testing

name	testing
description	Write and review tests at all levels — Unit, Integration/Feature, and E2E — following Martin Fowler's testing pyramid. Use this skill when creating, modifying, or reviewing any test. Prevents test bloat, fragile assertions, and misplaced test levels. Adapts to any language/framework by following the decision flowchart and layer guidelines.

When to use this skill

Use this skill when you need to:

• Write new tests (Unit, Integration/Feature, or E2E) for any feature or bug fix
• Review existing tests for quality, placement, or value
• Decide whether a test belongs at Unit, Integration, or E2E level
• Refactor tests that are fragile, duplicated, or misplaced
• Design a testing strategy for a new project or module

When NOT to use this skill

• For non-test code changes that don't need test coverage decisions

---

The Testing Pyramid (Martin Fowler)

          /‾‾‾‾‾‾\
         /  few   \          E2E: very few, real browser/environment
        /    UI    \         Test user journeys that require real UI/runtime
       /‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾\
      /   moderate   \       Integration: moderate count, real deps
     /   integration  \      Test API flows, DB interactions, framework features
    /‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾\
   /     many fast      \    Unit: many, fast, isolated
  /  pure logic & rules  \   Test functions, services, helpers — no external deps
 /________________________\

The pyramid is a COST model. Each layer up costs more to run, more to maintain, and more to debug when broken. Push tests DOWN the pyramid as far as possible.

---

Decision Flowchart

When writing a new test, ask these questions in order:

1. Does it test pure logic with no framework/DB/external dependency? → Unit test
2. Does it test an API endpoint, DB interaction, or framework feature? → Integration/Feature test
3. Is it already covered by a lower-level test? → Don't write it again at any level
4. Does it REQUIRE a real UI/runtime (JS must execute, multi-page state, visual a11y)? → E2E test
5. Could you test it with a direct API/function call? → Integration/Feature test, not E2E

Default to the lowest layer. The burden of proof is on E2E: you must not be able to achieve the same confidence at a lower level.

---

Before Writing Any Test — Adapt to the Project

Testing tools and conventions vary by project. Before writing tests:

1. Identify the test framework and runner — e.g., Jest/Vitest (JS), pytest (Python), Pest/PHPUnit (PHP), JUnit (Java), Go testing, RSpec (Ruby), etc.
2. Find existing test files — look in common locations: tests/, test/, spec/, __tests__/, *_test.*, *.test.*, *_spec.*
3. Mirror existing patterns — naming, structure, setup/teardown, fixture usage, assertion style
4. Check project config — package.json scripts, phpunit.xml, pytest.ini, Makefile, CI config for how tests run
5. If the project has no tests yet — set up a sensible default structure following the pyramid and conventions of the language/framework

---

Layer 1 — Unit Tests

Purpose: Test pure business logic in isolation. Fast. No framework boot. No database. No external services. No file system.

MUST test:

• Pure functions (calculations, transformations, parsing, formatting)
• Business rules and decision logic (eligibility checks, status transitions, validations)
• Data structures (value objects, enums, custom types)
• Utility/helper functions
• Model/domain logic that doesn't require persistence (computed fields, derived values)

MUST NOT test:

• Database CRUD operations (that's Integration level)
• HTTP request/response cycles (that's Integration level)
• Framework internals (the framework already tests itself)
• Configuration values (config files ARE the assertion)
• Language/runtime features (e.g., "class exists", "type casting works")

How to verify placement: If your unit test needs a database connection, makes HTTP calls, reads files, or boots the full framework, it is NOT a unit test. Move it to Integration.

