I get paid for code that works, not for tests, so my philosophy is to test as little as possible to reach a given level of confidence -- Kent Beck.

Tony Hoare talked about code that "obviously has no deficiencies." My usual spelling is "too stupid to fail".

How often are you editing these implementations? How often are you actually finding bugs in them? Are the tests providing extra value as documentation? Are they still contributing to your design processes?

Writing a test costs money. Maintaining a test costs money. Running a test costs money. If the tests aren't giving you anything back, that money is wasted.

Horses for courses.

I get paid for code that works, not for tests, so my philosophy is to test as little as possible to reach a given level of confidence -- Kent Beck.

Tony Hoare talked about code that "obviously has no deficiencies." My usual spelling is "too stupid to fail".

How often are you editing these implementations? How often are you actually finding bugs in them? Are the tests providing extra value as documentation? Are they still contributing to your design processes?

Writing a test costs money. Maintaining a test costs money. Running a test costs money. If the tests aren't giving you anything back, that money is wasted.

In writing [Why Most Unit Testing is Waste], Jim Coplien observed that low risk tests have low (potentially negative) payoff. He describes a number of categories of test where the value prop is suspect -- I suspect you will find that the tests you are questioning here fall into one or more of those categories.

Horses for courses.