master
6 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
15e72b8407
|
fix(events): log full exception details in ReactiveEventBus.emit() error handler
CI / lint (push) Successful in 54s
CI / quality (push) Successful in 1m10s
CI / benchmark-publish (push) Has started running
CI / build (push) Successful in 54s
CI / security (push) Successful in 1m37s
CI / typecheck (push) Successful in 1m42s
CI / benchmark-regression (push) Has been skipped
CI / push-validation (push) Successful in 35s
CI / helm (push) Successful in 38s
CI / e2e_tests (push) Successful in 4m12s
CI / integration_tests (push) Successful in 6m23s
CI / unit_tests (push) Successful in 8m53s
CI / docker (push) Successful in 1m38s
CI / coverage (push) Successful in 12m12s
CI / status-check (push) Successful in 3s
CI / benchmark-publish (pull_request) Has been skipped
CI / benchmark-regression (pull_request) Failing after 1m31s
CI / helm (pull_request) Successful in 44s
CI / coverage (pull_request) Successful in 11m7s
CI / push-validation (pull_request) Successful in 47s
CI / lint (pull_request) Successful in 1m37s
CI / build (pull_request) Successful in 1m0s
CI / quality (pull_request) Successful in 1m42s
CI / typecheck (pull_request) Successful in 1m49s
CI / security (pull_request) Successful in 2m8s
CI / integration_tests (pull_request) Successful in 4m17s
CI / e2e_tests (pull_request) Successful in 4m23s
CI / unit_tests (pull_request) Successful in 8m56s
CI / docker (pull_request) Successful in 1m54s
CI / status-check (pull_request) Successful in 3s
Add exc_info=True to the _logger.warning() call in the per-handler exception block of ReactiveEventBus.emit(). The handler already logged error=str(exc) (the exception message text), but omitted the traceback. With exc_info=True structlog now forwards the full traceback to the configured log output, giving developers the diagnostic detail needed to debug subscriber failures in production. Remove the @tdd_expected_fail tag from the traceback scenario in features/tdd_event_bus_exception_swallow.feature so that both TDD scenarios (#988) run as normal regression guards. Fix TDD tags in robot/tdd_e2e_implicit_init.robot: replace incorrect tdd_bug/tdd_bug_1023 tags with the canonical tdd_issue/tdd_issue_1023/ tdd_expected_fail tags so the tdd_expected_fail_listener properly inverts results while bug #1023 remains open. ISSUES CLOSED: #988 |
||
|
|
2005b8ef82 |
feat(tests): replace all @skip tags with proper @tdd_expected_fail tags or remove them across the entire codebase (#7221)
CI / push-validation (push) Successful in 18s
CI / build (push) Successful in 19s
CI / helm (push) Successful in 24s
CI / lint (push) Successful in 29s
CI / security (push) Successful in 1m11s
CI / e2e_tests (push) Successful in 2m56s
CI / quality (push) Successful in 3m40s
CI / typecheck (push) Successful in 3m59s
CI / integration_tests (push) Successful in 4m3s
CI / unit_tests (push) Successful in 4m55s
CI / docker (push) Successful in 10s
CI / coverage (push) Successful in 10m44s
CI / status-check (push) Successful in 1s
CI / benchmark-regression (push) Has been skipped
CI / benchmark-publish (push) Successful in 1h13m28s
## Summary Replaces all 234 bare `@skip` occurrences across 82 Behave feature files with the correct TDD issue-capture tagging system described in CONTRIBUTING.md § Bug Fix Workflow. Previously, the noxfile ran Behave with `--tags=not @skip`, silently excluding all `@skip`-tagged scenarios from every CI run. These tests never ran, never inverted results via the `@tdd_expected_fail` mechanism, and never contributed to coverage — defeating the purpose of TDD issue-capture testing. Every `@skip` occurrence had a commented-out hint line immediately above it showing