Private Code
🛑 ALL INFORMATION CLICK HERE 👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻
Private Code
Все языки Английский Русский Китайский Немецкий Французский Испанский Шведский Итальянский Латинский Финский Казахский Греческий Узбекский Валлийский Арабский Белорусский Суахили Иврит Норвежский Португальский Венгерский Турецкий Индонезийский Польский Коми Эстонский Латышский Нидерландский Датский Албанский Хорватский Науатль Армянский Украинский Японский Санскрит Тайский Ирландский Татарский Словацкий Словенский Тувинский Урду Фарерский Идиш Македонский Каталанский Башкирский Чешский Корейский Грузинский Румынский, Молдавский Якутский Киргизский Тибетский Исландский Болгарский Сербский Вьетнамский Азербайджанский Баскский Хинди Маори Кечуа Акан Аймара Гаитянский Монгольский Пали Майя Литовский Шорский Крымскотатарский Эсперанто Ингушский Северносаамский Верхнелужицкий Чеченский Шумерский Гэльский Осетинский Черкесский Адыгейский Персидский Айнский язык Кхмерский Древнерусский язык Церковнославянский (Старославянский) Микенский Квенья Юпийский Африкаанс Папьяменто Пенджабский Тагальский Мокшанский Кри Варайский Курдский Эльзасский Абхазский Арагонский Арумынский Астурийский Эрзянский Коми Марийский Чувашский Сефардский Удмурдский Вепсский Алтайский Долганский Карачаевский Кумыкский Ногайский Османский Тофаларский Туркменский Уйгурский Урумский Маньчжурский Бурятский Орокский Эвенкийский Гуарани Таджикский Инупиак Малайский Тви Лингала Багобо Йоруба Силезский Люксембургский Чероки Шайенского Клингонский
Все языки Русский Английский Датский Татарский Немецкий Латинский Казахский Украинский Венгерский Турецкий Таджикский Персидский Испанский Иврит Норвежский Китайский Французский Итальянский Португальский Арабский Польский Суахили Нидерландский Хорватский Каталанский Галисийский Грузинский Белорусский Албанский Курдский Греческий Словенский Индонезийский Болгарский Вьетнамский Маори Тагальский Урду Исландский Хинди Ирландский Фарерский Латышский Литовский Финский Монгольский Шведский Тайский Пали Японский Македонский Корейский Эстонский Румынский, Молдавский Чеченский Карачаевский Словацкий Чешский Сербский Армянский Азербайджанский Узбекский Кечуа Гаитянский Майя Аймара Шорский Эсперанто Крымскотатарский Осетинский Адыгейский Якутский Айнский язык Кхмерский Древнерусский язык Церковнославянский (Старославянский) Тамильский Квенья Аварский Африкаанс Папьяменто Мокшанский Йоруба Эльзасский Идиш Абхазский Эрзянский Ингушский Ижорский Марийский Чувашский Удмурдский Водский Вепсский Алтайский Кумыкский Туркменский Уйгурский Урумский Эвенкийский Ложбан Башкирский Малайский Мальтийский Лингала Пенджабский Чероки Чаморро Клингонский Баскский Пушту
Книги
Tax Planning and Compliance for Tax - Exempt Organizations , 2017 Cumulative Supplement , Jody Blazek . The essential time - saving guide to the latest in nonprofit tax rules , regulations , and procedures Tax rules and regulations change annually , and nonprofit organizations know that staying … Подробнее Купить за 11582 . 49 руб электронная книга
The Real Estate Rehab Investing Bible . A Proven - Profit System for Finding , Funding , Fixing , and Flipping Houses ... Without Lifting a Paintbrush , Paul Esajian . THE HOUSE - FLIPPING HOW - TO THAT TURNS EVERYDAY PEOPLE INTO ENTREPRENEURS Everyone likes the idea of turning the ugliest house on the block to the best house on the block and making a profit .… Подробнее Купить за 1625 . 99 руб электронная книга
Bankers ' code for the use of national banks , state banks , savings banks and private bankers ... , Monroe James . Книга представляет собой репринтное издание . Несмотря на то , что была проведена серьезная работа по восстановлению первоначального качества издания , на некоторых страницах могут обнаружиться … Подробнее Купить за 1321 руб
Другие книги по запросу « private code » >>
Мы разработали для вас новый сервис!
Пользуясь Скидки.Академик.ру , вы поддерживаете Академик.ру!
English - Russian dictionary of telecommunications and their abbreviations .
A . V . Alexandrov . .
2004 .
