setUp and tearDown considered harmful

Some unit test frameworks provide methods (often called setUp and tearDown, or annotated with @Before and @After) that are called automatically before a unit test executes, and afterwards.

This structure is presumably intended to avoid repetition of code that is identical in all the tests within one test file.

I have always instinctively avoided using these methods, and when a colleague used them recently I thought I should try to write up why I feel negative about them. Here it is:

Update: note I am talking about unit tests here. I know these frameworks can be used for other types of test, and maybe in that context these methods could be useful.

1. It’s action at a distance

setUp and tearDown are called automatically, with no indication in your code that you use them, or don’t use them. They are “magic”, and everyone hates magic.

If someone is reading your test (because it broke, probably) they don’t know whether some setUp will be called without manually scanning your code to find out whether it exists. Do you hate them?

2. setUp contains useless stuff

How many tests do you have in one file? When you first write it, maybe, just maybe, all the tests need the exact same setup. Later, you’ll write new tests that only use part of it.

Very soon, you grow an uber-setUp that does all the setup for various different tests, creating objects you don’t need. This adds complexity for everyone who has to read your tests – they don’t know which bits of setUp are used in this test, and which are cruft for something else.

3. They require member variables

The only useful work you can do inside setUp and tearDown is creating and modifying member variables.

Now your tests aren’t self-contained – they use these member variables, and you must make absolutely sure that your test works no matter what state they are in. These member variables are not useful for anything else – they are purely an artifact of the choice to use setUp and tearDown.

4. A named function is better

When you have setup code to share, write a function or method. Give it a name, make it return the thing it creates. By giving it a name you make your test easier to read. By returning what it creates, you avoid the use of member variables. By avoiding the magic setUp method, you give yourself the option of calling more than one setup function, making code re-use more granular (if you want).

5. What goes in tearDown?

If you’re using tearDown, what are you doing?

Are you tearing down some global state? I thought this was a unit test?

Are you ensuring nothing is left in an unpredictable state for future tests? Surely those tests guarantee their state at the start?

What possible use is there for this function?


A unit test should be a self-contained pure function, with no dependencies on other state. setUp and tearDown force you to depend on member variables of your test class, for no benefits over named functions, except that you don’t have to type their names. I consider typing the name of a properly-named function to be a benefit.

6 thoughts on “setUp and tearDown considered harmful”

  1. Good post. You’re very much in tune with the thinking of James Newkirk, who led the NUnit team, and later wrote x-Unit:

    It’s also something that gets consideration in CATCH (my C++ test framework). In CATCH you can write a self contained function that sets up state, on the stack (as this is C++), and inline with a number a Sections that run in isolation but share that set-up code.
    Because you can nest Sections you can share just the setup that is common to child Sections and even have bits of setup shared between more specific bits of setup – and all in a way that is a lot simpler than I just made it sound :-)

    Come to my ACCU 2013 talk to see it in action ;-)

  2. No, its not a “unit test”. Stop assuming that every test has to be a unit test.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.