test-driven-development

name	test-driven-development
description	Use when implementing any feature or bugfix in C++, before writing implementation code

Test-Driven Development (TDD) for C++

Overview

Write the test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass.

Core principle: If you didn't watch the test fail (or fail to compile), you don't know if it tests the right thing.

Violating the letter of the rules is violating the spirit of the rules.

When to Use

Always:

• New features
• Bug fixes
• Refactoring
• Behavior changes

Exceptions (ask your human partner):

• Throwaway prototypes
• Generated code
• Configuration files

Thinking "skip TDD just this once"? Stop. That's rationalization.

The Iron Law

NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST Write code before the test? Delete it. Start over.

No exceptions:

• Don't keep it as "reference"
• Don't "adapt" it while writing tests
• Don't look at it
• Delete means delete

Implement fresh from tests. Period.

Red-Green-Refactor

RED - Write Failing Test

Write one minimal test showing what should happen.

```cpp // math_test.cpp #include #include "MathUtils.h"

TEST(MathUtilsTest, AddReturnsSum) { EXPECT_EQ(MathUtils::Add(2, 3), 5); }

Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing. Fails to compile (Red Phase 1).
</Good>
<Bad>
```cpp
// ❌ BAD
TEST(MathTest, Works) {
    // Tests implementation details or mocks too much
    MockMath mock;
    EXPECT_CALL(mock, Add(2,3)).WillOnce(Return(5));
    // ...
}

Vague name, tests mock usage not logic.

Requirements:

• One behavior
• Clear name
• Real code (no mocks unless unavoidable)

Verify RED - Watch It Fail

MANDATORY. Never skip.

make test
# OR
./build/tests/my_tests

Confirm:

• Test fails (assertion error) OR fails to compile (missing class/function).
• Failure message is expected.
• Fails because feature missing (not typos).

Test passes (or compiles and runs)? You're testing existing behavior. Fix test. Test errors (segfault/exception)? Fix error, re-run until it fails correctly (assertion).

GREEN - Minimal Code

Write simplest code to pass the test.

```cpp // MathUtils.h class MathUtils { public: static int Add(int a, int b) { return a + b; } }; ``` Just enough to pass. ```cpp // MathUtils.h class MathUtils { public: // YAGNI: Over-engineered with template metaprogramming or unnecessary flags template static T Add(T a, T b, bool secure = false) { if (secure) { /* ... */ } return a + b; } }; ``` Over-engineered.

Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.

Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass

MANDATORY.

make test

Confirm:

• Test passes.
• Other tests still pass.
• Output clean (no leaks/sanitizer errors).

Test fails? Fix code, not test. Other tests fail? Fix now.

REFACTOR - Clean Up

After green only:

• Remove duplication.
• Improve variable names.
• Extract helper functions.
• Use const, auto, standard algorithms.

Keep tests green. Don't add behavior.

Repeat

Next failing test for next feature.

Good Tests

Quality	Good	Bad
Minimal	One assertion concept.	TEST(User, ValidateEmailAndDomainAndWhitespace)
Clear	Name describes behavior.	TEST(UserTest, Test1)
Shows intent	Demonstrates desired API usage.	Obscures what code should do.

Why Order Matters

"I'll write tests after to verify it works" Tests written after code pass immediately. Passing immediately proves nothing:

• Might test wrong thing.
• Might test implementation logic (tautology), not requirements.
• Might miss edge cases you forgot.
• You never saw it catch the bug.

Test-first forces you to see the test fail, proving it actually tests something.

"I already manually tested all the edge cases" Manual testing is ad-hoc. You think you tested everything but:

• No record of what you tested.
• Can't re-run when code changes.
• Easy to forget cases under pressure.
• "It worked when I tried it" ≠ comprehensive.

Automated tests are systematic. They run the same way every time.

"Deleting X hours of work is wasteful" Sunk cost fallacy. The time is already gone. Your choice now:

• Delete and rewrite with TDD (X more hours, high confidence).
• Keep it and add tests after (30 min, low confidence, likely bugs). The "waste" is keeping code you can't trust. Working code without real tests is technical debt.

"TDD is dogmatic, being pragmatic means adapting" TDD IS pragmatic:

• Finds bugs before commit (faster than debugging after).
• Prevents regressions (tests catch breaks immediately).
• Documents behavior (tests show how to use code).
• Enables refactoring (change freely, tests catch breaks).

"Pragmatic" shortcuts = debugging in production = slower.

"Tests after achieve the same goals - it's spirit not ritual" No. Tests-after answer "What does this do?" Tests-first answer "What should this do?" Tests-after are biased by your implementation. You test what you built, not what's required. You verify remembered edge cases, not discovered ones. Tests-first force edge case discovery before implementing. Tests-after verify you remembered everything (you didn't). 30 minutes of tests after ≠ TDD. You get coverage, lose proof tests work.

Common Rationalizations

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 will slow me down"	TDD faster than debugging. Pragmatic = test-first.
"Manual test faster"	Manual doesn't prove edge cases. You'll re-test every change.
"Existing code has no tests"	You're improving it. Add tests for existing code.

Red Flags - STOP and Start Over

• Code before test
• Test after implementation
• Test passes immediately
• Can't explain why test failed
• Tests added "later"
• Rationalizing "just this once"
• "I already manually tested it"
• "Tests after achieve the same purpose"
• "It's about spirit not ritual"
• "Keep as reference" or "adapt existing code"
• "Already spent X hours, deleting is wasteful"
• "TDD is dogmatic, I'm being pragmatic"
• "This is different because..."

All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.

Example: Bug Fix

Bug: Empty email accepted

RED

// UserTest.cpp
TEST(UserTest, RejectsEmptyEmail) {
    User user;
    auto result = user.setEmail("");
    EXPECT_EQ(result, User::Error::EmailRequired);
}

Verify RED

$ make test
[FAIL] Expected: EmailRequired, Actual: Success

GREEN

// User.cpp
User::Error User::setEmail(const std::string& email) {
    if (email.empty()) {
        return Error::EmailRequired;
    }
    // ...
}

Verify GREEN

$ make test
[PASS] UserTest.RejectsEmptyEmail

REFACTOR Extract validation for multiple fields if needed.

Verification Checklist

Before marking work complete:

• Every new function/method has a test.
• Watched each test fail before implementing.
• Each test failed for expected reason (feature missing, not typo).
• Wrote minimal code to pass each test.
• All tests pass.
• Output pristine (no errors, warnings, sanitizer issues).
• Tests use real code (mocks/fakes only if unavoidable).
• Edge cases and errors covered.

Can't check all boxes? You skipped TDD. Start over.

When Stuck

Problem	Solution
Don't know how to test	Write wished-for API first. Write assertion first. Ask your human partner.
Test too complicated	Design too complicated. Simplify interface.
Must mock everything	Code too coupled. Use dependency injection (interfaces/templates).
Test setup huge	Extract helpers. Still complex? Simplify design/reduce dependencies.

Debugging

Integration Bug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle. Test proves fix and prevents regression. Never fix bugs without a test.

Testing Anti-Patterns

When adding mocks or test utilities, read testing_anti_patterns.md to avoid common pitfalls:

• Testing mock behavior instead of real behavior.
• Adding test-only methods to production classes.
• Mocking without understanding dependencies.

Final Rule

Production code → test exists and failed first Otherwise → not TDD No exceptions without your human partner's permission.