I currently have a class that processes files on a local file system.
Class FileProcessor
{
public:
UpdateFiles();
private:
processFiles();
checkFileIsCorrupted();
}
Now, I want to add a new functionality, where the same file processing is done on files that first needed to be downloaded, but then it would call processFiles() and checkFileIsCorrupted() as before and do the same processing.
I'm wondering what's the best way to do this is.
I could change the interface for UpdateFiles() and add a parameter do determine whether I need to download the files, but modifying the public interface is clearly not ideal.
I could add a new public interface function UpdateFilesFromRemote() and thus share the private members, though this would seem to violate the single responsibility principle, which would call for the "new" functionality to be its own class.
Make a new class. This would either duplicate all the code in processFiles() and processData(), or require a new base class where processFiles() and checkFileIsCorrupted() are protected members,and all the private member they call on would also need to be moved to protected in this base class as well. However, from what I've read so far, most people seem to consider using protected to be something to avoid.
Make a new class and make processFiles() and checkFileIsCorrupted() friends of both classes. I'm assuming this would require both functions to take FileProcessor and the new class as objects (or a base class interface), so that the private members can be accessed. Although both FileProcessor and the new class would share many private members, and so that would still require them to be protected in the base class interface. Also, having a design where checkFileIsCorrupted() needs to take a FileProcessor object as input just... doesn't feel right. After all, its not actually modifying the FileProcessor object, its just a helper function to check if a file is corrupted.
Make a new class and make processFiles() and checkFileIsCorrupted() non member, non friend functions. This would mean that internal file information that is private to both classes would need to be passed as function parameters to these non-member, non friend functions, breaking encapsulation.
Either way, no solutions seems to be "good". Is there any better way to design this?
Thanks.
Related
When should I mark the static method of a specific class as private other than public?
What aspects should I consider when making such considerations.
What are the advantages for mark the static method as private?
Any simple example would be appreciated, which could help me fully understand this matter.
UPDATE:
As per this answer, which says that[emphasise mine]:
This function could easily have been made freestanding, since it doesn't require an object of the class to operate within. Making a function a static member of a class rather than a free function gives two advantages:
It gives the function access to private and protected members of any object of the class, if the object is static or is passed to the function;
It associates the function with the class in a similar way to a namespace.
How to fully understand the statements above?
The general rule for methods (static or otherwise) is to make them private if possible — i.e. unless you absolutely need them to be callable from other classes (which is to say, you need them to be part of your class’s public API)
The reason for making as much as possible private is simple: in the future, you’ll be able to change anything that is private, without breaking a bunch of other classes that were written to call the old version of the method. Changing a public method is more problematic, because other classes might be depending on it.
if I have a class with a helper (private member) class within it, like this
class Obj;
class Helper {
friend class Obj;
private:
int m_count;
Helper(){ m_count = 0;}; // Note this is a private constructor
void incrementCount(){
++m_count;
};
};
class Obj {
Helper *m_pHelper;
// note that this is a private getter
int getHelperCount() { return m_pHelper->m_count; };
// the public API starts here
public:
Obj() { m_pHelper = new Helper(); };
void incrementCount(){ m_pHelper->incrementCount(); };
};
So how may I TDD such a system?
auto obj = new Obj();
obj->incrementCount();
// what to assert???
That is my question and the following is just some background.
Response to some answers and comments.
If noone outside the class should be interested, then your tests should not be interested either. – Arne Mertz
If nobody is interested in the value outside the class, why are you – utnapistim
Even if no one outside needs the value, I may still want to know that if it's set correctly, as it is used by other self contained internal method of the class that use that value. Maybe the value is the speed where the controller will use it to update the model. Or maybe it's the position where the view will use it to draw something on the screen. And in fact all other components of Obj would be able to access that variable. It may be a bad design issue, and in this case I would like to know what better alternatives I can have. The design is listed in the background section at the bottom of this post.
define private public - Marson Mao
Love this ingenious abuse of keywords haha. But may not be concluded as the best solution just yet.
You need to "expose" the friendship relation in the header of your class. Thus you have to acknowledge there the existence of a class used to test yours.
If you use the pImpl idiom, you could make the members of the pImpl itself all public, the pImpl itself private and give your unit tests access to the pImpl - CashCow
Does this mean that I should friend the test in my original class? Or add extra "test" methods to it?
I just started TDD very recently. Is it common (or better is it good) to intrude the original class with test class dependency? I don't think I have the appropriate knowledge to judge. Any advice on this?
Miscellaneous: AFAIK TDD is not just writing test, but instead a development process. I have read that I should only write tests to the public interface. But the problem is, like the situation in question, most of the codes etc are contained within private class. How may I use TDD to create these codes?
