Flow tdd

Flow TDD - Test-Driven Development Enforcement

The Iron Law

NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST

This is NON-NEGOTIABLE. No exceptions. No "just this once."

The TDD Cycle

RED:    Write a failing test
        → Run it
        → Confirm it FAILS
        → If it passes immediately → ERROR (invalid test)

GREEN:  Write minimal code to pass
        → Only enough to make the test pass
        → No extra features
        → No "while I'm here" additions

REFACTOR: Clean up
        → Keep tests green
        → Improve structure
        → Remove duplication

Enforcement in flow-dev

Phase 2: Tests First

TASKS.md Phase 2 (Tests):
  - Write contract tests
  - Write integration tests
  - Write unit tests
  - Run all tests → ALL MUST FAIL

⚠️ TEST VERIFICATION CHECKPOINT:
  → Run: npm test (or equivalent)
  → Expected: All new tests FAIL
  → If any test passes immediately → STOP
  → Passing test = invalid test or code already exists

Phase 3: Implementation

TASKS.md Phase 3 (Implementation):
  - Implement to make tests pass
  - One test at a time
  - Minimal code only

After each implementation:
  → Run tests
  → Verify previously failing test now passes
  → Verify no regressions

What If Code Already Exists?

If you've written code before tests:

Option A: DELETE AND RESTART (Recommended)
  1. Delete the implementation code
  2. Keep only the interface/contract
  3. Write failing tests
  4. Re-implement with TDD

Option B: WRITE TESTS THAT FAIL FIRST
  1. Comment out the implementation
  2. Write tests
  3. Run tests → verify they fail
  4. Uncomment implementation
  5. Run tests → verify they pass

NEVER: Keep code and write passing tests
  → This is "testing after" disguised as TDD
  → Tests that pass immediately prove nothing

Rationalization Prevention

Excuse	Reality
"Too simple to test"	Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds.
"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 slows me down"	TDD faster than debugging. Pragmatic = test-first.
"This is different because..."	No. This is rationalization. Follow the law.
"Spirit not letter"	Violating letter IS violating spirit. No loopholes.
"I'm being pragmatic, not dogmatic"	TDD IS pragmatic. Shortcuts = debugging in production = slower.
"Just this once"	No exceptions. Rules exist for this exact moment.

Red Flags - STOP

If you find yourself:

• Writing code before tests
• Tests passing immediately
• Saying "just this once"
• Keeping "exploration" code
• Writing tests that describe existing code

STOP. Delete the code. Write the test first.

Test Quality Requirements

Good Tests:
  ✅ Test behavior, not implementation
  ✅ Use realistic data
  ✅ Cover edge cases
  ✅ Independent (no shared state)
  ✅ Fast (< 1 second each)
  ✅ Descriptive names

Bad Tests (Cheater Tests):
  ❌ assert True
  ❌ assert result is not None
  ❌ Mock everything, test nothing
  ❌ Test implementation details
  ❌ Depend on execution order

Error Recording Protocol

当测试失败或构建错误发生时，必须立即记录到 ERROR_LOG.md:

Error Recording Workflow:
  1. Capture Error Context:
     - Phase (flow-dev / T###)
     - Error Type (Test Failure | Build Error | Runtime Error)
     - Full error message
     - Timestamp

  2. Create ERROR_LOG.md if not exists:
     → Use .claude/docs/templates/ERROR_LOG_TEMPLATE.md
     → Location: devflow/requirements/${REQ_ID}/ERROR_LOG.md

  3. Append Error Record:
     ## [TIMESTAMP] E###: TITLE
     **Phase**: flow-dev / T###
     **Error Type**: Test Failure
     **Error Message**:
     ```
     [完整错误信息]
     ```
     **Root Cause**: [分析后填写]
     **Resolution**: [解决后填写]
     **Prevention**: [可选]

  4. Debug with Error Context:
     → Read ERROR_LOG.md for similar past errors
     → Apply attention refresh (Protocol 4)
     → Fix the root cause, not symptoms

  5. Update Record After Fix:
     → Fill Root Cause
     → Fill Resolution
     → Add Prevention if applicable

Error Recording Example

## [2026-01-08T14:30:00] E001: Test Failure - User Login Validation

**Phase**: flow-dev / T005
**Error Type**: Test Failure
**Error Message**:
\`\`\`
FAIL src/auth/login.test.ts
  × should reject invalid email format
    Expected: false
    Received: true
\`\`\`

**Root Cause**: 正则表达式 `/^.+@.+$/` 过于宽松，接受了 `user@` 这样的无效邮箱
**Resolution**: 更新正则为 `/^[^\s@]+@[^\s@]+\.[^\s@]+$/` 要求至少有域名和顶级域
**Prevention**: 扩充测试用例，添加边界情况（无域名、无顶级域、特殊字符等）

Integration with Constitution

• Article I: Complete implementation includes tests
• Article VI: TDD Mandate (this skill)
• Article IX: Integration-first testing

Integration with Attention Refresh

• Protocol 4: Error Recovery 时读取 ERROR_LOG.md
• 避免重复犯相同错误
• 从历史错误中学习

Cross-Reference

• flow-attention-refresh - Protocol 4
• ERROR_LOG_TEMPLATE.md
• rationalization-library.md
• project-constitution.md

---

[PROTOCOL]: 变更时更新此头部，然后检查 CLAUDE.md