Skill v1.0.1
currentAutomated scan100/1002 files
version: "1.0.1" name: testing-anti-patterns description: Use when writing or changing tests, adding mocks, or tempted to add test-only methods to production code - prevents testing mock behavior, production pollution with test-only methods, and mocking without understanding dependencies
Testing Anti-Patterns
Overview
Tests must verify real behavior, not mock behavior. Mocks are a means to isolate, not the thing being tested.
Core principle: Test what the code does, not what the mocks do.
Following strict TDD prevents these anti-patterns.
The Iron Laws
1. NEVER test mock behavior2. NEVER add test-only methods to production classes3. NEVER mock without understanding dependencies
Anti-Pattern 1: Testing Mock Behavior
The violation:
// ❌ BAD: Testing that the mock existstest('renders sidebar', () => {render(<Page />);expect(screen.getByTestId('sidebar-mock')).toBeInTheDocument();});
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
your human partner's correction: "Are we testing the behavior of a mock?"
The fix:
// ✅ GOOD: Test real component or don't mock ittest('renders sidebar', () => {render(<Page />); // Don't mock sidebarexpect(screen.getByRole('navigation')).toBeInTheDocument();});// OR if sidebar must be mocked for isolation:// Don't assert on the mock - test Page's behavior with sidebar present
Gate Function
BEFORE asserting on any mock element:Ask: "Am I testing real component behavior or just mock existence?"IF testing mock existence:STOP - Delete the assertion or unmock the componentTest real behavior instead
Anti-Pattern 2: Test-Only Methods in Production
The violation:
// ❌ BAD: destroy() only used in testsclass Session {async destroy() { // Looks like production API!await this._workspaceManager?.destroyWorkspace(this.id);// ... cleanup}}// In testsafterEach(() => 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:
// ✅ GOOD: Test utilities handle test cleanup// Session has no destroy() - it's stateless in production// In test-utils/export async function cleanupSession(session: Session) {const workspace = session.getWorkspaceInfo();if (workspace) {await workspaceManager.destroyWorkspace(workspace.id);}}// In testsafterEach(() => cleanupSession(session));
Gate Function
BEFORE adding any method to production class:Ask: "Is this only used by tests?"IF yes:STOP - Don't add itPut it in test utilities insteadAsk: "Does this class own this resource's lifecycle?"IF no:STOP - Wrong class for this method
Anti-Pattern 3: Mocking Without Understanding
The violation:
// ❌ BAD: Mock breaks test logictest('detects duplicate server', () => {// Mock prevents config write that test depends on!vi.mock('ToolCatalog', () => ({discoverAndCacheTools: vi.fn().mockResolvedValue(undefined)}));await addServer(config);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:
// ✅ GOOD: Mock at correct leveltest('detects duplicate server', () => {// Mock the slow part, preserve behavior test needsvi.mock('MCPServerManager'); // Just mock slow server startupawait addServer(config); // Config writtenawait addServer(config); // Duplicate detected ✓});
Gate Function
BEFORE mocking any method:STOP - Don't mock yet1. Ask: "What side effects does the real method have?"2. Ask: "Does this test depend on any of those side effects?"3. Ask: "Do I fully understand what this test needs?"IF depends on side effects:Mock at lower level (the actual slow/external operation)OR use test doubles that preserve necessary behaviorNOT the high-level method the test depends onIF unsure what test depends on:Run test with real implementation FIRSTObserve what actually needs to happenTHEN add minimal mocking at the right levelRed flags:- "I'll mock this to be safe"- "This might be slow, better mock it"- Mocking without understanding the dependency chain
Anti-Pattern 4: Incomplete Mocks
The violation:
// ❌ BAD: Partial mock - only fields you think you needconst mockResponse = {status: 'success',data: { userId: '123', name: 'Alice' }// Missing: metadata that downstream code uses};// Later: breaks when code accesses response.metadata.requestId
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
- False confidence - Test proves nothing about real behavior
The Iron Rule: Mock the COMPLETE data structure as it exists in reality, not just fields your immediate test uses.
The fix:
// ✅ GOOD: Mirror real API completenessconst mockResponse = {status: 'success',data: { userId: '123', name: 'Alice' },metadata: { requestId: 'req-789', timestamp: 1234567890 }// All fields real API returns};
Gate Function
BEFORE creating mock responses:Check: "What fields does the real API response contain?"Actions:1. Examine actual API response from docs/examples2. Include ALL fields system might consume downstream3. Verify mock matches real response schema completelyCritical:If you're creating a mock, you must understand the ENTIRE structurePartial mocks fail silently when code depends on omitted fieldsIf uncertain: Include all documented fields
Anti-Pattern 5: Integration Tests as Afterthought
The violation:
✅ Implementation complete❌ No tests written"Ready for testing"
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 test2. Implement to pass3. Refactor4. THEN claim complete
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
- Test breaks when mock changes
your human partner's question: "Do we need to be using a mock here?"
Consider: Integration tests with real components often simpler than complex mocks
TDD Prevents These Anti-Patterns
Why TDD helps:
- Write test first → Forces you to think about what you're actually testing
- Watch it fail → Confirms test tests real behavior, not mocks
- Minimal implementation → No test-only methods creep in
- Real dependencies → You see what the test actually needs before mocking
If you're testing mock behavior, you violated TDD - you added mocks without watching test fail against real code first.
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 |
Red Flags
- Assertion checks for
*-mocktest IDs - Methods only called in test files
- Mock setup is >50% of test
- Test fails when you remove mock
- Can't explain why mock is needed
- Mocking "just to be safe"
The Bottom Line
Mocks are tools to isolate, not things to test.
If TDD reveals you're testing mock behavior, you've gone wrong.
Fix: Test real behavior or question why you're mocking at all.