Should I test private methods or only public ones

Question

I have read this post about how to test private methods  I usually do not test them  because I always thought it s faster to test only public methods that will be called from outside the object  Do you test private methods  Should I always test them

User · Answer

I am not an expert in this field  but unit testing should test behaviour  not implementation  Private methods are strictly part of the implementation  so IMHO should not be tested

User · Answer

I understand the point of view where private methods are considered as implementations details and then don t have to be tested  And I would stick with this rule if we had to develop outside of the object only  But us  are we some kind of restricted developers who are developing only outside of objects  calling only their public methods  Or are we actually also developing that object  As we are not bound to program outside objects  we will probably have to call those private methods into new public ones we are developing  Wouldn t it be great to know that the private method resist against all odds   I know some people could answer that if we are developing another public method into that object then this one should be tested and that s it  the private method could carry on living without test   But this is also true for any public methods of an object  when developing a web app  all the public methods of an object are called from controllers methods and hence could be considered as implementation details for controllers   So why are we unit testing objects  Because it is really difficult  not to say impossible to be sure that we are testing the controllers  methods with the appropriate input which will trigger all the branches of the underlying code  In other words  the higher we are in the stack  the more difficult it is to test all the behaviour  And so is the same for private methods   To me the frontier between private and public methods is a psychologic criteria when it comes to tests  Criteria which matters more to me are     is the method called more than once from different places  is the method sophisticated enough to require tests

User · Answer

I kind of feel compelled to test private functions as I am following more and more one of our latest QA recommendation in our project      No more than 10 in cyclomatic complexity per function    Now the side effect of the enforcing of this policy is that many of my very large public functions get divided in many more focused  better named private function  The public function still there  of course  but is essentially reduced to called all those private  sub-functions   That is actually cool  because the callstack is now much easier to read  instead of a bug within a large function  I have a bug in a sub-sub-function with the name of the previous functions in the callstack to help me to understand  how I got there    However  it now seem easier to unit-test directly those private functions  and leave the testing of the large public function to some kind of  integration  test where a scenario needs to be addressed   Just my 2 cents

User · Answer

If you are developing test driven  TDD   you will test your private methods

User · Answer

One main point is  If we test to ensure the correctness of the logic  and a private method is carrying a logic  we should test it  Isn t it  So why are we going to skip that   Writing tests based on the visibility of methods is completely irrelevant idea    Conversely  On the other hand  calling a private method outside the original class is a main problem  And also there are limitations to mock a private method in some mocking tools   Ex  Mockito   Though there are some tools like Power Mock which supports that  it is a dangerous operation  The reason is it needs to hack the JVM to achieve that   One work around that can be done is  If you want to write test cases for private methods   Declare those private methods as protected  But it may not be convenient for several situations

User · Answer

Yes you should test private methods  wherever possible  Why  To avoid an unnecessary state space explosion of test cases which ultimately just end up implicitly testing the same private functions repeatedly on the same inputs  Let s explain why with an example   Consider the following slightly contrived example  Suppose we want to expose publicly a function that takes 3 integers and returns true if and only if those 3 integers are all prime  We might implement it like this   public bool allPrime int a  int b  int c      return andAll isPrime a   isPrime b   isPrime c      private bool andAll bool    boolArray      foreach  bool b in boolArray          if b    false  return false        return true     private bool isPrime int x       Implementation to go here  Sorry if you were expecting a prime sieve      Now  if we were to take the strict approach that only public functions should be tested  we d only be allowed to test allPrime and not isPrime or andAll   As a tester  we might be interested in five possibilities for each argument   lt  0    0    1  prime  gt  1  not prime  gt  1  But to be thorough  we d have to also see how every combination of the arguments plays together  So that s 5 5 5   125 test cases we d need to thoroughly test this function  according to our intuitions   On the other hand  if we were allowed to test the private functions  we could cover as much ground with fewer test cases  We d need only 5 test cases to test isPrime to the same level as our previous intuition  And by the small scope hypothesis proposed by Daniel Jackson  we d only need to test the andAll function up to a small length e g  3 or 4  Which would be at most 16 more tests  So 21 tests in total  Instead of 125  Of course  we probably would want to run a few tests on allPrime  but we wouldn t feel so obliged to cover exhaustively all 125 combinations of input scenarios we said we cared about  Just a few happy paths   A contrived example  for sure  but it was necessary for a clear demonstration  And the pattern extends to real software  Private functions are usually the lowest level building blocks  and are thus often combined together to yield higher level logic  Meaning at higher levels  we have more repetitions of the lower level stuff due to the various combinations

