Swift Testing Code Review

Hard gates

Complete in order before recording Swift Testing review findings. Stack with beagle-ios:review-verification-protocol for universal review rules.

1. Scope: You have an explicit list of .swift paths under review (or a user-named single file). Pass: Paths captured in working notes or one line: No Swift files in scope — then stop with no findings.
2. Swift Testing surface: For each path you treat as Swift Testing code, confirm import Testing or @Test / #expect / #require / @Suite appears in that file (open or search). Pass: At least one match per critiqued file, or you exclude that file from Swift Testing review with a one-line reason (e.g. XCTest-only).
3. Evidence + protocol: Load beagle-ios:review-verification-protocol before asserting any issue. Pass: Each finding meets that skill’s anchor rules; any violated Review Checklist item cites [FILE:LINE] evidence. If you report zero issues, state Protocol applied; no Swift Testing issues (or equivalent) in the review summary.

Quick Reference

Review Checklist

• Expressions embedded directly in #expect (not pre-computed booleans)
• #require used only for preconditions, #expect for assertions
• Error tests check specific types (not generic (any Error).self)
• Parameterized tests with pairs use zip() (not Cartesian product)
• No logic mirroring implementation in parameterized expected values
• Async sequences tested with confirmation(expectedCount:)
• Completion handlers use withCheckedContinuation, not confirmation
• .serialized applied only where necessary (shared resources)
• Sibling serialized suites nested under parent if mutually exclusive
• No assumption of state persistence between @Test functions
• Disabled tests have explanations and bug links

When to Load References

• Reviewing #expect or #require usage -> expect-macro.md
• Reviewing @Test with arguments or traits -> parameterized.md
• Reviewing confirmation or async testing -> async-testing.md
• Reviewing @Suite or test organization -> organization.md

Review Questions

1. Could pre-computed booleans in #expect lose diagnostic context?
2. Is #require stopping tests prematurely instead of revealing all failures?
3. Are multi-argument parameterized tests creating accidental Cartesian products?
4. Could zip() silently drop test cases due to unequal array lengths?
5. Are completion handlers incorrectly tested with confirmation?