the intended proper tags (e.g., `# @tdd_issue @tdd_issue_4272 @tdd_expected_fail @skip`), confirming they were all intended for conversion. ## Changes ### Mechanical conversion (234 replacements across 82 files) - Extracted the proper TDD tags from the comment hint above each `@skip` line, removed `@skip` from the tag set, and replaced the `@skip` line with those tags. - Removed the now-redundant comment hint lines alongside each replacement. ### Bug-fixed scenarios — `@tdd_expected_fail` removed (84 scenarios) - After conversion, ran `nox -s unit_tests` to identify which newly-enabled `@tdd_expected_fail` scenarios now **pass** (their referenced bugs have already been fixed). Removed `@tdd_expected_fail` from those 84 scenarios and their corresponding feature-level tags, leaving only the permanent `@tdd_issue @tdd_issue_<N>` regression-guard tags. - Affected features include: `tdd_tool_runner_env_precedence`, `tdd_automation_profile_session_leak`, `tls_certificate_check`, `project_create_persist`, `resource_type_bootstrap_*`, and 18 others. ### Noxfile cleanup - Removed all four `--tags=not @skip` arguments from `noxfile.py` (unit_tests and coverage sessions). With zero `@skip` tags remaining in the codebase, this filter was dead code and its presence would mislead future maintainers into thinking `@skip` is still a supported escape mechanism. ### Regression guard files - Split the regression guards into two focused files: - `tdd_regression_guards_exec_env.feature` for bug #4281 (exec-env precedence) - `tdd_regression_guards_session_list.feature` for bug #4271 (session list summary) - Each file carries only its own `@tdd_issue` tags at the feature level, avoiding cross-contamination via Behave tag inheritance. The `Background` step (`session-list-summary mock`) only appears in the session-list file where it is actually needed. ### Duplicate tag cleanup - Removed duplicate `@tdd_issue @tdd_issue_4287` tag lines in `tdd_skill_add_regression.feature` (lines 20 and 29). ### Inline comment for retained `@tdd_expected_fail` - Added inline comment in `ci_workflow_validation.feature:134` explaining why this specific #4227 scenario retains `@tdd_expected_fail` despite #4227 being closed (CI YAML does not encode threshold as a machine-readable value). ### Known edge cases — `@tdd_expected_fail` retained (closed issues, fix on master, scenarios still fail) The following issues are **closed** and their fixes **are on master**, but the specific test assertions still fail because the fixes address other aspects of the bugs. The `@tdd_expected_fail` tags are functionally correct and must remain until the specific scenario assertions pass: - `tdd_exec_env_resolution_precedence.feature` — bug #1080 (closed 2026-03-31). The precedence-level-2-vs-4 scenario still fails. - `session_list_summary_dedup.feature` — bug #3046 (closed 2026-04-05). The dedup-consistency scenarios still fail. - `actor_add_update_enforcement.feature` — bug #2609 (closed 2026-04-05). The enforcement scenarios still fail. - `ci_workflow_validation.feature:134` — #4227 (closed 2026-04-08). The CI YAML threshold assertion still fails. ## Verification - `grep -r "@skip" features/ --include="*.feature"` → **zero results** ✓ - `grep -n "tags=not @skip" noxfile.py` → **zero results** ✓ - `nox -s unit_tests` → **629 features passed, 0 failed** ✓ (up from ~545 before this PR) - CI all green (coverage ≥ 97%) ✓ - Integration tests (Robot Framework) do not use `@skip` — confirmed no action needed ✓ - E2E tests (Robot Framework) do not use `@skip` — confirmed no action needed ✓ - `CHANGELOG.md` updated with entry for this change ✓ - `CONTRIBUTORS.md` — Rui Hu already listed ✓ ## Issues Addressed Closes #7025 Co-authored-by: CleverThis <hal9000@cleverthis.com> Reviewed-on: #7221 Reviewed-by: HAL 9000 <HAL9000@cleverthis.com> Reviewed-by: HAL9001 <hal9001@cleverthis.com> Co-authored-by: Rui Hu <rui.hu@cleverthis.com> Co-committed-by: Rui Hu <rui.hu@cleverthis.com> |
||
