claude-mpm 5.4.41__py3-none-any.whl → 5.6.72__py3-none-any.whl

claude_mpm/skills/bundled/testing/testing-anti-patterns/references/core-anti-patterns.md

@@ -0,0 +1,411 @@
+# Core Testing Anti-Patterns
+
+The three most critical testing anti-patterns that violate fundamental testing principles. These patterns test mock behavior instead of real behavior, pollute production code with test concerns, or 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
+- False confidence - production may still be broken
+
+**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
+test('page layout includes sidebar area', () => {
+  render(<Page />);  // Sidebar mocked for speed
+  expect(screen.getByRole('main')).toHaveClass('with-sidebar-layout');
+});
+```
+
+### Detection Strategy
+
+**Red flags:**
+- Assertions check for `*-mock` in test IDs
+- Test IDs contain "mock", "stub", "fake"
+- Test fails when you remove the mock
+- Can't explain what real behavior you're testing
+
+**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
+
+  Ask: "What would this test verify in production?"
+
+  IF answer is "nothing" or unclear:
+    STOP - Rethink what you're testing
+
+  Test real behavior instead
+```
+
+### When Mocking is Appropriate
+
+**Good reasons to mock:**
+- Isolate slow external dependencies (network, filesystem, DB)
+- Control non-deterministic behavior (time, randomness)
+- Simulate error conditions hard to trigger
+- Speed up test execution
+
+**Bad reasons to mock:**
+- "Might be slow" (without measuring)
+- "To be safe"
+- "Everyone mocks this"
+- To avoid understanding dependencies
+
+**Rule:** Mock at the boundary of slow/external operations, not high-level application logic.
+
+## 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);
+    await this._messageRouter?.cleanup();
+    this._isDestroyed = true;
+  }
+}
+
+// In tests
+afterEach(() => session.destroy());
+```
+
+**Why this is wrong:**
+- Production class polluted with test-only code
+- Dangerous if accidentally called in production
+- Violates YAGNI (You Aren't Gonna Need It)
+- Violates separation of concerns
+- Confuses object lifecycle with entity lifecycle
+- Creates maintenance burden (unused code in production)
+
+**The fix:**
+```typescript
+// ✅ GOOD: Test utilities handle test cleanup
+// Session has no destroy() - it's stateless in production
+
+// In test-utils/session-helpers.ts
+export async function cleanupSession(session: Session) {
+  const workspace = session.getWorkspaceInfo();
+  if (workspace) {
+    await workspaceManager.destroyWorkspace(workspace.id);
+  }
+
+  const router = session.getMessageRouter();
+  if (router) {
+    await router.cleanup();
+  }
+}
+
+// In tests
+afterEach(() => cleanupSession(session));
+```
+
+### When Test Utilities Make Sense
+
+**Good candidates for test utilities:**
+- Setup/teardown operations
+- Test data builders
+- Assertion helpers
+- Test-specific configurations
+- Lifecycle management for tests
+
+**Keep in production:**
+- Methods used by application code
+- Proper public API
+- Business logic
+- Real lifecycle methods (close, dispose)
+
+**Key distinction:** If it's never called outside test files, it shouldn't be in production code.
+
+### Detection Strategy
+
+**Red flags:**
+- Method only called in `*.test.*` or `*.spec.*` files
+- Method name suggests testing (reset, clear, destroy, mock)
+- Comments say "for testing only"
+- Method has no production use case
+
+**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 (test-utils/, test-helpers/)
+
+  Ask: "Does this class own this resource's lifecycle?"
+
+  IF no:
+    STOP - Wrong class for this method
+    Resource owner should manage lifecycle
+
+  Ask: "Would production code ever call this?"
+
+  IF no:
+    STOP - Belongs in test utilities
+```
+
+### Refactoring Existing Test-Only Methods
+
+**Step-by-step:**
+
+1. **Identify** - Find methods only called in test files
+2. **Extract** - Create test utility function with same logic
+3. **Migrate** - Update tests to use utility
+4. **Remove** - Delete test-only method from production
+5. **Verify** - Production builds/bundles are cleaner
+
+**Example refactoring:**
+
+```typescript
+// Before: Production class polluted
+class Database {
+  async reset() { /* only for tests */ }
+}
+
+// After: Clean separation
+// database.ts - production
+class Database {
+  // No reset() method
+}
+
+// test-utils/database.ts - tests only
+export async function resetTestDatabase(db: Database) {
+  // Use public API to achieve reset
+  await db.executeRaw('TRUNCATE ALL TABLES');
+}
+```
+
+## Anti-Pattern 3: Mocking Without Understanding
+
+**The violation:**
+```typescript
+// ❌ BAD: Mock breaks test logic
+test('detects duplicate server', async () => {
+  // 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!
