// tests/lib/coordinator-contract.test.mjs
// SKAL-1·4a — deterministic test of the review-coordinator contract subset.
//
// Inline reviewer-JSON fixtures (idiom: tests/validators/brief-validator.test.mjs).
// Hermetic: no LLM, network, time, or randomness.

import { test } from 'node:test';
import { strict as assert } from 'node:assert';
import { readFileSync } from 'node:fs';
import { join, dirname } from 'node:path';
import { fileURLToPath } from 'node:url';
import {
  severityRank,
  ingest,
  dedupByTriplet,
  judgeFilter,
  reasonablenessFilter,
  computeVerdict,
  classifySuppression,
  REFUTING_REASONS,
  UNVERIFIED_REASONS,
  runContract,
} from '../../lib/review/coordinator-contract.mjs';

const ROOT = join(dirname(fileURLToPath(import.meta.url)), '..', '..');

// ---- Pass 1 — dedup --------------------------------------------------------

test('dedupByTriplet — genuine cross-reviewer collapse (identical triplet) → 1, raised_by both', () => {
  // Both reviewers flag the SAME (file,line,rule_key) triplet — this is the
  // real collapse the coordinator performs.
  const findings = [
    { file: 'lib/auth/jwt.mjs', line: 19, rule_key: 'SECURITY_INJECTION', severity: 'BLOCKER', title: 'algo from header', reviewer: 'correctness' },
    { file: 'lib/auth/jwt.mjs', line: 19, rule_key: 'SECURITY_INJECTION', severity: 'BLOCKER', title: 'NG1 violated', reviewer: 'conformance' },
  ];
  const out = dedupByTriplet(findings);
  assert.equal(out.length, 1, 'identical triplets must collapse to one');
  assert.deepEqual([...out[0].raised_by].sort(), ['conformance', 'correctness']);
});

test('dedupByTriplet — README #2 two DIFFERENT rule_keys at same file:line do NOT collapse', () => {
  // The bakeoff-rich README marks issue #2 dual-flaggable via SECURITY_INJECTION
  // AND NON_GOAL_VIOLATED. Those are DIFFERENT triplets → distinct defects → kept.
  const findings = [
    { file: 'lib/auth/jwt.mjs', line: 19, rule_key: 'SECURITY_INJECTION', severity: 'BLOCKER', reviewer: 'correctness' },
    { file: 'lib/auth/jwt.mjs', line: 19, rule_key: 'NON_GOAL_VIOLATED', severity: 'BLOCKER', reviewer: 'conformance' },
  ];
  assert.equal(dedupByTriplet(findings).length, 2);
});

test('dedupByTriplet — survivor is the highest-severity finding in the group', () => {
  const findings = [
    { file: 'x.mjs', line: 1, rule_key: 'SECURITY_INJECTION', severity: 'MINOR', reviewer: 'correctness' },
    { file: 'x.mjs', line: 1, rule_key: 'SECURITY_INJECTION', severity: 'BLOCKER', reviewer: 'correctness' },
  ];
  const out = dedupByTriplet(findings);
  assert.equal(out.length, 1);
  assert.equal(out[0].severity, 'BLOCKER');
});

test('dedupByTriplet — severity tie breaks toward the conformance reviewer', () => {
  const findings = [
    { file: 'x.mjs', line: 1, rule_key: 'NON_GOAL_VIOLATED', severity: 'BLOCKER', title: 'corr', reviewer: 'correctness' },
    { file: 'x.mjs', line: 1, rule_key: 'NON_GOAL_VIOLATED', severity: 'BLOCKER', title: 'conf', reviewer: 'conformance' },
  ];
  const out = dedupByTriplet(findings);
  assert.equal(out.length, 1);
  assert.equal(out[0].reviewer, 'conformance');
});

