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.

CC -Dprivate=public

“CC”是我使用的系统上的命令行编译器。-Dfoo=bar相当于#define foo bar。因此，这个编译选项有效地将所有私有内容更改为公共。

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。

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);
}

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