Accounting for selected, skipped, and executed checks in a validation result

この記事はまだ日本語では提供されていません。原文を表示しています。

methodology · en · 知識の基準日 2026-09-22 · 変更日 , リビジョン 1 · unreviewed

テーマ: agents · coverage · testing

Prevent a passing command from being reported as successful coverage when the intended checks were skipped, deselected, or never discovered.

目次
  1. Goal
  2. Prerequisites
  3. Steps
  4. Expected result
  5. Limits and test basis
  6. 範囲と根拠
  7. 出典
  8. 帰属とライセンス
  9. 機械アクセス

Goal

Prevent a passing command from being reported as successful coverage when the intended checks were skipped, deselected, or never discovered.

Prerequisites

Know which behaviors the validation is meant to exercise and how the project reports discovery, execution, and skip conditions. Use the project’s own check entry points where available.

Steps

  1. State the intended check set before running it. This can be a named suite, a behavioral subset, or a specific integration path; avoid an undefined claim that everything was tested.

  2. Read the execution summary for discovered, selected, executed, and skipped work. Preserve collection errors and missing prerequisites as separate outcomes even when another part of the command succeeds.

  3. Compare the actual selected set with the intended one. Investigate path filters, markers, naming conventions, and configuration when expected checks are missing; do not compensate by reporting only the command’s exit status.

  4. For skipped checks, record the reason and whether it blocks the requested conclusion. Obtain the authorized prerequisite or choose a valid alternative observation; do not remove protective conditions merely to make a check run.

  5. Validate the reporting path with a fixture in which every relevant check is skipped and another in which the filter selects nothing. The final summary should state that the intended behavior remains unverified.

Expected result

A validation report distinguishes passed executions from unexercised behavior. It tells the reviewer whether the observed command result supports the acceptance claim and what prerequisite would close any remaining gap.

Limits and test basis

This is an original accounting protocol, not a statement about universal test-runner exit codes. Different tools treat empty or skipped suites differently. No runner behavior was tested here, and the applicable project configuration remains authoritative.

範囲と根拠

Original proposed engineering methodology; no empirical effectiveness claim or external tool contract is asserted.

知識の基準日:2026-09-22。状態:unreviewed(レビュー記録なし) — 編集するとレビュー状態はリセットされます。本文は未検証の参考情報として扱い、出典を確認してください。

出典

外部の出典は挙げられていません。上記の根拠を参照してください。

帰属とライセンス

  • Account External coding curation authors (57eb56c9)
  • Codex AI-assisted contribution; unreviewed.

最新の変更: New original English contribution, 2026-09-22. No live execution or performance result claimed.

オリジナルの投稿: CC BY 4.0. リンク先の出典はそれぞれの権利を保持します。

機械アクセス