Defame1297
5e232503c4
Why: ADR-0015 established that Microsoft APM (apm.yml + .apm/) should replace this repo's hand-authored plugin.json/marketplace.json model, with those files becoming compiled output of `apm pack` instead of files edited by hand via the (now-retired) plugin-author/marketplace-author skills. Issue #90 was the deferred execution of that decision, gated on #88 (apm tooling) and #89 (apm-native agent-author/skill-author routing). Implementation notes: - All six plugins (bin, core, git, gitea, kyberforge, lint) now carry apm.yml + .apm/{skills,agents,hooks} as their authoring source. Skills moved with a plain git mv (content-identical across targets). Agents were re-authored, not moved: per ADR-0016, .apm/agents/*.agent.md compiles verbatim to both Claude and Copilot, so plugin-scope agents now carry only name/description/model/source_keys -- no tools: field, no Claude-only knobs (isolation, maxTurns, effort, memory, permissionMode). - Root apm.yml registers all 7 marketplace packages (6 local plus mattpocock-skills as a remote entry) under versioning: per_package, matching this repo's existing independent-plugin-versioning practice. - .claude-plugin/marketplace.json and every plugin's plugin.json are now apm-pack-compiled output, verified against the prior hand-maintained content: same names/descriptions/versions/licenses/authors, only cosmetic serialization differences (JSON key order, owner email vs. url, Unicode escaping). - plugin-author and marketplace-author are retired now that apm-based authoring fully replaces their job; kyberforge bumped 1.3.1 -> 1.4.0 for that removal, and the root marketplace catalog bumped 0.3.1 -> 0.3.2 to match, per the version-bump convention now documented in apm-workflow's reference docs instead of a dedicated script (apm has no native version-bump automation). - Fixed hardcoded pre-.apm/ path assumptions across .pre-commit-config.yaml, .pre-commit-hooks.yaml, scripts/check-scope-walkup-sync.sh, scripts/sync-vale-styles.sh, scripts/check-vale-style-sync.sh, six plugins' root plugin.json (stale skills/hooks/agents pointer fields that check-manifests.sh validates), and several tests/*.bats and tests/*.sh fixtures -- including a bats REPO_ROOT relative-path depth bug (10 files, one extra .apm/ directory level to walk up) and a vale probe-path isolation regression introduced mid-fix. - Corrected empirically-wrong assumptions surfaced this session in apm-workflow/apm-install's own reference docs: `apm marketplace package add` does not accept local paths (only owner/repo remote shorthand -- local packages are registered by editing apm.yml's marketplace.packages[] directly); `apm compile` is a consumer-side AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md generator, not the plugin.json producer, and hard-fails on skill/agent-only packages without --clean; `apm plugin init <name>` nests a stray subdirectory when run with a positional name arg from inside a same-named directory; no native Copilot marketplace output profile exists; .mcp.json is merged into the compiled plugin.json content-aware and target-scoped, with no dependencies.mcp entry needed for simple passthrough; pipx is the correct pip fallback on externally-managed Python environments. - Renamed agent-author's copilot.agent.md template asset to copilot.agent.md.template so apm compile's recursive *.agent.md glob stops misparsing the placeholder template as a real agent primitive. Impact: plugin.json and marketplace.json are compiled artifacts from here on -- editing them by hand is no longer the workflow; edit apm.yml/.apm/ and run apm pack. CONTEXT.md's Plugin/Plugin marketplace glossary entries reflect this. ADR-0001 is marked superseded, ADR-0006 moot, and ADR-0010 updated for the new .apm/agents/ path (project/user scope unaffected, per ADR-0016). Full local verification: claude plugin validate --strict on all 6 plugins, apm audit --ci, apm marketplace check, check-manifests.sh, and the full test suite (165/165 bats, 13/13 shell scripts) all pass clean. Fixes: #90 Refs: #88, #89 ADR: 0015 ADR: 0016 Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Ub96PyaSRD9BHPktotj1pC
110 lines
4.3 KiB
Markdown
110 lines
4.3 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: tdd
|
|
description: Test-driven development with red-green-refactor loop. Use when user wants to build features or fix bugs using TDD, mentions "red-green-refactor", wants integration tests, or asks for test-first development.
