tdd

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.

When to use: Only for complex logic where bugs are likely, or when user explicitly requests tests.

Use TDD when:

1. User explicitly requests tests
2. Complex logic where bugs are likely:

- Complex algorithms

- Business logic with edge cases

- Data transformations

- Critical paths that could break silently

Skip TDD for:

• ❌ UI components (React components, hooks)
• ❌ Simple CRUD operations
• ❌ Straightforward mappings
• ❌ Anything you're 100% certain is correct
• ❌ Throwaway prototypes
• ❌ Configuration files

Verification alternatives when skipping:

• Typecheck with npm run typecheck
• Lint with npm run lint
• Manual testing for UI changes
• Code review confidence

```

WHEN WRITING TESTS: NO CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST

```

When you've decided to use TDD (complex logic, user request):

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

No exceptions when using TDD:

• 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.

When NOT using TDD (UI, simple code):

• Write code directly
• Verify with typecheck/lint
• Skip the test

```dot

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.

```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

```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

Requirements:

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

Verify RED - Watch It Fail

MANDATORY. Never skip.

```bash

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.

```typescript

async function retryOperation(fn: () => Promise): Promise {

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

```typescript

async function retryOperation(

fn: () => Promise,

options?: {

maxRetries?: number;

backoff?: 'linear' | 'exponential';

onRetry?: (attempt: number) => void;

}

): Promise {

// YAGNI

}

```

Over-engineered

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

Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass

MANDATORY.

```bash

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.

| 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 |

"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.

Valid reasons to skip TDD:

| Reason | Reality |

| ----------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------- |

| "This is a UI component" | ✅ Correct! Verify with typecheck/manual testing, skip tests. |

| "Simple CRUD, 100% confident" | ✅ Correct! Verify with typecheck/lint, skip tests. |

| "Straightforward mapping" | ✅ Correct! If truly simple, skip tests. |

Invalid rationalizations (for complex logic):

| Excuse | Reality |

| -------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| "Too simple to test" | If it's complex logic, test it. If truly simple, skip is fine. |

| "I'll test after" | Tests passing immediately prove nothing. |

| "Tests after achieve same goals" | Tests-after = "what does this do?" Tests-first = "what should this do?" |

| "Already manually tested" | Ad-hoc ≠ systematic. No record, can't re-run. |

| "Deleting X hours is wasteful" | Sunk cost fallacy. Keeping unverified code is technical debt. |

| "Keep as reference, write tests first" | You'll adapt it. That's testing after. Delete means delete. |

| "Need to explore first" | Fine. Throw away exploration, start with TDD. |

| "Test hard = design unclear" | Listen to test. Hard to test = hard to use. |

| "TDD will slow me down" | TDD faster than debugging. Pragmatic = test-first. |

| "Manual test faster" | Manual doesn't prove edge cases. You'll re-test every change. |

These only apply when you've decided to use TDD (complex logic, user request):

• Code before test
• Test after implementation
• Test passes immediately
• Can't explain why test failed
• Tests added "later"
• "Keep as reference" or "adapt existing code"
• "Already spent X hours, deleting is wasteful"
• "This is different because..."

All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.

Valid decision to skip TDD:

• ✅ "This is a UI component" - Skip TDD, verify with typecheck
• ✅ "Simple CRUD, 100% confident" - Skip TDD, verify with lint
• ✅ "Straightforward code" - Skip TDD if truly simple

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

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

PASS

```

REFACTOR

Extract validation for multiple fields if needed.

If using TDD (complex logic, user request):

• [ ] Every new complex function has a test
• [ ] Watched each test fail before implementing
• [ ] Each test failed for expected reason (feature missing, not typo)
• [ ] Wrote minimal code to pass each test
• [ ] All tests pass
• [ ] Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
• [ ] Tests use real code (mocks only if unavoidable)
• [ ] Edge cases and errors covered

Can't check all boxes? You skipped TDD. Start over.

If NOT using TDD (UI, simple code):

• [ ] Code is straightforward and you're 100% confident
• [ ] npm run typecheck passes
• [ ] npm run lint passes
• [ ] Manual testing confirms UI works as expected
• [ ] No complex business logic that needs test coverage

| Problem | Solution |

| ---------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| Don't know how to test | Write wished-for API. Write assertion first. Ask your human partner. |

| Test too complicated | Design too complicated. Simplify interface. |

| Must mock everything | Code too coupled. Use dependency injection. |

| Test setup huge | Extract helpers. Still complex? Simplify design. |

Bug in complex logic?

Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle. Test proves fix and prevents regression.

Bug in UI component or simple code?

Fix directly. Verify with typecheck/lint/manual testing.

Decision criteria:

• Complex algorithm/business logic → Write test
• UI component/straightforward fix → Skip test

When to use TDD:

1. User explicitly requests tests
2. Complex logic where bugs are likely (algorithms, business logic, data transformations)

When to skip TDD:

• UI components (React components, hooks)
• Simple CRUD operations
• Straightforward mappings
• Anything you're 100% certain is correct

If using TDD:

```

Production code → test exists and failed first

Otherwise → not TDD

```

If skipping TDD:

```

Production code → typecheck + lint pass

Manual verification for UI changes

Code review confidence

```

Only deterministic unit tests - no integration tests, no complex mocking, no async complexity.