Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 343307
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 12, 20262026-05-12T10:53:06+00:00 2026-05-12T10:53:06+00:00

following on from this question (Developing to an interface with TDD), I’m still having

  • 0

following on from this question (Developing to an interface with TDD), I’m still having some issues.

I test-drove two classes into existence, both of which ended up shared some identical functionality. I refactored a common base class into existence, and all the tests still passed. So far, so tdd-tastic.

I needed a third class to implement the base class, so copied some tests into a new fixture and made each one compile and go green in turn, until I had a fully-functional third class. This approach can be debated, because if I didn’t copy one test across correctly, or didn’t change one successfully to support the new class, I’d be in trouble, but that’s not the main problem.

The problem I have now is that I want to add functionality to the base class. It can’t be instantiated on its own, so it will have to be through one of the leaf classes. However if I forget to copy the tests across to the other classes, I’ll have unsupported functionality. It doesn’t seem a very software-engineer-y way of doing things, and I wanted to know where I was going wrong.

Is this a problem with my design? Should I lay my tests out in a different way? Or am I worrying about nothing?

Thanks in advance.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-12T10:53:07+00:00Added an answer on May 12, 2026 at 10:53 am

    Even though you can’t create an instance of your base class directly, you can still unit test it by deriving a test-specific subclass that can be tested.

    Assume that you have an abstract class called MyBase. Obviously, you can’t create an instance of MyBase directly, but in your unit test project, you can create a test-specific specialization of MyBase called TestableBase or something else.

    So let’s assume that you want to test something like this:

    public class MyBase
    {
        public abstract void DoStuffCore();
    
        public void DoStuff()
        {
            // Do something interesting first
            this.DoStuffCore();
        }
    }
    

    And you want to test that DoStuffCore was correctly invoked by DoStuff, you can create something like this:

    public class Spy : MyBase
    {
        public bool CoreInvoked { get; private set; }
    
        public override void DoStuffCore()
        {
            this.CoreInvoked = true;
        }
    }
    

    This would allow you to create a new instance of Spy and call its DoStuff method and then subsequently verify that the CoreInvoked property is true.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

Following on from this question what would be the best way to write a
Following up from this question: How can I unlock a file that is locked
Following on from this question , I now want to know how to stop
Following on from this question I now have code that can attach to a
Following on from this question, what would be the best way to represent a
Following on from this question: Run WCF ServiceHost with multiple contracts Are there any
This question is overflow from the following question: How do I programmatically convert mp3
This question comes from my experience with the following question: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/492748/new-responses-icon-on-so-crashes-ie7-closed In that question,
The following SQL SELECT * FROM customers converted to this in LINQ var customers
Following on from my recent question on Large, Complex Objects as a Web Service

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.