5 Commits

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
hurui200320	2005b8ef82	feat(tests): replace all @skip tags with proper @tdd_expected_fail tags or remove them across the entire codebase (#7221) ... ## 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>	2026-04-13 04:56:01 +00:00
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
freemo	93da31e80f	fix(skill): resolve skill add persistence regression after PR #640 ... Root cause: _build_skill_service in container.py created a SkillRepository pointing at the database but did not ensure the skills/skill_items tables existed. When the tables were missing, SkillRepository.list_all() and create() failed silently (caught by SkillService._load_from_db and _persist_skill exception handlers), causing the service to operate in in-memory-only mode. Skills added in one CLI process were lost when a new process created a fresh SkillService. Additionally, SkillRepository lacked auto_commit support. Each call to session_factory() returned a new session, so the flush in create/update/ delete operated on a different session than the commit in SkillService._commit(), meaning data was never actually persisted even when the tables existed. Fix: 1. Add targeted table creation in _build_skill_service (following the pattern in _build_session_service) — checks for missing skills and skill_items tables and creates them via Base.metadata.create_all. 2. Add auto_commit parameter to SkillRepository (following the pattern in SessionRepository) so each mutating method commits and closes its own session. 3. Pass auto_commit=True from the container builder. 4. Remove @tdd_expected_fail from TDD test (leaving @tdd_bug and @tdd_bug_980 as permanent regression guards). ISSUES CLOSED: #980	2026-03-24 17:08:22 +00:00
freemo	a6e2bc7842	test: add TDD bug-capture test for #980 — skill add cross-process persistence ... Write cross-process Behave and Robot tests capturing skill add persistence regression. Tests use subprocess invocations to verify skills persist across CLI process boundaries. The existing persistence tests (skill_add_persist.feature) verify round-trip within the same Python process by creating two SkillService instances sharing the same in-memory database. This approach cannot detect the cross-process regression where _build_skill_service falls back to in-memory storage because the skills table does not exist in the database created by agents init. Behave: features/tdd_skill_add_regression.feature Robot: robot/tdd_skill_add_regression.robot Tags: @tdd_bug, @tdd_bug_980, @tdd_expected_fail ISSUES CLOSED: #981	2026-03-24 17:08:22 +00:00