Hi
Assume I have an Interface A and a class B that implements A. Within my test class I create a dummy class that implements A and I "test the Interface methods" now my question is should I test the methods that class B "gets" from the interface.
In my experience, you just test concrete classes and their interaction with interfaces.
That is, if you have concrete class B that implements A, you just test B and its interaction with other objects it references.
Generally testing should touch all (executable) lines of code. If you are implementing an interface it makes it that much easier, since you can code tests that form the "contract" of the interface and now the tests apply to all implementors of the interface.
This ensures consistency across all implementors. Should you encounter a situation where implementors behave differently (e.g. NullReferenceException vs. ArgumentNullException) you can add tests specifying which is "right" and which is wrong. This leads to less surprises down the road.
I might even go as far as saying that every interface should have a set of tests attached to describe the expected behaviour.
There are of course implementation specific things that can only be tested on the concrete implementor (e.g. "Was the file written?" vs. "Was the record comitted?"). These things should be provided through overriding or lambdas to the interface's test suite.
yes, you should aim to get 100% code coverage with your testing
Since your interface shouldn't have any concrete implementation then you don't need to test it since there is nothing to test by definition. The testing should be for the concrete implementation of the interface.
If you find yourself in a situation where you need to have a partial implementaton of an interface you can do what I do. For instance, say I have a interface of an item. This I call IItem and has all the interface. Then I declare an Item which is the partial implementation of the interface for common code and then ItemA, ItemB, etc. for the specialisations of Item.
I read all your posts I I think this solution works best.
Interface A
{
String A1();
String A2();
}
public class B:A
{
String A1(){return "A1"}
String A2(){return "A2"}
}
public class testB
{
public void B_Can_Return_A1()
{
A b=new B();
Assert.True(b.A1=="A1")
}
}
But if you are removing a method from an interface that the concrete implementations still rely on surely you shouldn't be removing that part of the interface?
This is true but this should still be enforced in tests i.e. tested. interfaces (should) play a big role in development and changes may create huge problems down the line. If an object implements an interface I think this is how it should be tested or something similar.
Please comment on this.
Related
When we have a classes like
class IntoController(IViewModelCreator viewModelCreator) {}
and
class ProductController(ICommandFactory commandFactory, IViewModelCreator viewModelCreator) {}
and
class ProductController(ICommandFactory commandFactory, IViewModelCreator viewModelCreator, IRepository repository) {}
and a lot of more. It takes a lot of time to mock this interfaces each time. What do you think about general purpose class which contains a big set of mocks?
class BaseControllerUnitTests
{
protected Mock<IViewModelCreator> ViewModelCreator { get;set; }
protected Mock<ICommandFactory> ViewModelCreator { get;set; }
protected Mock<IRepository> ViewModelCreator { get;set; }
}
Thanks in advance.
I actually do this; I just keep them in a different class called TestDataFactory so I don't get into problems with inheritance (just in case I have to extend some other base class in a test).
The factory shouldn't be global/static (see below).
Pro:
There is a single place for all tests to go to get a valid object graph
If the object graph changes, there is just one place to go to fix all the tests
You can keep references to the mocks in the factory for mocking inner method calls (i.e. you can ask for a ProductController and later, when you ask for an ICommandFactory, you get the one which was injected into the controller).
Con:
The test factory will become quite big. Eventually, you'll have to split it into several files.
Not all tests need the exact same mockup. Sometimes, you'll need to insert a real object. My solution is to allow to override the references which the factory keeps. But it makes the code even more clumsy.
In addition to Aaron Digulla's answer I'd like to suggest my colleague's post with some examples. He calls it Test Context. I use this approach pretty much as well.
The fact that's you're writing test code shouldn't mean that all software engineering best practices should go out the window.
If you have a subset of common functionality between your tests (in this case - mocking some methods of the tested class) then yes, by all means - you can extract a base class.
I'm trying to get dependency inversion, or at least understand how to apply it, but the problem I have at the moment is how to deal with dependencies that are pervasive. The classic example of this is trace logging, but in my application I have many services that most if not all code will depend on (trace logging, string manipulation, user message logging etc).
None of the solutions to this would appear to be particularly palatable:
Using constructor dependency injection would mean that most of the constructors would have several, many, standard injected dependencies because most classes explicitly require those dependencies (they are not just passing them down to objects that they construct).