Anti-patterns to REJECT:

BAD: Testing framework internals
- Asserting a model's "fillable fields" or "column types"
- Asserting that type casting works
- Asserting that a class exists
- Asserting that a method is defined

BAD: Testing through external dependencies
- Creating DB records to test a pure calculation
- Calling a real API to test response parsing

Correct unit test patterns:

GOOD: Test the business logic directly
- Given inputs X and Y, function returns Z
- Given edge case input, function handles it correctly
- Given invalid input, function throws expected error

GOOD: Test query/command building without executing
- Verify the query builder produces correct SQL
- Verify the command object has correct parameters

GOOD: Test state transitions
- Given status A + event B, new status is C
- Given precondition not met, transition is rejected

---

Layer 2 — Integration/Feature Tests

Purpose: Test how components work together. HTTP request/response cycles, database interactions, middleware, authentication/authorization, service integration, API contracts.

MUST test:

• API endpoints / controller actions (correct status codes, response shapes, side effects)
• Authorization (who can access what, who is forbidden, who is redirected)
• Input validation (bad input is rejected, good input is accepted)
• Database interactions (creates, updates, deletes produce correct DB state)
• Service integration (calling a service produces correct side effects — emails sent, events dispatched, caches invalidated)
• Multi-tenancy or scoping (tenant A cannot see tenant B's data)
• Error handling (graceful failure modes, correct error responses)

MUST NOT test:

• Implementation details of views/templates (exact HTML strings, CSS classes)
• Framework internals (that the mailer/queue/cache system works)
• That third-party libraries work (test YOUR integration code, not their internals)

Anti-patterns to REJECT:

BAD: Asserting exact HTML/template output
- Couples tests to template formatting/whitespace
- Breaks on cosmetic changes

BAD: Testing that infrastructure works
- "Email provider can send emails" → that's the provider's test
- "Database can store records" → that's the DB's test

BAD: Testing class existence or structure
- "Notification class exists" → autoloading/import resolution handles this

Correct integration test patterns:

GOOD: Test the API/HTTP contract
- Given valid input + authenticated user → returns 201 with expected resource
- Given missing auth → returns 401/403
- Given invalid input → returns 422 with error details

GOOD: Test authorization boundaries
- Admin can access admin endpoints
- Regular user gets 403
- Unauthenticated user gets redirected to login

GOOD: Test side effects through fakes/mocks
- Service call triggers notification (via fake notification sender)
- Service call enqueues job (via fake job queue)
- Service call writes to DB (verify DB state directly)

---

Layer 2.5 — Component Tests (Special Case)

Component tests are an exception to the "don't assert HTML structure" rule.

When a component has variants, props, or visual contracts, you MUST test that they render correctly by asserting the CSS classes and HTML structure. The component's contract IS the HTML it produces.

When to write component tests:

• Component has variants (e.g., x-btn variant="primary|outline|ghost")
• Component renders conditionally based on props (e.g., x-card :sold-out="true" shows overlay)
• Component has accessibility features that depend on HTML structure (e.g., role="radiogroup", aria-disabled, aria-current)
• Component has complex slots or conditional slots (e.g., x-card with named slots)

What to assert in component tests:

✅ GOOD — Assert the component's contract
- x-btn variant="primary" renders with primary class and correct shadow
- x-btn :loading="true" renders spinner and sets aria-disabled
- x-card :sold-out="true" renders overlay element
- x-variant-selector unavailable option has strikethrough AND reduced opacity
- x-nav renders skip-to-content link as first focusable element
- x-breadcrumb last item has aria-current="page"

What NOT to assert in component tests:

❌ BAD — Implementation details unrelated to the contract
- The exact pixel size of padding (that's a design token, not a test)
- The exact shadow offset (test via class, not raw px values)
- The internal element count or nesting structure
- The specific font family or weight used

Component test structure (Laravel Blade):

Use the $this->blade() test helper with InteractsWithViews trait:

<?php

namespace Tests\Components;

use Tests\TestCase;

class ButtonComponentTest extends TestCase
{
    /** @test */
    public function primary_variant_renders_with_correct_class()
    {
        $view = $this->blade(
            '<x-btn variant="primary">Submit</x-btn>'
        );

