I've actually used your first approach with quite some success, but in a slightly different ways that I think would solve some of your problems:
Keep the entire schema and scripts for creating it in source control so that anyone can create the current database schema after a check out. In addition, keep sample data in data files that get loaded by part of the build process. As you discover data that causes errors, add it to your sample data to check that errors don't re-emerge.
Use a continuous integration server to build the database schema, load the sample data, and run tests. This is how we keep our test database in sync (rebuilding it at every test run). Though this requires that the CI server have access and ownership of its own dedicated database instance, I say that having our db schema built 3 times a day has dramatically helped find errors that probably would not have been found till just before delivery (if not later). I can't say that I rebuild the schema before every commit. Does anybody? With this approach you won't have to (well maybe we should, but its not a big deal if someone forgets).
For my group, user input is done at the application level (not db) so this is tested via standard unit tests.
Loading Production Database Copy:
This was the approach that was used at my last job. It was a huge pain cause of a couple of issues:
- The copy would get out of date from the production version
- Changes would be made to the copy's schema and wouldn't get propagated to the production systems. At this point we'd have diverging schemas. Not fun.
Mocking Database Server:
We also do this at my current job. After every commit we execute unit tests against the application code that have mock db accessors injected. Then three times a day we execute the full db build described above. I definitely recommend both approaches.
Access modifiers
From docs.microsoft.com:
public
The type or member can be accessed by any other code in the same assembly or another assembly that references it.
private
The type or member can only be accessed by code in the same class or struct.
protected
The type or member can only be accessed by code in the same class or struct, or in a derived class.
private protected
(added in C# 7.2)
The type or member can only be accessed by code in the same class or struct, or in a derived class from the same assembly, but not from another assembly.
internal
The type or member can be accessed by any code in the same assembly, but not from another assembly.
protected internal
The type or member can be accessed by any code in the same assembly, or by any derived class in another assembly.
When no access modifier is set, a default access modifier is used. So there is always some form of access modifier even if it's not set.
The static modifier on a class means that the class cannot be instantiated, and that all of its members are static. A static member has one version regardless of how many instances of its enclosing type are created.
A static class is basically the same as a non-static class, but there is one difference: a static class cannot be externally instantiated. In other words, you cannot use the new keyword to create a variable of the class type. Because there is no instance variable, you access the members of a static class by using the class name itself.
However, there is a such thing as a static constructor. Any class can have one of these, including static classes. They cannot be called directly & cannot have parameters (other than any type parameters on the class itself). A static constructor is called automatically to initialize the class before the first instance is created or any static members are referenced. Looks like this:
static class Foo()
{
static Foo()
{
Bar = "fubar";
}
public static string Bar { get; set; }
}
Static classes are often used as services, you can use them like so:
MyStaticClass.ServiceMethod(...);
Best Solution
Internal classes need to be tested and there is an assemby attribute:
Add this to the project info file, e.g.
Properties\AssemblyInfo.cs
.