testing

name	testing
description	Testing patterns for behavior-driven tests. Use when writing tests, creating test factories, structuring test files, or deciding what to test. Do NOT use for UI-specific testing (see front-end-testing or react-testing skills).

Testing Patterns

For verifying test effectiveness through mutation analysis, load the mutation-testing skill. Use its mutator rules while planning and writing tests, not only after tests exist. For evaluating test quality against Dave Farley's properties, load the test-design-reviewer skill.

Core Principle

Test behavior, not implementation. 100% coverage through business behavior, not implementation details.

Example: Validation code in payment-validator.ts gets 100% coverage by testing processPayment() behavior, NOT by directly testing validator functions.

---

Mutation-Aware Test Planning

When planning or writing tests, automatically scan the intended behavior and changed production code against the mutator rules from the mutation-testing skill's resources/mutator-rules.md resource. A good test should fail if a realistic mutant changes the behavior.

Load that resource when the code under test includes conditionals, arithmetic, equality, boolean logic, array/string operations, optional chaining, or meaningful side effects. Use it to identify likely surviving mutants before the Stryker run.

When the scan finds an obvious gap, add or strengthen a behavior test immediately. When the gap depends on product or domain judgment, use the harness's ask-question facility before choosing a test. Ask one concise question with concrete choices, explain the potential mutant, and state the tradeoff.

Example ask-question prompt:

The discount rule uses `subtotal >= 100`, but current tests only cover `150`.
Should the exact `100` boundary receive the discount?
- Yes: add a boundary test for `100`
- No: change/confirm the rule as `subtotal > 100`
- Unspecified: document the behavior as intentionally not guaranteed

Do not ask when the gap is plainly a missing assertion, missing boundary, missing branch, or missing side-effect check. Fix those directly.

---

Test Through Public API Only

Never test implementation details. Test behavior through public APIs.

Why this matters:

• Tests remain valid when refactoring
• Tests document intended behavior
• Tests catch real bugs, not implementation changes

Examples

❌ WRONG - Testing implementation:

// ❌ Testing HOW (implementation detail)
it('should call validateAmount', () => {
  const spy = jest.spyOn(validator, 'validateAmount');
  processPayment(payment);
  expect(spy).toHaveBeenCalled(); // Tests HOW, not WHAT
});

// ❌ Testing private methods
it('should validate CVV format', () => {
  const result = validator._validateCVV('123'); // Private method!
  expect(result).toBe(true);
});

// ❌ Testing internal state
it('should set isValidated flag', () => {
  processPayment(payment);
  expect(processor.isValidated).toBe(true); // Internal state
});

✅ CORRECT - Testing behavior through public API:

it('should reject negative amounts', () => {
  const payment = getMockPayment({ amount: -100 });
  const result = processPayment(payment);
  expect(result.success).toBe(false);
  expect(result.error).toContain('Amount must be positive');
});

it('should reject invalid CVV', () => {
  const payment = getMockPayment({ cvv: '12' }); // Only 2 digits
  const result = processPayment(payment);
  expect(result.success).toBe(false);
  expect(result.error).toContain('Invalid CVV');
});

it('should process valid payments', () => {
  const payment = getMockPayment({ amount: 100, cvv: '123' });
  const result = processPayment(payment);
  expect(result.success).toBe(true);
  expect(result.data.transactionId).toBeDefined();
});

---

Coverage Through Behavior

Validation code gets 100% coverage by testing the behavior it protects:

// Tests covering validation WITHOUT testing validator directly
describe('processPayment', () => {
  it('should reject negative amounts', () => {
    const payment = getMockPayment({ amount: -100 });
    const result = processPayment(payment);
    expect(result.success).toBe(false);
  });

  it('should reject amounts over 10000', () => {
    const payment = getMockPayment({ amount: 15000 });
    const result = processPayment(payment);
    expect(result.success).toBe(false);
  });

  it('should reject invalid CVV', () => {
    const payment = getMockPayment({ cvv: '12' });
    const result = processPayment(payment);
    expect(result.success).toBe(false);
  });

  it('should process valid payments', () => {
    const payment = getMockPayment({ amount: 100, cvv: '123' });
    const result = processPayment(payment);
    expect(result.success).toBe(true);
  });
});

// ✅ Result: payment-validator.ts has 100% coverage through behavior

Key insight: When coverage drops, ask "What business behavior am I not testing?" not "What line am I missing?"

---

Don't Extract for Testability

Never extract a function into its own file purely to give it its own unit test. Extract for readability (a descriptive name clarifies intent), for DRY (same knowledge used in multiple places — see the refactoring skill's "DRY = Knowledge, Not Code" rule), or for separation of concerns. Not for testability.