User · Answer

What is the purpose of testing   The majority of the answers so far are saying that private methods are implementation details which don t  or at least shouldn t  matter so long as the public interface is well-tested and working   That s absolutely correct if your only purpose for testing is to guarantee that the public interface works   Personally  my primary use for code tests is to ensure that future code changes don t cause problems and to aid my debugging efforts if they do   I find that testing the private methods just as thoroughly as the public interface  if not more so   furthers that purpose   Consider   You have public method A which calls private method B   A and B both make use of method C   C is changed  perhaps by you  perhaps by a vendor   causing A to start failing its tests   Wouldn t it be useful to have tests for B also  even though it s private  so that you know whether the problem is in A s use of C  B s use of C  or both   Testing private methods also adds value in cases where test coverage of the public interface is incomplete   While this is a situation we generally want to avoid  the efficiency unit testing depends both on the tests finding bugs and the associated development and maintenance costs of those tests  In some cases  the benefits of 100  test coverage may be judged insufficient to warrant the costs of those tests  producing gaps in the public interface s test coverage  In such cases  a well-targeted test of a private method can be a very effective addition to the code base

User · Answer

We test private methods by inference  by which I mean we look for total class test coverage of at least 95   but only have our tests call into public or internal methods   To get the coverage  we need to make multiple calls to the public internals based on the different scenarios that may occur   This makes our tests more intentful around the purpose of the code they are testing   Trumpi s answer to the post you linked is the best one

User · Answer

The answer to  Should I test private methods   is         sometimes    Typically you should be testing against the interface of your classes     One of the reasons is because you do not need double coverage for a feature   Another reason is that if you change private methods  you will have to update each test for them  even if the interface of your object hasn t changed at all    Here is an example   class Thing   def some string     one   two   end    private     def one      aaaa    end    def two      bbbb    end  end   class RefactoredThing def some string     one   one a   two   two b   end    private     def one      aa    end    def one a      aa    end    def two      bb    end    def two b      bb    end end   In RefactoredThing you now have 5 tests  2 of which you had to update for refactoring  but your object s functionality really hasn t changed   So let s say that things are more complex than that and you have some method that defines the order of the output such as    def some string positioner   if some case   elsif other case   elsif other case   elsif other case   else one more case   end end   This shouldn t be run by an outside user  but your encapsulating class may be to heavy to run that much logic through it over and over again  In this case maybe you would rather extract this into a seperate class  give that class an interface and test against it   And finally  let s say that your main object is super heavy  and the method is quite small and you really need to ensure that the output is correct   You are thinking   I have to test this private method    Have you that maybe you can make your object lighter by passing in some of the heavy work as an initialization parameter   Then you can pass something lighter in and test against that

User · Answer

I never understand the concept of Unit Test but now I know what it s the objective   A Unit Test is not a complete test  So  it s not a replacement for QA and manual test    The concept of TDD in this aspect is wrong since you can t test everything  including private methods but also  methods that use resources  especially resources that we don t have control   TDD is basing all its quality is something that it could not be achieved   A Unit test is more a pivot test  You mark some arbitrary pivot and the result of pivot should stay the same

User · Answer

If your private method is not tested by calling your public methods then what is it doing  I m talking private not protected or friend

User · Answer

If the method is significant enough complex enough   I ll usually make it  protected  and test it  Some methods will be left private and tested implicitly as part of unit tests for the public protected methods

User · Answer

Unit tests I believe are for testing public methods  Your public methods use your private methods  so indirectly they are also getting tested

