That isn’t a refactoring. The existing methods aren’t accessors. The
refactoring will find accessors for the variables if they exist (even
if they have a different names).
We all know what is refactoring. Usually we don't care about safe
aspect of it (and we have tests). We just want simple code
transformation. I think it is exactly such case.
“We all” probably don’t agree on much. In fact, I think many people
would argue that the “safe aspect” is a very important part of a
refactoring. Otherwise, they shouldn’t be called refactorings, but
should instead be called transformations. If you call something a
“refactoring” but don’t do basic checks on its validity then that is
just wrong.
Yes this is why we are working on proposing refactorings and
transformations.
We are currently refactoring the refactorings to have both transformations
and refactorings.