// ---- severity ranking (4-tier, incl. synthetic SUGGESTION) -----------------

test('severityRank — orders the full 4-tier SEVERITY_VALUES incl. SUGGESTION', () => {
  assert.ok(severityRank('BLOCKER') < severityRank('MAJOR'));
  assert.ok(severityRank('MAJOR') < severityRank('MINOR'));
  assert.ok(severityRank('MINOR') < severityRank('SUGGESTION'));
});

test('dedupByTriplet — SUGGESTION vs MINOR (synthetic) keeps the MINOR survivor', () => {
  // gold corpus has no SUGGESTION; exercise the 4th tier synthetically.
  const findings = [
    { file: 'x.mjs', line: 2, rule_key: 'MISSING_ERROR_HANDLING', severity: 'SUGGESTION', reviewer: 'correctness' },
    { file: 'x.mjs', line: 2, rule_key: 'MISSING_ERROR_HANDLING', severity: 'MINOR', reviewer: 'correctness' },
  ];
  const out = dedupByTriplet(findings);
  assert.equal(out.length, 1);
  assert.equal(out[0].severity, 'MINOR');
});

// ---- Pass 4 — verdict thresholds -------------------------------------------

test('computeVerdict — BLOCKER>=1 → BLOCK, MAJOR-only → WARN, else ALLOW', () => {
  assert.equal(computeVerdict([{ severity: 'BLOCKER' }, { severity: 'MAJOR' }]).verdict, 'BLOCK');
  assert.equal(computeVerdict([{ severity: 'MAJOR' }, { severity: 'MINOR' }]).verdict, 'WARN');
  assert.equal(computeVerdict([{ severity: 'MINOR' }]).verdict, 'ALLOW');
  assert.equal(computeVerdict([{ severity: 'SUGGESTION' }]).verdict, 'ALLOW');
  assert.equal(computeVerdict([]).verdict, 'ALLOW');
});

test('computeVerdict — counts each severity tier', () => {
  const { counts } = computeVerdict([
    { severity: 'BLOCKER' }, { severity: 'BLOCKER' }, { severity: 'MAJOR' }, { severity: 'MINOR' },
  ]);
  assert.deepEqual(counts, { BLOCKER: 2, MAJOR: 1, MINOR: 1, SUGGESTION: 0 });
});

// ---- Pass 3 — reasonableness -----------------------------------------------

test('reasonablenessFilter — citation-less is REFUTED, unknown rule_key is UNVERIFIED, severity mismatch corrected', () => {
  // Contract change (fail-closed): only `no-citation` refutes. An ad-hoc
  // rule_key is a real defect wearing the wrong label — v5.1.1 high-effort mode
  // already keeps those, normalised to PLAN_EXECUTE_DRIFT.
  const r = reasonablenessFilter([
    { file: 'x.mjs', line: 1, rule_key: 'NOPE_KEY', severity: 'BLOCKER' },        // unknown → unverified
    { file: '', line: 1, rule_key: 'MISSING_TEST', severity: 'MAJOR' },           // no file → drop
    { file: 'x.mjs', line: -1, rule_key: 'MISSING_TEST', severity: 'MAJOR' },     // line < 0 → drop
    { file: 'x.mjs', line: 1, rule_key: 'MISSING_TEST', severity: 'MINOR' },      // catalogue is MAJOR → correct, keep
  ]);
  assert.equal(r.kept.length, 1);
  assert.equal(r.dropped.length, 2);
  assert.deepEqual(r.dropped.map((f) => f.suppressed_reason), ['no-citation', 'no-citation']);
  assert.equal(r.unverified.length, 1);
  assert.equal(r.unverified[0].suppressed_reason, 'unknown-rule_key');
  assert.equal(r.kept[0].severity, 'MAJOR');
  assert.equal(r.kept[0].original_severity, 'MINOR');
});

// ---- Pass 2 — judge --------------------------------------------------------

test('judgeFilter — over-long title and empty recommended_action are UNVERIFIED, not dropped', () => {
  // Contract change (fail-closed): both implemented Pass 2 tests read a
  // `.length` and never examine the claim, so neither refutes the finding.
  // `dropped` is empty here on purpose — the refuting Pass 2 filter (Accuracy)
  // is the one this deterministic subset excludes.
  const j = judgeFilter([
    { file: 'x.mjs', line: 1, rule_key: 'MISSING_TEST', severity: 'MAJOR', title: 'x'.repeat(101) },          // too long → unverified
    { file: 'x.mjs', line: 2, rule_key: 'MISSING_TEST', severity: 'MAJOR', title: 'ok', recommended_action: '   ' }, // empty action → unverified
    { file: 'x.mjs', line: 3, rule_key: 'MISSING_TEST', severity: 'MAJOR', title: 'ok' },                     // keep (no action field is fine)
  ]);
  assert.equal(j.kept.length, 1);
  assert.equal(j.dropped.length, 0);
  assert.equal(j.unverified.length, 2);
  assert.deepEqual(j.unverified.map((f) => f.suppressed_reason), ['succinctness:title', 'actionability:empty']);
});

