test(e2e): fix pairing observation reference

[apurvvkumaria]

Summary

The current OpenClaw device self-approval proof references a variable removed by a partial rename.
This change uses the pending upgrade observation that the helper creates before the Portable repair comparison.

Changes

• Compare the Portable repair observation with pendingUpgradeObservation.
• Preserve the existing device-identity equality requirement across both observation paths.

Type of Change

• Code change (feature, bug fix, or refactor)
• Code change with doc updates
• Doc only (prose changes, no code sample modifications)
• Doc only (includes code sample changes)

Quality Gates

• Tests added or updated for changed behavior
• Existing tests cover changed behavior — justification:
• Tests not applicable — justification: The change corrects an invalid identifier in a test helper. The CLI type check owns this compile-time failure.
• Sensitive paths changed (security, policy, credentials, preflight, onboarding, inference, runner, sandbox, or messaging)
• Sensitive-path review completed or maintainer-approved waiver recorded — reviewer/approval link/justification: The completed review confirms that this test-only correction preserves the existing device-identity comparison and changes no production security control.
• Non-success, skipped, or missing CI check accepted by maintainer — check name, approval link, and follow-up issue:

DGX Station Hardware Evidence

• Tested on DGX Station
• Tested commit:
• Station profile/scenario:
• Result:
• Supporting evidence:

Verification

• PR description includes a Signed-off-by: line and every commit appears as Verified in GitHub
• Normal pre-commit, commit-msg, and pre-push hooks passed, or npm run validate:pr passed after refreshing origin/main when hooks were skipped or unavailable
• Targeted behavior tests pass for the current change set, or tests are marked not applicable above — command/result or justification: npm run typecheck:cli passed. npx vitest run --project integration test/openclaw-real-patched-dist-harness.test.ts passed 5 tests and skipped the opt-in live runtime case.
• Applicable broad gate passed — npm test for broad runtime/test-harness changes; npm run check for repo-wide validation/coverage changes — command/result:
• Quality Gates section completed with required justifications or waivers
• No secrets, API keys, or credentials committed
• npm run docs builds without warnings (doc changes only)
• Doc pages follow the style guide (doc changes only)
• New doc pages include SPDX header and frontmatter (new pages only)

---

Signed-off-by: Apurv Kumaria akumaria@nvidia.com

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Bug Fixes
  • Corrected device identity comparison during Portable repair observation validation.
  • Improved accuracy when handling pending scope-upgrade observations.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Enterprise

Run ID: 0cc8c75f-95c6-4d51-951d-41ef0cc40e2a

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between ffb09d2 and 1d137d5.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• test/helpers/openclaw-real-device-self-approval-proof.ts

Included review availability: Your plan provides up to 12 included reviews per hour; 8 remain after this review.

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The self-approval proof now compares the Portable repair settlement with the device identity from the pending scope-upgrade observation.

Changes

Device identity validation

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Update canonical device identity comparison test/helpers/openclaw-real-device-self-approval-proof.ts	The canonical device identity check now uses pendingUpgradeObservation instead of the removed pairingOnlyObservation.

Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~2 minutes

Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to 1d137

This test-only change corrects the observation reference while preserving the existing device-identity comparison; no actionable merge-blocking risk remains after normal checks and review.

Suggested reviewers: aasthajh

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly and concisely describes the test-helper fix for the invalid pairing observation reference.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	Docstring check was indeterminate for this PR — some files could not be analyzed in time. Not blocking.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

✨ Finishing Touches

📝 Generate docstrings

• Create stacked PR
• Commit on current branch

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch codex/fix-pairing-observation

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[github-code-quality]

Code Coverage Overview

Languages: TypeScript

TypeScript / code-coverage/plugin

The overall line coverage in commit 1d137d5 in the codex/fix-pairing-ob... branch remains at 96%, unchanged from commit 43b4094 in the main branch.

[apurvvkumaria]

PR #10062 predates this pull request and applies the same one-line change in test/helpers/openclaw-real-device-self-approval-proof.ts. Both diffs replace the removed observation reference with pendingUpgradeObservation, and both produce the same file content. Closing #10065 as superseded by #10062.

[github-actions]

PR Review Advisor — No blocking findings reported

Advisor assessment: No blocking advisor findings reported
Next action: No advisor follow-up needed.
Findings: 0 blockers · 0 warnings · 0 suggestions
Synthesis status: Completed · high confidence · 0 blockers · 0 warnings · 0 suggestions

E2E guidance

Advisory only. A maintainer can dispatch the default E2E suite for the commit under review.

Recommended E2E: None

Workflow run details

This automated review informs maintainers. Warnings and suggestions do not require a response. A maintainer decides whether to merge.