Developing application with TDD methodology we tend to achieve the highest possible code coverage, including private and protected methods as well....
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
You generally shouldn't test private members directly.
You should be testing that your implementation meets it's interface by writing tests that use your code as normal.
This is what TDD means when it says that "testable" code is well designed code. If you find yourself needing reflection in order to write tests, your code is not testable (and thus possibly needs better design)
If using your code requires inkoking t private members, they shouldn't be private. If you don't need to invoke private members to use your module, then neither should your tests.
For example, via inversion of control / dependency injection, you can guide the unit under test into whatever state you want by passing "fake" implementations of its dependencies which, for example, trigger error conditions. This also leads to production code that has more separated responsibilities that is easier to refactor (or delete!) since
your code does fewer things in each place.
This is a highly opinion-based topic, if you should or shouldn't test private/protected methods, just see the discussion here: stackoverflow.com/questions/105007...
I agree with the concepts you mentioned, but in some cases, especially when working with legacy code, creating unit tests for those methods could be beneficial. Also the tests can ensure that you don't make breaking changes in private methods.
The stackoverflow link you posted shows that the winner of the discussion (marked as accepted and higher votes) is the answer that tells you NOT to test private methods.
If a private method is changed, the tests for the public methods should pick it up, via a difference in the expected output of the public methods that use the private method.
Sometimes there are circumstances that require you to use reflections. Maybe some piece of legacy code that can't be changed right now (because of reasons) but will be changed in the near future.
Generally speaking though;
If you feel like you want to test private/protected methods it is usually a clear indication that the class you are testing "does too much".
Maybe you have some class that internally tokenizes a string. Something like that would be nice to test in isolation but you can't because the method that does the tokenizing is declared as private.
A better way than using reflections to change the accessiblity of the method would be to extract the tokenization code into its own class, a Tokenizer. The main class can now use the tokenizer to tokenize it's strings.
The new Tokenizer class will have public methods and can have it's own unit tests.
Whatever you do... disregard this article. You should NEVER in no circumstances ... any ... never .. don't .. ever:
NEVER test private or protected methods. This is not a controversial topic. You are testing implementation details, those can and will change. Unit testing tests the public API of units of software.
FFS... articles like this are so so so dangerous when they posit such things are correct.
Nice!