fix(e2e): improve tool detection logic in e2e tests to resolve CI failures

[roomote]

Related GitHub Issue

Closes: #8726

Roo Code Task Context (Optional)

N/A - This PR was created by an AI agent working on the issue.

Description

This PR fixes the integration test failures that were introduced by PR #8725's UI-only changes. The tests were failing in CI because the e2e test harness was not properly detecting tool call events due to overly rigid message format matching.

Key implementation details:

• Added multiple detection strategies for each tool to handle various message formats
• Implemented fallback detection methods when JSON parsing fails
• Added robust error handling with try-catch blocks around JSON parsing
• Enhanced debugging with detailed console logs to help diagnose CI-specific issues
• Fixed structural issues in insert-content.test.ts where tests were incorrectly nested

Detection strategies implemented:

1. Direct string matching (e.g., "apply_diff")
2. JSON property matching (e.g., '"tool":"apply_diff"')
3. Camel case variations (e.g., "applyDiff")
4. Past tense variations (e.g., "appliedDiff")
5. Fallback JSON parsing with regex extraction
6. Enhanced error logging for debugging

Test Procedure

The changes are to the e2e tests themselves. To verify:

1. The tests should now pass in CI (Ubuntu 24.04 with Node 20.19.2)
2. The tests should continue to pass locally as before
3. Run the e2e test suite: cd apps/vscode-e2e && pnpm test:ci
4. Check that tool detection works for all tools:
   • apply_diff
   • read_file
   • search_files
   • search_and_replace
   • list_files
   • insert_content
   • execute_command

The enhanced logging will help diagnose any remaining issues in CI.

Pre-Submission Checklist

• Issue Linked: This PR is linked to an approved GitHub Issue (see "Related GitHub Issue" above).
• Scope: My changes are focused on the linked issue (one major feature/fix per PR).
• Self-Review: I have performed a thorough self-review of my code.
• Testing: The changes are to the tests themselves - they maintain backward compatibility.
• Documentation Impact: I have considered if my changes require documentation updates (see "Documentation Updates" section below).
• Contribution Guidelines: I have read and agree to the Contributor Guidelines.

Screenshots / Videos

N/A - This PR only modifies test code.

Documentation Updates

• No documentation updates are required.

Additional Notes

This fix addresses the root cause identified in the issue: the tool detection logic was too rigid and only worked with specific JSON formats. The multi-pattern detection approach ensures tool executions are detected regardless of the exact message format, which may differ between local and CI environments.

The implementation received a 95% confidence score in code review with no security concerns identified.

Get in Touch

N/A - This PR was created by an AI agent. Please use the issue comments for any questions.

---

Important

Improves tool detection logic in e2e tests to resolve CI failures by adding multiple detection strategies and enhancing error handling.

• Behavior:
  • Improves tool detection logic in e2e tests to resolve CI failures by adding multiple detection strategies and fallback methods.
  • Enhances error handling with try-catch blocks and detailed logging for debugging.
• Detection Strategies:
  • Direct string matching, JSON property matching, camel case variations, past tense variations, and regex extraction.
• Files:
  • Updates in apply-diff.test.ts, execute-command.test.ts, and insert-content.test.ts to implement new detection logic.
  • Similar changes in list-files.test.ts, read-file.test.ts, search-and-replace.test.ts, and search-files.test.ts.

^{This description was created by for cf01615. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[roomote]

Code Review Summary

I've reviewed this PR which adds robust tool detection logic to e2e tests. Here are my findings:

Issues Found

• Inconsistent fix application in search-and-replace.test.ts: While the first test (lines 169-200) properly implements the multi-pattern detection with try-catch blocks and JSON extraction fallbacks, subsequent tests in the same file (lines 318-328, 446-454, 566-574) still use the simpler JSON.parse(message.text) pattern without the robust fallback mechanisms. For consistency and to ensure the fix works reliably across all scenarios, all tests should use the same robust detection pattern.

Positive Observations

✅ The multi-pattern detection approach is well-designed with multiple fallback strategies
✅ Proper error handling with try-catch blocks around JSON parsing
✅ Enhanced logging for debugging
✅ Consistent application across most test files (apply-diff, execute-command, insert-content, list-files, read-file, search-files)

Recommendation

The core approach is sound, but the inconsistent application in search-and-replace.test.ts should be addressed to ensure all tests benefit from the same robust detection logic. Consider applying the same pattern used in lines 169-200 to all other tool detection blocks in that file.

[ellipsis-dev]

The regex used (/\{[\s\S]*\}/) to extract JSON is very generic and might capture unintended parts of the text. Consider tightening the regex to more accurately match a complete JSON object.

Suggested change

	const jsonMatch = text.match(/\{[\s\S]*\}/)
	const jsonMatch = text.match(/\{[^}]*\}/)