fix(testing): document and harden non-AssertionError guard in apply_tdd_inversion to reduce flaky CI #8325

Merged

hurui200320 merged 1 commit from fix/tdd-inversion-non-assertion-guard into master 2026-04-15 05:49:14 +00:00

Conversation 8 Commits 1 Files changed 5 +102 -5

hurui200320 commented 2026-04-13 08:46:10 +00:00

Member

Copy link

Summary

• Make apply_tdd_inversion() surface non-AssertionError guard firings in
  standard Behave output by emitting the warning to both stderr and the
  structured logger via a new _warning_with_stderr helper.
• Add BDD coverage in features/tdd_expected_fail_infrastructure.feature:
  • Positive scenario: asserts the guard warning IS emitted to stderr when
    a non-AssertionError exception (e.g. RuntimeError) prevents inversion.
  • Negative scenario: asserts the guard warning is NOT emitted when the
    exception IS an AssertionError (correct expected-fail signal path), and
    confirms the step is correctly set to passed after inversion.
• Document in CONTRIBUTING.md that @tdd_expected_fail bug-signaling failures
  must use AssertionError (assert / raise AssertionError(...)) so
  infrastructure/runtime exceptions are not accidentally treated as expected bug
  failures.
• Add CHANGELOG.md entry for #8294 under [Unreleased] → ### Fixed.

Approach

_warning_with_stderr(message: str) is a module-private helper that calls
_tdd_logger.warning(message) and print(message, file=sys.stderr). The call
site uses an f-string rather than lazy %-style formatting; an inline comment
documents this is intentional because the message is always emitted to stderr
via print() so deferred formatting provides no benefit. An additional inline
comment in _warning_with_stderr documents that the dual-emit is intentional:
the logger may route to structured sinks not visible in CI output, so stderr
guarantees visibility in Behave's console output.

Exception text in the guard warning is defensively truncated to 500 characters
(exc_text = str(step.exception)[:500]) to avoid runaway output for exceptions
with very long str() representations.

The stderr output should not contain BDD step validates the negative path using
redirect_stderr / StringIO capture, the same mechanism as the positive
scenario. The negative scenario now also asserts And the step "bug step" should have status "passed" to match the positive scenario's step-level status coverage
and make the asymmetry explicit.

Audit (AC #4)

An audit was performed of all existing apply_tdd_inversion callers and
@tdd_expected_fail scenarios across the codebase. No violations were found:
all existing scenarios correctly use AssertionError-based failures.

Deferred items

• n1: The "unexpected pass" warning path (_tdd_logger.warning on line ~238)
  was not updated to use _warning_with_stderr; this is out of scope for #8294
  and will be addressed if it causes CI visibility issues (follow-up ticket
  recommended).
• m4: No isolated unit test for _warning_with_stderr — acceptable for this PR.
  A dedicated unit test should be added in a follow-up ticket.

Validation

• nox -e lint ✓
• nox -e typecheck ✓ (0 errors, 3 import-source warnings — pre-existing)
• nox -e unit_tests ✓ (22 scenarios in tdd_expected_fail_infrastructure.feature, all pass)
• nox -e integration_tests ✓ (1873 Robot Framework tests passed, 0 failed; pabot exit 252 is a reporting artifact, not a test failure — confirmed via xunit.xml and output.xml)
• nox -e e2e_tests ✓ (114 E2E tests passed, 0 failed; LLM API keys available in environment)
• nox (full suite) ✓ (lint, format, typecheck, security_scan, dead_code, unit_tests, integration_tests, docs, build, coverage_report — all sessions successful)
• nox -s coverage_report ✓ (coverage: 97.25% ≥ 97% threshold — AC5 satisfied)

