/test-driven-development

name: test-driven-development
description: Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code

Test-Driven Development (TDD)

Overview

Write the test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass.

**Core principle:** If you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know if it tests the right thing.

**Violating the letter of the rules is violating the spirit of the rules.**

When to Use

**Always:**

• New features
• Bug fixes
• Refactoring
• Behavior changes

**Exceptions (ask your human partner):**

• Throwaway prototypes
• Generated code
• Configuration files

Thinking "skip TDD just this once"? Stop. That's rationalization.

The Iron Law

NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST

Write code before the test? Delete it. Start over.

**No exceptions:**

• Don't keep it as "reference"
• Don't "adapt" it while writing tests
• Don't look at it
• Delete means delete

Implement fresh from tests. Period.

Red-Green-Refactor

digraph tdd_cycle {
    rankdir=LR;
    red [label="RED\nWrite failing test", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffcccc"];
    verify_red [label="Verify fails\ncorrectly", shape=diamond];
    green [label="GREEN\nMinimal code", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccffcc"];
    verify_green [label="Verify passes\nAll green", shape=diamond];
    refactor [label="REFACTOR\nClean up", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccccff"];
    next [label="Next", shape=ellipse];

    red -> verify_red;
    verify_red -> green [label="yes"];
    verify_red -> red [label="wrong\nfailure"];
    green -> verify_green;
    verify_green -> refactor [label="yes"];
    verify_green -> green [label="no"];
    refactor -> verify_green [label="stay\ngreen"];
    verify_green -> next;
    next -> red;
}

RED - Write Failing Test

Write one minimal test showing what should happen.

<Good>

test('retries failed operations 3 times', async () => {
  let attempts = 0;
  const operation = () => {
    attempts++;
    if (attempts < 3) throw new Error('fail');
    return 'success';
  };

  const result = await retryOperation(operation);

  expect(result).toBe('success');
  expect(attempts).toBe(3);
});

Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing </Good>

<Bad>

test('retry works', async () => {
  const mock = jest.fn()
    .mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
    .mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
    .mockResolvedValueOnce('success');
  await retryOperation(mock);
  expect(mock).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(3);
});

Vague name, tests mock not code </Bad>

**Requirements:**

• One behavior
• Clear name
• Real code (no mocks unless unavoidable)

Verify RED - Watch It Fail

**MANDATORY. Never skip.**

npm test path/to/test.test.ts

Confirm:

• Test fails (not errors)
• Failure message is expected
• Fails because feature missing (not typos)

**Test passes?** You're testing existing behavior. Fix test.

**Test errors?** Fix error, re-run until it fails correctly.

GREEN - Minimal Code

Write simplest code to pass the test.

<Good>

async function retryOperation<T>(fn: () => Promise<T>): Promise<T> {
  for (let i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
    try {
      return await fn();
    } catch (e) {
      if (i === 2) throw e;
    }
  }
  throw new Error('unreachable');
}

Just enough to pass </Good>

<Bad>

async function retryOperation<T>(
  fn: () => Promise<T>,
  options?: {
    maxRetries?: number;
    backoff?: 'linear' | 'exponential';
    onRetry?: (attempt: number) => void;
  }
): Promise<T> {
  // YAGNI
}

Over-engineered </Bad>

Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.

Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass

**MANDATORY.**

npm test path/to/test.test.ts

Confirm:

• Test passes
• Other tests still pass
• Output pristine (no errors, warnings)

**Test fails?** Fix code, not test.

**Other tests fail?** Fix now.

REFACTOR - Clean Up

After green only:

• Remove duplication
• Improve names
• Extract helpers

Keep tests green. Don't add behavior.

Repeat

Next failing test for next feature.

Good Tests

| Quality | Good | Bad | |---------|------|-----| | **Minimal** | One thing. "and" in name? Split it. | `test('validates email and domain and whitespace')` | | **Clear** | Name describes behavior | `test('test1')` | | **Shows intent** | Demonstrates desired API | Obscures what code should do |

When writing or changing any test, read [writing-good-tests.md](writing-good-tests.md) for the rules that keep tests honest:

• Name the production change that would make the test fail — before writing it
• Assert on real behavior, never on mock behavior
• Keep test-only code in test utilities, out of production classes
• Understand a dependency's side effects before mocking it

Common Rationalizations

| Excuse | Reality | |--------|---------| | "Too simple to test" | Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds. | | "I'll test after" | Tests written after pass immediately — which proves nothing. They may test the wrong thing, test the implementation instead of the behavior, or miss the edge case you forgot. You never watched it fail, so you never proved it can catch the bug. Test-first forces that failure. | | "Tests after achieve same goals (spirit not ritual)" | Tests-after answer "what does this do?"; tests-first answer "what should this do?" Tests written after are biased by the code you already wrote — you verify the cases you remembered, not the ones you'd have discovered. Coverage without proof the tests work. | | "Already manually tested" | Manual testing is ad-hoc: no record of what you covered, no way to re-run it when the code changes, easy to forget cases under pressure. "Worked when I tried it" ≠ comprehensive. Automated tests run the same way every time. | | "Deleting X hours is wasteful" | Sunk cost fallacy — that time is already spent either way. The real choice: rewrite with TDD (high confidence) vs. keep it and