I see in this answer that for Java you can set the visibility of a private method to "true" in a unit test in order to test the method. Is there something like this available for VBA, so that I can unit test private methods using RD-VBA?
If not, and I have a class that works out some logic in three private methods and give it back to a return value, am I doomed to only give a input value and test the return value, without being able to test the three private methods doing the heave lifting in between?
You shouldn't need to write tests for private methods, regardless of the language. You test your public API, what's private is implementation detail that isn't relevant.
If it is relevant and important enough to be tested on its own, then you should extract that private method to another class, and expose it as a public member of that class.
For example once I had a form and I wanted to limit user input in a textbox to numeric characters, and since I'm reusing that logic elsewhere then instead of treating it as an implementation detail of my form, I extracted a AsciiInputValidator class, and its public IsValidNumericValue method could be tested in every possible way as its own SUT.
Don't test private methods: the public ones invoke them anyway.
Unfortunately the Extract Class refactoring feature is not implemented as of this writing, so for now Rubberduck can't do this automatically for you... but it's definitely in-scope and if you're reading this and you're up for a bit of a C# metaprogramming challenge, go for it, pull requests are always welcome!
Can you add a public wrapper like
public sub testPrivateSub(param1,param2...)
PrivateSub(param1,param2....)
end sub
private sub PrivateSub(param1,param2....)
....
end sub
Related
Let's say I have a public method as shown below:
public void startService(int intParam1, int intParam2, boolean booleanParam) {
setupService(intParam1, intParam2, booleanParam); // call private method to perform prerequisites
// perform remaining logic to start service here
}
This method has a call to a private method inside the same class which has the same interface as the public method which calls it. The public startService() method is the only consumer of the private setupService() method.
Would it have been a better idea to just get rid of the private setupService() method call and just replace it with setupService()'s implementation? In this case it appears there is some redundancy that may be unnecessary but I'd like to get some professional opinions. I've run into this several times in my career but usually looked the other way in fear of breaking something.
I've encountered this often too.
I ask myself:
Is the private function doing too many things that could be further broken up into functions? If so, then I would much rather get rid of the single private function and call the smaller functions from within the public function. This makes the code more readable because you can at once glance see what the public method is doing. This goes well towards making code self-documenting too.
Is there a possiblity of a future use-case where that single private function might be used again? If not, then it is not needed to be made private at the moment. However, it can get difficult in the future if a part of the code in your public function has to be used by other functions (more testing during the transition).
All in all, it comes down to having optimal modularity in your functions. If the private function cannot be further broken down into independent functions, then I would just get rid of it and put its code as is in the public method.
I know it may sound like a silly question as I've heard many saying that you should only do unit testing for public function and indeed, visual basic.net in Visual studio IDE only allows me to do unit testing for public function.
However, I got a public function that is calling to many other private functions.
If I do unit testing for that public function, that would be too complicated. I only want to test each private function individually to make sure it works correctly first, before jumping to the parent public function.
One solution I've had in my mind is that I could change all private functions to public ones so that Visual Studio allows me to do unit testing for them. But it is annoying me as I don't want them to be public.
Is there any suggestions you could let me know please?
many thanks in advance.
N.T.C
If you really can't break the code out into separate classes, you could change all of the private functions to be protected and then create a private class within your test class that inherits from the class you're trying to test (this would be named as a fake or stub, hence my advice to make it private. You don't want code outside of the test class to interact with this). Within your inherited class, create public functions for each of the now protected functions that simply call through to the base and write your unit tests against those instead.
I apologize if this capability is not available in VB:
Create a sub-class of the class you want to test. Ensure that the sub-class has public interfaces to the private functions.
As for "only unit test public functions?" That's horse manure. You test what might fail. For instance, you might have a class with only one public function, and you want to refactor into a set of calls on private functions to decrease the complexity. If you have to refactor your solution for any reason (as one of the comments suggested), then the first step is to have all the pieces of the solution tested that you will have to change during the refactoring.
Currently in a Win Form application, im using a Global Variable Class which contains variables that are used to to share data. My question is, what other ways are there to achieve this? Best practises? and why?
