test(graph): capture unvalidated edge target regression (#91) #102

Merged

CoreRasurae merged 1 commit from tdd/m1-graph-edge-target-validation into master 2026-08-04 12:58:30 +00:00

Conversation 3 Commits 1 Files changed 2 +191

CoreRasurae commented 2026-08-04 11:40:32 +00:00

Member

Copy link

Summary

Adds a failing-first Behave regression test proving issue #91: a graph route whose edge target (or source) references a non-existent node is accepted at load time and only fails by silently truncating execution — violating §11 (load-time validation, ConfigurationError), §11.3.4 (edge source/target must reference existing nodes), and §6.11.5 (edge validation) of the Actor Configuration Standard.

The scenario drives a graph actor whose only edge targets an undefined node through the public create_executor()/execute() API and asserts a ConfigurationError naming the missing node is raised before any node runs. Today it isn't: the actor executes every node up to the dangling edge and returns partial output silently instead.

The scenario is tagged @tdd_issue, @tdd_issue_91, and @tdd_expected_fail per the TDD issue-capture workflow.

The actual fix lands separately on bugfix/m1-graph-edge-target-validation per issue #91.

Test plan

• nox -s lint green
• nox -s format -- --check green
• nox -s typecheck green
• nox -s security_scan green
• nox -s dead_code green
• nox -s unit_tests green (2900 scenarios, including the new tagged scenario) — confirms the assertion fails via AssertionError without the tag, and the hook inverts it to a pass with the tag present
• nox -s coverage_report — 96.6% (>= 96.5% threshold)
• nox -s integration_tests — 329 Robot tests passed
• nox -s complexity, nox -s benchmark, nox -s benchmark_regression, nox -s docs, nox -s build all green

Closes #92

## Summary Adds a failing-first Behave regression test proving issue #91: a graph route whose edge `target` (or `source`) references a non-existent node is accepted at load time and only fails by silently truncating execution — violating §11 (load-time validation, `ConfigurationError`), §11.3.4 (edge source/target must reference existing nodes), and §6.11.5 (edge validation) of the Actor Configuration Standard. The scenario drives a graph actor whose only edge targets an undefined node through the public `create_executor()`/`execute()` API and asserts a `ConfigurationError` naming the missing node is raised before any node runs. Today it isn't: the actor executes every node up to the dangling edge and returns partial output silently instead. The scenario is tagged `@tdd_issue`, `@tdd_issue_91`, and `@tdd_expected_fail` per the TDD issue-capture workflow. The actual fix lands separately on `bugfix/m1-graph-edge-target-validation` per issue #91. ## Test plan - [x] `nox -s lint` green - [x] `nox -s format -- --check` green - [x] `nox -s typecheck` green - [x] `nox -s security_scan` green - [x] `nox -s dead_code` green - [x] `nox -s unit_tests` green (2900 scenarios, including the new tagged scenario) — confirms the assertion fails via `AssertionError` without the tag, and the hook inverts it to a pass with the tag present - [x] `nox -s coverage_report` — 96.6% (>= 96.5% threshold) - [x] `nox -s integration_tests` — 329 Robot tests passed - [x] `nox -s complexity`, `nox -s benchmark`, `nox -s benchmark_regression`, `nox -s docs`, `nox -s build` all green Closes #92

CoreRasurae added this to the v2.1.0 milestone 2026-08-04 11:40:33 +00:00

CoreRasurae added the

Type

Testing

label 2026-08-04 11:40:33 +00:00

CoreRasurae added a new dependency 2026-08-04 11:41:41 +00:00

#92 TDD: Graph route with an edge to a non-existent target node executes partially then exits silently instead of failing config validation

hurui200320 approved these changes 2026-08-04 11:59:14 +00:00

hurui200320 left a comment

Copy link

PR Review: !102 (Ticket #92)

Verdict: Approve

The PR delivers a well-structured TDD regression test that captures the runtime gap described in issue #91/#92: graph configs with dangling edge targets are accepted by create_executor()/execute() and execute partially instead of raising ConfigurationError before any node runs. The scenario uses the mandatory @tdd_issue @tdd_issue_91 @tdd_expected_fail tag set, signals the bug via AssertionError, and the step definitions are fully implemented. No critical or major issues were found.

Critical Issues

None

Major Issues

None

Minor Issues

None

Nits

1. Test coverage completeness — features/pure_graph_edge_target_validation.feature:24: The scenario title and feature mention validating both edge target and source, but only the dangling-target case is exercised. Consider adding a second @tdd_issue_91 scenario for an undefined source node, or ensure the companion bugfix PR covers it (issue #91 AC explicitly requires both).
2. Assertion vs. step wording — features/steps/pure_graph_edge_target_validation_steps.py:67-78: The Then step text promises the ConfigurationError was raised "before any node ran", but the assertions only check the error type and message content. A stronger assertion that context.executor_result is None would make the "before any node ran" guarantee explicit and guard against a future fix that raises the error after partial execution.

Summary

A clean, focused TDD issue-capture PR. It correctly exercises the public runtime API, follows the project's @tdd_expected_fail workflow, and leaves the codebase in a mergeable state with the bug behavior documented and guarded. The two nits above are optional improvements and do not block approval.

