format: apply repo prettier (3.8.1) to the folded skills tree
963 markdown files reformatted with the repository's pinned prettier so pnpm format:check covers the folded tree like every other repo file. The formatter's embedded-language pass also normalized code fences (TS semicolons, closed HTML tags in examples, lowercased CSS hex colors, one renumbered list that skipped an index). Alphanumeric token deltas vs the fold commit were audited file-by-file; all are formatter-equivalent markup normalizations plus the four sanitized skills.
This commit is contained in:
fargo
@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ Tests must verify real behavior, not mock behavior. Mocks are a means to isolate
|
||||
## Anti-Pattern 1: Testing Mock Behavior
|
||||
|
||||
**The violation:**
|
||||
|
||||
```typescript
|
||||
// ❌ BAD: Testing that the mock exists
|
||||
test('renders sidebar', () => {
|
||||
@@ -30,6 +31,7 @@ test('renders sidebar', () => {
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Why this is wrong:**
|
||||
|
||||
- You're verifying the mock works, not that the component works
|
||||
- Test passes when mock is present, fails when it's not
|
||||
- Tells you nothing about real behavior
|
||||
@@ -37,6 +39,7 @@ test('renders sidebar', () => {
|
||||
**your human partner's correction:** "Are we testing the behavior of a mock?"
|
||||
|
||||
**The fix:**
|
||||
|
||||
```typescript
|
||||
// ✅ GOOD: Test real component or don't mock it
|
||||
test('renders sidebar', () => {
|
||||
@@ -63,10 +66,12 @@ BEFORE asserting on any mock element:
|
||||
## Anti-Pattern 2: Test-Only Methods in Production
|
||||
|
||||
**The violation:**
|
||||
|
||||
```typescript
|
||||
// ❌ BAD: destroy() only used in tests
|
||||
class Session {
|
||||
async destroy() { // Looks like production API!
|
||||
async destroy() {
|
||||
// Looks like production API!
|
||||
await this._workspaceManager?.destroyWorkspace(this.id);
|
||||
// ... cleanup
|
||||
}
|
||||
@@ -77,12 +82,14 @@ afterEach(() => session.destroy());
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Why this is wrong:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Production class polluted with test-only code
|
||||
- Dangerous if accidentally called in production
|
||||
- Violates YAGNI and separation of concerns
|
||||
- Confuses object lifecycle with entity lifecycle
|
||||
|
||||
**The fix:**
|
||||
|
||||
```typescript
|
||||
// ✅ GOOD: Test utilities handle test cleanup
|
||||
// Session has no destroy() - it's stateless in production
|
||||
@@ -118,33 +125,36 @@ BEFORE adding any method to production class:
|
||||
## Anti-Pattern 3: Mocking Without Understanding
|
||||
|
||||
**The violation:**
|
||||
|
||||
```typescript
|
||||
// ❌ BAD: Mock breaks test logic
|
||||
test('detects duplicate server', () => {
|
||||
// Mock prevents config write that test depends on!
|
||||
vi.mock('ToolCatalog', () => ({
|
||||
discoverAndCacheTools: vi.fn().mockResolvedValue(undefined)
|
||||
discoverAndCacheTools: vi.fn().mockResolvedValue(undefined),
|
||||
}));
|
||||
|
||||
await addServer(config);
|
||||
await addServer(config); // Should throw - but won't!
|
||||
await addServer(config); // Should throw - but won't!
