git:20260618.9d9291d to git:20260705.faf6c3f

4 added, 4 removed. Audit A to A.

---

name: testing-patterns

- description: Integration test philosophy — test observable behavior, fixture composition, canary markers for library internals.

+ description: Integration test philosophy -- test observable behavior, fixture composition, canary markers for library internals.

when_to_use: Writing tests, reviewing test code, or deciding between unit and integration tests.

---

# Testing Philosophy

## Integration Tests Verify Behavior, Not Internals

Integration tests must verify **observable behavior through endpoints**, not implementation details.

**Good integration tests:**

- Drive endpoints with an HTTP client

- Assert status codes and response bodies

- Verify side effects (emails sent, database rows created, audit entries logged)

- Test cross-cutting concerns (middleware, auth, rate limiting)

**Bad integration tests:**

- Calling internal service functions for behavior already observable via HTTP

- Using DB queries as the primary assertion surface (DB is for post-assertion verification)

- - Testing internal query functions or utility functions — those belong in unit tests

+ - Testing internal query functions or utility functions -- those belong in unit tests

- Duplicating coverage already exercised by another test

## Prefer Fixture Composition

If a test starts with boilerplate setup (register a user, log in, configure a setting), that belongs in a fixture. Test bodies should stay focused on what they're actually testing.

Build fixture stacks: `user` -> `logged_in_user` -> `admin_user`. Each level adds one concern. Tests request the level they need.

## Canary Markers for Library Internals

- When code depends on a library's private or poorly-documented internals, add a **canary test** that asserts the internal's shape directly — don't rewrite production code to avoid the dependency when doing so would cost real accuracy or capability.

+ When code depends on a library's private or poorly-documented internals, add a **canary test** that asserts the internal's shape directly -- don't rewrite production code to avoid the dependency when doing so would cost real accuracy or capability.

The canary turns an upstream rename or shape change into a loud test failure instead of a silent runtime bug.

Canary practices:

- - Assert the specific attribute/method and the shape of its return value — not just "no exception raised"

+ - Assert the specific attribute/method and the shape of its return value -- not just "no exception raised"

- Name the test so the failure message makes the breakage obvious (e.g., `test_library_rate_limit_contract`), since it'll likely be read by whoever just bumped a dep

- Place it close to the module that uses the internal