test-driven-development

name	test-driven-development
description	Use when implementing any feature or bugfix in the Culinary Advisor Next.js project - write the test first, watch it fail, write minimal code to pass; ensures tests actually verify behavior by requiring failure first

Test-Driven Development (TDD) - Culinary Advisor

Overview

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

Core principle: If you didn't watch the test fail, 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 (components, API routes, utilities)
• Bug fixes
• Refactoring
• Behavior changes

Exceptions (ask user first):

• Throwaway prototypes
• Generated code (Supabase types, migrations)
• 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 Cycle

🔴 RED - Write Failing Test

Write one minimal test showing what should happen.

For React Components:

// components/SaveButton.test.tsx
import { render, screen } from '@testing-library/react'
import userEvent from '@testing-library/user-event'
import { describe, test, expect, vi } from 'vitest'
import SaveButton from './SaveButton'

describe('SaveButton', () => {
  test('saves recipe when clicked', async () => {
    const user = userEvent.setup()
    const mockOnSave = vi.fn()

    render(<SaveButton recipeId="123" onSave={mockOnSave} />)

    const button = screen.getByRole('button', { name: /save/i })
    await user.click(button)

    expect(mockOnSave).toHaveBeenCalledWith('123')
  })
})

For Utilities:

// lib/utils/formatRecipe.test.ts
import { describe, test, expect } from 'vitest'
import { formatServings } from './formatRecipe'

describe('formatServings', () => {
  test('formats single serving', () => {
    expect(formatServings(1)).toBe('1 serving')
  })

  test('formats multiple servings', () => {
    expect(formatServings(4)).toBe('4 servings')
  })
})

For API Routes:

// app/api/recipes/route.test.ts
import { describe, test, expect, beforeAll, afterAll } from 'vitest'
import { http, HttpResponse } from 'msw'
import { setupServer } from 'msw/node'

const server = setupServer(
  http.post('/api/recipes', async ({ request }) => {
    const body = await request.json()
    return HttpResponse.json({ id: 'new-123', ...body }, { status: 201 })
  })
)

beforeAll(() => server.listen())
afterAll(() => server.close())

test('creates recipe with valid data', async () => {
  const response = await fetch('/api/recipes', {
    method: 'POST',
    body: JSON.stringify({ title: 'Test Recipe' })
  })

  expect(response.status).toBe(201)
  const data = await response.json()
  expect(data).toHaveProperty('id')
  expect(data.title).toBe('Test Recipe')
})

Requirements:

• One behavior per test
• Clear descriptive name
• Real code (no mocks unless unavoidable)
• Follow project patterns (see references/test-patterns.md)

✅ Verify RED - Watch It Fail

MANDATORY. Never skip.

npm test path/to/test.test.ts

Confirm:

• Test fails (not errors)
• Failure message is expected ("SaveButton is not defined" or "formatServings is not a function")
• Fails because feature missing (not typos)

Test passes? You're testing existing behavior. Fix test.

Test errors? Fix error, re-run until it fails correctly.

🟢 GREEN - Minimal Code

Write simplest code to pass the test.

Component Example:

// components/SaveButton.tsx
'use client'

interface SaveButtonProps {
  recipeId: string
  onSave: (id: string) => void
}

export default function SaveButton({ recipeId, onSave }: SaveButtonProps) {
  return (
    <button onClick={() => onSave(recipeId)}>
      Save Recipe
    </button>
  )
}

Utility Example:

// lib/utils/formatRecipe.ts
export function formatServings(count: number): string {
  return count === 1 ? '1 serving' : `${count} servings`
}

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

✅ Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass

MANDATORY.

npm test path/to/test.test.ts

Confirm:

• Test passes
• All other tests still pass: npm test
• Build passes: npm run build
• Output pristine (no errors, warnings)

Test fails? Fix code, not test.

Other tests fail? Fix now before continuing.

🔵 REFACTOR - Clean Up

After green only:

• Remove duplication
• Improve names
• Extract helpers
• Add TypeScript types

Keep tests green. Don't add behavior.

Example Refactor:

// After several tests, extract shared logic
export function formatServings(count: number): string {
  return formatCount(count, 'serving')
}

export function formatCookTime(minutes: number): string {
  return formatCount(minutes, 'minute')
}

function formatCount(n: number, unit: string): string {
  return n === 1 ? `1 ${unit}` : `${n} ${unit}s`
}

Repeat

Next failing test for next feature.