If code is inline in a function, it gets coverage through that function's behavioral tests. Every layer has behavioral tests — domain functions have vitest unit tests, components have browser tests, pages have integration tests. There is no gap.

The anti-pattern is creating a 1:1 mapping between extracted helpers and test files (see "No 1:1 Mapping" below). The extracted helper is an implementation detail of its consumer. Test the consumer's behavior.

❌ WRONG — Extracted single-use helper with its own test file:

// prepare-participant-data.ts (new file, one caller)
export const prepareParticipantData = (items: Item[]) => ({
  yourClaims: items.filter(i => i.isClaimed && i.isClaimedByCurrentUser),
  available: items.filter(i => !i.isClaimedByCurrentUser),
});

// prepare-participant-data.test.ts (tests the helper directly)
it('filters claims', () => { ... });

✅ CORRECT — Inline in the consuming function, tested through its behavior:

// load-participant-view.ts
export const loadParticipantView = async (db, eventId, userId) => {
  const items = await getItems(db, eventId);
  const yourClaims = items.filter(i => i.isClaimed && i.isClaimedByCurrentUser);
  const available = items.filter(i => !i.isClaimedByCurrentUser);
  return { yourClaims, available };
};

// The behavioral test for loadParticipantView covers the filtering:
it('returns claimed gifts in yourClaims and unclaimed in available', () => {
  const result = await loadParticipantView(db, eventId, userId);
  expect(result.yourClaims).toHaveLength(1);
  expect(result.available).toHaveLength(2);
});

When extraction IS justified (DRY): If the same filtering logic is used by multiple consumers with the same business meaning, extract it. But test it through each consumer's behavior, not as an isolated unit.

---

Test Factory Pattern

For test data, use factory functions with optional overrides.

Core Principles

1. Return complete objects with sensible defaults
2. Accept Partial<T> overrides for customization
3. Validate with real schemas (don't redefine)
4. NO let/beforeEach - use factories for fresh state

Basic Pattern

const getMockUser = (overrides?: Partial<User>): User => {
  return UserSchema.parse({
    id: 'user-123',
    name: 'Test User',
    email: '[e-mail]',
    role: 'user',
    ...overrides,
  });
};

// Usage
it('creates user with custom email', () => {
  const user = getMockUser({ email: '[e-mail]' });
  const result = createUser(user);
  expect(result.success).toBe(true);
});

Complete Factory Example

import { UserSchema } from '@/schemas'; // Import real schema

const getMockUser = (overrides?: Partial<User>): User => {
  return UserSchema.parse({
    id: 'user-123',
    name: 'Test User',
    email: '[e-mail]',
    role: 'user',
    isActive: true,
    createdAt: new Date('2024-01-01'),
    ...overrides,
  });
};

Why validate with schema?

• Ensures test data is valid according to production schema
• Catches breaking changes early (schema changes fail tests)
• Single source of truth (no schema redefinition)

Tip: For factories where only a subset of fields are relevant, use Pick<T, 'field1' | 'field2'> for the overrides parameter to constrain what callers can customize.

Factory Composition

For nested objects, compose factories:

const getMockItem = (overrides?: Partial<Item>): Item => {
  return ItemSchema.parse({
    id: 'item-1',
    name: 'Test Item',
    price: 100,
    ...overrides,
  });
};

const getMockOrder = (overrides?: Partial<Order>): Order => {
  return OrderSchema.parse({
    id: 'order-1',
    items: [getMockItem()],      // ✅ Compose factories
    customer: getMockCustomer(),  // ✅ Compose factories
    payment: getMockPayment(),    // ✅ Compose factories
    ...overrides,
  });
};

// Usage - override nested objects
it('calculates total with multiple items', () => {
  const order = getMockOrder({
    items: [
      getMockItem({ price: 100 }),
      getMockItem({ price: 200 }),
    ],
  });
  expect(calculateTotal(order)).toBe(300);
});

Anti-Patterns

❌ WRONG: Using let and beforeEach

let user: User;
beforeEach(() => {
  user = { id: 'user-123', name: 'Test User', ... };  // Shared mutable state!
});

it('test 1', () => {
  user.name = 'Modified User';  // Mutates shared state
});

it('test 2', () => {
  expect(user.name).toBe('Test User');  // Fails! Modified by test 1
});

✅ CORRECT: Factory per test

it('test 1', () => {
  const user = getMockUser({ name: 'Modified User' });  // Fresh state
  // ...
});

it('test 2', () => {
  const user = getMockUser();  // Fresh state, not affected by test 1
  expect(user.name).toBe('Test User');  // ✅ Passes
});

