What's the best way to unit test protected & private methods in Ruby?

RubyUnit TestingPrivateProtected

Ruby Problem Overview


What's the best way to unit test protected and private methods in Ruby, using the standard Ruby Test::Unit framework?

I'm sure somebody will pipe up and dogmatically assert that "you should only unit test public methods; if it needs unit testing, it shouldn't be a protected or private method", but I'm not really interested in debating that. I've got several methods that are protected or private for good and valid reasons, these private/protected methods are moderately complex, and the public methods in the class depend upon these protected/private methods functioning correctly, therefore I need a way to test the protected/private methods.

One more thing... I generally put all the methods for a given class in one file, and the unit tests for that class in another file. Ideally, I'd like all the magic to implement this "unit test of protected and private methods" functionality into the unit test file, not the main source file, in order to keep the main source file as simple and straightforward as possible.

Ruby Solutions


Solution 1 - Ruby

You can bypass encapsulation with the send method:

myobject.send(:method_name, args)

This is a 'feature' of Ruby. :)

There was internal debate during Ruby 1.9 development which considered having send respect privacy and send! ignore it, but in the end nothing changed in Ruby 1.9. Ignore the comments below discussing send! and breaking things.

Solution 2 - Ruby

Here's one easy way if you use RSpec:

before(:each) do
  MyClass.send(:public, *MyClass.protected_instance_methods)  
end

Solution 3 - Ruby

Just reopen the class in your test file, and redefine the method or methods as public. You don't have to redefine the guts of the method itself, just pass the symbol into the public call.

If you original class is defined like this:

class MyClass

  private

  def foo
    true
  end
end

In you test file, just do something like this:

class MyClass
  public :foo

end

You can pass multiple symbols to public if you want to expose more private methods.

public :foo, :bar

Solution 4 - Ruby

instance_eval() might help:

--------------------------------------------------- Object#instance_eval
     obj.instance_eval(string [, filename [, lineno]] )   => obj
     obj.instance_eval {| | block }                       => obj
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Evaluates a string containing Ruby source code, or the given 
     block, within the context of the receiver (obj). In order to set 
     the context, the variable self is set to obj while the code is 
     executing, giving the code access to obj's instance variables. In 
     the version of instance_eval that takes a String, the optional 
     second and third parameters supply a filename and starting line 
     number that are used when reporting compilation errors.

        class Klass
          def initialize
            @secret = 99
          end
        end
        k = Klass.new
        k.instance_eval { @secret }   #=> 99

You can use it to access private methods and instance variables directly.

You could also consider using send(), which will also give you access to private and protected methods (like James Baker suggested)

Alternatively, you could modify the metaclass of your test object to make the private/protected methods public just for that object.

	test_obj.a_private_method(...) #=> raises NoMethodError
	test_obj.a_protected_method(...) #=> raises NoMethodError
	class << test_obj
		public :a_private_method, :a_protected_method
	end
	test_obj.a_private_method(...) # executes
	test_obj.a_protected_method(...) # executes

	other_test_obj = test.obj.class.new
	other_test_obj.a_private_method(...) #=> raises NoMethodError
	other_test_obj.a_protected_method(...) #=> raises NoMethodError

This will let you call these methods without affecting other objects of that class. You could reopen the class within your test directory and make them public for all the instances within your test code, but that might affect your test of the public interface.

Solution 5 - Ruby

One way I've done it in the past is:

class foo
  def public_method
    private_method
  end

private unless 'test' == Rails.env

  def private_method
    'private'
  end
end

Solution 6 - Ruby

> I'm sure somebody will pipe up and > dogmatically assert that "you should > only unit test public methods; if it > needs unit testing, it shouldn't be a > protected or private method", but I'm > not really interested in debating > that.

You could also refactor those into a new object in which those methods are public, and delegate to them privately in the original class. This will allow you to test the methods without magic metaruby in your specs while yet keeping them private.

> I've got several methods that are > protected or private for good and > valid reasons

What are those valid reasons? Other OOP languages can get away without private methods at all (smalltalk comes to mind - where private methods only exist as a convention).

Solution 7 - Ruby

Similar to @WillSargent's response, here's what I've used in a describe block for the special case of testing some protected validators without needing to go through the heavyweight process of creating/updating them with FactoryGirl (and you could use private_instance_methods similarly):

  describe "protected custom `validates` methods" do
    # Test these methods directly to avoid needing FactoryGirl.create
    # to trigger before_create, etc.
    before(:all) do
      @protected_methods = MyClass.protected_instance_methods
      MyClass.send(:public, *@protected_methods)
    end
    after(:all) do
      MyClass.send(:protected, *@protected_methods)
      @protected_methods = nil
    end

    # ...do some tests...
  end

Solution 8 - Ruby

To make public all protected and private method for the described class, you can add the following to your spec_helper.rb and not having to touch any of your spec files.