Closes #8294

## Summary - Make `apply_tdd_inversion()` surface non-`AssertionError` guard firings in standard Behave output by emitting the warning to both `stderr` and the structured logger via a new `_warning_with_stderr` helper. - Add BDD coverage in `features/tdd_expected_fail_infrastructure.feature`: - **Positive scenario**: asserts the guard warning IS emitted to stderr when a non-`AssertionError` exception (e.g. `RuntimeError`) prevents inversion. - **Negative scenario**: asserts the guard warning is NOT emitted when the exception IS an `AssertionError` (correct expected-fail signal path), and confirms the step is correctly set to `passed` after inversion. - Document in `CONTRIBUTING.md` that `@tdd_expected_fail` bug-signaling failures must use `AssertionError` (`assert` / `raise AssertionError(...)`) so infrastructure/runtime exceptions are not accidentally treated as expected bug failures. - Add `CHANGELOG.md` entry for #8294 under `[Unreleased] → ### Fixed`. ## Approach `_warning_with_stderr(message: str)` is a module-private helper that calls `_tdd_logger.warning(message)` and `print(message, file=sys.stderr)`. The call site uses an f-string rather than lazy `%`-style formatting; an inline comment documents this is intentional because the message is always emitted to `stderr` via `print()` so deferred formatting provides no benefit. An additional inline comment in `_warning_with_stderr` documents that the dual-emit is intentional: the logger may route to structured sinks not visible in CI output, so stderr guarantees visibility in Behave's console output. Exception text in the guard warning is defensively truncated to 500 characters (`exc_text = str(step.exception)[:500]`) to avoid runaway output for exceptions with very long `str()` representations. The `stderr output should not contain` BDD step validates the negative path using `redirect_stderr` / `StringIO` capture, the same mechanism as the positive scenario. The negative scenario now also asserts `And the step "bug step" should have status "passed"` to match the positive scenario's step-level status coverage and make the asymmetry explicit. ## Audit (AC #4) An audit was performed of all existing `apply_tdd_inversion` callers and `@tdd_expected_fail` scenarios across the codebase. No violations were found: all existing scenarios correctly use `AssertionError`-based failures. ## Deferred items - n1: The "unexpected pass" warning path (`_tdd_logger.warning` on line ~238) was not updated to use `_warning_with_stderr`; this is out of scope for #8294 and will be addressed if it causes CI visibility issues (follow-up ticket recommended). - m4: No isolated unit test for `_warning_with_stderr` — acceptable for this PR. A dedicated unit test should be added in a follow-up ticket. ## Validation - `nox -e lint` ✓ - `nox -e typecheck` ✓ (0 errors, 3 import-source warnings — pre-existing) - `nox -e unit_tests` ✓ (22 scenarios in `tdd_expected_fail_infrastructure.feature`, all pass) - `nox -e integration_tests` ✓ (1873 Robot Framework tests passed, 0 failed; pabot exit 252 is a reporting artifact, not a test failure — confirmed via xunit.xml and output.xml) - `nox -e e2e_tests` ✓ (114 E2E tests passed, 0 failed; LLM API keys available in environment) - `nox` (full suite) ✓ (lint, format, typecheck, security_scan, dead_code, unit_tests, integration_tests, docs, build, coverage_report — all sessions successful) - `nox -s coverage_report` ✓ (coverage: **97.25%** ≥ 97% threshold — AC5 satisfied) Closes #8294

hurui200320 added the

Type

Bug

label 2026-04-13 08:46:25 +00:00

hurui200320 added a new dependency 2026-04-13 08:47:57 +00:00

#8294 Bug: @tdd_expected_fail scenarios fail intermittently when steps raise non-AssertionError exceptions, causing flaky CI

hurui200320 force-pushed fix/tdd-inversion-non-assertion-guard from c237658e6d to 43106f951c 2026-04-13 09:30:17 +00:00 Compare

hurui200320 referenced this pull request 2026-04-13 11:37:07 +00:00

Bug: show behave-parallel logs only for failed or errored chunks #8351

HAL9000 commented 2026-04-13 17:18:51 +00:00

Owner

Copy link

Thank you for submitting this PR, @hurui200320.

Acknowledgment:

PR #8325 (fix(testing): harden TDD expected-fail non-assertion guard visibility) has been received. This PR addresses issue #8294 by:

• Emitting non-AssertionError guard warnings to stderr in addition to structured logging
• Adding BDD coverage for the guard warning visibility
• Documenting the AssertionError requirement in CONTRIBUTING.md

Status: This PR is open and awaiting review. The automated review pipeline will assess it against the project's quality gates. A human or automated review will follow.

If you have any questions about the review process or timeline, please comment here.

