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>
189 lines
7.6 KiB
Gherkin
189 lines
7.6 KiB
Gherkin
Feature: CI workflow validation
|
|
As a developer
|
|
I want to ensure the CI workflow exists and uses nox sessions
|
|
So that all CI checks run through the same tooling as local development
|
|
|
|
Scenario: CI workflow file exists
|
|
Given the CI workflow file at ".forgejo/workflows/ci.yml"
|
|
Then the CI workflow file should exist
|
|
|
|
Scenario: CI workflow references nox for lint
|
|
Given the CI workflow file at ".forgejo/workflows/ci.yml"
|
|
When I parse the CI workflow YAML
|
|
Then the workflow should have a job named "lint"
|
|
And the job "lint" should run "nox -s lint"
|
|
|
|
Scenario: CI workflow references nox for typecheck
|
|
Given the CI workflow file at ".forgejo/workflows/ci.yml"
|
|
When I parse the CI workflow YAML
|
|
Then the workflow should have a job named "typecheck"
|
|
And the job "typecheck" should run "nox -s typecheck"
|
|
|
|
Scenario: CI workflow references nox for unit tests
|
|
Given the CI workflow file at ".forgejo/workflows/ci.yml"
|
|
When I parse the CI workflow YAML
|
|
Then the workflow should have a job named "unit_tests"
|
|
And the job "unit_tests" should run "nox -s unit_tests"
|
|
|
|
Scenario: CI workflow references nox for integration tests
|
|
Given the CI workflow file at ".forgejo/workflows/ci.yml"
|
|
When I parse the CI workflow YAML
|
|
Then the workflow should have a job named "integration_tests"
|
|
And the job "integration_tests" should run "nox -s integration_tests"
|
|
|
|
Scenario: CI workflow references nox for coverage
|
|
Given the CI workflow file at ".forgejo/workflows/ci.yml"
|
|
When I parse the CI workflow YAML
|
|
Then the workflow should have a job named "coverage"
|
|
And the job "coverage" should run "nox -s coverage_report"
|
|
|
|
Scenario: CI workflow references nox for security
|
|
Given the CI workflow file at ".forgejo/workflows/ci.yml"
|
|
When I parse the CI workflow YAML
|
|
Then the workflow should have a job named "security"
|
|
And the job "security" should run "nox -s security_scan"
|
|
|
|
Scenario: CI workflow references nox for build
|
|
Given the CI workflow file at ".forgejo/workflows/ci.yml"
|
|
When I parse the CI workflow YAML
|
|
Then the workflow should have a job named "build"
|
|
And the job "build" should run "nox -s build"
|
|
|
|
Scenario: CI workflow uses Python 3.13
|
|
Given the CI workflow file at ".forgejo/workflows/ci.yml"
|
|
When I parse the CI workflow YAML
|
|
Then the workflow env should set "PYTHON_VERSION" to "3.13"
|
|
|
|
Scenario: CI workflow coverage job depends on lint and typecheck
|
|
Given the CI workflow file at ".forgejo/workflows/ci.yml"
|
|
When I parse the CI workflow YAML
|
|
Then the job "coverage" should depend on "lint"
|
|
And the job "coverage" should depend on "typecheck"
|
|
|
|
Scenario: All required nox sessions are referenced
|
|
Given the CI workflow file at ".forgejo/workflows/ci.yml"
|
|
When I parse the CI workflow YAML
|
|
Then the workflow should reference these nox sessions:
|
|
| session |
|
|
| lint |
|
|
| typecheck |
|
|
| unit_tests |
|
|
| integration_tests |
|
|
| coverage_report |
|
|
| security_scan |
|
|
| dead_code |
|
|
| complexity |
|
|
| build |
|
|
|
|
# --- Release pipeline scenarios ---
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Release workflow file exists
|
|
Given the CI workflow file at ".forgejo/workflows/release.yml"
|
|
Then the CI workflow file should exist
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Release workflow YAML is valid
|
|
Given the CI workflow file at ".forgejo/workflows/release.yml"
|
|
When I parse the CI workflow YAML
|
|
Then the workflow YAML should be valid
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Release workflow triggers on version tags
|
|
Given the CI workflow file at ".forgejo/workflows/release.yml"
|
|
When I parse the CI workflow YAML
|
|
Then the workflow should trigger on push tags matching "v*"
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Release workflow has build-wheel job
|
|
Given the CI workflow file at ".forgejo/workflows/release.yml"
|
|
When I parse the CI workflow YAML
|
|
