Tdd

Test-Driven Development

Overview

Tests verify behavior through public interfaces, not implementation details. One failing test → minimum code to pass → repeat. Never write all tests first. See tests.md for examples and mocking.md for mocking guidelines.

When to Use

• Implementing a task from .forge/tasks.yaml that needs test-first discipline
• Any feature or bug fix where behavior must be proven before merging
• User explicitly asks for TDD or red-green-refactor

When NOT to Use

• Writing tests retroactively for already-working code — that's a different activity
• Exploratory spike to understand a problem space — spike first, then TDD the result
• Config changes with no behavioral assertions possible

Common Rationalizations

Thought	Reality
"I'll write tests after the implementation works"	Then you test implementation shape, not behavior
"Writing all tests first is TDD"	That's horizontal slicing — produces brittle tests
"This behavior is obvious, no test needed"	Obvious behaviors are the ones that silently break
"I need to mock my own modules to test this"	Your interface boundaries need rethinking
"The test is too hard to write"	The interface is too hard to use — fix the interface

Red Flags

• Test names describe HOW not WHAT ("calls paymentService.process")
• Test mocks internal collaborators owned by the same codebase
• Test breaks on refactor when behavior didn't change
• All tests written before any implementation ("horizontal slicing")
• Test verifies through side effects or database state instead of interface
• .forge/testing-strategy.md exists but was not read before writing the first test (its per-module coverage decisions override TDD defaults)

Precedence with testing-strategy

If .forge/testing-strategy.md exists, read it first. It is the authoritative source for per-module test policy. TDD's default is "every behavior gets a test"; the strategy may carve exceptions:

• Module marked integration-only → skip unit tests for that module; write the integration test instead. The RED step is still required — it just lives at the integration layer.
• Module marked contract-only (verified by consumer-driven contracts) → write the contract test, not a unit test.
• Module marked no-test (rare; usually trivial glue) → document the exception in your commit message and skip the test step. If you find yourself doing this often, the strategy is too permissive — file /feedback targeting .forge/testing-strategy.md.

When testing-strategy and a task's acceptance_criteria disagree about coverage, the task's acceptance criteria win for that task — but file /feedback targeting .forge/testing-strategy.md so the strategy gets updated next sprint.

Anti-Pattern: Horizontal Slices

DO NOT write all tests first, then all implementation.

WRONG (horizontal):
  RED:   test1, test2, test3, test4, test5
  GREEN: impl1, impl2, impl3, impl4, impl5

RIGHT (vertical):
  RED → GREEN: test1 → impl1
  RED → GREEN: test2 → impl2
  RED → GREEN: test3 → impl3

Each test responds to what you learned from the previous implementation cycle.

Workflow

1. Plan before coding

• Read .forge/testing-strategy.md if it exists; note per-module coverage exceptions
• Confirm public interface changes with user (or with task's contract from .forge/contracts/)
• List behaviors to test — not implementation steps
• Design interface for testability
• Identify deep module opportunities
• Get user approval before writing the first test

2. Tracer bullet (2-stage RED required)

Write ONE test that proves the end-to-end path works. RED must be observed twice: first as an existence failure, then as a behavior failure.

RED-1 (existence): Write test for first behavior → expect ERR_MODULE_NOT_FOUND
                   / NameError / "function not defined" — the module or symbol
                   the test imports doesn't exist yet. This proves the test
                   ran. It does NOT prove the test discriminates correct from
                   incorrect implementations.

STUB:              Create the file / function / class with the correct
                   signature, returning a deliberately wrong value (empty
                   string, 0, null, []). Just enough to satisfy the import.

RED-2 (behavior):  Re-run the test → expect AssertionError. The test now
                   fails on a behavior mismatch, not a missing symbol. This
                   proves the test would CATCH a wrong implementation —
                   not just a missing one.

GREEN:             Replace the stub with the real implementation. Test passes.

Why two stages. A single-stage RED (existence failure → write whole implementation) leaves you unable to distinguish "the test failed because the implementation is wrong" from "the test failed because of a typo in the import path." Most failing tests look the same from far away. The 2-stage pattern proves the test has discriminating power: it rejects a wrong-value stub of the correct shape. If RED-2 doesn't fail with an AssertionError, the test isn't really testing the behavior — it's testing the existence of the symbol.

This pattern was promoted from emergent practice to documented gold standard after the v3.2.0 dry-run (issue #36). Strict TDD literature varies on whether import-fail counts as RED; the behavior-fail standard removes the ambiguity.

3. Incremental loop

For each remaining behavior:

RED-1 (existence — usually skipped after the tracer bullet): file/module exists
RED-2 (behavior): Write next test → AssertionError (real behavior mismatch)
GREEN:            Minimum code to pass → passes
REPEAT

After the first cycle, the file usually exists already so RED-1 collapses into RED-2 immediately. The discipline still applies: the test that fails must fail on an assertion, not on a missing import or syntax error.

Rules: one test at a time, only enough code for the current test, no speculative features.

4. Refactor

After all tests pass — see refactoring.md:

• Extract duplication
• Deepen modules (move complexity behind simple interfaces)
• Run tests after each refactor step
• Never refactor while RED

Per-Cycle Checklist

• Test describes behavior (WHAT), not implementation (HOW)
• Test uses public interface only — no private method access
• Test would survive internal refactor without breaking
• Implementation is minimal — no speculative features
• Test name reads like a specification sentence

Verification

• All behaviors listed in Step 1 have a passing test
• RED was observed as a behavior failure (AssertionError / expected-vs-actual mismatch), not merely a module-not-found or symbol-undefined error. For the first behavior of a new module: RED-1 (existence) → write stub with correct signature returning wrong value → RED-2 (assertion mismatch) → GREEN. The 2-stage pattern proves the test has discriminating power.
• No tests mock internal collaborators
• Full test suite passes (not just new tests)
• Refactor pass complete — no duplication, no shallow modules
• If task from tasks.yaml: all acceptance criteria verified

Fit-Check

Before declaring done, emit one of:

• A short list of specific fit issues observed (e.g., "TDD overhead exceeded the work for this single-config-line change — recommend skipping the test layer next time" / "Behavior was hard to test through public interface; suggests the interface needs rethinking, not the test").
• The explicit line: "No fit issues observed for this use case."

Silence is not allowed. See docs/skill-anatomy.md#fit-check.