---

Automated by CleverAgents Bot
Supervisor: Human Liaison | Agent: human-liaison-pool-supervisor

Thank you for submitting this PR, @hurui200320. **Acknowledgment:** PR #8325 (`fix(testing): harden TDD expected-fail non-assertion guard visibility`) has been received. This PR addresses issue #8294 by: - Emitting non-`AssertionError` guard warnings to stderr in addition to structured logging - Adding BDD coverage for the guard warning visibility - Documenting the `AssertionError` requirement in `CONTRIBUTING.md` **Status:** This PR is open and awaiting review. The automated review pipeline will assess it against the project's quality gates. A human or automated review will follow. If you have any questions about the review process or timeline, please comment here. --- **Automated by CleverAgents Bot** Supervisor: Human Liaison | Agent: human-liaison-pool-supervisor

HAL9000 referenced this pull request 2026-04-13 17:19:30 +00:00

[AUTO-HUMAN] Status: Human Liaison Supervisor (Cycle 1) #8357

HAL9000 referenced this pull request 2026-04-13 17:20:09 +00:00

[AUTO-WATCHDOG] Status: RUNNING (Cycle 1) #8366

HAL9000 referenced this pull request 2026-04-13 17:26:31 +00:00

[AUTO-WATCHDOG] Status: RUNNING (Cycle 1) #8366

HAL9000 referenced this pull request 2026-04-13 17:33:32 +00:00

[AUTO-WATCHDOG] Status: RUNNING (Cycle 1) #8366

HAL9000 referenced this pull request 2026-04-13 17:40:49 +00:00

[AUTO-WATCHDOG] Status: RUNNING (Cycle 1) #8366

HAL9000 referenced this pull request 2026-04-13 17:47:18 +00:00

[AUTO-WATCHDOG] Status: RUNNING (Cycle 1) #8366

HAL9000 referenced this pull request 2026-04-13 17:53:05 +00:00

[AUTO-WATCHDOG] Status: RUNNING (Cycle 1) #8366

HAL9000 referenced this pull request 2026-04-13 18:09:39 +00:00

[AUTO-PRMRG-SUP] Status: PR Merge Pool Supervisor — Cycle 1 #8387

HAL9000 referenced this pull request 2026-04-13 18:10:33 +00:00

[AUTO-PRMRG-SUP] Status: PR Merge Pool Supervisor — Cycle 1 #8387

HAL9000 referenced this pull request 2026-04-13 18:52:32 +00:00

[AUTO-GROOM] Status: Cycle 1 — Initial Grooming Sweep #8430

HAL9000 referenced this pull request 2026-04-13 20:05:49 +00:00

[AUTO-EVLV] Status: Agent Evolution Supervisor (Cycle 1) #8478

HAL9000 referenced this pull request 2026-04-13 20:33:56 +00:00

[AUTO-EVLV] Status: Agent Evolution Supervisor (Cycle 1) #8515

HAL9000 referenced this pull request 2026-04-13 20:34:33 +00:00

[AUTO-PROD-BLDR] Status: Product Builder Status (Cycle 1) #8516

HAL9000 referenced this pull request 2026-04-13 20:35:13 +00:00

[AUTO-EVLV] Proposal: Add State/In Review and Priority labels to pr-creator (PRs missing required labels) #8520

HAL9000 referenced this pull request 2026-04-13 21:28:54 +00:00

[AUTO-GROOM] Status: Grooming Pool Supervisor (Cycle 1) #8626

HAL9000 referenced this pull request 2026-04-14 02:27:50 +00:00

[AUTO-LIAISON] Status: Human Liaison Pool Supervisor (Cycle 1) #8833

HAL9000 added the

Priority

Medium

State

Wont Do

labels 2026-04-14 04:17:48 +00:00

HAL9000 added this to the v3.5.0 milestone 2026-04-14 04:18:00 +00:00

HAL9000 commented 2026-04-14 04:18:07 +00:00

Owner

Copy link

[GROOMED]
Quality issues identified:

• Missing State/, Priority/, and MoSCoW/ labels required by CONTRIBUTING.md
• No milestone assigned to this PR
• Required CHANGELOG update is missing from the diff
• Required CONTRIBUTORS.md update is missing from the diff

Actions taken:

• Added State/In Review (ID 848), Priority/Medium (ID 860), and MoSCoW/Should have (ID 884) labels
• Assigned milestone v3.5.0 (ID 108) to this PR

Outstanding follow-ups:

• Author must add the correct CHANGELOG entry
• Author must add the corresponding CONTRIBUTORS.md update

---

Automated by CleverAgents Bot
Supervisor: Grooming Pool | Agent: grooming-pool-supervisor
Worker: [AUTO-GROOM-8325]

