[c#] Unit testing private methods in C#

Visual Studio allows unit testing of private methods via an automatically generated accessor class. I have written a test of a private method that compiles successfully, but it fails at runtime. A fairly minimal version of the code and the test is:

//in project MyProj
class TypeA
{
    private List<TypeB> myList = new List<TypeB>();

    private class TypeB
    {
        public TypeB()
        {
        }
    }

    public TypeA()
    {
    }

    private void MyFunc()
    {
        //processing of myList that changes state of instance
    }
}    

//in project TestMyProj           
public void MyFuncTest()
{
    TypeA_Accessor target = new TypeA_Accessor();
    //following line is the one that throws exception
    target.myList.Add(new TypeA_Accessor.TypeB());
    target.MyFunc();

    //check changed state of target
}

The runtime error is:

Object of type System.Collections.Generic.List`1[MyProj.TypeA.TypeA_Accessor+TypeB]' cannot be converted to type 'System.Collections.Generic.List`1[MyProj.TypeA.TypeA+TypeB]'.

According to intellisense - and hence I guess the compiler - target is of type TypeA_Accessor. But at runtime it is of type TypeA, and hence the list add fails.

Is there any way I can stop this error? Or, perhaps more likely, what other advice do other people have (I predict maybe "don't test private methods" and "don't have unit tests manipulate the state of objects").

Extract private method to another class, test on that class; read more about SRP principle (Single Responsibility Principle)

It seem that you need extract to the private method to another class; in this should be public. Instead of trying to test on the private method, you should test public method of this another class.

We has the following scenario:

Class A
+ outputFile: Stream
- _someLogic(arg1, arg2) 

We need to test the logic of _someLogic; but it seem that Class A take more role than it need(violate the SRP principle); just refactor into two classes

Class A1
    + A1(logicHandler: A2) # take A2 for handle logic
    + outputFile: Stream
Class A2
    + someLogic(arg1, arg2) 

In this way someLogic could be test on A2; in A1 just create some fake A2 then inject to constructor to test that A2 is called to the function named someLogic.

“There is nothing called as standard or best practice, probably they are just popular opinions”.

Same holds true for this discussion as well.

It all depends on what you think is a unit , if you think UNIT is a class then you will only hit the public method. If you think UNIT is lines of code hitting private methods will not make you feel guilty.

If you want to invoke private methods you can use "PrivateObject" class and call the invoke method. You can watch this indepth youtube video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vq6Gcs9LrPQ ) which shows how to use "PrivateObject" and also discusses if testing of private methods are logical or not.

You can use PrivateObject Class

Class target = new Class();
PrivateObject obj = new PrivateObject(target);
var retVal = obj.Invoke("PrivateMethod");
Assert.AreEqual(expectedVal, retVal);

Note: PrivateObject and PrivateType are not available for projects targeting netcoreapp2.0 - GitHub Issue 366

One way to test private methods is through reflection. This applies to NUnit and XUnit, too:

MyObject objUnderTest = new MyObject();
MethodInfo methodInfo = typeof(MyObject).GetMethod("SomePrivateMethod", BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance);
object[] parameters = {"parameters here"};
methodInfo.Invoke(objUnderTest, parameters);

In VS 2005/2008 you can use private accessor to test private member,but this way was disappear in later version of VS

Another thought here is to extend testing to "internal" classes/methods, giving more of a white-box sense of this testing. You can use InternalsVisibleToAttribute on the assembly to expose these to separate unit testing modules.

In combination with sealed class you can approach such encapsulation that test method are visible only from unittest assembly your methods. Consider that protected method in sealed class is de facto private.

[assembly: InternalsVisibleTo("MyCode.UnitTests")]
namespace MyCode.MyWatch
{
    #pragma warning disable CS0628 //invalid because of InternalsVisibleTo
    public sealed class MyWatch
    {
        Func<DateTime> _getNow = delegate () { return DateTime.Now; };


       //construktor for testing purposes where you "can change DateTime.Now"
       internal protected MyWatch(Func<DateTime> getNow)
       {
           _getNow = getNow;
       }

       public MyWatch()
       {            
       }
   }
}

And unit test:

namespace MyCode.UnitTests
{

[TestMethod]
public void TestminuteChanged()
{
    //watch for traviling in time
    DateTime baseTime = DateTime.Now;
    DateTime nowforTesting = baseTime;
    Func<DateTime> _getNowForTesting = delegate () { return nowforTesting; };

