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.

在调试模式下构建时，你也可以将其声明为public或internal(使用InternalsVisibleToAttribute):

    /// <summary>
    /// This Method is private.
    /// </summary>
#if DEBUG
    public
#else
    private
#endif
    static string MyPrivateMethod()
    {
        return "false";
    }

它使代码膨胀，但在发布版本中它将是私有的。

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.

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。

在极少数情况下，我想要测试私有函数，我通常会将它们修改为受保护的，并且我已经编写了一个带有公共包装器函数的子类。

类:

...

protected void APrivateFunction()
{
    ...
}

...

测试子类:

...

[Test]
public void TestAPrivateFunction()
{
    APrivateFunction();
    //or whatever testing code you want here
}

...

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