How to unit test code that is highly complex behind the public interface

Question

I'm wondering how I should be testing this sort of functionality via NUnit.

Public void HighlyComplexCalculationOnAListOfHairyObjects()
{
    // calls 19 private methods totalling ~1000 lines code + comments + whitespace
}

From reading I see that NUnit isn't designed to test private methods for philosophical reasons about what unit testing should be; but trying to create a set of test data that fully executed all the functionality involved in the computation would be nearly impossible. Meanwhile the calculation is broken down into a number of smaller methods that are reasonably discrete. They are not however things that make logical sense to be done independently of each other so they're all set as private.

Answer 1

To solve your immediate problem, you may want to take a look at Pex, which is a tool from Microsoft Research that addresses this type of problem by finding all relevant boundary values so that all code paths can be executed.

That said, had you used Test-Driven Development (TDD), you would never had found yourself in that situation, since it would have been near-impossible to write unit tests that drives this kind of API.

A method like the one you describe sounds like it tries to do too many things at once. One of the key benefits of TDD is that it drives you to implement your code from small, composable objects instead of big classes with inflexible interfaces.

Answer 2

You've conflated two things. The Interface (which might expose very little) and this particular Implementation class, which might expose a lot more.

1. Define the narrowest possible Interface.

2. Define the Implementation class with testable (non-private) methods and attributes. It's okay if the class has "extra" stuff.

3. All applications should use the Interface, and -- consequently -- don't have type-safe access to the exposed features of the class.

What if "someone" bypasses the Interface and uses the Class directly? They are sociopaths -- you can safely ignore them. Don't provide them phone support because they violated the fundamental rule of using the Interface not the Implementation.

Answer 3

I've seen (and probably written) many such hair objects. If it's hard to test, it's usually a good candidate for refactoring. Of course, one problem with that is that the first step to refactoring is making sure it passes all tests first.

Honestly, though, I'd look to see if there isn't some way you can break that code down into a more manageable section.

Answer 4

Your question implies that there are many paths of execution throughout the subsystem. The first idea that pops into mind is "refactor." Even if your API remains a one-method interface, testing shouldn't be "impossible".

Answer 5

Personally I'd make the constituent methods internal, apply InternalsVisibleTo and test the different bits.

White-box unit testing can certainly still be effective - although it's generally more brittle than black-box testing (i.e. you're more likely to have to change the tests if you change the implementation).

Answer 6

HighlyComplexCalculationOnAListOfHairyObjects() is a code smell, an indication that the class that contains it is potentially doing too much and should be refactored via Extract Class. The methods of this new class would be public, and therefore testable as units.

One issue to such a refactoring is that the original class held a lot of state that the new class would need. Which is another code smell, one that indicates that state should be moved into a value object.

Answer 7

As mentioned, InternalsVisibleTo("AssemblyName") is a good place to start when testing legacy code.

Internal methods are still private in the sense that assemblys outside of the current assembly cannot see the methods. Check MSDN for more infomation.

Another thing would be to refactor the large method into smaller, more defined classes. Check this question I asked about a similiar problem, testing large methods.

Answer 8

trying to create a set of test data that fully executed all the functionality involved in the computation would be nearly impossible

If that's true, try a less ambitious goal. Start by testing specific, high-usage paths through the code, paths that you suspect may be fragile, and paths for which you've had reported bugs.

Refactoring the method into separate sub-algorithms will make your code more testable (and might be beneficial in other ways), but if your problem is a ridiculous number of interactions between those sub-algorithms, extract method (or extract to strategy class) won't really solve it: you'll have to build up a solid suite of tests one at a time.

Answer 9

Get the book Working Effectively with Legacy Code by Michael Feathers. I'm about a third of the way through it, and it has multiple techniques for dealing with these types of problems.