cleveragents/cleveractors-core
0
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 19 Pull Requests 5 Actions 5 Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

test(langgraph): capture parallel dispatch node-flag regression (#97) #109

Open
CoreRasurae wants to merge 1 commits from tdd/m1-pure-graph-parallel-node-gate into master
pull from: tdd/m1-pure-graph-parallel-node-gate
merge into: cleveragents:master
Conversation 0 Commits 1 Files Changed 3
+168
CoreRasurae commented 2026-08-04 20:10:11 +00:00
Member
Copy Link
Copy Source

Summary

Adds a failing-first Behave regression test proving issue #97: PureLangGraph's three concurrent-dispatch sites (pure_graph.py lines 1078, 1860, 1965) fire every candidate next-node concurrently via asyncio.gather/asyncio.create_task whenever the graph-level parallel_execution: true (the default) and there are 2+ candidates, without ever consulting each node's own parallel flag (NodeConfig.parallel / can_execute_parallel()). This violates Actor Configuration Standard §6.7 and §12.3.

The scenario builds a pure-graph route where a trigger node has two unconditional edges to sibling agent nodes, neither marked parallel: true, and drives both through a shared TimingRecorderAgent test double (features/mocks/) that records start/end timestamps. The Then step asserts the two agents' execution intervals never overlap; this assertion currently fails (both start concurrently) while the bug is present.

Tagged @tdd_issue, @tdd_issue_97, and @tdd_expected_fail per the project's TDD issue-capture workflow, so nox -s unit_tests stays green via the existing TddExpectedFailPolicy inversion hook. The actual fix is delivered separately by issue #97 on a bugfix/ branch.

Closes #98

Test plan

  • nox -s lint — green
  • nox -s format -- --check — green
  • nox -s typecheck — green (Pyright strict, 0 errors)
  • nox -s security_scan — green
  • nox -s dead_code — green
  • nox -s unit_tests — green (assertion fails while bug present, inverted to pass via @tdd_expected_fail)
  • nox -s coverage_report — 96.7% (≥ 96.5% threshold)
  • nox -s integration_tests — green
## Summary Adds a failing-first Behave regression test proving issue #97: `PureLangGraph`'s three concurrent-dispatch sites (`pure_graph.py` lines 1078, 1860, 1965) fire every candidate next-node concurrently via `asyncio.gather`/`asyncio.create_task` whenever the graph-level `parallel_execution: true` (the default) and there are 2+ candidates, without ever consulting each node's own `parallel` flag (`NodeConfig.parallel` / `can_execute_parallel()`). This violates Actor Configuration Standard §6.7 and §12.3. The scenario builds a pure-graph route where a trigger node has two unconditional edges to sibling agent nodes, neither marked `parallel: true`, and drives both through a shared `TimingRecorderAgent` test double (`features/mocks/`) that records start/end timestamps. The Then step asserts the two agents' execution intervals never overlap; this assertion currently fails (both start concurrently) while the bug is present. Tagged `@tdd_issue`, `@tdd_issue_97`, and `@tdd_expected_fail` per the project's TDD issue-capture workflow, so `nox -s unit_tests` stays green via the existing `TddExpectedFailPolicy` inversion hook. The actual fix is delivered separately by issue #97 on a `bugfix/` branch. Closes #98 ## Test plan - [x] `nox -s lint` — green - [x] `nox -s format -- --check` — green - [x] `nox -s typecheck` — green (Pyright strict, 0 errors) - [x] `nox -s security_scan` — green - [x] `nox -s dead_code` — green - [x] `nox -s unit_tests` — green (assertion fails while bug present, inverted to pass via `@tdd_expected_fail`) - [x] `nox -s coverage_report` — 96.7% (≥ 96.5% threshold) - [x] `nox -s integration_tests` — green
CoreRasurae added 1 commit 2026-08-04 20:10:21 +00:00
test(langgraph): capture parallel dispatch node-flag regression (#97)
CI / lint (pull_request) Successful in 1m1s
Details
CI / typecheck (pull_request) Successful in 1m39s
Details
CI / security (pull_request) Successful in 1m27s
Details
CI / quality (pull_request) Successful in 48s
Details
CI / build (pull_request) Successful in 1m53s
Details
CI / integration_tests (pull_request) Successful in 3m55s
Details
CI / unit_tests (pull_request) Successful in 5m3s
Details
CI / coverage (pull_request) Successful in 4m13s
Details
CI / status-check (pull_request) Successful in 6s
Details
CI / benchmark (pull_request) Failing after 27m42s
Details
9e2aebd3a7 
Adds a failing-first Behave regression test proving issue #97:
PureLangGraph fires every candidate next-node concurrently via
asyncio.gather/asyncio.create_task whenever the graph-level
parallel_execution flag is true (the default) and there are 2+
candidates, without ever consulting each node's own `parallel` flag
(NodeConfig.parallel / can_execute_parallel()). This violates Actor
Configuration Standard §6.7 and §12.3, which require that only the
subset of next-nodes with parallel: true run concurrently while the
rest run sequentially.