Background
FYI if you would like to know why I am making a private class:
I am developing a game from cocos2dx. The game engine adopts a Node tree structure for the updates, rendering etc and every game object would inherit from a Node class provided in the engine. Now I want to implement the MVC pattern on a game object. So for each object I basically created a Object class with 3 helper classes corresponding to each of the MVC components named ObjectModel, ObjectView, ObjectController. Theoretically no one should access the MVC classes directly and would only be accessed somehow through the Object class so I make the 3 of them private. The reason of making the MVC components explicitly as classes is because the View and Controller are updating at different rates (more specifically the Controller performs frame dependent updates, while the View do a simple interpolation based on the model data). The Model class is created purely for religious reasons lol.
Thanks in advance.
How to test friend functions of private class?
Thou shalt not!
A class (or module or library or whatever) exposes a public interface for a reason. You have the public interface (which is geared for client use, so it has invariants, preconditions, postconditions, side-effects, whatever - which can and should be tested) and implementation details, that allow you to implement the public interface, easier.
The point of having a private implementation, is that you are allowed to change it as you please, without affecting other code (without affecting even tests). All tests should pass after you change your private implementation, and client (and test) code should (by design) not care at all that you changed the private implementation.
So how may I TDD such a system?
TDD your public interface only. Testing implementation details means you end up coding to an implementation, instead of an interface.
Regarding your comment:
The problem is I don't even have a getter in the public interface. So how can my test check that the value is 0 or 1? And the getter is intentionally made private as no one should be interested in the value outside the class
If nobody is interested in the value outside the class, why are you (i.e. why would you wish to test for it?)
The #define private public trick can have side effects with the way some compiler are mangling function symbols (Visual c++ compiler is including access specifier in its name mangling)
You can also change visibility with the using statement :
struct ObjTest : public Obj
{
using Obj::incrementCount;
}
But like other people said, try to not test private stuff if possible.
I have encounter such problem when I was writing unit test as well.
After some searching I decided the most effective way is to add this in your Test.cpp:
#define private public
NOTE: add this before your desired include file, maybe your Obj.h, for example.
I think this method looks crazy but it's actually reasonable, because this #define only affect your test file, so all other people using your Obj.h is totally fine.
Some reference:
Unit testing of private methods
I vote, as #Marson Mao says, for #define private public.
If you want to control what to make private or public a bit more, you can do this in yourtests.cpp
#define private public
#include "IWantAccessViolationForThis.h"
#undef private
#include "NormalFile.h"
This way you can have a bit more control and try to do this trick in as few places as possible.
Another nice property of this approach is that it is non-intrusive, meaning that you don't need to clutter your real implementation and header files with #ifdefs for testing and not testing modes.
Your friend has full access to the class that it is a friend of. This might be done for many reasons and one of those could well be for unit-testing purpose, i.e. you want to be able to write a unit test that can call private members of the class and check the internal variables show what you would expect them to show, but you do not want that to be part of the public API.
You need to "expose" the friendship relation in the header of your class. Thus you have to acknowledge there the existence of a class used to test yours. No worries, you develop in the real world and classes are tested.
In order to write a unit test you will want to implement that class to provide protected member functions (probably static ones) that call all the relevant private functions or get the private members, and then you write classes that derive from yours. Note that those will not have direct access as friendship is not inherited, thus the static protected members.
If you use the pImpl idiom, you could make the members of the pImpl itself all public, the pImpl itself private and give your unit tests access to the pImpl (through the same model as above). This is now simpler as you only need to create one method for your "tester".
With regards to data members of a class, in recent years I have been known to put all these into a struct, i.e. have them all public, and then for the class to have a private instance of that struct. It can be easier for handling this kind of thing, and also serialisation / factories to your class, where they can create the struct which is all public, then construct your class from it.
Bjarne Stroustrup once said that he can address most of the tasks with ONLY private or public member variables and he seldom uses protected member variables in his design. I have heard similar arguments in other places. Here is an example,
class BaseClass
{
...
private:
int m_iAge;
double m_dSalary;
string m_strName;
bool m_bGender;
}
class SubClass : public BaseClass
{
...
}
Given the above class design, how the subclass SubClass can use the variables defined in BaseClass?
Question1> Why we should prefer to having private rather than protected variables? Is it the reason that the BaseClass can hide the implementation detail and make it easy for further improvement?
Question2> In order to let the SubClass access the variable defined in BaseClass, it seems to me that we have to define public access(get/set). However, getter/setter are evil! So the second choice is to define protected access(get/set). Any better idea?
Thank you
Bjarne's point is that generally the derived class shouldn't access the variables of the base class -- doing so frequently leads to maintenance problems. And no, changing it to use get/set (accessor/mutator) functions isn't an improvement.
Ask yourself - why would the derived class ever change the value of m_bGender? Or m_iAge? Doesn't the base class already handle these values correctly?
See, there is generally no need to have direct access to the internals of the base class. So we make them private, and use the class' public interface.