Service locator pattern just drives the dependencies underground, removing them from the constructor but hiding them so that it's not even explicit that the dependencies are required
Singleton services are, well, Singletons, and also serve to hide the dependencies
Lumping all those common services together into a single CommonServices interface and injecting that aswell a) violates the Law of Demeter and b) is really just another name for a Service Locator, albeit a specific rather than a generic one.
Does anyone have any other suggestions for how to structure these kinds of dependencies, or indeed any experience of any of the above solutions?
Note that I don't have a particular DI framework in mind, in fact we're programming in C++ and would be doing any injection manually (if indeed dependencies are injected).
Service locator pattern just drives the dependencies underground,
Singleton services are, well, Singletons, and also serve to hide the
dependencies
This is a good observation. Hiding the dependencies doesn't remove them. Instead you should address the number of dependencies a class needs.
Using constructor dependency injection would mean that most of the
constructors would have several, many, standard injected dependencies
because most classes explicitly require those dependencies
If this is the case, you are probably violating the Single Responsibility Principle. In other words, those classes are probably too big and do too much. Since you are talking about logging and tracing, you should ask yourself if you aren't logging too much. But in general, logging and tracing are cross-cutting concerns and you should not have to add them to many classes in the system. If you correctly apply the SOLID principles, this problem goes away (as explained here).
The Dependency Inversion principle is part of the SOLID Principles and is an important principle for among other things, to promote testability and reuse of the higher-level algorithm.
Background:
As indicated on Uncle Bob's web page, Dependency Inversion is about depend on abstractions, not on concretions.
In practice, what happens is that some places where your class instantiates another class directly, need to be changed such that the implementation of the inner class can be specified by the caller.
For instance, if I have a Model class, I should not hard code it to use a specific database class. If I do that, I cannot use the Model class to use a different database implementation. This might be useful if you have a different database provider, or you may want to replace the database provider with a fake database for testing purposes.
Rather than the Model doing a "new" on the Database class, it will simply use an IDatabase interface that the Database class implements. The Model never refers to a concrete Database class. But then who instantiates the Database class? One solution is Constructor Injection (part of Dependency Injection). For this example, the Model class is given a new constructor that takes an IDatabase instance which it is to use, rather than instantiate one itself.
This solves the original problem of the Model no longer references the concrete Database class and uses the database through the IDatabase abstraction. But it introduces the problem mentioned in the Question, which is that it goes against Law of Demeter. That is, in this case, the caller of Model now has to know about IDatabase, when previously it did not. The Model is now exposing to its clients some detail about how it gets its job done.
Even if you were okay with this, there's another issue that seems to confuse a lot of people, including some trainers. There's as an assumption that any time a class, such as Model, instantiates another class concretely, then it's breaking the Dependency Inversion principle and therefore it is bad. But in practice, you can't follow these types of hard-and-fast rules. There are times when you need to use concrete classes. For instance, if you're going to throw an exception you have to "new it up" (eg. threw new BadArgumentException(...)). Or use classes from the base system such as strings, dictionaries, etc.
There's no simple rule that works in all cases. You have to understand what it is that you're trying to accomplish. If you're after testability, then the fact that the Model classes references the Database class directly is not itself a problem. The problem is the fact that the Model class has no other means of using another Database class. You solve this problem by implementing the Model class such that it uses IDatabase, and allows a client to specify an IDatabase implementation. If one is not specified by the client, the Model can then use a concrete implementation.
This is similar to the design of the many libraries, including C++ Standard Library. For instance, looking at the declaration std::set container:
template < class T, // set::key_type/value_type
class Compare = less<T>, // set::key_compare/value_compare
class Alloc = allocator<T> > // set::allocator_type
> class set;
You can see that it allows you to specify a comparer and an allocator, but most of the time, you take the default, especially the allocator. The STL has many such facets, especially in the IO library where detailed aspects of streaming can be augmented for localization, endianness, locales, etc.
In addition to testability, this allows the reuse of the higher-level algorithm with entirely different implementation of the classes that the algorithm internally uses.
And finally, back to the assertion I made previously with regard to scenarios where you would not want to invert the dependency. That is, there are times when you need to instantiate a concrete class, such as when instantiating the exception class, BadArgumentException. But, if you're after testability, you can also make the argument that you do, in fact, want to invert dependency of this as well. You may want to design the Model class such that all instantiations of exceptions are delegated to a class and invoked through an abstract interface. That way, code that tests the Model class can provide its own exception class whose usage the test can then monitor.