// ---- ingest ----------------------------------------------------------------

test('ingest — collects findings from valid payloads, skips invalid ones', () => {
  const { findings, skipped } = ingest([
    { reviewer: 'correctness', findings: [{ file: 'x.mjs', line: 1, rule_key: 'MISSING_TEST', severity: 'MAJOR' }] },
    { reviewer: 'bad', findings: [{ line: 1, rule_key: 'MISSING_TEST', severity: 'MAJOR' }] }, // missing file → invalid → skipped
  ]);
  assert.equal(findings.length, 1);
  assert.equal(findings[0].reviewer, 'correctness');
  assert.equal(skipped.length, 1);
});

// ---- end-to-end ------------------------------------------------------------

test('runContract — two reviewers, dual-flag triplet collapses, verdict BLOCK', () => {
  const result = runContract([
    { reviewer: 'correctness', findings: [
      { file: 'lib/auth/jwt.mjs', line: 19, rule_key: 'SECURITY_INJECTION', severity: 'BLOCKER', title: 'algo from header' },
      { file: 'lib/auth/refresh.mjs', line: 0, rule_key: 'MISSING_TEST', severity: 'MAJOR', title: 'no concurrent test' },
    ] },
    { reviewer: 'conformance', findings: [
      { file: 'lib/auth/jwt.mjs', line: 19, rule_key: 'SECURITY_INJECTION', severity: 'BLOCKER', title: 'NG1' }, // collapses with correctness's
      { file: 'lib/handlers/login.mjs', line: 17, rule_key: 'UNIMPLEMENTED_CRITERION', severity: 'BLOCKER', title: '200 not 401' },
    ] },
  ]);
  assert.equal(result.verdict, 'BLOCK');
  assert.equal(result.findings.length, 3, '4 raw findings, jwt:19 SECURITY_INJECTION collapses → 3');
  const jwt = result.findings.find((f) => f.file === 'lib/auth/jwt.mjs');
  assert.deepEqual([...jwt.raised_by].sort(), ['conformance', 'correctness']);
});

test('runContract — deterministic: identical input yields identical output', () => {
  const input = [
    { reviewer: 'correctness', findings: [{ file: 'a.mjs', line: 1, rule_key: 'MISSING_TEST', severity: 'MAJOR', title: 't' }] },
    { reviewer: 'conformance', findings: [{ file: 'b.mjs', line: 2, rule_key: 'UNIMPLEMENTED_CRITERION', severity: 'BLOCKER', title: 'u' }] },
  ];
  assert.deepEqual(runContract(input), runContract(input));
});

// ---- Fail-closed: the `unverified` bucket (ORDRE 834432937) -----------------
//
// The defect: a finding REMOVED by Pass 2/Pass 3, and a reviewer whose payload
// was thrown away or never arrived, are all arithmetically identical to a
// finding that never existed -- they push the verdict toward ALLOW. Measured
// before the fix (probe, 2026-09-01): an over-long-title BLOCKER -> ALLOW; a
// payload with one ad-hoc rule_key -> the whole payload skipped, its valid
// BLOCKER sibling gone -> ALLOW.
//
// The rule under test: a removal is `dropped` ONLY when the test refutes the
// finding as a claim about this codebase. Every other removal is `unverified`,
// and a non-empty `unverified` -- or a reviewer that did not report -- forbids
// ALLOW.

