Skip to content

test(rfc0032): red — all six §5 stubs land, status specified→red - #517

Merged
jensholdgaard merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
rfc0032-red
Jul 13, 2026
Merged

test(rfc0032): red — all six §5 stubs land, status specified→red#517
jensholdgaard merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
rfc0032-red

Conversation

@jensholdgaard

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

What

RFC 0032 red — all six §5 scenario stubs land, status specified → red (the #508 / #466 ladder precedent).

Stubs live in crates/ourios-server/tests/it/rfc0032_query_schema.rs (the RFC 0028 consolidated it-harness hosting rfc0027_mcp.rs); each is #[ignore]d with its green slice named:

  • .1/.2 → resource + config-threading slice (the resource itself + PromotedAttributes plumbed to the MCP handler)
  • .3/.4 → document-correctness slice (severity pinned to SeverityName::floor/ceil, bloom mechanisms pinned to writer properties)
  • .5/.6 → tool-descriptions + read-only slice

Red proof: force-running the six (--run-ignored=all -E 'test(rfc0032)') fails each on todo!().

Checks run

cargo fmt --all --check; workspace cargo clippy --all-targets --all-features -- -D warnings; cargo nextest run -p ourios-server (108 passed, 15 skipped — stubs ignored, none failing; re-verified after rebasing onto the merged #516); mdbook build.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01WQY9wfrfRggqSpMLH8Xj3Y

Six #[ignore]d stubs in crates/ourios-server/tests/it/
rfc0032_query_schema.rs, one per §5 acceptance scenario
(RFC0032.1–.6); default runs stay green (108 passed, stubs skipped;
force-run fails all six on todo!()). Each doc comment paraphrases
its scenario's Given/When/Then with the §5 anchor and each #[ignore]
literal names the green slice that discharges it: resource +
config-threading (.1, .2), document-correctness (.3, .4 — landing as
unit tests beside the mcp.rs resource builder per §6), and
tool-descriptions + read-only (.5, .6).

Placement follows the RFC 0033 red precedent (5c51ff1): all
scenarios in one file in the harness area the RFC's §6 names — the
RFC 0027 in-process MCP harness in the ourios-server it binary — so
§5→stub traceability is one file, with the unit-mapped .3/.4 stubbed
here and their ignore messages naming the mcp.rs builder tests.

RFC status flips specified→red. No invariant (§3) or hazard (§4)
surface is touched: stubs plus a docs frontmatter line only.

fmt clean; workspace clippy -D warnings clean; nextest -p
ourios-server green with stubs skipped; mdbook builds.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WQY9wfrfRggqSpMLH8Xj3Y
@jensholdgaard
jensholdgaard requested a review from Copilot July 13, 2026 14:43
@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Jul 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Warning

Review limit reached

@jensholdgaard, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 27 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 2bcf5667-dd2f-4f6a-9dbc-af714d6b95c6

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 74b8ca3 and 42f7e09.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)
  • crates/ourios-server/tests/it/main.rs
  • crates/ourios-server/tests/it/rfc0032_query_schema.rs
  • docs/rfcs/0032-query-schema-cost-model-resource.md
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Commit unit tests in branch rfc0032-red

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.

❤️ Share

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

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

Moves RFC 0032 from specified → red and adds the corresponding six ignored failing scenario stubs into the consolidated ourios-server integration-test harness, following the established “ladder” precedent (e.g., #508 / #466).

Changes:

  • Flip RFC 0032 frontmatter status: specifiedstatus: red.
  • Add rfc0032_query_schema.rs with six #[ignore]d todo!() test stubs mapping directly to RFC 0032 §5 scenarios.
  • Register the new RFC 0032 test module in the tests/it harness main.rs.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

File Description
docs/rfcs/0032-query-schema-cost-model-resource.md Updates RFC 0032 status to red in the frontmatter.
crates/ourios-server/tests/it/rfc0032_query_schema.rs Adds six ignored scenario stubs (RFC0032.1–.6) for §5 acceptance criteria.
crates/ourios-server/tests/it/main.rs Adds the new mod rfc0032_query_schema; to include the stubs in the integration harness.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

@jensholdgaard
jensholdgaard merged commit a58f422 into main Jul 13, 2026
26 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants