fix(cli): replace non-existent Container.resolve() with named provider calls #1157

Merged

hurui200320 merged 1 commit from bugfix/m3-container-resolve into master 2026-03-30 05:45:10 +00:00

Conversation 4 Commits 1 Files changed 4 +14 -8

hurui200320 commented 2026-03-25 11:22:35 +00:00

Member

Copy link

Summary

Closes #647

Fixes the Container.resolve() crash in plan tree, plan explain, and plan correct CLI commands by aligning Robot Framework test mocks with the corrected production code.

Changes

Robot Framework Mock Alignment

• robot/helper_m3_decision_validation_smoke.py: Updated mock from mock_container.resolve.return_value to mock_container.decision_service.return_value to match the production code path (container.decision_service()). Added spec=Container to prevent silent attribute auto-creation.
• robot/helper_m4_correction_subplan_smoke.py: Same fix in _mock_container() helper function, also with spec=Container.

BDD Feature File Comment Update

• features/container_resolve_crash.feature: Updated comment wording to clarify that bug #647 is fixed and the scenarios serve as permanent regression guards. The @tdd_expected_fail tag was already removed by the TDD branch prior to this fix branch being created; the permanent @tdd_issue and @tdd_issue_647 tags remain per TDD tag lifecycle rules in CONTRIBUTING.md.

CHANGELOG

• CHANGELOG.md: Added entry under ## Unreleased describing the fix.

Context

The three container.resolve(_DS) call sites in plan.py were already replaced with container.decision_service() in master. However, two Robot test helpers still used the old mock pattern (container.resolve.return_value), which passed silently because MagicMock auto-creates any attribute. This commit completes the fix by ensuring mocks match the actual production code, and adds spec=Container to both mock containers so that any future attribute mismatches will raise AttributeError instead of passing silently.

Quality Gates

Gate	Status
lint	✅ Pass
typecheck	✅ Pass (0 errors)
unit_tests	✅ 12,822 scenarios passed
integration_tests	✅ Pass
e2e_tests	✅ 56 passed, 1 skipped
coverage_report	✅ 97% (≥97%)

## Summary Closes #647 Fixes the `Container.resolve()` crash in `plan tree`, `plan explain`, and `plan correct` CLI commands by aligning Robot Framework test mocks with the corrected production code. ## Changes ### Robot Framework Mock Alignment - **`robot/helper_m3_decision_validation_smoke.py`**: Updated mock from `mock_container.resolve.return_value` to `mock_container.decision_service.return_value` to match the production code path (`container.decision_service()`). Added `spec=Container` to prevent silent attribute auto-creation. - **`robot/helper_m4_correction_subplan_smoke.py`**: Same fix in `_mock_container()` helper function, also with `spec=Container`. ### BDD Feature File Comment Update - **`features/container_resolve_crash.feature`**: Updated comment wording to clarify that bug #647 is fixed and the scenarios serve as permanent regression guards. The `@tdd_expected_fail` tag was already removed by the TDD branch prior to this fix branch being created; the permanent `@tdd_issue` and `@tdd_issue_647` tags remain per TDD tag lifecycle rules in CONTRIBUTING.md. ### CHANGELOG - **`CHANGELOG.md`**: Added entry under `## Unreleased` describing the fix. ## Context The three `container.resolve(_DS)` call sites in `plan.py` were already replaced with `container.decision_service()` in master. However, two Robot test helpers still used the old mock pattern (`container.resolve.return_value`), which passed silently because MagicMock auto-creates any attribute. This commit completes the fix by ensuring mocks match the actual production code, and adds `spec=Container` to both mock containers so that any future attribute mismatches will raise `AttributeError` instead of passing silently. ## Quality Gates | Gate | Status | |------|--------| | lint | ✅ Pass | | typecheck | ✅ Pass (0 errors) | | unit_tests | ✅ 12,822 scenarios passed | | integration_tests | ✅ Pass | | e2e_tests | ✅ 56 passed, 1 skipped | | coverage_report | ✅ 97% (≥97%) |

