| name | testing |
| description | Behavioral testing strategy — deciding what to test and how. Use when writing tests, reviewing test quality, or fixing tests that test mocks instead of behavior. Triggers on: 'use testing mode', 'write tests', 'test strategy', 'tests are brittle', 'tests test mocks', 'improve test quality', 'what should I test'. Full access mode - can write and run tests. |
Testing Strategy
Decide what to test and how to test it. Write tests that catch real regressions.
"Tests should be coupled to the behavior of code and decoupled from the structure of code." — Kent Beck
The Self-Test
Ask these 5 questions about EVERY test you write. If any answer is "no", rewrite the test.
| # | Question | What It Checks |
|---|
| 1 | Could I rewrite the internals and this test still passes? | Structure-insensitive |
| 2 | Am I testing what the code SHOULD DO, not what it DOES? | Behavioral |
| 3 | If this test passes, do I trust the code works? | Predictive / Inspiring |
| 4 | Am I testing through the public API? | Public contract |
| 5 | Am I checking state/output, not verifying call sequences? | State > Interaction |
The Refactoring Litmus Test: After writing a test, imagine completely rewriting the internals while keeping the same public behavior. Would the test still pass? If not, it's coupled to structure and will become a maintenance burden.
Test Double Decision Tree
Choose the simplest test double that gives confidence. Work top to bottom — stop at the first "yes".
Can I use the REAL implementation?
├─ Yes → Use it (always the first choice)
└─ No → Is it slow, non-deterministic, or expensive?
├─ Yes → Is a FAKE available? (in-memory DB, fake server)
│ ├─ Yes → Use the fake
│ └─ No → STUB specific return values (keep count low)
└─ No → Do I need to verify external SIDE EFFECTS?
(email sent, record saved, event published)
├─ Yes → Interaction test with verify (LAST RESORT)
└─ No → Re-examine — you probably CAN use the real thing
When to Mock
Mock AT boundaries (external edges of your system):
- External HTTP APIs → fake server or stub responses
- Databases → in-memory DB, fake repository, or testcontainers
- File system → in-memory FS or temp directories
- System clock → inject controllable clock
- Non-deterministic sources → seeded random, fixed UUIDs
- Expensive third-party calls → stub at the adapter layer
Never mock these:
- Internal collaborator classes
- Value objects or data structures
- Pure functions or utilities
- Anything you can instantiate cheaply
"Don't Mock What You Don't Own": If you must mock a third-party API, wrap it in your own adapter and mock the adapter.
What to Test
Think in behaviors, not methods. Each test covers one behavior: "Given X, when Y, then Z."
Identify Behaviors
Don't write one test per method. Write one test per behavior:
def test_process_transaction():
...
def test_process_transaction_displays_item_name(): ...
def test_process_transaction_rejects_negative_amount(): ...
def test_process_transaction_warns_on_low_balance(): ...
Priority Order
- Edge cases and error conditions — these catch real bugs
- Business rules and invariants — the core logic
- Integration boundaries — where systems meet
- Happy path — last, not first (it's usually the most obvious)
Usually Skip
Third-party library internals, simple getters/setters, framework boilerplate, and implementation details that may change.
Bug Fixes
Always write a failing test FIRST that reproduces the bug. Then fix it. Never fix a bug without a regression test.
Anti-Patterns: Before and After
1. Over-Mocking → Use Real Implementations
@patch("myapp.cache.get")
@patch("myapp.db.query")
@patch("myapp.validator.check")
def test_process(mock_check, mock_cache, mock_db):
mock_db.return_value = {"id": 1}
mock_cache.return_value = None
mock_check.return_value = True
result = process(1)
assert result == {"id": 1}
def test_process():
db = InMemoryDatabase({"users": [{"id": 1, "name": "Alice"}]})
service = ProcessingService(db=db, cache=MemoryCache())
result = service.process(1)
assert result.name == "Alice"
2. Mirror Tests → Test Outcomes, Not Steps
def test_register_user():
service.register("alice@test.com", "pass123")
mock_validator.validate.assert_called_once_with("alice@test.com")
mock_db.insert.assert_called_once()
mock_email.send.assert_called_once_with(
to="alice@test.com", template="welcome"
)
def test_register_user():
service.register("alice@test.com", "pass123")
assert service.get_user("alice@test.com") is not None
assert len(email_server.sent) == 1
assert email_server.sent[0].to == "alice@test.com"
Writing Good Tests
Naming Conventions
Describe what scenario is tested and what outcome is expected:
def test_expired_token_returns_401(): ...
def test_checkout_with_empty_cart_raises_error(): ...
def test_transfer_insufficient_balance_raises_error(): ...
def test_login_wrong_password_locks_after_3_attempts(): ...
def test_search_returns_empty_list_when_no_matches(): ...
def test_token_expiry_check(): ...
def test_transfer(): ...
def test_login_error(): ...
def test_search_works(): ...
Test Structure: AAA / GWT
Structure each test as Arrange → Act → Assert (or Given → When → Then). Keep sections visually distinct — whitespace or comments between the three phases help readability.
DAMP, Not DRY
Tests should be Descriptive And Meaningful Phrases. Duplicate for clarity:
- Use helper methods for constructing test objects (factories with sensible defaults)
- Use factory helpers like
make_user(**overrides) to build test objects with sensible defaults — override only fields relevant to the test
- Avoid helpers that hide what's being asserted
- Each test should be readable without scrolling to shared setup
- Prefer explicit inline values over shared constants with ambiguous names
No Logic in Test Bodies
Tests should be trivially correct on inspection. Straight-line code only:
- ❌ No loops, conditionals, or string concatenation in assertions
- ❌ No computed expected values
- ✅ Hardcode every expected value
- ✅ One clear path from setup → action → assertion
Test Quality Checklist
Before committing tests, verify each one:
- [ ] Passes the 5-question Self-Test (above)
- [ ] Name describes scenario + expected outcome
- [ ] No logic (loops, conditionals) in test body
- [ ] Each test is self-contained (DAMP: readable without shared context)
- [ ] Failure message tells you what's wrong without reading the test
- [ ] Uses real implementations where possible (mocks only at boundaries)
- [ ] Tests behavior through public API, not internal methods
Rationalization Prevention
| Excuse | Reality | Required Action |
|---|
| "The change is too small to test" | Small changes cause regressions | Write at least one test for the behavior |
| "Tests are passing" | You haven't actually run them | Run the test suite and show output |
| "Existing tests cover this" | You haven't checked | Find and cite the specific test |
| "I'll add tests later" | Later never comes | Write tests before marking done |
| "Mocking is too complex here" | Complex mocking means bad design | Refactor to test real behavior instead |
| "This is just a prototype" | Prototypes without tests become production code | Write at least a smoke test for core behavior |