由于某些原因，私有类型、内部变量和私有成员是这样的，通常你不想直接打乱它们。如果您这样做了，很可能稍后会崩溃，因为不能保证创建这些程序集的人会保留私有/内部实现。

但是，有时，在对编译或第三方程序集进行一些hack /探索时，我自己最终想要初始化一个私有类或具有私有或内部构造函数的类。或者，有时，在处理无法更改的预编译遗留库时——我最终会针对私有方法编写一些测试。

因此诞生了AccessPrivateWrapper - http://amazedsaint.blogspot.com/2010/05/accessprivatewrapper-c-40-dynamic.html -它是一个快速的包装类，使用c# 4.0的动态特性和反射可以使工作变得容易。

您可以创建内部/私有类型，例如

    //Note that the wrapper is dynamic
    dynamic wrapper = AccessPrivateWrapper.FromType
        (typeof(SomeKnownClass).Assembly,"ClassWithPrivateConstructor");

    //Access the private members
    wrapper.PrivateMethodInPrivateClass();

我还使用了InternalsVisibleToAttribute方法。值得一提的是，如果你为了达到这个目的而将你之前的私有方法变成内部方法，那么也许它们不应该成为直接单元测试的对象。

毕竟，您是在测试类的行为，而不是它的具体实现——您可以在不更改前者的情况下更改后者，并且您的测试仍然应该通过。

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
}

...

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。

如果您想对私有方法进行单元测试，那么可能会出现一些错误。单元测试(一般来说)用于测试类的接口，即类的公共(和受保护)方法。你当然可以“破解”一个解决方案(即使只是通过公开方法)，但你可能还想考虑:

如果您想测试的方法确实值得测试，那么将它移到自己的类中可能是值得的。 向调用私有方法的公共方法添加更多测试，测试私有方法的功能。(正如评论者所指出的，只有当这些私有方法的功能确实是公共接口的一部分时，才应该这样做。如果它们实际上执行对用户隐藏的功能(即单元测试)，这可能是不好的)。

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.