mirror of
https://github.com/garrytan/gstack.git
synced 2026-05-02 03:35:09 +02:00
feat: /review Step 4.75 test coverage diagram
Add codepath tracing to the pre-landing review via
{{TEST_COVERAGE_AUDIT_REVIEW}}. Review mode:
- Produces ASCII coverage diagram (same methodology as plan/ship)
- Generates tests for gaps via Fix-First (ASK user)
- Subsumes Pass 2 "Test Gaps" checklist category
- Gaps are INFORMATIONAL findings
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Garry Tan
@@ -343,6 +343,183 @@ Include any design findings alongside the findings from Step 4. They follow the
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Step 4.75: Test Coverage Diagram
|
||||
|
||||
100% coverage is the goal. Evaluate every codepath changed in the diff and identify test gaps. Gaps become INFORMATIONAL findings that follow the Fix-First flow.
|
||||
|
||||
### Test Framework Detection
|
||||
|
||||
Before analyzing coverage, detect the project's test framework:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Read CLAUDE.md** — look for a `## Testing` section with test command and framework name. If found, use that as the authoritative source.
|
||||
2. **If CLAUDE.md has no testing section, auto-detect:**
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# Detect project runtime
|
||||
[ -f Gemfile ] && echo "RUNTIME:ruby"
|
||||
[ -f package.json ] && echo "RUNTIME:node"
|
||||
[ -f requirements.txt ] || [ -f pyproject.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:python"
|
||||
[ -f go.mod ] && echo "RUNTIME:go"
|
||||
[ -f Cargo.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:rust"
|
||||
# Check for existing test infrastructure
|
||||
ls jest.config.* vitest.config.* playwright.config.* cypress.config.* .rspec pytest.ini phpunit.xml 2>/dev/null
|
||||
ls -d test/ tests/ spec/ __tests__/ cypress/ e2e/ 2>/dev/null
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
3. **If no framework detected:** still produce the coverage diagram, but skip test generation.
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 1. Trace every codepath changed** using `git diff origin/<base>...HEAD`:
|
||||
|
||||
Read every changed file. For each one, trace how data flows through the code — don't just list functions, actually follow the execution:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Read the diff.** For each changed file, read the full file (not just the diff hunk) to understand context.
|
||||
2. **Trace data flow.** Starting from each entry point (route handler, exported function, event listener, component render), follow the data through every branch:
|
||||
- Where does input come from? (request params, props, database, API call)
|
||||
- What transforms it? (validation, mapping, computation)
|
||||
- Where does it go? (database write, API response, rendered output, side effect)
|
||||
- What can go wrong at each step? (null/undefined, invalid input, network failure, empty collection)
|
||||
3. **Diagram the execution.** For each changed file, draw an ASCII diagram showing:
|
||||
- Every function/method that was added or modified
|
||||
- Every conditional branch (if/else, switch, ternary, guard clause, early return)
|
||||
- Every error path (try/catch, rescue, error boundary, fallback)
|
||||
- Every call to another function (trace into it — does IT have untested branches?)
|
||||
- Every edge: what happens with null input? Empty array? Invalid type?
|
||||
|
||||
This is the critical step — you're building a map of every line of code that can execute differently based on input. Every branch in this diagram needs a test.
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 2. Map user flows, interactions, and error states:**
|
||||
|
||||
Code coverage isn't enough — you need to cover how real users interact with the changed code. For each changed feature, think through:
|
||||
|
||||
- **User flows:** What sequence of actions does a user take that touches this code? Map the full journey (e.g., "user clicks 'Pay' → form validates → API call → success/failure screen"). Each step in the journey needs a test.
|
||||
- **Interaction edge cases:** What happens when the user does something unexpected?
|
||||
- Double-click/rapid resubmit
|
||||
- Navigate away mid-operation (back button, close tab, click another link)
|
||||
- Submit with stale data (page sat open for 30 minutes, session expired)
|
||||
- Slow connection (API takes 10 seconds — what does the user see?)
|
||||
- Concurrent actions (two tabs, same form)
|
||||
- **Error states the user can see:** For every error the code handles, what does the user actually experience?
|
||||
- Is there a clear error message or a silent failure?
|
||||
- Can the user recover (retry, go back, fix input) or are they stuck?
|
||||
- What happens with no network? With a 500 from the API? With invalid data from the server?
|
||||
- **Empty/zero/boundary states:** What does the UI show with zero results? With 10,000 results? With a single character input? With maximum-length input?
|
||||
|
||||
Add these to your diagram alongside the code branches. A user flow with no test is just as much a gap as an untested if/else.
