眼
I'm trying to get into unit testing with NUnit. At the moment, I'm writing a simple test to get used to the syntax and the way of unit testing. But I'm not sure if I'm doing it right with the following test:
The class under test holds a list of strings containing fruit names, where new fruit names can be added via class_under_test.addNewFruit(...). So, to test the functionality of addNewFruit(...), I first use the method to add a new string to the list (e.g. "Pinapple") and, in the next step, verify if the list contains this new string.
I'm not sure if this is a good way to test the functionality of the method, because I rely on the response of another function (which I have already tested in a previous unit test).
Is this the way to test this function, or are there better solutions?
public void addNewFruit_validNewFruitName_ReturnsFalse()
{
//arrange
string newFruit = "Pineapple";
//act
class_under_test.addNewFruit(newFruit);
bool result = class_under_test.isInFruitList(newFruit);
//assert
Assert.That(!result);
}
In a perfect world, every unit test can only be broken in single way. Every unit test "lives" in isolation to every other. Your addNewFruit test can be broken by breaking isInFruitsList - but luckily, this isn't a perfect world either.
Since you already tested isInFruitsList method, you shouldn't worry about that. That's like using 3rd party API - it (usually) is tested, and you assume it works. In your case, you assume isInFruitsList works because, well - you tested it.
Going around the "broken in a single way" you could try to expose underlying fruits list internally (and use InternalsVisibleTo attribute), or passing it via dependency injection. Question is - is it worth the effort? What do you really gain? In such simple case, you usually gain very little and overhead of introducing such constructs usually is not worth the time.
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9018142/is-it-a-good-way-of-unit-testing-to-use-another-tested-function-to-make-prepara