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.
69 lines
1.7 KiB
Markdown
69 lines
1.7 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
title: Follow the Three Laws of TDD
|
|
impact: MEDIUM
|
|
impactDescription: achieves 90%+ test coverage naturally
|
|
tags: 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):**
|
|
|
|
```java
|
|
// 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):**
|
|
|
|
```java
|
|
// 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](https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/clean-code-a/9780136083238/)
|