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>
33 lines
1.6 KiB
Gherkin
33 lines
1.6 KiB
Gherkin
@tdd_issue @tdd_issue_980
|
|
Feature: TDD Issue #980 — skill add cross-process persistence
|
|
As a developer
|
|
I want to verify that `agents skill add --config <file>` persists
|
|
skills across separate CLI process invocations
|
|
So that the bug is captured and will be caught by a regression test
|
|
|
|
Bug #980 reports that skills registered via `agents skill add` in one
|
|
CLI process are not visible when `agents skill list` is run in a
|
|
separate CLI process. Existing persistence tests pass because they
|
|
verify round-trip within the same Python process (creating two
|
|
SkillService instances sharing the same in-memory database).
|
|
|
|
This TDD test captures the regression by using real subprocess
|
|
invocations — the skill is added via one CLI invocation and listed
|
|
via an independent CLI invocation, both sharing the same on-disk
|
|
SQLite database. Originally tagged @tdd_expected_fail while the bug was unfixed;
|
|
tag removed after fix in #980.
|
|
|
|
@tdd_issue @tdd_issue_4287
|
|
Scenario: skill add in one process is visible to skill list in another
|
|
Given a cross-process skill persistence environment
|
|
When I add a skill via a CLI subprocess
|
|
And I list skills via a separate CLI subprocess
|
|
Then the cross-process skill list should contain the added skill
|
|
|
|
@tdd_issue @tdd_issue_4287
|
|
Scenario: skill add persists config path across processes
|
|
Given a cross-process skill persistence environment
|
|
When I add a skill via a CLI subprocess
|
|
And I show the skill via a separate CLI subprocess
|
|
Then the cross-process skill show output should contain the skill name
|