3 Commits

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
freemo	8ea00f5185	fix: restore CI quality tests to passing state (#4175) ... Co-authored-by: Jeffrey Phillips Freeman <the@jeffreyfreeman.me> Co-committed-by: Jeffrey Phillips Freeman <the@jeffreyfreeman.me>	2026-04-08 11:02:14 +00:00
hurui200320	1878998b7a	refactor(testing): rename tdd_bug/tdd_bug_N tags to tdd_issue/tdd_issue_N ... 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	2026-03-27 05:58:35 +00:00
hurui200320	774dfedc6b	test: add TDD bug-capture test for #967 — plan execute phase processing (#1050) ... ## Summary This PR adds TDD bug-capture tests for bug #967 — `plan execute` only transitions state without running strategize or execute phase processing. ### Motivation Bug #967 describes that the `plan execute` CLI command originally only called `service.execute_plan(plan_id)`, which is a state transition only (Strategize/COMPLETE → Execute/QUEUED). When a plan was in Strategize/QUEUED state (immediately after `plan use`), the command failed because `execute_plan()` requires Strategize/COMPLETE. The CLI should detect the plan's current phase and run `PlanExecutor.run_strategize()` before transitioning. Per the project's TDD Bug Fix Workflow (`CONTRIBUTING.md`), the first step in fixing any bug is to write a test that captures the buggy behavior. Since the fix for #967 is already present in the codebase (the CLI handler already orchestrates properly), the `@tdd_expected_fail` tags have been removed and these tests serve as **permanent regression guards** ensuring the fix is never reverted. ### Design Approach **All `@tdd_expected_fail` scenarios were rewritten to exercise the CLI orchestration layer** — the actual code path affected by bug #967. This satisfies AC4: "The test is specific enough that it will pass normally (without the tag) only when the bug is genuinely fixed." - **Scenarios 1, 2, 4** (previously `@tdd_expected_fail`): Use Typer's `CliRunner` with mocked services to invoke the `plan execute` CLI command handler directly. This tests the orchestration logic in `plan.py` — the exact code that was buggy. - **Scenario 3** (positive control): Uses real `PlanLifecycleService` (in-memory) and `PlanExecutor` (stub actors) to demonstrate that proper service-level orchestration works. - **Robot tests**: Replicate the CLI orchestration logic using real services to verify at the integration level. ### Changes #### Behave Unit Tests - `features/tdd_plan_execute_phase_processing.feature` — 4 scenarios - `features/steps/tdd_plan_execute_phase_processing_steps.py` — Step definitions using CliRunner and mocked services **Scenarios:** 1. **CLI execute command handles plan in Strategize/QUEUED state** — Invokes `plan execute` via CliRunner on a QUEUED plan. Verifies the CLI succeeds and the plan reaches Execute phase. 2. **CLI execute command orchestrates full lifecycle for QUEUED plan** — Verifies `run_strategize()` and `run_execute()` are both called by the CLI handler. 3. **Positive control — proper orchestration transitions QUEUED plan to Execute** — Demonstrates that `run_strategize()` → `execute_plan()` works correctly at the service level. Always passes. 4. **CLI auto-discovery finds plans in Strategize/QUEUED state** — Invokes `plan execute` with no plan_id. Verifies the auto-discovery filter includes QUEUED plans. #### Robot Integration Tests - `robot/tdd_plan_execute_phase_processing.robot` — 4 test cases matching the Behave scenarios - `robot/helper_tdd_plan_execute_phase_processing.py` — Helper script replicating CLI orchestration logic #### CHANGELOG - `CHANGELOG.md` — Added entry under "## Unreleased" describing the new tests. ### Quality Gates - `nox -e lint`: ✅ passed - `nox -e typecheck`: ✅ passed (0 errors) - `nox -e unit_tests`: ✅ passed (391 features, 11177 scenarios, 0 failures) - `nox -e integration_tests`: ✅ passed (1572 tests, 0 failures) - `nox -e e2e_tests`: ✅ passed (16 tests, 0 failures) - `nox -e coverage_report`: ✅ 97% coverage ### Review Cycle 2 Fixes - **Critical #1**: Rewrote `@tdd_expected_fail` scenarios to exercise the CLI orchestration layer via CliRunner instead of testing service/executor APIs that are correct by design. Removed `@tdd_expected_fail` tags since the bug fix is already in the codebase. - **Major #2**: Added CHANGELOG entry. - **Major #3**: Rebased onto current `master`. - **Minor #4**: Added `ProcessingState.QUEUED` assertion to positive control scenario. - **Minor #5**: Narrowed exception handler from bare `except Exception` to `except (PlanError, PlanNotReadyError)`. - **Minor #7**: Changed Robot suite to use `Setup Test Environment With Database Isolation`. - **Minor #8**: Added `on_timeout=kill` to all Robot `Run Process` calls. - **Minor #12**: Added docstring to `_fail()` helper. - **Minor #13**: Removed redundant `Settings()` instantiation. ### Known Limitations - The `@tdd_expected_fail` tags were removed because the bug fix for #967 is already in the codebase. If this PR is merged before the #967 fix PR, the tags would need to be re-added. However, the CHANGELOG and existing CLI code confirm the fix is already on `master`. Closes #977 Reviewed-on: #1050 Co-authored-by: Rui Hu <rui.hu@cleverthis.com> Co-committed-by: Rui Hu <rui.hu@cleverthis.com>	2026-03-19 06:41:26 +00:00