@rryando/arcs 4.1.0 → 4.2.0

package/opencode/arcs/skills/test-driven-development/tdd-rationalizations-and-examples.md

@@ -1,157 +1,10 @@
-# TDD — Rationalizations and Examples
+# TDD Quick Examples
 
-Companion reference for `SKILL.md`. Contains expanded rebuttals to common TDD-skipping arguments and a worked bug-fix example. Load this when the main skill's rationalizations table isn't enough — i.e. when you or a reviewer is actively arguing for skipping tests-first.
+Use this optional reference when the right test boundary is unclear.
 
-## Why Order Matters — Expanded Rebuttals
+- Bug: reproduce the reported failure, then fix it.
+- Feature: assert the smallest user-visible behavior before implementation.
+- Refactor: existing behavior tests may be sufficient; add a test only for an uncovered contract.
+- Mechanical/prose/generated changes: verify the relevant contract instead of inventing a unit test.
 
-### "I'll write tests after to verify it works"
-
-Tests written after code pass immediately. Passing immediately proves nothing:
-- Might test wrong thing
-- Might test implementation, not behavior
-- Might miss edge cases you forgot
-- You never saw it catch the bug
-
-Test-first forces you to see the test fail, proving it actually tests something.
-
-### "I already manually tested all the edge cases"
-
-Manual testing is ad-hoc. You think you tested everything but:
-- No record of what you tested
-- Can't re-run when code changes
-- Easy to forget cases under pressure
-- "It worked when I tried it" ≠ comprehensive
-
-Automated tests are systematic. They run the same way every time.
-
-### "Deleting X hours of work is wasteful"
-
-Sunk cost fallacy. The time is already gone. Your choice now:
-- Delete and rewrite with TDD (X more hours, high confidence)
-- Keep it and add tests after (30 min, low confidence, likely bugs)
-
-The "waste" is keeping code you can't trust. Working code without real tests is technical debt.
-
-### "TDD is dogmatic, being pragmatic means adapting"
-
-TDD IS pragmatic:
-- Finds bugs before commit (faster than debugging after)
-- Prevents regressions (tests catch breaks immediately)
-- Documents behavior (tests show how to use code)
-- Enables refactoring (change freely, tests catch breaks)
-
-"Pragmatic" shortcuts = debugging in production = slower.
-
-### "Tests after achieve the same goals — it's spirit not ritual"
-
-No. Tests-after answer "What does this do?" Tests-first answer "What should this do?"
-
-Tests-after are biased by your implementation. You test what you built, not what's required. You verify remembered edge cases, not discovered ones.
-
-Tests-first force edge case discovery before implementing. Tests-after verify you remembered everything (you didn't).
-
-30 minutes of tests after ≠ TDD. You get coverage, lose proof tests work.
-
-## Worked Example: Bug Fix via TDD
-
-**Bug:** Empty email accepted
-
-### RED
-```typescript
-test('rejects empty email', async () => {
-  const result = await submitForm({ email: '' });
-  expect(result.error).toBe('Email required');
-});
-```
-
-### Verify RED
-```bash
-$ npm test -- submitForm.test.ts
-FAIL: expected 'Email required', got undefined
-```
-
-### GREEN
-```typescript
-function submitForm(data: FormData) {
-  if (!data.email?.trim()) {
-    return { error: 'Email required' };
-  }
-  // ...
-}
-```
-
-### Verify GREEN
-```bash
-$ npm test -- submitForm.test.ts
-PASS
-```
-
-### REFACTOR
-Extract validation for multiple fields if needed.
-
-## Good vs Bad Tests and Implementations
-
-### RED — Good failing test
-
-```typescript
-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.
-
-### RED — Bad failing test
-
-```typescript
-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.
-
-### GREEN — Good minimal implementation
-
-```typescript
-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.
-
-### GREEN — Bad over-engineered implementation
-
-```typescript
-async function retryOperation<T>(
-  fn: () => Promise<T>,
-  options?: {
-    maxRetries?: number;
-    backoff?: 'linear' | 'exponential';
-    onRetry?: (attempt: number) => void;
-  }
-): Promise<T> {
-  // YAGNI
-}
-```
-Over-engineered. Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.
+If the test passes before implementation, confirm it exercises the new behavior. If testing requires extensive mocking, look for a simpler public boundary.

package/opencode/arcs/skills/test-driven-development/testing-anti-patterns.md

@@ -1,299 +1,12 @@
 # Testing Anti-Patterns
 
-**Load this reference when:** writing or changing tests, adding mocks, or tempted to add test-only methods to production code.
+Avoid:
 
-## Overview
+- tests that assert private call order instead of behavior;
+- mocks that reproduce the implementation;
+- broad snapshots with no meaningful contract;
+- sleeps instead of observable conditions;
+- one test covering several unrelated behaviors;
+- adding tests solely to increase line coverage.
 
