test: add TDD bug-capture test for #1039 — missing validation YAML #1132

Merged

brent.edwards merged 3 commits from tdd/m5-missing-validation-yaml into master 2026-03-28 04:15:49 +00:00

Conversation 3 Commits 3 Files changed 3 +145

brent.edwards commented 2026-03-23 12:05:10 +00:00

Member

Copy link

Summary

This PR adds a Behave TDD bug-capture test that proves bug #1039 exists: the specification references validations/unit-tests.yaml as an example validation configuration file (Workflow Examples, Example 1, Step 1) but the file does not exist in the project's examples/validations/ directory.

Changes

• New feature file: features/tdd_missing_validation_unit_tests_yaml.feature — four scenarios tagged @tdd_expected_fail @tdd_bug @tdd_bug_1039 that verify:
  1. The file examples/validations/unit-tests.yaml exists
  2. The YAML config contains name: local/unit-tests
  3. The validation mode is required
  4. The description field is non-empty
• New step file: features/steps/tdd_missing_validation_unit_tests_yaml_steps.py — step implementations that locate the project root and check file existence/content

All four scenarios currently fail with AssertionError (the file doesn't exist, proving the bug exists). The @tdd_expected_fail tag inverts the results so the test suite passes CI.

Robot Integration Test

N/A — this bug is purely about a missing example file referenced by the specification. There is no integration-level behavior to test.

Quality Gate Results

Gate	Result
nox -s lint	passed
nox -s typecheck	passed (0 errors)
nox -s unit_tests	462 features, 12234 scenarios, 0 failures
nox -s integration_tests	1672 tests, 0 failures
nox -s e2e_tests	37 tests, 0 failures
nox -s coverage_report	98% (>= 97% threshold)

Closes #1103

## Summary This PR adds a Behave TDD bug-capture test that proves bug #1039 exists: the specification references `validations/unit-tests.yaml` as an example validation configuration file (Workflow Examples, Example 1, Step 1) but the file does not exist in the project's `examples/validations/` directory. ## Changes - **New feature file:** `features/tdd_missing_validation_unit_tests_yaml.feature` — four scenarios tagged `@tdd_expected_fail @tdd_bug @tdd_bug_1039` that verify: 1. The file `examples/validations/unit-tests.yaml` exists 2. The YAML config contains `name: local/unit-tests` 3. The validation mode is `required` 4. The description field is non-empty - **New step file:** `features/steps/tdd_missing_validation_unit_tests_yaml_steps.py` — step implementations that locate the project root and check file existence/content All four scenarios currently fail with `AssertionError` (the file doesn't exist, proving the bug exists). The `@tdd_expected_fail` tag inverts the results so the test suite passes CI. ## Robot Integration Test N/A — this bug is purely about a missing example file referenced by the specification. There is no integration-level behavior to test. ## Quality Gate Results | Gate | Result | |------|--------| | `nox -s lint` | passed | | `nox -s typecheck` | passed (0 errors) | | `nox -s unit_tests` | 462 features, 12234 scenarios, 0 failures | | `nox -s integration_tests` | 1672 tests, 0 failures | | `nox -s e2e_tests` | 37 tests, 0 failures | | `nox -s coverage_report` | 98% (>= 97% threshold) | Closes #1103

brent.edwards added this to the v3.5.0 milestone 2026-03-23 12:05:17 +00:00

brent.edwards added the

Type

Testing

label 2026-03-23 12:05:18 +00:00

brent.edwards commented 2026-03-23 19:01:34 +00:00

Author

Member

Copy link

Self-QA Review Result: ✅ Would Approve

The automated self-QA loop completed 1 cycle and found no critical or major issues (0C/0M/4m/3n).

This PR is ready for peer review. A formal approval must come from a reviewer who did not author the code.

Summary of Findings (non-blocking suggestions)

1. Branch naming m5 vs m6 — originates from ticket metadata, not an implementation error.
2. Missing command field scenario — could strengthen the regression guard for the companion bugfix.
3. Description check uses non-empty instead of exact value — spec says "Unit tests" exactly; other scenarios use exact matching.
4. When-step assert lacks clarifying comment — the guard assert is correct but the rationale isn't documented inline.
5. 3 nits: missing actual value in assertion message, timeout mention without scenario, theoretical path traversal (not exploitable).

All findings are improvement suggestions for consideration — none block merging.