❌ WRONG: Incomplete objects

const getMockUser = () => ({
  id: 'user-123',  // Missing name, email, role!
});

✅ CORRECT: Complete objects

const getMockUser = (overrides?: Partial<User>): User => {
  return UserSchema.parse({
    id: 'user-123',
    name: 'Test User',
    email: '[e-mail]',
    role: 'user',
    ...overrides,  // All required fields present
  });
};

❌ WRONG: Redefining schemas in tests

// ❌ Schema already defined in src/schemas/user.ts!
const UserSchema = z.object({ ... });
const getMockUser = () => UserSchema.parse({ ... });

✅ CORRECT: Import real schema

import { UserSchema } from '@/schemas/user';

const getMockUser = (overrides?: Partial<User>): User => {
  return UserSchema.parse({
    id: 'user-123',
    name: 'Test User',
    email: '[e-mail]',
    ...overrides,
  });
};

---

Coverage Theater Detection

Watch for these patterns that give fake 100% coverage:

Pattern 1: Mock the function being tested

❌ WRONG - Gives 100% coverage but tests nothing:

it('calls validator', () => {
  const spy = jest.spyOn(validator, 'validate');
  validate(payment);
  expect(spy).toHaveBeenCalled(); // Meaningless assertion
});

✅ CORRECT - Test actual behavior:

it('should reject invalid payment', () => {
  const payment = getMockPayment({ amount: -100 });
  const result = validate(payment);
  expect(result.success).toBe(false);
  expect(result.error).toContain('Amount must be positive');
});

Pattern 2: Test only that function was called

❌ WRONG - No behavior validation:

it('processes payment', () => {
  const spy = jest.spyOn(processor, 'process');
  handlePayment(payment);
  expect(spy).toHaveBeenCalledWith(payment); // So what?
});

✅ CORRECT - Verify the outcome:

it('should process payment and return transaction ID', () => {
  const payment = getMockPayment();
  const result = handlePayment(payment);
  expect(result.success).toBe(true);
  expect(result.transactionId).toBeDefined();
});

Pattern 3: Test trivial getters/setters

❌ WRONG - Testing implementation, not behavior:

it('sets amount', () => {
  payment.setAmount(100);
  expect(payment.getAmount()).toBe(100); // Trivial
});

✅ CORRECT - Test meaningful behavior:

it('should calculate total with tax', () => {
  const order = createOrder({ items: [item1, item2] });
  const total = order.calculateTotal();
  expect(total).toBe(230); // 200 + 15% tax
});

Pattern 4: 100% line coverage, 0% branch coverage

❌ WRONG - Missing edge cases:

it('validates payment', () => {
  const result = validate(getMockPayment());
  expect(result.success).toBe(true); // Only happy path!
});
// Missing: negative amounts, invalid CVV, missing fields, etc.

✅ CORRECT - Test all branches:

describe('validate payment', () => {
  it('should reject negative amounts', () => {
    const payment = getMockPayment({ amount: -100 });
    expect(validate(payment).success).toBe(false);
  });

  it('should reject amounts over limit', () => {
    const payment = getMockPayment({ amount: 15000 });
    expect(validate(payment).success).toBe(false);
  });

  it('should reject invalid CVV', () => {
    const payment = getMockPayment({ cvv: '12' });
    expect(validate(payment).success).toBe(false);
  });

  it('should accept valid payments', () => {
    const payment = getMockPayment();
    expect(validate(payment).success).toBe(true);
  });
});

---

No 1:1 Mapping Between Tests and Implementation

Don't create test files that mirror implementation files.

❌ WRONG:

src/
  payment-validator.ts
  payment-processor.ts
  payment-formatter.ts
tests/
  payment-validator.test.ts  ← 1:1 mapping
  payment-processor.test.ts  ← 1:1 mapping
  payment-formatter.test.ts  ← 1:1 mapping

✅ CORRECT:

src/
  payment-validator.ts
  payment-processor.ts
  payment-formatter.ts
tests/
  process-payment.test.ts  ← Tests behavior, not implementation files

Why: Implementation details can be refactored without changing tests. Tests verify behavior remains correct regardless of how code is organized internally.

---

Summary Checklist

When writing tests, verify:

• Testing behavior through public API (not implementation details)
• No mocks of the function being tested
• No tests of private methods or internal state
• Factory functions return complete, valid objects
• Factories validate with real schemas (not redefined in tests)
• Using Partial for type-safe overrides
• No let/beforeEach - use factories for fresh state
• Edge cases covered (not just happy path)
• Tests would pass even if implementation is refactored
• No 1:1 mapping between test files and implementation files