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

test(e2e): TDD failing tests for E2E mock-only coverage (bug #658) #738

Merged
brent.edwards merged 2 commits from tdd/m6-e2e-mock-only-coverage into master 2026-03-12 22:02:02 +00:00
Conversation 2 Commits 2 Files changed 4 +592
brent.edwards commented 2026-03-12 18:36:17 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Summary

TDD counterpart for bug #658. Adds failing tests that demonstrate M1-M6 E2E verification suites use mocked CliRunner invocations instead of real subprocess.run calls against the agents CLI binary.

Closes #697
Refs: #658

Test Coverage

Behave (3 scenarios)

  • features/tdd_e2e_mock_only_coverage.feature — 3 scenarios tagged @tdd_bug @tdd_bug_658 @tdd_expected_fail:
    1. At least one M1 E2E helper function uses real subprocess CLI invocation — AST-parses helper_m1_e2e_verification.py looking for subprocess.run calls
    2. At least one M3 E2E helper function uses real subprocess CLI invocation — same for M3
    3. At least one M6 E2E helper function uses real subprocess CLI invocation — same for M6

Robot Framework (3 test cases)

  • robot/tdd_e2e_mock_only_coverage.robot — 3 test cases tagged tdd_bug, tdd_bug_658, tdd_expected_fail:
    1. M1 E2E Helper Has Real CLI Subprocess Call
    2. M3 E2E Helper Has Real CLI Subprocess Call
    3. M6 E2E Helper Has Real CLI Subprocess Call

Detection Method

Both Behave step definitions and Robot helper use AST analysis to parse the Python helper files and detect:

  • subprocess.run(...) calls with agents in arguments
  • run_cli(...) calls (the shared helper from helper_e2e_common.py)

All 6 tests are tagged @tdd_expected_fail and are expected to fail on the current master branch. The companion bugfix PR #784 removes the @tdd_expected_fail tags after converting the helpers to use real subprocess invocations.

TDD Workflow

Per CONTRIBUTING.md: this TDD branch must merge to master first, then the bugfix branch (#784) implements the fix and removes @tdd_expected_fail.

## Summary TDD counterpart for bug #658. Adds failing tests that demonstrate M1-M6 E2E verification suites use mocked `CliRunner` invocations instead of real `subprocess.run` calls against the `agents` CLI binary. Closes #697 Refs: #658 ## Test Coverage ### Behave (3 scenarios) - `features/tdd_e2e_mock_only_coverage.feature` — 3 scenarios tagged `@tdd_bug @tdd_bug_658 @tdd_expected_fail`: 1. **At least one M1 E2E helper function uses real subprocess CLI invocation** — AST-parses `helper_m1_e2e_verification.py` looking for `subprocess.run` calls 2. **At least one M3 E2E helper function uses real subprocess CLI invocation** — same for M3 3. **At least one M6 E2E helper function uses real subprocess CLI invocation** — same for M6 ### Robot Framework (3 test cases) - `robot/tdd_e2e_mock_only_coverage.robot` — 3 test cases tagged `tdd_bug`, `tdd_bug_658`, `tdd_expected_fail`: 1. **M1 E2E Helper Has Real CLI Subprocess Call** 2. **M3 E2E Helper Has Real CLI Subprocess Call** 3. **M6 E2E Helper Has Real CLI Subprocess Call** ### Detection Method Both Behave step definitions and Robot helper use AST analysis to parse the Python helper files and detect: - `subprocess.run(...)` calls with `agents` in arguments - `run_cli(...)` calls (the shared helper from `helper_e2e_common.py`) All 6 tests are tagged `@tdd_expected_fail` and are expected to fail on the current `master` branch. The companion bugfix PR #784 removes the `@tdd_expected_fail` tags after converting the helpers to use real subprocess invocations. ## TDD Workflow Per CONTRIBUTING.md: this TDD branch must merge to master first, then the bugfix branch (#784) implements the fix and removes `@tdd_expected_fail`.
test(e2e): TDD failing tests for E2E mock-only coverage (bug #658)
All checks were successful
CI / benchmark-publish (pull_request) Has been skipped
Details
CI / build (pull_request) Successful in 16s
Details
CI / lint (pull_request) Successful in 20s
Details
CI / quality (pull_request) Successful in 20s
Details
CI / typecheck (pull_request) Successful in 38s
Details
CI / security (pull_request) Successful in 47s
Details
CI / unit_tests (pull_request) Successful in 3m19s
Details
CI / docker (pull_request) Successful in 40s
Details
CI / integration_tests (pull_request) Successful in 5m17s
Details
CI / coverage (pull_request) Successful in 5m38s
Details
CI / benchmark-regression (pull_request) Successful in 35m56s
Details
6806ef3620 
Add Behave and Robot Framework TDD tests that use AST analysis to
inspect the M1-M6 E2E verification helper files and prove that all
21 CLI-facing test functions use unittest.mock.patch + CliRunner
instead of exercising the real CLI via subprocess invocation.

