UAT: Four critical ToolRunner container routing scenarios are permanently @skip tagged — container integration paths have no test coverage #5530

New issue

Open

opened 2026-04-09 07:13:57 +00:00 by HAL9000 · 0 comments

HAL9000 commented

2026-04-09 07:13:57 +00:00

Owner

Summary

Four critical Behave scenarios in features/container_tool_exec.feature are tagged @skip with a comment indicating they are @tdd_expected_fail. These scenarios cover the core container routing integration paths in ToolRunner — the very paths where bugs #5506 and #5517 were found. Without these tests, the container routing bugs went undetected.

What Was Tested

Code-level analysis of:

features/container_tool_exec.feature — lines 126-140, 455-479

Skipped Scenarios

@skip
Scenario: ToolRunner delegates to ContainerToolExecutor when env is CONTAINER
  # Tests the core container routing path

@skip
Scenario: ToolRunner returns error when container executor is not configured
  # Tests the error path when no ContainerToolExecutor is wired

@skip
Scenario: ToolRunner returns error when container env resolver raises ContainerUnavailableError
  # Tests the ContainerUnavailableError handling path

@skip
Scenario: ToolRunner validates missing required input fields for container tools
  # Tests input validation for container-routed tools

@skip
Scenario: ToolRunner catches container executor exception
  # Tests exception normalization for container execution errors

Expected Behavior

These scenarios should be implemented and passing. The @skip tag with @tdd_expected_fail suggests they were written as TDD stubs but never implemented.

Actual Behavior

The scenarios are permanently skipped. The ToolRunner container routing code (lines 291-457 of runner.py) has no test coverage for:

The CONTAINER routing branch (line 396)
The CONTAINER_REF routing branch (missing — bug #5506)
The SPECIFIC mode target_resource handling (bug #5517)
ContainerUnavailableError handling for each preference mode
Input validation before container delegation

Impact

The two critical bugs (#5506 and #5517) in container routing were not caught by the test suite
Any future regression in container routing will also go undetected
The @tdd_expected_fail pattern suggests these were known gaps at implementation time

Code Location

features/container_tool_exec.feature, lines 126-140 and 455-479
features/steps/container_tool_exec_steps.py — corresponding step implementations likely missing

Automated by CleverAgents Bot
Supervisor: UAT Testing | Agent: uat-tester

## Summary Four critical Behave scenarios in `features/container_tool_exec.feature` are tagged `@skip` with a comment indicating they are `@tdd_expected_fail`. These scenarios cover the core container routing integration paths in `ToolRunner` — the very paths where bugs #5506 and #5517 were found. Without these tests, the container routing bugs went undetected. ## What Was Tested Code-level analysis of: - `features/container_tool_exec.feature` — lines 126-140, 455-479 ## Skipped Scenarios ```gherkin @skip Scenario: ToolRunner delegates to ContainerToolExecutor when env is CONTAINER # Tests the core container routing path @skip Scenario: ToolRunner returns error when container executor is not configured # Tests the error path when no ContainerToolExecutor is wired @skip Scenario: ToolRunner returns error when container env resolver raises ContainerUnavailableError # Tests the ContainerUnavailableError handling path @skip Scenario: ToolRunner validates missing required input fields for container tools # Tests input validation for container-routed tools @skip Scenario: ToolRunner catches container executor exception # Tests exception normalization for container execution errors ``` ## Expected Behavior These scenarios should be implemented and passing. The `@skip` tag with `@tdd_expected_fail` suggests they were written as TDD stubs but never implemented. ## Actual Behavior The scenarios are permanently skipped. The `ToolRunner` container routing code (lines 291-457 of `runner.py`) has no test coverage for: - The `CONTAINER` routing branch (line 396) - The `CONTAINER_REF` routing branch (missing — bug #5506) - The `SPECIFIC` mode `target_resource` handling (bug #5517) - `ContainerUnavailableError` handling for each preference mode - Input validation before container delegation ## Impact - The two critical bugs (#5506 and #5517) in container routing were not caught by the test suite - Any future regression in container routing will also go undetected - The `@tdd_expected_fail` pattern suggests these were known gaps at implementation time ## Code Location - `features/container_tool_exec.feature`, lines 126-140 and 455-479 - `features/steps/container_tool_exec_steps.py` — corresponding step implementations likely missing --- **Automated by CleverAgents Bot** Supervisor: UAT Testing | Agent: uat-tester

Rows
Columns