testing-anti-patterns

name	testing-anti-patterns
description	Use when writing or changing tests, adding mocks - prevents testing mock behavior, production pollution with test-only methods, and mocking without understanding dependencies

<kimi_compat> This skill was ported to Kimi Code CLI. In Kimi:

• Load skills with /skill:name or let the model invoke them automatically.
• "SetTodoList" means use the SetTodoList tool.
• "Agent()" / "Agent" means use the built-in Agent tool.
• "parallel Agent calls with run_in_background=true" means dispatch multiple Agent calls with run_in_background=true.
• Claude-specific hooks and slash commands are not available; skip those steps. </kimi_compat> <skill_overview> Tests must verify real behavior, not mock behavior; mocks are tools to isolate, not things to test. </skill_overview>

<rigidity_level> LOW FREEDOM - The 3 Iron Laws are absolute (never test mocks, never add test-only methods, never mock without understanding). Apply gate functions strictly. </rigidity_level>

<quick_reference>

The 3 Iron Laws

1. NEVER test mock behavior → Test real component behavior
2. NEVER add test-only methods to production → Use test utilities instead
3. NEVER mock without understanding → Know dependencies before mocking

Gate Functions (Use Before Action)

Before asserting on any mock:

• Ask: "Am I testing real behavior or mock existence?"
• If mock existence → STOP, delete assertion

Before adding method to production:

• Ask: "Is this only used by tests?"
• If yes → STOP, put in test utilities

Before mocking:

• Ask: "What side effects does real method have?"
• Ask: "Does test depend on those side effects?"
• If depends → Mock lower level, not this method </quick_reference>

<when_to_use>

• Writing new tests
• Adding mocks to tests
• Tempted to add method only tests will use
• Test failing and considering mocking something
• Unsure whether to mock a dependency
• Test setup becoming complex with mocks

Critical moment: Before you add a mock or test-only method, use this skill's gate functions. </when_to_use>

<the_iron_laws>

Law 1: Never Test Mock Behavior

Anti-pattern:

// ❌ BAD: Testing that mock exists
#[test]
fn test_processes_request() {
    let mock_service = MockApiService::new();
    let handler = RequestHandler::new(Box::new(mock_service));

    // Testing mock existence, not behavior
    assert!(handler.service().is_mock());
}

Why wrong: Verifies mock works, not that code works.

Fix:

// ✅ GOOD: Test real behavior
#[test]
fn test_processes_request() {
    let service = TestApiService::new();  // Real implementation or full fake
    let handler = RequestHandler::new(Box::new(service));

    let result = handler.process_request("data");
    assert_eq!(result.status, StatusCode::OK);
}

---

Law 2: Never Add Test-Only Methods to Production

Anti-pattern:

// ❌ BAD: reset() only used in tests
pub struct Connection {
    pool: Arc<ConnectionPool>,
}

impl Connection {
    pub fn reset(&mut self) {  // Looks like production API!
        self.pool.clear_all();
    }
}

// In tests
#[test]
fn test_something() {
    let mut conn = Connection::new();
    conn.reset();  // Test-only method
}

Why wrong:

• Production code polluted with test-only methods
• Dangerous if accidentally called in production
• Confuses object lifecycle with entity lifecycle

Fix:

// ✅ GOOD: Test utilities handle cleanup
// Connection has no reset()

// In tests/test_utils.rs
pub fn cleanup_connection(conn: &Connection) {
    if let Some(pool) = conn.get_pool() {
        pool.clear_test_data();
    }
}

// In tests
#[test]
fn test_something() {
    let conn = Connection::new();
    cleanup_connection(&conn);
}

---

Law 3: Never Mock Without Understanding

Anti-pattern:

// ❌ BAD: Mock breaks test logic
#[test]
fn test_detects_duplicate_server() {
    // Mock prevents config write that test depends on!
    let mut config_manager = MockConfigManager::new();
    config_manager.expect_add_server()
        .returning(|_| Ok(()));  // No actual config write!

    config_manager.add_server(&config).unwrap();
    config_manager.add_server(&config).unwrap();  // Should fail - but won't!
}

Why wrong: Mocked method had side effect test depended on (writing config).

