Is it good practice to do unit test coverage for even plain classes

Question

Here is an example of an class with no behaviour at all. So the question is should I be doing unit test coverage for it, as I see it as unnecessary for it does have any behaviour in it.

public class Employee
{
    public int Id { get; set; }
    public string FirstName { get; set; }
    public string LastName { get; set; }
    public Address Address { get; set; }
}

My code coverage result complains that I have not done any coverage for the class

Answer 1

I never write tests for these. There's no behavior to test.

If there were any non-trivial behavioral code whatsoever (validation code, perhaps), then I would write a test for it.

Answer 2

I found this interesting article from Martin Fowler:

Test coverage is a useful tool for finding untested parts of a codebase. Test coverage is of little use as a numeric statement of how good your tests are.

===

Also this interesting quote from Object mentor:

It’s probably not mandatory and if your goal is 100% coverage, you’ll focus on that goal and not focus on writing the best tests for the behavior of your code.