Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

swift-protocol-di-testing

Make Swift code easier to test by separating file access, networking, and external APIs behind small protocols. Replace those dependencies with mocks, controlled test substitutes, to check normal behavior and error handling with Swift Testing.

OriginalShow the original description

Protocol-based dependency injection for testable Swift code — mock file system, network, and external APIs using focused protocols and Swift Testing. Use when Swift code needs testing and file system, network, or external APIs must be mocked.

See how to install

Good for

  • Test Swift file operations without reading or writing real files
  • Check error handling with simulated failures
  • Share modules across apps, tests, and SwiftUI previews
  • Design testable code that uses actors

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md6.0 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Swift Protocol-Based Dependency Injection for Testing

Patterns for making Swift code testable by abstracting external dependencies (file system, network, iCloud) behind small, focused protocols. Enables deterministic tests without I/O.

When to Activate

  • Writing Swift code that accesses file system, network, or external APIs
  • Need to test error handling paths without triggering real failures
  • Building modules that work across environments (app, test, SwiftUI preview)
  • Designing testable architecture with Swift concurrency (actors, Sendable)

Core Pattern

1. Define Small, Focused Protocols

Each protocol handles exactly one external concern.

// File system access
public protocol FileSystemProviding: Sendable {
    func containerURL(for purpose: Purpose) -> URL?
}

// File read/write operations
public protocol FileAccessorProviding: Sendable {
    func read(from url: URL) throws -> Data
    func write(_ data: Data, to url: URL) throws
    func fileExists(at url: URL) -> Bool
}

// Bookmark storage (e.g., for sandboxed apps)
public protocol BookmarkStorageProviding: Sendable {
    func saveBookmark(_ data: Data, for key: String) throws
    func loadBookmark(for key: String) throws -> Data?
}

2. Create Default (Production) Implementations

public struct DefaultFileSystemProvider: FileSystemProviding {
    public init() {}

    public func containerURL(for purpose: Purpose) -> URL? {
        FileManager.default.url(forUbiquityContainerIdentifier: nil)
    }
}

public struct DefaultFileAccessor: FileAccessorProviding {
    public init() {}

    public func read(from url: URL) throws -> Data {
        try Data(contentsOf: url)
    }

    public func write(_ data: Data, to url: URL) throws {
        try data.write(to: url, options: .atomic)
    }

    public func fileExists(at url: URL) -> Bool {
        FileManager.default.fileExists(atPath: url.path)
    }
}

3. Create Mock Implementations for Testing

public final class MockFileAccessor: FileAccessorProviding, @unchecked Sendable {
    public var files: [URL: Data] = [:]
    public var readError: Error?
    public var writeError: Error?

    public init() {}

    public func read(from url: URL) throws -> Data {
        if let error = readError { throw error }
        guard let data = files[url] else {
            throw CocoaError(.fileReadNoSuchFile)
        }
        return data
    }

    public func write(_ data: Data, to url: URL) throws {
        if let error = writeError { throw error }
        files[url] = data
    }

    public func fileExists(at url: URL) -> Bool {
        files[url] != nil
    }
}

4. Inject Dependencies with Default Parameters

Production code uses defaults; tests inject mocks.

public actor SyncManager {
    private let fileSystem: FileSystemProviding
    private let fileAccessor: FileAccessorProviding

    public init(
        fileSystem: FileSystemProviding = DefaultFileSystemProvider(),
        fileAccessor: FileAccessorProviding = DefaultFileAccessor()
    ) {
        self.fileSystem = fileSystem
        self.fileAccessor = fileAccessor
    }

    public func sync() async throws {
        guard let containerURL = fileSystem.containerURL(for: .sync) else {
            throw SyncError.containerNotAvailable
        }
        let data = try fileAccessor.read(
            from: containerURL.appendingPathComponent("data.json")
        )
        // Process data...
    }
}

5. Write Tests with Swift Testing

import Testing

@Test("Sync manager handles missing container")
func testMissingContainer() async {
    let mockFileSystem = MockFileSystemProvider(containerURL: nil)
    let manager = SyncManager(fileSystem: mockFileSystem)

    await #expect(throws: SyncError.containerNotAvailable) {
        try await manager.sync()
    }
}

