> Aren't a huge part of tests to prevent regression?
Just a quibble: I would argue that a huge benefit of tests is preventing regression, but that's a very small part of the value of tests.
The main value I get out of tests is informing the design of the software under test.
* Tests are your straight-edge as you try to draw a line.
* They're your checklist to make sure you've implemented all the functionality you want.
* They're your double-entry bookkeeping to surface trivial mistakes.
But I think I mostly agree with your point. I delete tests that should no longer pass (because some business logic or implementation details are intentionally changing). I will also delete tests that I made along the way when they're duplicating part of a better test. If a test was extremely expensive to run, I suppose I might delete it. But in that case I would look for a way to cover the same logic in tests of smaller units.
Just a quibble: I would argue that a huge benefit of tests is preventing regression, but that's a very small part of the value of tests.
The main value I get out of tests is informing the design of the software under test.
* Tests are your straight-edge as you try to draw a line.
* They're your checklist to make sure you've implemented all the functionality you want.
* They're your double-entry bookkeeping to surface trivial mistakes.
But I think I mostly agree with your point. I delete tests that should no longer pass (because some business logic or implementation details are intentionally changing). I will also delete tests that I made along the way when they're duplicating part of a better test. If a test was extremely expensive to run, I suppose I might delete it. But in that case I would look for a way to cover the same logic in tests of smaller units.