|
|
8ea00f5185 |
fix: restore CI quality tests to passing state (#4175)
CI / unit_tests (push) Has been cancelled
CI / benchmark-publish (push) Has been cancelled
CI / lint (push) Has been cancelled
CI / typecheck (push) Has been cancelled
CI / security (push) Has been cancelled
CI / quality (push) Has been cancelled
CI / integration_tests (push) Has been cancelled
CI / e2e_tests (push) Has been cancelled
CI / coverage (push) Has been cancelled
CI / benchmark-regression (push) Has been cancelled
CI / build (push) Has been cancelled
CI / push-validation (push) Has been cancelled
CI / status-check (push) Has been cancelled
CI / docker (push) Has been cancelled
CI / helm (push) Has been cancelled
Co-authored-by: Jeffrey Phillips Freeman <the@jeffreyfreeman.me> Co-committed-by: Jeffrey Phillips Freeman <the@jeffreyfreeman.me> |
||
|
|
1878998b7a |
refactor(testing): rename tdd_bug/tdd_bug_N tags to tdd_issue/tdd_issue_N
CI / benchmark-publish (pull_request) Has been skipped
CI / build (pull_request) Successful in 25s
CI / lint (pull_request) Successful in 3m19s
CI / typecheck (pull_request) Successful in 3m56s
CI / security (pull_request) Successful in 4m6s
CI / quality (pull_request) Successful in 4m10s
CI / integration_tests (pull_request) Successful in 7m20s
CI / unit_tests (pull_request) Successful in 7m44s
CI / docker (pull_request) Successful in 1m8s
CI / e2e_tests (pull_request) Successful in 13m1s
CI / coverage (pull_request) Successful in 12m25s
CI / status-check (pull_request) Successful in 1s
CI / build (push) Successful in 26s
CI / lint (push) Successful in 3m31s
CI / quality (push) Successful in 3m40s
CI / typecheck (push) Successful in 3m57s
CI / benchmark-regression (push) Has been skipped
CI / security (push) Successful in 4m1s
CI / integration_tests (push) Successful in 8m55s
CI / unit_tests (push) Successful in 9m14s
CI / docker (push) Successful in 9s
CI / e2e_tests (push) Successful in 11m42s
CI / coverage (push) Successful in 11m37s
CI / status-check (push) Successful in 4s
CI / benchmark-publish (push) Successful in 29m25s
CI / benchmark-regression (pull_request) Successful in 54m8s
Rename the TDD tag system from tdd_bug/tdd_bug_<N> to tdd_issue/tdd_issue_<N> across the entire codebase. The tdd_expected_fail tag is unchanged. The TDD expected-failure workflow is not limited to bug fixes — it applies equally to any issue type (features, tasks, refactors). The _bug suffix was misleading and narrowed the perceived scope. The new _issue suffix accurately reflects that the TDD tagging system applies to any Forgejo issue. Changes span 92 files: - features/environment.py: validate_tdd_tags(), should_invert_result(), and apply_tdd_inversion() updated — regex, variables, error messages - robot/tdd_expected_fail_listener.py: _validate_tdd_tags(), _should_invert_result(), start_test(), end_test() updated consistently - 33 Behave .feature files: all @tdd_bug/@tdd_bug_<N> tags renamed - 29 Robot .robot files: all tdd_bug/tdd_bug_<N> tags renamed - 3 Robot fixture files renamed (tdd_bug_alone, tdd_missing_tdd_bug, tdd_expected_fail_missing_bug_n) with content and references updated - Tag validation tests and helpers updated (function names, command dispatch keys, output strings, fixture references) - CONTRIBUTING.md: section renamed from 'TDD Bug Test Tags' to 'TDD Issue Test Tags', all tag references and examples updated - noxfile.py: comment references updated - Step definition files, mock helpers, and benchmark files: docstring references updated ISSUES CLOSED: #965 |