I've had colleagues give me examples where they abstract instantiation of even system calls, such as "getsystemtime" simply so they can test daylight savings and time-zone scenarios through their unit-testing.
Follow the YAGNI principle -- don't add abstractions simply because you think you might need it. If you're practicing test-first development, the right abstractions becomes apparent and only just enough abstraction is implemented to pass the test.
class Base {
public:
void doX() {
doA();
doB();
}
virtual void doA() {/*does A*/}
virtual void doB() {/*does B*/}
};
class LoggedBase public : Base {
public:
LoggedBase(Logger& logger) : l(logger) {}
virtual void doA() {l.log("start A"); Base::doA(); l.log("Stop A");}
virtual void doB() {l.log("start B"); Base::doB(); l.log("Stop B");}
private:
Logger& l;
};
Now you can create the LoggedBase using an abstract factory that knows about the logger. Nobody else has to know about the logger, nor do they need to know about LoggedBase.
class BaseFactory {
public:
virtual Base& makeBase() = 0;
};
class BaseFactoryImp public : BaseFactory {
public:
BaseFactoryImp(Logger& logger) : l(logger) {}
virtual Base& makeBase() {return *(new LoggedBase(l));}
};
The factory implementation is held in a global variable:
BaseFactory* baseFactory;
And is initialized to an instance of BaseFactoryImp by 'main' or some function close to main. Only that function knows about BaseFactoryImp and LoggedBase. Everyone else is blissfully ignorant of them all.
My colleagues and I are currently introducing unit tests to our legacy Java EE5 codebase. We use mostly JUnit and Mockito. In the process of writing tests, we have noticed that several methods in our EJBs were hard to test because they did a lot of things at once.
I'm fairly new to the whole testing business, and so I'm looking for insight in how to better structure the code or the tests. My goal is to write good tests without a headache.
This is an example of one of our methods and its logical steps in a service that manages a message queue:
consumeMessages
acknowledgePreviouslyDownloadedMessages
getNewUnreadMessages
addExtraMessages (depending on somewhat complex conditions)
markMessagesAsDownloaded
serializeMessageObjects
The top-level method is currently exposed in the interface, while all sub-methods are private. As far as I understand it, it would be bad practice to just start testing private methods, as only the public interface should matter.
My first reaction was to just make all the sub-methods public and test them in isolation, then in the top-level method just make sure that it calls the sub-methods. But then a colleague mentioned that it might not be a good idea to expose all those low-level methods at the same level as the other one, as it might cause confusion and other developers might start using when they should be using the top-level one. I can't fault his argument.
So here I am.
How do you reconcile exposing easily testable low-level methods versus avoiding to clutter the interfaces? In our case, the EJB interfaces.
I've read in other unit test questions that one should use dependency injection or follow the single responsibility principle, but I'm having trouble applying it in practice. Would anyone have pointers on how to apply that kind of pattern to the example method above?
Would you recommend other general OO patterns or Java EE patterns?
At first glance, I would say that we probably need to introduce a new class, which would 1) expose public methods that can be unit tested but 2) not be exposed in the public interface of your API.
As an example, let's imagine that you are designing an API for a car. To implement the API, you will need an engine (with complex behavior). You want to fully test your engine, but you don't want to expose details to the clients of the car API (all I know about my car is how to push the start button and how to switch the radio channel).
In that case, what I would do is something like that:
public class Engine {
public void doActionOnEngine() {}
public void doOtherActionOnEngine() {}
}
public class Car {
private Engine engine;
// the setter is used for dependency injection
public void setEngine(Engine engine) {
this.engine = engine;
}
// notice that there is no getter for engine
public void doActionOnCar() {
engine.doActionOnEngine();
}
public void doOtherActionOnCar() {
engine.doActionOnEngine();
engine.doOtherActionOnEngine(),
}
}
For the people using the Car API, there is no way to access the engine directly, so there is no risk to do harm. On the other hand, it is possible to fully unit test the engine.
Dependency Injection (DI) and Single Responsibility Principle (SRP) are highly related.
SRP is basicly stating that each class should only do one thing and delegate all other matters to separate classes. For instance, your serializeMessageObjects method should be extracted into its own class -- let's call it MessageObjectSerializer.
DI means injecting (passing) the MessageObjectSerializer object as an argument to your MessageQueue object -- either in the constructor or in the call to the consumeMessages method. You can use DI frameworks to do this for, but I recommend to do it manually, to get the concept.
