test: add TDD bug-capture test for #968 — plan explain plan_id handling #1052
Merged
hurui200320
merged 1 commits from 2026-03-19 07:21:12 +00:00
tdd/m3-plan-explain-plan-id into master
Dismiss Review
Are you sure you want to dismiss this review?
Labels
Clear labels
auto/needs-reevaluation
controller-managed
overdue
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
Needs Feedback
Signed-off: Owner
Signed-off: Scrum Master
Signed-off: Tech Lead
Spike
Controller deferred this PR; awaiting Phase 6+ scope-evaluator or operator re-enablement.
Auto-agents controller manages this PR/issue (see tools/controller/deploy/RUNBOOK.md). Remove this label to abandon controller management.
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.
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.
Currently being processed by an implementer worker.
Currently being processed by the merge driver.
Currently being processed by a reviewer worker.
Merge driver heartbeat stale; pipeline halted. Closed automatically on next clean tick.
Detected master commit violating the strict merge invariant. Tracked as an issue (not a PR label); kept here for label completeness.
In-cycle escalation: most recent attempt ran at the Tier 0 slot (`tier-0`). Slot's model defined in .opencode/models/tiers.yaml.
In-cycle escalation: most recent attempt ran at the Tier 1 slot (`tier-1`). Slot's model defined in .opencode/models/tiers.yaml.
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.
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.
Tracking issues used by the AI Automation system for agents to communicate and report.
Rebase conflict needs LLM conflict-resolver.
Failing CI needs implementer attention.
Documenting a driver incident or rollback.
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.
Train repeatedly lost master-tempo races. Driver excludes via merge_cycle until cooldown elapses; label persists as visible history.
Revert PR backing out an invariant violation. Fast-tracked through the merge driver.
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.
No implementer activity for N days. Flagged for human review. Auto-cleared on next push to head branch.
Repeatedly fails on current master (>= 3 ci-fail-on-rebased-sha releases in 12 h). Excluded from driver until human triage.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
Projects
Clear projects
No project
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
Clear assignees
No Assignees
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Blocks
#978 TDD: Write failing test for #968 — plan explain expects decision_id but test passes plan_id
cleveragents/cleveragents-core
Reference: cleveragents/cleveragents-core#1052
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
Blocking a user prevents them from interacting with repositories, such as opening or commenting on pull requests or issues. Learn more about blocking a user.
Delete Branch "tdd/m3-plan-explain-plan-id"
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?
Summary
Add TDD bug-capture tests for bug #968: the
plan explainCLI command fails with rc=1 when given a plan_id becauseexplain_decision_cmdtreats its argument as a decision_id andsvc.get_decision(plan_id)raisesDecisionNotFoundError.These tests capture the exact failure condition described in #968 and are tagged with
@tdd_expected_fail,@tdd_bug, and@tdd_bug_968. The@tdd_expected_failtag inverts the test result so that CI passes while the bug is unfixed. Once bug #968 is fixed, the@tdd_expected_failtag will be removed and the tests will serve as permanent regression tests.Closes #978
Changes
Behave Tests (
features/tdd_plan_explain_plan_id.feature)DecisionServicesoget_decision(plan_id)raisesDecisionNotFoundError(the bug) andlist_decisions(plan_id)returns decisions. Invokesplan explain <plan_id>via CliRunner and asserts rc=0 with decision details visible. Verifieslist_decisionswas called with the correctplan_id.Both scenarios currently fail (rc=1, proving the bug exists), but the
@tdd_expected_failtag makes CI pass.Robot Tests (
robot/tdd_plan_explain_plan_id.robot)DecisionService, invokesplan explain <plan_id>via subprocess, and asserts rc=0.Both tests carry
tdd_expected_fail,tdd_bug, andtdd_bug_968tags.Step Definitions (
features/steps/tdd_plan_explain_plan_id_steps.py)Step implementations for the Behave feature, following the established patterns from
plan_explain_cli_coverage_steps.py. Includeslist_decisions.assert_called_once_with(plan_id)verification to ensure the fix exercises the fallback lookup path.Helper Script (
robot/helper_tdd_plan_explain_plan_id.py)Python helper for Robot tests, following the established pattern from
helper_tdd_checkpoint_real_rollback.py. Uses a shared_run_plan_explain()helper to avoid subprocess invocation duplication, setsNO_COLOR=1in subprocess environment to prevent ANSI escape codes.CHANGELOG
Added entry under
## Unreleaseddescribing the TDD bug-capture tests for bug #968.Review Fixes Applied (Iteration 1)
_setup_plan_with_decisions()moved to module level with# noqa: E402, consistent with all otherrobot/helper_tdd_*.pyfiles.svc.get_decision.return_value = Nonechanged tosvc.get_decision.side_effect = DecisionNotFoundError(...)to match the realDecisionService.get_decision()which raisesDecisionNotFoundError, not returnsNone.assert "decision_id" in output or "question" in outputchanged to AND for a more precise assertion that verifies both fields are present.# type: ignore[arg-type](Minor) — Changedkwargs: dict[str, object]tokwargs: dictand removed the# type: ignore[arg-type]directive, per CONTRIBUTING.md type safety rules.subprocess.TimeoutExpired(Minor) — Bothsubprocess.run()calls wrapped intry/except subprocess.TimeoutExpiredwith descriptive_fail()messages.subprocess.runtimeout reduced from 60s to 45s so the helper catches timeout before Robot's 60s outer timeout kills it.list_decisions()verification afterrecord_decision()to distinguish setup failures from the actual bug.Review Fixes Applied (Iteration 2)
## Unreleaseddescribing the TDD bug-capture tests for bug #968, per CONTRIBUTING.md §"Pull Request Process".if "decision" not in combined.lower() and "question" not in combined.lower()toorso both keywords must be present, matching the Behave test's AND-based validation.NO_COLOR=1to subprocess environment (Minor) — Added_make_subprocess_env()helper that copiesos.environand setsNO_COLOR=1, following the established pattern fromrobot/helper_e2e_common.py._run_plan_explain(plan_id)function, reducing code duplication across the two test subcommands.list_decisionsmock verification (Nit, addressed) — Addedsvc.list_decisions.assert_called_once_with(plan_id)in the Behave step that checks decision details, making the test contract clearer.origin/masterper CONTRIBUTING.md §"Branch Hygiene".Quality Gates
nox -e lint— All checks passednox -e typecheck— 0 errorsnox -e unit_tests— 391 features, 11175 scenarios, 0 failednox -e integration_tests— All tests passed (including Tdd Plan Explain Plan Id)nox -e e2e_tests— 16 tests, 0 failednox -e coverage_report— 97% coverage (≥97% threshold met)ea584830cbtoe17f8b4f48e17f8b4f48to211618e1b3Code Review — PR #1052
test: TDD bug-capture test for #968 — plan explain plan_id handlingClean TDD test with correct tag triplet (
@tdd_expected_fail @tdd_bug @tdd_bug_968). Good coverage of both CliRunner and subprocess invocation paths. The mock accurately models real behavior —get_decisionraisesDecisionNotFoundError(not returns None), matching the actualDecisionService. Thelist_decisions.assert_called_once_with(plan_id)verification ensures the fallback lookup path is exercised.Approved. No issues found.
211618e1b3to058d486593New commits pushed, approval review dismissed automatically according to repository settings