Fix:

// ✅ GOOD: Mock at correct level
#[test]
fn test_detects_duplicate_server() {
    // Mock the slow part, preserve behavior test needs
    let server_manager = MockServerManager::new();  // Just mock slow server startup
    let config_manager = ConfigManager::new_with_manager(server_manager);

    config_manager.add_server(&config).unwrap();  // Config written
    let result = config_manager.add_server(&config);  // Duplicate detected ✓
    assert!(result.is_err());
}

</the_iron_laws>

<gate_functions>

Gate Function 1: Before Asserting on Mock

BEFORE any assertion that checks mock elements:

1. Ask: "Am I testing real component behavior or just mock existence?"

2. If testing mock existence:
   STOP - Delete the assertion or unmock the component

3. Test real behavior instead

Examples of mock existence testing (all wrong):

• assert!(handler.service().is_mock())
• XCTAssertTrue(manager.delegate is MockDelegate)
• expect(component.database).toBe(mockDb)

---

Gate Function 2: Before Adding Method to Production

BEFORE adding any method to production class:

1. Ask: "Is this only used by tests?"

2. If yes:
   STOP - Don't add it
   Put it in test utilities instead

3. Ask: "Does this class own this resource's lifecycle?"

4. If no:
   STOP - Wrong class for this method

Red flags:

• Method named reset(), clear(), cleanup() in production class
• Method only has #[cfg(test)] callers
• Method added "for testing purposes"

---

Gate Function 3: Before Mocking

BEFORE mocking any method:

STOP - Don't mock yet

1. Ask: "What side effects does the real method have?"
2. Ask: "Does this test depend on any of those side effects?"
3. Ask: "Do I fully understand what this test needs?"

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 understanding dependency chain </gate_functions>

Developer tests mock behavior instead of real behavior #[test] fn test_user_service_initialized() { let mock_db = MockDatabase::new(); let service = UserService::new(mock_db);

// Testing that mock exists
assert_eq!(service.database().connection_string(), "mock://test");
assert!(service.database().is_test_mode());

}

<why_it_fails>

• Assertions check mock properties, not service behavior
• Test passes when mock is correct, fails when mock is wrong
• Tells you nothing about whether UserService works
• Would pass even if UserService.new() does nothing
• False confidence - mock works, but does service work? </why_it_fails>

**Apply Gate Function 1:**

"Am I testing real behavior or mock existence?" → Testing mock existence (connection_string(), is_test_mode() are mock properties)

Fix:

#[test]
fn test_user_service_creates_user() {
    let db = TestDatabase::new();  // Real test implementation
    let service = UserService::new(db);

    // Test real behavior
    let user = service.create_user("alice", "[e-mail]").unwrap();
    assert_eq!(user.name, "alice");
    assert_eq!(user.email, "[e-mail]");

    // Verify user was saved
    let retrieved = service.get_user(user.id).unwrap();
    assert_eq!(retrieved.name, "alice");
}

What you gain:

• Tests actual UserService behavior
• Validates create and retrieve work
• Would fail if service broken (even with working mock)
• Confidence service actually works

Developer adds test-only method to production class // Production code pub struct Database { pool: ConnectionPool, }

impl Database { pub fn new() -> Self { /* ... */ }

// Added "for testing"
pub fn reset(&mut self) {
    self.pool.clear();
    self.pool.reinitialize();
}

}

// Tests #[test] fn test_user_creation() { let mut db = Database::new(); // ... test logic ... db.reset(); // Clean up }

#[test] fn test_user_deletion() { let mut db = Database::new(); // ... test logic ... db.reset(); // Clean up }

<why_it_fails>

• Production Database polluted with test-only reset()
• reset() looks like legitimate API to other developers
• Dangerous if accidentally called in production (clears all data!)
• Violates single responsibility (Database manages connections, not test lifecycle)
• Every test class now needs reset() added </why_it_fails>

**Apply Gate Function 2:**

"Is this only used by tests?" → YES "Does Database class own test lifecycle?" → NO

Fix:

// Production code (NO reset method)
pub struct Database {
    pool: ConnectionPool,
}

impl Database {
    pub fn new() -> Self { /* ... */ }
    // No reset() - production code clean
}

// Test utilities (tests/test_utils.rs)
pub fn create_test_database() -> Database {
    Database::new()
}

pub fn cleanup_database(db: &mut Database) {
    // Access internals properly for cleanup
    if let Some(pool) = db.get_pool_mut() {
        pool.clear_test_data();
    }
}

// Tests
#[test]
fn test_user_creation() {
    let mut db = create_test_database();
    // ... test logic ...
    cleanup_database(&mut db);
}

What you gain:

• Production code has no test pollution
• No risk of accidental production calls
• Clear separation: Database manages connections, test utils manage test lifecycle
• Test utilities can evolve without changing production code

Developer mocks without understanding dependencies #[test] fn test_detects_duplicate_server() { // "I'll mock ConfigManager to speed up the test" let mut mock_config = MockConfigManager::new(); mock_config.expect_add_server() .times(2) .returning(|_| Ok(())); // Always returns Ok!

