Files
ss-tools/.kilocode/workflows/speckit.test.md
2026-04-01 13:29:41 +03:00

236 lines
8.6 KiB
Markdown

---
description: Generate tests, manage test documentation, and ensure maximum code coverage
---
## User Input
```text
$ARGUMENTS
```
You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
## Goal
Execute semantic audit and full testing cycle: verify contract compliance, verify decision-memory continuity, emulate logic, ensure maximum coverage, and maintain test quality.
## Operating Constraints
1. **NEVER delete existing tests** - Only update if they fail due to bugs in the test or implementation
2. **NEVER duplicate tests** - Check existing tests first before creating new ones
3. **Use TEST_FIXTURE fixtures** - For CRITICAL tier modules, read @TEST_FIXTURE from .ai/standards/semantics.md
4. **Co-location required** - Write tests in `__tests__` directories relative to the code being tested
5. **Decision-memory regression guard** - Tests and audits must not normalize silent reintroduction of any path documented in upstream `@REJECTED`
## Execution Steps
### 1. Analyze Context
Run `.specify/scripts/bash/check-prerequisites.sh --json --require-tasks --include-tasks` from repo root and parse FEATURE_DIR and AVAILABLE_DOCS.
Determine:
- FEATURE_DIR - where the feature is located
- TASKS_FILE - path to `tasks.md`
- Which modules need testing based on task status
- Which ADRs or task guardrails define rejected paths for the touched scope
### 2. Load Relevant Artifacts
**From `tasks.md`:**
- Identify completed implementation tasks (not test tasks)
- Extract file paths that need tests
- Extract guardrail summaries and blocked paths
**From `.ai/standards/semantics.md`:**
- Read effective complexity expectations
- Read decision-memory rules for ADR, preventive guardrails, and reactive Micro-ADR
- For CRITICAL modules: Read `@TEST_` fixtures
**From ADR sources and touched code:**
- Read `[DEF:id:ADR]` nodes when present
- Read local `@RATIONALE` and `@REJECTED` in touched contracts
**From existing tests:**
- Scan `__tests__` directories for existing tests
- Identify test patterns and coverage gaps
### 3. Test Coverage Analysis
Create coverage matrix:
| Module | File | Has Tests | Complexity / Tier | TEST_FIXTURE Available | Rejected Path Guarded |
|--------|------|-----------|-------------------|------------------------|-----------------------|
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
### 4. Semantic Audit & Logic Emulation (CRITICAL)
Before writing tests, the Tester MUST:
1. **Run `axiom-core.audit_contracts_tool`**: Identify semantic violations.
2. **Run a protocol-shape review on touched files**:
- Reject non-canonical semantic markup, including docstring-only annotations such as `@PURPOSE`, `@PRE`, or `@INVARIANT` written inside class/function docstrings without canonical `[DEF]...[/DEF]` anchors and header metadata.
- Reject files whose effective complexity contract is under-specified relative to [`.ai/standards/semantics.md`](.ai/standards/semantics.md).
- Reject Python Complexity 4+ modules that omit meaningful `logger.reason()` / `logger.reflect()` checkpoints.
- Reject Python Complexity 5 modules that omit `belief_scope(...)`, `@DATA_CONTRACT`, or `@INVARIANT`.
- Treat broken or missing closing anchors as blocking violations.
- Reject retained workaround code if the local contract lacks `@RATIONALE` / `@REJECTED`.
- Reject code that silently re-enables a path declared in upstream ADR or local guardrails as rejected.
3. **Emulate Algorithm**: Step through the code implementation in mind.
- Verify it adheres to the `@PURPOSE` and `@INVARIANT`.
- Verify `@PRE` and `@POST` conditions are correctly handled.
- Verify the implementation follows accepted-path rationale rather than drifting into a blocked path.
4. **Validation Verdict**:
- If audit fails: Emit `[AUDIT_FAIL: semantic_noncompliance]` with concrete file-path reasons and notify Orchestrator.
- Example blocking case: [`backend/src/services/dataset_review/repositories/session_repository.py`](backend/src/services/dataset_review/repositories/session_repository.py) contains a module anchor, but its nested repository class/method semantics are expressed as loose docstrings instead of canonical anchored contracts; this MUST be rejected until remediated or explicitly waived.
- If audit passes: Proceed to writing/verifying tests.
### 5. Write Tests (TDD Approach)
For each module requiring tests:
1. **Check existing tests**: Scan `__tests__/` for duplicates.
