Timeline for Testing private methods as protected
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2020 at 10:01 | history | edited | CommunityBot | Commonmark migration | |
| Apr 12, 2017 at 7:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://programmers.stackexchange.com/ with https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Mar 21, 2016 at 12:25 | comment | added | gnat | related discussion: Is it a bad practice to modify code strictly for testing purposes | |
| Aug 7, 2015 at 13:28 | vote | accept | sam | ||
| Aug 7, 2015 at 12:26 | comment | added | gnat | ...as for coverage analysis, it looks like you over-complicate things. Tools I used (more precisely, tools used by QA folks against my code - 'cause it's their job to verify quality) simply told me what lines of code were executed by the tests and what weren't. It's that simple - you just go over lines of code that are reported as gaps and figure what tests to add / modify to make them executed | |
| Aug 7, 2015 at 12:18 | history | edited | gnat | CC BY-SA 3.0 | http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/292087/testing-private-methods-as-protected/292090?noredirect=1#comment605673_292090 |
| Aug 7, 2015 at 12:02 | comment | added | gnat | @amon re-check the question asked. Smaller code units have nothing to do with it - it's solely about changing access modifier, not about restructuring / splitting the code | |
| Aug 7, 2015 at 11:47 | comment | added | amon | I think this is a strawman. When I'm testing for coverage (and I often do), then I don't use function coverage except as a progress indicator – statement coverage, branch coverage, and input bounds testing are far more useful. All of those would have told me that branch was untested. And if we're already doing white-box coverage driven tests, explicitly testing private methods does not seem to be a problem: smaller code units are way easier to verify. When a refactoring breaks the test – that's an useful warning, but I can freely adapt the test since it only covers implementation details. | |
| Aug 7, 2015 at 11:15 | comment | added | sam | Thanks Gnat sounds like a very good answer to my question, I am only waiting a bit if I will get a different opinion | |
| Aug 7, 2015 at 11:14 | vote | accept | sam | ||
| Aug 7, 2015 at 11:15 | |||||
| Aug 7, 2015 at 10:54 | history | answered | gnat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |