Skip to main content

Testing Private Code

A common problem many people ask is - should you test private code? In short, you shouldn't. You should always test the public api of your code where possible. This is not always easy. Based on the context of the code in question there are a few options available.

Don't Test

Either don't test the private code or rely on manual testing. This will not be ideal in many cases, but if the code is covered in higher level tests you may be able to get away with it. If the code will be stable, short lived or low risk you can default to this option.

Test via Public Tests

Simply test the private code by adding assertions or verifications to exisiting public behaviour tests. If the setup requires a lot of work, many edge cases or much duplication you may want to avoid this technique.

Make the Code Public

Once public, the code is easily testable. Are we making this code public just for the sake of an automated test? Yes, but there are valid times to do this. Providing the behaviour is logically part of the object in question there is no harm, the single responsibility principle is not violated.

Interfaces can be used to control visibility here. For testing you always use a concrete instance, while your production code should hold references to interfaces only. To simply hide the method, don't add it to the interface. For dynamic langauges this is as simple as "don't invoke it" or relying on naming conventions to denoate implementation details.

Make a Public Class

When single responsibility principle would be violated in the technique above, this is your other option. Beware the power of just adding a new class and making it public. While it will allow testing in one place, each public dependency you introduce further increases coupling.

If the code that needs testing is a service, the act to introduce a public object should be considered thoughtfully. Once the class is pubic, you simply need to verify the use of the class, rather than what it does. However Value Objects can help limit the tests you need to write entirely and should be used whenever possible.


  1. If you are testing at the "right" level, whether the code is private or not is irrelevant.

    I've started to look at test as I am testing a behaviour not a method or class. I find it helps to reduce the coupling between tests and production code, a test for every method on every class is a killer for maintainability.

    Personally I will always try and remove code that is made public just for testing purposes, at the very least I try and make it private and move the test higher up. Don't get me wrong testing higher up has it's disadvantages as well.

    1. It's very relevant in my opinion, if it's private developers resort to reflection, magical tools or other trickery to wrap something in a test. Unfortunately this tends to be the default and wrong answer to this question, just check out the likes of StackOverflow on this very subject.

      Check out a post I did from a while back - it should solve the maintenance problem you have.

    2. Thanks for the link to the previous article, I agree with everything you stated in that article, however I feel that if you are saying most automated tests should fall into "Sociable Tests" then as long as the object does what it is expected to, then surely that's all that matters and you have no need to test any private methods within?

    3. Yeah, that's right. But that's only true if you're dealing with code you write yourself or greenfield development.

      If you've just inherited some legacy code or are simply working without tests then testing private code becomes an issue. At this point I stand by the advice in this post. If you're doing TDD or writing tests after the fact then the only way to test that behavior should be by the public API of the subject under test.

      Hope that clears it up.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Three Steps to Code Quality via TDD

Common complaints and problems that I've both encountered and hear other developers raise when it comes to the practice of Test Driven Development are: Impossible to refactor without all the tests breakingMinor changes require hours of changes to test codeTest setup is huge, slow to write and difficult to understandThe use of test doubles (mocks, stubs and fakes is confusing)Over the next three posts I will demonstrate three easy steps that can resolve the problems above. In turn this will allow developers to gain one of the benefits that TDD promises - the ability to refactor your code mercifully in order to improve code quality.StepsStop Making Everything PublicLimit the Amount of Dependencies you Use A Unit is Not Always a Method or ClassCode quality is a tricky subject and highly subjective, however if you follow the three guidelines above you should have the ability to radically change implementation details and therefore improve code quality when needed.

DRY vs DAMP in Tests

In the previous post I mentioned that duplication in tests is not always bad. Sometimes duplication becomes a problem. Tests can become large or virtually identically excluding a few lines. Changes to these tests can take a while and increase the maintenance overhead. At this point, DRY violations need to be resolved.SolutionsTest HelpersA common solution is to extract common functionality into setup methods or other helper utilities. While this will remove and reduce duplication this can make tests a bit harder to read as the test is now split amongst unrelated components. There is a limit to how useful such extractions can help as each test may need to do something slightly differently.DAMP - Descriptive and Meaningful PhrasesDescriptive and Meaningful Phrases is the alter ego of DRY. DAMP tests often use the builder pattern to construct the System Under Test. This allows calls to be chained in a fluent API style, similar to the Page Object Pattern. Internally the implementation wil…

Coding In the Real World

As a student when confronted with a problem, I would end up coding it and thinking - how do the professionals do this?For some reason I had the impression that once I entered the industry I would find enlightenment. Discovering the one true way to write high quality, professional code.It turns out that code in industry is not too far removed from the code I was writing back when I knew very little.Code in the real world can be:messy or cleanhard or easy to understandsimple or complexeasy or hard to changeor any combination of the aboveVery rarely will you be confronted with a problem that is difficult. Most challenges typically are formed around individuals and processes, rather than day to day coding. Years later I finally have the answer. Code in the real world is not that much different to code we were all writing when we first started out.If I could offer myself some advice back in those early days it would be to follow KISS, YAGNI and DRY religiously. The rest will fall into plac…

Feature Toggles

I'm a fan of regular releasing. My background and experience leads me to release as regularly as possible. There are numerous benefits to regular releases; limited risk, slicker release processes and the ability to change as requirements evolve.The problem with this concept is how can you release when features are not functionally complete?SolutionIf there is still work in progress, one solution to allow frequent releases is to use feature toggles. Feature toggles are simple conditional statements that are either enabled or disabled based on some condition.This simple example shows a feature toggle for an "Edit User" feature. If the boolean condition is false, then we only show the "New User" feature and the "Admin" feature. This boolean value will be provided by various means, usually a configuration file. This means at certain points we can change this value in order to demonstrate the "Edit User" functionality. Our demo environment could …

Reused Abstraction Principle

This is the second part of my series on abstractions.Part 1 - AbstractionsPart 3 - Dependency Elimination PrincipleThe Reused Abstraction Principle is a simple in concept in practice, but oddly rarely followed in typical enterprise development. I myself have been incredibly guilty of this in the past.Most code bases have a 1:1 mapping of interfaces to implementations. Usually this is the sign of TDD or automated testing being applied badly. The majority of these interfaces are wrong. 1:1 mappings between interfaces and implementations is a code smell.Such situations are usually the result of extracting an interface from an implementation, rather than having the client drive behaviour.These interfaces are also often bad abstractions, known as "leaky abstractions". As I've discussed previously, these abstractions tend to offer nothing more than simple indirection.ExampleApply the "rule of three". If there is only ever one implementation, then you don't need …