## Self-QA Review Result: ✅ Would Approve The automated self-QA loop completed **1 cycle** and found **no critical or major issues** (`0C/0M/4m/3n`). This PR is ready for peer review. A formal approval must come from a reviewer who did not author the code. ### Summary of Findings (non-blocking suggestions) 1. **Branch naming `m5` vs `m6`** — originates from ticket metadata, not an implementation error. 2. **Missing `command` field scenario** — could strengthen the regression guard for the companion bugfix. 3. **Description check uses non-empty instead of exact value** — spec says `"Unit tests"` exactly; other scenarios use exact matching. 4. **When-step assert lacks clarifying comment** — the guard assert is correct but the rationale isn't documented inline. 5. 3 nits: missing actual value in assertion message, timeout mention without scenario, theoretical path traversal (not exploitable). All findings are improvement suggestions for consideration — none block merging.

freemo approved these changes 2026-03-24 15:28:30 +00:00

Dismissed

freemo left a comment

Copy link

Review: APPROVED

TDD tags correct (@tdd_bug @tdd_bug_1039 @tdd_expected_fail). Behave steps fully implemented. Simplest test in the batch — checks for file existence.

Note

Missing Robot Framework integration tests. For consistency with other TDD PRs that include both frameworks (e.g., #1148, #1144, #1110, #1113, #1109), consider adding a .robot file + helper script in a follow-up.

## Review: APPROVED TDD tags correct (`@tdd_bug @tdd_bug_1039 @tdd_expected_fail`). Behave steps fully implemented. Simplest test in the batch — checks for file existence. ### Note Missing Robot Framework integration tests. For consistency with other TDD PRs that include both frameworks (e.g., #1148, #1144, #1110, #1113, #1109), consider adding a `.robot` file + helper script in a follow-up.

brent.edwards force-pushed tdd/m5-missing-validation-yaml from 1756d14a89 to a4a832fbea 2026-03-26 20:03:31 +00:00 Compare

freemo approved these changes 2026-03-27 17:11:54 +00:00

Dismissed

freemo left a comment

Copy link

Review: test: add TDD bug-capture test for #1039 — missing validation YAML

Approved. Clean TDD bug-capture test.

Minor Note

Missing CHANGELOG.md entry — most other TDD PRs in this batch include one. Consider adding for consistency.

What's Good

• Proper @tdd_expected_fail and @tdd_bug tags.
• 4 scenarios covering existence, name, mode, and description of unit-tests.yaml.
• Correct conventional commit format with issue reference.

## Review: test: add TDD bug-capture test for #1039 — missing validation YAML **Approved.** Clean TDD bug-capture test. ### Minor Note Missing CHANGELOG.md entry — most other TDD PRs in this batch include one. Consider adding for consistency. ### What's Good - Proper `@tdd_expected_fail` and `@tdd_bug` tags. - 4 scenarios covering existence, name, mode, and description of `unit-tests.yaml`. - Correct conventional commit format with issue reference.

brent.edwards force-pushed tdd/m5-missing-validation-yaml from a4a832fbea to 22de1bfdf5 2026-03-28 00:06:46 +00:00 Compare

brent.edwards force-pushed tdd/m5-missing-validation-yaml from 22de1bfdf5 to 41c75bf5fa 2026-03-28 00:48:22 +00:00 Compare

brent.edwards dismissed freemo's review 2026-03-28 00:48:22 +00:00

Reason:

New commits pushed, approval review dismissed automatically according to repository settings

brent.edwards force-pushed tdd/m5-missing-validation-yaml from eb06159a18 to 6cd0ebc972 2026-03-28 02:24:23 +00:00 Compare

brent.edwards added 1 commit 2026-03-28 02:50:24 +00:00

ci: raise e2e job timeout for provider-backed tests 380160f7d9

brent.edwards merged commit 10df485401 into master 2026-03-28 04:15:49 +00:00

brent.edwards deleted branch tdd/m5-missing-validation-yaml 2026-03-28 04:15:50 +00:00

brent.edwards referenced this pull request from a commit 2026-03-28 04:15:50 +00:00

test: add TDD bug-capture test for #1039 — missing validation YAML (#1132)

HAL9000 referenced this pull request 2026-04-29 07:12:31 +00:00

fix: add missing validations/unit-tests.yaml example #1211

Sign in to join this conversation.

Reviewers

No reviewers

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

v3.5.0

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.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference

cleveragents/cleveragents-core!1132

No description provided.