Now, if you create an interface for the MessageObjectSerializer, you can pass that to the MessageQueue, and then you get the full value of the pattern, as you can create mocks/stubs for easy testing. Suddenly, consumeMessages doesn't have to pay attention to how serializeMessageObjects behaves.
Below, I have tried to illustrate the pattern. Note, that when you want to test consumeMessages, you don't have to use the the MessageObjectSerializer object. You can make a mock or stub, that does exactly what you want it to do, and pass it instead of the concrete class. This really makes testing so much easier. Please, forgive syntax errors. I did not have access to Visual Studio, so it is written in a text editor.
// THE MAIN CLASS
public class MyMessageQueue()
{
IMessageObjectSerializer _serializer;
//Constructor that takes the gets the serialization logic injected
public MyMessageQueue(IMessageObjectSerializer serializer)
{
_serializer = serializer;
//Also a lot of other injection
}
//Your main method. Now it calls an external object to serialize
public void consumeMessages()
{
//Do all the other stuff
_serializer.serializeMessageObjects()
}
}
//THE SERIALIZER CLASS
Public class MessageObjectSerializer : IMessageObjectSerializer
{
public List<MessageObject> serializeMessageObjects()
{
//DO THE SERILIZATION LOGIC HERE
}
}
//THE INTERFACE FOR THE SERIALIZER
Public interface MessageObjectSerializer
{
List<MessageObject> serializeMessageObjects();
}
EDIT: Sorry, my example is in C#. I hope you can use it anyway :-)
Well, as you have noticed, it's very hard to unit test a concrete, high-level program. You have also identified the two most common issues:
Usually the program is configured to use specific resources, such as a specific file, IP address, hostname etc. To counter this, you need to refactor the program to use dependency injection. This is usually done by adding parameters to the constructor that replace the ahrdcoded values.
It's also very hard to test large classes and methods. This is usually due to the combinatorical explosion in the number of tests required to test a complex piece of logic. To counter this, you will usually refactor first to get lots more (but shorter) methods, then trying to make the code more generic and testable by extracting several classes from your original class that each have a single entry method (public) and several utility methods (private). This is essentially the single responsibility principle.
Now you can start working your way "up" by testing the new classes. This will be a lot easier, as the combinatoricals are much easier to handle at this point.
At some point along the way you will probably find that you can simplify your code greatly by using these design patterns: Command, Composite, Adaptor, Factory, Builder and Facade. These are the most common patterns that cut down on clutter.
Some parts of the old program will probably be largely untestable, either because they are just too crufty, or because it's not worth the trouble. Here you can settle for a simple test that just checks that the output from known input has not changed. Essentially a regression test.
This question already has answers here:
How do I test a class that has private methods, fields or inner classes?
(58 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
In C++, I have often made a unit test class a friend of the class I am testing. I do this because I sometimes feel the need to write a unit test for a private method, or maybe I want access to some private member so I can more easily setup the state of the object so I can test it. To me this helps preserve encapsulation and abstraction because I am not modifying the public or protected interface of the class.
If I buy a third party library, I wouldn't want its public interface to be polluted with a bunch of public methods I don't need to know about simply because the vendor wanted to unit test!
Nor do I want have to worry about a bunch of protected members that I don't need to know about if I am inheriting from a class.
That is why I say it preserves abstraction and encapsulation.
At my new job they frown against using friend classes even for unit tests. They say because the class should not "know" anything about the tests and that you do not want tight coupling of the class and its test.
Can someone please explain these reasons to me more so that I may understand better? I just do not see why using a friend for unit tests is bad.
Ideally, you shouldn't need to unit test private methods at all. All a consumer of your class should care about is the public interface, so that's what you should test. If a private method has a bug, it should be caught by a unit test that invokes some public method on the class which eventually ends up calling the buggy private method. If a bug manages to slip by, this indicates that your test cases don't fully reflect the contract you wish your class to implement. The solution to this problem is almost certainly to test public methods with more scrutiny, not to have your test cases dig into the class's implementation details.
Again, this is the ideal case. In the real world, things may not always be so clear, and having a unit testing class be a friend of the class it tests might be acceptable, or even desirable. Still, it's probably not something you want to do all the time. If it seems to come up often enough, that might a sign that your classes are too large and/or performing too many tasks. If so, further subdividing them by refactoring complex sets of private methods into separate classes should help remove the need for unit tests to know about implementation details.