The scenario builds a pure-graph route where a trigger node has two
unconditional edges to sibling agent nodes, neither marked
parallel: true, and drives both through a shared TimingRecorderAgent
test double (features/mocks/) that records start/end timestamps.
The assertion checks that the two agents' execution intervals never
overlap; it currently fails (both start concurrently) while the bug
is present.

Tagged @tdd_issue, @tdd_issue_97, and @tdd_expected_fail per the
project's TDD issue-capture workflow, so nox -s unit_tests stays
green via the existing TddExpectedFailPolicy inversion hook. The fix
itself is delivered separately by issue #97 on a bugfix/ branch.

ISSUES CLOSED: #98
CoreRasurae added this to the v2.1.0 milestone 2026-08-04 20:11:47 +00:00
CoreRasurae added the
Type
Testing
 label 2026-08-04 20:12:09 +00:00
hurui200320 approved these changes 2026-08-05 05:51:12 +00:00
hurui200320 left a comment
Member
Copy Link
Copy Source

PR Review: !109 (Ticket #98)

Verdict: Approve

This PR delivers the requested failing-first Behave regression capture for issue #97. The scenario is correctly tagged with @tdd_issue @tdd_issue_97 @tdd_expected_fail, signals the bug exclusively via AssertionError, and exercises the execute() concurrent-dispatch site in pure_graph.py. The new TimingRecorderAgent mock is a clean, reusable test double. No critical or major correctness issues were found in the changed code. The few observations below are minor hygiene/robustness notes and a project-level coverage-threshold inconsistency that is not introduced by this PR.

Critical Issues

None

Major Issues

None

Minor Issues

  • Coverage threshold mismatch (noxfile.py / CONTRIBUTING.md)
    The PR test plan reports coverage_report at 96.7% and passes because noxfile.py uses COVERAGE_THRESHOLD = 96.5. However, CONTRIBUTING.md states the project’s enforced merge gate is 97%, and the CI workflow comment also says “fail-under 97%”. The ticket acceptance criteria likewise ask to verify >= 97%. This is a pre-existing project-level inconsistency, and the PR does not regress coverage (it only adds test/mock files, which are excluded from the slipcover source paths), but the documented gate is not met. Recommend reconciling noxfile.py/CONTRIBUTING.md/CI wording, or addressing coverage separately.

  • Then step could fail with KeyError instead of AssertionError (features/steps/pure_graph_parallel_node_gate_steps.py:74-94)
    If a regression ever caused one of the two agents not to run at all, intervals[left] or intervals[right] would raise KeyError. The @tdd_expected_fail hook only inverts AssertionError, so the scenario would fail CI with the wrong exception type. Consider adding an explicit guard such as:

    assert left in intervals and right in intervals, "Expected both agents to execute"

    before the overlap assertion.

  • Out-of-scope note for the eventual fix (#97)
    The scenario intentionally covers only the execute() dispatch site; the two execute_stream() branches mentioned in issue #97 are correctly left for the bugfix PR. This is not a defect, just a scope marker.