test('classifySuppression — only no-citation refutes; form and taxonomy failures are unverified', () => {
  assert.equal(classifySuppression('no-citation'), 'refuted',
    'a finding that names no location makes no checkable claim');
  assert.equal(classifySuppression('succinctness:title'), 'unverified');
  assert.equal(classifySuppression('succinctness:detail'), 'unverified');
  assert.equal(classifySuppression('actionability:empty'), 'unverified');
  assert.equal(classifySuppression('unknown-rule_key'), 'unverified');
  assert.equal(classifySuppression('file-existence:indeterminate'), 'unverified');
  assert.equal(classifySuppression('something-nobody-declared'), 'unverified',
    'an unclassified reason must fail CLOSED, not open');
});

test('computeVerdict — non-empty unverified forbids ALLOW but never downgrades BLOCK or WARN', () => {
  const u = [{ file: 'x.mjs', line: 1, rule_key: 'MISSING_TEST', severity: 'BLOCKER' }];
  const withUnverified = computeVerdict([], { unverified: u });
  assert.equal(withUnverified.verdict, 'WARN', 'ALLOW is forbidden while anything is unverified');
  assert.deepEqual(withUnverified.counts, { BLOCKER: 0, MAJOR: 0, MINOR: 0, SUGGESTION: 0 },
    'the unverified finding is NOT counted into a severity tier');
  assert.ok(withUnverified.allow_blocked_by.length > 0);

  assert.equal(computeVerdict([{ severity: 'BLOCKER' }], { unverified: u }).verdict, 'BLOCK',
    'BLOCK stands regardless of the unverified bucket');
  assert.equal(computeVerdict([{ severity: 'MAJOR' }], { unverified: u }).verdict, 'WARN');
  assert.equal(computeVerdict([], { unverified: [] }).verdict, 'ALLOW',
    'known-positive control: an empty unverified bucket still allows ALLOW');
});

test('computeVerdict — a reviewer that did not report forbids ALLOW', () => {
  const r = computeVerdict([], { missingReviewers: ['brief-conformance-reviewer'] });
  assert.equal(r.verdict, 'WARN');
  assert.ok(r.allow_blocked_by.some((x) => x.includes('brief-conformance-reviewer')));
});

test('runContract — a BLOCKER dropped for an over-long title cannot yield ALLOW', () => {
  // Pass 2 succinctness reads `.length`. It never examines the claim, so it
  // cannot establish the finding is unreal -- it is unverified, not refuted.
  const result = runContract([
    { reviewer: 'code-correctness-reviewer', findings: [
      { file: 'lib/auth/jwt.mjs', line: 19, rule_key: 'SECURITY_INJECTION', severity: 'BLOCKER', title: 'x'.repeat(101), detail: 'algo taken from the JWT header' },
    ] },
  ]);
  assert.notEqual(result.verdict, 'ALLOW', 'an unsubstantiated BLOCKER must never clear the review');
  assert.equal(result.findings.length, 0, 'it is still not a kept finding');
  assert.equal(result.unverified.length, 1);
  assert.equal(result.unverified[0].suppressed_reason, 'succinctness:title');
  assert.equal(result.suppressed.length, 1, 'suppressed stays the union of dropped + unverified');
});

test('runContract — a schema-invalid payload cannot yield ALLOW (an unread reviewer is an absent one)', () => {
  // Measured: one ad-hoc rule_key invalidates the WHOLE payload at ingest, so a
  // valid BLOCKER sibling disappears with it. That must not read as "clean".
  const result = runContract([
    { reviewer: 'code-correctness-reviewer', findings: [
      { file: 'lib/auth/jwt.mjs', line: 19, rule_key: 'SECURITY_INJECTION', severity: 'BLOCKER', title: 'real' },
      { file: 'x.mjs', line: 1, rule_key: 'NOPE_KEY', severity: 'MINOR', title: 'ad-hoc key' },
    ] },
  ]);
  assert.equal(result.skipped.length, 1);
  assert.notEqual(result.verdict, 'ALLOW');
  assert.ok(result.allow_blocked_by.some((x) => x.includes('code-correctness-reviewer')));
});

test('runContract — a reviewer named in expectedReviewers that never reported cannot yield ALLOW', () => {
  const result = runContract(
    [{ reviewer: 'code-correctness-reviewer', findings: [] }],
    { expectedReviewers: ['code-correctness-reviewer', 'brief-conformance-reviewer'] },
  );
  assert.deepEqual(result.missing_reviewers, ['brief-conformance-reviewer']);
  assert.notEqual(result.verdict, 'ALLOW');
});

