unit testing of setters and getters

Question

Teacher wanted us to do a comprehensive unit test. For me, this will be the first time that I use JUnit. I am confused about testing set and get methods. Do you think should I test them? If the answer is yes; is this code enough for testing?

  public void testSetandGet(){
    int a = 10;
    Class firstClass = new Class();
    firstClass.setValue(10);
    int value = firstClass.getValue();
    Assert.assertTrue("Error", value==a);
  }

In my code, I think if there is an error, we can't know that the error is deriving because of setter or getter.

Also, it would be better if you use firstClass.setValue(a); instead of hardcoding the 10. — Luiggi Mendoza
– Luiggi Mendoza, Commented May 28, 2013 at 17:07
Ask your teacher if you should test them. Since it's graded, his/her opinion is the only one that matters. — thegrinner
– thegrinner, Commented May 28, 2013 at 17:08
I agree with @Cyon and others answers, but before, I would state to avoid write accessors because they violate information hiding. — asam
– asam, Commented Apr 21, 2023 at 10:40

cyon · Accepted Answer · 2013-05-29 14:08:54Z

19

I would say don't write unit tests for setters and getters, unless your setters and getters contain program logic (something getting computed as the setter or getter is called).

On a real project you will have more than plenty program logic to unit test without having to test something trivial like setters and getters.

edited May 29, 2013 at 14:08

answered May 28, 2013 at 17:10

cyon

9,5684 gold badges24 silver badges26 bronze badges

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

3 Comments

Konstantin Yovkov Over a year ago

Sometimes people just require test only in the terms of code coverage. Of course, you can automate the testing for the accessors, but ...

cyon Over a year ago

True, but but this could in fact be a bad thing. Consider this: You wrote unit tests for getters and setters for all your classes but not for your important logic. Your code coverage is high but your likelihood of bugs is high as well.

Konstantin Yovkov Over a year ago

Possible, indeed. Lets say it doesn't hurt to code cover the accessors, after you completely test the logic. :)

user195488 · Accepted Answer · 2013-05-28 17:08:57Z

6

Roy Osherove in his famous book 'The Art Of Unit Testing' says:

Properties (getters/setters in Java) are good examples of code that usually doesn’t contain any logic, and doesn’t require testing. But watch out: once you add any check inside the property, you’ll want to make sure that logic is being tested.

You are testing what you set, can also be "get". Change your Assert statement to:

Assert.assertTrue(a, true);

Also, you should pass a, if you are going to use it.

answered May 28, 2013 at 17:08

user195488

Comments

Leep · Accepted Answer · 2013-05-28 17:11:07Z

3

I think it is important if you have some conditions in it. For exemple if it return an exception, if your int must be positive or some other conditions. But if it is just a variable assignation, I don't think it is useful... It is the same for getters.

answered May 28, 2013 at 17:11

Leep

4771 gold badge3 silver badges11 bronze badges

Comments

Konstantin Yovkov · Accepted Answer · 2013-05-28 17:08:26Z

2

If I were you, I would first set some value to a property in the class I'm testing, and then I will make sure that the get method returns the same value.

public void testSetandGet(){
    int a = 10;
    Class firstClass = new Class();
    firstClass.setValue(10);
    int value = firstClass.getValue();
    Assert.assertEquals(value, a);
}

answered May 28, 2013 at 17:08

Konstantin Yovkov

63k9 gold badges107 silver badges152 bronze badges

Comments

pauljwilliams · Accepted Answer · 2013-05-28 17:10:42Z

1

Dont unit test anything that relies on things outside of the class under test to work.

If your getters and setters are trivial then they can only fail if the underlying JVM/compiler fails - so you're actually testing the JVM/compiler, not your code.

answered May 28, 2013 at 17:10

pauljwilliams

19.3k3 gold badges54 silver badges80 bronze badges

1 Comment

Kevin M Over a year ago

They can fail if someone screws up and makes a change to them inadvertently. Sure it's a small chance and setters/getters shouldn't be the first things tested, but can help a little assuming you have all business logic tested already.

user1646196 · Accepted Answer · 2013-05-28 17:12:02Z

1

If you wanted to test it you could temporarily make the variable public and then:

firstClass.setMyInt(5);
Assert.assertTrue(5, firstClass.myInt);

However getters and setters can be automatically generated, they typically only contain one line in the method and if they cause your code to fail you probably have bigger problems. It's not common practise with unit testing to bother testing the getters and setters and you can avoid testing them and your unit testing will still be comprehensive.

answered May 28, 2013 at 17:12

user1646196

5886 silver badges29 bronze badges

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

unit testing of setters and getters

6 Answers 6

3 Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

1 Comment

Comments

Your Answer

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

6 Answers 6

3 Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

1 Comment

Comments

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Related