cleveragents/cleveragents-core
cleveragents/cleveragents-core
4
0
Fork 3
Code Issues 6.1k Pull requests 489 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

fix(ci): update nightly workflow coverage minimum to 97% per project requirements #3161

Merged
freemo merged 1 commit from fix/nightly-coverage-min-threshold into master 2026-04-05 21:10:08 +00:00
Conversation 4 Commits 1 Files changed 2 +3 -3
freemo commented 2026-04-05 07:06:41 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Summary

Fixes the nightly workflow quality gates script which was using --coverage-min 85 instead of the project-required --coverage-min 97.

Problem

The nightly workflow .forgejo/workflows/nightly-quality.yml had an inconsistency:

  • nox -s coverage_report enforces 97% (correct, via COVERAGE_THRESHOLD = 97 in noxfile.py)
  • python scripts/check-quality-gates.py --coverage-min 85 used 85% (incorrect, below threshold)

This weakened quality gate was inconsistent with the project's 97% coverage requirement and would cause BDD scenarios asserting "at least 97" to fail.

Changes

.forgejo/workflows/nightly-quality.yml

  • Changed --coverage-min 85 → --coverage-min 97 in the "Run quality gates script" step

features/consolidated_config.feature

  • Updated the nightly workflow coverage scenario from "at least 85 percent" → "at least 97 percent" to properly enforce the project's coverage requirement

Verification

Manual verification confirms the fix:

  • The nightly workflow now contains --coverage-min 97
  • The BDD step step_nightly_fail_under finds 97 and confirms 97 >= 97 ✓
  • Lint and format quality gates pass ✓

Closes

Closes #2769

Automated by CleverAgents Bot
Supervisor: Implementation | Agent: ca-issue-worker

## Summary Fixes the nightly workflow quality gates script which was using `--coverage-min 85` instead of the project-required `--coverage-min 97`. ## Problem The nightly workflow `.forgejo/workflows/nightly-quality.yml` had an inconsistency: - `nox -s coverage_report` enforces 97% (correct, via `COVERAGE_THRESHOLD = 97` in `noxfile.py`) - `python scripts/check-quality-gates.py --coverage-min 85` used 85% (incorrect, below threshold) This weakened quality gate was inconsistent with the project's 97% coverage requirement and would cause BDD scenarios asserting "at least 97" to fail. ## Changes ### `.forgejo/workflows/nightly-quality.yml` - Changed `--coverage-min 85` → `--coverage-min 97` in the "Run quality gates script" step ### `features/consolidated_config.feature` - Updated the nightly workflow coverage scenario from "at least 85 percent" → "at least 97 percent" to properly enforce the project's coverage requirement ## Verification Manual verification confirms the fix: - The nightly workflow now contains `--coverage-min 97` - The BDD step `step_nightly_fail_under` finds `97` and confirms `97 >= 97` ✓ - Lint and format quality gates pass ✓ ## Closes Closes #2769 --- **Automated by CleverAgents Bot** Supervisor: Implementation | Agent: ca-issue-worker
fix(ci): update nightly workflow coverage minimum to 97% per project requirements
All checks were successful
CI / lint (pull_request) Successful in 22s
Details
CI / typecheck (pull_request) Successful in 52s
Details
CI / quality (pull_request) Successful in 36s
Details
CI / build (pull_request) Successful in 22s
Details
CI / security (pull_request) Successful in 1m3s
Details
CI / helm (pull_request) Successful in 23s
Details
CI / unit_tests (pull_request) Successful in 6m42s
Details
CI / coverage (pull_request) Successful in 10m51s
Details
CI / docker (pull_request) Successful in 1m22s
Details
CI / e2e_tests (pull_request) Successful in 17m16s
Details
CI / integration_tests (pull_request) Successful in 23m11s
Details
CI / status-check (pull_request) Successful in 1s
Details
CI / benchmark-publish (pull_request) Has been skipped
Details
CI / benchmark-regression (pull_request) Successful in 57m9s
Details
f97847c24a 
Update the nightly workflow quality gates script invocation to use
--coverage-min 97 instead of --coverage-min 85, aligning it with the
project's required COVERAGE_THRESHOLD = 97 defined in noxfile.py.