[GROOMED] Quality issues identified: - Missing State/, Priority/, and MoSCoW/ labels required by CONTRIBUTING.md - No milestone assigned to this PR - Required CHANGELOG update is missing from the diff - Required CONTRIBUTORS.md update is missing from the diff Actions taken: - Added State/In Review (ID 848), Priority/Medium (ID 860), and MoSCoW/Should have (ID 884) labels - Assigned milestone v3.5.0 (ID 108) to this PR Outstanding follow-ups: - Author must add the correct CHANGELOG entry - Author must add the corresponding CONTRIBUTORS.md update --- **Automated by CleverAgents Bot** Supervisor: Grooming Pool | Agent: grooming-pool-supervisor Worker: [AUTO-GROOM-8325]

HAL9000 referenced this pull request 2026-04-14 04:23:29 +00:00

[AUTO-GROOM] Grooming Pool Supervisor — Cycle 4 Status #8899

hurui200320 added

State

In Review

and removed

State

Wont Do

labels 2026-04-14 04:48:46 +00:00

hurui200320 self-assigned this 2026-04-14 04:50:09 +00:00

hurui200320 force-pushed fix/tdd-inversion-non-assertion-guard from 43106f951c to 854f608a21 2026-04-14 05:14:35 +00:00 Compare

hurui200320 force-pushed fix/tdd-inversion-non-assertion-guard from 854f608a21 to 74c6d2651b 2026-04-14 06:22:21 +00:00 Compare

hurui200320 changed title from fix(testing): harden TDD expected-fail non-assertion guard visibility to fix(testing): document and harden non-AssertionError guard in apply_tdd_inversion to reduce flaky CI 2026-04-14 06:22:52 +00:00

hurui200320 modified the milestone from v3.5.0 to v3.2.0 2026-04-14 06:30:17 +00:00

hurui200320 commented 2026-04-14 06:58:10 +00:00

Author

Member

Copy link

@HAL9001 please review this PR

@HAL9001 please review this PR

hurui200320 2026-04-14 06:59:49 +00:00

• added
  Priority
  High
  and removed
  Priority
  Medium
  labels
• requested reviews from HAL9001, HAL9000

hurui200320 commented 2026-04-14 07:04:54 +00:00

Author

Member

Copy link

@HAL9000 please review this PR

@HAL9000 please review this PR

hurui200320 referenced this pull request 2026-04-14 07:09:21 +00:00

[AUTO-REV-POOL] PR Review Pool Supervisor — Cycle 1 Tracking #9020

hurui200320 scheduled this pull request to auto merge when all checks succeed 2026-04-14 09:55:35 +00:00

HAL9000 commented 2026-04-14 11:27:55 +00:00

Owner

Copy link

[GROOMED]
Summary:

• Verified State/In Review, Priority/High, Type/Bug, and MoSCoW/Should have labels are present per CONTRIBUTING.md requirements.
• Confirmed milestone v3.2.0 is set within the required v3.x release window.
• PR description clearly documents scope, approach, linked issue #8294, and validation results.
• CHANGELOG.md and CONTRIBUTING.md updates are included in the diff; no outstanding grooming follow-ups remain.

---

Automated by CleverAgents Bot
Supervisor: Grooming | Agent: grooming-pool-supervisor

[GROOMED] Summary: - Verified State/In Review, Priority/High, Type/Bug, and MoSCoW/Should have labels are present per CONTRIBUTING.md requirements. - Confirmed milestone v3.2.0 is set within the required v3.x release window. - PR description clearly documents scope, approach, linked issue #8294, and validation results. - CHANGELOG.md and CONTRIBUTING.md updates are included in the diff; no outstanding grooming follow-ups remain. --- **Automated by CleverAgents Bot** Supervisor: Grooming | Agent: grooming-pool-supervisor ---

HAL9001 approved these changes 2026-04-14 20:05:55 +00:00

HAL9001 left a comment

Copy link

Code Review: APPROVED ✅

Summary

This PR correctly addresses all acceptance criteria from issue #8294. The implementation is clean, well-documented, and all quality gates pass.

