shipyard-testing

Writing Effective Tests

When This Skill Activates

• Writing or modifying test files (*.test.*, *.spec.*, *_test.go, test_*.py)
• Setting up test infrastructure or test utilities
• Debugging flaky, brittle, or slow tests
• Deciding between unit, integration, and E2E tests
• Choosing when and how to use mocks, stubs, or fakes

Natural Language Triggers

• "add tests", "test coverage", "testing strategy", "write tests for", "how should I test"

Overview

Test behaviors through public APIs. Verify state, not interactions.

Core principle: If refactoring breaks your tests but not your users, your tests are wrong.

Relationship to TDD: The shipyard:shipyard-tdd skill covers WHEN to write tests (test-first, red-green-refactor). This skill covers HOW to write tests that are effective, maintainable, and trustworthy.

The Iron Law

TEST BEHAVIORS, NOT IMPLEMENTATIONS

A test should break only when the system's observable behavior changes -- never because of refactoring, renaming internals, or restructuring code.

No exceptions:

• Don't test private methods
• Don't assert on internal state
• Don't verify method call sequences
• Don't couple tests to data structures users never see

Test Structure (AAA)

Every test follows Arrange-Act-Assert:

Arrange -- Set up preconditions and inputs
Act     -- Execute the behavior under test
Assert  -- Verify the expected outcome

Separate the three sections with blank lines. One Act per test. One logical assertion per test.

```python def test_expired_subscription_denies_access(): # Arrange user = create_user(subscription_end=yesterday())

# Act
result = check_access(user, resource="premium-content")

# Assert
assert result.denied is True
assert result.reason == "subscription expired"

Clear name, tests one behavior, obvious structure.
</example>

<example type="bad" title="Multiple behaviors, internal state tested">
```python
def test_subscription():
    user = create_user(subscription_end=yesterday())
    assert check_access(user, "premium-content").denied
    user.subscription_end = tomorrow()
    assert check_access(user, "premium-content").allowed
    assert user.access_log == [("denied", "premium-content"), ("allowed", "premium-content")]

Two behaviors in one test, tests internal log, vague name.

Keep Tests DAMP, Not DRY

Prefer Descriptive And Meaningful Phrases over eliminating duplication. Duplicating setup across tests is fine if it makes each test self-contained and readable. Extract shared setup into helpers only when it improves clarity, not to reduce line count.

No Logic in Tests

Tests are straight-line code. No loops, conditionals, ternaries, or string concatenation. If you need logic, the test is too complex -- split it or simplify the design.

What to Test

Test These

• Behaviors: What the system does from a user's perspective
• Edge cases: Empty inputs, boundaries, overflow, zero, null
• Error paths: Invalid input, missing dependencies, timeouts
• State transitions: Before and after an operation

Skip These

• Trivial getters/setters with no logic
• Generated code (protobuf, ORM migrations)
• Configuration files
• Third-party library internals

Test Via Public APIs

Invoke the system the same way its callers do. If the only way to test something is through a private method, the design needs to change -- extract it into a collaborator with its own public interface.

Naming Tests

Name tests after the behavior, not the method.

Good	Bad
rejects_empty_email_with_validation_error	test_validate
returns_cached_result_when_within_ttl	test_cache
retries_three_times_before_failing	test_retry_logic
grants_access_when_subscription_active	test_check_access_method

Patterns that work:

• [action]_[condition]_[expected_result]
• should [expected behavior] when [condition]
• Plain descriptive sentence

A test name containing "and" usually means two tests.

Choosing Test Level

digraph test_level {
    rankdir=TB;
    start [label="What are you testing?", shape=diamond];
    pure [label="Pure logic?\nNo I/O, no side effects", shape=diamond];
    boundary [label="System boundary?\nDB, API, file, queue", shape=diamond];
    journey [label="Critical user journey?\nLogin, checkout, signup", shape=diamond];

    unit [label="UNIT TEST\nFast, isolated, many", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccffcc"];
    integration [label="INTEGRATION TEST\nBoundary focused, fewer", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffffcc"];
    e2e [label="E2E TEST\nFull stack, minimal", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffcccc"];

    start -> pure;
    pure -> unit [label="yes"];
    pure -> boundary [label="no"];
    boundary -> integration [label="yes"];
    boundary -> journey [label="no"];
    journey -> e2e [label="yes"];
    journey -> unit [label="no\n(rethink)"];
}

The pyramid: Many unit tests. Fewer integration tests. Minimal E2E tests.

Push tests down. If a behavior can be tested at a lower level, test it there. Lower = faster, more stable, cheaper to maintain. Only go higher when the lower level can't verify the behavior (serialization, wiring, full user flow).

