Programmers Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional programmers interested in conceptual questions about software development. It's 100% free.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Should classes, that modify the state of the parent class, but not itself, be unit tested separately? And by separately, I mean putting the test in the corresponding unit test class, that tests that specific class.

I'm developing a library based on chained methods, that return a new instance of a new type in most cases, where a chained method is called. The returned instances only modify the root parent state, but not itself.

Overly simplified example, to get the point across:

    public class BoxedRabbits
        private readonly Box _box;
        public BoxedRabbits(Box box)
            _box = box;

        public void SetCount(int count)
            _box.Items += count;

    public class Box
        public int Items { get; set; }
        public BoxedRabbits AddRabbits()
            return new BoxedRabbits(this);

var box = new Box();

Say, if I write a unit test under the Box class unit tests:


I could effectively say, that I've already tested the BoxedRabbits class as well. Is this the wrong way of approaching this, even though it's far simpler to first write a test for the above call, then to first write a unit test for the BoxedRabbits separately?

share|improve this question
it's very hard to tell with this example as it's obviouslt not your real code, but I'd suspect you real code has issues as the two classes are very strongly coupled. You may need to use DI to break the coupling, if you did then you would be able to test each class independently. – jk. May 25 '13 at 6:47
Real code is uncoupled and using DI, this was just an example. That's the question though, should i test them independently, if the child class only modifies parent state? – Dante May 25 '13 at 10:47
These separate unit tests would actually test only the inheritance mechanism of the language. I hope that you can trust it without testing. – mouviciel Jun 24 '13 at 4:45

If the class really is as trivial as that and the rest of your test suite is sufficiently complete, then there's a fairly high degree of certainty that the test coverage of the trivial class is pretty high and any change to that class's API or functionality will inevitably affect several unit tests. If that's the case, I'd do without the additional unit test.

If, however, the class went beyond non-trivial and involved any kind of language syntax that can be changed from anywhere else in the source (a header that defined configuration variables/typedefs), or data structures that are implementation-dependent, then I would certainly create a unit test.

share|improve this answer

My rule of thumb is if it has flow control then it has a unit test. That may not always be true but simple code usually has simple unit tests. Therefore testing simple code usually isn't that big a burden. So why not make sure you didn't accidentally think less than and type greater than?

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.