|
||||
});
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Why this is wrong:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Mocked method had side effect test depended on (writing config)
|
||||
- Over-mocking to "be safe" breaks actual behavior
|
||||
- Test passes for wrong reason or fails mysteriously
|
||||
|
||||
**The fix:**
|
||||
|
||||
```typescript
|
||||
// ✅ GOOD: Mock at correct level
|
||||
test('detects duplicate server', () => {
|
||||
// Mock the slow part, preserve behavior test needs
|
||||
vi.mock('MCPServerManager'); // Just mock slow server startup
|
||||
|
||||
await addServer(config); // Config written
|
||||
await addServer(config); // Duplicate detected ✓
|
||||
await addServer(config); // Config written
|
||||
await addServer(config); // Duplicate detected ✓
|
||||
});
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -177,11 +187,12 @@ BEFORE mocking any method:
|
||||
## Anti-Pattern 4: Incomplete Mocks
|
||||
|
||||
**The violation:**
|
||||
|
||||
```typescript
|
||||
// ❌ BAD: Partial mock - only fields you think you need
|
||||
const mockResponse = {
|
||||
status: 'success',
|
||||
data: { userId: '123', name: 'Alice' }
|
||||
data: { userId: '123', name: 'Alice' },
|
||||
// Missing: metadata that downstream code uses
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -189,6 +200,7 @@ const mockResponse = {
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Why this is wrong:**
|
||||
|
||||
- **Partial mocks hide structural assumptions** - You only mocked fields you know about
|
||||
- **Downstream code may depend on fields you didn't include** - Silent failures
|
||||
- **Tests pass but integration fails** - Mock incomplete, real API complete
|
||||
@@ -197,12 +209,13 @@ const mockResponse = {
|
||||
**The Iron Rule:** Mock the COMPLETE data structure as it exists in reality, not just fields your immediate test uses.
|
||||
|
||||
**The fix:**
|
||||
|
||||
```typescript
|
||||
// ✅ GOOD: Mirror real API completeness
|
||||
const mockResponse = {
|
||||
status: 'success',
|
||||
data: { userId: '123', name: 'Alice' },
|
||||
metadata: { requestId: 'req-789', timestamp: 1234567890 }
|
||||
metadata: { requestId: 'req-789', timestamp: 1234567890 },
|
||||
// All fields real API returns
|
||||
};
|
||||
```
|
||||
@@ -228,6 +241,7 @@ BEFORE creating mock responses:
|
||||
## Anti-Pattern 5: Integration Tests as Afterthought
|
||||
|
||||
**The violation:**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
✅ Implementation complete
|
||||
❌ No tests written
|
||||
@@ -235,11 +249,13 @@ BEFORE creating mock responses:
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Why this is wrong:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Testing is part of implementation, not optional follow-up
|
||||
- TDD would have caught this
|
||||
- Can't claim complete without tests
|
||||
|
||||
**The fix:**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
TDD cycle:
|
||||
1. Write failing test
|
||||
@@ -251,6 +267,7 @@ TDD cycle:
|
||||
## When Mocks Become Too Complex
|
||||
|
||||
**Warning signs:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Mock setup longer than test logic
|
||||
- Mocking everything to make test pass
|
||||
- Mocks missing methods real components have
|
||||
@@ -263,6 +280,7 @@ TDD cycle:
|
||||
## TDD Prevents These Anti-Patterns
|
||||
|
||||
**Why TDD helps:**
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Write test first** → Forces you to think about what you're actually testing
|
||||
2. **Watch it fail** → Confirms test tests real behavior, not mocks
|
||||
3. **Minimal implementation** → No test-only methods creep in
|
||||
@@ -272,14 +290,14 @@ TDD cycle:
|
||||
|
||||
## Quick Reference
|
||||
|
||||
| Anti-Pattern | Fix |
|
||||
|--------------|-----|
|
||||
| Assert on mock elements | Test real component or unmock it |
|
||||
| Test-only methods in production | Move to test utilities |
|
||||
| Mock without understanding | Understand dependencies first, mock minimally |
|
||||
| Incomplete mocks | Mirror real API completely |
|
||||
| Tests as afterthought | TDD - tests first |
|
||||
| Over-complex mocks | Consider integration tests |
|
||||
| Anti-Pattern | Fix |
|
||||
| ------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| Assert on mock elements | Test real component or unmock it |
|
||||
| Test-only methods in production | Move to test utilities |
|
||||
| Mock without understanding | Understand dependencies first, mock minimally |
|
||||
| Incomplete mocks | Mirror real API completely |
|
||||
| Tests as afterthought | TDD - tests first |
|
||||
| Over-complex mocks | Consider integration tests |
|
||||
|
||||
## Red Flags
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user