@Test("Sync manager reads data correctly")
func testReadData() async throws {
    let mockFileAccessor = MockFileAccessor()
    mockFileAccessor.files[testURL] = testData

    let manager = SyncManager(fileAccessor: mockFileAccessor)
    let result = try await manager.loadData()

    #expect(result == expectedData)
}

@Test("Sync manager handles read errors gracefully")
func testReadError() async {
    let mockFileAccessor = MockFileAccessor()
    mockFileAccessor.readError = CocoaError(.fileReadCorruptFile)

    let manager = SyncManager(fileAccessor: mockFileAccessor)

    await #expect(throws: SyncError.self) {
        try await manager.sync()
    }
}

Best Practices

  • Single Responsibility: Each protocol should handle one concern — don't create "god protocols" with many methods
  • Sendable conformance: Required when protocols are used across actor boundaries
  • Default parameters: Let production code use real implementations by default; only tests need to specify mocks
  • Error simulation: Design mocks with configurable error properties for testing failure paths
  • Only mock boundaries: Mock external dependencies (file system, network, APIs), not internal types

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

  • Creating a single large protocol that covers all external access
  • Mocking internal types that have no external dependencies
  • Using #if DEBUG conditionals instead of proper dependency injection
  • Forgetting Sendable conformance when used with actors
  • Over-engineering: if a type has no external dependencies, it doesn't need a protocol

When to Use

  • Any Swift code that touches file system, network, or external APIs
  • Testing error handling paths that are hard to trigger in real environments
  • Building modules that need to work in app, test, and SwiftUI preview contexts
  • Apps using Swift concurrency (actors, structured concurrency) that need testable architecture

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

accessibility

FreeSummary

Design and audit interfaces for Web, iOS, and Android using WCAG 2.2 accessibility guidance. Check screen-reader labels, keyboard navigation, contrast, and control sizes to identify barriers and guide implementation for people using assistive technology.

  • Adding descriptive labels to icon-only buttons
  • Reviewing keyboard navigation and modal focus
  • Checking contrast and control sizes
affaan-m/ECC283.4KUpdated Oct 16, 2026

Investigate unreliable AI agents across 12 layers, including instructions, memory, tool execution, and display. Use code and logs to trace failures, rank findings by severity, and produce an ordered repair plan that prioritizes code changes.

  • Investigating failures that appear only inside an agent application
  • Tracing old conversation content leaking into new sessions
  • Checking skipped or falsely claimed tool execution
affaan-m/ECC283.4KUpdated Oct 16, 2026

agent-eval

FreeSummary

Compare coding agents on tasks from your own codebase. Define success checks, run agents in separate Git working directories, and report pass rates, available API costs, completion time, and consistency across repeated trials.

  • Comparing coding agents on real development tasks
  • Evaluating a new tool or model before adoption
  • Checking performance after agent updates
affaan-m/ECC283.4KUpdated Oct 16, 2026

Design and refine an AI agent’s available actions, tool inputs, and result formats. Define recovery steps for errors, manage the information kept in context, and evaluate changes through completion rates, retries, and cost per successful task.

  • Define an AI agent’s tool set and input formats
  • Make tool results and next steps easier to interpret
  • Specify safe retries and stopping conditions
affaan-m/ECC283.4KUpdated Oct 16, 2026

Diagnose failed AI agent runs by capturing errors, checking likely causes, and choosing small, reversible recovery actions. The workflow produces a structured report of the failure, recovery steps, and evidence, helping explain repeated retries or stalled progress.

  • Diagnosing repeated tool calls with no progress
  • Investigating quality loss as context grows
  • Checking file paths and environment mismatches
affaan-m/ECC283.4KUpdated Oct 16, 2026

Diagnose AI agent runs that fail repeatedly, loop through tools, or lose track of the task. Capture errors and environment details, test a focused recovery action, and produce a report explaining the evidence and outcome.

  • Diagnosing repeated failures in an agent run
  • Investigating loops through the same tool calls
  • Reviewing output degradation as context grows
affaan-m/ECC283.4KUpdated Oct 5, 2026

See all skills by affaan-m

Report a problem with this skill