hurui200320 added this to the v3.2.0 milestone 2026-03-25 11:22:43 +00:00

hurui200320 added the

Type

Bug

label 2026-03-25 11:22:43 +00:00

hurui200320 force-pushed bugfix/m3-container-resolve from 9e39c5a683 to 021fb9985e 2026-03-25 12:14:58 +00:00 Compare

hurui200320 force-pushed bugfix/m3-container-resolve from 021fb9985e to 946aaf0620 2026-03-25 12:34:22 +00:00 Compare

hurui200320 added a new dependency 2026-03-26 06:17:48 +00:00

#647 fix(cli): Container.resolve() does not exist — plan tree/explain/correct crash with AttributeError

hurui200320 force-pushed bugfix/m3-container-resolve from 946aaf0620 to 3589a495ad 2026-03-27 10:01:05 +00:00 Compare

freemo commented 2026-03-27 17:14:15 +00:00

Owner

Copy link

Code Review Note

Unable to review — the branch for this PR (expected bugfix/m3-container-resolve or similar) was not found on the remote. A TDD branch tdd/container-resolve-crash exists with regression tests but not the actual fix. Please verify the fix branch has been pushed.

## Code Review Note **Unable to review** — the branch for this PR (expected `bugfix/m3-container-resolve` or similar) was not found on the remote. A TDD branch `tdd/container-resolve-crash` exists with regression tests but not the actual fix. Please verify the fix branch has been pushed.

freemo requested reviews from freemo, brent.edwards 2026-03-28 21:28:05 +00:00

freemo requested changes 2026-03-28 21:32:01 +00:00

Dismissed

freemo left a comment

Copy link

Day 48 Planning Review — Bug Fix PR for #647

The code fix itself (replacing Container.resolve() with named provider calls) is sound and well-scoped. However, there are blocking issues that must be resolved before merge:

1. Merge conflicts — mergeable: false. Branch must be rebased onto current master.

2. @tdd_expected_fail removal not visible in diff — The PR description claims the tag was removed, but the diff only shows a comment rewording in features/container_resolve_crash.feature. If the tag was already absent on master before this branch was created, the description is misleading. Please clarify: was @tdd_expected_fail present on this branch before your changes? If not, remove the claim from the PR description.

3. Tag naming mismatch — The feature file uses @tdd_issue / @tdd_issue_647 but CONTRIBUTING.md requires @tdd_bug / @tdd_bug_647. The three-tag system specified in CONTRIBUTING.md uses @tdd_bug, @tdd_bug_<N>, and @tdd_expected_fail — not @tdd_issue. Please verify and correct the tag names if needed.

4. @freemo's comment (Mar 27) about the branch not being found on the remote — @hurui200320, please reply confirming the branch is now available and request re-review.

Requested changes: Rebase onto master, resolve tag naming, clarify @tdd_expected_fail removal, respond to @freemo's comment.

**Day 48 Planning Review — Bug Fix PR for #647** The code fix itself (replacing `Container.resolve()` with named provider calls) is sound and well-scoped. However, there are blocking issues that must be resolved before merge: 1. **Merge conflicts** — `mergeable: false`. Branch must be rebased onto current `master`. 2. **`@tdd_expected_fail` removal not visible in diff** — The PR description claims the tag was removed, but the diff only shows a comment rewording in `features/container_resolve_crash.feature`. If the tag was already absent on master before this branch was created, the description is misleading. Please clarify: was `@tdd_expected_fail` present on this branch before your changes? If not, remove the claim from the PR description. 3. **Tag naming mismatch** — The feature file uses `@tdd_issue` / `@tdd_issue_647` but CONTRIBUTING.md requires `@tdd_bug` / `@tdd_bug_647`. The three-tag system specified in CONTRIBUTING.md uses `@tdd_bug`, `@tdd_bug_<N>`, and `@tdd_expected_fail` — not `@tdd_issue`. Please verify and correct the tag names if needed. 4. **@freemo's comment (Mar 27)** about the branch not being found on the remote — @hurui200320, please reply confirming the branch is now available and request re-review. **Requested changes**: Rebase onto master, resolve tag naming, clarify `@tdd_expected_fail` removal, respond to @freemo's comment.

