This commit is contained in:
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: tdd
|
||||
description: Test-driven development with red-green-refactor loop. Use when user wants to build features or fix bugs using TDD, mentions "red-green-refactor", wants integration tests, or asks for test-first development.
|
||||
description: Test-driven development. Use when the user wants to build features or fix bugs test-first, mentions "red-green-refactor", or wants integration tests.
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Test-Driven Development
|
||||
@@ -13,6 +13,8 @@ description: Test-driven development with red-green-refactor loop. Use when user
|
||||
|
||||
**Bad tests** are coupled to implementation. They mock internal collaborators, test private methods, or verify through external means (like querying a database directly instead of using the interface). The warning sign: your test breaks when you refactor, but behavior hasn't changed. If you rename an internal function and tests fail, those tests were testing implementation, not behavior.
|
||||
|
||||
**Tautological tests** restate the implementation inside the assertion, so they pass by construction and give zero confidence. When the expected value is computed the way the code computes it — `expect(add(a, b)).toBe(a + b)`, snapshotting a figure you derived by hand the same way the code does, asserting a constant equals itself — the test can never disagree with the code: break the code wrong and the assertion breaks wrong with it. The expected value must come from an independent source of truth — a known-good literal, a worked example, the spec.
|
||||
|
||||
See [tests.md](tests.md) for examples and [mocking.md](mocking.md) for mocking guidelines.
|
||||
|
||||
## Anti-Pattern: Horizontal Slices
|
||||
@@ -44,14 +46,13 @@ RIGHT (vertical):
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Planning
|
||||
|
||||
When exploring the codebase, use the project's domain glossary so that test names and interface vocabulary match the project's language, and respect ADRs in the area you're touching.
|
||||
When exploring the codebase, read `CONTEXT.md` (if it exists) so that test names and interface vocabulary match the project's domain language, and respect ADRs in the area you're touching.
|
||||
|
||||
Before writing any code:
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Confirm with user what interface changes are needed
|
||||
- [ ] Confirm with user which behaviors to test (prioritize)
|
||||
- [ ] Identify opportunities for [deep modules](deep-modules.md) (small interface, deep implementation)
|
||||
- [ ] Design interfaces for [testability](interface-design.md)
|
||||
- [ ] Identify opportunities for deep modules (small interface, deep implementation) — run the `/codebase-design` skill for the vocabulary and the testability checks
|
||||
- [ ] List the behaviors to test (not implementation steps)
|
||||
- [ ] Get user approval on the plan
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -104,6 +105,7 @@ After all tests pass, look for [refactor candidates](refactoring.md):
|
||||
[ ] Test describes behavior, not implementation
|
||||
[ ] Test uses public interface only
|
||||
[ ] Test would survive internal refactor
|
||||
[ ] Expected values are independent literals, not recomputed from the code
|
||||
[ ] Code is minimal for this test
|
||||
[ ] No speculative features added
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user