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 3. Check each branch against existing tests:**
|
||||
|
||||
Go through your diagram branch by branch — both code paths AND user flows. For each one, search for a test that exercises it:
|
||||
- Function `processPayment()` → look for `billing.test.ts`, `billing.spec.ts`, `test/billing_test.rb`
|
||||
- An if/else → look for tests covering BOTH the true AND false path
|
||||
- An error handler → look for a test that triggers that specific error condition
|
||||
- A call to `helperFn()` that has its own branches → those branches need tests too
|
||||
- A user flow → look for an integration or E2E test that walks through the journey
|
||||
- An interaction edge case → look for a test that simulates the unexpected action
|
||||
|
||||
Quality scoring rubric:
|
||||
- ★★★ Tests behavior with edge cases AND error paths
|
||||
- ★★ Tests correct behavior, happy path only
|
||||
- ★ Smoke test / existence check / trivial assertion (e.g., "it renders", "it doesn't throw")
|
||||
|
||||
### E2E Test Decision Matrix
|
||||
|
||||
When checking each branch, also determine whether a unit test or E2E/integration test is the right tool:
|
||||
|
||||
**RECOMMEND E2E (mark as [→E2E] in the diagram):**
|
||||
- Common user flow spanning 3+ components/services (e.g., signup → verify email → first login)
|
||||
- Integration point where mocking hides real failures (e.g., API → queue → worker → DB)
|
||||
- Auth/payment/data-destruction flows — too important to trust unit tests alone
|
||||
|
||||
**RECOMMEND EVAL (mark as [→EVAL] in the diagram):**
|
||||
- Critical LLM call that needs a quality eval (e.g., prompt change → test output still meets quality bar)
|
||||
- Changes to prompt templates, system instructions, or tool definitions
|
||||
|
||||
**STICK WITH UNIT TESTS:**
|
||||
- Pure function with clear inputs/outputs
|
||||
- Internal helper with no side effects
|
||||
- Edge case of a single function (null input, empty array)
|
||||
- Obscure/rare flow that isn't customer-facing
|
||||
|
||||
### REGRESSION RULE (mandatory)
|
||||
|
||||
**IRON RULE:** When the coverage audit identifies a REGRESSION — code that previously worked but the diff broke — a regression test is written immediately. No AskUserQuestion. No skipping. Regressions are the highest-priority test because they prove something broke.
|
||||
|
||||
A regression is when:
|
||||
- The diff modifies existing behavior (not new code)
|
||||
- The existing test suite (if any) doesn't cover the changed path
|
||||
- The change introduces a new failure mode for existing callers
|
||||
|
||||
When uncertain whether a change is a regression, err on the side of writing the test.
|
||||
|
||||
Format: commit as `test: regression test for {what broke}`
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 4. Output ASCII coverage diagram:**
|
||||
|
||||
Include BOTH code paths and user flows in the same diagram. Mark E2E-worthy and eval-worthy paths:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
CODE PATH COVERAGE
|
||||
===========================
|
||||
[+] src/services/billing.ts
|
||||
│
|
||||
├── processPayment()
|
||||
│ ├── [★★★ TESTED] Happy path + card declined + timeout — billing.test.ts:42
|
||||
│ ├── [GAP] Network timeout — NO TEST
|
||||
│ └── [GAP] Invalid currency — NO TEST
|
||||
│
|
||||
└── refundPayment()
|
||||
├── [★★ TESTED] Full refund — billing.test.ts:89
|
||||
└── [★ TESTED] Partial refund (checks non-throw only) — billing.test.ts:101
|
||||
|
||||
USER FLOW COVERAGE
|
||||
===========================
|
||||
[+] Payment checkout flow
|
||||
│
|
||||
├── [★★★ TESTED] Complete purchase — checkout.e2e.ts:15
|
||||
├── [GAP] [→E2E] Double-click submit — needs E2E, not just unit
|
||||
├── [GAP] Navigate away during payment — unit test sufficient
|
||||
└── [★ TESTED] Form validation errors (checks render only) — checkout.test.ts:40
|
||||
|
||||
[+] Error states
|
||||
│
|
||||
├── [★★ TESTED] Card declined message — billing.test.ts:58
|
||||
├── [GAP] Network timeout UX (what does user see?) — NO TEST
|
||||
└── [GAP] Empty cart submission — NO TEST
|
||||
|
||||
[+] LLM integration
|
||||
│
|
||||
└── [GAP] [→EVAL] Prompt template change — needs eval test
|
||||
|
||||
─────────────────────────────────
|
||||
COVERAGE: 5/13 paths tested (38%)
|
||||
Code paths: 3/5 (60%)
|
||||
User flows: 2/8 (25%)
|
||||
QUALITY: ★★★: 2 ★★: 2 ★: 1
|
||||
GAPS: 8 paths need tests (2 need E2E, 1 needs eval)
|
||||
─────────────────────────────────
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Fast path:** All paths covered → "Step 4.75: All new code paths have test coverage ✓" Continue.
