Let's assume you are convinced that the extra time spent unit testing has merit and improves production. Does that still hold up when everyone working on the same code doesn't use them? This question makes me wonder if fixing tests that everyone doesn't use is a waste of time. If you correct a test so the new code will pass, you're assuming the new code is correct. The person updating the test better have a firm understanding of the reasoning behind the code change and decide if the test or the new code needs to be fixed. This much inconsistency in a team when it comes to testing is probably an indication of other problems as well. There is a certain amount of risk involved that someone else on the team will alter code that is covered by testing. Is this the point where testing becomes counter-productive?
Testing loses its effectiveness if all programmers don't use them
unit testing;programming practices
One's tests must be trusted to be effective. A man with two watches does not know what time it is. That is: bad, inaccurate, unmaintained tests ruins the good stuff. Further, benign neglect is a death spiral, ultimately to the point that the test suite as a whole will be discredited and abandoned.A test may be bad because it is not current or it lies. It does not matter which, the damage to trust is the same.When it comes to tests, maintained accuracy and quality over quantity is key. 