test('runContract — known-positive control: every reviewer reported, nothing suppressed → ALLOW', () => {
  // Proves ALLOW is still REACHABLE. Without this, "no ALLOW" is not a
  // fail-closed contract, only a broken one.
  const result = runContract(
    [
      { reviewer: 'code-correctness-reviewer', findings: [
        { file: 'a.mjs', line: 1, rule_key: 'MISSING_ERROR_HANDLING', severity: 'MINOR', title: 'unguarded await', recommended_action: 'Wrap the await in a try/catch.' },
      ] },
      { reviewer: 'brief-conformance-reviewer', findings: [] },
    ],
    { expectedReviewers: ['code-correctness-reviewer', 'brief-conformance-reviewer'] },
  );
  assert.equal(result.verdict, 'ALLOW');
  assert.equal(result.unverified.length, 0);
  assert.deepEqual(result.missing_reviewers, []);
  assert.deepEqual(result.allow_blocked_by, []);
});

test('classifySuppression — the refuting reasons the LLM coordinator emits are declared here too', () => {
  // agents/review-coordinator.md Pass 2 "Accuracy" and Pass 3 "Non-existent
  // file" DO refute (a citation outside the repo root, a file absent from both
  // tree and diff). Both are fs/judgement branches this deterministic subset
  // excludes, but the vocabulary is owned here so prose and lib cannot drift.
  assert.equal(classifySuppression('accuracy:refuted'), 'refuted');
  assert.equal(classifySuppression('file-existence:refuted'), 'refuted');
  assert.equal(classifySuppression('file-existence:indeterminate'), 'unverified',
    'unresolvable must never collapse into refuted');
});

test('suppression vocabulary — the two sets are disjoint and every reason is documented in the prose', () => {
  const refuting = [...REFUTING_REASONS];
  const overlap = refuting.filter((r) => UNVERIFIED_REASONS.includes(r));
  assert.deepEqual(overlap, [], 'a reason cannot be both refuting and unverified');

  const prose = readFileSync(join(ROOT, 'agents/review-coordinator.md'), 'utf-8');
  assert.ok(prose.includes('review-coordinator'), 'known-positive control: the prose file loaded');
  for (const reason of [...refuting, ...UNVERIFIED_REASONS]) {
    assert.ok(prose.includes(reason),
      `reason "${reason}" is declared in the lib but never documented in agents/review-coordinator.md`);
  }
});

test('runContract — an anonymous invalid payload is unattributable, not a reviewer named "unnamed reviewer"', () => {
  // `validateFindings` only WARNS on a missing `reviewer`, so a payload can
  // fail schema while carrying no name. Reporting it as a reviewer name
  // invents an agent nobody launched, and double-counts with expectedReviewers
  // when they are in fact the same failure.
  const result = runContract(
    [{ findings: [{ file: 'x.mjs', line: 1, rule_key: 'NOPE', severity: 'MAJOR' }] }],
    { expectedReviewers: ['code-correctness-reviewer'] },
  );
  assert.deepEqual(result.missing_reviewers, ['code-correctness-reviewer'],
    'missing_reviewers carries real names only');
  assert.equal(result.unattributable_payloads, 1);
  assert.ok(result.allow_blocked_by.some((x) => x.startsWith('unattributable-payload')));
  assert.ok(!result.allow_blocked_by.some((x) => x.includes('unnamed reviewer')));
});

test('runContract — an anonymous invalid payload forbids ALLOW on its own, with no expectedReviewers', () => {
  // The fail-closed floor must not depend on the caller passing an expected
  // set: without this, dropping the name from a payload would restore ALLOW.
  const result = runContract([{ findings: [{ file: 'x.mjs', line: 1, rule_key: 'NOPE', severity: 'MAJOR' }] }]);
  assert.deepEqual(result.missing_reviewers, []);
  assert.equal(result.unattributable_payloads, 1);
  assert.notEqual(result.verdict, 'ALLOW');
});