RSpec.configure do |config|
  config.before(:each) do
    described_class.send(:public, *described_class.protected_instance_methods)
    described_class.send(:public, *described_class.private_instance_methods)
  end
end

Solution 9 - Ruby

You can "reopen" the class and provide a new method that delegates to the private one:

class Foo
  private
  def bar; puts "Oi! how did you reach me??"; end
end
# and then
class Foo
  def ah_hah; bar; end
end
# then
Foo.new.ah_hah

Solution 10 - Ruby

I would probably lean toward using instance_eval(). Before I knew about instance_eval(), however, I would create a derived class in my unit test file. I would then set the private method(s) to be public.

In the example below, the build_year_range method is private in the PublicationSearch::ISIQuery class. Deriving a new class just for testing purposes allows me to set a method(s) to be public and, therefore, directly testable. Likewise, the derived class exposes an instance variable called 'result' that was previously not exposed.

# A derived class useful for testing.
class MockISIQuery < PublicationSearch::ISIQuery
    attr_accessor :result
    public :build_year_range
end

In my unit test I have a test case which instantiates the MockISIQuery class and directly tests the build_year_range() method.

Solution 11 - Ruby

In Test::Unit framework can write,

MyClass.send(:public, :method_name)

Here "method_name" is private method.

& while calling this method can write,

assert_equal expected, MyClass.instance.method_name(params)

Solution 12 - Ruby

Here is a general addition to Class which I use. It's a bit more shotgun than only making public the method you are testing, but in most cases it doesn't matter, and it's much more readable.

class Class
  def publicize_methods
    saved_private_instance_methods = self.private_instance_methods
    self.class_eval { public *saved_private_instance_methods }
    begin
      yield
    ensure
      self.class_eval { private *saved_private_instance_methods }
    end
  end
end

MyClass.publicize_methods do
  assert_equal 10, MyClass.new.secret_private_method
end

Using send to access protected/private methods is broken in 1.9, so is not a recommended solution.

Solution 13 - Ruby

Instead of obj.send you can use a singleton method. It’s 3 more lines of code in your test class and requires no changes in the actual code to be tested.

def obj.my_private_method_publicly (*args)
  my_private_method(*args)
end

In the test cases you then use my_private_method_publicly whenever you want to test my_private_method.

http://mathandprogramming.blogspot.com/2010/01/ruby-testing-private-methods.html

obj.send for private methods was replaced by send! in 1.9, but later send! was removed again. So obj.send works perfectly well.

Solution 14 - Ruby

To correct the top answer above: in Ruby 1.9.1, it's Object#send that sends all the messages, and Object#public_send that respects privacy.

Solution 15 - Ruby

In order to do this:

disrespect_privacy @object do |p|
  assert p.private_method
end

You can implement this in your test_helper file:

class ActiveSupport::TestCase
  def disrespect_privacy(object_or_class, &block)   # access private methods in a block
    raise ArgumentError, 'Block must be specified' unless block_given?
    yield Disrespect.new(object_or_class)
  end

  class Disrespect
    def initialize(object_or_class)
      @object = object_or_class
    end
    def method_missing(method, *args)
      @object.send(method, *args)
    end
  end
end

Solution 16 - Ruby

I know I'm late to the party, but don't test private methods....I can't think of a reason to do this. A publicly accessible method is using that private method somewhere, test the public method and the variety of scenarios that would cause that private method to be used. Something goes in, something comes out. Testing private methods is a big no-no, and it makes it much harder to refactor your code later. They are private for a reason.

Attributions

All content for this solution is sourced from the original question on Stackoverflow.

The content on this page is licensed under the Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license.

Content TypeOriginal AuthorOriginal Content on Stackoverflow
QuestionBrent ChapmanView Question on Stackoverflow
Solution 1 - RubyJames BakerView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 2 - RubyWill SargentView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 3 - RubyAaron HinniView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 4 - RubyrampionView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 5 - RubyScottView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 6 - Rubyuser52804View Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 7 - RubyqixView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 8 - RubySean TanView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 9 - RubytragomaskhalosView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 10 - RubyMikeView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 11 - Rubyrahul patilView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 12 - RubyXavier ShayView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 13 - RubyFranz HinkelView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 14 - RubyVictor K.View Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 15 - RubyKnut StenmarkView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 16 - RubyBinary LogicView Answer on Stackoverflow