TDD: Pure-graph edge evaluator does not implement `content_not_contains`, causing mutually-exclusive branch conditions to both fire

CoreRasurae commented

2026-08-03 21:49:12 +00:00

Member

Metadata

Commit Message: test(langgraph): capture content_not_contains edge condition regression (#95)
Branch: tdd/m1-pure-graph-content-not-contains

Background and context

Companion TDD issue-capture test for bug #95: PureLangGraph._evaluate_edge_condition()
in src/cleveractors/langgraph/pure_graph.py has no case for
type: content_not_contains, so it falls through to the "unknown condition
type" branch and always returns True, violating the Actor Configuration
Standard §5.4 (content_not_contains semantics) and diverging from the
correct implementations already present in nodes.py, bridge.py, and
reactive/stream_router.py.

This issue delivers a failing-first Behave regression test that proves
the bug exists. The actual fix is delivered by issue #95 on a bugfix/
branch.

Current behavior

No test asserts that a pure-graph edge condition content_not_contains
evaluates based on actual message content. The defect can regress
undetected, and the accompanying sibling-edge exclusivity guarantee (only one
of a content_contains/content_not_contains pair should ever match) is
unverified.

Expected behavior

A Behave scenario exists that:

Builds a pure-graph route with two sibling edges from the same source node:
one content_contains: NO_FIXES, one content_not_contains: NO_FIXES.
Drives the source node's output to contain NO_FIXES.
Asserts that exactly one next-node is selected (the content_contains
target), not both.
Fails (via AssertionError) while the bug is present, and passes once the
fix lands.

Acceptance criteria

A Behave scenario reproduces the bug: with the sibling-edge pattern
above and message content containing NO_FIXES, exactly one next-node
is expected; the assertion fails while the bug is present (both
next-nodes are currently returned).
The scenario carries all three tags: @tdd_issue, @tdd_issue_95,
@tdd_expected_fail.
The "bug still present" signal uses AssertionError only
(assert ... / raise AssertionError(...)) — never ValueError,
RuntimeError, OSError, or any other exception type.
With @tdd_expected_fail present, nox -s unit_tests is green (the
hook inverts the failing assertion).
The TDD branch is named tdd/m1-pure-graph-content-not-contains (same
suffix as the companion bugfix/ branch).

Supporting information

Bug captured: issue #95.
Spec: docs/index.md §5.4, §5.4.1.
TDD tag/assertion rules per the cleveractors-contributing workflow: the
TDD hook only inverts AssertionError; the three tags are mandatory; only
@tdd_expected_fail is removed by the bug-fix developer, @tdd_issue and
@tdd_issue_95 remain forever as regression guards.

Subtasks

Add a Behave feature scenario under features/ reproducing the
content_not_contains defect via the sibling-edge pattern, tagged
@tdd_issue @tdd_issue_95 @tdd_expected_fail.
Implement the step definitions (fully — no placeholder steps),
signalling "bug still present" only via AssertionError.
Confirm the assertion actually fails when run without
@tdd_expected_fail, and that nox -s unit_tests is green with the
tag present.
Verify coverage >= 97% via nox -s coverage_report.
Run nox (all default sessions), fix any errors.

Definition of Done

This issue is complete when:

All subtasks above are completed and checked off.
A Git commit is created where the first line matches the Commit Message in
Metadata exactly.
The commit is pushed to the branch matching the Branch in Metadata exactly.
The TDD PR is submitted to master, reviewed (test quality, correct
tagging, AssertionError usage), and merged.

## Metadata - **Commit Message:** `test(langgraph): capture content_not_contains edge condition regression (#95)` - **Branch:** `tdd/m1-pure-graph-content-not-contains` ## Background and context Companion TDD issue-capture test for bug #95: `PureLangGraph._evaluate_edge_condition()` in `src/cleveractors/langgraph/pure_graph.py` has no case for `type: content_not_contains`, so it falls through to the "unknown condition type" branch and always returns `True`, violating the Actor Configuration Standard §5.4 (`content_not_contains` semantics) and diverging from the correct implementations already present in `nodes.py`, `bridge.py`, and `reactive/stream_router.py`. This issue delivers a **failing-first** Behave regression test that proves the bug exists. The actual fix is delivered by issue #95 on a `bugfix/` branch. ## Current behavior No test asserts that a pure-graph edge condition `content_not_contains` evaluates based on actual message content. The defect can regress undetected, and the accompanying sibling-edge exclusivity guarantee (only one of a `content_contains`/`content_not_contains` pair should ever match) is unverified. ## Expected behavior A Behave scenario exists that: - Builds a pure-graph route with two sibling edges from the same source node: one `content_contains: NO_FIXES`, one `content_not_contains: NO_FIXES`. - Drives the source node's output to contain `NO_FIXES`. - Asserts that exactly one next-node is selected (the `content_contains` target), not both. - Fails (via `AssertionError`) while the bug is present, and passes once the fix lands. ## Acceptance criteria - [ ] A Behave scenario reproduces the bug: with the sibling-edge pattern above and message content containing `NO_FIXES`, exactly one next-node is expected; the assertion fails while the bug is present (both next-nodes are currently returned). - [ ] The scenario carries all three tags: `@tdd_issue`, `@tdd_issue_95`, `@tdd_expected_fail`. - [ ] The "bug still present" signal uses `AssertionError` only (`assert ...` / `raise AssertionError(...)`) — never `ValueError`, `RuntimeError`, `OSError`, or any other exception type. - [ ] With `@tdd_expected_fail` present, `nox -s unit_tests` is green (the hook inverts the failing assertion). - [ ] The TDD branch is named `tdd/m1-pure-graph-content-not-contains` (same suffix as the companion `bugfix/` branch). ## Supporting information - Bug captured: issue #95. - Spec: `docs/index.md` §5.4, §5.4.1. - TDD tag/assertion rules per the `cleveractors-contributing` workflow: the TDD hook only inverts `AssertionError`; the three tags are mandatory; only `@tdd_expected_fail` is removed by the bug-fix developer, `@tdd_issue` and `@tdd_issue_95` remain forever as regression guards. ## Subtasks - [ ] Add a Behave feature scenario under `features/` reproducing the `content_not_contains` defect via the sibling-edge pattern, tagged `@tdd_issue @tdd_issue_95 @tdd_expected_fail`. - [ ] Implement the step definitions (fully — no placeholder steps), signalling "bug still present" only via `AssertionError`. - [ ] Confirm the assertion actually fails when run without `@tdd_expected_fail`, and that `nox -s unit_tests` is green with the tag present. - [ ] Verify coverage >= 97% via `nox -s coverage_report`. - [ ] Run `nox` (all default sessions), fix any errors. ## Definition of Done This issue is complete when: - All subtasks above are completed and checked off. - A Git commit is created where the first line matches the Commit Message in Metadata exactly. - The commit is pushed to the branch matching the Branch in Metadata exactly. - The TDD PR is submitted to `master`, reviewed (test quality, correct tagging, `AssertionError` usage), and merged.