Nits

  • Unused context attributes (features/steps/pure_graph_parallel_node_gate_steps.py:59-60)
    context.left_agent_name and context.right_agent_name are assigned but never referenced. They can be removed to reduce noise.

  • Empty background step (features/steps/pure_graph_parallel_node_gate_steps.py:25-27)
    The Given a fresh pure graph test context (pg) step is a no-op. It is harmless, but since Behave provides a fresh context per scenario anyway, the Background could be omitted entirely.

Summary

A focused, well-documented TDD capture PR that matches the issue metadata, branch name, commit message, and tagging requirements. The test correctly reproduces the per-node parallel flag violation from docs/index.md §6.7/§12.3, and the @tdd_expected_fail inversion path is compliant with the project policy in features/tdd_expected_fail.py. Once the minor robustness guard is added (optional) and the project-level coverage threshold is reconciled elsewhere, this is ready for merge.

## PR Review: !109 (Ticket #98) ### Verdict: Approve This PR delivers the requested failing-first Behave regression capture for issue #97. The scenario is correctly tagged with `@tdd_issue @tdd_issue_97 @tdd_expected_fail`, signals the bug exclusively via `AssertionError`, and exercises the `execute()` concurrent-dispatch site in `pure_graph.py`. The new `TimingRecorderAgent` mock is a clean, reusable test double. No critical or major correctness issues were found in the changed code. The few observations below are minor hygiene/robustness notes and a project-level coverage-threshold inconsistency that is not introduced by this PR. ### Critical Issues None ### Major Issues None ### Minor Issues - **Coverage threshold mismatch** (`noxfile.py` / `CONTRIBUTING.md`) The PR test plan reports `coverage_report` at 96.7% and passes because `noxfile.py` uses `COVERAGE_THRESHOLD = 96.5`. However, `CONTRIBUTING.md` states the project’s enforced merge gate is **97%**, and the CI workflow comment also says “fail-under 97%”. The ticket acceptance criteria likewise ask to verify `>= 97%`. This is a pre-existing project-level inconsistency, and the PR does not regress coverage (it only adds test/mock files, which are excluded from the slipcover source paths), but the documented gate is not met. Recommend reconciling `noxfile.py`/`CONTRIBUTING.md`/CI wording, or addressing coverage separately. - **`Then` step could fail with `KeyError` instead of `AssertionError`** (`features/steps/pure_graph_parallel_node_gate_steps.py:74-94`) If a regression ever caused one of the two agents not to run at all, `intervals[left]` or `intervals[right]` would raise `KeyError`. The `@tdd_expected_fail` hook only inverts `AssertionError`, so the scenario would fail CI with the wrong exception type. Consider adding an explicit guard such as: ```python assert left in intervals and right in intervals, "Expected both agents to execute" ``` before the overlap assertion. - **Out-of-scope note for the eventual fix (#97)** The scenario intentionally covers only the `execute()` dispatch site; the two `execute_stream()` branches mentioned in issue #97 are correctly left for the bugfix PR. This is not a defect, just a scope marker. ### Nits - **Unused context attributes** (`features/steps/pure_graph_parallel_node_gate_steps.py:59-60`) `context.left_agent_name` and `context.right_agent_name` are assigned but never referenced. They can be removed to reduce noise. - **Empty background step** (`features/steps/pure_graph_parallel_node_gate_steps.py:25-27`) The `Given a fresh pure graph test context (pg)` step is a no-op. It is harmless, but since Behave provides a fresh `context` per scenario anyway, the Background could be omitted entirely. ### Summary A focused, well-documented TDD capture PR that matches the issue metadata, branch name, commit message, and tagging requirements. The test correctly reproduces the per-node `parallel` flag violation from `docs/index.md` §6.7/§12.3, and the `@tdd_expected_fail` inversion path is compliant with the project policy in `features/tdd_expected_fail.py`. Once the minor robustness guard is added (optional) and the project-level coverage threshold is reconciled elsewhere, this is ready for merge.
Some checks are pending
CI / lint (pull_request) Successful in 1m1s
Details
CI / typecheck (pull_request) Successful in 1m39s
Details
CI / security (pull_request) Successful in 1m27s
Details
CI / quality (pull_request) Successful in 48s
Details
CI / build (pull_request) Successful in 1m53s
Details
CI / integration_tests (pull_request) Successful in 3m55s
Details
CI / unit_tests (pull_request) Successful in 5m3s
Details
CI / coverage (pull_request) Successful in 4m13s
Details
CI / status-check (pull_request) Successful in 6s
Details
CI / benchmark (pull_request) Failing after 27m42s
Details
This pull request can be merged automatically.
This branch is out-of-date with the base branch
You are not authorized to merge this pull request.
View command line instructions

