当您决定更改实现细节时,您也必须更改您的测试。
出于这个原因,你应该避免使用internalsvisibletoattribute。
以下是Ian Cooper关于这个主题的演讲:Ian Cooper: TDD,哪里出了问题
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;
}
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.