fix(impact): add HAS_METHOD and OVERRIDES to VALID_RELATION_TYPES

[karesansui-u]

Summary

The impact tool description advertises 6 edge types:

EdgeType: CALLS, IMPORTS, EXTENDS, IMPLEMENTS, HAS_METHOD, OVERRIDES

But VALID_RELATION_TYPES in local-backend.ts only contains 4:

export const VALID_RELATION_TYPES = new Set(['CALLS', 'IMPORTS', 'EXTENDS', 'IMPLEMENTS']);

When a user passes relationTypes: ['HAS_METHOD'], the filter silently drops it and falls back to the default 4 types, returning unrelated results instead of an error.

Fix

Add HAS_METHOD and OVERRIDES to VALID_RELATION_TYPES. Both types are defined in graph/types.ts and lbug/schema.ts, and are actively produced by mro-processor.ts and parsing-processor.ts.

Test plan

• Updated security.test.ts — allowlist size 4→6, added assertions for HAS_METHOD and OVERRIDES
• Updated local-backend.test.ts — added HAS_METHOD and OVERRIDES to valid types array
• impact({target: "X", relationTypes: ["HAS_METHOD"]}) returns filtered results instead of falling back to defaults

[vercel]

@karesansui-u is attempting to deploy a commit to the NexusCore Team on Vercel.

A member of the Team first needs to authorize it.

[magyargergo]

Thank you for your contribution! 🙏

[github-actions]

CI Report

✅ All checks passed

Pipeline Status

Stage	Status	Details
✅ Typecheck	success	tsc --noEmit
✅ Unit Tests	success	3 platforms
✅ Integration	success	3 OS x 4 groups = 12 jobs

Test Results

Suite	Tests	Passed	Failed	Skipped	Duration
Unit	1563	1562	0	1	8s
Integration	1161	1141	0	19	49s
Total	2724	2703	0	20	57s

✅ All 2703 tests passed

20 test(s) skipped — expand for details

Integration:

• Python match/case as-pattern type binding > resolves u.save() to User#save via match/case as-pattern binding
• Python match/case as-pattern type binding > does NOT resolve u.save() to Repo#save (negative disambiguation)
• Swift constructor-inferred type resolution > detects User and Repo classes, both with save methods
• Swift constructor-inferred type resolution > resolves user.save() to Models/User.swift via constructor-inferred type
• Swift constructor-inferred type resolution > resolves repo.save() to Models/Repo.swift via constructor-inferred type
• Swift constructor-inferred type resolution > emits exactly 2 save() CALLS edges (one per receiver type)
• Swift self resolution > detects User and Repo classes, each with a save function
• Swift self resolution > resolves self.save() inside User.process to User.save, not Repo.save
• Swift parent resolution > detects BaseModel and User classes plus Serializable protocol
• Swift parent resolution > emits EXTENDS edge: User → BaseModel
• Swift parent resolution > emits IMPLEMENTS edge: User → Serializable (protocol conformance)
• Swift cross-file User.init() inference > resolves user.save() via User.init(name:) inference
• Swift cross-file User.init() inference > resolves user.greet() via User.init(name:) inference
• Swift return type inference > detects User class and getUser function
• Swift return type inference > detects save function on User (Swift class methods are Function nodes)
• Swift return type inference > resolves user.save() to User#save via return type of getUser() -> User
• Swift return-type inference via function return type > resolves user.save() to User#save via return type of getUser()
• Swift return-type inference via function return type > user.save() does NOT resolve to Repo#save
• Swift return-type inference via function return type > resolves repo.save() to Repo#save via return type of getRepo()

Unit:

• buildTypeEnv > known limitations (documented skip tests) > Ruby block parameter: users.each { |user| } — closure param inference, different feature

Code Coverage

Combined (Unit + Integration)

Metric	Coverage	Covered	Base	Delta	Status
Statements	61.51%	6840/11120	47.16%	📈 +14.4	🟢 ████████████░░░░░░░░
Branches	55.73%	4672/8383	42.47%	📈 +13.3	🟢 ███████████░░░░░░░░░
Functions	60.67%	591/974	46.3%	📈 +14.4	🟢 ████████████░░░░░░░░
Lines	63.45%	6117/9640	48.73%	📈 +14.7	🟢 ████████████░░░░░░░░

Coverage breakdown by test suite

Unit Tests

Metric	Coverage	Covered	Base	Delta	Status
Statements	47.16%	5245/11120	47.16%	＝ 0.0	🟢 █████████░░░░░░░░░░░
Branches	42.47%	3561/8383	42.47%	＝ 0.0	🟢 ████████░░░░░░░░░░░░
Functions	46.3%	451/974	46.3%	＝ 0.0	🟢 █████████░░░░░░░░░░░
Lines	48.73%	4698/9640	48.73%	＝ 0.0	🟢 █████████░░░░░░░░░░░

Integration Tests

Metric	Coverage	Covered	Base	Delta	Status
Statements	46.57%	5179/11120	47.16%	📉 -0.6	🔴 █████████░░░░░░░░░░░
Branches	43.96%	3686/8383	42.47%	📈 +1.5	🟢 ████████░░░░░░░░░░░░
Functions	44.14%	430/974	46.3%	📉 -2.2	🔴 ████████░░░░░░░░░░░░
Lines	47.67%	4596/9640	48.73%	📉 -1.1	🔴 █████████░░░░░░░░░░░

---

_{📋 View full run · Generated by CI}

[magyargergo]

Could you please write a test where you directly test this in an integration test? 🙏

[karesansui-u]

Added integration tests in local-backend-calltool.test.ts:

• HAS_METHOD filtering: impact({target: 'AuthService', direction: 'downstream', relationTypes: ['HAS_METHOD']}) returns only methods, not CALLS-reachable symbols
• OVERRIDES filtering: impact({target: 'authenticate', direction: 'downstream', relationTypes: ['OVERRIDES']}) traverses override edges
• Negative case: impact({target: 'AuthService', direction: 'downstream', relationTypes: ['CALLS']}) returns 0 results (AuthService has no outgoing CALLS edges)

Seed data extended with Method nodes and HAS_METHOD/OVERRIDES edges. All 14 callTool tests + 87 existing tests pass.