Project-Specific Testing Patterns

Component Testing (Next.js)

Follow patterns in testing-standards.md:

Server Components:

// Test by rendering and checking output
test('RecipePage displays recipe title', async () => {
  const recipe = { id: '1', title: 'Pasta Carbonara' }
  render(<RecipePage recipe={recipe} />)

  expect(screen.getByText('Pasta Carbonara')).toBeInTheDocument()
})

Client Components:

// Test interactions with userEvent
test('toggles favorite on click', async () => {
  const user = userEvent.setup()
  render(<FavoriteButton recipeId="123" />)

  const button = screen.getByRole('button', { name: /favorite/i })
  await user.click(button)

  expect(button).toHaveAttribute('aria-pressed', 'true')
})

API Mocking with MSW

ALWAYS use MSW for HTTP/API mocking:

import { http, HttpResponse } from 'msw'
import { setupServer } from 'msw/node'

const server = setupServer(
  http.get('/api/recipes/:id', ({ params }) => {
    return HttpResponse.json({
      id: params.id,
      title: 'Mock Recipe'
    })
  })
)

beforeAll(() => server.listen())
afterEach(() => server.resetHandlers())
afterAll(() => server.close())

NEVER use vi.mock for HTTP requests - causes hoisting issues.

Supabase Mocking

Mock Supabase client for unit tests:

vi.mock('@/lib/supabase/client', () => ({
  createClient: vi.fn(() => ({
    from: vi.fn(() => ({
      select: vi.fn(() => ({
        eq: vi.fn(() => ({
          single: vi.fn(() =>
            Promise.resolve({
              data: { id: '123', title: 'Test Recipe' },
              error: null
            })
          )
        }))
      }))
    }))
  }))
}))

Test Organization

describe('RecipeCard', () => {
  describe('Rendering', () => {
    test('displays recipe title', () => { /* ... */ })
    test('displays recipe image', () => { /* ... */ })
  })

  describe('User Interactions', () => {
    test('calls onSave when clicked', async () => { /* ... */ })
  })

  describe('Error States', () => {
    test('shows error message on failure', async () => { /* ... */ })
  })
})

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, not behavior
• 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.

"Deleting X hours of work is wasteful"

Sunk cost fallacy. 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.

"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)

Common Rationalizations

Excuse	Reality
"Too simple to test"	Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds.
"I'll test after"	Tests passing immediately prove nothing.
"Already manually tested"	Ad-hoc ≠ systematic. No record, can't re-run.
"Keep as reference"	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.

Red Flags - STOP and Start Over

• Code before test
• Test after implementation
• Test passes immediately
• Can't explain why test failed
• Tests added "later"
• "I already manually tested it"
• "Keep as reference" or "adapt existing code"
• "This is different because..."

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

Verification Checklist

Before marking work complete:

• Every new function/method/component 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: npm test
• Build passes: npm run build
• Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
• Tests use real code (mocks only if unavoidable - MSW for HTTP)
• Edge cases and errors covered
• Coverage ≥80% on new code

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

Project Commands

# Run specific test file
npm test path/to/file.test.ts

# Run all tests
npm test

# Run tests with coverage
npm test -- --coverage

# Type check
npx tsc --noEmit

# Build (must pass before committing)
npm run build

When Stuck

Problem	Solution
Don't know how to test	Write wished-for API. Write assertion first. Ask user.
Test too complicated	Design too complicated. Simplify interface.
Must mock everything	Code too coupled. Use dependency injection.
Test setup huge	Extract helpers. Still complex? Simplify design.

Integration with Quality Gates

This project has pre-commit hooks that enforce quality:

1. Type check: npx tsc --noEmit
2. Tests: npm test
3. Build: npm run build

All must pass before committing. TDD ensures they will.

Final Rule

Production code → test exists and failed first
Otherwise → not TDD

No exceptions without user permission.

Resources

• Testing Patterns: See references/test-patterns.md for project-specific examples
• Testing Standards: .claude/modules/testing-standards.md for comprehensive guide
• Code Review: .claude/modules/code-review-standards.md for quality checklist