        $view->assertSee('class="btn btn--primary"', false);
    }

    /** @test */
    public function loading_state_renders_spinner_and_sets_aria_disabled()
    {
        $view = $this->blade(
            '<x-btn :loading="true">Submit</x-btn>'
        );

        $view->assertSee('aria-disabled="true"', false);
        $view->assertSee('spinner'); // or however the spinner is identified
    }

    /** @test */
    public  ()
    {
         = ->(
            
        );

        ->(, );
        ->(, );
    }
}

The distinction from Feature tests:

• Component test: Assert that x-btn variant="primary" produces class="btn btn--primary"
• Feature test: Assert that a page containing that button works as a user expects, WITHOUT asserting the class name directly

In a Feature test for the checkout page, you'd assert: $response->assertSee('Submit') — not $response->assertSee('class="btn--primary"').

This keeps Feature tests resilient to cosmetic changes while ensuring components themselves work correctly.

---

Layer 3 — E2E Tests

The Core Principle: Test User Journeys, Not Features

E2E tests answer: "Can a real user accomplish a meaningful goal?"

They do NOT answer: "Does this endpoint work?" or "Does this component render?" Those are lower-level questions.

A user journey is a multi-step sequence from a user's perspective with a meaningful outcome:

"User browses catalog, adds items to cart, checks out, and sees order confirmation"

A feature is a technical capability:

"The POST /cart/items endpoint creates a CartItem record"

The feature is already tested in Integration tests. The E2E test only exists to verify the full journey works end-to-end with real runtime, real UI, and cross-page state.

---

What Belongs at E2E Level

Only write an E2E test when ALL of these are true:

1. The scenario requires a real runtime/UI (JavaScript must execute, native UI must render, multi-process coordination)
2. The scenario spans multiple pages or states that can't be tested with a single request
3. The behaviour is not already covered at Integration level
4. Losing this test would leave a real, user-facing bug undetectable

Write E2E tests for:

Journey type	Why E2E is needed
Multi-step flows crossing pages (onboarding, checkout, signup)	Cross-page state, redirects, session — can't fake with one request
Flows requiring client-side interaction (modals, dynamic UI, drag/drop)	Client-side logic must actually run
Cross-role journeys (user acts → admin reviews → user sees result)	Multi-actor, multi-page state
Keyboard navigation and focus management	Real UI/rendering only
Accessibility audits (axe-core, screen reader testing)	Requires rendered DOM
Visual regression (screenshot comparison)	Requires real rendering

---

What Does NOT Belong at E2E Level

If you can test it with a direct API call or integration test, do that instead.

❌ E2E anti-pattern	✅ Write this instead
Navigate to form → fill → assert redirect	Integration: direct API call with expected response
Navigate to list page → assert item appears	Integration: API call, assert response contains item
Assert HTTP status code	Integration: assert response status directly
Assert a heading or label renders	Integration: assert response body contains expected text
Test that unauthorized user is redirected	Integration: auth/middleware test
Test every form validation error message	Integration: input validation test
Test notification/email is sent when form submitted	Integration: fake the notification sender
Create record via UI → assert record in DB	Integration: test DB state directly
Test a flow with zero client-side interaction	Integration: it's just an HTTP flow

The litmus test: Remove client-side JavaScript/rendering. If the test would still pass with plain API calls, it's an Integration test. Don't write it at E2E level.

---

One Journey, One Test

Do not write multiple E2E tests for permutations of the same journey. Pick the happy path. All edge cases, validation errors, and failure paths belong in Integration tests.

❌ BAD — testing permutations at E2E level:
  test("can create item with 1 option")
  test("can create item with 2 options")
  test("cannot create item without a name")      ← validation = Integration
  test("cannot create item with invalid date")    ← validation = Integration

✅ GOOD — one happy path:
  test("user can create an item with options and land on detail page")

---

How Many E2E Tests is Too Many?