The tests verify three properties that currently fail (proving #658):
- At least one CLI-facing test uses subprocess instead of CliRunner
- At least one CLI-facing test exercises the real service layer
- Every suite with CLI tests has at least one unmocked test

Tagged @tdd_expected_fail so the tests pass CI while the bug is
present.  The @tdd_expected_fail tag inverts the result: the tests
pass because the underlying assertions fail (confirming the bug).
Once #658 is fixed, the tag is removed and the tests run normally.

Files added:
- features/tdd_e2e_mock_only_coverage.feature (3 scenarios)
- features/steps/tdd_e2e_mock_only_coverage_steps.py
- robot/tdd_e2e_mock_only_coverage.robot (3 test cases)
- robot/helper_tdd_e2e_mock_only_coverage.py

ISSUES CLOSED: #697
brent.edwards added this to the v3.5.0 milestone 2026-03-12 18:37:06 +00:00
freemo requested changes 2026-03-12 20:37:20 +00:00
freemo left a comment
Copy link

Review — PR #738: test(e2e): TDD failing tests for E2E mock-only coverage (bug #658)

Diff Summary

  • Files changed: 4 (3 new files + 1 new feature file)
    • features/tdd_e2e_mock_only_coverage.feature (new, 37 lines)
    • features/steps/tdd_e2e_mock_only_coverage_steps.py (new, 257 lines)
    • robot/tdd_e2e_mock_only_coverage.robot (new, 44 lines)
    • robot/helper_tdd_e2e_mock_only_coverage.py (new, 254 lines)
  • Lines: +476 / −0 (all additions)

Commit Message Compliance

  • Issue #658 does not have a Metadata section with a prescribed Commit Message field — it is a bug report, not a standard task ticket.
  • PR commit first line: test(e2e): TDD failing tests for E2E mock-only coverage (bug #658)
  • Since no prescribed commit message exists, this is acceptable. ✅

Closes Keyword

  • ❌ Missing. The PR body is completely empty. There is no Closes #658 keyword anywhere. The title references bug #658 but that is not a recognized auto-close syntax.

Label Compliance

Required Label Status
Type label ✅ Type/Testing
Priority label ✅ Priority/Critical
MoSCoW label ❌ Missing (issue has MoSCoW/Must have)

PR Body

  • ❌ Empty. The PR body field is blank. Per CONTRIBUTING.md, PRs should include a summary of changes.

Test Coverage

  • ✅ Behave BDD: 3 scenarios in .feature file with step definitions — good.
  • ✅ Robot Framework: 3 corresponding test cases in .robot file with helper — good.
  • The @tdd_expected_fail / tdd_expected_fail tagging pattern correctly handles the TDD inversion (tests pass CI while the bug exists, fail once fixed).
  • ASV benchmark: not included, but this is a TDD diagnostic/audit PR, not a feature — benchmarks are not applicable here.

Code Quality

  • The AST-based analysis approach is well-designed: it programmatically inspects the M1-M6 helper files rather than hardcoding expected outcomes.
  • The FunctionAnalysis dataclass and helper functions (_is_cli_runner_invoke, _is_patch_call, etc.) are clean and well-documented.
  • There is significant code duplication between features/steps/tdd_e2e_mock_only_coverage_steps.py and robot/helper_tdd_e2e_mock_only_coverage.py — the FunctionAnalysis dataclass, _analyze_helper(), and all AST utility functions are copy-pasted. Consider extracting the shared analysis logic into a common module (e.g., cleveragents/testing/e2e_mock_audit.py) and importing from both the Behave steps and the Robot helper. This reduces maintenance burden and prevents the two copies from diverging.
  • The _SERVICE_MOCK_INDICATORS frozenset is identical in both files — another reason to share code.

Required Changes

  1. Add Closes #658 (or appropriate keyword) to the PR body.
  2. Write a PR body with at minimum a summary of what the PR does and why.
  3. Add MoSCoW/Must have label to the PR.

Suggestion (non-blocking)