User · Answer

I do not like testing private functionality for a couple of reasons  They are as follows  these are the main points for the TLDR people    Typically when you re tempted to test a class s private method  it s a design smell  You can test them through the public interface  which is how you want to test them  because that s how the client will call use them   You can get a false sense of security by seeing the green light on all the passing tests for your private methods  It is much better safer to test edge cases on your private functions through your public interface  You risk severe test duplication  tests that look feel very similar  by testing private methods  This has major consequences when requirements change  as many more tests than necessary will break  It can also put you in a position where it is hard to refactor because of your test suite   which is the ultimate irony  because the test suite is there to help you safely redesign and refactor   I ll explain each of these with a concrete example  It turns out that 2  and 3  are somewhat intricately connected  so their example is similar  although I consider them separate reasons why you shouldn t test private methods  There are times testing private methods is appropriate  it s just important to be aware of the downsides listed above  I m going to go over it in more detail later  I also go over why TDD is not a valid excuse for testing private methods at the very end  Refactoring your way out of a bad design One of the most common  anti paterns that I see is what Michael Feathers calls an  quot Iceberg quot  class  if you don t know who Michael Feathers is  go buy read his book  quot Working Effectively with Legacy Code quot   He is a person worth knowing about if you are a professional software engineer developer   There are other  anti patterns that cause this issue to crop up  but this is by far the most common one I ve stumbled across   quot Iceberg quot  classes have one public method  and the rest are private  which is why it s tempting to test the private methods   It s called an  quot Iceberg quot  class because there is usually a lone public method poking up  but the rest of the functionality is hidden underwater in the form of private methods  It might look something like this   For example  you might want to test GetNextToken   by calling it on a string successively and seeing that it returns the expected result  A function like this does warrant a test  that behavior isn t trivial  especially if your tokenizing rules are complex  Let s pretend it s not all that complex  and we just want to rope in tokens delimited by space  So you write a test  maybe it looks something like this  some language agnostic psuedo-code  hopefully the idea is clear   TEST THAT RuleEvaluator  canParseSpaceDelimtedTokens        input string    quot 1 2 test bar quot      re   RuleEvaluator input string        ASSERT re GetNextToken   IS  quot 1 quot       ASSERT re GetNextToken   IS  quot 2 quot       ASSERT re GetNextToken   IS  quot test quot       ASSERT re GetNextToken   IS  quot bar quot       ASSERT re HasMoreTokens   IS FALSE     Well  that actually looks pretty nice  We d want to make sure we maintain this behavior as we make changes  But GetNextToken   is a private function  So we can t test it like this  because it wont even compile  assuming we are using some language that actually enforces public private  unlike some scripting languages like Python   But what about changing the RuleEvaluator class to follow the Single Responsibility Principle  Single Responsibility Principle   For instance  we seem to have a parser  tokenizer  and evaluator jammed into one class  Wouldn t it be better to just separate those responsibilities  On top of that  if you create a Tokenizer class  then it s public methods would be HasMoreTokens   and GetNextTokens    The RuleEvaluator class could have a Tokenizer object as a member  Now  we can keep the same test as above  except we are testing the Tokenizer class instead of the RuleEvaluator class  Here s what it might look like in UML   Note that this new design increases modularity  so you could potentially re-use these classes in other parts of your system  before you couldn t  private methods aren t reusable by definition   This is main advantage of breaking the RuleEvaluator down  along with increased understandability locality  The test would look extremely similar  except it would actually compile this time since the GetNextToken   method is now public on the Tokenizer class  TEST THAT Tokenizer  canParseSpaceDelimtedTokens        input string    quot 1 2 test bar quot      tokenizer   Tokenizer input string        ASSERT tokenizer GetNextToken   IS  quot 1 quot       ASSERT tokenizer GetNextToken   IS  quot 2 quot       ASSERT tokenizer GetNextToken   IS  quot test quot       ASSERT tokenizer GetNextToken   IS  quot bar quot       ASSERT tokenizer HasMoreTokens   IS FALSE     Testing private components through a public interface and avoiding test duplication Even if you don t think you can break your problem down into fewer modular components  which you can 95  of the time if you just try to do it   you can simply test the private functions through a public interface  Many times private members aren t worth testing because they will be tested through the public interface  A lot of times what I see is tests that look very similar  but test two different functions methods  What ends up happening is that when requirements change  and they always do   you now have 2 broken tests instead of 1  And if you really tested all your private methods  you might have more like 10 broken tests instead of 1  In short  