Also update the consolidated_config.feature BDD scenario to assert
the nightly workflow uses at least 97% (not 85%) to properly enforce
the coverage threshold requirement.

ISSUES CLOSED: #2769
freemo added this to the v3.2.0 milestone 2026-04-05 07:07:46 +00:00
freemo commented 2026-04-05 07:15:08 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

🔒 Review claimed by reviewer-pool-1 [claim-token: reviewer-pool-1-3161-1775372600]

Automated by CleverAgents Bot
Supervisor: PR Review | Agent: ca-continuous-pr-reviewer

🔒 Review claimed by reviewer-pool-1 [claim-token: reviewer-pool-1-3161-1775372600] --- **Automated by CleverAgents Bot** Supervisor: PR Review | Agent: ca-continuous-pr-reviewer
freemo commented 2026-04-05 07:56:20 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

🔒 Review claimed by reviewer-pool-1 [claim-token: reviewer-pool-1-3161-1743897600]

Automated by CleverAgents Bot
Supervisor: PR Review | Agent: ca-continuous-pr-reviewer

🔒 Review claimed by reviewer-pool-1 [claim-token: reviewer-pool-1-3161-1743897600] --- **Automated by CleverAgents Bot** Supervisor: PR Review | Agent: ca-continuous-pr-reviewer
freemo reviewed 2026-04-05 07:57:21 +00:00
freemo left a comment
Copy link

Independent Review: APPROVED ✅

Summary

Clean, well-scoped bug fix that corrects an inconsistency between the nightly workflow's quality gates script (--coverage-min 85) and the project's actual coverage requirement (COVERAGE_THRESHOLD = 97 in noxfile.py).

What Was Reviewed

Files changed (2):

  1. .forgejo/workflows/nightly-quality.yml — threshold value 85 → 97
  2. features/consolidated_config.feature — BDD scenario updated to assert 97 instead of 85

Review Criteria Assessment

Criteria Status Notes
Specification Alignment ✅ Aligns nightly workflow with project's 97% coverage requirement
Correctness ✅ step_nightly_fail_under regex correctly matches --coverage-min 97 and validates 97 >= 97
Test Quality ✅ BDD scenario updated in lockstep with the config change
API Consistency ✅ N/A — no API changes
Code Quality ✅ Minimal, focused change — exactly what's needed
Security ✅ No secrets, no injection risks

Verification

  • noxfile.py confirms COVERAGE_THRESHOLD = 97 (line 475)
  • nox -s coverage_report uses --fail-under={COVERAGE_THRESHOLD} (line 595)
  • The nightly workflow's check-quality-gates.py call now matches at --coverage-min 97
  • The BDD step implementation (step_nightly_fail_under) correctly parses both --fail-under=N and --coverage-min N patterns

CI Status

All required checks passing: lint ✅, typecheck ✅, security ✅, quality ✅, unit_tests ✅, coverage ✅, integration_tests ✅, e2e_tests ✅, status-check ✅

Process Note

Added missing Type/Bug label to the PR to satisfy CONTRIBUTING.md requirements.

Note: Unable to submit formal APPROVED review via API due to self-approval restriction (PR author and reviewer share the same Forgejo account). This review represents an independent code analysis and the changes are approved from a technical standpoint.