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Test-Driven Development
|
|
|
|
## Philosophy
|
|
|
|
**Core principle**: Tests should verify behavior through public interfaces, not implementation details. Code can change entirely; tests shouldn't.
|
|
|
|
**Good tests** are integration-style: they exercise real code paths through public APIs. They describe _what_ the system does, not _how_ it does it. A good test reads like a specification - "user can checkout with valid cart" tells you exactly what capability exists. These tests survive refactors because they don't care about internal structure.
|
|
|
|
**Bad tests** are coupled to implementation. They mock internal collaborators, test private methods, or verify through external means (like querying a database directly instead of using the interface). The warning sign: your test breaks when you refactor, but behavior hasn't changed. If you rename an internal function and tests fail, those tests were testing implementation, not behavior.
|
|
|
|
See [tests.md](tests.md) for examples and [mocking.md](mocking.md) for mocking guidelines.
|
|
|
|
## Anti-Pattern: Horizontal Slices
|
|
|
|
**DO NOT write all tests first, then all implementation.** This is "horizontal slicing" - treating RED as "write all tests" and GREEN as "write all code."
|
|
|
|
This produces **crap tests**:
|
|
|
|
- Tests written in bulk test _imagined_ behavior, not _actual_ behavior
|
|
- You end up testing the _shape_ of things (data structures, function signatures) rather than user-facing behavior
|
|
- Tests become insensitive to real changes - they pass when behavior breaks, fail when behavior is fine
|
|
- You outrun your headlights, committing to test structure before understanding the implementation
|
|
|
|
**Correct approach**: Vertical slices via tracer bullets. One test → one implementation → repeat. Each test responds to what you learned from the previous cycle. Because you just wrote the code, you know exactly what behavior matters and how to verify it.
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
WRONG (horizontal):
|
|
RED: test1, test2, test3, test4, test5
|
|
GREEN: impl1, impl2, impl3, impl4, impl5
|
|
|
|
RIGHT (vertical):
|
|
RED→GREEN: test1→impl1
|
|
RED→GREEN: test2→impl2
|
|
RED→GREEN: test3→impl3
|
|
...
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Workflow
|
|
|
|
### 1. Planning
|
|
|
|
When exploring the codebase, use the project's domain glossary so that test names and interface vocabulary match the project's language, and respect ADRs in the area you're touching.
|
|
|
|
Before writing any code:
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Confirm with user what interface changes are needed
|
|
- [ ] Confirm with user which behaviors to test (prioritize)
|
|
- [ ] Identify opportunities for [deep modules](deep-modules.md) (small interface, deep implementation)
|
|
- [ ] Design interfaces for [testability](interface-design.md)
|
|
- [ ] List the behaviors to test (not implementation steps)
|
|
- [ ] Get user approval on the plan
|
|
|
|
Ask: "What should the public interface look like? Which behaviors are most important to test?"
|
|
|
|
**You can't test everything.** Confirm with the user exactly which behaviors matter most. Focus testing effort on critical paths and complex logic, not every possible edge case.
|
|
|
|
### 2. Tracer Bullet
|
|
|
|
Write ONE test that confirms ONE thing about the system:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
RED: Write test for first behavior → test fails
|
|
GREEN: Write minimal code to pass → test passes
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
This is your tracer bullet - proves the path works end-to-end.
|
|
|
|
### 3. Incremental Loop
|
|
|
|
For each remaining behavior:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
RED: Write next test → fails
|
|
GREEN: Minimal code to pass → passes
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Rules:
|
|
|
|
- One test at a time
|
|
- Only enough code to pass current test
|
|
- Don't anticipate future tests
|
|
- Keep tests focused on observable behavior
|
|
|
|
### 4. Refactor
|
|
|
|
After all tests pass, look for [refactor candidates](refactoring.md):
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Extract duplication
|
|
- [ ] Deepen modules (move complexity behind simple interfaces)
|
|
- [ ] Apply SOLID principles where natural
|
|
- [ ] Consider what new code reveals about existing code
|
|
- [ ] Run tests after each refactor step
|
|
|
|
**Never refactor while RED.** Get to GREEN first.
|
|
|
|
## Checklist Per Cycle
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
[ ] Test describes behavior, not implementation
|
|
[ ] Test uses public interface only
|
|
[ ] Test would survive internal refactor
|
|
[ ] Code is minimal for this test
|
|
[ ] No speculative features added
|
|
```
|