The entire E2E suite should run in under 5 minutes in CI. If it's growing beyond ~25 spec files, scrutinise every file. Ask:

• Is this testing a journey or a feature?
• Is this already covered by an Integration test?
• Would an Integration test give the same confidence with less cost?

Delete or demote anything that fails those questions.

---

E2E Workflow

1. Understand the UI/runtime first — navigate, inspect, screenshot if needed. Note dynamic content, loading states, async behaviour. Ask: does this actually need a real UI to test?
2. Check if an Integration test already covers it — search test files before writing anything at E2E level. If an Integration test exists → do not duplicate.
3. Review existing patterns — check for fixtures, helpers, page objects, and conventions already in use.
4. Write the test — name after the user journey, not the feature.
5. Run and validate — run the test, ensure it's deterministic and not flaky.

E2E Best Practices

• Name tests as user goals, not technical actions: "user can complete checkout", not "POST /cart/checkout returns 200"
• Prefer accessible selectors — getByRole(), getByLabel(), getByText() over CSS selectors and IDs
• Never use arbitrary waits/sleeps — wait for conditions: URL changes, element visibility, network idle
• Use auth fixtures — set up authenticated state once, reuse across tests; don't log in manually every time
• Seed only what the journey needs — minimal data, targeted setup
• Flaky tests must be fixed or deleted. A flaky E2E test is worse than no test.

---

What NOT to Test (Delete on Sight)

Anti-pattern	Why it's harmful
Framework/ORM metadata assertions	Tests framework internals, not your code
Type-casting/serialization assertions	Same — language/framework behaviour
Relationship/association existence via DB	Test via object construction or trust your schema
Config value assertions	Config files ARE the assertion
class_exists() / import checks	Module resolution works; this tests the runtime
Test fixture/factory shape assertions	Fixtures are test infra, not production code
Exact HTML/template string matching	Couples tests to formatting/whitespace
Testing that migrations/schema changes work	Setup scripts/ORM already proves this
E2E test for a plain API call	Direct testing is faster, cheaper, more stable
E2E test for page content	Integration test with response assertion is enough
E2E test for auth/redirect logic	Integration middleware test handles this
E2E test for validation errors	Integration input validation test is right level
Duplicate E2E + Integration test for same flow	Double maintenance cost, zero extra confidence

---

Test File Organisation

Adapt to the project's language/framework conventions, but aim for this structure:

tests/
├── Unit/              (or unit/, __tests__/unit/)
├── Integration/       (or Feature/, api/, __tests__/integration/)
└── E2E/               (or e2e/, browser/, playwright/, cypress/)

Organise within each layer however makes sense for the project's domain and framework.

---

Naming Conventions

Follow the project's existing conventions. If starting fresh:

• Test files: Name after the thing being tested — UserServiceTest, user-service.test, test_user_service
• Test cases: Describe behaviour, not implementation — "calculates total with discount", "rejects unauthenticated requests"
• E2E files: Name after the user journey — checkout-flow.spec, onboarding-journey.test
• E2E test cases: Describe user goals — "user can complete checkout", "new user can sign up and see dashboard"

---

Maintenance Rules

1. Every test must justify its existence. Ask: "If this test disappeared, would a real bug go undetected?" If no → don't write it.
2. No test should break from cosmetic changes. Reformatting a template must not break any test.
3. No test should duplicate another. If Integration tests cover a flow, don't also cover it in E2E unless the real UI adds genuine value.
4. Prefer fewer, richer tests over many thin ones. A test with 5 meaningful assertions beats 5 tests with 1 assertion each.
5. Tests that need external dependencies belong in Integration. If it needs a database, file system, or network, it's not a unit test. Period.

---

References

• Martin Fowler, "TestPyramid" — https://martinfowler.com/bliki/TestPyramid.html
• Martin Fowler, "TestingErlang" (on unit vs integration boundaries)
• Kent Beck, "Test-Driven Development: By Example"
• Google Testing Blog, "Just Say No to More End-to-End Tests"