Skip to main content
Software Engineering

Return to Answer

Added link to MSDN for InternalVisible
Source Link
edit approved Jul 17, 2012 at 14:06
Martin Brown
edit approved Jul 17, 2012 at 14:06
Martin Brown
  • 327
  • 3
  • 10

First of all, as other authors suggested: think twice if you do really need to test private method. And if so, ...

In .NET you can convert it into "Internal" method, and make package "InternalVisible""InternalVisible" to your unit test project.

In Java you can write tests itself in the class to be tested and your test methods should be able to call private methods as well. I don't really have big Java experience, so that's probably not the best practice.

Thanks.

First of all, as other authors suggested: think twice if you do really need to test private method. And if so, ...

In .NET you can convert it into "Internal" method, and make package "InternalVisible" to your unit test project.

In Java you can write tests itself in the class to be tested and your test methods should be able to call private methods as well. I don't really have big Java experience, so that's probably not the best practice.

Thanks.

First of all, as other authors suggested: think twice if you do really need to test private method. And if so, ...

In .NET you can convert it into "Internal" method, and make package "InternalVisible" to your unit test project.

In Java you can write tests itself in the class to be tested and your test methods should be able to call private methods as well. I don't really have big Java experience, so that's probably not the best practice.

Thanks.

Source Link
Budda
Budda
  • 207
  • 2
  • 5

First of all, as other authors suggested: think twice if you do really need to test private method. And if so, ...

In .NET you can convert it into "Internal" method, and make package "InternalVisible" to your unit test project.

In Java you can write tests itself in the class to be tested and your test methods should be able to call private methods as well. I don't really have big Java experience, so that's probably not the best practice.

Thanks.