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 5. Generate tests for gaps (Fix-First):**
|
||||
|
||||
If test framework is detected and gaps were identified:
|
||||
- Classify each gap as AUTO-FIX or ASK per the Fix-First Heuristic:
|
||||
- **AUTO-FIX:** Simple unit tests for pure functions, edge cases of existing tested functions
|
||||
- **ASK:** E2E tests, tests requiring new test infrastructure, tests for ambiguous behavior
|
||||
- For AUTO-FIX gaps: generate the test, run it, commit as `test: coverage for {feature}`
|
||||
- For ASK gaps: include in the Fix-First batch question with the other review findings
|
||||
- For paths marked [→E2E]: always ASK (E2E tests are higher-effort and need user confirmation)
|
||||
- For paths marked [→EVAL]: always ASK (eval tests need user confirmation on quality criteria)
|
||||
|
||||
If no test framework detected → include gaps as INFORMATIONAL findings only, no generation.
|
||||
|
||||
**Diff is test-only changes:** Skip Step 4.75 entirely: "No new application code paths to audit."
|
||||
|
||||
This step subsumes the "Test Gaps" category from Pass 2 — do not duplicate findings between the checklist Test Gaps item and this coverage diagram. Include any coverage gaps alongside the findings from Step 4 and Step 4.5. They follow the same Fix-First flow — gaps are INFORMATIONAL findings.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Step 5: Fix-First Review
|
||||
|
||||
**Every finding gets action — not just critical ones.**
|
||||
|
||||
+177
@@ -352,6 +352,183 @@ Include any design findings alongside the findings from Step 4. They follow the
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Step 4.75: Test Coverage Diagram
|
||||
|
||||
100% coverage is the goal. Evaluate every codepath changed in the diff and identify test gaps. Gaps become INFORMATIONAL findings that follow the Fix-First flow.
|
||||
|
||||
### Test Framework Detection
|
||||
|
||||
Before analyzing coverage, detect the project's test framework:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Read CLAUDE.md** — look for a `## Testing` section with test command and framework name. If found, use that as the authoritative source.
|
||||
2. **If CLAUDE.md has no testing section, auto-detect:**
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# Detect project runtime
|
||||
[ -f Gemfile ] && echo "RUNTIME:ruby"
|
||||
[ -f package.json ] && echo "RUNTIME:node"
|
||||
[ -f requirements.txt ] || [ -f pyproject.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:python"
|
||||
[ -f go.mod ] && echo "RUNTIME:go"
|
||||
[ -f Cargo.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:rust"
|
||||
# Check for existing test infrastructure
|
||||
ls jest.config.* vitest.config.* playwright.config.* cypress.config.* .rspec pytest.ini phpunit.xml 2>/dev/null
|
||||
ls -d test/ tests/ spec/ __tests__/ cypress/ e2e/ 2>/dev/null
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
3. **If no framework detected:** still produce the coverage diagram, but skip test generation.
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 1. Trace every codepath changed** using `git diff origin/<base>...HEAD`:
|
||||
|
||||
Read every changed file. For each one, trace how data flows through the code — don't just list functions, actually follow the execution:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Read the diff.** For each changed file, read the full file (not just the diff hunk) to understand context.
|
||||
2. **Trace data flow.** Starting from each entry point (route handler, exported function, event listener, component render), follow the data through every branch:
|
||||
- Where does input come from? (request params, props, database, API call)
|
||||
- What transforms it? (validation, mapping, computation)
|
||||
- Where does it go? (database write, API response, rendered output, side effect)
|
||||
- What can go wrong at each step? (null/undefined, invalid input, network failure, empty collection)
|
||||
3. **Diagram the execution.** For each changed file, draw an ASCII diagram showing:
|
||||
- Every function/method that was added or modified
|
||||
- Every conditional branch (if/else, switch, ternary, guard clause, early return)
|
||||
- Every error path (try/catch, rescue, error boundary, fallback)
|
||||
- Every call to another function (trace into it — does IT have untested branches?)
|
||||
- Every edge: what happens with null input? Empty array? Invalid type?
|
||||
|
||||
This is the critical step — you're building a map of every line of code that can execute differently based on input. Every branch in this diagram needs a test.
