<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><channel><title>Tdd on ppl-blog</title><link>https://rifqi-blog.vercel.app/tags/tdd/</link><description>Recent content in Tdd on ppl-blog</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://rifqi-blog.vercel.app/tags/tdd/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>TDD Isn't Enough: How Benchmarks Turned Green Tests Into Real Evidence</title><link>https://rifqi-blog.vercel.app/posts/tdd-beyond-green/</link><pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://rifqi-blog.vercel.app/posts/tdd-beyond-green/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;There&amp;rsquo;s a moment in TDD that every developer has hit: all the tests are green, coverage is at 90-something percent, and you&amp;rsquo;re still not confident the code is actually correct. Either the tests are testing the wrong things, or they&amp;rsquo;re testing the right things but missing a whole class of bugs that coverage metrics can&amp;rsquo;t see.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I hit that moment twice on the same feature while building SIRA, a FastAPI-based invoice reminder system. What pulled me out of it wasn&amp;rsquo;t more tests — it was a different &lt;em&gt;kind&lt;/em&gt; of test.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>