987fdd16db
All checks were successful
ci/woodpecker/push/default Pipeline was successful
Make the admin's Claude Code agent skills available to the `emo` devvm user. Viktor asked to install Matt Pocock's skills for emo, starting with grill-me but covering the full set the admin already uses. The `npx skills` upstream has drifted off that set (diagnose -> diagnosing-bugs and write-a-skill -> writing-great-skills were renamed; caveman + zoom-out are no longer published), so reproducing it via npx is impossible and would also spray ~70 agent dirs into the user's home + add a GitHub-clone + unpinned-CLI dependency to the hourly root reconcile. Instead vendor a point-in-time snapshot of the 16 skills (scripts/workstation/claude-skills/) and copy them per-user, mirroring install_memory: install_skills() copies each skill into ~/.agents/skills/<name> (owned by the user) and symlinks ~/.claude/skills/<name> -> ../../.agents/skills/<name>. if-absent, additive, best-effort, scoped to the SKILL_USERS allowlist (emo). find-skills is from vercel-labs/skills (not Matt Pocock) but included since it is part of the admin's current set. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
59 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
59 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
# When to Mock
|
|
|
|
Mock at **system boundaries** only:
|
|
|
|
- External APIs (payment, email, etc.)
|
|
- Databases (sometimes - prefer test DB)
|
|
- Time/randomness
|
|
- File system (sometimes)
|
|
|
|
Don't mock:
|
|
|
|
- Your own classes/modules
|
|
- Internal collaborators
|
|
- Anything you control
|
|
|
|
## Designing for Mockability
|
|
|
|
At system boundaries, design interfaces that are easy to mock:
|
|
|
|
**1. Use dependency injection**
|
|
|
|
Pass external dependencies in rather than creating them internally:
|
|
|
|
```typescript
|
|
// Easy to mock
|
|
function processPayment(order, paymentClient) {
|
|
return paymentClient.charge(order.total);
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// Hard to mock
|
|
function processPayment(order) {
|
|
const client = new StripeClient(process.env.STRIPE_KEY);
|
|
return client.charge(order.total);
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**2. Prefer SDK-style interfaces over generic fetchers**
|
|
|
|
Create specific functions for each external operation instead of one generic function with conditional logic:
|
|
|
|
```typescript
|
|
// GOOD: Each function is independently mockable
|
|
const api = {
|
|
getUser: (id) => fetch(`/users/${id}`),
|
|
getOrders: (userId) => fetch(`/users/${userId}/orders`),
|
|
createOrder: (data) => fetch('/orders', { method: 'POST', body: data }),
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
// BAD: Mocking requires conditional logic inside the mock
|
|
const api = {
|
|
fetch: (endpoint, options) => fetch(endpoint, options),
|
|
};
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
The SDK approach means:
|
|
- Each mock returns one specific shape
|
|
- No conditional logic in test setup
|
|
- Easier to see which endpoints a test exercises
|
|
- Type safety per endpoint
|