Code page — is another term for character encoding . It consists of a table of values that describes the character set for a particular language . The term code page originated from IBM s EBCDIC based mainframe systems ,[ 1 ] but many vendors use this term … … Wikipedia
Code signing — is the process of digitally signing executables and scripts to confirm the software author and guarantee that the code has not been altered or corrupted since it was signed by use of a cryptographic hash . Code signing can provide several valuable … Wikipedia
Code Hennessy & Simmons — Type Limited liability company Industry Private Equity Founded 1988 … Wikipedia
Private class data pattern — Private class data is a design pattern in computer programming used to encapsulate class attributes and their manipulation . tandard documentationThe following documentation categories for the private class data design pattern follows the design … … Wikipedia
Private Jet — Expeditions IATA Code: ICAO Code: PJE … Deutsch Wikipedia
Code Private Hotel — ( Abidjan , Кот д ' Ивуар ) Категория отеля: 3 звездочный отель Адрес: 01 BP 420 Ab … Каталог отелей
Private Wings — Private Wings … Deutsch Wikipedia
Private Jet Expeditions — IATA Code … Deutsch Wikipedia
Code Geass — Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion First Code Geass DVD volume released in Japan . コードギアス 反逆のルルーシュ ( Kōdo Giasu: Hangyaku no Rurūshu ) … Wikipedia
Code of Personal Status ( Tunisia ) — The Code of Personal Status ( CPS ) ( Arabic: مجلة الأحوال الشخصية ) is a series of progressive Tunisian laws aiming at the institution of equality between women and men in a number of areas . It was promulgated by beylical decree on August 13 , 1956 … … Wikipedia
Code reuse — Code reuse , also called software reuse , is the use of existing software , or software knowledge , to build new software .[ 1 ] Contents 1 Overview 2 Types of reuse 3 Examples … Wikipedia
Kia Sportage в черном цвете – Black Edition. Уже в РФ Sportage в исполнении Black Edition - новая классика. Запишитесь на тест-драйв! kia.ru Скрыть объявление
Кредит даже без работы – Без справок и поручителей Кредит онлайн не выходя из дома. Вам поступят уже одобренные предложения mykreditvsem.ru Содействие в подборе финансовых услуг/организаций … Скрыть объявление
Помощь в получении кредита – Лучшее предложение для Вас Помогу с кредитом на выгодных условиях, без предоплат! С открытыми просрочками trast.lpmotortest.com Содействие в подборе финансовых услуг/организаций … Скрыть объявление
Мануальный терапевт. Прием бесплатно! doctordlin.ru Диагностика 0 руб. Снимем боль за 1-2 сеанса! Парковка 0 руб. Метро рядом. ЮЗАО и ЦАО. Диагностика 0 руб 25 методик лечения Стажировки ЕС и США Видео-отзывы Адрес и телефон Москва Есть противопоказания. Посоветуйтесь с врачом. ₽ Яндекс.Директ Скрыть объявление
Франшиза кофейни самообслуживания cafema.ru Открой свою кофейню самообслуживания и получай от 50 000 р./мес. Пассивный доход. Адрес и телефон Москва Скрыть объявление
Private Server Codes | Shindo Life Wiki | Fandom
private code - это... Что такое private code ?
c# - Unit testing private code - Stack Overflow
GitHub - Maulia/ Private - Code
private code 🎓 перевод со всех языков на русский
Sign up with email
Sign up
Sign up with Google
Sign up with GitHub
Sign up with Facebook
Asked
11 years, 4 months ago
Active
4 years, 1 month ago
This question already has answers here :
Unit testing private methods in C#
(10 answers)
223 3 3 silver badges 9 9 bronze badges
what isolation framework will you be using?
– Russ Cam
Oct 1 '09 at 21:01
I am using Typemock Isolator. Mocking out method calls is easy - I just really don't like to have to do it as it changes the behaviour of the class being tested!
– Jason
Oct 3 '09 at 10:25
All this makes me wish I could write my own framework from scratch so I could design these problems out to begin with!!!
– Jason
Oct 3 '09 at 11:02
38.3k 26 26 gold badges 105 105 silver badges 143 143 bronze badges
+1, That is pretty sweet. I never knew reflection could do that.
– Chris
Oct 1 '09 at 21:26
You can also do this using a private accessor and (optionally) passing a private object which wrapps your real instance which is a lot cleaner. I think it also prevents any problems with reflection when you come to sign your classes (don't quote me on that - I have never had to do that yet!!)
