cleveragents/cleveragents-core
4
0
Fork 3
Code Issues 6.0k Pull Requests 115 Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

test(acms): TDD failing tests for context tier runtime logic (bug #821) #1058

Merged
brent.edwards merged 2 commits from tdd/m5-context-tier-runtime into master 2026-03-19 22:24:42 +00:00
Conversation 1 Commits 2 Files Changed 4
+626
brent.edwards commented 2026-03-18 20:18:01 +00:00
Member
Copy Link
Copy Source

Summary

TDD expected-fail tests proving bug #821 exists: ContextTierService has data models for hot/warm/cold tiers but no runtime logic for automatic promotion, demotion, or eviction.

  • Promotion on access: Accessing a cold-tier fragment repeatedly via get() does NOT auto-promote it — get() updates access_count/last_accessed but never calls promote()
  • Demotion on staleness: No staleness enforcement method exists — tried enforce_staleness(), apply_tier_policy(), tick(), etc. — none are implemented
  • Eviction on budget overflow: store() does NOT enforce TierBudget.max_tokens_hot — the hot tier grows without bound

Files Added

File Purpose
features/tdd_context_tier_runtime.feature 3 Behave scenarios tagged @tdd_expected_fail @tdd_bug @tdd_bug_821 @mock_only
features/steps/tdd_context_tier_runtime_steps.py Type-annotated step definitions exercising real ContextTierService
robot/tdd_context_tier_runtime.robot 3 Robot Framework integration tests tagged tdd_expected_fail
robot/helper_tdd_context_tier_runtime.py Helper script for Robot tests with 3 subcommands

Verification

  • nox -s lint — passed
  • nox -s typecheck — passed (0 errors)
  • nox -s unit_tests -- features/tdd_context_tier_runtime.feature — 3 scenarios passed (all assertions fail as expected, @tdd_expected_fail inverts to CI pass)

ISSUES CLOSED: #840

## Summary TDD expected-fail tests proving bug #821 exists: `ContextTierService` has data models for hot/warm/cold tiers but **no runtime logic** for automatic promotion, demotion, or eviction. - **Promotion on access**: Accessing a cold-tier fragment repeatedly via `get()` does NOT auto-promote it — `get()` updates `access_count`/`last_accessed` but never calls `promote()` - **Demotion on staleness**: No staleness enforcement method exists — tried `enforce_staleness()`, `apply_tier_policy()`, `tick()`, etc. — none are implemented - **Eviction on budget overflow**: `store()` does NOT enforce `TierBudget.max_tokens_hot` — the hot tier grows without bound ### Files Added | File | Purpose | |------|---------| | `features/tdd_context_tier_runtime.feature` | 3 Behave scenarios tagged `@tdd_expected_fail @tdd_bug @tdd_bug_821 @mock_only` | | `features/steps/tdd_context_tier_runtime_steps.py` | Type-annotated step definitions exercising real `ContextTierService` | | `robot/tdd_context_tier_runtime.robot` | 3 Robot Framework integration tests tagged `tdd_expected_fail` | | `robot/helper_tdd_context_tier_runtime.py` | Helper script for Robot tests with 3 subcommands | ### Verification - `nox -s lint` — passed - `nox -s typecheck` — passed (0 errors) - `nox -s unit_tests -- features/tdd_context_tier_runtime.feature` — **3 scenarios passed** (all assertions fail as expected, `@tdd_expected_fail` inverts to CI pass) ISSUES CLOSED: #840
freemo approved these changes 2026-03-19 04:56:00 +00:00
freemo left a comment
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

Code Review — PR #1058 test(acms): TDD failing tests for context tier runtime logic (bug #821)

Clean TDD test PR following the project's bug fix workflow correctly. Three scenarios (promotion on access, demotion on staleness, eviction on budget overflow) effectively prove bug #821 exists. TDD tags @tdd_expected_fail @tdd_bug @tdd_bug_821 are correctly applied.

The step definitions are thorough — the staleness scenario probes for multiple method names (enforce_staleness(), apply_tier_policy(), tick(), etc.) which clearly demonstrates the absence of any runtime enforcement method. Robot integration tests mirror the Behave scenarios for full coverage.

Approved. No issues found.

## Code Review — PR #1058 `test(acms): TDD failing tests for context tier runtime logic (bug #821)` Clean TDD test PR following the project's bug fix workflow correctly. Three scenarios (promotion on access, demotion on staleness, eviction on budget overflow) effectively prove bug #821 exists. TDD tags `@tdd_expected_fail @tdd_bug @tdd_bug_821` are correctly applied. The step definitions are thorough — the staleness scenario probes for multiple method names (`enforce_staleness()`, `apply_tier_policy()`, `tick()`, etc.) which clearly demonstrates the absence of any runtime enforcement method. Robot integration tests mirror the Behave scenarios for full coverage. **Approved.** No issues found.
freemo requested review from freemo 2026-03-19 05:16:42 +00:00
freemo requested review from hamza.khyari 2026-03-19 05:16:42 +00:00
freemo added this to the v3.4.0 milestone 2026-03-19 05:28:34 +00:00
brent.edwards force-pushed tdd/m5-context-tier-runtime from 30a8828770 to 1125e49d4f 2026-03-19 20:58:19 +00:00 Compare
brent.edwards added 1 commit 2026-03-19 22:14:58 +00:00
Merge branch 'master' into tdd/m5-context-tier-runtime
CI / lint (pull_request) Successful in 26s
Details
CI / security (pull_request) Successful in 37s
Details
CI / quality (pull_request) Successful in 43s
Details
CI / typecheck (pull_request) Successful in 1m15s
Details
CI / benchmark-publish (pull_request) Has been skipped
Details
CI / build (pull_request) Successful in 22s
Details
CI / unit_tests (pull_request) Successful in 2m17s
Details
CI / integration_tests (pull_request) Successful in 2m48s
Details
CI / docker (pull_request) Successful in 2m8s
Details
CI / e2e_tests (pull_request) Successful in 6m34s
Details
CI / coverage (pull_request) Successful in 4m47s
Details
CI / benchmark-regression (pull_request) Successful in 38m11s
Details
b5b45a6ff4
brent.edwards merged commit 202c9bfe75 into master 2026-03-19 22:24:42 +00:00
brent.edwards deleted branch tdd/m5-context-tier-runtime 2026-03-19 22:24:44 +00:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No Reviewers
hamza.khyari
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.
 overdue
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 Label
Milestone
No items
No Milestone v3.4.0
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear 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
No Assignees
2 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: cleveragents/cleveragents-core#1058
Delete Branch "tdd/m5-context-tier-runtime"

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?