-Tests must verify real behavior, not mock behavior. Mocks are a means to isolate, not the thing being tested.
-
-**Core principle:** Test what the code does, not what the mocks do.
-
-**Following strict TDD prevents these anti-patterns.**
-
-## The Iron Laws
-
-```
-1. NEVER test mock behavior
-2. NEVER add test-only methods to production classes
-3. NEVER mock without understanding dependencies
-```
-
-## Anti-Pattern 1: Testing Mock Behavior
-
-**The violation:**
-```typescript
-// ❌ BAD: Testing that the mock exists
-test('renders sidebar', () => {
-  render(<Page />);
-  expect(screen.getByTestId('sidebar-mock')).toBeInTheDocument();
-});
-```
-
-**Why this is wrong:**
-- You're verifying the mock works, not that the component works
-- Test passes when mock is present, fails when it's not
-- Tells you nothing about real behavior
-
-**your human partner's correction:** "Are we testing the behavior of a mock?"
-
-**The fix:**
-```typescript
-// ✅ GOOD: Test real component or don't mock it
-test('renders sidebar', () => {
-  render(<Page />);  // Don't mock sidebar
-  expect(screen.getByRole('navigation')).toBeInTheDocument();
-});
-
-// OR if sidebar must be mocked for isolation:
-// Don't assert on the mock - test Page's behavior with sidebar present
-```
-
-### Gate Function
-
-```
-BEFORE asserting on any mock element:
-  Ask: "Am I testing real component behavior or just mock existence?"
-
-  IF testing mock existence:
-    STOP - Delete the assertion or unmock the component
-
-  Test real behavior instead
-```
-
-## Anti-Pattern 2: Test-Only Methods in Production
-
-**The violation:**
-```typescript
-// ❌ BAD: destroy() only used in tests
-class Session {
-  async destroy() {  // Looks like production API!
-    await this._workspaceManager?.destroyWorkspace(this.id);
-    // ... cleanup
-  }
-}
-
-// In tests
-afterEach(() => session.destroy());
-```
-
-**Why this is wrong:**
-- Production class polluted with test-only code
-- Dangerous if accidentally called in production
-- Violates YAGNI and separation of concerns
-- Confuses object lifecycle with entity lifecycle
-
-**The fix:**
-```typescript
-// ✅ GOOD: Test utilities handle test cleanup
-// Session has no destroy() - it's stateless in production
-
-// In test-utils/
-export async function cleanupSession(session: Session) {
-  const workspace = session.getWorkspaceInfo();
-  if (workspace) {
-    await workspaceManager.destroyWorkspace(workspace.id);
-  }
-}
-
-// In tests
-afterEach(() => cleanupSession(session));
-```
-
-### Gate Function
-
-```
-BEFORE adding any method to production class:
-  Ask: "Is this only used by tests?"
-
-  IF yes:
-    STOP - Don't add it
-    Put it in test utilities instead
-
-  Ask: "Does this class own this resource's lifecycle?"
-
-  IF no:
-    STOP - Wrong class for this method
-```
-
-## Anti-Pattern 3: Mocking Without Understanding
-
-**The violation:**
-```typescript
-// ❌ BAD: Mock breaks test logic
-test('detects duplicate server', () => {
-  // Mock prevents config write that test depends on!
-  vi.mock('ToolCatalog', () => ({
-    discoverAndCacheTools: vi.fn().mockResolvedValue(undefined)
-  }));
-
-  await addServer(config);
-  await addServer(config);  // Should throw - but won't!
-});
-```
-
-**Why this is wrong:**
-- Mocked method had side effect test depended on (writing config)
-- Over-mocking to "be safe" breaks actual behavior
-- Test passes for wrong reason or fails mysteriously
-
-**The fix:**
-```typescript
-// ✅ GOOD: Mock at correct level
-test('detects duplicate server', () => {
-  // Mock the slow part, preserve behavior test needs
-  vi.mock('MCPServerManager'); // Just mock slow server startup
-
-  await addServer(config);  // Config written
-  await addServer(config);  // Duplicate detected ✓
-});
-```
-
-### Gate Function
-
-```
-BEFORE mocking any method:
-  STOP - Don't mock yet
-
-  1. Ask: "What side effects does the real method have?"
-  2. Ask: "Does this test depend on any of those side effects?"
-  3. Ask: "Do I fully understand what this test needs?"
-
-  IF depends on side effects:
-    Mock at lower level (the actual slow/external operation)
-    OR use test doubles that preserve necessary behavior