// Test expects duplicate detection
mock_config.add_server(&server_config).unwrap();
let result = mock_config.add_server(&server_config);

// Assertion fails! Mock always returns Ok, no duplicate detection
assert!(result.is_err());  // FAILS

}

<why_it_fails>

• Mocked add_server() without understanding it writes config
• Mock returns Ok() both times (no duplicate detection)
• Test depends on ConfigManager's internal state tracking
• Mock eliminates the behavior test needs to verify
• "Speeding up" by mocking broke the test </why_it_fails>

**Apply Gate Function 3:**

"What side effects does add_server() have?" → Writes to config file, tracks added servers "Does test depend on those?" → YES! Test needs duplicate detection "Do I understand what test needs?" → Now yes

Fix:

#[test]
fn test_detects_duplicate_server() {
    // Mock at the RIGHT level - just the slow I/O
    let mock_file_system = MockFileSystem::new();  // Mock slow file writes
    let config_manager = ConfigManager::new_with_fs(mock_file_system);

    // ConfigManager's duplicate detection still works
    config_manager.add_server(&server_config).unwrap();
    let result = config_manager.add_server(&server_config);

    // Passes! ConfigManager tracks duplicates, only file I/O is mocked
    assert!(result.is_err());
}

What you gain:

• Test verifies real duplicate detection logic
• Only mocked the actual slow part (file I/O)
• ConfigManager's internal tracking works normally
• Test actually validates the feature

<additional_anti_patterns>

Anti-Pattern 4: Incomplete Mocks

Problem: Mock only fields you think you need, omit others.

// ❌ BAD: Partial mock
struct MockResponse {
    status: String,
    data: UserData,
    // Missing: metadata that downstream code uses
}

impl ApiResponse for MockResponse {
    fn metadata(&self) -> &Metadata {
        panic!("metadata not implemented!")  // Breaks at runtime!
    }
}

Fix: Mirror real API completely.

// ✅ GOOD: Complete mock
struct MockResponse {
    status: String,
    data: UserData,
    metadata: Metadata,  // All fields real API returns
}

Gate function:

BEFORE creating mock responses:
  1. Examine actual API response structure
  2. Include ALL fields system might consume
  3. Verify mock matches real schema completely

---

Anti-Pattern 5: Over-Complex Mocks

Warning signs:

• Mock setup longer than test logic
• Mocking everything to make test pass
• Test breaks when mock changes

Consider: Integration tests with real components often simpler than complex mocks. </additional_anti_patterns>

<tdd_prevention>

TDD Prevents These Anti-Patterns

Why TDD helps:

1. Write test first → Forces thinking 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 → See what test needs before mocking

If you're testing mock behavior, you violated TDD - you added mocks without watching test fail against real code first.

REQUIRED BACKGROUND: You MUST understand /skill:test-driven-development before using this skill. </tdd_prevention>

<critical_rules>

Rules That Have No Exceptions

1. Never test mock behavior → Test real component behavior always
2. Never add test-only methods to production → Pollutes production code
3. Never mock without understanding → Must know dependencies and side effects
4. Use gate functions before action → Before asserting, adding methods, or mocking
5. Follow TDD → Write test first, watch fail, prevents testing mocks

Common Excuses

All of these mean: STOP. Apply the gate function.

• "Just checking the mock is wired up" (Testing mock, not behavior)
• "Need reset() for test cleanup" (Test-only method, use test utilities)
• "I'll mock this to be safe" (Don't understand dependencies)
• "Mock setup is complex but necessary" (Probably over-mocking)
• "This will speed up tests" (Might break test logic) </critical_rules>

<verification_checklist> Before claiming tests are correct:

• No assertions on mock elements (no is_mock(), is MockType, etc.)
• No test-only methods in production classes
• All mocks preserve side effects test depends on
• Mock at lowest level needed (mock slow I/O, not business logic)
• Understand why each mock is necessary
• Mock structure matches real API completely
• Test logic shorter/equal to mock setup (not longer)
• Followed TDD (test failed with real code before mocking)

Can't check all boxes? Apply gate functions and refactor. </verification_checklist>

**This skill requires:** - /skill:test-driven-development (prevents these anti-patterns) - Understanding of mocking vs. faking vs. stubbing

This skill is called by:

• When writing tests
• When adding mocks
• When test setup becoming complex
• /skill:test-driven-development (use gate functions during RED phase)

Red flags triggering this skill:

• Assertion checks for *-mock test IDs
• Methods only called in test files
• Mock setup >50% of test
• Test fails when you remove mock
• Can't explain why mock needed

**Detailed guides:** - [Mocking vs Faking vs Stubbing](resources/test-doubles.md) - [Test utilities patterns](resources/test-utilities.md) - [When to use integration tests](resources/integration-vs-unit.md)

When stuck:

• Mock too complex → Consider integration test with real components
• Unsure what to mock → Run with real implementation first, observe
• Test failing mysteriously → Check if mock breaks test logic (use Gate Function 3)
• Production polluted → Move all test helpers to test_utils