testing private functions  by using FRIEND TEST or making them public or using reflection  that could otherwise be tested through a public interface can cause test duplication  You really don t want this  because nothing hurts more than your test suite slowing you down  It s supposed to decrease development time and decrease maintenance costs  If you test private methods that are otherwise tested through a public interface  the test suite may very well do the opposite  and actively increase maintenance costs and increase development time  When you make a private function public  or if you use something like FRIEND TEST and or reflection  you ll usually end up regretting it in the long run  Consider the following possible implementation of the Tokenizer class   Let s say that SplitUpByDelimiter   is responsible for returning an array such that each element in the array is a token  Furthermore  let s just say that GetNextToken   is simply an iterator over this vector  So your public test might look this  TEST THAT Tokenizer  canParseSpaceDelimtedTokens        input string    quot 1 2 test bar quot      tokenizer   Tokenizer input string        ASSERT tokenizer GetNextToken   IS  quot 1 quot       ASSERT tokenizer GetNextToken   IS  quot 2 quot       ASSERT tokenizer GetNextToken   IS  quot test quot       ASSERT tokenizer GetNextToken   IS  quot bar quot       ASSERT tokenizer HasMoreTokens   IS false     Let s pretend that we have what Michael Feather s calls a groping tool  This is a tool that lets you touch other people s private parts  An example is FRIEND TEST from googletest  or reflection if the language supports it  TEST THAT TokenizerTest  canGenerateSpaceDelimtedTokens        input string    quot 1 2 test bar quot      tokenizer   Tokenizer input string       result array   tokenizer SplitUpByDelimiter  quot   quot         ASSERT result size   IS 4      ASSERT result 0  IS  quot 1 quot       ASSERT result 1  IS  quot 2 quot       ASSERT result 2  IS  quot test quot       ASSERT result 3  IS  quot bar quot      Well  now let s say the requirements change  and the tokenizing becomes much more complex  You decide that a simple string delimiter won t suffice  and you need a Delimiter class to handle the job  Naturally  you re going to expect one test to break  but that pain increases when you test private functions  When can testing private methods be appropriate  There is no  quot one size fits all quot  in software  Sometimes it s okay  and actually ideal  to  quot break the rules quot   I strongly advocate not testing private functionality when you can  There are two main situations when I think it s okay   I ve worked extensively with legacy systems  which is why I m such a big Michael Feathers fan   and I can safely say that sometimes it is simply safest to just test the private functionality  It can be especially helpful for getting  quot characterization tests quot  into the baseline   You re in a rush  and have to do the fastest thing possible for here and now  In the long run  you don t want to test private methods  But I will say that it usually takes some time to refactor to address design issues  And sometimes you have to ship in a week  That s okay  do the quick and dirty and test the private methods using a groping tool if that s what you think is the fastest and most reliable way to get the job done  But understand that what you did was suboptimal in the long run  and please consider coming back to it  or  if it was forgotten about but you see it later  fix it     There are probably other situations where it s okay  If you think it s okay  and you have a good justification  then do it  No one is stopping you  Just be aware of the potential costs  The TDD Excuse As an aside  I really don t like people using TDD as an excuse for testing private methods  I practice TDD  and I do not think TDD forces you to do this  You can write your test  for your public interface  first  and then write code to satisfy that interface  Sometimes I write a test for a public interface  and I ll satisfy it by writing one or two smaller private methods as well  but I don t test the private methods directly  but I know they work or my public test would be failing   If I need to test edge cases of that private method  I ll write a whole bunch of tests that will hit them through my public interface  If you can t figure out how to hit the edge cases  this is a strong sign you need to refactor into small components each with their own public methods  It s a sign your private functions are doing too much  and outside the scope of the class  Also  sometimes I find I write a test that is too big of a bite to chew at the moment  and so I think  quot eh I ll come back to that test later when I have more of an API to work with quot   I ll comment it out and keep it in the back of my mind   This is where a lot of devs I ve met will then start writing tests for their private functionality  using TDD as the scapegoat  They say  quot oh  well I need some other test  but in order to write that test  I ll need these private methods  Therefore  since I can t write any production code without writing a test  I need to write a test for a private method  quot  But what they really need to be doing is refactoring into smaller and reusable components instead of adding testing a bunch of private methods to their current class  Note  I answered a similar question about testing private methods using GoogleTest a little while ago  I ve mostly modified that answer to be more language agnostic here  P S  Here s the relevant lecture about iceberg classes and groping tools by Michael Feathers  https   www youtube com watch v 4cVZvoFGJTU

