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>
53 lines
3.2 KiB
Gherkin
53 lines
3.2 KiB
Gherkin
# TDD issue-capture test for bug #1022 — InvariantService in-memory storage only.
|
|
#
|
|
# InvariantService stores invariants in an in-memory dict (self._invariants)
|
|
# with no database persistence layer. Each CLI invocation spawns a fresh
|
|
# process with a new InvariantService() instance, so all invariants added in
|
|
# one invocation are lost when the process exits.
|
|
#
|
|
# These scenarios prove the bug exists by simulating separate CLI invocations
|
|
# (fresh InvariantService instances) and asserting that data added in one
|
|
# invocation is visible in the next. They FAIL until the bug is fixed.
|
|
# The @tag inverts the result so CI passes.
|
|
#
|
|
# See: https://git.cleverthis.com/cleveragents/cleveragents-core/issues/1022
|
|
|
|
@tdd_issue @tdd_issue_1022 @mock_only
|
|
Feature: TDD Issue #1022 — InvariantService invariants lost across process restarts
|
|
As a developer using the agents CLI
|
|
I want invariants added via "agents invariant add" to persist across CLI invocations
|
|
So that "agents invariant list" in a subsequent invocation returns previously added invariants
|
|
|
|
InvariantService uses in-memory dict storage only. Each CLI invocation
|
|
creates a fresh InvariantService() instance, so invariants are lost when
|
|
the process exits. These tests simulate separate process invocations by
|
|
creating fresh service instances and verifying cross-instance data visibility.
|
|
|
|
@tdd_issue @tdd_issue_4283 @tdd_expected_fail
|
|
Scenario: Invariant added in one service instance is visible in a fresh instance
|
|
Given I add a project invariant "All APIs must validate auth tokens" to project "local/api-service" via invariant service instance A
|
|
When I create a fresh invariant service instance B
|
|
And I list project invariants for "local/api-service" via instance B
|
|
Then the invariant list from instance B should contain "All APIs must validate auth tokens"
|
|
|
|
@tdd_issue @tdd_issue_4283 @tdd_expected_fail
|
|
Scenario: Global invariant persists across simulated process restarts
|
|
Given I add a global invariant "Never delete production data" via invariant service instance A
|
|
When I create a fresh invariant service instance B
|
|
And I list global invariants via instance B
|
|
Then the invariant list from instance B should contain "Never delete production data"
|
|
|
|
@tdd_issue @tdd_issue_4283 @tdd_expected_fail
|
|
Scenario: Invariant added via CLI add is visible via CLI list in a new invocation
|
|
Given I invoke invariant add via CLI with "--project local/webapp" and text "All changes need tests" using service invocation 1
|
|
When I invoke invariant list via CLI with "--project local/webapp" using service invocation 2
|
|
Then the CLI list output from invocation 2 should contain "All changes need tests"
|
|
|
|
@tdd_issue @tdd_issue_4283 @tdd_expected_fail
|
|
Scenario: Invariant soft-deleted in a fresh instance after being added in another
|
|
Given I add a project invariant "Temporary constraint" to project "local/temp" via invariant service instance A
|
|
And I capture the invariant ID from instance A
|
|
When I create a fresh invariant service instance B
|
|
And I attempt to remove the captured invariant ID via instance B
|
|
Then the remove operation via instance B should succeed without NotFoundError
|