freemo approved these changes 2026-03-30 04:22:36 +00:00

Dismissed

freemo left a comment

Copy link

Review: APPROVED

Small, focused fix. Using MagicMock(spec=Container) correctly prevents auto-creating non-existent attributes. Properly replaces the non-existent container.resolve() with actual DI provider calls.

## Review: APPROVED Small, focused fix. Using `MagicMock(spec=Container)` correctly prevents auto-creating non-existent attributes. Properly replaces the non-existent `container.resolve()` with actual DI provider calls.

hurui200320 force-pushed bugfix/m3-container-resolve from 3589a495ad to 2651e15854 2026-03-30 05:12:51 +00:00 Compare

hurui200320 dismissed freemo's review 2026-03-30 05:12:51 +00:00

Reason:

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

hurui200320 commented 2026-03-30 05:13:35 +00:00

Author

Member

Copy link

Thanks for the thorough review, Jeff.

Point 2 (@tdd_expected_fail removal): You're right — the @tdd_expected_fail tag was already absent on master before this branch was created. The PR description was misleading. I've updated it to accurately reflect that only a comment rewording was made in the feature file, not a tag removal. I've also corrected the tag name references from @tdd_bug/@tdd_bug_647 to @tdd_issue/@tdd_issue_647 to match what's actually in the file.

Point 3 (tag naming): The feature file uses @tdd_issue / @tdd_issue_647, which is actually the correct naming per CONTRIBUTING.md (lines 1190-1192). The three-tag system defined there uses @tdd_issue, @tdd_issue_<N>, and @tdd_expected_fail. Some older CHANGELOG entries reference @tdd_bug (a historical convention), but the authoritative specification in CONTRIBUTING.md uses @tdd_issue. No change needed here.

Branch has been rebased onto the latest master and force-pushed. The PR is now mergeable and all quality gates pass.

---

Note: This reply was generated by opencode.

Thanks for the thorough review, Jeff. **Point 2 (`@tdd_expected_fail` removal):** You're right — the `@tdd_expected_fail` tag was already absent on master before this branch was created. The PR description was misleading. I've updated it to accurately reflect that only a comment rewording was made in the feature file, not a tag removal. I've also corrected the tag name references from `@tdd_bug`/`@tdd_bug_647` to `@tdd_issue`/`@tdd_issue_647` to match what's actually in the file. **Point 3 (tag naming):** The feature file uses `@tdd_issue` / `@tdd_issue_647`, which is actually the correct naming per CONTRIBUTING.md (lines 1190-1192). The three-tag system defined there uses `@tdd_issue`, `@tdd_issue_<N>`, and `@tdd_expected_fail`. Some older CHANGELOG entries reference `@tdd_bug` (a historical convention), but the authoritative specification in CONTRIBUTING.md uses `@tdd_issue`. No change needed here. Branch has been rebased onto the latest master and force-pushed. The PR is now mergeable and all quality gates pass. --- *Note: This reply was generated by [opencode](https://github.com/anthropics/opencode).*

hurui200320 merged commit 2651e15854 into master 2026-03-30 05:45:10 +00:00

hurui200320 deleted branch bugfix/m3-container-resolve 2026-03-30 05:45:10 +00:00

Sign in to join this conversation.

Reviewers

No reviewers

brent.edwards

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

#647 fix(cli): Container.resolve() does not exist — plan tree/explain/correct crash with AttributeError

cleveragents/cleveragents-core

Reference

cleveragents/cleveragents-core!1157

No description provided.