– Jason
Oct 3 '09 at 10:35
23.7k 7 7 gold badges 87 87 silver badges 133 133 bronze badges
Thank for the answer - I should have mentioned that I do use TypeMock Isolator, and mocking out classes, classes to methods isn't a problem. Neither is getting a handle on private code a problem. What is a problem is that (take example 1) if I mock out the class which performs a data retrival - I can't then get it to invoke the callback. (Example 2) I am unable to test private event handlers without digging into the private methods of a class.
– Jason
Oct 3 '09 at 10:39
332k 69 69 gold badges 404 404 silver badges 609 609 bronze badges
I don't believe that to be true when you consider the first or second example I gave. You are asserting that private code can only exist as a direct result of refactored public code - but that doesn't explain how to test code for event handlers or async callbacks. Those are the real two problems I am having and can't get my head around!
– Jason
Oct 3 '09 at 10:32
1,975 1 1 gold badge 17 17 silver badges 20 20 bronze badges
ahh, but you can actually test private classes :). Should be filed under "but should I?", but it is in fact possible. And there have been instances were I found it useful.
– Matt
Oct 1 '09 at 21:26
1,372 7 7 silver badges 5 5 bronze badges
38.1k 15 15 gold badges 94 94 silver badges 147 147 bronze badges
7,067 2 2 gold badges 29 29 silver badges 43 43 bronze badges
23.2k 15 15 gold badges 86 86 silver badges 123 123 bronze badges
For your first suggestion - I would be reluctant to do this as with a simple bit of casting you can introduce a huge security hold in your application. Your suggestion for the handling of callbacks is about as far as I got with testing async methods... I actualy ended up changing code back to private and changing my tests to test the private implementation using accessors in the end as I didn't want the code being made public. Doing it this way just has a bit of a 'smell' to it :(
– Jason
Oct 3 '09 at 10:43
Can you expand on the security hole related to casting?
– Frank Schwieterman
Oct 5 '09 at 0:19
Hi Frank, Using a bit of reflection it is not too difficult to work out the actual type behind an interface. It would then be possible to cast the object implemting the interface back to its original type and get access to the public methods you wouldn't have access to through the interface. As I understand it, (and in this case) the point of an interface is not security - it is to indicate to the developer the correct usage of the class (or polymorphism).
– Jason
Oct 5 '09 at 21:54
Using reflection it would be possible to call private methods directly, whether the class sits behind an interface or not. If someone is able to inject code into your process and do such a thing, thats the security problem, not what they do after that. Rather than be a security issue per se its more of a defensive coding issue. Defensive coding can only prevent reasonable misuse, and I think thats achieved if callers access the component via an interface.
– Frank Schwieterman
Oct 5 '09 at 22:13
22.9k 3 3 gold badges 29 29 silver badges 39 39 bronze badges
2,534 18 18 silver badges 22 22 bronze badges
3,608 2 2 gold badges 22 22 silver badges 31 31 bronze badges
How would you address example 1 in this case?
– Frank Schwieterman
Oct 2 '09 at 22:19
I'd have to see the code, but right away I would say that file retrieval itself wouldn't need to know it was asynchronous. You should have that functionality separately implemented and an extension of it that supports asynchronous transfer. In this case I am assuming you are using full on asynchronous requests and handling results in your callback. Both of which are clearly separated already. One sends, the other receives. Test sending. Test receiving. Test both together. More things are going to become public, but not within your existing context.
– Ty.
Oct 2 '09 at 22:48
Here is an example of how I am trying to implement your suggestion (please correct me if I am wrong!) I have a class (C1) which can get data in an asynchronous fashion. My calling class (C2) invokes the data retrival class. The calling class has no idea how long the async call takes (as it is by definition on another thread) The data retrival class signals to notify that it has retrieved data. C2 then pulls the data from C1. So how can I test this in full without introducing a race condition? Testing sending and testing receiving is fine - but how do I test both together?
– Jason
Oct 3 '09 at 10:51
1,693 19 19 silver badges 34 34 bronze badges
Next time, please flag the question as a duplicate rather than posting multiple identical answers. Thanks!
– Rob ♦
Dec 29 '16 at 5:26
Stack Overflow
Questions
Jobs
Developer Jobs Directory
Salary Calculator
Help
Mobile
Disable Responsiveness
Products
Teams
Talent
Advertising
Enterprise
Company
About
Press
Work Here
Legal
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service
Contact Us
Stack Exchange Network
Technology
Life / Arts
Culture / Recreation
Science
Other
Join Stack Overflow to learn, share knowledge, and build your career.
I am currently involved in developing with C# - Here is some background:
We implement MVP with our client application and we have a cyclomatic rule which states that no method should have a cyclomatic complexity greater than 5.
This leads to a lot of small private methods which are generally responsible for one thing.