Checkout

From your project repository, check out a new branch and test the changes.
git fetch -u origin tdd/m1-pure-graph-parallel-node-gate:tdd/m1-pure-graph-parallel-node-gate
git checkout tdd/m1-pure-graph-parallel-node-gate
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No Reviewers
hurui200320
Labels
Clear labels
auto/blocked-by-deps
PR blocked by an open issue dependency. Operator must close the dep (or remove the dependency link) before the merge driver can act. Auto-cleared by merge_drive when no open deps remain.
 auto/ci-timeout
Most recent merge cycle hit CI timeout. Driver excludes this PR while last merge_cycle row is < 30 min old; label persists thereafter as visible history.
 auto/claimed-implementer
Currently being processed by an implementer worker.
 auto/claimed-merge
Currently being processed by the merge driver.
 auto/claimed-reviewer
Currently being processed by a reviewer worker.
 auto/driver-down
Merge driver heartbeat stale; pipeline halted. Closed automatically on next clean tick.
 auto/invariant-violation
Detected master commit violating the strict merge invariant. Tracked as an issue (not a PR label); kept here for label completeness.
 auto/last-attempt-tier-0
In-cycle escalation: most recent attempt ran at the Tier 0 slot (`tier-0`). Slot's model defined in .opencode/models/tiers.yaml.
 auto/last-attempt-tier-1
In-cycle escalation: most recent attempt ran at the Tier 1 slot (`tier-1`). Slot's model defined in .opencode/models/tiers.yaml.
 auto/last-attempt-tier-2
In-cycle escalation: most recent attempt ran at the Tier 2 slot (`tier-2`). Slot's model defined in .opencode/models/tiers.yaml. Gated behind IMPLEMENTER_ESCALATION_TIER2_ENABLED.
 auto/last-attempt-tier-min
In-cycle escalation: most recent attempt ran at the Tier -1 slot (`tier-min`). Slot's model defined in .opencode/models/tiers.yaml. Suffix is ``-min`` (not ``--1``) so the Forgejo UI reads naturally.
 Automation Tracking
Tracking issues used by the AI Automation system for agents to communicate and report.
 auto/needs-conflict-resolution
Rebase conflict needs LLM conflict-resolver.
 auto/needs-implementer
Failing CI needs implementer attention.
 auto/postmortem
Documenting a driver incident or rollback.
 auto/ready-to-merge
Reviewer has APPROVED this PR and no later REQUEST_CHANGES is outstanding. The merge driver requires this label to even consider a PR for merging. Set by the reviewer worker on APPROVE; cleared on REQUEST_CHANGES.
 auto/restart-throttled
Train repeatedly lost master-tempo races. Driver excludes via merge_cycle until cooldown elapses; label persists as visible history.
 auto/revert
Revert PR backing out an invariant violation. Fast-tracked through the merge driver.
 auto/sentinel
Sentinel PR duplicated from upstream into a personal fork by tools/duplicate_prs_to_fork.py for pipeline testing. Lives only in the fork; the canonical pipeline never sees it.
 auto/stale-inactivity
No implementer activity for N days. Flagged for human review. Auto-cleared on next push to head branch.
 auto/unstable
Repeatedly fails on current master (>= 3 ci-fail-on-rebased-sha releases in 12 h). Excluded from driver until human triage.
 Blocked
A ticket in a blocked state and unable to complete until some other task is completed first.
Bounty
$100
A bounty of $100 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$1000
A bounty of $1000 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$10000
A bounty of $10000 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$20
A bounty of $20 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$2000
A bounty of $2000 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$250
A bounty of $250 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$50
A bounty of $50 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$500
A bounty of $500 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$5000
A bounty of $5000 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$750
A bounty of $750 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
MoSCoW
Could have
Could have feature in order to satisfy the epic/legendary.
MoSCoW
Must have
Must have feature in order to satisfy the epic/legendary.
MoSCoW
Should have
Should have feature in order to satisfy the epic/legendary.
Needs Feedback
There are questions in the ticket that can not be completed until the project owner provides clarity.
