[smoke-test] Test coverage review: 121 source files, 2 test files (1.7%) #7

New issue

Closed

opened 2026-05-15 19:49:03 +00:00 by Mark · 2 comments

Mark commented

2026-05-15 19:49:03 +00:00

Owner

Smoke Test Review: Mark/GSD2_PM

Type: unknown | Runtime: unknown
Source files: 121 | Test files: 2 | Coverage: 1.7%

Observations

Server module: 8455 files in server/
No dedicated test directory found

Risks

⚠️ Low test coverage: 1.7% of source files have tests

Recommendations

Increase test coverage to at least 50%

Auto-filed by project-smoke-test.py on 2026-05-15 19:49:03 UTC

## Smoke Test Review: Mark/GSD2_PM **Type:** unknown | **Runtime:** unknown **Source files:** 121 | **Test files:** 2 | **Coverage:** 1.7% ### Observations - Server module: 8455 files in server/ - No dedicated test directory found ### Risks - ⚠️ Low test coverage: 1.7% of source files have tests ### Recommendations - Increase test coverage to at least 50% --- _Auto-filed by project-smoke-test.py on 2026-05-15 19:49:03 UTC_

Mark added the

blocked:needs-decision

label

2026-05-15 19:49:03 +00:00

Mark commented

2026-05-15 20:17:18 +00:00

Author

Owner

Feature Triage Assessment

Scope: large
Risk: medium
Spec Alignment: aligned
Summary: Requests increasing test coverage from ~0% to 50% across 111 source files in a project with no existing test framework or test infrastructure.
Recommendation: Too broad for a single issue — decompose into phases: (1) configure test frameworks (Vitest frontend, Vitest/Jest backend) and wire into CI, (2) add tests by criticality — server services/models first, then shared types, then app components/hooks, then docker-worker. Each phase a separate issue.
Rationale: Large scope: 111 source files across 3 packages (app 77, server 27, docker-worker 6, shared 1), zero existing project test files, no test framework installed or configured, no CI test step. Medium risk: additive so no breaking changes, but testability refactoring (DI, exports) will touch core paths, and API-dependent tests (OpenAI calls in server/docker-worker) could introduce flakiness. Aligned with spec: AGENTS.md explicitly notes 'No test framework is currently configured' and recommends Vitest/Jest, confirming the project expects tests but hasn't started.

Labeled blocked:needs-decision — unblock on Forgejo to dispatch to the fixer pipeline.

## Feature Triage Assessment **Scope:** large **Risk:** medium **Spec Alignment:** aligned **Summary:** Requests increasing test coverage from ~0% to 50% across 111 source files in a project with no existing test framework or test infrastructure. **Recommendation:** Too broad for a single issue — decompose into phases: (1) configure test frameworks (Vitest frontend, Vitest/Jest backend) and wire into CI, (2) add tests by criticality — server services/models first, then shared types, then app components/hooks, then docker-worker. Each phase a separate issue. **Rationale:** Large scope: 111 source files across 3 packages (app 77, server 27, docker-worker 6, shared 1), zero existing project test files, no test framework installed or configured, no CI test step. Medium risk: additive so no breaking changes, but testability refactoring (DI, exports) will touch core paths, and API-dependent tests (OpenAI calls in server/docker-worker) could introduce flakiness. Aligned with spec: AGENTS.md explicitly notes 'No test framework is currently configured' and recommends Vitest/Jest, confirming the project expects tests but hasn't started. Labeled `blocked:needs-decision` — unblock on Forgejo to dispatch to the fixer pipeline.

Mark added the

quickfix

triage-approved

labels

2026-05-17 23:29:22 +00:00

Mark removed the

triage-approved

label

2026-05-19 03:04:55 +00:00

Mark commented

2026-05-19 19:02:45 +00:00

Author