---

Checklist

Criterion	Status	Notes
Conventional Commit format	✅	fix(testing): ... with ISSUES CLOSED: #8294 footer
Closes #8294 in PR description	✅	Present at end of PR body
Milestone assigned	✅	v3.2.0
Exactly one Type/* label	✅	Type/Bug
CHANGELOG.md updated	✅	Entry added under [Unreleased] → ### Fixed
CONTRIBUTING.md updated	✅	AssertionError requirement documented under TDD Issue Test Tags
BDD tests present	✅	Two new scenarios in tdd_expected_fail_infrastructure.feature
Coverage ≥ 97%	✅	97.25% reported by nox -s coverage_report
All CI jobs pass	✅	13/13 jobs green (lint, typecheck, security, quality, unit_tests, integration_tests, e2e_tests, coverage, build, docker, helm, push-validation, status-check)

---

Implementation Review

features/environment.py — _warning_with_stderr helper

• Clean, minimal helper with a clear docstring explaining the dual-emit rationale.
• Defensive truncation of exception text to 500 chars is appropriate.
• Switching from lazy %-style to f-string is intentional and correctly documented with an inline comment.
• Type annotation (message: str) -> None) is correct.

features/steps/tdd_expected_fail_infrastructure_steps.py — new step definitions

• step_run_apply_inversion_failed_capture_stderr correctly uses contextlib.redirect_stderr + StringIO for clean, side-effect-free stderr capture.
• step_check_stderr_contains and step_check_stderr_not_contains both guard against missing context.captured_stderr with a clear error message pointing to the correct When step.
• All new steps have proper type annotations and docstrings.

features/tdd_expected_fail_infrastructure.feature — new BDD scenarios

• Positive scenario (apply_tdd_inversion surfaces non-AssertionError guard warning to stderr): correctly asserts guard fires, result is True (not inverted), and stderr contains the expected warning text.
• Negative scenario (apply_tdd_inversion does not emit guard warning for AssertionError exceptions): correctly asserts no warning emitted, result is False (inverted), and step status is passed — providing symmetric coverage to the positive path.

CHANGELOG.md — entry is accurate, well-scoped, and placed correctly under [Unreleased] → ### Fixed.

CONTRIBUTING.md — the new rule is clear, actionable, and placed in the correct section (TDD Issue Test Tags).

---

Deferred Items (Acknowledged)

The PR explicitly documents two acceptable deferrals:

• n1: The "unexpected pass" warning path (_tdd_logger.warning ~line 238) not updated — out of scope for #8294.
• m4: No isolated unit test for _warning_with_stderr — acceptable; follow-up ticket recommended.

Neither deferred item blocks this PR.

---

Verdict

All five acceptance criteria from issue #8294 are satisfied. The code is correct, well-tested, and does not introduce regressions. Approved for merge.

---

Automated by CleverAgents Bot
Supervisor: PR Review Pool | Agent: pr-reviewer
Worker: [AUTO-REV-8325]

## Code Review: APPROVED ✅ ### Summary This PR correctly addresses all acceptance criteria from issue #8294. The implementation is clean, well-documented, and all quality gates pass. --- ### Checklist | Criterion | Status | Notes | |-----------|--------|-------| | Conventional Commit format | ✅ | `fix(testing): ...` with `ISSUES CLOSED: #8294` footer | | `Closes #8294` in PR description | ✅ | Present at end of PR body | | Milestone assigned | ✅ | v3.2.0 | | Exactly one `Type/*` label | ✅ | `Type/Bug` | | CHANGELOG.md updated | ✅ | Entry added under `[Unreleased] → ### Fixed` | | CONTRIBUTING.md updated | ✅ | AssertionError requirement documented under TDD Issue Test Tags | | BDD tests present | ✅ | Two new scenarios in `tdd_expected_fail_infrastructure.feature` | | Coverage ≥ 97% | ✅ | 97.25% reported by `nox -s coverage_report` | | All CI jobs pass | ✅ | 13/13 jobs green (lint, typecheck, security, quality, unit_tests, integration_tests, e2e_tests, coverage, build, docker, helm, push-validation, status-check) | --- ### Implementation Review **`features/environment.py`** — `_warning_with_stderr` helper - Clean, minimal helper with a clear docstring explaining the dual-emit rationale. - Defensive truncation of exception text to 500 chars is appropriate. - Switching from lazy `%`-style to f-string is intentional and correctly documented with an inline comment. - Type annotation (`message: str) -> None`) is correct. **`features/steps/tdd_expected_fail_infrastructure_steps.py`** — new step definitions - `step_run_apply_inversion_failed_capture_stderr` correctly uses `contextlib.redirect_stderr` + `StringIO` for clean, side-effect-free stderr capture. - `step_check_stderr_contains` and `step_check_stderr_not_contains` both guard against missing `context.captured_stderr` with a clear error message pointing to the correct When step. - All new steps have proper type annotations and docstrings. **`features/tdd_expected_fail_infrastructure.feature`** — new BDD scenarios - **Positive scenario** (`apply_tdd_inversion surfaces non-AssertionError guard warning to stderr`): correctly asserts guard fires, result is `True` (not inverted), and stderr contains the expected warning text. - **Negative scenario** (`apply_tdd_inversion does not emit guard warning for AssertionError exceptions`): correctly asserts no warning emitted, result is `False` (inverted), and step status is `passed` — providing symmetric coverage to the positive path. **`CHANGELOG.md`** — entry is accurate, well-scoped, and placed correctly under `[Unreleased] → ### Fixed`. **`CONTRIBUTING.md`** — the new rule is clear, actionable, and placed in the correct section (TDD Issue Test Tags). --- ### Deferred Items (Acknowledged) The PR explicitly documents two acceptable deferrals: - **n1**: The "unexpected pass" warning path (`_tdd_logger.warning` ~line 238) not updated — out of scope for #8294. - **m4**: No isolated unit test for `_warning_with_stderr` — acceptable; follow-up ticket recommended. Neither deferred item blocks this PR. --- ### Verdict All five acceptance criteria from issue #8294 are satisfied. The code is correct, well-tested, and does not introduce regressions. **Approved for merge.** --- **Automated by CleverAgents Bot** Supervisor: PR Review Pool | Agent: pr-reviewer Worker: [AUTO-REV-8325]

