[searls]

I understand the concern, but I value consistency and discoverability, so symmetry of thing-being-tested to test itself is (so far) the best way I've found to make sure it's dreadfully obvious where a given unit's test is.

This approach is not concerned with brittleness or being coupled to the implementation because each unit is so small that it's easier to trash the object and its test when requirements change than it is to try to update both dramatically.

[mattvanhorn]

I suppose that if you do keep things that small, it could work well to trash and rewrite. Plus it has the benefit of making you consider explicitly what is going/staying.

Personally, I like my tests to be pretty clearly about the behavior of the contract, and not the implementation, which is hard when you require every method have a test.

I'd also be concerned that other team members are reluctant to delete tests - as this is a dysfunction I see often, and try to counteract with varying degrees of success.