In some very rare cases, there might also be one or two protected functions, if derived classes need some special interface. But that is unusual. If derived classes have different behaviour, we more often use virtual functions for that.
I think the rationale for this claim is that in many situations, subclassing doesn't often change the behavior of the existing (inherited fields), but rather one adds fields and adds new methods that manipulate the new fields.
If you are looking for a way to manipulate inherited members w/o protected, you can, in the base class, make the derived class a friend. You would have to know it ahead of time, though.
The only main reason to use private over protected members is if they indeed are not required in child implementations. That's why we have protected members, because there are cases where the child class does need direct access to members of a parent class. I think Stroustrup is referring to a design whereby there is little need to access parent members in the first place, and child classes simply build upon the functionality of their parent rather than modify the functionality of their parent.
However, getter/setter are evil!
Why so? Getters and setters are an important part of OOP from my experience. There are good reasons to make an interface with a class, rather than access its variables directly.
I just want to make sure I got the idea of public and private right.
Regarding the private access specifier, does it mean:
Only accessed inside the class
Cannot be accessed from the object of the class unless there are public class methods that can be used to access them (Can other objects use those public functions?)
No other object can access them
And for public:
Accessed from the object of the class
Accessed from any other object
Is that right?
private : Only member functions and friends of class can access it.
public : Can be accessed anywhere where the object has scope.
Answering the questions -
private:
Yes
Yes. (Can other objects use those public functions? With out having class relations, one object of class cannot communicate to the other's members. )
Friends has access to private members of a class. So, answer depends upon your class has friends or not.
public:
Yes
Depends whether the object has hierarchical relations to the member's class you are trying to access.
I think there is an issue of vocabulary to begin with.
In C++ (and most languages) a class is a type. You can think about it as a blueprint to actually build something.
it describes the attributes that are held
it describes the methods to operate on those attributes
it describes the restrictions that apply: this is the "accessibility"
An object is produced by actually instantiating a class, that is, building what the blueprint described. It is more or a less a bundle of attributes. You can have several objects of the same class as you can have several houses from the same blueprint: note that their physical location is different for obvious reasons :)
Now, on to the accessibility. There are 3 typical levels of accessibility: public, protected and private.
public, as expected, means that everyone is given access to either attributes or methods
protected is somewhat less trivial. It means that only the object, or its children, may access the attributes (bad idea*) or methods. (Plus, in C++, friends)
private means that only the objects of that class (and not their children) may access the attributes or methods (Plus, in C++, friends)
Note: whatever the level of accessibility, an object has unrestricted access to all the attributes and methods of any object of the same class.
(*) Even though it pops up now and there, it is generally a bad idea to use protected attributes. The point of encapsulation is to hide the details, not only for the sake of it, but because by precisely controlling who can access the data, we can ensure that the class maintains its invariants (simple example, an array where you would store the size separately, you need to ensure that the "size" really represents the number of items in the array, at all times). Note: this restriction does not apply when you can seal a hierarchy, like in C# for example.
Private members can only be accessed by member functions and static functions of the same class and by friends of the class. It does not matter on which object that function is called. So the case
class Foo
{
private:
void bar() {}
public:
void baz(Foo& var)
{
var.bar();
}
}
is perfectly legal.
That seems correct. Data members and functions marked public can be accessed from anywhere by anyone. Data members and functions marked private can only be accessed by the class and its friends. However, a member function of a class can access data with any access specifier, so a public function can read and write private data members (this is used universally in OOP).
In c++ data and fn are encapsulated as 1 unit.
We begin a program by writing
preprocessor directives
Then, class declaration
Followed by function(fn) declaration where we also specify the access modifier ( public, private or protected)
& finally the main () program.
If we declare a fn
Private:the data within an object of a class is only accessed by fn defined within it- (the object which has the data and the private fn)
Public:the data can be accessed by any fn
Protected:similar to private however data can also be accessed by sub-classes that inherit the properties of another class.
Example if class A inherits from class B, thenA is a subclass of B.
I am close to completion of my first OOP project, coming from a C background. I was wondering a design issue related to some ifstream object that I use in the base class to open a file. After that I would like to use the same stream to do further operation by the derived classes. I defined only this member as a protected one so I could reach that in the derived classes, protected breaks the encapsulation(I would like to earn good habits), should I define some getter function to return a reference to a stream object? Since the ifstream objects are not copiable, that might be a problem, first thing I see...
Best,
Umut
protected is ideal for preserving encapsulation, if it's integral to your design that the derived classes have the same I/O functionality as the base class.
Encapsulation does not mean everything has to be private, it means that each data or code member of a given class is visible only to the minimal set of class users to achieve the class's designed purpose. In other words, don't make everything public just because that makes it easier to code.
You would only need a public getter if you wanted to expose the I/O function of the base and derived classes to code outside of the hierarchy. Returning a reference does not imply any copy, by the way.