hurui200320
2005b8ef82
CI / push-validation (push) Successful in 18s
CI / build (push) Successful in 19s
CI / helm (push) Successful in 24s
CI / lint (push) Successful in 29s
CI / security (push) Successful in 1m11s
CI / e2e_tests (push) Successful in 2m56s
CI / quality (push) Successful in 3m40s
CI / typecheck (push) Successful in 3m59s
CI / integration_tests (push) Successful in 4m3s
CI / unit_tests (push) Successful in 4m55s
CI / docker (push) Successful in 10s
CI / coverage (push) Successful in 10m44s
CI / status-check (push) Successful in 1s
CI / benchmark-regression (push) Has been skipped
CI / benchmark-publish (push) Successful in 1h13m28s
## Summary Replaces all 234 bare `@skip` occurrences across 82 Behave feature files with the correct TDD issue-capture tagging system described in CONTRIBUTING.md § Bug Fix Workflow. Previously, the noxfile ran Behave with `--tags=not @skip`, silently excluding all `@skip`-tagged scenarios from every CI run. These tests never ran, never inverted results via the `@tdd_expected_fail` mechanism, and never contributed to coverage — defeating the purpose of TDD issue-capture testing. Every `@skip` occurrence had a commented-out hint line immediately above it showing the intended proper tags (e.g., `# @tdd_issue @tdd_issue_4272 @tdd_expected_fail @skip`), confirming they were all intended for conversion. ## Changes ### Mechanical conversion (234 replacements across 82 files) - Extracted the proper TDD tags from the comment hint above each `@skip` line, removed `@skip` from the tag set, and replaced the `@skip` line with those tags. - Removed the now-redundant comment hint lines alongside each replacement. ### Bug-fixed scenarios — `@tdd_expected_fail` removed (84 scenarios) - After conversion, ran `nox -s unit_tests` to identify which newly-enabled `@tdd_expected_fail` scenarios now **pass** (their referenced bugs have already been fixed). Removed `@tdd_expected_fail` from those 84 scenarios and their corresponding feature-level tags, leaving only the permanent `@tdd_issue @tdd_issue_<N>` regression-guard tags. - Affected features include: `tdd_tool_runner_env_precedence`, `tdd_automation_profile_session_leak`, `tls_certificate_check`, `project_create_persist`, `resource_type_bootstrap_*`, and 18 others. ### Noxfile cleanup - Removed all four `--tags=not @skip` arguments from `noxfile.py` (unit_tests and coverage sessions). With zero `@skip` tags remaining in the codebase, this filter was dead code and its presence would mislead future maintainers into thinking `@skip` is still a supported escape mechanism. ### Regression guard files - Split the regression guards into two focused files: - `tdd_regression_guards_exec_env.feature` for bug #4281 (exec-env precedence) - `tdd_regression_guards_session_list.feature` for bug #4271 (session list summary) - Each file carries only its own `@tdd_issue` tags at the feature level, avoiding cross-contamination via Behave tag inheritance. The `Background` step (`session-list-summary mock`) only appears in the session-list file where it is actually needed. ### Duplicate tag cleanup - Removed duplicate `@tdd_issue @tdd_issue_4287` tag lines in `tdd_skill_add_regression.feature` (lines 20 and 29). ### Inline comment for retained `@tdd_expected_fail` - Added inline comment in `ci_workflow_validation.feature:134` explaining why this specific #4227 scenario retains `@tdd_expected_fail` despite #4227 being closed (CI YAML does not encode threshold as a machine-readable value). ### Known edge cases — `@tdd_expected_fail` retained (closed issues, fix on master, scenarios still fail) The following issues are **closed** and their fixes **are on master**, but the specific test assertions still fail because the fixes address other aspects of the bugs. The `@tdd_expected_fail` tags are functionally correct and must remain until the specific scenario assertions pass: - `tdd_exec_env_resolution_precedence.feature` — bug #1080 (closed 2026-03-31). The precedence-level-2-vs-4 scenario still fails. - `session_list_summary_dedup.feature` — bug #3046 (closed 2026-04-05). The dedup-consistency scenarios still fail. - `actor_add_update_enforcement.feature` — bug #2609 (closed 2026-04-05). The enforcement scenarios still fail. - `ci_workflow_validation.feature:134` — #4227 (closed 2026-04-08). The CI YAML threshold assertion still fails. ## Verification - `grep -r "@skip" features/ --include="*.feature"` → **zero results** ✓ - `grep -n "tags=not @skip" noxfile.py` → **zero results** ✓ - `nox -s unit_tests` → **629 features passed, 0 failed** ✓ (up from ~545 before this PR) - CI all green (coverage ≥ 97%) ✓ - Integration tests (Robot Framework) do not use `@skip` — confirmed no action needed ✓ - E2E tests (Robot Framework) do not use `@skip` — confirmed no action needed ✓ - `CHANGELOG.md` updated with entry for this change ✓ - `CONTRIBUTORS.md` — Rui Hu already listed ✓ ## Issues Addressed Closes #7025 Co-authored-by: CleverThis <hal9000@cleverthis.com> Reviewed-on: #7221 Reviewed-by: HAL 9000 <HAL9000@cleverthis.com> Reviewed-by: HAL9001 <hal9001@cleverthis.com> Co-authored-by: Rui Hu <rui.hu@cleverthis.com> Co-committed-by: Rui Hu <rui.hu@cleverthis.com>
143 lines
5.6 KiB
Gherkin
143 lines
5.6 KiB
Gherkin
Feature: Plan Diff and Artifacts Output
|
|
As a developer using the plan lifecycle
|
|
I want to review diffs and artifacts before applying changes
|
|
So that I can verify what will be applied and catch issues early
|
|
|
|
Background:
|
|
Given I have a plan apply service with an in-memory changeset store
|
|
|
|
# Diff output tests
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Plan diff shows file changes in rich format
|
|
Given a plan with a changeset containing file changes
|
|
When I request the diff in rich format
|
|
Then the diff output should contain the changeset ID
|
|
