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>
142 lines
5.9 KiB
Gherkin
142 lines
5.9 KiB
Gherkin
Feature: Plan CLI spec alignment
|
|
As a developer
|
|
I want the plan CLI commands aligned to the v3 spec
|
|
So that plan use/list/status flags are consistent with the specification
|
|
|
|
Background:
|
|
Given a plan spec alignment CLI runner
|
|
And a plan spec alignment mocked lifecycle service
|
|
|
|
# ---- plan use: multiple projects (positional) ----
|
|
Scenario: Plan use with multiple positional projects
|
|
Given a plan spec alignment action exists
|
|
When I run plan use with positional projects "proj-a" and "proj-b"
|
|
Then the plan spec use should succeed
|
|
And the plan spec use should link projects "proj-a" and "proj-b"
|
|
|
|
# ---- plan use: --automation-profile ----
|
|
Scenario: Plan use with --automation-profile
|
|
Given a plan spec alignment action exists
|
|
When I run plan use with automation profile "trusted"
|
|
Then the plan spec use should succeed
|
|
And the plan spec output should contain "Automation Profile"
|
|
|
|
# ---- plan use: --invariant (repeatable) ----
|
|
Scenario: Plan use with repeatable --invariant
|
|
Given a plan spec alignment action exists
|
|
When I run plan use with invariants "No warnings" and "Keep compat"
|
|
Then the plan spec use should succeed
|
|
And the plan spec use should pass invariants to service
|
|
|
|
# ---- plan use: actor override flags ----
|
|
Scenario: Plan use with strategy-actor override
|
|
Given a plan spec alignment action exists
|
|
When I run plan use with strategy actor "openai/gpt-4"
|
|
Then the plan spec use should succeed
|
|
And the plan spec output should contain "Strategy Actor"
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Plan use with execution-actor override
|
|
Given a plan spec alignment action exists
|
|
When I run plan use with execution actor "anthropic/claude-3"
|
|
Then the plan spec use should succeed
|
|
And the plan spec output should contain "Execution Actor"
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Plan use with estimation-actor override
|
|
Given a plan spec alignment action exists
|
|
When I run plan use with estimation actor "openai/gpt-4"
|
|
Then the plan spec use should succeed
|
|
And the plan spec output should contain "Estimation Actor"
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Plan use with invariant-actor override
|
|
Given a plan spec alignment action exists
|
|
When I run plan use with invariant actor "openai/gpt-4"
|
|
Then the plan spec use should succeed
|
|
And the plan spec output should contain "Invariant Actor"
|
|
|
|
# ---- plan use: --arg name=value ----
|
|
Scenario: Plan use with --arg name=value
|
|
Given a plan spec alignment action exists
|
|
When I run plan use with arg "target_coverage=80"
|
|
Then the plan spec use should succeed
|
|
And the plan spec use should pass argument "target_coverage" with value 80
|
|
|
|
# ---- plan list: filter combinations ----
|
|
Scenario: Plan list with --phase filter
|
|
Given plan spec alignment plans exist
|
|
When I run plan list with phase "strategize"
|
|
Then the plan spec list should succeed
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Plan list with --state filter
|
|
Given plan spec alignment plans exist
|
|
When I run plan list with state "queued"
|
|
Then the plan spec list should succeed
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Plan list with --processing-state filter
|
|
Given plan spec alignment plans exist
|
|
When I run plan list with processing-state "complete"
|
|
Then the plan spec list should succeed
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Plan list with --project filter
|
|
Given plan spec alignment plans exist
|
|
When I run plan list with project "proj-a"
|
|
Then the plan spec list should succeed
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Plan list with --action filter
|
|
Given plan spec alignment plans exist
|
|
When I run plan list with action "local/test-action"
|
|
Then the plan spec list should succeed
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Plan list with regex filter
|
|
Given plan spec alignment plans exist
|
|
When I run plan list with regex "test-action"
|
|
Then the plan spec list should succeed
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Plan list with combined filters
|
|
Given plan spec alignment plans exist
|
|
When I run plan list combining phase "strategize" with project "proj-a"
|
|
Then the plan spec list should succeed
|
|
|
|
# ---- plan status: output fields ----
|
|
Scenario: Plan status renders all required fields
|
|
Given a plan spec alignment plan exists for status
|
|
When I run plan status for the plan
|
|
Then the plan spec status should succeed
|
|
And the plan spec status should contain "Action"
|
|
And the plan spec status should contain "Phase"
|
|
And the plan spec status should contain "Processing State"
|
|
And the plan spec status should contain "Projects"
|
|
And the plan spec status should contain "Arguments"
|
|
And the plan spec status should contain "Automation Profile"
|
|
And the plan spec status should contain "Created"
|
|
And the plan spec status should contain "Updated"
|
|
|
|
# ---- plan cancel: --reason ----
|
|
Scenario: Plan cancel with --reason
|
|
Given a plan spec alignment plan exists for cancel
|
|
When I run plan cancel with reason "Requirements changed"
|
|
Then the plan spec cancel should succeed
|
|
And the plan spec cancel output should contain "Requirements changed"
|
|
|
|
# ---- plan list: required column rendering ----
|
|
@tdd_issue @tdd_issue_4252 @tdd_expected_fail
|
|
Scenario: Plan list rich output includes Name column
|
|
Given plan spec alignment plans exist
|
|
When I run plan list with no filters
|
|
Then the plan spec list should succeed
|
|
And the plan spec list output should contain "Name"
|
|
|
|
@tdd_issue @tdd_issue_4252 @tdd_expected_fail
|
|
Scenario: Plan list rich output includes Updated column
|
|
Given plan spec alignment plans exist
|
|
When I run plan list with no filters
|
|
Then the plan spec list should succeed
|
|
And the plan spec list output should contain "Updat"
|
|
And the plan spec list output should contain the current year-month timestamp
|
|
|
|
@tdd_issue @tdd_issue_4252 @tdd_expected_fail
|
|
Scenario: Plan list rich output includes Invariants column
|
|
Given plan spec alignment plans exist
|
|
When I run plan list with no filters
|
|
Then the plan spec list should succeed
|
|
And the plan spec list output should contain "Invar"
|