test(reference): close numeric-literal coverage gap - #310
Conversation
|
Important
This repository does not receive automatic reviews because it has fewer than 10 stars. ⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📝 WalkthroughWalkthrough참가자 및 테넌트 참조에 대한 숫자 리터럴 거부 계약 테스트를 추가했습니다. ASCII·Unicode 숫자와 구분자·부호 조합을 검증합니다. 숫자와 문자가 혼합된 불투명 참조의 생성 및 원본 보존도 검증합니다. Changes숫자 참조 계약
Estimated code review effort: 2 (Simple) | ~10 minutes Merge Risk: 🔵 Low · up to This test-only PR expands numeric-reference coverage without changing production behavior. It is mergeable with explicit owner awareness that mixed opaque references should also verify tenant placement and preservation of the original text. 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches📝 Generate docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
![devin-ai-integration[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/811515?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
|
@coderabbitai review |
✅ Action performedReview finished.
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
@coderabbitai review Please review the current exact head |
|
✅ Action performedFull review finished. |
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
![opencode-agent[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1549082?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.
Review outcome
1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence
-
Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was
failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head. -
Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.
-
Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports
successwith required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence. -
Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking
needs.coverage-evidence.result == successbefore posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present. -
Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
-
Reason: coverage-evidence result was
failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head6da6fff177cd301220f3522e39782a1934e04f1b. -
Head SHA:
6da6fff177cd301220f3522e39782a1934e04f1b -
Workflow run: 32700401957
-
Workflow attempt: 1
Coverage evidence
Coverage Decision
- Result: FAIL
- Test evidence: not proven passing
- Docstring evidence: not proven passing when configured
- Failure count: 1
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Test: reference_numeric_literal_contract.rs"]
S1 --> I1["regression suite"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Test: reference_numeric_literal_contract.rs"]
R1 --> V1["targeted test run"]
OpenCode Review Overview
Pull request overviewOpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass. Review outcome1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence
Coverage evidenceCoverage Decision
Changed-File Evidence Mapflowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Test: reference_numeric_literal_contract.rs"]
S1 --> I1["regression suite"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Test: reference_numeric_literal_contract.rs"]
R1 --> V1["targeted test run"]
|
1 participant
Why
PR #303 exposed a protected-main Runtime CI defect before its PostgreSQL catalog tests became the limiting boundary: exact line coverage failed because
src/reference.rshad one uncovered line (98.11% for that source; 99.96% total) while all 248 tests passed. Branch coverage and later jobs were then cancelled by fail-fast behavior. This is shared protected-main coverage debt, not an instrument-catalog production defect.RCA and remedy
d871470f7e3182c270f1e723f284cb9d60775de7, Runtime CI run32510880053, line-coverage job96861472608.cargo llvm-cov --workspace --all-features --all-targets --fail-under-lines 100.src/reference.rs, 53 lines / 1 missed, 70 regions / 2 missed.ParticipantRecordconstructor, while also proving punctuation remains valid inside mixed opaque references. No production source, workflow threshold, or dependency changes.The test covers ASCII sign/decimal/thousands/exponent spellings, Arabic decimal/thousands separators (
U+066B/U+066C), and fullwidth decimal/thousands separators (U+FF0E/U+FF0C) with Unicode numeric code points.Scope
This PR is test-only and intentionally avoids modifying
src/reference.rs, which is under active semantic review elsewhere. It does not change ID normalization, persistence, authorization, psychometric arithmetic, or any read-only dependency.Acceptance
Merge only if this unchanged exact head restores 100% owned line and branch coverage and independently passes Runtime CI, rustfmt/Clippy/rustdoc, Security/SAST, SBOM/provenance, zero valid unresolved findings, and the live non-author review requirement. Pending, skipped, cancelled, absent, neutral, stale, predecessor, synthetic, or model-only evidence is not passing.
Summary by CodeRabbit