+  // Test expects duplicate detection, but mock broke it
+});
+```
+
+**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
+- You're testing mock behavior, not real behavior
+
+**The fix:**
+```typescript
+// ✅ GOOD: Mock at correct level
+test('detects duplicate server', async () => {
+  // Mock the slow part, preserve behavior test needs
+  vi.mock('MCPServerManager'); // Just mock slow server startup
+  // Config writing preserved - duplicate detection works
+
+  await addServer(config);  // Config written
+  await expect(addServer(config)).rejects.toThrow('already exists');
+});
+```
+
+### Understanding Dependencies Before Mocking
+
+**Questions to ask BEFORE mocking:**
+
+1. **What does the real method do?**
+   - Read the implementation
+   - Check for side effects
+   - Identify return values
+   - Note error conditions
+
+2. **What side effects exist?**
+   - Filesystem writes
+   - Database updates
+   - Cache modifications
+   - State changes
+   - Event emissions
+
+3. **What does THIS test need?**
+   - Which side effects matter?
+   - What behavior am I testing?
+   - What can be safely isolated?
+
+4. **Where should I mock?**
+   - At the boundary of slow operations
+   - Below the logic being tested
+   - At external system interfaces
+
+### Dependency Analysis Example
+
+```typescript
+// Analyzing: Should I mock discoverAndCacheTools()?
+
+// 1. Read implementation
+async function discoverAndCacheTools(serverConfig) {
+  const tools = await fetchToolsFromServer(serverConfig);  // Slow
+  await cacheTools(serverConfig.id, tools);                // Side effect!
+  return tools;
+}
+
+// 2. Identify side effects
+// - Network call (slow)
+// - Cache write (side effect tests may depend on)
+
+// 3. Determine test needs
+test('server registration prevents duplicates', () => {
+  // Needs: Config persistence to detect duplicate
+  // Doesn't need: Actual tool discovery (slow)
+});
+
+// 4. Mock at correct level
+// ✅ Mock network, preserve cache
+vi.mock('server-connection', () => ({
+  fetchToolsFromServer: vi.fn().mockResolvedValue([])
+}));
+// cacheTools() runs - test logic intact
+```
+
+### Gate Function
+
+```
+BEFORE mocking any method:
+  STOP - Don't mock yet
+
+  1. Ask: "What side effects does the real method have?"
+     Action: Read implementation, list all side effects
+
+  2. Ask: "Does this test depend on any of those side effects?"
+     Action: Identify which side effects test logic needs
+
+  3. Ask: "Do I fully understand what this test needs?"
+     Action: Write down test's dependencies
+
+  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 reading implementation
+    - Mocking without understanding dependency chain
+```
+
+### Levels of Mocking
+
+**Choose the right level:**
+
+```typescript
+// ❌ Too high - breaks test logic
+vi.mock('UserService');  // Mocks everything, including state changes
+
+// ❌ Too high - over-mocking
+vi.mock('DatabaseAdapter');  // Could use in-memory DB instead
+
+// ✅ Right level - isolates slow operation
+vi.mock('HTTPClient');  // Mock network, preserve business logic
+
+// ✅ Right level - controls non-determinism
+vi.spyOn(Date, 'now').mockReturnValue(fixedTimestamp);
+```
+
+**Mocking hierarchy (top to bottom):**
+1. **Application logic** - Never mock (this is what you're testing)
+2. **Business layer** - Rarely mock (needed for test assertions)
+3. **Adapter layer** - Sometimes mock (if slow, use test doubles)
+4. **I/O boundaries** - Usually mock (network, filesystem, external APIs)
+5. **Infrastructure** - Always mock (actual servers, databases in unit tests)
+
+### Common Mocking Mistakes
+
+**Mistake 1: Mocking what you're testing**
+```typescript
+// ❌ BAD
+test('user registration validates email', () => {
+  vi.mock('UserValidator');  // You're testing this!
+  await registerUser(email);
+});
+
+// ✅ GOOD
+test('user registration validates email', () => {
+  vi.mock('EmailService');  // Mock email sending, test validation
+  await expect(registerUser('invalid')).rejects.toThrow();
+});
+```
+
+**Mistake 2: Mocking too broadly**
+```typescript
+// ❌ BAD - mocks entire module
+vi.mock('./user-service');
+
+// ✅ GOOD - mocks specific slow operation
+vi.mock('./email-client', () => ({
+  sendEmail: vi.fn()  // Just the network call
+}));
+```
+
+**Mistake 3: Mocking based on assumptions**
+```typescript
+// ❌ BAD - assumption without measurement
+// "Database queries are slow, better mock"
+vi.mock('./database');
+
+// ✅ GOOD - measure first
+// Run test unmocked: 2ms (fast enough!)
+// Don't mock unless proven slow
+```
+
+## Prevention Through TDD
+
+**How TDD prevents these anti-patterns:**
+
+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.
+
+**TDD workflow prevents:**
+- Testing mock behavior (test fails for real reasons first)
+- Test-only methods (minimal implementation doesn't add them)
+- Uninformed mocking (you understand needs before mocking)
+
+See [test-driven-development skill](../../test-driven-development/) for complete TDD workflow.