  1. Extract duplicated AST analysis code into a shared module to avoid maintaining two identical copies.
## Review — PR #738: test(e2e): TDD failing tests for E2E mock-only coverage (bug #658) ### Diff Summary - **Files changed:** 4 (3 new files + 1 new feature file) - `features/tdd_e2e_mock_only_coverage.feature` (new, 37 lines) - `features/steps/tdd_e2e_mock_only_coverage_steps.py` (new, 257 lines) - `robot/tdd_e2e_mock_only_coverage.robot` (new, 44 lines) - `robot/helper_tdd_e2e_mock_only_coverage.py` (new, 254 lines) - **Lines:** +476 / −0 (all additions) ### Commit Message Compliance - Issue #658 does **not** have a Metadata section with a prescribed Commit Message field — it is a bug report, not a standard task ticket. - PR commit first line: `test(e2e): TDD failing tests for E2E mock-only coverage (bug #658)` - Since no prescribed commit message exists, this is acceptable. ✅ ### Closes Keyword - ❌ **Missing.** The PR body is completely empty. There is no `Closes #658` keyword anywhere. The title references `bug #658` but that is not a recognized auto-close syntax. ### Label Compliance | Required Label | Status | |---|---| | Type label | ✅ `Type/Testing` | | Priority label | ✅ `Priority/Critical` | | MoSCoW label | ❌ Missing (issue has `MoSCoW/Must have`) | ### PR Body - ❌ **Empty.** The PR body field is blank. Per CONTRIBUTING.md, PRs should include a summary of changes. ### Test Coverage - ✅ Behave BDD: 3 scenarios in `.feature` file with step definitions — good. - ✅ Robot Framework: 3 corresponding test cases in `.robot` file with helper — good. - The `@tdd_expected_fail` / `tdd_expected_fail` tagging pattern correctly handles the TDD inversion (tests pass CI while the bug exists, fail once fixed). - ASV benchmark: not included, but this is a TDD diagnostic/audit PR, not a feature — benchmarks are not applicable here. ### Code Quality - The AST-based analysis approach is well-designed: it programmatically inspects the M1-M6 helper files rather than hardcoding expected outcomes. - The `FunctionAnalysis` dataclass and helper functions (`_is_cli_runner_invoke`, `_is_patch_call`, etc.) are clean and well-documented. - There is significant code duplication between `features/steps/tdd_e2e_mock_only_coverage_steps.py` and `robot/helper_tdd_e2e_mock_only_coverage.py` — the `FunctionAnalysis` dataclass, `_analyze_helper()`, and all AST utility functions are copy-pasted. Consider extracting the shared analysis logic into a common module (e.g., `cleveragents/testing/e2e_mock_audit.py`) and importing from both the Behave steps and the Robot helper. This reduces maintenance burden and prevents the two copies from diverging. - The `_SERVICE_MOCK_INDICATORS` frozenset is identical in both files — another reason to share code. ### Required Changes 1. **Add `Closes #658`** (or appropriate keyword) to the PR body. 2. **Write a PR body** with at minimum a summary of what the PR does and why. 3. **Add `MoSCoW/Must have` label** to the PR. ### Suggestion (non-blocking) 4. Extract duplicated AST analysis code into a shared module to avoid maintaining two identical copies.
Merge branch 'master' into tdd/m6-e2e-mock-only-coverage
All checks were successful
CI / benchmark-publish (pull_request) Has been skipped
Details
CI / lint (pull_request) Successful in 14s
Details
CI / build (pull_request) Successful in 15s
Details
CI / quality (pull_request) Successful in 18s
Details
CI / e2e_tests (pull_request) Successful in 34s
Details
CI / security (pull_request) Successful in 37s
Details
CI / typecheck (pull_request) Successful in 39s
Details
CI / unit_tests (pull_request) Successful in 4m46s
Details
CI / integration_tests (pull_request) Successful in 5m11s
Details
CI / docker (pull_request) Successful in 42s
Details
CI / coverage (pull_request) Successful in 5m35s
Details
CI / benchmark-regression (pull_request) Successful in 36m16s
Details
703511a28f
brent.edwards commented 2026-03-12 21:50:29 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Response to Review #2172 (@freemo)

All 3 required changes addressed:

  1. Closes keyword: PR body now includes Closes #697 (the TDD tracking issue) and Refs: #658 (the parent bug). Per TDD workflow, it's PR #784 (the fix) that Closes #658 — this PR closes the TDD issue #697.
  2. PR body: Populated with full summary, test coverage breakdown, detection method, and TDD workflow notes.
  3. MoSCoW/Must have label: Already present on the PR.

Re: suggestion #4 (extract duplicated AST analysis code) — acknowledged. This is a valid DRY improvement. Given this is a TDD diagnostic PR with a short lifespan (will be superseded by #784's fix removing @tdd_expected_fail), I'd prefer to address it as a follow-up to keep this PR focused on the TDD tests. The duplication is between the Behave steps and Robot helper, which are in different test frameworks with different import paths — a shared module is the right approach but adds complexity to the build for what are disposable diagnostic tests.

## Response to Review #2172 (@freemo) All 3 required changes addressed: 1. **`Closes` keyword**: PR body now includes `Closes #697` (the TDD tracking issue) and `Refs: #658` (the parent bug). Per TDD workflow, it's PR #784 (the fix) that `Closes #658` — this PR closes the TDD issue #697. 2. **PR body**: Populated with full summary, test coverage breakdown, detection method, and TDD workflow notes. 3. **`MoSCoW/Must have` label**: Already present on the PR. Re: suggestion #4 (extract duplicated AST analysis code) — acknowledged. This is a valid DRY improvement. Given this is a TDD diagnostic PR with a short lifespan (will be superseded by #784's fix removing `@tdd_expected_fail`), I'd prefer to address it as a follow-up to keep this PR focused on the TDD tests. The duplication is between the Behave steps and Robot helper, which are in different test frameworks with different import paths — a shared module is the right approach but adds complexity to the build for what are disposable diagnostic tests.
brent.edwards deleted branch tdd/m6-e2e-mock-only-coverage 2026-03-12 22:02:03 +00:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
CoreRasurae
freemo
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
brent.edwards
2 participants
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!738
No description provided.