Automated by CleverAgents Bot
Supervisor: PR Review | Agent: ca-pr-self-reviewer

## Independent Review: APPROVED ✅ ### Summary Clean, well-scoped bug fix that corrects an inconsistency between the nightly workflow's quality gates script (`--coverage-min 85`) and the project's actual coverage requirement (`COVERAGE_THRESHOLD = 97` in `noxfile.py`). ### What Was Reviewed **Files changed (2):** 1. `.forgejo/workflows/nightly-quality.yml` — threshold value `85` → `97` 2. `features/consolidated_config.feature` — BDD scenario updated to assert `97` instead of `85` ### Review Criteria Assessment | Criteria | Status | Notes | |---|---|---| | **Specification Alignment** | ✅ | Aligns nightly workflow with project's 97% coverage requirement | | **Correctness** | ✅ | `step_nightly_fail_under` regex correctly matches `--coverage-min 97` and validates `97 >= 97` | | **Test Quality** | ✅ | BDD scenario updated in lockstep with the config change | | **API Consistency** | ✅ | N/A — no API changes | | **Code Quality** | ✅ | Minimal, focused change — exactly what's needed | | **Security** | ✅ | No secrets, no injection risks | ### Verification - `noxfile.py` confirms `COVERAGE_THRESHOLD = 97` (line 475) - `nox -s coverage_report` uses `--fail-under={COVERAGE_THRESHOLD}` (line 595) - The nightly workflow's `check-quality-gates.py` call now matches at `--coverage-min 97` - The BDD step implementation (`step_nightly_fail_under`) correctly parses both `--fail-under=N` and `--coverage-min N` patterns ### CI Status All required checks passing: lint ✅, typecheck ✅, security ✅, quality ✅, unit_tests ✅, coverage ✅, integration_tests ✅, e2e_tests ✅, status-check ✅ ### Process Note Added missing `Type/Bug` label to the PR to satisfy CONTRIBUTING.md requirements. **Note:** Unable to submit formal APPROVED review via API due to self-approval restriction (PR author and reviewer share the same Forgejo account). This review represents an independent code analysis and the changes are approved from a technical standpoint. --- **Automated by CleverAgents Bot** Supervisor: PR Review | Agent: ca-pr-self-reviewer
freemo reviewed 2026-04-05 08:46:43 +00:00
freemo left a comment
Copy link

Code Review — LGTM ✅

PR: fix(ci): update nightly workflow coverage minimum to 97% per project requirements

Review Checklist

✅ Correctness: Fixes --coverage-min 85 → --coverage-min 97 in nightly workflow. Aligns with COVERAGE_THRESHOLD = 97 in noxfile.py and project requirements.

✅ Minimal diff: Single-line change in CI workflow file.

✅ Commit Format: fix(ci): follows Conventional Changelog format.

✅ Labels/Milestone: Type/Bug, milestone v3.2.0 — correctly assigned.

Decision: LGTM — Proceeding to merge when CI passes.

Automated by CleverAgents Bot
Supervisor: PR Review | Agent: ca-continuous-pr-reviewer

## Code Review — LGTM ✅ **PR:** fix(ci): update nightly workflow coverage minimum to 97% per project requirements ### Review Checklist **✅ Correctness:** Fixes `--coverage-min 85` → `--coverage-min 97` in nightly workflow. Aligns with `COVERAGE_THRESHOLD = 97` in `noxfile.py` and project requirements. **✅ Minimal diff:** Single-line change in CI workflow file. **✅ Commit Format:** `fix(ci):` follows Conventional Changelog format. **✅ Labels/Milestone:** `Type/Bug`, milestone `v3.2.0` — correctly assigned. ### Decision: **LGTM** — Proceeding to merge when CI passes. --- **Automated by CleverAgents Bot** Supervisor: PR Review | Agent: ca-continuous-pr-reviewer
freemo scheduled this pull request to auto merge when all checks succeed 2026-04-05 08:48:20 +00:00
freemo merged commit 660a194012 into master 2026-04-05 21:09:50 +00:00
freemo removed this from the v3.2.0 milestone 2026-04-06 20:50:42 +00:00
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
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
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!3161
No description provided.