Although this may be a tough limitation to deal with, do know that some test teams have found private member testing to be very costly, high-maintainence, and not very helpful in the long term.

I’m using the latest SL unittest binaries for unittesting my SL projects. It surely is a very handy tool. (wishing MS integrates it into VS sometime in the future). However i have a small glitch.

With unit testing framework of .net and Visual Studio 2008, we can pull in any class, methods,properties which are *private* or *internal*. Visual studio generates the unit test code and automatically adds these magic code behind the accessor so that all private/public methods are accessible to test code.

[Shadowing("UnitTest_TestApp.Program")]
public class Program_Accessor : BaseShadow
{
protected static PrivateType m_privateType;

[Shadowing(".ctor@0")]
public Program_Accessor();
public Program_Accessor(PrivateObject __p1);

public static PrivateType ShadowedType { get; }
[Shadowing("Str")]
public string Str { get; set; }
[Shadowing("str")]
public string str { get; set; }

[Shadowing("Add@1")]
public string Add(string str);
[Shadowing("Add@2")]
public string Add(string str, float f);
[Shadowing("Add@2")]
public string Add(string str, int i);
public static Program_Accessor AttachShadow(object __p1);
[Shadowing("Main@1")]
public static void Main(string[] args);
}

I wanted to know if i could do something similar with SL UnitTest Framework. I want to access my private/internal memembers of the production code assembly in my unit test assembly.

Thanks for any help.
-Sudhir

The rather abstract and extensible “Test Service” built into the RC0/RTW release of the test framework includes support for reporting block-level code coverage of a single assembly.

Using it requires a separate instrumentation process that is different from the one that ships in Visual Studio, and is not generalized yet for us to release it. I’d love to get this done, so stay tuned.

–
Valentin