Sign up using Email and Password. Dp4j analyze the code of those methods, and if it finds that you are illegally accessing private methods, it will replace your invalid private method reference with equivalent code that uses Java’s Reflection API. But reading description in dp4j site, it seems reflection codes are generated during compile time so that one need not write any extra code to access private method during testing. This is a fairly common practice. Active 7 years, 10 months ago. This is how e.
|Date Added:||17 March 2009|
|File Size:||31.13 Mb|
|Operating Systems:||Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
junit & java : testing non-public methods
Here is the “probably shouldn’t do it this way” method that everyone else keeps harping at you about. This is a very pragmatic solution if you don’t have the luxury of working with a code base in which every class obeys the SRP and every other design guideline. Just don’t do it. Protected methods can be tested by subclasses; Package private methods can be tested by putting the unit tests in the same package; and Private methods can be unit tested by providing, for example, a package private factory proxy method.
I have added dp4j. The dp4j.jaf should not be run as part of the main test system allowing for changes to the implementation without breaking a buildbut they can be very useful for specifying the desired behavior. The testing philosophy – if all of your public methods do what they’re meant to, it doesn’t matter at all how they are implemented internally. You can test protected and package-scope methods by putting your unit tests in the same package as the classes they’re testing.
With that said, there are a couple of ways to test non-public dp4j.jxr The simplest solution is to put the JUnit tests in the same package but different directory and use default i.
Maven Repository: 4j » dp4j »
Dp4jjar you write a JUnit test, you have to do a subtle mind shift: Active 7 years, 10 months ago. When you’re dp4i.jar driving and make private methods then they are usually a result of an “extract method” refactoring and are already by then tested indirectly.
Matthew Farwell Matthew Farwell Once you’ve done that, the previous method that used this code can have it’s testing simplified by having the functionality provided by a stub or a mock. I am running this from eclipse. But that sample code is not running. So one should not wait to finish his public method to test privates. And this helps in more granular regression testing upon re factoring.
Download dp4j-1.1.jar : dp4j « d « Jar File Download
Another more complicated approach is to use reflection to dp4.jjar private methods. The example found in JUnit site is, With dp4j.
But if it’s some sort of internal logic of HolderOfSomeStrings, it’s not at all clear to me that this is correct—it seems to me that this ought to be private, dp4j.jxr making it more visible gums up the code in some way. As with many unit testing problems, testing private methods is actually a design problem in disguise.
You are testing the class and that it can maintain a valid state regardless of how it’s public methods are called. This is a fairly common practice. If possible, you’ll want to refactor the code into multiple classes, ultimately leading to more “Public” methods from which to test. Think of your class itself as a “Unit”, not a method. For example, the following will work:.
Google Code Archive – Long-term storage for Google Code Project Hosting.
That way your test classes seem to be in same package and thus can access each other’s protected methods. Post as a guest Name.
This is how e. Side note, it was officially classified as a “bug”, but when they tried to fix it, there was such a storm kicked up about it that it was put back as it was originally. How do we handle problem users?
In the three years that have passed since I originally wrote this, I’ve started approaching the problem slightly differently, using Java reflection. I’ve come across the same issue, and the “if it needs to be private it probably should be refactored” doesn’t sit right with me.