Prompt Engineering

Edge Case Test Prompt — Hunt the Boundaries

Null, empty, min, max, off-by-one, malformed, unicode — the systematic boundary hunt that finds bugs where they actually live.

Overview

Edge cases are where the bugs live, and "also test some edge cases" finds none of them. This setup makes boundary hunting the strategy itself: partition the input space and test every partition edge — null/None/undefined at every entry, empty strings and collections, minimum and maximum values, just-inside and just-outside boundaries, malformed and wrong-type inputs, unicode and emoji in every text field — with failure scenarios for the compound edges: two boundary conditions arriving at once, maximum-size inputs meeting limits the happy path never sees.

Workflow

Partition before you test
The strategy demands input-space partitioning — edges are found systematically, not brainstormed.
Test both sides of every boundary
Just-inside passes, just-outside fails — one without the other proves nothing.
Flag ambiguous boundaries
Where the code doesn't say whether 100 is inside, the contract tests both interpretations and says so.

Why This Works

Partitioning converts "some edge cases" into a finite, completable list
Both-sides boundary testing catches the off-by-ones single-value tests miss
Compound-edge scenarios cover the collisions that single-input thinking never reaches

Best for

Parsers, validators, and anything that touches user input
Code reviewed as correct that still fails on Tuesdays
Hardening AI-generated code, which skips edges by temperament

Not for

Journey-level edge cases (back button, refresh) — those live in the E2E strategy
Explaining why an edge case fails — that's the Debugging Prompt Generator

Use cases

Boundary-testing input-handling code before it meets real input
Finding the off-by-one in every range check
Testing unicode and emoji through every text path

Customize This Resource

Opens this setup in Test Case Prompt Generator. Generate to get the full test contract — then adjust the strategy, framework, coverage, and depth.

Open in Test Case Prompt Generator

Prompt Template

TESTING OBJECTIVE
Hunt the boundaries of the input-handling code — every edge that could break it.
Strategy: edge case tests — hunt the boundaries of the input space systematically.
Generate tests only — do not modify the implementation.

CODE CONTEXT
[Paste the code under test here]

TEST STRATEGY
- Partition the input space and test every partition boundary — the bugs live at the edges, not the middle.
- For every input: null/None, empty, minimum, maximum, just-inside and just-outside the boundary.
- Malformed and wrong-type inputs are first-class test cases, not afterthoughts.
- When a boundary is unclear from the code, test both plausible interpretations and flag the ambiguity.

COVERAGE AREAS
Error Handling:
- Every declared error path actually triggers in a test
- Errors carry the right type, message, and code
- Failures leave state clean — no partial writes survive
- Errors propagate or are swallowed exactly as specified

EDGE CASES
- null/None/undefined inputs at every entry point
- Empty strings, collections, and payloads
- Minimum and maximum allowed values
- Just-inside and just-outside boundary values (off-by-one)
- Malformed and wrong-type inputs
- Unicode, emoji, and special characters in text inputs

FAILURE SCENARIOS
Each of these gets at least one test:
- Off-by-one at every boundary comparison
- Empty collections where the code assumes at least one element
- Maximum-size inputs hitting limits the happy path never sees
- Unicode, emoji, and special characters in every text input
- Two edge conditions arriving at the same time

TEST DATA GUIDANCE
- Use realistic, production-shaped data — names, amounts, and dates that could exist.
- Build complex objects with builders or factories, not hand-assembled literals repeated per test.
- Name boundary data for its intent (maxLengthName, expiredToken), not its value.
- Never share mutable fixtures between tests.

FRAMEWORK GUIDANCE
Framework: Generic.
- Use the project's existing test framework and follow its established conventions.

OUTPUT FORMAT
- Return one complete, runnable test file.
- Group tests by coverage area, with a comment header per group.
- Each test: arrange-act-assert structure, one behavior per test.
- Cover every selected coverage area systematically — each coverage item above gets at least one test.
- Parametrize repetitive cases instead of copy-pasting tests.
- Name tests so a failure message alone identifies the broken behavior.

ASSUMPTIONS
- After the tests, list every assumption you made about unspecified behavior under an ASSUMPTIONS heading.
- Where the code's intent is ambiguous, test the most likely intent and flag the ambiguity.
- List GAPS: behaviors you could not test with the information given.

NON-GOALS
- Do not rewrite or "improve" the implementation code — test it as it is.
- Do not refactor the architecture to make it more testable; flag testability problems instead.
- Do not invent requirements — test only specified or clearly implied behavior.
- Do not weaken assertions to make tests pass.

Related Resources

Explore more resources that work well with this one.

Used in Playbooks

Complete workflows that include this resource as a step.

AI Test Generation Workflow Workflow · 5 steps

Tip: Save time by exploring related resources and tools that integrate with this workflow.

Explore all resources