test-driven-development
- 信任分
- 88/100
- 兼容 Agent
- 1
- 领域
- 工程开发
- 兼容 Agent
- Claude Code
- 信任分
- 88 / 100 · 社区维护
- 作者 / 版本 / 许可
- @obra · 未声明 license
- 安装命令数
- 1 条
需要注意: 未限定 allowed-tools,默认拥有全部工具权限。
想读作者英文原文? ↓ 滚到正文区切换 · 在 GitHub 查看 ↗
test-driven-development 是 tdd 的「全篇」展开:完整的 Red-Green-Refactor 状态机、good test / bad test 对照例、"violation = rationalization" 的 red flags 与 your human partner signals 清单。铁律不变:「NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST」——先测后码,看到测试以「正确的方式失败」才能进下一步。
设计思路
作者把 TDD 当成认知防御:「如果你没看到测试 fail 过,你不知道它测的是不是对的东西。」第一次 RED 必须真失败(且为「正确原因」失败)——错原因 fail 要回去重写测试。Code 写得早了?删掉,从测试重新长出实现。"keep it as reference"、"adapt it while writing tests"、"look at it"——通通禁止。Delete means delete.
何时该用 / 何时例外
Always:新功能、bug 修复、refactor、行为变更。例外(必须问 your human partner):抛弃式 prototype / 生成代码 / 配置文件。如果你脑里冒出「这次就跳过 TDD」——那就是 rationalization,停下。
Red-Green-Refactor 状态机
RED 写失败测试 → Verify fails correctly(失败原因对吗?错就回 RED 重写)→ GREEN 最小代码让它过 → Verify passes / All green(不过就回 GREEN 修最小集)→ REFACTOR 清理(保持绿)→ Next。每一步都有验证关卡,不是单向滑梯。
Good test vs Bad test
- Good:
test('retries failed operations 3 times', ...)—— 名字描述能力、行为级断言、计数验证一件事; - Bad:
test('retry works', ...)配mock.fn().mockRejectedValueOnce(...).mockResolvedValueOnce('success')—— 名模糊、整段在测 mock,没人在乎真 behavior。
Red Flags - STOP and Start Over
出现这些就停下来:你在没失败测试的情况下写 prod 代码 / 你 grep 了一段已存在实现去「适配」它写测试 / 你正打算把刚写的测试改成「能过」。这些信号下,删码 / 删测重新长,不要修补。
适合谁
- 长期维护、refactor 频繁的核心代码
- 团队希望让测试集成为「行为说明书」
- 给 AI agent 落地的纪律:subagent 写代码时强制 RED 先于 GREEN
何时不要用
- 一次性 prototype 或 throwaway 脚本(与
tdd同例外) - 大规模生成代码(声明式配置、protobuf 生成等)
配套
tdd(紧凑版纪律)、subagent-driven-development(subagent 内部强制 RED→GREEN)、verification-before-completion(落地前自检)、debugging-with-humility(修 bug 时的语言纪律)、systematic-debugging(修复前先证据)。
Test-Driven Development (TDD)
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
- 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
digraph tdd_cycle {
rankdir=LR;
red [label="RED\nWrite failing test", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffcccc"];
verify_red [label="Verify fails\ncorrectly", shape=diamond];
green [label="GREEN\nMinimal code", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccffcc"];
verify_green [label="Verify passes\nAll green", shape=diamond];
refactor [label="REFACTOR\nClean up", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccccff"];
next [label="Next", shape=ellipse];
red -> verify_red;
verify_red -> green [label="yes"];
verify_red -> red [label="wrong\nfailure"];
green -> verify_green;
verify_green -> refactor [label="yes"];
verify_green -> green [label="no"];
refactor -> verify_green [label="stay\ngreen"];
verify_green -> next;
next -> red;
}
RED - Write Failing Test
Write one minimal test showing what should happen.
const result = await retryOperation(operation);
expect(result).toBe('success'); expect(attempts).toBe(3); });
Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing
</Good>
<Bad>
```typescript
test('retry works', async () => {
const mock = jest.fn()
.mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
.mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
.mockResolvedValueOnce('success');
await retryOperation(mock);
expect(mock).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(3);
});
Vague name, tests mock not code
Requirements:
- One behavior
- Clear name
- Real code (no mocks unless unavoidable)
Verify RED - Watch It Fail
MANDATORY. Never skip.
npm test path/to/test.test.ts
Confirm:
- Test fails (not errors)
- Failure message is expected
- 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.
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
- Other tests still pass
- Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
Test fails? Fix code, not test.
Other tests fail? Fix now.
REFACTOR - Clean Up
After green only:
- Remove duplication
- Improve names
- Extract helpers
Keep tests green. Don't add behavior.
Repeat
Next failing test for next feature.
Good Tests
| Quality | Good | Bad |
|---|---|---|
| Minimal | One thing. "and" in name? Split it. | test('validates email and domain and whitespace') |
| Clear | Name describes behavior | test('test1') |
| Shows intent | Demonstrates desired API | 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, 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.
"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
test('rejects empty email', async () => {
const result = await submitForm({ email: '' });
expect(result.error).toBe('Email required');
});
Verify RED
$ npm test
FAIL: expected 'Email required', got undefined
GREEN
function submitForm(data: FormData) {
if (!data.email?.trim()) {
return { error: 'Email required' };
}
// ...
}
Verify GREEN
$ npm test
PASS
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)
- Tests use real code (mocks 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. Write assertion first. Ask your human partner. |
| 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. |
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.