The reason for having automated tests is to know whether or not code works. Working code fulfills product requirements.
Acceptance tests assure me these requirements are met. They automate what Lindsey does when she wants to see her Spotify playlists and then asserts what she expects.
When this test passes we know the code works. When it fails, we know the code does not work. It's indicative of a fulfilled product requirement and that's reassuring.
Consider these two unit tests instead:
Transitive assertions are concessions when compared with acceptance tests because they're not indicative of working code. They're indicative of working code which works in a certain way.
Tests may only either pass or fail. If, when they pass, we know that the code works in a certain way, then, when they fail, we either know that:
In the prior example, if we rename begin() to start() and similarly update its callers, the code continues to work, yet both unit tests fail.
When the product requirements remain the same, the code continues working, and the test suite begins failing, we're creating waste.
If you've ever heard a coworker say,
... you've heard this message before.
There are pragmatic reasons to have unit tests.
Put them off as long as feasibly possible. When we need them, it's because they're the most practical concession. Eventually the ideal of an acceptance test will have a major shortcoming.
Do the best thing for today.
Test your product requirements, not your code.