> if your change does not touch the unit tests of the ”wrapper” class I don't think this is a good example. In fact, this is more supportive of having the smal

> if your change does not touch the unit tests of the ”wrapper” class I don't think this is a good example. In fact, this is more supportive of having the small little class. The "wrapper" class only needs to have 1-2 unit tests to test the scenarios in which the small little class is invoked without needing to be concerned with the complexity of everything that small little class is actually doing. I've never written a small helper class without writing corresponding tests in the wrapper so I've never had that problem - it's usually the first thing I write after adding the helper class. For that specific problem there's automated and manual processes anyway. Code coverage tools can easily tell you if you missed writing tests for the invocation and reviewers should spot that in PR reviews.