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.

Requirements:

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

For detailed examples in Rust, Swift, and TypeScript, see: resources/language-examples.md

Verify RED - Watch It Fail

MANDATORY. Never skip.

# Rust
cargo test tests::retries_failed_operations_3_times

# Swift
swift test --filter RetryTests.testRetriesFailedOperations3Times

# TypeScript (Jest)
npm test -- --testNamePattern="retries failed operations"

# TypeScript (Vitest)
npm test -- -t "retries failed operations"

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.

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

For detailed examples showing minimal implementations, see: resources/language-examples.md

Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass

MANDATORY.

# Rust
cargo test tests::retries_failed_operations_3_times

# Swift
swift test --filter RetryTests.testRetriesFailedOperations3Times

# TypeScript
npm test -- --testNamePattern="retries failed operations"

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.	func testValidatesEmailAndDomainAndWhitespace()
Clear	Name describes behavior	#[test] fn 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 (Swift)

func testRejectsEmptyEmail() async throws {
    let result = try await submitForm(FormData(email: ""))
    XCTAssertEqual(result.error, "Email required")
}

Verify RED

$ swift test --filter FormTests.testRejectsEmptyEmail
FAIL: XCTAssertEqual failed: ("nil") is not equal to ("Optional("Email required")")

GREEN

struct FormResult {
    var error: String?
}

func submitForm(_ data: FormData) async throws -> FormResult {
    if data.email.trimmingCharacters(in: .whitespacesAndNewlines).isEmpty {
        return FormResult(error: "Email required")
    }
    // ...
    return FormResult()
}

Verify GREEN

$ swift test --filter FormTests.testRejectsEmptyEmail
Test Case '-[FormTests testRejectsEmptyEmail]' passed

REFACTOR Extract validation for multiple fields if needed.

Example: Feature Addition

Feature: Calculate average of non-empty list

RED (Rust)

#[test]
fn calculates_average_of_numbers() {
    let numbers = vec![10.0, 20.0, 30.0];
    let avg = calculate_average(&numbers).unwrap();
    assert_eq!(avg, 20.0);
}

#[test]
fn returns_error_for_empty_list() {
    let numbers: Vec<f64> = vec![];
    let result = calculate_average(&numbers);
    assert!(result.is_err());
}

Verify RED

$ cargo test calculate_average
error[E0425]: cannot find function `calculate_average` in this scope

GREEN

fn calculate_average(numbers: &[f64]) -> Result<f64, &'static str> {
    if numbers.is_empty() {
        return Err("Cannot calculate average of empty list");
    }
    let sum: f64 = numbers.iter().sum();
    Ok(sum / numbers.len() as f64)
}

Verify GREEN

$ cargo test calculate_average
running 2 tests
test tests::calculates_average_of_numbers ... ok
test tests::returns_error_for_empty_list ... ok

Example: Feature Addition (TypeScript)

Feature: Validate email format

RED

describe('validateEmail', () => {
  it('accepts valid email addresses', () => {
    expect(validateEmail('user@example.com')).toBe(true);
  });

  it('rejects email without @ symbol', () => {
    expect(validateEmail('userexample.com')).toBe(false);
  });

  it('rejects empty string', () => {
    expect(validateEmail('')).toBe(false);
  });
});

Verify RED

$ npm test -- validateEmail
FAIL  src/validation.test.ts
  ● Test suite failed to run
    Cannot find module '../validation' from 'src/validation.test.ts'

GREEN

export function validateEmail(email: string): boolean {
  if (email.length === 0) {
    return false;
  }
  return email.includes('@');
}

Verify GREEN

$ npm test -- validateEmail
PASS  src/validation.test.ts
  validateEmail
    ✓ accepts valid email addresses (2 ms)
    ✓ rejects email without @ symbol (1 ms)
    ✓ rejects empty string (1 ms)

Tests: 3 passed, 3 total

REFACTOR Add more robust validation if additional tests require it.

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.

Language-Specific Tips

Rust

• Use #[cfg(test)] module for tests
• cargo test runs all tests
• cargo test test_name runs specific test
• Use Result<T, E> for error handling in tests
• assert!, assert_eq!, assert_ne! for assertions
• #[should_panic] for tests expecting panics

Swift

• Use XCTest framework
• swift test runs all tests
• swift test --filter for specific tests
• XCTAssert* family for assertions
• async/await for async tests
• XCTUnwrap for safely unwrapping optionals in tests

TypeScript

• Common frameworks: Jest, Vitest, Mocha
• npm test runs all tests (configured in package.json)
• describe groups related tests
• it or test for individual test cases
• expect(...).toBe/toEqual/toThrow for assertions
• async/await for async tests
• Mock with jest.fn() or vi.fn() (avoid unless necessary)

Final Rule

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

No exceptions without your human partner's permission.