My question is about unit testing a class:
Testing the private implementation through the public methods is all fine... I don't have a problem implementing this.
But... what about the following cases:
Example 1. Handle the result of an async data retrival request (The callback method shouldn't be public purely for testing)
Example 2. An event handler which does an operation (such as update a View label's text - silly example I know...)
Example 3. You are using a third party framework which allows you to extend by overriding protected virtual methods (the path from the public methods to these virtual methods are generally treated as black box programming and will have all sorts of dependancies that the framework provides that you don't want to know about)
The examples above don't appear to me to be the result of poor design.
They also do not appear be be candidates for moving to a seperate class for testing in isolation as such methods will lose their context.
Doesn anyone have any thoughts about this?
EDIT:
I don't think I was clear enough in my original question - I can test private methods using accessors and mock out calls/ methods using TypeMock. That isn't the problem. The problem is testing things which don't need to be public, or can't be public.
I don't want to make code public for the sake of testing as it can introduce security loopholes (only publishing an interface to hide this is not an option because anyone can just cast the object back to its original type and get access to stuff I wouldn't want them to)
Code that gets refactored out to another class for testing is fine - but can lose context. I've always thought it bad practice to have 'helper' classes which can contain a pot of code with no specific context - (thinking SRP here). I really don't think this works for event handlers either.
I am happy to be proven wrong - I just am unsure how to test this functionality! I have always been of the mind that if it can break or be changed - test it.
As Chris has stated, it is standard practice to only unit test public methods. This is because, as a consumer of that object, you are only concerned about what is publically available to you. And, in theory, proper unit tests with edge cases will fully exercise all private method dependencies they have.
That being said, I find there are a few times where writing unit tests directly against private methods can be extremely useful, and most succinct in explaining, through your unit tests, some of the more complex scenarios or edge cases that might be encountered.
If that is the case, you can still invoke private methods using reflection.
we have a cyclomatic rule which states
that no method should have a
cyclomatic complexity greater than 5
The point is that the private methods are implementation details . They are subject to change/refactoring. You want to test the public interface.
If you have private methods with complex logic, consider refactoring them out into a separate class. That can also help keep cyclomatic complexity down. Another option is to make the method internal and use InternalsVisibleTo (mentioned in one of the links in Chris's answer).
The catches tend to come in when you have external dependencies referenced in private methods. In most cases you can use techniques such as Dependency Injection to decouple your classes. For your example with the third-party framework, that might be difficult. I'd try first to refactor the design to separate the third-party dependencies. If that's not possible, consider using Typemock Isolator . I haven't used it, but its key feature is being able to "mock" out private, static, etc. methods.
Classes are black boxes. Test them that way.
EDIT: I'll try to respond to Jason's comment on my answer and the edit to the original question. First, I think SRP pushes towards more classes, not away from them. Yes, Swiss Army helper classes are best avoided. But what about a class designed to handle async operations? Or a data retrieval class? Are these part of the responsibility of the original class, or can they be separated?
For example, say you move this logic to another class (which could be internal). That class implements an Asynchronous Design Pattern that permits the caller to choose if the method is called synchronously or asynchronously. Unit tests or integration tests are written against the synchronous method. The asynchronous calls use a standard pattern and have low complexity; we don't test those (except in acceptance tests). If the async class is internal, use InternalsVisibleTo to test it.
There is really only two cases you need to consider:
In the first case, the private code is automatically being tested by the tests which exercise the public code that calls the private code, so there is no need to test the private code. And in the second case, the private code cannot be called at all, therefore it should be deleted, not tested.
Ergo: there is no need to explicitly test the private code.
Note that when you do TDD it is impossible for untested private code to even exist. Because when you do TDD, the only way that private code can be appear, is by an Extract {Method|Class|...} Refactoring from public code. And Refactorings are, by definition, behavior-preserving and therefore test-coverage-preserving. And the only way that public code can appear is as the result of a failing test. If public code can only appear as already tested code as the result of a failing test, and private code can only appear as the result of being extracted from public code via a behavior-preserving refactoring, it follows that untested private code can never appear.
In all of my unit testing, I've never bothered testing private functions. I typically just tested public functions. This goes along with the Black Box Testing methodology.
You are correct that you really can't test the private functions unless you expose the private class.
If your "seperate class for testing" is in the same assembly, you can choose to use internal instead of private. This exposes the internal methods to your code, but they methods will not be accessible to code not in your assembly.
EDIT: searching SO for this topic I came across this question . The most voted answer is similar to my response.