||
|
|
00881a3e5f
|
feat(observability): implement Event System Domain Event Taxonomy (full EventType enum + DomainEvent model)
CI / benchmark-publish (pull_request) Has been skipped
CI / lint (pull_request) Successful in 3m26s
CI / build (pull_request) Successful in 14s
CI / typecheck (pull_request) Successful in 4m2s
CI / quality (pull_request) Successful in 4m2s
CI / security (pull_request) Successful in 4m23s
CI / integration_tests (pull_request) Successful in 9m35s
CI / unit_tests (pull_request) Successful in 9m39s
CI / docker (pull_request) Successful in 2m15s
CI / e2e_tests (pull_request) Successful in 12m32s
CI / coverage (pull_request) Successful in 11m41s
CI / status-check (pull_request) Successful in 1s
CI / build (push) Successful in 23s
CI / lint (push) Successful in 3m17s
CI / typecheck (push) Successful in 4m11s
CI / quality (push) Successful in 4m11s
CI / security (push) Successful in 4m28s
CI / benchmark-regression (push) Has been skipped
CI / integration_tests (push) Successful in 9m13s
CI / unit_tests (push) Successful in 9m26s
CI / e2e_tests (push) Successful in 10m20s
CI / docker (push) Successful in 1m16s
CI / coverage (push) Successful in 12m2s
CI / status-check (push) Successful in 1s
CI / benchmark-publish (push) Successful in 33m17s
CI / benchmark-regression (pull_request) Successful in 57m23s
Verified and completed the Event System Domain Event Taxonomy implementation. Gap analysis: - EventType enum (38 types across 12 domains): ALREADY EXISTED, verified complete - DomainEvent Pydantic model (all 9 fields): ALREADY EXISTED, verified complete - EventBus Protocol (emit + subscribe): ALREADY EXISTED, verified complete - ReactiveEventBus (RxPY Subject, stream property): ALREADY EXISTED, verified - LoggingEventBus (structlog-based): ALREADY EXISTED, verified complete Added: - In-memory audit_log on ReactiveEventBus (list[DomainEvent] with defensive copy) - Emit ordering aligned with specification: RxPY stream push, then audit append, then handler dispatch (§Event System) - Clarified audit_log docstring: volatile in-memory log, not durable SQLite persistence (durable persistence wired separately via audit service layer) - Behave feature: features/observability/event_system_taxonomy.feature (36 scenarios) - Step definitions: features/steps/event_system_taxonomy_steps.py - Robot integration test: robot/event_system_taxonomy_integration.robot (13 test cases) - Robot helper: robot/helper_event_system_taxonomy.py (13 subcommands) - ASV benchmark: benchmarks/bench_event_bus.py (5 benchmark suites) - vulture_whitelist.py: added audit_log property Code review fixes applied: - Reordered emit() to match spec: on_next → audit_log → handlers (was: audit → on_next → handlers) - Clarified audit_log docstring to distinguish volatile in-memory log from spec SQLite table - Fixed benchmark TaxonomyAuditLogSuite: parameterized setup instead of inline construction - Added teardown to TaxonomyLoggingEmitSuite to restore logging.disable(NOTSET) - Clear _received list between benchmark iterations to reduce noise - Catch specific pydantic.ValidationError in frozen model mutation tests - Consolidated duplicate singular/plural step definitions - Tightened EventType count threshold from >=30 to >=38 Quality gates: - lint: PASSED - typecheck: PASSED (0 errors) - unit_tests: 36/36 new scenarios PASSED (pre-existing 12 flaky failures unchanged) - integration_tests: 1483/1483 PASSED - security_scan: PASSED - dead_code: PASSED ISSUES CLOSED: #587 |
||
|
|
3d961fa0aa |
test: add TDD bug-capture test for #988 — ReactiveEventBus.emit swallows exceptions (#1106)
CI / build (push) Successful in 23s
CI / lint (push) Successful in 3m20s
