Principles for writing effective, maintainable tests. Covers naming conventions, assertion best practices, and comprehensive edge case checklists. Based on BugMagnet by Gojko Adzic...
How to write tests that catch bugs, document behavior, and remain maintainable.
Based on BugMagnet by Gojko Adzic. Adapted with attribution.
π¨ Test names describe outcomes, not actions. "returns empty array when input is null" not "test null input". The name IS the specification.
π¨ Assertions must match test titles. If the test claims to verify "different IDs", assert on the actual ID valuesβnot just count or existence.
π¨ Assert specific values, not types. expect(result).toEqual(['First.', ' Second.']) not expect(result).toBeDefined(). Specific assertions catch specific bugs.
π¨ One concept per test. Each test verifies one behavior. If you need "and" in your test name, split it.
π¨ Bugs cluster together. When you find one bug, test related scenarios. The same misunderstanding often causes multiple failures.
Pattern: [outcome] when [condition]
returns empty array when input is null
throws ValidationError when email format invalid
calculates tax correctly for tax-exempt items
preserves original order when duplicates removed
test null input // What about null input?
should work // What does "work" mean?
handles edge cases // Which edge cases?
email validation test // What's being validated?
Your test name should read like a specification. If someone reads ONLY the test names, they should understand the complete behavior of the system.
// β WEAK - passes even if completely wrong data
expect(result).toBeDefined()
expect(result.items).toHaveLength(2)
expect(user).toBeTruthy()
// β
STRONG - catches actual bugs
expect(result).toEqual({ status: 'success', items: ['a', 'b'] })
expect(user.email).toBe('test@example.com')
// β TEST SAYS "different IDs" BUT ASSERTS COUNT
it('generates different IDs for each call', () => {
const id1 = generateId()
const id2 = generateId()
expect([id1, id2]).toHaveLength(2) // WRONG: doesn't check they're different!
})
// β
ACTUALLY VERIFIES DIFFERENT IDs
it('generates different IDs for each call', () => {
const id1 = generateId()
const id2 = generateId()
expect(id1).not.toBe(id2) // RIGHT: verifies the claim
})
// β BRITTLE - tests implementation details
expect(mockDatabase.query).toHaveBeenCalledWith('SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = 1')
// β
FLEXIBLE - tests behavior
expect(result.user.name).toBe('Alice')
it('calculates total with tax for non-exempt items', () => {
// Arrange: Set up test data
const item = { price: 100, taxExempt: false }
const taxRate = 0.1
// Act: Execute the behavior
const total = calculateTotal(item, taxRate)
// Assert: Verify the outcome
expect(total).toBe(110)
})
// β MULTIPLE CONCEPTS - hard to diagnose failures
it('validates and processes order', () => {
expect(validate(order)).toBe(true)
expect(process(order).status).toBe('complete')
expect(sendEmail).toHaveBeenCalled()
})
// β
SINGLE CONCEPT - clear failures
it('accepts valid orders', () => {
expect(validate(validOrder)).toBe(true)
})
it('rejects orders with negative quantities', () => {
expect(validate(negativeQuantityOrder)).toBe(false)
})
it('sends confirmation email after processing', () => {
process(order)
expect(sendEmail).toHaveBeenCalledWith(order.customerEmail)
})
When testing a function, systematically consider these edge cases based on input types.
""" "[], {}null inputundefined inputundefined vs missing keyThese test implicit assumptions in your domain:
When testing code that validates properties against type constraints (e.g., validating route: string in an interface):
Wrong-type literals:
route = 123)route = true)count = 'five')enabled = 'yes')Non-literal expressions:
route = `/path/${id}`)route = someVariable)route = getRoute())route = config.path)Correct type:
route = '/orders')'', zero 0, false)Why this matters: A common bug pattern is validating "is this a literal?" without checking "is this the RIGHT TYPE of literal?"
hasLiteralValue() returns true for 123, true, and 'string'hasStringLiteralValue() returns true only for 'string'When an interface specifies property: string, validation must reject numeric and boolean literals, not just non-literal expressions.
When you discover a bug, don't stopβexplore related scenarios:
If your test name says "test" or "should work": STOP. What outcome are you actually verifying? Name it specifically.
If you're asserting toBeDefined() or toBeTruthy(): STOP. What value do you actually expect? Assert that instead.
If your assertion doesn't match your test title: STOP. Either fix the assertion or rename the test. They must agree.
If you're testing multiple concepts in one test: STOP. Split it. Future you debugging a failure will thank you.
If you found a bug and wrote one test: STOP. Bugs cluster. What related scenarios might have the same problem?
If you're skipping edge cases because "that won't happen": STOP. It will happen. In production. At 3 AM.
With TDD Process: This skill guides the RED phaseβhow to write the failing test well.
With Software Design Principles: Testable code follows design principles. Hard-to-test code often has design problems.