claude-mpm 4.21.0__py3-none-any.whl → 5.0.2__py3-none-any.whl

claude_mpm/skills/bundled/testing/testing-anti-patterns/references/tdd-connection.md

@@ -1,695 +0,0 @@
-# How TDD Prevents Testing Anti-Patterns
-
-Test-Driven Development (TDD) is not just a testing methodology - it's a design methodology that naturally prevents all five testing anti-patterns. This guide explains the deep connection between TDD and anti-pattern prevention.
-
-## Overview
-
-**Core insight:** If you follow strict TDD, testing anti-patterns become nearly impossible to create.
-
-**Why:** TDD forces you to think about real behavior before implementation, making mock-testing and test-only methods unnatural.
-
-## TDD Fundamentals
-
-### The RED/GREEN/REFACTOR Cycle
-
-```
-1. RED: Write failing test
-   - Test doesn't compile or fails
-   - Verify failure reason is correct
-   - No implementation exists yet
-
-2. GREEN: Write minimal code to pass
-   - Simplest implementation
-   - Just enough to pass test
-   - No gold plating
-
-3. REFACTOR: Improve code
-   - Clean up duplication
-   - Improve names
-   - Tests still pass
-
-4. REPEAT: Next test
-```
-
-**Critical rule:** Never write implementation without failing test first.
-
-See [test-driven-development skill](../../test-driven-development/) for complete workflow.
-
-## How TDD Prevents Each Anti-Pattern
-
-### Anti-Pattern 1: Testing Mock Behavior
-
-**How TDD prevents it:**
-
-```
-TDD Step 1: Write test for real behavior
-  ↓
-Test fails because feature doesn't exist
-  ↓
-TDD Step 2: Implement minimal code
-  ↓
-Test passes - you tested real code, not mock
-
-If you tested mock:
-  ↓
-Test would pass immediately (mock exists)
-  ↓
-Violation of TDD - didn't see failure
-```
-
-**Example workflow:**
-
-```typescript
-// TDD Step 1: Write failing test
-test('renders sidebar with navigation', () => {
-  render(<Page />);
-  expect(screen.getByRole('navigation')).toBeInTheDocument();
-});
-// ❌ Fails - Page doesn't render sidebar yet
-
-// TDD Step 2: Implement
-function Page() {
-  return <div><Sidebar role="navigation" /></div>;
-}
-// ✅ Passes - tested real component
-
-// WRONG way (not TDD):
-test('renders sidebar mock', () => {
-  render(<Page />);
-  expect(screen.getByTestId('sidebar-mock')).toBeInTheDocument();
-});
-// ✅ Passes immediately - you never saw it fail!
-// This violates TDD - test must fail first
-```
-
-**TDD guarantee:** If test passes immediately, you're testing mock behavior.
-
-### Anti-Pattern 2: Test-Only Methods in Production
-
-**How TDD prevents it:**
-
-```
-TDD Step 1: Write test for needed behavior
-  ↓
-Test describes what production needs
-  ↓
-TDD Step 2: Minimal implementation
-  ↓
-Only code test needs is written
-
-If method only for tests:
-  ↓
-No production test would need it
-  ↓
-TDD wouldn't add it
-```
-
-**Example workflow:**
-
-```typescript
-// TDD Step 1: Write test for production behavior
-test('session expires after timeout', async () => {
-  const session = new Session();
-  await advanceTime(SESSION_TIMEOUT);
-  expect(session.isActive()).toBe(false);
-});
-// ❌ Fails - Session doesn't handle expiry
-
-// TDD Step 2: Implement expiry (production feature)
-class Session {
-  isActive() {
-    return Date.now() < this.expiresAt;
-  }
-}
-// ✅ Passes - implemented real behavior
-
-// WRONG way (not TDD):
-// "I need to cleanup in tests"
-class Session {
-  destroy() { /* for tests */ }  // ❌ Not driven by test!
-}
-```
-
-**TDD guarantee:** Minimal implementation doesn't add untested code.