CI / typecheck (push) Successful in 3m50s
CI / security (push) Successful in 4m0s
CI / quality (push) Successful in 4m18s
CI / integration_tests (push) Successful in 9m19s
CI / unit_tests (push) Successful in 9m46s
CI / e2e_tests (push) Successful in 10m27s
CI / docker (push) Successful in 1m9s
CI / coverage (push) Successful in 12m2s
CI / status-check (push) Successful in 1s
CI / benchmark-regression (push) Has been skipped
CI / benchmark-publish (push) Successful in 30m22s
## Summary Add a TDD bug-capture Behave scenario that proves bug #988 exists: `ReactiveEventBus.emit()` exception handler logs only `type(exc).__name__` (e.g., "ValueError") without the exception message (`str(exc)`) or traceback (`exc_info=True`). When a subscriber fails, the log contains zero diagnostic detail, making production debugging impossible. ## What was done - **Feature file**: `features/tdd_event_bus_exception_swallow.feature` — tagged `@tdd_expected_fail @tdd_bug @tdd_bug_988` - **Step definitions**: `features/steps/tdd_event_bus_exception_swallow_steps.py` — subscribes a handler that raises `ValueError("detailed error message for debugging")`, emits an event, captures the structlog warning via `structlog.testing.capture_logs()`, and asserts: 1. The exception message text appears in the log entry (scenario 1) 2. The `exc_info` key is present and truthy, confirming traceback logging (scenario 2) - **Changelog**: Updated `CHANGELOG.md` with the new entry ## How the test works 1. A `ReactiveEventBus` is created with a subscriber that raises `ValueError` with a distinctive message 2. An event is emitted, triggering the failing handler 3. The `emit()` exception handler catches the error and logs a warning via structlog 4. **Scenario 1** asserts the exception **message** (not just the type name) appears in the log entry 5. **Scenario 2** asserts the log entry includes **`exc_info`** (traceback), per bug #988's acceptance criteria requiring `exc_info=True` 6. Both assertions **FAIL** because the current code only logs `type(exc).__name__` — confirming the bug 7. The `@tdd_expected_fail` tag inverts these failures to CI passes ## Test verification - `nox -s unit_tests` ✅ passes (462 features, 12,232 scenarios passed, 0 failed) - Both underlying assertions correctly fail, proving the bug exists - Tag validation rules pass: `@tdd_bug_988` has corresponding `@tdd_bug`, and `@tdd_expected_fail` has both - `nox -s lint` ✅ passes - `nox -s typecheck` ✅ passes (0 errors on changed files) ## Review fixes applied - **C1 (Critical)**: Rebased onto latest `master` (`5f5ef891`) to eliminate unrelated `docs/timeline.md` regression that was overwriting Day 42 data with stale Day 39 content - **m1**: Added docstrings to all four step functions - **m2**: Renamed parameter `ctx` → `context` across all step functions to match project convention (97%+ of codebase uses `context`) - **m3**: Added second scenario "Bug #988 — emit() logs traceback via exc_info when handler raises" with new `step_then_log_contains_traceback` step that verifies the `exc_info=True` requirement from bug #988 acceptance criteria - **n1 (Informational)**: Feature-level tags are valid Gherkin; no change needed - **n2 (Informational)**: `# type: ignore[import-untyped]` on behave imports is the established project convention (106+ files); no change needed ## Robot test N/A — this is a purely unit-level concern (testing a single class's internal error handling, no external services or IPC involved). Closes #1093 Reviewed-on: #1106 Reviewed-by: Jeffrey Phillips Freeman <jeffrey.freeman@cleverthis.com> Co-authored-by: Brent Edwards <brent.edwards@cleverthis.com> Co-committed-by: Brent Edwards <brent.edwards@cleverthis.com> |