Private Core
🛑 ALL INFORMATION CLICK HERE 👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻
Private Core
blockchainhelppro
/
Private-Core-Instllation
© 2021 GitHub, Inc.
Terms
Privacy
Security
Status
Docs
Contact GitHub
Pricing
API
Training
Blog
About
Installation Of Private Core On Network
PrivateCore - Wikipedia
GitHub - blockchainhelppro/ Private - Core -Instllation: Installation Of...
c# - .Net core library: How to test private methods... - Stack Overflow
privatecore.com - Home | PrivateCore - Private Core
Q4 2017 Private Core Dividend - YouTube
Sign up with email
Sign up
Sign up with Google
Sign up with GitHub
Sign up with Facebook
Asked
4 years, 1 month ago
173 2 2 silver badges 8 8 bronze badges
The general answer to this question is to treat the interactive part as a service and hide it behind an interface (yours might be called IInputRequester or similar). Then your unit-test can pass a mocked implementation of that interface ( MockInputRequester ), while your production code can pass a real implementation of that interface ( ConsoleInputRequester ). Note that this is not just something you do for unit-testing. It's a standard part of making a SOLID design.
– RB.
Jan 4 '17 at 11:17
Also looks like the public method is tightly coupled to implementation concerns that make it difficult to test. That is an indication that the design needs refactoring. (code smell)
– Nkosi
Jan 4 '17 at 11:32
59k 14 14 gold badges 94 94 silver badges 115 115 bronze badges
And if you don't have an AssemblyInfo.cs file (which as of .NET Core 2.1, one doesn't seem to be auto-generated), then you can create one and simply add the line above and it will be picked up in your test project.
– BinarySolo
Jun 27 '18 at 11:21
As far as I know, you can actually put that attribute anywhere in the source for your project. Theres nothing special about AssemblyInfo.cs (other than convention).
– Flydog57
Aug 30 '19 at 22:58
There is a typo in the code above (missing s) it should be :- [assembly: InternalsVisibleTo("Library.Tests")]
– Tim Newton
Nov 23 '20 at 17:01
@TimNewton Thanks, that's fixed now
– Patrick McDonald
Nov 24 '20 at 17:42
Private methods are private for a good reason, supposedly. They should not become internal, again for a good reason. This is a way to test private methods: stackoverflow.com/a/60622506/538387
– Tohid
Jan 29 at 11:48
5,041 7 7 gold badges 41 41 silver badges 75 75 bronze badges
Although you should warn that it's not a good practice, and even in some cases, a bit risky. The rule of thumb should be "test over public methods"
– Vic
Aug 12 '20 at 21:11
I wanted to test a formula in a private method in some code I was not allowed to change and I couldn't test the public method. Thank you for this solution!
– Dave Shinkle
Jan 28 at 22:09
1,653 1 1 gold badge 19 19 silver badges 25 25 bronze badges
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.
The latest xunit framework does not allow test runners in library code when compiled with .Net Core framework (this is allowed for normal Visual Studio code). The solution is to create a separate testing project to run your test cases.
The problem that I am having is that some methods that I want to test are 'private' methods. How can I call those methods from my test project without making their scope 'public'?
The more general question is: How do you test private methods when the public method that uses the private method can not be used? (because of its interactive nature - that is, it has a ReadLine(); contained in it)
Possible solutions:
1) Make the private methods public and rename them in a manner to indicate that they should not be used externally. (Use 'private' or 'internal' as part of the name)
2) Create a ' public static bool Testflag' field that can be set to true in order to bypass the interactive parts of the public method to ensure testing of all its parts.
(Although I have used both of the above methods - I really do not like it because private methods should stay private and flags add a lot of extra complexities. Has someone encountered the same problem? How did you solved it?
A quick solution is to make private members that you want to test internal .
You can then add an InternalsVisibleTo attribute to your main library's AssemblyInfo.cs. This will allow your test library (and no other library, without reflection) access to the internal methods/classes in your main library.
For testing internal classes, @Patric's answer is correct.
Private methods are private for a good reason, supposedly. They should not become internal, again for a good reason.
(And some ppl argue that we should not write unit tests for private methods. Why? Well, because they are "private"! But if you are so serious to write unit tests for private methods:)
This is a much better way to test private methods:
If you need to test private method, then you're code smells. You should review your architecture, while there is no reason to test private properties, or methods. If you need this - it's not a private method, it a public method of another class.
Old fashioned stepwise refinement makes it useful to test a private method, to the pragmatist if not the purist.
Taking @Tohid excellent answer one step further, this class can be used to invoke static or instance private methods
By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service , privacy policy and cookie policy
To subscribe to this RSS feed, copy and paste this URL into your RSS reader.
site design / logo © 2021 Stack Exchange Inc; user contributions licensed under cc by-sa . rev 2021.2.2.38474
Big Ass Missionary Milf
Lingerie Loving
Homemade Porn Girls
Lesbians Fucked Com
Hot Body Lingerie
