test: add TDD bug-capture test for #967 — plan execute phase processing #1050

Merged

hurui200320 merged 2 commits from tdd/m3-plan-execute-phase-processing into master 2026-03-19 06:41:27 +00:00

Conversation 1 Commits 2 Files changed 5 +719

hurui200320 commented 2026-03-18 08:37:12 +00:00

Member

Copy link

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

## 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

hurui200320 added the

Type

Testing

label 2026-03-18 08:37:19 +00:00

hurui200320 added this to the v3.2.0 milestone 2026-03-18 08:37:21 +00:00

hurui200320 added a new dependency 2026-03-18 08:38:26 +00:00

#977 TDD: Write failing test for #967 — plan execute only transitions state, no phase processing

hurui200320 force-pushed tdd/m3-plan-execute-phase-processing from 49d403a004 to 99d7004480 2026-03-18 11:48:53 +00:00 Compare

hurui200320 force-pushed tdd/m3-plan-execute-phase-processing from 99d7004480 to a641dae5bf 2026-03-18 13:43:33 +00:00 Compare

hurui200320 referenced this pull request 2026-03-18 13:53:55 +00:00

TDD: Write failing test for #967 — plan execute only transitions state, no phase processing #977

freemo approved these changes 2026-03-19 04:55:08 +00:00

freemo left a comment

Copy link

Code Review — PR #1050 test: TDD bug-capture test for #967 — plan execute phase processing

Comprehensive 4-scenario test suite. The correct removal of @tdd_expected_fail is well-justified since the bug fix for #967 is already on master — these serve as permanent regression guards. The step file is well-structured with helper functions for constructing Plan domain objects. Good documentation of 13 fixes from 2 review cycles.

Approved. No issues found.

## Code Review — PR #1050 `test: TDD bug-capture test for #967 — plan execute phase processing` Comprehensive 4-scenario test suite. The correct removal of `@tdd_expected_fail` is well-justified since the bug fix for #967 is already on master — these serve as permanent regression guards. The step file is well-structured with helper functions for constructing `Plan` domain objects. Good documentation of 13 fixes from 2 review cycles. **Approved.** No issues found.

freemo requested reviews from brent.edwards, freemo 2026-03-19 05:16:11 +00:00

hurui200320 added 1 commit 2026-03-19 06:33:06 +00:00

Merge branch 'master' into tdd/m3-plan-execute-phase-processing 468c84ec16

hurui200320 scheduled this pull request to auto merge when all checks succeed 2026-03-19 06:33:35 +00:00

hurui200320 merged commit 774dfedc6b into master 2026-03-19 06:41:27 +00:00

hurui200320 deleted branch tdd/m3-plan-execute-phase-processing 2026-03-19 06:41:27 +00:00

hurui200320 referenced this pull request from a commit 2026-03-19 06:41:28 +00:00

test: add TDD bug-capture test for #967 — plan execute phase processing (#1050)

CoreRasurae referenced this pull request 2026-03-19 21:55:35 +00:00

refactor(cli): align actor run signature with spec positional args #1072

CoreRasurae referenced this pull request 2026-03-19 22:01:27 +00:00

feat(tool): add move_file, create_directory, and get_file_info built-in tools #1070

Sign in to join this conversation.

Reviewers

No reviewers

brent.edwards

freemo

Labels

Clear labels   

auto/needs-reevaluation

Controller deferred this PR; awaiting Phase 6+ scope-evaluator or operator re-enablement.

  

controller-managed

Auto-agents controller manages this PR/issue (see tools/controller/deploy/RUNBOOK.md). Remove this label to abandon controller management.

  

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 labels

auto/needs-reevaluation

controller-managed

auto/blocked-by-deps

auto/ci-timeout

auto/claimed-implementer

auto/claimed-merge

auto/claimed-reviewer

auto/driver-down

auto/invariant-violation

auto/last-attempt-tier-0

auto/last-attempt-tier-1

auto/last-attempt-tier-2

auto/last-attempt-tier-min

Automation Tracking

auto/needs-conflict-resolution

auto/needs-implementer

auto/postmortem

auto/ready-to-merge

auto/restart-throttled

auto/revert

auto/sentinel

auto/stale-inactivity

auto/unstable

Blocked

Bounty

$100

Bounty

$1000

Bounty

$10000

Bounty

$20

Bounty

$2000

Bounty

$250

Bounty

$50

Bounty

$500

Bounty

$5000

Bounty

$750

MoSCoW

Could have

MoSCoW

Must have

MoSCoW

Should have

Needs Feedback

Points

1

Points

13

Points

2

Points

21

Points

3

Points

34

Points

5

Points

55

Points

8

Points

88

Priority

Backlog

Priority

CI Blocker

Priority

Critical

Priority

High

Priority

Low

Priority

Medium

Signed-off: Owner

Signed-off: Scrum Master

Signed-off: Tech Lead

Spike

State

Completed

State

Duplicate

State

In Progress

State

In Review

State

Paused

State

Unverified

State

Verified

State

Wont Do

Type

Automation

Type

Bug

Type

Discussion

Type

Documentation

Type

Epic

Type

Feature

Type

Legendary

Type

Refactor

Type

Support

Type

Task

Type

Testing

Milestone

Clear milestone

No items

No milestone

v3.2.0

Projects

Clear projects

No items

No project

Assignees

Clear assignees

No assignees

2 participants

Notifications

Subscribe

Due date

The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Blocks

#977 TDD: Write failing test for #967 — plan execute only transitions state, no phase processing

cleveragents/cleveragents-core

Reference

cleveragents/cleveragents-core!1050

No description provided.