I found the discussion on Do you test private method informative.
I have decided, that in some classes, I want to have protected methods, but test them. Some of thes
I'm going to throw my hat into the ring here:
I've used the __call hack with mixed degrees of success. The alternative I came up with was to use the Visitor pattern:
1: generate a stdClass or custom class (to enforce type)
2: prime that with the required method and arguments
3: ensure that your SUT has an acceptVisitor method which will execute the method with the arguments specified in the visiting class
4: inject it into the class you wish to test
5: SUT injects the result of operation into the visitor
6: apply your test conditions to the Visitor's result attribute
You seem to be aware already, but I'll just restate it anyway; It's a bad sign, if you need to test protected methods. The aim of a unit test, is to test the interface of a class, and protected methods are implementation details. That said, there are cases where it makes sense. If you use inheritance, you can see a superclass as providing an interface for the subclass. So here, you would have to test the protected method (But never a private one). The solution to this, is to create a subclass for testing purpose, and use this to expose the methods. Eg.:
class Foo {
protected function stuff() {
// secret stuff, you want to test
}
}
class SubFoo extends Foo {
public function exposedStuff() {
return $this->stuff();
}
}
Note that you can always replace inheritance with composition. When testing code, it's usually a lot easier to deal with code that uses this pattern, so you may want to consider that option.