User · Answer

If the private method is well defined  ie  it has a function that is testable and is not meant to change over time  then yes   I test everything that s testable where it makes sense   For instance  an encryption library might hide the fact that it performs block encryption with a private method that encrypts only 8 bytes at a time   I would write a unit test for that - it s not meant to change  even though it s hidden  and if it does break  due to future performance enhancements  for instance  then I want to know that it s the private function that broke  not just that one of the public functions broke   It speeds debugging later   -Adam

User · Answer

I see many people are in the same line of thinking  test at the public level  but isn t that what our QA team does  They test input and expected output   If as developers we only test the public methods then we are simply redoing QA s job and not adding any value by  unit testing

User · Answer

I tend to follow the advice of Dave Thomas and Andy Hunt in their book Pragmatic Unit Testing      In general  you don t want to break any encapsulation for the sake of   testing  or as Mom used to say   don t expose your privates     Most   of the time  you should be able to test a class by exercising its   public methods  If there is significant functionality that is hidden   behind private or protected access  that might be a warning sign that   there s another class in there struggling to get out    But sometimes I can t stop myself from testing private methods because it gives me that sense of reassurance that I m building a completely robust program

User · Answer

I do not unit test private methods  A private method is an implementation detail that should be hidden to the users of the class  Testing private methods breaks encapsulation   If I find that the private method is huge or complex or important enough to require its own tests  I just put it in another class and make it public there  Method Object   Then I can easily test the previously-private-but-now-public method that now lives on its own class

User · Answer

It s not only about public or private methods or functions  it is about implementation details   Private functions are just one aspect of implementation details   Unit-testing  after all  is a white box testing approach   For example  whoever uses coverage analysis to identify parts of the code that have been neglected in testing so far  goes into the implementation details   A  Yes  you should be testing implementation details   Think of a sort function which for performance reasons uses a private implementation of BubbleSort if there are up to 10 elements  and a private implementation of a different sort approach  say  heapsort  if there are more than 10 elements   The public API is that of a sort function   Your test suite  however  better makes use of the knowledge that there are actually two sort algorithms used   In this example  surely  you could perform the tests on the public API   This would  however  require to have a number of test cases that execute the sort function with more than 10 elements  such that the heapsort algorithm is sufficiently well tested   The existence of such test cases alone is an indication that the test suite is connected to the implementation details of the function   If the implementation details of the sort function change  maybe in the way that the limit between the two sorting algorithms is shifted or that heapsort is replaced by mergesort or whatever  The existing tests will continue to work   Their value nevertheless is then questionable  and they likely need to be reworked to better test the changed sort function   In other words  there will be a maintenance effort despite the fact that tests were on the public API   B  How to test implementation details  One reason why many people argue one should not test private functions or implementation details is  that the implementation details are more likely to change   This higher likelyness of change at least is one of the reasons for hiding implementation details behind interfaces   Now  assume that the implementation behind the interface contains larger private parts for which individual tests on the internal interface might be an option   Some people argue  these parts should not be tested when private  they should be turned into something public   Once public  unit-testing that code would be OK   This is interesting  While the interface was internal  it was likely to change  being an implementation detail   Taking the same interface  making it public does some magic transformation  namely turning it into an interface that is less likely to change   Obviously there is some flaw in this argumentation   But  there is nevertheless some truth behind this  When testing implementation details  in particular using internal interfaces  one should strive to use interfaces that are likely to remain stable   Whether some interface is likely to be stable is  however  not simply decidable based on whether it is public or private   In the projects from world I have been working in for some time  public interfaces also often enough change  and many private interfaces have remained untouched for ages   Still  it is a good rule of thumb to use the  front door first   see http   xunitpatterns com Principles 20of 20Test 20Automation html    But keep in mind that it is called  front door first  and not  front door only    C  Summary  Test also the implementation details   Prefer testing on stable interfaces  public or private    If implementation details change  also tests on the public API need to be revised   Turning something private into public does not magically change its stability

User · Answer

You should not  If your private methods have enough complexity that must be tested  you should put them on another class  Keep high cohesion  a class should have only one purpose  The class public interface should be enough

User · Answer

Yes I do test private functions  because although they are tested by your public methods  it is nice in TDD  Test Driven Design  to test the smallest part of the application  But private functions are not accessible when you are in your test unit class  Here s what we do to test our private methods   Why do we have private methods   Private functions mainly exists in our class because we want to create readable code in our public methods  We do not want the user of this class to call these methods directly  but through our public methods  Also  we do not want change their behavior when extending the class  in case of protected   hence it s a private   When we code  we use test-driven-design  TDD   This means that sometimes we stumble on a piece of functionality that is private and want to test  Private functions are not testable in phpUnit  because we cannot access them in the Test class  they are private    We think here are 3 solutions   1  You can test your privates through your public methods  Advantages   Straightforward unit testing  no  hacks  needed    Disadvantages   Programmer needs to understand the public method  while he only wants to test the private method You are not testing the smallest testable part of the application   2  If the private is so important  then maybe it is a codesmell to create a new separate class for it  Advantages   You can refactor this to a new class  because if it is that important  other classes may need it too  The testable unit is now a public method  so testable   Disadvantages   You dont want to create a class if it is not needed  and only used by the class where the method is coming from Potential performance loss because of added overhead   3  Change the access modifier to  final  protected  Advantages   You are testing the smallest testable part of the application  When using final protected  the function will not be overridable  just like a private  No performance loss No extra overhead   Disadvantages   You are changing a private access to protected  which means it s accessible by it s children You still need a Mock class in your test class to use it   Example  class Detective     public function investigate        private function sleepWithSuspect  suspect       Altered version  class Detective     public function investigate        final protected function sleepWithSuspect  suspect       In Test class  class Mock Detective extends Detective      public test sleepWithSuspect  suspect             this is now accessible  but still not overridable       this- gt sleepWithSuspect  suspect           So our test unit can now call test sleepWithSuspect to test our former private function