Duplicate coverage? If a unit test and integration test verify the same behavior, keep the unit test. Remove the integration test unless it adds confidence about wiring.

Test Isolation and Doubles

When to Use Test Doubles

Use doubles for	Use real objects for
Network calls (HTTP, gRPC)	In-process collaborators
Database queries (in unit tests)	Value objects and data structures
Filesystem I/O	Pure functions
Non-deterministic sources (time, random)	Deterministic transformations
Expensive operations (ML inference, rendering)	Lightweight dependencies

Types of Doubles

• Stub: Returns canned responses. Use when you need a dependency to return specific data.
• Fake: Working implementation with shortcuts (in-memory DB, local file store). Preferred over mocks for complex interactions.
• Mock: Records calls and asserts on them. Use sparingly -- only when the interaction IS the behavior (e.g., "sends an email").

The Mocking Rule

Verify STATE over INTERACTIONS.
Mock only when the side effect IS the behavior under test.

```typescript // Testing that withdrawal updates balance (state) test('withdrawal reduces account balance', () => { const account = new Account(100);

account.withdraw(30);

expect(account.balance).toBe(70); });

Tests resulting state -- survives internal refactoring.
</example>

<example type="bad" title="Testing internal interaction">
```typescript
// Testing that withdrawal calls the right methods (interaction)
test('withdrawal calls debit', () => {
  const ledger = mock(Ledger);
  const account = new Account(100, ledger);

  account.withdraw(30);

  expect(ledger.debit).toHaveBeenCalledWith(30);
});

Tests internal interaction -- breaks if refactored.

Unchanging Tests

A well-written test changes only when requirements change. It survives:

• Refactoring -- internal restructuring, no behavior change
• Bug fixes -- new tests added, existing tests unchanged
• New features -- unrelated tests unaffected

If your tests break during refactoring, they're testing implementation details. Fix the tests to test behavior instead.

Clear Failure Messages

A failure message should let you diagnose the problem without reading the test code.

``` FAIL: rejects_empty_email_with_validation_error Expected: ValidationError("email is required") Actual: None (no error raised) ``` Shows expected vs actual with context. ``` FAIL: test_validate AssertionError: False is not True ``` No context, unclear what was tested.

Use assertion libraries that produce descriptive messages. Prefer assertEqual(expected, actual) over bare assert.

Anti-Patterns

Anti-Pattern	Problem	Fix
Testing implementation	Breaks on refactor	Test observable behavior via public API
Over-mocking	Tests verify mocks, not code	Use real objects; mock only at boundaries
Flaky tests	Non-deterministic (time, order, network)	Control inputs; isolate state; use fakes
Ice cream cone	Too many E2E, few unit tests	Push tests down the pyramid
Logic in tests	Bugs in test code hide bugs in prod	Straight-line code only
Shared mutable state	Tests depend on run order	Fresh state per test (setup/teardown)
Test-only production code	Methods exist only for testing	Test via public API; redesign if needed
Assertion-free tests	Test runs but verifies nothing	Every test must assert expected outcome
Giant setup	50 lines before the act	Simplify design; extract builder/factory

Red Flags -- STOP and Rethink

• Mocking more than 2 dependencies -- class has too many responsibilities
• Test setup exceeds 20 lines -- design is too complex or test scope too broad
• Test name contains "and" -- split into two tests
• Tests break when you refactor -- testing implementation, not behavior
• Tests pass but bugs ship -- testing the wrong things
• Can't explain what behavior a test verifies -- rewrite or delete it
• All tests use mocks -- not testing real behavior
• Test file is longer than production file -- over-testing or testing internals

Common Rationalizations

Excuse	Reality
"Need mocks for everything"	Design is too coupled. Inject dependencies, use fakes.
"100% coverage = quality"	Coverage measures execution, not correctness. 80% covering behaviors > 100% covering lines.
"E2E tests cover everything"	Slow, flaky, expensive. Unit tests catch most bugs faster.
"Test is too hard to write"	Hard to test = hard to use. Fix the design.
"It's just test code"	Test code deserves production standards. Sloppy tests rot fast.
"One big test is easier"	One big test = one useless failure message. Split by behavior.
"Helper makes it DRY"	If the helper obscures what's tested, inline it. DAMP > DRY.

Quick Reference: FIRST Principles

• Fast -- Tests run in seconds, not minutes. Slow tests get skipped.
• Independent -- No test depends on another. Any order, any subset.
• Repeatable -- Same result every run, any machine, any time.
• Self-checking -- Pass/fail without human inspection.
• Timely -- Written close to the code. Not "later." Not "before release."

Final Rule

Test what your users care about, through the interfaces they use.
Everything else is an implementation detail.