-
-**Test cleanup belongs in test utilities:**
-```typescript
-// test-utils/session.ts
-export async function cleanupSession(session: Session) {
-  // Use public API for cleanup
-  session.logout();
-  // Clear any test-specific state
-}
-```
-
-### Anti-Pattern 3: Mocking Without Understanding
-
-**How TDD prevents it:**
-
-```
-TDD Step 1: Write test with real implementation
-  ↓
-Test runs - you see what it does
-  ↓
-Identify what's slow/external
-  ↓
-TDD Step 2: Mock at correct level
-  ↓
-Mock only slow part, preserve behavior
-
-If you mock first:
-  ↓
-Never saw real behavior
-  ↓
-Don't understand dependencies
-  ↓
-Mock breaks test logic
-```
-
-**Example workflow:**
-
-```typescript
-// TDD Step 1: Write test with real implementation
-test('detects duplicate server', async () => {
-  await addServer(config);
-  await expect(addServer(config))
-    .rejects.toThrow('already exists');
-});
-// Run test - takes 2 seconds (server startup slow)
-// Observe: Config written, duplicate detected
-// Understand: Test depends on config persistence
-
-// TDD Step 2: Mock at correct level
-test('detects duplicate server', async () => {
-  vi.mock('MCPServerManager');  // Mock slow startup only
-  // Config writing preserved - test logic intact
-
-  await addServer(config);
-  await expect(addServer(config))
-    .rejects.toThrow('already exists');
-});
-// ✅ Fast test, correct behavior
-
-// WRONG way (not TDD):
-// "Let me mock this upfront"
-vi.mock('ToolCatalog', () => ({
-  discoverAndCacheTools: vi.fn()  // Breaks test logic!
-}));
-// Never saw real behavior - don't know what test needs
-```
-
-**TDD guarantee:** You understand dependencies before mocking them.
-
-### Anti-Pattern 4: Incomplete Mocks
-
-**How TDD prevents it:**
-
-```
-TDD Step 1: Write test with real API
-  ↓
-See complete response structure
-  ↓
-TDD Step 2: Mock with complete structure
-  ↓
-Test still passes - mock is complete
-
-If mock incomplete:
-  ↓
-Test fails - mock missing fields
-  ↓
-TDD forces you to complete mock
-```
-
-**Example workflow:**
-
-```typescript
-// TDD Step 1: Test with real API (or type)
-test('displays user profile', async () => {
-  const user = await api.getUser('123');
-  // TypeScript shows complete User type
-  render(<Profile user={user} />);
-  expect(screen.getByText(user.name)).toBeInTheDocument();
-  expect(screen.getByText(user.profile.timezone)).toBeInTheDocument();
-});
-// Observe complete structure
-
-// TDD Step 2: Mock with complete structure
-test('displays user profile', async () => {
-  const mockUser: User = {  // TypeScript enforces completeness
-    id: '123',
-    name: 'Alice',
-    email: 'alice@example.com',
-    profile: {
-      timezone: 'UTC',
-      locale: 'en-US',
-      avatar: null
-    },
-    metadata: { /* complete */ }
-  };
-
-  render(<Profile user={mockUser} />);
-  expect(screen.getByText('Alice')).toBeInTheDocument();
-});
-// ✅ Complete mock, test passes
-
-// WRONG way (not TDD):
-const mockUser = { id: '123', name: 'Alice' };  // Incomplete
-// Later breaks when profile.timezone accessed
-```
-
-**TDD guarantee:** Test with real data first reveals complete structure.
-
-**Use TypeScript to enforce completeness:**
-```typescript
-// Define complete type from API
-interface User {
-  id: string;
-  name: string;
-  email: string;
-  profile: UserProfile;
-  metadata: UserMetadata;
-}
-
-// TypeScript errors if incomplete
-const mock: User = {
-  id: '123',
-  name: 'Alice'
-  // ❌ TypeScript error - missing fields
-};
-```
-
-### Anti-Pattern 5: Tests as Afterthought
-
-**How TDD prevents it:**
-
-```
-TDD Step 1: MUST write test first
-  ↓
-No implementation without test
-  ↓
-Test IS implementation process
-
-If implementation first:
-  ↓
-Violated TDD - broke the cycle
-```
-
-**TDD makes tests as afterthought impossible:**
-
-```typescript
-// TDD Way - tests ARE implementation
-// 1. RED
-test('user registration validates email', async () => {
-  await expect(registerUser('invalid'))
-    .rejects.toThrow('Invalid email');
-});
-// ❌ Fails - registerUser doesn't exist
-
-// 2. GREEN
-async function registerUser(email: string) {
-  if (!isValidEmail(email)) {
-    throw new Error('Invalid email');
-  }
-  // ... registration
-}
-// ✅ Passes
-
-// 3. REFACTOR
-// Improve validation logic, tests still pass
-
-// NOT TDD (anti-pattern):
-// 1. Implement registerUser
-// 2. "Feature complete, need to add tests"  ← Afterthought
-```
-
-**TDD workflow:**
-- Tests first = tests are implementation
-- No "testing phase" - tests are development
-- Feature complete = tests passing