You should consider that there are different styles and methods to test: Black box testing only tests the public interface (treating the class as a black box). If you have an abstract base class you can even use the same tests against all your implementations.
If you use White box testing, you might even look at the details of the implementation. Not only about which private methods a class has, but what kind of conditional statements are included (i.e. if you want to increase your condition coverage because you know that the conditions were hard to code). In white box testing, you definitely have "high coupling" between classes/implementation and the tests which is necessary because you want to test the implementation and not the interface.
As bcat pointed out, it's often helpful to use composition and more but smaller classes instead of many private methods. This simplifies white box testing because you can more easily specify the test cases to get a good test coverage.
I feel that Bcat gave a very good answer, but I would like to expound on the exceptional case that he alludes to
In the real world, things may not always be so clear, and having a
unit testing class be a friend of the class it tests might be
acceptable, or even desirable.
I work in a company with a large legacy codebase, which has two problems both of which contribute to making a friend unit-test desirable.
We suffer from obscenely large functions and classes which require refactoring, but in order to refactor it is helpful to have tests.
Much of our code is dependent on database access, which for various reasons should not be brought into the unit tests.
In some cases Mocking is useful to alleviate the latter problem, but very often this just leads to uneccessarily complex design (class heirarchies where none would otherwise be needed), while one could very simply refactor the code in the following way:
class Foo{
public:
some_db_accessing_method(){
// some line(s) of code with db dependance.
// a bunch of code which is the real meat of the function
// maybe a little more db access.
}
}
Now we have the situation where the meat of the function needs refactoring, so we'd like a unit test. It shouldn't be exposed publicly. Now, there's a wonderful technique called mocking that could be used in this situation, but the fact is that in this case a mock is overkill. It would require me to increase the complexity of the design with an unecessary hierarchy.
A far more pragmatic approach would be to do something like this:
class Foo{
public:
some_db_accessing_method(){
// db code as before
unit_testable_meat(data_we_got_from_db);
// maybe more db code.
}
private:
unit_testable_meat(...);
}
The latter gives me all of the benefits I need from unit testing, including giving me that precious safety net to catch errors produced when I refactor the code in the meat. In order to unit test it, I have to friend a UnitTest class, but I would strongly argue that this is is far better than an otherwise useless code heirarchy just to allow me to use a Mock.
I think this should become an idiom, and I think it's a suitable, pragmatic solution to increase the ROI of unit testing.
Like bcat suggested, as much as possible, you need to find bugs using public interface itself. But if you want to do things like printing private variables and comparing with expected result etc(Helpful for developers to debug the issues easily), then you can make UnitTest class as friend to class to be tested. But you may need to add it under a macro like below.
class Myclass
{
#if defined(UNIT_TEST)
friend class UnitTest;
#endif
};
Enable flag UNIT_TEST only when Unit testing is required.
For other releases, you need to disable this flag.
I don't see anything wrong with using a friend unit testing class in many cases. Yes, decomposing a large class into smaller ones is sometimes a better way to go. I think people are a bit too hasty to dismiss using the friend keyword for something like this - it might not be ideal object oriented design, but I can sacrifice a little idealism for better test coverage if that's what I really need.
Typically you only test the public interface so that you are free to redesign and refactor the implementation. Adding test cases for private members defines a requirement and restriction on the implementation of your class.
Make the functions you want to test protected.
Now in your unit test file, create a derived class.
Create public wrapper functions that call your the class-under-test protected functions.
I have a code base where many of the classes I implement derive from classes that are provided by other divisions of my company. Working with these other devisions often have the working relationship as though they are third party middle ware vendors.
I'm trying to write test code without modifying these base classes. However, there are issues with creating meaningful test
objects due to the lack of interfaces:
//ACommonClass.h
#include "globalthermonuclearwar.h" //which contains deep #include dependencies...
#include "tictactoe.h" //...and need to exist at compile time to get into test...
class Something //which may or may not inherit from another class similar to this...
{
public:
virtual void fxn1(void); //which often calls into many other classes, similar to this
//...
int data1; //will be the only thing I can test against, but is often meaningless without fxn1 implemented
//...
};
I'd normally extract an interface and work from there, but as these are "Third Party", I can't commit these changes.
Currently, I've created a separate file that holds fake implementations for functions that are defined in the third-party supplied base class headers on a need to know basis, as has been described in the book "Working with Legacy Code".
