Making a private method public to unit test it...good idea?

Note:
This answer was originally posted for the question Is unit testing alone ever a good reason to expose private instance variables via getters? which was merged into this one, so it may be a tad specific to the usecase presented there.

As a general statement, I'm usually all for refactoring "production" code to make it easier to test. However, I don't think that would be a good call here. A good unit test (usually) shouldn't care about the class' implementation details, only about its visible behavior. Instead of exposing the internal stacks to the test, you could test that the class returns the pages in the order you expect it to after calling first() or last().

For example, consider this pseudo-code:

public class NavigationTest {    private Navigation nav;    @Before    public void setUp() {        // Set up nav so the order is page1->page2->page3 and        // we've moved back to page2        nav = ...;    }    @Test    public void testFirst() {        nav.first();        assertEquals("page1", nav.getPage());        nav.next();        assertEquals("page2", nav.getPage());        nav.next();        assertEquals("page3", nav.getPage());    }    @Test    public void testLast() {        nav.last();        assertEquals("page3", nav.getPage());        nav.previous();        assertEquals("page2", nav.getPage());        nav.previous();        assertEquals("page1", nav.getPage());    }}

Personally, I'd rather unit test using the public API and I'd certainly never make the private method public just to make it easy to test.

If you really want to test the private method in isolation, in Java you could use Easymock / Powermock to allow you to do this.

You have to be pragmatic about it and you should also be aware of the reasons why things are difficult to test.

'Listen to the tests' - if it's difficult to test, is that telling you something about your design? Could you refactor to where a test for this method would be trivial and easily covered by testing through the public api?

Here's what Michael Feathers has to say in 'Working Effectively With Legacy Code"

"Many people spend a lot of time trying ot figure out how to get around this problem ... the real answer is that if you have the urge to test a private method, the method shouldn't be private; if making the method public bothers you, chances are, it is because it is part of a separate reponsibility; it should be on another class." [Working Effectively With Legacy Code (2005) by M. Feathers]

As others have said, it is somewhat suspect to be unit testing private methods at all; unit test the public interface, not the private implementation details.

That said, the technique I use when I want to unit test something that is private in C# is to downgrade the accessibility protection from private to internal, and then mark the unit testing assembly as a friend assembly using InternalsVisibleTo. The unit testing assembly will then be allowed to treat the internals as public, but you don't have to worry about accidentally adding to your public surface area.