And the diff output should contain file paths
|
|
And the diff output should contain operation labels
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Plan diff shows file changes in plain format
|
|
Given a plan with a changeset containing file changes
|
|
When I request the diff in plain format
|
|
Then the diff output should contain unified diff markers
|
|
And the diff output should contain the plan ID
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Plan diff shows file changes in JSON format
|
|
Given a plan with a changeset containing file changes
|
|
When I request the diff in JSON format
|
|
Then the diff output should be valid JSON
|
|
And the JSON diff should contain entries list
|
|
And the JSON diff should contain summary counts
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Plan diff shows file changes in YAML format
|
|
Given a plan with a changeset containing file changes
|
|
When I request the diff in YAML format
|
|
Then the diff output should contain YAML keys
|
|
And the diff output should contain the changeset ID
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Plan diff raises error when no changeset exists
|
|
Given a plan with no changeset
|
|
When I try to get the diff
|
|
Then a plan error about missing changeset should be raised
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Plan diff with empty changeset shows no changes
|
|
Given a plan with an empty changeset
|
|
When I request the diff in rich format
|
|
Then the diff output should indicate no changes
|
|
|
|
# Artifacts output tests
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Plan artifacts shows changeset summary
|
|
Given a plan with a changeset containing file changes
|
|
When I request the artifacts
|
|
Then the artifacts should contain the plan ID
|
|
And the artifacts should contain the changeset ID
|
|
And the artifacts should contain sandbox refs
|
|
And the artifacts should contain files changed list
|
|
|
|
@tdd_issue @tdd_issue_4253 @tdd_expected_fail
|
|
Scenario: Plan artifacts shows validation results when available
|
|
Given a plan with a changeset and validation summary
|
|
When I request the artifacts in JSON format
|
|
Then the artifacts JSON should contain validation summary
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Plan artifacts for plan without changeset
|
|
Given a plan with no changeset
|
|
When I request the artifacts
|
|
Then the artifacts should show null changeset
|
|
|
|
# Empty ChangeSet guard tests
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Apply with empty changeset is blocked
|
|
Given a plan with an empty changeset
|
|
When I check the empty changeset guard
|
|
Then a plan error about empty changeset should be raised
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Apply with empty changeset allowed via flag
|
|
Given a plan with an empty changeset
|
|
When I check the empty changeset guard with allow_empty
|
|
Then the guard should return True
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Apply with non-empty changeset passes guard
|
|
Given a plan with a changeset containing file changes
|
|
When I check the empty changeset guard
|
|
Then the guard should return True
|
|
|
|
# Apply summary persistence tests
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Apply persists summary metadata
|
|
Given a plan in apply processing state
|
|
When I persist the apply summary with 5 files and 3 validations
|
|
Then the plan metadata should contain apply_files_changed of 5
|
|
And the plan metadata should contain apply_validations_run of 3
|
|
And the plan metadata should contain apply_completed_at timestamp
|
|
|
|
# Merge failure handling tests
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Merge failure triggers error state
|
|
Given a plan in apply processing state
|
|
When a merge failure occurs with conflict details
|
|
Then the plan should be in an errored processing state
|
|
And the plan error message should contain merge conflict info
|
|
And the plan metadata should contain merge_conflict details
|
|
And the plan metadata should contain sandbox_rollback pending
|
|
|
|
# Service initialization tests
|
|
|
|
Scenario: PlanApplyService requires lifecycle service
|
|
When I try to create PlanApplyService with None lifecycle
|
|
Then a validation error should be raised for lifecycle service
|
|
|
|
# Multiple format outputs
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Artifacts output in plain format
|
|
Given a plan with a changeset containing file changes
|
|
When I request the artifacts in plain format
|
|
Then the artifacts output should contain key-value pairs
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Artifacts output in YAML format
|
|
Given a plan with a changeset containing file changes
|
|
When I request the artifacts in YAML format
|
|
Then the artifacts output should contain YAML structure
|
|
|
|
# Coverage: _render_diff_plain with empty changeset (line 70)
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Plan diff in plain format with empty changeset
|
|
Given a plan with an empty changeset
|
|
When I request the diff in plain format
|
|
Then the diff output should indicate no changes
|
|
|
|
# Coverage: artifacts with apply summary metadata (line 181)
|
|
|
|
@tdd_issue @tdd_issue_4253 @tdd_expected_fail
|
|
Scenario: Artifacts include apply summary from metadata
|
|
Given a plan with a changeset and apply summary metadata
|
|
When I request the artifacts in JSON format
|
|
Then the artifacts JSON should contain apply summary
|
|
|
|
# Coverage: changeset store miss fallback (line 432)
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Diff falls back to stub changeset when store misses
|
|
Given a plan with a changeset ID but store has no entry
|
|
When I request the diff in rich format
|
|
Then the diff output should indicate no changes
|