My plan was to continue to use these definitions and provide alternative test implementations for each third party class that I needed:
//SomethingRequiredImplementations.cpp
#include "ACommonClass.h"
void CGlobalThermoNuclearWar::Simulate(void) {}; // fake this and all other required functions...
// fake implementations for otherwise undefined functions in globalthermonuclearwar.h's #include files...
void Something::fxn1(void) { data1 = blah(); } //test specific functionality.
But before I start doing that I was wondering if any one has tried providing actual objects on a code base similar to mine, which would allow creating new test specific classes to use in place of actual third-party classes.
Note all code bases in question are written in C++.
Mock objects are suitable for this kind of task. They allow you to simulate the existence of other components without needing them to be present. You simply define the expected input and output in your tests.
Google have a good mocking framework for C++.
I'm running into a very similar problem at the moment. I don't want to add a bunch of interfaces that are only there for the purpose of testing, so I can't use any of the existing mock object libraries. To get around this I do the same thing, creating a different file with fake implementations, and having my tests link the fake behaviour, and production code links the real behaviour.
What I wish I could do at this point, is take the internals of another mock framework, and use it inside my fake objects. It would look a little something like this:
Production.h
class ConcreteProductionClass { // regular everyday class
protected:
ConcreteProductionClass(); // I've found the 0 arg constructor useful
public:
void regularFunction(); // regular function that I want to mock
}
Mock.h
class MockProductionClass
: public ConcreteProductionClass
, public ClassThatLetsMeSetExpectations
{
friend class ConcreteProductionClass;
MockTypes membersNeededToSetExpectations;
public:
MockClass() : ConcreteProductionClass() {}
}
ConcreteProductionClass::regularFunction() {
membersNeededToSetExpectations.PassOrFailTheTest();
}
ProductionCode.cpp
void doSomething(ConcreteProductionClass c) {
c.regularFunction();
}
Test.cpp
TEST(myTest) {
MockProductionClass m;
m.SetExpectationsAndReturnValues();
doSomething(m);
ASSERT(m.verify());
}
The most painful part of all this is that the other mock frameworks are so close to this, but don't do it exactly, and the macros are so convoluted that it's not trivial to adapt them. I've begun looking into this on my spare time, but it's not moving along very quickly. Even if I got my method working the way I want, and had the expectation setting code in place, this method still has a couple drawbacks, one of them being that your build commands can get to be kind of long if you have to link against a lot of .o files rather than one .a, but that's manageable. It's also impossible to fall through to the default implementation, since we're not linking it. Anyway, I know this doesn't answer the question, or really even tell you anything you don't already know, but it shows how close the C++ community is to being able to mock classes that don't have a pure virtual interface.
You might want to consider mocking instead of faking as a potential solution. In some cases you may need to write wrapper classes that are mockable if the original classes aren't. I've done this with framework classes in C#/.Net, but not C++ so YMMV.
If I have a class that I need under test that derives from something I can't (or don't want to) run under test I'll:
Make a new logic-only class.
Move the code-i-wanna-test to the logic class.
Use an interface to talk back to the real class to interact with the base class and/or things I can't or won't put in the logic.
Define a test class using that same interface. This test class could have nothing but noops or fancy code that simulates the real classes.
If I have a class that I just need to use in testing, but using the real class is a problem (dependencies or unwanted behaviors):
I'll define a new interface that looks like all of the public methods I need to call.
I'll create a mock version of the object that supports that interface for testing.
I'll create another class that is constructed with a "real" version of that class. It also supports that interface. All interface calls a forwarded to the real object methods.
I'll only do this for methods I actually call - not ALL the public methods. I'll add to these classes as I write more tests.
For example, I wrap MFC's GDI classes like this to test Windows GDI drawing code. Templates can make some of this easier - but we often end up not doing that for various technical reasons (stuff with Windows DLL class exporting...).
I'm sure all this is in Feather's Working with Legacy Code book - and what I'm describing has actual terms. Just don't make me pull the book off the shelf...
One thing you did not indicate in your question is the reason why your classes derive from base classes from the other division. Is the relationship really a IS-A relationshiop ?
Unless your classes needs to be used by a framework, you could consider favoring delegation over inheritance. Then you can use dependency injection to provide your class with a mock of their class in the unit tests.
Otherwise, an idea would be to write a script to extract and create the interface your need from the header they provide, and integrate this to the compilation process so your unit test can ve checked in.