-- Can't forget tests - can't write code without them
-
-## TDD Workflow Prevents Anti-Patterns
-
-### Complete TDD Cycle
-
-```typescript
-// Feature: User registration with email validation
-
-// ========================================
-// CYCLE 1: Email validation
-// ========================================
-
-// RED: Write failing test
-test('rejects invalid email', async () => {
-  await expect(registerUser('invalid'))
-    .rejects.toThrow('Invalid email');
-});
-// ❌ Fails - registerUser doesn't exist
-
-// GREEN: Minimal implementation
-async function registerUser(email: string) {
-  if (!email.includes('@')) {
-    throw new Error('Invalid email');
-  }
-}
-// ✅ Passes
-
-// REFACTOR: Improve validation
-async function registerUser(email: string) {
-  if (!isValidEmail(email)) {  // Better validator
-    throw new Error('Invalid email');
-  }
-}
-// ✅ Still passes
-
-// ========================================
-// CYCLE 2: Database integration
-// ========================================
-
-// RED: Write failing test
-test('saves user to database', async () => {
-  const user = await registerUser('alice@example.com');
-  const saved = await db.users.findById(user.id);
-  expect(saved.email).toBe('alice@example.com');
-});
-// ❌ Fails - no database integration
-
-// GREEN: Add database
-async function registerUser(email: string) {
-  if (!isValidEmail(email)) {
-    throw new Error('Invalid email');
-  }
-  const user = await db.users.create({ email });  // Added
-  return user;
-}
-// ✅ Passes
-
-// REFACTOR: Extract repository pattern
-// Tests still pass
-
-// ========================================
-// CYCLE 3: Duplicate prevention
-// ========================================
-
-// RED: Write failing test
-test('prevents duplicate email', async () => {
-  await registerUser('alice@example.com');
-  await expect(registerUser('alice@example.com'))
-    .rejects.toThrow('Email already exists');
-});
-// ❌ Fails - no duplicate check
-
-// GREEN: Add check
-async function registerUser(email: string) {
-  if (!isValidEmail(email)) {
-    throw new Error('Invalid email');
-  }
-  const existing = await db.users.findByEmail(email);
-  if (existing) {
-    throw new Error('Email already exists');  // Added
-  }
-  return await db.users.create({ email });
-}
-// ✅ Passes
-
-// REFACTOR: Improve error handling
-// Tests still pass
-```
-
-**Notice:**
-- ✅ No mock behavior testing - real code tested
-- ✅ No test-only methods - only what tests needed
-- ✅ No uninformed mocking - saw real behavior first
-- ✅ No incomplete mocks - used real structures
-- ✅ No afterthought tests - tests first always
-
-## TDD Mindset: Test-First Thinking
-
-### Mental Model
-
-**NOT TDD thinking:**
-```
-"How do I implement this feature?"
-  ↓
-Implement code
-  ↓
-"How do I test this?"
-  ↓
-Write tests
-  ↓
-Anti-patterns emerge
-```
-
-**TDD thinking:**
-```
-"How will I verify this works?"
-  ↓
-Write test
-  ↓
-"What's minimal code to pass?"
-  ↓
-Implement
-  ↓
-Anti-patterns prevented
-```
-
-### Test-First Benefits
-
-**Design benefits:**
-- API designed from consumer perspective
-- Testable code (loose coupling)
-- Clear interfaces
-- Minimal implementation
-
-**Quality benefits:**
-- Verified behavior
-- Edge cases caught early
-- Regression prevention
-- Living documentation
-
-**Anti-pattern prevention:**
-- Can't test mocks (test fails first against real code)
-- No test-only methods (minimal implementation)
-- Must understand dependencies (see real behavior)
-- Complete structures (test with real data first)
-- Tests ARE implementation (not afterthought)
-
-## When TDD is Violated
-
-**Signs you're not following TDD:**
-
-```
-🚩 Writing implementation before test
-🚩 Test passes immediately
-🚩 Skipping "watch it fail" step
-🚩 Mocking before running test
-🚩 "Implementation done, adding tests"
-```
-
-**Consequences:**
-- All five anti-patterns become possible
-- Test quality degrades
-- False confidence
-- Design issues
-
-**Recovery:**
-1. Stop adding features
-2. Return to TDD workflow
-3. Write test first for next feature
-4. Watch it fail
-5. Minimal implementation
-6. Maintain discipline
-
-## TDD and Mocking Strategy
-
-### TDD-Compliant Mocking
-
-**The right way:**
-
-```typescript
-// 1. Write test with real implementation
-test('user registration sends welcome email', async () => {
-  await registerUser('alice@example.com');
-  // Observe: Email sending is slow (2 seconds)
-});
-
-// 2. Identify slow operation
-// emailService.send() is slow (network call)
-
-// 3. Mock at correct level
