ZacharyZhang-NY
e74dafcd36
Three independently ugly bugs that all fed the same log flood:
* Electron's `WebFrameMain.send` writes every "Render frame was disposed"
to stderr via `console.error`. When the worker fans a second
agent-event past a reloading renderer, we produced thousands of
identical lines and stalled the main loop on stderr I/O. Added a
`mainFrame.detached` guard so the send is short-circuited before
Electron's own catch block fires, and installed a targeted filter in
`suppress-warnings.ts` (now actually imported from the entry point)
so the specific `console.error("Error sending from webFrameMain:"…)`
noise never reaches the terminal. Any other payload still surfaces.
* `dispatchAgentMessage` accepted the human-reader sentinel as a wake
target when an agent replied to `__board__` — `wakeAgentIfPossible`
then called `db.getAgent("__board__")`, threw, and the dispatcher
kept repeating on every send. Strip `HUMAN_SENDER_ID` at
`resolveMessageWakeTargets`, and keep a defense-in-depth guard in the
heartbeat so a stray caller (future automation fan-out) cannot
reintroduce the crash.
* Pi's skills loader rejects any SKILL.md whose frontmatter `name`
diverges from its parent directory. The four bundled `my-writing-style`
copies declared `name: writing-style-skill`, so every install emitted
a warning and dropped the skill. They also lived as orphan gitlinks
(mode 160000 without .gitmodules), and the global `*.md` gitignore
hid every other SKILL.md from version control. Fixed the frontmatter
to match the dir, converted the dangling submodules to plain trees,
and allowlisted `builtin-skills/**/*.md` so a fresh clone carries the
catalogue instead of silently losing it.
1.7 KiB
1.7 KiB
title, impact, impactDescription, tags
| title | impact | impactDescription | tags |
|---|---|---|---|
| Follow the Three Laws of TDD | MEDIUM | achieves 90%+ test coverage naturally | test, tdd, first, laws |
Follow the Three Laws of TDD
Test-Driven Development follows three rules: (1) Write a failing test before production code, (2) Write only enough test to fail, (3) Write only enough production code to pass. This cycle repeats.
Incorrect (writing tests after code):
// Production code written first, then tests added later (or never)
public class Calculator {
public int add(int a, int b) {
return a + b;
}
public int divide(int a, int b) {
return a / b; // Edge cases not considered
}
}
// Test written after - may not cover edge cases
@Test
public void testAdd() {
assertEquals(4, calculator.add(2, 2));
}
// No test for divide by zero because code was written first
Correct (TDD cycle):
// 1. Write failing test first
@Test
public void divideShouldReturnQuotient() {
assertEquals(2, calculator.divide(6, 3));
}
// 2. Write minimal code to pass
public int divide(int a, int b) {
return a / b;
}
// 3. Write next failing test
@Test(expected = IllegalArgumentException.class)
public void divideShouldThrowOnDivideByZero() {
calculator.divide(6, 0);
}
// 4. Update code to pass
public int divide(int a, int b) {
if (b == 0) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Cannot divide by zero");
}
return a / b;
}
Benefits:
- Tests cover requirements, not implementation
- Edge cases discovered through test-first thinking
- High coverage achieved naturally
Reference: Clean Code, Chapter 9: Unit Tests