Points
1
1 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
13
13 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
2
2 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
21
21 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
3
3 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
34
34 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
5
5 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
55
55 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
8
8 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
88
88 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Priority
Backlog
This ticket has backlogged priority and is not to be worked on yet
Priority
CI Blocker
Critical priority issue that blocks CI/CD pipeline and prevents PR merges
Priority
Critical
The priority is critical
Priority
High
The priority is high
Priority
Low
The priority is low
Priority
Medium
The priority is medium
Signed-off: Owner
When an epic or legendary is in review it must be signed off by owner, tech lead, and scrum master before being marked as completed.
 Signed-off: Scrum Master
When an epic or legendary is in review it must be signed off by owner, tech lead, and scrum master before being marked as completed.
 Signed-off: Tech Lead
When an epic or legendary is in review it must be signed off by owner, tech lead, and scrum master before being marked as completed.
 Spike
A ticket for learning a tool or technology that is needed to be able to do future planning and design.
State
Completed
The ticket has been fully implemented, completed, and merged with the source code. This label should only be applied once a ticket is closed.
State
Duplicate
A ticket that represents the same content as an existing ticket.
State
In Progress
A ticket that is actively being developed.
State
In Review
A ticket that has had some code completed to implement but is waiting to pass peer review and is not yet merged in.
State
Paused
This ticket's work started but wasn't finished. It's on hold (likely in a feature branch) and will be resumed later, either due to a blocker or a delay.
State
Unverified
All new tickets start in this state. A developer may set it to show the ticket is unverified. This means we haven't agreed to work on it. It will either move to a verified state or be closed as wontdo.
State
Verified
The issue has been verified by a developer as legitimate. It will be worked on and verified tickets are now considered part of the backlog.
State
Wont Do
This ticket has been decided it wont be done. This may mean the bug has been determined to not be real (cant verify) or the feature is one we have decided we dont want to adopt.
Type
Automation
Any edits or discussion about the AI automated coding system.
Type
Bug
Something that doesnt work as intended.
Type
Discussion
Anytime a ticket represents a discussion about a subject and doesnt fall into one of the other categories.
Type
Documentation
An error or improvement needed in the documentation.
Type
Epic
Any first tier epic. That is, an epic which contains only issues as children and will not have sub-epics.
Type
Feature
Some new functionality not present.
Type
Legendary
A type of Epic which will contain other Epics.
Type
Refactor
A code change that restructures existing code without changing its external behavior.
Type
Support
Someone needs help using the project.
Type
Task
A generic task that doesnt fit into the other type categories.
Type
Testing
Work exclusively focusing on fixing or expanding testing.
No Label
Type
Testing
Milestone
No items
No Milestone v2.1.0
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
aditya (Aditya Chhabra) aleenaumair (Aleena Umair) brent.edwards (Brent Edwards) CoreRasurae (Luis Mendes) drew (Drew Morris) eugen.thaci (Eugen Thaci) freemo (Jeffrey Phillips Freeman) HAL9000 (HAL 9000) HAL9001 (HAL9001) hamza.khyari (Hamza Khyari) hurui200320 (Rui Hu) justin.morris khird (Kyle Hird) org.cleveragents
No Assignees
2 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Blocks
#98 TDD: Pure-graph parallel dispatch runs all next-nodes concurrently whenever len > 1, ignoring each node's `parallel` flag
cleveragents/cleveractors-core
Reference: cleveragents/cleveractors-core#109
Delete Branch "tdd/m1-pure-graph-parallel-node-gate"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?