-test('user registration sends welcome email', async () => {
-  vi.spyOn(emailService, 'send').mockResolvedValue();
-
-  await registerUser('alice@example.com');
-
-  expect(emailService.send).toHaveBeenCalledWith({
-    to: 'alice@example.com',
-    subject: 'Welcome'
-  });
-});
-// Test runs fast, verifies email logic
-```
-
-**TDD mocking principles:**
-
-1. **Run with real implementation first** - See actual behavior
-2. **Measure performance** - Mock only if slow
-3. **Mock at boundaries** - I/O, network, filesystem
-4. **Preserve business logic** - Don't mock what you're testing
-5. **Verify behavior, not mocks** - Test results, not mock calls
-
-### Mocking Levels in TDD
-
-```
-Layer 1: Business Logic
-  → NEVER mock (this is what you're testing)
-
-Layer 2: Application Services
-  → RARELY mock (needed for assertions)
-
-Layer 3: Adapters
-  → SOMETIMES mock (if slow)
-
-Layer 4: External I/O
-  → USUALLY mock (network, DB, filesystem)
-
-Layer 5: Infrastructure
-  → ALWAYS mock in unit tests (servers, APIs)
-```
-
-## Common TDD Mistakes
-
-### Mistake 1: Not Watching Test Fail
-
-```typescript
-// ❌ WRONG
-test('feature works', () => {
-  expect(true).toBe(true);  // Passes immediately
-});
-// Didn't verify test tests right thing
-
-// ✅ RIGHT
-test('validates email', async () => {
-  await expect(register('invalid'))
-    .rejects.toThrow('Invalid email');
-});
-// ❌ Fails first - register doesn't exist
-// Then implement
-// ✅ Passes - verified test works
-```
-
-### Mistake 2: Overly Complex Implementation
-
-```typescript
-// ❌ WRONG (not minimal)
-test('adds numbers', () => {
-  expect(add(2, 3)).toBe(5);
-});
-
-function add(a: number, b: number): number {
-  // Not minimal - over-engineered
-  return Array(b).fill(a).reduce((sum, n) => sum + n, 0);
-}
-
-// ✅ RIGHT (minimal)
-function add(a: number, b: number): number {
-  return a + b;  // Simplest solution
-}
-```
-
-### Mistake 3: Testing Implementation Details
-
-```typescript
-// ❌ WRONG
-test('uses cache', () => {
-  const cache = new Cache();
-  service.setCache(cache);  // Testing how it works
-  expect(service.cache).toBe(cache);
-});
-
-// ✅ RIGHT
-test('returns cached result', () => {
-  service.get('key');
-  service.get('key');
-  expect(slowOperation).toHaveBeenCalledOnce();  // Testing behavior
-});
-```
-
-## TDD Discipline
-
-### Maintaining TDD Practice
-
-**Commit to:**
-- Test first, always
-- Watch it fail, every time
-- Minimal implementation, no gold plating
-- Refactor with confidence
-
-**When tempted to skip TDD:**
-- "Just a small change" → Write test first
-- "I know it works" → Write test to prove it
-- "This is hard to test" → Design issue, fix it
-- "Tests can wait" → No, they can't
-
-**TDD is not optional:**
-- Not a suggestion
-- Not for later
-- Not just for new features
-- Not "when I have time"
-
-**TDD is how you write code.**
-
-## Integration with Other Skills
-
-**Prerequisite skills:**
-- [test-driven-development](../../test-driven-development/) - Complete TDD workflow
-
-**Complementary skills:**
-- [verification-before-completion](../../../productivity/verification-before-completion/) - Definition of "done"
-
-**Anti-pattern prevention:**
-- This skill - What TDD prevents
-
-## Summary: TDD as Anti-Pattern Prevention
-
-| Anti-Pattern | TDD Prevention Mechanism |
-|--------------|---------------------------|
-| Testing Mock Behavior | Must watch test fail against real code first |
-| Test-Only Methods | Minimal implementation doesn't add them |
-| Mocking Without Understanding | Run with real impl first, understand dependencies |
-| Incomplete Mocks | Test with real data first, see complete structure |
-| Tests as Afterthought | Tests first is the workflow, impossible to skip |
-
-**The bottom line:** Strict TDD adherence makes testing anti-patterns nearly impossible to create.
-
-If you find yourself with these anti-patterns, you've violated TDD. Return to the RED/GREEN/REFACTOR cycle.
-
-## Quick Reference
-
-**TDD Cycle:**
-```
-RED → Write failing test
-GREEN → Minimal implementation
-REFACTOR → Improve code
-REPEAT → Next test
-```
-
-**Anti-pattern prevention:**
-```
-Test first → Prevents afterthought
-Watch fail → Prevents mock testing
-Minimal code → Prevents test-only methods
-Real impl first → Prevents uninformed mocking
-Real data first → Prevents incomplete mocks
-```
-
-**TDD discipline:**
-```
-Always test first
-Always watch fail
-Always minimal implementation
-Always refactor
-Never skip the cycle
-```
-
-See [test-driven-development skill](../../test-driven-development/) for complete TDD workflow and examples.