lib/review/rule-catalogue.mjs gains SECURITY_RISK (BLOCKER, category security, memory route rule): Voyage's own security key for a finding by its own reviewers that SECURITY_INJECTION does not cover. SECURITY_REVIEW_VULNERABILITY is described as the engines' key only. plan-critic and scope-guardian name SECURITY_INJECTION or SECURITY_RISK and no longer the engines' key. The count moves from 17 to 18 in every pin: rule-catalogue.test, claude-md-scope [CAT] (which now also refuses a stale 17), doc-consistency, review-prose-pins, docs/architecture.md and the two reviewer agents. critic-severity-rules pins three security keys; its "every security key named" check leaves out the engines' key, and a new pin says the critic never names it. Existing tests changed for the planned rule: the four count pins above (17 -> 18), and critic-severity-rules' two-key test (now three keys). tests/lib/engine-findings.test.mjs: a comment naming the "(17 keys)" pin now says 18. Part 2, step 2.3 of the E plan. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
90 lines
3.9 KiB
JavaScript
90 lines
3.9 KiB
JavaScript
import { test } from 'node:test';
|
|
import { strict as assert } from 'node:assert';
|
|
import {
|
|
RULE_CATALOGUE,
|
|
RULE_KEYS,
|
|
SEVERITY_VALUES,
|
|
CATEGORY_VALUES,
|
|
getRule,
|
|
MEMORY_ROUTES,
|
|
} from '../../lib/review/rule-catalogue.mjs';
|
|
|
|
test('RULE_CATALOGUE — every entry has all 4 required fields', () => {
|
|
for (const entry of RULE_CATALOGUE) {
|
|
assert.ok(typeof entry.rule_key === 'string' && entry.rule_key.length > 0, `bad rule_key: ${entry.rule_key}`);
|
|
assert.ok(typeof entry.severity === 'string' && entry.severity.length > 0, `bad severity: ${entry.severity}`);
|
|
assert.ok(typeof entry.category === 'string' && entry.category.length > 0, `bad category: ${entry.category}`);
|
|
assert.ok(typeof entry.description === 'string' && entry.description.length > 0, `bad description for ${entry.rule_key}`);
|
|
}
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
test('RULE_CATALOGUE — no duplicate rule_key', () => {
|
|
const seen = new Set();
|
|
for (const entry of RULE_CATALOGUE) {
|
|
assert.ok(!seen.has(entry.rule_key), `duplicate rule_key: ${entry.rule_key}`);
|
|
seen.add(entry.rule_key);
|
|
}
|
|
assert.equal(seen.size, RULE_CATALOGUE.length);
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
test('RULE_CATALOGUE — all severity values within enum', () => {
|
|
for (const entry of RULE_CATALOGUE) {
|
|
assert.ok(SEVERITY_VALUES.includes(entry.severity), `${entry.rule_key} has invalid severity: ${entry.severity}`);
|
|
}
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
test('RULE_CATALOGUE — all category values within enum', () => {
|
|
for (const entry of RULE_CATALOGUE) {
|
|
assert.ok(CATEGORY_VALUES.includes(entry.category), `${entry.rule_key} has invalid category: ${entry.category}`);
|
|
}
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
test('RULE_KEYS.size === RULE_CATALOGUE.length (== 18) — pinned by doc-consistency', () => {
|
|
assert.equal(RULE_KEYS.size, RULE_CATALOGUE.length);
|
|
assert.equal(RULE_CATALOGUE.length, 18);
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
test('SECURITY_RISK is Voyage\'s own security key; SECURITY_REVIEW_VULNERABILITY is the engines\' key only (E 2.3, decision 167)', () => {
|
|
const own = getRule('SECURITY_RISK');
|
|
assert.ok(own, 'SECURITY_RISK is in the catalogue');
|
|
assert.equal(own.severity, 'BLOCKER');
|
|
assert.equal(own.category, 'security');
|
|
assert.equal(own.memory_route, 'rule');
|
|
assert.match(own.description, /Voyage's own/);
|
|
const engines = getRule('SECURITY_REVIEW_VULNERABILITY');
|
|
assert.equal(engines.severity, 'BLOCKER');
|
|
assert.equal(engines.category, 'security');
|
|
assert.match(engines.description, /engines' key only/);
|
|
assert.match(engines.description, /SECURITY_RISK/);
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
test('CLAUDE_MD_DEVIATION and CLAUDE_MD_STALE are MINOR', () => {
|
|
assert.equal(getRule('CLAUDE_MD_DEVIATION')?.severity, 'MINOR');
|
|
assert.equal(getRule('CLAUDE_MD_STALE')?.severity, 'MINOR');
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
test('RULE_CATALOGUE — the two Claude Code engine keys exist at their tiers (ordre 5)', () => {
|
|
assert.equal(getRule('CODE_REVIEW_DEFECT')?.severity, 'MAJOR');
|
|
assert.equal(getRule('CODE_REVIEW_IMPROVEMENT')?.severity, 'MINOR');
|
|
assert.equal(getRule('SECURITY_REVIEW_VULNERABILITY')?.severity, 'BLOCKER');
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
test('RULE_CATALOGUE — every entry declares a memory_route (check | rule | null)', () => {
|
|
for (const entry of RULE_CATALOGUE) {
|
|
assert.ok('memory_route' in entry, `${entry.rule_key} has no memory_route`);
|
|
assert.ok(entry.memory_route === null || MEMORY_ROUTES.includes(entry.memory_route),
|
|
`${entry.rule_key} has invalid memory_route: ${entry.memory_route}`);
|
|
}
|
|
assert.equal(getRule('MISSING_BRIEF_REF').memory_route, null, 'review hygiene is never project memory');
|
|
assert.equal(getRule('COVERAGE_SILENT_SKIP').memory_route, null, 'review hygiene is never project memory');
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
test('getRule — returns frozen entry on hit, null on miss, null on bad input', () => {
|
|
const hit = getRule('UNIMPLEMENTED_CRITERION');
|
|
assert.ok(hit !== null);
|
|
assert.equal(hit.severity, 'BLOCKER');
|
|
assert.throws(() => { hit.severity = 'MINOR'; }); // frozen
|
|
assert.equal(getRule('NOPE'), null);
|
|
assert.equal(getRule(undefined), null);
|
|
assert.equal(getRule(123), null);
|
|
});
|