Don’t Unit Test Private Methods

Vladimir Khorikov argues that you should not unit test private methods:

When your tests start to know too much about the internals of the system under test (SUT), that leads to false positives during refactoring. Which means they won’t act as a safety net anymore and instead will impede your refactoring efforts because of the necessity to refactor them along with the implementation details they are bound to. Basically, they will stop fulfilling their main objective: providing you with the confidence in code correctness.

When it comes to unit testing, you need to follow this one rule: test only the public API of the SUT, don’t expose its implementation details in order to enable unit testing. Your tests should use the SUT the same way its regular clients do, don’t give them any special privileges. Here you can read more about what an implementation detail is and how it is different from public API: link.

In the database world, this is one reason why I like using stored procedures:  they give the equivalent of a public API for database code, so you can write tests for them.

Related Posts

Testing an Event-Driven System

Andy Chambers takes us through how to test an event-driven system: Each distinct service has a nice, pure data model with extensive unit tests, but now with new clients (and consequently new requirements) coming thick and fast, the number of these services is rapidly increasing. The testing guardian angel who sometimes visits your thoughts during […]

Read More

Failing Pester Tests Can Still Show Green

Shane O’Neill walks us through an oopsie moment: In modifying the template, I forgot to take out the original It block and just put my It block inside it. This lead to my block “pass by deafult” failed (as it should cause of that typo) but the original, parent block it was in “does something useful” passed! Click […]

Read More

Categories

October 2017
MTWTFSS
« Sep Nov »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031