A few points from a TDD guy who has been banging around in C#:
1) If you program to interfaces then any method of a class that is not in the interface is effectively private. You might find this a better way to promote testability and a better way to use interfaces as well. Test these as public members.
2) Those small helper methods may more properly belong to some other class. Look for feature envy. What may not be reasonable as a private member of the original class (in which you found it) may be a reasonable public method of the class it envies. Test these in the new class as public members.
3) If you examine a number of small private methods, you might find that they have cohesion. They may represent a smaller class of interest separate from the original class. If so, that class can have all public methods, but be either held as a private member of the original class or perhaps created and destroyed in functions. Test these in the new class as public members.
4) You can derive a "Testable" class from the original, in which it is a trivial task to create a new public method that does nothing but call the old, private method. The testable class is part of the test framework, and not part of the production code, so it is cool for it to have special access. Test it in the test framework as if it were public.
All of these make it pretty trivial to have tests on the methods that are currently private helper methods, without messing up the way intellisense works.
There are some great answers here, and I basically agree with the repeated advice to sprout new classes. For your Example 3, however, there's a sneaky, simple technique:
Example 3. You are using a third party
framework which allows you to extend
by overriding protected virtual
methods (the path from the public
methods to these virtual methods are
generally treated as black box
programming and will have all sorts of
dependencies that the framework
provides that you don't want to know
about)
Let's say MyClass extends FrameworkClass. Have MyTestableClass extend MyClass, and then provide public methods in MyTestableClass that expose the protected methods of MyClass that you need. Not a great practice - it's kind of an enabler for bad design - but useful on occasion, and very simple.
Would accessor files work? http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb514191.aspx I've never directly worked with them, but I know a coworker used them to test private methods on some Windows Forms.
Several people have responded that private methods shouldn't be tested directly, or they should be moved to another class. While I think this is good, sometimes its just not worth it. While I agree with this in principle, I've found that this is one of those rules that cna be broken to save time without negative repercussions. If the function is small/simple the overhead of creating another class and test class is overkill. I will make these private methods public, but then not add them to the interface. This way consumers of the class (who should be getting the interface only through my IoC library) won't accidentally use them, but they're available for testing.
Now in the case of callbacks, this is a great example where making a private property public can make tests a lot easier to write and maintain. For instance, if class A passes a callback to class B, I'll make that callback a public property of class A. One test for class A use a stub implementation for B that records the callback passed in. The test then verify the the callback is passed in to B under appropriate conditions. A separate test for class A can then call the callback directly, verifying it has the appropriate side effects.
I think this approach works great for verifying async behaviors, I've been doing it in some javascript tests and some lua tests. The benefit is I have two small simple tests (one that verifies the callback is setup, one that verifies it behaves as expected). If you try to keep the callback private then the test verifying the callback behavior has a lot more setup to do, and that setup will overlap with behavior that should be in other tests. Bad coupling.
I know, its not pretty, but I think it works well.
I will admit that when recently writing units tests for C# I discovered that many of the tricks I knew for Java did not really apply (in my case it was testing internal classes).
For example 1, if you can fake/mock the data retrieval handler you can get access to the callback through the fake. (Most other languages I know that use callbacks also tend not to make them private).
For example 2 I would look into firing the event to test the handler.
Example 3 is an example of the Template Pattern which does exist in other languages. I have seen two ways to do this:
Test the entire class anyway (or at least relevant pieces of it). This particularly works in cases where the abstract base class comes with its own tests, or the overall class is not too complex. In Java I might do this if I were writing an extension of AbstractList, for example. This may also be the case if the template pattern was generated by refactoring.
Extend the class again with extra hooks that allow calling the protected methods directly.
Don't test private code, or you'll be sorry later when it's time to refactor. Then, you'll do like Joel and blog about how TDD is too much work because you constantly have to refactor your tests with your code.
There are techniques (mocks, stub) to do proper black box testing. Look them up.
This is a question that comes up pretty early when introducing testing. The best technique to solving this problem is to black-box test (as mentioned above) and follow the single responsibility principle . If each of your classes only have only one reason to change, they should be pretty easy to test their behavior without getting at their private methods.
This also leads to more robust and adaptable code as the single responsibility principle is really just saying that your class should have high cohesion .
In C# you can use the attribute in AssemblyInfo.cs:
Simply mark your private methods with internal, and the test project will still see the method. Simple! You get to keep encapsulation AND have testing, without all the TDD nonsense.
site design / logo © 2021 Stack Exchange Inc; user contributions licensed under cc by-sa . rev 2021.2.2.38474
Nyx Lid Lingerie Shadow Palette
Vetlove The Penetration
Change Lingerie
Pickup Money Porn
Ass T