Then the workflow should have a job named "build-wheel"
|
|
And the job "build-wheel" should run "nox -s build"
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Release workflow has build-docker job
|
|
Given the CI workflow file at ".forgejo/workflows/release.yml"
|
|
When I parse the CI workflow YAML
|
|
Then the workflow should have a job named "build-docker"
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Release workflow has create-release job
|
|
Given the CI workflow file at ".forgejo/workflows/release.yml"
|
|
When I parse the CI workflow YAML
|
|
Then the workflow should have a job named "create-release"
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Release workflow create-release depends on build jobs
|
|
Given the CI workflow file at ".forgejo/workflows/release.yml"
|
|
When I parse the CI workflow YAML
|
|
Then the job "create-release" should depend on "build-wheel"
|
|
And the job "create-release" should depend on "build-docker"
|
|
|
|
# --- Status-check consolidation job ---
|
|
|
|
Scenario: CI workflow has status-check consolidation job
|
|
Given the CI workflow file at ".forgejo/workflows/ci.yml"
|
|
When I parse the CI workflow YAML
|
|
Then the workflow should have a job named "status-check"
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Status-check job depends on all required jobs
|
|
Given the CI workflow file at ".forgejo/workflows/ci.yml"
|
|
When I parse the CI workflow YAML
|
|
Then the job "status-check" should depend on "lint"
|
|
And the job "status-check" should depend on "typecheck"
|
|
And the job "status-check" should depend on "security"
|
|
And the job "status-check" should depend on "unit_tests"
|
|
And the job "status-check" should depend on "coverage"
|
|
|
|
# --- Coverage threshold ---
|
|
# Note: #4227 is closed, but this specific scenario still fails because
|
|
# the CI YAML does not yet encode a 97% threshold as a machine-readable
|
|
# value that the step definition can assert. The other three #4227
|
|
# scenarios (noxfile-level checks) were promoted to regression guards.
|
|
|
|
@tdd_issue @tdd_issue_4227 @tdd_expected_fail
|
|
Scenario: CI coverage threshold is 97%
|
|
Given the CI workflow file at ".forgejo/workflows/ci.yml"
|
|
When I parse the CI workflow YAML
|
|
Then the coverage job should enforce a 97% threshold
|
|
|
|
# --- Branch triggers ---
|
|
|
|
Scenario: CI workflow triggers on push to master
|
|
Given the CI workflow file at ".forgejo/workflows/ci.yml"
|
|
When I parse the CI workflow YAML
|
|
Then the workflow should trigger on push to "master"
|
|
|
|
Scenario: CI workflow triggers on pull requests to master
|
|
Given the CI workflow file at ".forgejo/workflows/ci.yml"
|
|
When I parse the CI workflow YAML
|
|
Then the workflow should trigger on pull_request to "master"
|
|
|
|
# --- Dependency caching ---
|
|
|
|
Scenario: CI workflow uses dependency caching
|
|
Given the CI workflow file at ".forgejo/workflows/ci.yml"
|
|
When I parse the CI workflow YAML
|
|
Then at least one job should use actions/cache
|
|
|
|
# --- Helm CI job ---
|
|
|
|
Scenario: CI workflow has helm validation job
|
|
Given the CI workflow file at ".forgejo/workflows/ci.yml"
|
|
When I parse the CI workflow YAML
|
|
Then the workflow should have a job named "helm"
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Helm job runs helm lint
|
|
Given the CI workflow file at ".forgejo/workflows/ci.yml"
|
|
When I parse the CI workflow YAML
|
|
Then the job "helm" should run "helm lint"
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Helm job runs helm template
|
|
Given the CI workflow file at ".forgejo/workflows/ci.yml"
|
|
When I parse the CI workflow YAML
|
|
Then the job "helm" should run "helm template"
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Helm job validates rendered manifests with kubeconform
|
|
Given the CI workflow file at ".forgejo/workflows/ci.yml"
|
|
When I parse the CI workflow YAML
|
|
Then the job "helm" should run "kubeconform"
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Status-check job depends on helm job
|
|
Given the CI workflow file at ".forgejo/workflows/ci.yml"
|
|
When I parse the CI workflow YAML
|
|
Then the job "status-check" should depend on "helm"
|