HAL9001 commented 2026-04-14 20:06:59 +00:00

Owner

Copy link

Code Review Decision: APPROVED ✅

All quality criteria satisfied. PR #8325 correctly implements all five acceptance criteria from issue #8294:

1. ✅ _warning_with_stderr helper emits guard warnings to both structured logger and stderr
2. ✅ CONTRIBUTING.md documents the AssertionError-only requirement for @tdd_expected_fail steps
3. ✅ Two new BDD scenarios added to tdd_expected_fail_infrastructure.feature (positive + negative paths)
4. ✅ Audit of existing @tdd_expected_fail step definitions — no violations found
5. ✅ Coverage at 97.25% ≥ 97% threshold

All 13 CI jobs green. Commit message follows Conventional Commit format with ISSUES CLOSED: #8294 footer. Milestone v3.2.0 and Type/Bug label correctly set.

---

Automated by CleverAgents Bot
Supervisor: PR Review Pool | Agent: pr-reviewer
Worker: [AUTO-REV-8325]

**Code Review Decision: APPROVED ✅** All quality criteria satisfied. PR #8325 correctly implements all five acceptance criteria from issue #8294: 1. ✅ `_warning_with_stderr` helper emits guard warnings to both structured logger and `stderr` 2. ✅ CONTRIBUTING.md documents the `AssertionError`-only requirement for `@tdd_expected_fail` steps 3. ✅ Two new BDD scenarios added to `tdd_expected_fail_infrastructure.feature` (positive + negative paths) 4. ✅ Audit of existing `@tdd_expected_fail` step definitions — no violations found 5. ✅ Coverage at 97.25% ≥ 97% threshold All 13 CI jobs green. Commit message follows Conventional Commit format with `ISSUES CLOSED: #8294` footer. Milestone v3.2.0 and `Type/Bug` label correctly set. --- **Automated by CleverAgents Bot** Supervisor: PR Review Pool | Agent: pr-reviewer Worker: [AUTO-REV-8325]

HAL9000 referenced this pull request 2026-04-14 21:31:31 +00:00

[AUTO-HUMAN] Status: Human Liaison Supervisor (Cycle 1) #9521

HAL9000 referenced this pull request 2026-04-14 22:14:12 +00:00

[AUTO-HUMAN] Status: Human Liaison Supervisor (Cycle 1) #9521

HAL9000 referenced this pull request 2026-04-14 23:12:55 +00:00

[AUTO-HUMAN] Status: Human Liaison Supervisor (Cycle 1) #9521

HAL9000 referenced this pull request 2026-04-14 23:45:46 +00:00

[AUTO-HUMAN] Status: Human Liaison Supervisor (Cycle 1) #9521

HAL9000 referenced this pull request 2026-04-15 00:27:12 +00:00

[AUTO-HUMAN] Status: Human Liaison Supervisor (Cycle 1) #9521

HAL9000 force-pushed fix/tdd-inversion-non-assertion-guard from 74c6d2651b to ed7dba552c 2026-04-15 00:41:00 +00:00 Compare

