Re: [PR] test(desktop): reduce P1 Electron coverage at owning boundaries [maka]

["Astro-Han (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>]

Astro-Han commented on PR #4803:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maka/pull/4803#issuecomment-5552807149

   I addressed the coverage gaps in `72287bbf00`, but I am not restoring every deleted assertion. The PR now removes 15 Electron tests, rather than claiming 20 equivalent migrations.
   
   - **Destructive rail entry:** the existing rendered row-menu story now checks that Archive is available and Delete is absent. Adding a Delete menu entry makes it fail. I retained the controller/Host/storage deletion coverage rather than restoring the full parent-deletion journey.
   - **Project picker:** I extended the existing controller test to invoke both picker callbacks and check the target and draft identity through a round trip. Replacing both callbacks with no-ops now fails that test; the clean controller/draft/staging suite passes 29/29. This complements the existing content-handoff tests without adding two full Electron journeys.
   - **WorkHub:** I retained reopening after leaving and exact cross-Session delegation replacement. The redundant creation-announcement journey remains removed.
   - **Revision drafts:** I removed the helper extraction and its direct-call tests and restored both existing edit/resend and cancellation journeys. AppShell and the conversation exports are back to the PR base.
   - **Accessibility:** I retained the session-row draft-restoration focus journey. I am intentionally retiring the six broad AX journeys and the Module Hub route sweep. Generic AX auditing, leaf rendering and controller tests are not equivalent to those journeys, and the description no longer claims otherwise. Exhaustive page/menu inventories, copy assertions and repeated AX scans are not all independent product requirements. The fact that a removed assertion detects a mutation establishes a coverage difference, but does not by itself justify the maintenance cost of retaining that entire journey.
   
   I accept that the original destination table overstated equivalence. I do not agree with grading these coverage changes as current P1 product defects solely from hypothetical future mutations: no current destructive action or broken accessibility route was demonstrated on the clean head. That grading disagreement does not excuse the missing draft and entry protections, which are addressed above.
   
   Validation: both targeted mutations fail, the clean Storybook smoke passes 292 stories / 318 renders, and build, renderer/Storybook typechecks, lint, format, ASF headers and architecture checks pass. Playwright discovers 63 tests in 28 files. The retained native journeys were attempted locally, but the shared window fixture timed out before the first test body; the other four did not run after the first-failure stop. I am not claiming a passing local native run. The updated PR description records these limits and the deliberate coverage reductions.
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@maka.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@maka.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commits-help@maka.apache.org