Requirements drive your tests, which drive your code.
No design gets to the coding stage until someone has answered "how will this be tested?"
So, yeah, you should absolutely be designing around tests.
The design spec documents determine what the implementation should look like, and the tests should verify the implementation works as desired, not drive its structure.
I don't want the implementation to be chopped up and scattered everywhere in the name of "testability" because someone decided that a tool should dictate the architecture of the code. That leads to unreadable, hard-to-maintain, inefficient code that, with a tight coupling to the test suite that makes both them of fragile in the presence of changes in the other. For very little gain.
I completely disagree with everything above. Literally, take the sentence and make almost every word the opposite.
> Requirements drive your tests, which drive your code.
It's verification of implementation, not a unit testing, so it's a VDD, not a TDD.
It's in the name.
Sure, just writing tests is entirely about automation, but TDD is more than just writing tests.
Originally, it's Test Driven Development.
I see no connection between TDD and (good) design, but other folks see.