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 2. Map user flows, interactions, and error states:**
|
||||
|
||||
Code coverage isn't enough — you need to cover how real users interact with the changed code. For each changed feature, think through:
|
||||
|
||||
- **User flows:** What sequence of actions does a user take that touches this code? Map the full journey (e.g., "user clicks 'Pay' → form validates → API call → success/failure screen"). Each step in the journey needs a test.
|
||||
- **Interaction edge cases:** What happens when the user does something unexpected?
|
||||
- Double-click/rapid resubmit
|
||||
- Navigate away mid-operation (back button, close tab, click another link)
|
||||
- Submit with stale data (page sat open for 30 minutes, session expired)
|
||||
- Slow connection (API takes 10 seconds — what does the user see?)
|
||||
- Concurrent actions (two tabs, same form)
|
||||
- **Error states the user can see:** For every error the code handles, what does the user actually experience?
|
||||
- Is there a clear error message or a silent failure?
|
||||
- Can the user recover (retry, go back, fix input) or are they stuck?
|
||||
- What happens with no network? With a 500 from the API? With invalid data from the server?
|
||||
- **Empty/zero/boundary states:** What does the UI show with zero results? With 10,000 results? With a single character input? With maximum-length input?
|
||||
|
||||
Add these to your diagram alongside the code branches. A user flow with no test is just as much a gap as an untested if/else.
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 3. Check each branch against existing tests:**
|
||||
|
||||
Go through your diagram branch by branch — both code paths AND user flows. For each one, search for a test that exercises it:
|
||||
- Function `processPayment()` → look for `billing.test.ts`, `billing.spec.ts`, `test/billing_test.rb`
|
||||
- An if/else → look for tests covering BOTH the true AND false path
|
||||
- An error handler → look for a test that triggers that specific error condition
|
||||
- A call to `helperFn()` that has its own branches → those branches need tests too
|
||||
- A user flow → look for an integration or E2E test that walks through the journey
|
||||
- An interaction edge case → look for a test that simulates the unexpected action
|
||||
|
||||
Quality scoring rubric:
|
||||
- ★★★ Tests behavior with edge cases AND error paths
|
||||
- ★★ Tests correct behavior, happy path only
|
||||
- ★ Smoke test / existence check / trivial assertion (e.g., "it renders", "it doesn't throw")
|
||||
|
||||
### E2E Test Decision Matrix
|
||||
|
||||
When checking each branch, also determine whether a unit test or E2E/integration test is the right tool:
|
||||
|
||||
**RECOMMEND E2E (mark as [→E2E] in the diagram):**
|
||||
- Common user flow spanning 3+ components/services (e.g., signup → verify email → first login)
|
||||
- Integration point where mocking hides real failures (e.g., API → queue → worker → DB)
|
||||
- Auth/payment/data-destruction flows — too important to trust unit tests alone
|
||||
|
||||
**RECOMMEND EVAL (mark as [→EVAL] in the diagram):**
|
||||
- Critical LLM call that needs a quality eval (e.g., prompt change → test output still meets quality bar)
|
||||
- Changes to prompt templates, system instructions, or tool definitions
|
||||
|
||||
**STICK WITH UNIT TESTS:**
|
||||
- Pure function with clear inputs/outputs
|
||||
- Internal helper with no side effects
|
||||
- Edge case of a single function (null input, empty array)
|
||||
- Obscure/rare flow that isn't customer-facing
|
||||
|
||||
### REGRESSION RULE (mandatory)
|
||||
|
||||
**IRON RULE:** When the coverage audit identifies a REGRESSION — code that previously worked but the diff broke — a regression test is written immediately. No AskUserQuestion. No skipping. Regressions are the highest-priority test because they prove something broke.
|
||||
|
||||
A regression is when:
|
||||
- The diff modifies existing behavior (not new code)
|
||||
- The existing test suite (if any) doesn't cover the changed path
|
||||
- The change introduces a new failure mode for existing callers
|
||||
|
||||
When uncertain whether a change is a regression, err on the side of writing the test.