2. **Read TEST_FIXTURE**: If CRITICAL tier, read `@TEST_FIXTURE` from semantics header.
3. **Do not normalize broken semantics through tests**:
- The Tester must not write tests that silently accept malformed semantic protocol usage.
- If implementation is semantically invalid, stop and reject instead of adapting tests around the invalid structure.
4. **Write test**: Follow co-location strategy.
- Python: `src/module/__tests__/test_module.py`
- Svelte: `src/lib/components/__tests__/test_component.test.js`
5. **Use mocks**: Use `unittest.mock.MagicMock` for external dependencies
6. **Add rejected-path regression coverage when relevant**:
- If ADR or local contract names a blocked path in `@REJECTED`, add or verify at least one test or explicit audit check that would fail if that forbidden path were silently restored.
### 4a. UX Contract Testing (Frontend Components)
For Svelte components with `@UX_STATE`, `@UX_FEEDBACK`, `@UX_RECOVERY` tags:
1. **Parse UX tags**: Read component file and extract all `@UX_*` annotations
2. **Generate UX tests**: Create tests for each UX state transition
```javascript
// Example: Testing @UX_STATE: Idle -> Expanded
it('should transition from Idle to Expanded on toggle click', async () => {
render(Sidebar);
const toggleBtn = screen.getByRole('button', { name: /toggle/i });
await fireEvent.click(toggleBtn);
expect(screen.getByTestId('sidebar')).toHaveClass('expanded');
});
```
3. **Test `@UX_FEEDBACK`**: Verify visual feedback (toast, shake, color changes)
4. **Test `@UX_RECOVERY`**: Verify error recovery mechanisms (retry, clear input)
5. **Use `@UX_TEST` fixtures**: If component has `@UX_TEST` tags, use them as test specifications
6. **Verify decision memory**: If the UI contract declares `@REJECTED`, ensure browser-visible behavior does not regress into the rejected path.
**UX Test Template:**
```javascript
// [DEF:ComponentUXTests:Module]
// @C: 3
// @RELATION: VERIFIES -> ../Component.svelte
// @PURPOSE: Test UX states and transitions
describe('Component UX States', () => {
// @UX_STATE: Idle -> {action: click, expected: Active}
it('should transition Idle -> Active on click', async () => { ... });
// @UX_FEEDBACK: Toast on success
it('should show toast on successful action', async () => { ... });
// @UX_RECOVERY: Retry on error
it('should allow retry on error', async () => { ... });
});
// [/DEF:__tests__/test_Component:Module]
```
### 5. Test Documentation
Create/update documentation in `specs/<feature>/tests/`:
```
tests/
├── README.md # Test strategy and overview
├── coverage.md # Coverage matrix and reports
└── reports/
└── YYYY-MM-DD-report.md
```
Include decision-memory coverage notes when ADR or rejected-path regressions were checked.
### 6. Execute Tests
Run tests and report results:
**Backend:**
```bash
cd backend && .venv/bin/python3 -m pytest -v
```
**Frontend:**
```bash
cd frontend && npm run test
```
### 7. Update Tasks
Mark test tasks as completed in `tasks.md` with:
- Test file path
- Coverage achieved
- Any issues found
- Whether rejected-path regression checks passed or remain manual audit items
## Output
Generate test execution report:
```markdown
# Test Report: [FEATURE]
**Date**: [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Executed by**: Tester Agent
## Coverage Summary
| Module | Tests | Coverage % |
|--------|-------|------------|
| ... | ... | ... |
## Test Results
- Total: [X]
- Passed: [X]
- Failed: [X]
- Skipped: [X]
## Semantic Audit Verdict
- Verdict: PASS | FAIL
- Blocking Violations:
- [file path] -> [reason]
- Decision Memory:
- ADRs checked: [...]
- Rejected-path regressions: PASS | FAIL
- Missing `@RATIONALE` / `@REJECTED`: [...]
- Notes:
- Reject docstring-only semantic pseudo-markup
- Reject complexity/contract mismatches
- Reject missing belief-state instrumentation for Python Complexity 4/5
- Reject silent resurrection of rejected paths
## Issues Found
| Test | Error | Resolution |
|------|-------|------------|
| ... | ... | ... |
## Next Steps
- [ ] Fix failed tests
- [ ] Fix blocking semantic violations before acceptance
- [ ] Fix decision-memory drift or rejected-path regressions
- [ ] Add more coverage for [module]
- [ ] Review TEST_FIXTURE fixtures
```
## Context for Testing
$ARGUMENTS