    MyWatch myWatch= new MyWatch(_getNowForTesting );
    nowforTesting = baseTime.AddMinute(1); //skip minute
    //TODO check myWatch
}

[TestMethod]
public void TestStabilityOnFebruary29()
{
    Func<DateTime> _getNowForTesting = delegate () { return new DateTime(2024, 2, 29); };
    MyWatch myWatch= new MyWatch(_getNowForTesting );
    //component does not crash in overlap year
}
}

Ermh... Came along here with exactly the same problem: Test a simple, but pivotal private method. After reading this thread, it appears to be like "I want to drill this simple hole in this simple piece of metal, and I want to make sure the quality meets the specs", and then comes "Okay, this is not to easy. First of all, there is no proper tool to do so, but you could build a gravitational-wave observatory in your garden. Read my article at http://foobar.brigther-than-einstein.org/ First, of course, you have to attend some advanced quantum physics courses, then you need tons of ultra-cool nitrogenium, and then, of course, my book available at Amazon"...

In other words...

No, first things first.

Each and every method, may it private, internal, protected, public has to be testable. There has to be a way to implement such tests without such ado as was presented here.

Why? Exactly because of the architectural mentions done so far by some contributors. Perhaps a simple reiteration of software principles may clear up some missunderstandings.

In this case, the usual suspects are: OCP, SRP, and, as always, KIS.

But wait a minute. The idea of making everything publicly available is more of less political and a kind of an attitude. But. When it comes to code, even in then Open Source Community, this is no dogma. Instead, "hiding" something is good practice to make it easier to come familiar with a certain API. You would hide, for example, the very core calculations of your new-to-market digital thermometer building block--not to hide the maths behind the real measured curve to curious code readers, but to prevent your code from becoming dependent on some, perhaps suddenly important users who could not resist using your formerly private, internal, protected code to implement their own ideas.

What am I talking about?

private double TranslateMeasurementIntoLinear(double actualMeasurement);

It's easy to proclaim the Age of Aquarius or what is is been called nowadays, but if my piece of sensor gets from 1.0 to 2.0, the implementation of Translate... might change from a simple linear equation that is easily understandable and "re-usable" for everybody, to a pretty sophisticated calculation that uses analysis or whatever, and so I would break other's code. Why? Because they didn't understand the very priciples of software coding, not even KIS.

To make this fairy tale short: We need a simple way to test private methods--without ado.

First: Happy new year everyone!

Second: Rehearse your architect lessons.

Third: The "public" modifier is religion, not a solution.

From the book Working Effectively with Legacy Code:

"If we need to test a private method, we should make it public. If making it public bothers us, in most cases, it means that our class is doing too much and we ought to fix it."

The way to fix it, according to the author, is by creating a new class and adding the method as public.

The author explains further:

"Good design is testable, and design that isn't testable is bad."

So, within these limits, your only real option is to make the method public, either in the current or a new class.

Another option that has not been mentioned is just creating the unit test class as a child of the object that you are testing. NUnit Example:

[TestFixture]
public class UnitTests : ObjectWithPrivateMethods
{
    [Test]
    public void TestSomeProtectedMethod()
    {
        Assert.IsTrue(this.SomeProtectedMethod() == true, "Failed test, result false");
    }
}

This would allow easy testing of private and protected (but not inherited private) methods, and it would allow you to keep all your tests separate from the real code so you aren't deploying test assemblies to production. Switching your private methods to protected methods would be acceptable in a lot of inherited objects, and it is a pretty simple change to make.

HOWEVER...

While this is an interesting approach to solving the problem of how to test hidden methods, I am unsure that I would advocate that this is the correct solution to the problem in all cases. It seems a little odd to be internally testing an object, and I suspect there might be some scenarios that this approach will blow up on you. (Immutable objects for example, might make some tests really hard).

While I mention this approach, I would suggest that this is more of a brainstormed suggestion than a legitimate solution. Take it with a grain of salt.

EDIT: I find it truly hilarious that people are voting this answer down, since I explicitly describe this as a bad idea. Does that mean that people are agreeing with me? I am so confused.....