Globals are bad for many reasons, but probably the most glaring reason is because, ideally speaking, every time you call the same method, passing it the same parameters, it should always do the same thing with the same results. Globals brake that rule. Suddenly your code starts behaving in unpredictable ways because something wasn't initialized properly somewhere else, or some global got modified incorrectly.
The best way I've found to get rid of the need for globals is to adhere to the principles of dependency injection (DI). There is much material on the topic online, but in a nutshell, rather than having classes reach out to create or find their dependencies on their own, they should simply request that the dependencies be provided to them, often in the constructor. Anything that you are accessing via global variables would, by definition, be considered dependencies of the classes that access them. Therefore, instead of, for instance, having a global settings object, like this:
Global settings As New Settings()
And then a class that uses it like this:
Public Class MyClass
Public Sub DoSomething()
If settings.SomethingEnabled Then
' ...
End If
End Sub
End Class
You would instead, do it like this:
Public Class MyClass
Public Sub New(settings As Settings)
_settings = settings
End Sub
Private _settings As Settings
Public Sub DoSomething()
If _settings.SomethingEnabled Then
' ...
End If
End Sub
End Class
This makes your code much cleaner, more flexible, and more reliable. It also makes the code far more testable too, which is a great added benefit.
Data should be shared according to how it is going to be used. If a variable is required across the entire application then it can be seen to have global scope and a global variable concept (e.g. public static shared) may well be appropriate.
Often this is not the case however as global variables should really be avoided (check out here and here for more reasoning)
Data should be encapsulated at the level it is required - for example if a form has data / variables within it that are applicable to it's function but where other forms need to now the value, this would be the ideal case for a public readonly property on the form, which would mask the actual detail of the variable from the rest of the aplication.
In my src, there exist a class which contains a method
public static boolean doExtensionsMatch(String s, String t) {
There is nothing wrong with it, except that there is no need for it to be public. It is used inside the class where it is declared.
It is public however, since some time ago, i felt this method needed to be tested directly and thus, private visibility did not work for me.
At this point:
I'd rather not throw away those tests. If i make the method private however, tests will become unusable.
I would rather for tests to remain in it's current src-test folder, thus maintaining separate locations for source and tests
So, you tell me, what should i do?
Should i change the method to private and delete the tests?
You test interface to prove that class behaves as it should.
So private methods don't need to be tested as long as they aren't accessible. And even more - you shouldn't care of how interface does its work, you should be fine with just the results.
You test the behaviour, not the implementation.
I would suggest using partial classes. If your test classes are partial classes of the class to be tested they will have access to all methods and variables whether or not they are public.
I am looking for specific and exact rules to determine how a method's visibility can be declared. This is not language agnostic, it applies to the standard OOP languages.
A good rule to follow would be:
Members should not have more accessibility than they need.
Start with private and make them more accessible as the need arises.
Basically:
Public is for when the method must be accessible by an outside class. Something like getState() would fit here.
Private is for when the method should not be accessible by any other class, something like changeState(...). Generally this relates to the actual alteration of an object's contents - maybe you'll have a public setX(int x) that just calls the private setXInternal(int x), that way you can have extra type-checking/safety/etc. To be safe you might as well make everything private until it has to be otherwise.
Protected is basically "public to child classes, private otherwise". Could go either way.
With any class/object there are:
1. things it does (behaviours)
2. how it does them (implementation)
The world cares about the behaviour of your object. It shouldn't (often) care about how it achieves this behaviour under the hood. Keep implementation details private, and expose behaviours.
Any kind of operation which does not define behaviour of particular object directly but is useful during implementation of object's behaviour is a candidate for private member function.
I think the helpfulness of the public, protected and private keywords is just to make the code more clear.
So you would use public for the API of a class, private to make it clear how to do NOT extend a class and protected in every other case.
A common pragmatic approach is never use private and to use just public or protected.
Public for things that are part of the public API.
Protected for non-public functions that you want subclasses to be able to call.
Private if you don't want subclasses mucking around with said method (or to even know of its existence).
In C, C++, and C# don't forgot to mark a method virtual if you want a child class to be able to override it.