|
||||
|
||||
Format: commit as `test: regression test for {what broke}`
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 4. Output ASCII coverage diagram:**
|
||||
|
||||
Include BOTH code paths and user flows in the same diagram. Mark E2E-worthy and eval-worthy paths:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
CODE PATH COVERAGE
|
||||
===========================
|
||||
[+] src/services/billing.ts
|
||||
│
|
||||
├── processPayment()
|
||||
│ ├── [★★★ TESTED] Happy path + card declined + timeout — billing.test.ts:42
|
||||
│ ├── [GAP] Network timeout — NO TEST
|
||||
│ └── [GAP] Invalid currency — NO TEST
|
||||
│
|
||||
└── refundPayment()
|
||||
├── [★★ TESTED] Full refund — billing.test.ts:89
|
||||
└── [★ TESTED] Partial refund (checks non-throw only) — billing.test.ts:101
|
||||
|
||||
USER FLOW COVERAGE
|
||||
===========================
|
||||
[+] Payment checkout flow
|
||||
│
|
||||
├── [★★★ TESTED] Complete purchase — checkout.e2e.ts:15
|
||||
├── [GAP] [→E2E] Double-click submit — needs E2E, not just unit
|
||||
├── [GAP] Navigate away during payment — unit test sufficient
|
||||
└── [★ TESTED] Form validation errors (checks render only) — checkout.test.ts:40
|
||||
|
||||
[+] Error states
|
||||
│
|
||||
├── [★★ TESTED] Card declined message — billing.test.ts:58
|
||||
├── [GAP] Network timeout UX (what does user see?) — NO TEST
|
||||
└── [GAP] Empty cart submission — NO TEST
|
||||
|
||||
[+] LLM integration
|
||||
│
|
||||
└── [GAP] [→EVAL] Prompt template change — needs eval test
|
||||
|
||||
─────────────────────────────────
|
||||
COVERAGE: 5/13 paths tested (38%)
|
||||
Code paths: 3/5 (60%)
|
||||
User flows: 2/8 (25%)
|
||||
QUALITY: ★★★: 2 ★★: 2 ★: 1
|
||||
GAPS: 8 paths need tests (2 need E2E, 1 needs eval)
|
||||
─────────────────────────────────
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Fast path:** All paths covered → "Step 4.75: All new code paths have test coverage ✓" Continue.
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 5. Generate tests for gaps (Fix-First):**
|
||||
|
||||
If test framework is detected and gaps were identified:
|
||||
- Classify each gap as AUTO-FIX or ASK per the Fix-First Heuristic:
|
||||
- **AUTO-FIX:** Simple unit tests for pure functions, edge cases of existing tested functions
|
||||
- **ASK:** E2E tests, tests requiring new test infrastructure, tests for ambiguous behavior
|
||||
- For AUTO-FIX gaps: generate the test, run it, commit as `test: coverage for {feature}`
|
||||
- For ASK gaps: include in the Fix-First batch question with the other review findings
|
||||
- For paths marked [→E2E]: always ASK (E2E tests are higher-effort and need user confirmation)
|
||||
- For paths marked [→EVAL]: always ASK (eval tests need user confirmation on quality criteria)
|
||||
|
||||
If no test framework detected → include gaps as INFORMATIONAL findings only, no generation.
|
||||
|
||||
**Diff is test-only changes:** Skip Step 4.75 entirely: "No new application code paths to audit."
|
||||
|
||||
This step subsumes the "Test Gaps" category from Pass 2 — do not duplicate findings between the checklist Test Gaps item and this coverage diagram. Include any coverage gaps alongside the findings from Step 4 and Step 4.5. They follow the same Fix-First flow — gaps are INFORMATIONAL findings.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Step 5: Fix-First Review
|
||||
|
||||
**Every finding gets action — not just critical ones.**
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -119,6 +119,14 @@ Include any design findings alongside the findings from Step 4. They follow the
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Step 4.75: Test Coverage Diagram
|
||||
|
||||
{{TEST_COVERAGE_AUDIT_REVIEW}}
|
||||
|
||||
This step subsumes the "Test Gaps" category from Pass 2 — do not duplicate findings between the checklist Test Gaps item and this coverage diagram. Include any coverage gaps alongside the findings from Step 4 and Step 4.5. They follow the same Fix-First flow — gaps are INFORMATIONAL findings.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Step 5: Fix-First Review
|
||||
|
||||
**Every finding gets action — not just critical ones.**
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user