In software development, naming is often harder than writing the code itself. We've all been there... Struggling to find a name that is clear, accurate and expressive enough to capture what a technique or pattern actually does.
Today we're going to roast naming conventions that use the word "test" in ways that can be misleading. It's a common shortcut that can lead to confusion about the true purpose of a technique.
It happens more often than you'd think and often, the resulting names are a bit misleading. Let's look at two well-known examples.
Test-Driven Development
Test-Driven Development (TDD) sounds like a testing methodology, but its purpose goes much deeper.
While tests are certainly written, the practice is more about incremental design. Writing a failing test first helps clarify intent, drive better structure, and guide implementation. The test is not the goal — it's the mechanism for designing code in small, verifiable steps.
In practice, TDD helps developers:
- Think about edge cases early
- Write modular and testable code
- Keep implementation minimal and focused
So despite the name, TDD isn't centered on testing — it's about designing with feedback.
Contract Testing
Another good example is Contract Testing, particularly in the context of Consumer-Driven Contracts (CDC).
The name suggests that we're testing a contract between two services — and yes, technically, we are. But the real power of CDC is in what it enables: communication between independently deployed teams.
When a consumer's expectations change, the contract test fails — which acts as a trigger. But that failure isn't the outcome — the conversation that follows is. It leads to negotiated, versioned, and safer evolution of APIs.
In short: CDC is less about "testing contracts" and more about managing change through collaboration.
Final thought
So why does "test" keep showing up in places where the core idea isn't actually testing?
Likely because it gives the technique a sense of rigor. It suggests verification, structure, and confidence — all things teams care about.
And that's not necessarily a bad thing. But it's worth being aware of the distinction between what the name implies and what the technique actually delivers.