Test Dedup

Test Deduplicator

Audit test modules to eliminate duplicate and redundant tests, favoring property-based tests over hand-rolled unit tests when coverage overlaps.

When to Use

• After adding property-based tests to a module that already has unit tests
• During periodic test hygiene passes
• When a test file feels bloated or tests are hard to distinguish
• Before reviewing a PR that touches test code
• When you suspect unit tests are just "examples of" a property test

Philosophy

Every test must earn its place. A test exists to:

1. Document a specific behavior — a reader should know exactly what contract is being verified
2. Catch a specific class of regression — if it can't fail independently, it's dead weight
3. Cover territory no other test covers — overlap is waste

Default to property-based tests. A single proptest! that verifies an invariant over thousands of inputs is strictly more valuable than five hand-picked unit tests checking the same invariant at specific points. The unit tests are subsumed.

Keep unit tests only when they add unique value:

• Regression test for a specific, previously-reported bug (with a comment citing the bug)
• Edge case that property generators are unlikely to produce (empty input, MAX values, zero-length)
• Complex setup that would be awkward to express as a property generator
• Readability anchor — one simple example that documents the API's intended usage

Analysis Process

Step 1: Inventory the Test Module

For each file or module under review:

1. List every #[test] function with a one-line summary of what it checks
2. List every proptest! block with the properties it asserts
3. List every #[kani::proof] with what it verifies
4. List every simulation harness corpus case that covers this code

Step 2: Build a Coverage Matrix

Map each test to the behavior it exercises:

Step 3: Identify Redundancy

A unit test is redundant if ALL of the following are true:

1. A property test exists that covers the same invariant over a broader input domain
2. The unit test's specific input is within the property test's generator range
3. The unit test does not document a specific historical bug
4. The unit test does not serve as a readable usage example that the property test lacks

A unit test is NOT redundant if ANY of the following are true:

• It tests a boundary/edge case that the property generator explicitly excludes
• It is a regression test with a bug reference (e.g., // Regression: GH-123)
• It is the only test demonstrating basic API usage for a public function
• It tests error paths or panic conditions distinct from the property's happy-path focus
• The property test is gated behind a feature flag (test-support) and the unit test provides baseline ungated coverage

Step 4: Classify Each Test

For every test, assign one label:

• KEEP — Unique value, no overlap, clear purpose
• KEEP (anchor) — Redundant coverage but serves as the readable usage example
• SUBSUME — Fully covered by a property/Kani/sim test; remove it
• MERGE — Multiple unit tests checking variations of the same thing; consolidate into one property test
• UPGRADE — Unit test covering an invariant that should be a property test; rewrite it
• UNCLEAR — Test name/body doesn't clearly state what behavior it verifies; needs renaming or a doc comment before deciding

Step 5: Act

For each SUBSUME test:

• Verify the subsuming property test truly covers the same input space
• Delete the unit test
• If it was the only readable example, promote one property test case or add a doc-test

For each MERGE group:

• Write one proptest! that generalizes all merged tests
• Delete the individual unit tests
• If the merged tests had distinct edge cases, ensure the property generator covers them or add prop_assume! guards

For each UPGRADE test:

• Rewrite as a proptest! with appropriate generators
• Gate under #[cfg(test)] (proptest is a direct dev-dependency, no feature gate needed)
• Delete the original unit test

Project-Specific Conventions

Test locations in this codebase

• Inline tests: #[cfg(test)] mod tests { ... } at bottom of source file
• Separate test files: sibling *_tests.rs files under crates/*/src/
• Property tests: in the same #[cfg(test)] module (proptest is a direct dev-dependency)
• Kani proofs: #[cfg(kani)] mod kani_proofs { ... } in gossip-stdx
• Simulation tests: crates/gossip-coordination/src/sim/ (CoordinationSim)

Feature gates

• Simulation + Arbitrary impls: test-support feature
• Kani proofs: kani feature
• Property tests: no feature gate (proptest is a direct dev-dependency)
• Scanner sim harnesses: tiger-harness (scanner-engine), scheduler-sim (scanner-scheduler)
• Scanner bench scaffolding: bench feature in scanner-engine, scanner-scheduler

What counts as "public API" in this project

• Types/traits exported from each crate's lib.rs
• ShardSpec, ClaimTicket, coordination protocol types in gossip-contracts
• Data structures in gossip-stdx (InlineVec, RingBuffer, ByteSlab)
• Anything used cross-crate (even if pub(crate) within a crate)
• Scanner engine types: Engine trait, RuleSpec, RuleCompiled in scanner-engine
• Scanner scheduler: parallel scan pipeline, task graph types in scanner-scheduler

Output Format

## Test Dedup Report: [module/file]

### Inventory

| # | Test | Type | Behavior Tested |
|---|------|------|-----------------|
| 1 | `test_foo_basic` | unit | Foo returns correct value for simple input |
| 2 | `test_foo_empty` | unit | Foo handles empty input |
| 3 | `prop_foo_roundtrip` | property | Foo roundtrips for all valid inputs |
| 4 | `verify_foo_bounds` | kani | Foo never exceeds buffer bounds |

### Coverage Matrix

| Behavior | Tests Covering It | Redundancy |
|---|---|---|
| Basic correctness | #1, #3 | #1 subsumed by #3 |
| Empty input | #2, #3 | #2 subsumed IF generator includes empty |
| Bounds safety | #4 | unique (Kani proof) |

### Verdicts

| Test | Verdict | Reason |
|------|---------|--------|
| `test_foo_basic` | SUBSUME | `prop_foo_roundtrip` covers all valid inputs including simple ones |
| `test_foo_empty` | KEEP (anchor) | Only readable example of empty-input behavior; property generator may skip empty |
| `prop_foo_roundtrip` | KEEP | Covers the broadest input space |
| `verify_foo_bounds` | KEEP | Unique formal verification value |

### Actions

1. **Delete** `test_foo_basic` — subsumed by `prop_foo_roundtrip`
2. **Keep** `test_foo_empty` — add comment: `// Anchor: documents empty-input edge case`
3. No changes to property/Kani tests

### Net Result

- Tests before: 4
- Tests after: 3
- Removed: 1 (25% reduction)
- Coverage impact: None (all removed tests fully subsumed)

Judgment Calls

Use your best judgment on borderline cases. Some guidelines:

• When in doubt, keep. It's better to have a slightly redundant test than to lose coverage.
• A test that catches a different failure mode is not redundant even if it tests the same function. A unit test that checks an error message string and a property test that checks the Result variant are testing different things.
• Don't remove the last ungated test. If property tests are behind a feature gate (e.g., test-support), keep at least one basic unit test ungated so cargo test (no features) still exercises the code.
• Simulation coverage counts. If a CoordinationSim test case exercises the exact code path, that's real coverage — it can subsume unit tests just like property tests can.
• Prefer fewer, stronger tests over many weak ones. Five tests each asserting one field of a struct can become one test asserting the whole struct, or one property test.

Related Skills

• /test-strategy — Decide what kind of test to write for new code
• /security-reviewer — Audit unsafe code (may affect test removal decisions)

Converted and distributed by TomeVault — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.