-    NOT the high-level method the test depends on
-
-  IF unsure what test depends on:
-    Run test with real implementation FIRST
-    Observe what actually needs to happen
-    THEN add minimal mocking at the right level
-
-  Red flags:
-    - "I'll mock this to be safe"
-    - "This might be slow, better mock it"
-    - Mocking without understanding the dependency chain
-```
-
-## Anti-Pattern 4: Incomplete Mocks
-
-**The violation:**
-```typescript
-// ❌ BAD: Partial mock - only fields you think you need
-const mockResponse = {
-  status: 'success',
-  data: { userId: '123', name: 'Alice' }
-  // Missing: metadata that downstream code uses
-};
-
-// Later: breaks when code accesses response.metadata.requestId
-```
-
-**Why this is wrong:**
-- **Partial mocks hide structural assumptions** - You only mocked fields you know about
-- **Downstream code may depend on fields you didn't include** - Silent failures
-- **Tests pass but integration fails** - Mock incomplete, real API complete
-- **False confidence** - Test proves nothing about real behavior
-
-**The Iron Rule:** Mock the COMPLETE data structure as it exists in reality, not just fields your immediate test uses.
-
-**The fix:**
-```typescript
-// ✅ GOOD: Mirror real API completeness
-const mockResponse = {
-  status: 'success',
-  data: { userId: '123', name: 'Alice' },
-  metadata: { requestId: 'req-789', timestamp: 1234567890 }
-  // All fields real API returns
-};
-```
-
-### Gate Function
-
-```
-BEFORE creating mock responses:
-  Check: "What fields does the real API response contain?"
-
-  Actions:
-    1. Examine actual API response from docs/examples
-    2. Include ALL fields system might consume downstream
-    3. Verify mock matches real response schema completely
-
-  Critical:
-    If you're creating a mock, you must understand the ENTIRE structure
-    Partial mocks fail silently when code depends on omitted fields
-
-  If uncertain: Include all documented fields
-```
-
-## Anti-Pattern 5: Integration Tests as Afterthought
-
-**The violation:**
-```
-✅ Implementation complete
-❌ No tests written
-"Ready for testing"
-```
-
-**Why this is wrong:**
-- Testing is part of implementation, not optional follow-up
-- TDD would have caught this
-- Can't claim complete without tests
-
-**The fix:**
-```
-TDD cycle:
-1. Write failing test
-2. Implement to pass
-3. Refactor
-4. THEN claim complete
-```
-
-## When Mocks Become Too Complex
-
-**Warning signs:**
-- Mock setup longer than test logic
-- Mocking everything to make test pass
-- Mocks missing methods real components have
-- Test breaks when mock changes
-
-**your human partner's question:** "Do we need to be using a mock here?"
-
-**Consider:** Integration tests with real components often simpler than complex mocks
-
-## TDD Prevents These Anti-Patterns
-
-**Why TDD helps:**
-1. **Write test first** → Forces you to think about what you're actually testing
-2. **Watch it fail** → Confirms test tests real behavior, not mocks
-3. **Minimal implementation** → No test-only methods creep in
-4. **Real dependencies** → You see what the test actually needs before mocking
-
-**If you're testing mock behavior, you violated TDD** - you added mocks without watching test fail against real code first.
-
-## Quick Reference
-
-| Anti-Pattern | Fix |
-|--------------|-----|
-| Assert on mock elements | Test real component or unmock it |
-| Test-only methods in production | Move to test utilities |
-| Mock without understanding | Understand dependencies first, mock minimally |
-| Incomplete mocks | Mirror real API completely |
-| Tests as afterthought | TDD - tests first |
-| Over-complex mocks | Consider integration tests |
-
-## Red Flags
-
-- Assertion checks for `*-mock` test IDs
-- Methods only called in test files
-- Mock setup is >50% of test
-- Test fails when you remove mock
-- Can't explain why mock is needed
-- Mocking "just to be safe"
-
-## The Bottom Line
-
-**Mocks are tools to isolate, not things to test.**
-
-If TDD reveals you're testing mock behavior, you've gone wrong.
-
-Fix: Test real behavior or question why you're mocking at all.
+Prefer stable public boundaries, realistic inputs, clear failure messages, and the smallest check that proves the requirement.