HAL9000 referenced this pull request 2026-04-15 01:04:09 +00:00

[AUTO-HUMAN] Status: Human Liaison Supervisor (Cycle 1) #9521

HAL9000 referenced this pull request 2026-04-15 01:07:45 +00:00

[AUTO-MERGE] Status: RUNNING (Cycle 2) #9641

HAL9000 referenced this pull request 2026-04-15 01:36:13 +00:00

[AUTO-HUMAN] Status: Human Liaison Supervisor (Cycle 1) #9521

HAL9000 commented 2026-04-15 03:16:23 +00:00

Owner

Copy link

@hurui200320 — The automated review pool has approved PR #8325. All five acceptance criteria from issue #8294 have been verified as satisfied:

1. _warning_with_stderr helper correctly emits guard warnings to both structured logger and stderr
2. CONTRIBUTING.md documents the AssertionError-only requirement for @tdd_expected_fail steps
3. Two new BDD scenarios added to tdd_expected_fail_infrastructure.feature (positive and negative paths)
4. Audit of existing @tdd_expected_fail step definitions confirmed no violations
5. Coverage at 97.25%, meeting the >=97% threshold

All 13 CI jobs are green. Commit message follows Conventional Commit format with ISSUES CLOSED: #8294 footer. Milestone v3.2.0 and Type/Bug label are correctly set.

The merge pool will process this PR for merging. Thank you for the contribution.

---

Automated by CleverAgents Bot
Supervisor: Human Liaison | Agent: human-liaison-pool-supervisor
Worker: [AUTO-HUMAN-8]

@hurui200320 — The automated review pool has approved PR #8325. All five acceptance criteria from issue #8294 have been verified as satisfied: 1. `_warning_with_stderr` helper correctly emits guard warnings to both structured logger and stderr 2. CONTRIBUTING.md documents the `AssertionError`-only requirement for `@tdd_expected_fail` steps 3. Two new BDD scenarios added to `tdd_expected_fail_infrastructure.feature` (positive and negative paths) 4. Audit of existing `@tdd_expected_fail` step definitions confirmed no violations 5. Coverage at 97.25%, meeting the >=97% threshold All 13 CI jobs are green. Commit message follows Conventional Commit format with `ISSUES CLOSED: #8294` footer. Milestone v3.2.0 and `Type/Bug` label are correctly set. The merge pool will process this PR for merging. Thank you for the contribution. --- **Automated by CleverAgents Bot** Supervisor: Human Liaison | Agent: human-liaison-pool-supervisor Worker: [AUTO-HUMAN-8]

HAL9000 referenced this pull request 2026-04-15 03:17:32 +00:00

[AUTO-LIAISON] Human Liaison Supervisor — Status #9685

HAL9000 referenced this pull request 2026-04-15 03:56:34 +00:00

[AUTO-WATCHDOG] Status: System Watchdog (Cycle 2) #9711

HAL9000 referenced this pull request 2026-04-15 03:58:24 +00:00

[AUTO-LIAISON] Human Liaison Supervisor — Status #9685

hurui200320 force-pushed fix/tdd-inversion-non-assertion-guard from ed7dba552c to f67e8a2e07 2026-04-15 05:37:27 +00:00 Compare

hurui200320 canceled auto merging this pull request when all checks succeed 2026-04-15 05:37:36 +00:00

hurui200320 scheduled this pull request to auto merge when all checks succeed 2026-04-15 05:37:50 +00:00

hurui200320 merged commit f67e8a2e07 into master 2026-04-15 05:49:14 +00:00

hurui200320 deleted branch fix/tdd-inversion-non-assertion-guard 2026-04-15 05:49:15 +00:00

Sign in to join this conversation.

Reviewers

No reviewers

HAL9000

HAL9001

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

hurui200320

3 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

#8294 Bug: @tdd_expected_fail scenarios fail intermittently when steps raise non-AssertionError exceptions, causing flaky CI

cleveragents/cleveragents-core

Reference

cleveragents/cleveragents-core!8325

No description provided.