这里有一个例子，首先是方法签名:

private string[] SplitInternal()
{
    return Regex.Matches(Format, @"([^/\[\]]|\[[^]]*\])+")
                        .Cast<Match>()
                        .Select(m => m.Value)
                        .Where(s => !string.IsNullOrEmpty(s))
                        .ToArray();
}

下面是测试:

/// <summary>
///A test for SplitInternal
///</summary>
[TestMethod()]
[DeploymentItem("Git XmlLib vs2008.dll")]
public void SplitInternalTest()
{
    string path = "pair[path/to/@Key={0}]/Items/Item[Name={1}]/Date";
    object[] values = new object[] { 2, "Martin" };
    XPathString xp = new XPathString(path, values);

    PrivateObject param0 = new PrivateObject(xp);
    XPathString_Accessor target = new XPathString_Accessor(param0);
    string[] expected = new string[] {
        "pair[path/to/@Key={0}]",
        "Items",
        "Item[Name={1}]",
        "Date"
    };
    string[] actual;
    actual = target.SplitInternal();
    CollectionAssert.AreEqual(expected, actual);
}

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

有时，测试私有声明是很好的。 基本上，编译器只有一个公共方法:Compile(string outputFileName, params string[] sourceSFileNames)。我相信您可以理解，如果不测试每个“隐藏”声明，就很难测试这样的方法!

这就是为什么我们创建了Visual t#:来简化测试。它是一个免费的。net编程语言(兼容c# v2.0)。

我们增加了‘。——“操作符。它就像'。操作符，除了您还可以从测试中访问任何隐藏的声明，而无需更改已测试项目中的任何内容。

看看我们的网站:免费下载。

将它们声明为内部的，然后使用InternalsVisibleToAttribute允许单元测试程序集看到它们。

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.