cli/session: add BDD tests for --format flag and JSON envelope output to session tell #11148
No reviewers
Labels
No 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
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
No project
No assignees
3 participants
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference
cleveragents/cleveragents-core!11148
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "fix/cli-session-tell-format-flag"
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?
This PR adds BDD/Behave test coverage for the --format/-f flag on agents session tell. Added 6 Behave scenarios (json, yaml, plain, table, -f short flag, Rich regression), 6 step definitions, CHANGELOG.md and CONTRIBUTORS.md entries. Closes #10466
cli/session:session tellmissing--formatflag and JSON envelope output #10466Review Summary
This is a first review of PR #11148. The PR adds 6 Behave scenarios and 6 step definitions for the
--format/-fflag onagents session tell, plusCHANGELOG.mdandCONTRIBUTORS.mdentries. The intent is sound, but there are multiple blocking issues preventing merge.CI Gate — FAILING (Blocking)
All required CI gates must be green before a PR can be merged. The following are currently failing:
CI / lintCI / unit_testsCI / integration_testsCI / tdd_quality_gateCI / status-checkCI / coveragePer company policy, all CI gates must pass before a PR is reviewed or merged. The code-level issues below likely explain the CI failures. Fix all of them and let CI go green before requesting re-review.
BLOCKER 1 — Wrong branch name prefix
The branch is named
fix/cli-session-tell-format-flag. Issue #10466 isType/Bugon milestonev3.2.0(m2), so the correct prefix per CONTRIBUTING.md isbugfix/with milestone shorthandm2. The required branch name is:Only
feature/,bugfix/, andtdd/prefixes are valid. Thefix/prefix is not recognised. Fix by renaming the branch.BLOCKER 2 — Missing
Type/label on PRThe PR has no labels at all. Per CONTRIBUTING.md, every PR must have exactly one
Type/label. Since this addresses bug #10466, the required label isType/Bug. Please add it.BLOCKER 3 — TDD workflow not followed
Issue #10466 is
Type/Bug. The project requires the TDD bug-fix workflow:tdd/mN-*branch with a failing test tagged@tdd_bug_10466(with@expected_fail)tdd/PR is merged first, putting a known-failing test intomasterbugfix/mN-*PR implements the fix and removes@expected_failfrom the testThis PR skips that workflow:
@format_flag, not@tdd_bug_10466@expected_faildecorator in the difftdd_quality_gateCI failure is a direct consequenceFix: re-tag the TDD scenario(s)
@tdd_bug_10466and ensure the TDD PR (with@expected_fail) was submitted and merged before this bugfix PR.BLOCKER 4 — Commit message has leading whitespace
The commit message first line begins with a space:
This violates the Conventional Changelog format. The correct first line (verbatim from issue Metadata) is:
Please amend the commit to remove the leading space.
BLOCKER 5 —
CHANGELOG.mdhas duplicate# ChangelogheaderCHANGELOG.mdnow begins:There are two identical top-level headings. Remove the duplicate so there is exactly one
# Changelog.BLOCKER 6 — Inconsistent CHANGELOG section headers
The PR adds its entry under a new
## [Unreleased]section (with square brackets), while the existing unreleased section is headed## Unreleased(without). This creates two separate unreleased sections. Merge the new entry into the existing## Unreleasedsection.Non-blocking Suggestions
Suggestion: The
@format_flagtag on scenarios has no role in the TDD or CI workflow — after fixing BLOCKER 3, consider whether it serves a useful purpose for selective Behave runs. If not, remove it to keep scenario tags minimal.Suggestion: The PR title says "add BDD tests" but the commit message describes an implementation change. Clarify the title to accurately reflect that this PR adds BDD test coverage for an already-implemented feature.
10-Category Checklist
@tdd_bug_10466tag; TDD workflow skipped# type: ignoreAction required: Fix all 6 blockers, run
noxlocally until fully green, then request re-review.Automated by CleverAgents Bot
Supervisor: PR Review | Agent: pr-review-worker
BLOCKER — Duplicate
# ChangelogheaderThe file now opens with two consecutive
# Changelogheadings. Remove the second duplicate.BLOCKER — Two
Unreleasedsections with inconsistent namingThere is an existing
## Unreleasedsection (no brackets) higher in the file, and this PR adds a## [Unreleased]section (with brackets) further down. Merge the new entry into the existing## Unreleasedsection instead of creating a second one.Automated by CleverAgents Bot
Supervisor: PR Review | Agent: pr-review-worker
BLOCKER — Wrong scenario tag (TDD workflow violation)
These 6 new scenarios carry
@format_flagbut the TDD bug-fix workflow requires@tdd_bug_10466. Thetdd_quality_gateCI job searches specifically for this tag pattern and its paired@expected_failremoval in the PR diff. Both are absent, which is whytdd_quality_gateis failing.How to fix:
bugfix/m2-cli-session-tell-format-flagtdd/m2-cli-session-tell-format-flag) was submitted with@expected_fail @tdd_bug_10466on the test and merged first@tdd_bug_10466(drop@format_flagunless it serves a distinct purpose)@expected_faildecorator removedAutomated by CleverAgents Bot
Supervisor: PR Review | Agent: pr-review-worker
Automated by CleverAgents Bot
Supervisor: PR Review | Agent: pr-review-worker
[CONTROLLER-DEFER:Gate 1:full_duplicate]
This PR has been deferred for re-evaluation. The controller has stepped back
from processing it. To resume, a human or scope-evaluator must clear the
deferral flag AND re-add the auto/sentinel label.
Decision:
To clear the deferral (SQL):
UPDATE workflows SET deferred_reason=NULL,
deferred_at=NULL,
deferred_target_workflow_id=NULL
WHERE workflow_id = 500;
Audit ID: 172342
Automated by the CleverAgents controller pipeline.
Identity: HAL9000 (pipeline action)
📋 Estimate: tier 1.
PR adds 6 BDD scenarios and step definitions for the --format flag on
agents session tell(+201/-0, 4 files). Three CI issues require non-mechanical fixes: (1) ruff format reformat of the steps file, (2) missing @tdd_bug_10466 tag — applying the TDD bug-fix workflow convention correctly, (3) a newly-added scenario (Tell table format outputs ASCII table) that is failing in unit_tests, requiring diagnosis of the assertion mismatch against actual CLI output. Integration/status-check failures appear pre-existing and unrelated. Scope is limited to 2–3 test files but requires TDD workflow knowledge and test debugging.a0d154f0729cf1a14969(attempt #9, tier 2)
🔧 Implementer attempt —
ci-not-ready.✅ Approved
Reviewed at commit
8d62a51.Confidence: high.
Claimed by
merge_drive.py(pid 2329255) until2026-06-14T20:06:11.203585+00:00.This claim is advisory and will be released when the cycle ends, or after the TTL by a sibling driver's expired-claim sweep.
Approved by the controller reviewer stage (workflow 500).