User · Answer

It s obviously language dependent  In the past with c    I ve declared the testing class to be a friend class   Unfortunately  this does require your production code to know about the testing class

User · Answer

No You shouldn t test the Private Methods why  and moreover the popular mocking framework such as Mockito doesn t provide support for testing private methods

User · Answer

As quoted above   If you don t test your private methods  how do you know they won t break    This is a major issue   One of the big points of unit tests is to know where  when  and how something broke ASAP   Thus decreasing a significant amount of development  amp  QA effort   If all that is tested is the public  then you don t have honest coverage and delineation of the internals of the class   I ve found one of the best ways to do this is simply add the test reference to the project and put the tests in a class parallel to the private methods   Put in the appropriate build logic so that the tests don t build into the final project   Then you have all the benefits of having these methods tested and you can find problems in seconds versus minutes or hours   So in summary  yes  unit test your private methods

User · Answer

If I find that the private method is huge or complex or important enough to require its own tests  I just put it in another class and make it public there  Method Object   Then I can easily test the previously private but now public method that now lives on its own class

User · Answer

I think it s best to just test the public interface of an object   From the point of view of the outside world  only the behavior of the public interface matters and this is what your unit tests should be directed towards   Once you have some solid unit tests written for an object you do not want to have to go back and change those tests just because the implementation behind the interface changed   In this situation  you ve ruined the consistency of your unit testing

User · Answer

You can also make your method package-private i e  default and you should be able to unit test it unless it is required to be private

User · Answer

I ve been stewing over this issue for a while especially with trying my hand at TDD   I ve come across two posts that I think address this problem thoroughly enough in the case of TDD    Testing private methods  TDD and Test-Driven Refactoring Test-Driven Development Isn   t Testing     In Summary    When using test driven development  design  techniques  private methods should arise only during the re-factoring process of already working and tested code  By the very nature of the process  any bit of simple implementation functionality extracted out of a thoroughly tested function will be it self tested  i e  indirect testing coverage     To me it seems clear enough that in the beginning part of coding most methods will be higher level functions because they are encapsulating describing the design   Therefore  these methods will be public and testing them will be easy enough   The private methods will come later once everything is working well and we are re factoring for the sake of readability and cleanliness

User · Answer

If you don t test your private methods  how do you know they won t break

User · Answer

Absolutely YES  That is the point of Unit testing  you test Units  Private method is a Unit  Without testing private methods TDD  Test Driven Development  would be impossible

User · Answer

Public vs  private is not a useful distinction for what apis to call from your tests  nor is method vs  class  Most testable units are visible in one context  but hidden in others   What matters is coverage and costs  You need to minimize costs while achieving coverage goals of your project  line  branch  path  block  method  class  equivalence class  use-case    whatever the team decides    So use tools to ensure coverage  and design your tests to cause least costs short and long-term     Don t make tests more expensive than necessary  If it s cheapest to only test public entry points do that  If it s cheapest to test private methods  do that   As you get more experienced  you will become better at predicting when it s worth refactoring to avoid long-term costs of test maintenance

User · Answer

As quoted above   If you don t test your private methods  how do you know they won t break    This is a major issue   One of the big points of unit tests is to know where  when  and how something broke ASAP   Thus decreasing a significant amount of development  amp  QA effort   If all that is tested is the public  then you don t have honest coverage and delineation of the internals of the class   I ve found one of the best ways to do this is simply add the test reference to the project and put the tests in a class parallel to the private methods   Put in the appropriate build logic so that the tests don t build into the final project   Then you have all the benefits of having these methods tested and you can find problems in seconds versus minutes or hours   So in summary  yes  unit test your private methods

[unit-testing] Should I test private methods or only public ones?

Examples related to unit-testing

Examples related to testing

Examples related to language-agnostic