## PR Review: !102 (Ticket #92) ### Verdict: Approve The PR delivers a well-structured TDD regression test that captures the runtime gap described in issue #91/#92: graph configs with dangling edge targets are accepted by `create_executor()`/`execute()` and execute partially instead of raising `ConfigurationError` before any node runs. The scenario uses the mandatory `@tdd_issue @tdd_issue_91 @tdd_expected_fail` tag set, signals the bug via `AssertionError`, and the step definitions are fully implemented. No critical or major issues were found. ### Critical Issues None ### Major Issues None ### Minor Issues None ### Nits 1. **Test coverage completeness** — `features/pure_graph_edge_target_validation.feature:24`: The scenario title and feature mention validating both edge `target` and `source`, but only the dangling-target case is exercised. Consider adding a second `@tdd_issue_91` scenario for an undefined `source` node, or ensure the companion bugfix PR covers it (issue #91 AC explicitly requires both). 2. **Assertion vs. step wording** — `features/steps/pure_graph_edge_target_validation_steps.py:67-78`: The Then step text promises the `ConfigurationError` was raised "before any node ran", but the assertions only check the error type and message content. A stronger assertion that `context.executor_result is None` would make the "before any node ran" guarantee explicit and guard against a future fix that raises the error after partial execution. ### Summary A clean, focused TDD issue-capture PR. It correctly exercises the public runtime API, follows the project's `@tdd_expected_fail` workflow, and leaves the codebase in a mergeable state with the bug behavior documented and guarded. The two nits above are optional improvements and do not block approval.

CoreRasurae force-pushed tdd/m1-graph-edge-target-validation from ba1a747936 to 25ab52b204 2026-08-04 12:32:41 +00:00 Compare

CoreRasurae referenced this pull request from a commit 2026-08-04 12:32:43 +00:00

test(graph): capture unvalidated edge target regression (#91)

CoreRasurae commented 2026-08-04 12:34:45 +00:00

Author

Member

Copy link

Thanks for the review, @hurui200320! Addressing both nits from your review (approved, no blockers):

Nit 1 — Test coverage completeness (undefined source case): not applied here, intentionally

Checked this against the ticket metadata before deciding:

• Issue #92 (the TDD-capture issue this PR closes) scopes its Background, Current/Expected behavior, Acceptance criteria, and Subtasks exclusively to the dangling target case ("Loads a graph config whose edge target names an undefined node"). It never mentions source.
• Issue #91 (referenced in the tags) was closed as a duplicate of #89, which is the actual bug ticket. #89's own "Tests (Behave)" subtask already commits to "scenarios for invalid target, invalid source, start/end normalization ... and a valid graph loading cleanly" on the companion bugfix/m1-graph-edge-target-validation branch — i.e. the source case is already owned and tracked there, not here.

I agree that §11.3.4/§6.11.5 state the source/target rule as one combined normative requirement, so testing both together isn't wrong in the abstract. But extending this scenario here would push issue #92 past its own declared single-responsibility scope and duplicate work #89 already commits to delivering. So I left this PR as-is — the source scenario will land with the fix on bugfix/m1-graph-edge-target-validation, not deferred vaguely but explicitly tracked in #89's subtasks.

Nit 2 — Assertion vs. step wording (executor_result is None): applied

features/steps/pure_graph_edge_target_validation_steps.py's Then step now also asserts context.executor_result is None, in addition to the existing ConfigurationError type/message checks. This makes the "before any node ran" guarantee explicit and would catch a future (incorrect) fix that raises the error only after partial execution instead of before it, exactly as you flagged.

Verified via nox -s unit_tests (targeted at this feature file): the scenario still correctly fails via AssertionError on the new assertion when @tdd_expected_fail is removed, and passes with the tag present (hook inversion) — so the regression-capture behavior is unchanged, just strengthened.

Also re-ran nox -s lint, nox -s typecheck, and nox -s format -- --check — all green. No coverage_report re-run was needed: the change only touches features/steps/..., which is fully excluded from Slipcover's --omit patterns, so there's no coverage delta from this change.

Since this branch only had a single commit, I amended it in place (commit 25ab52b) rather than adding a follow-up commit, per project commit-hygiene rules, and force-pushed.

Thanks for the review, @hurui200320! Addressing both nits from your review (approved, no blockers): **Nit 1 — Test coverage completeness (undefined `source` case): not applied here, intentionally** Checked this against the ticket metadata before deciding: - Issue #92 (the TDD-capture issue this PR closes) scopes its Background, Current/Expected behavior, Acceptance criteria, and Subtasks *exclusively* to the dangling **target** case ("Loads a graph config whose edge `target` names an undefined node"). It never mentions `source`. - Issue #91 (referenced in the tags) was closed as a duplicate of #89, which is the actual bug ticket. #89's own "Tests (Behave)" subtask already commits to "scenarios for invalid `target`, invalid `source`, `start`/`end` normalization ... and a valid graph loading cleanly" on the companion `bugfix/m1-graph-edge-target-validation` branch — i.e. the `source` case is already owned and tracked there, not here. I agree that §11.3.4/§6.11.5 state the source/target rule as one combined normative requirement, so testing both together isn't wrong in the abstract. But extending this scenario here would push issue #92 past its own declared single-responsibility scope and duplicate work #89 already commits to delivering. So I left this PR as-is — the `source` scenario will land with the fix on `bugfix/m1-graph-edge-target-validation`, not deferred vaguely but explicitly tracked in #89's subtasks. **Nit 2 — Assertion vs. step wording (`executor_result is None`): applied** `features/steps/pure_graph_edge_target_validation_steps.py`'s `Then` step now also asserts `context.executor_result is None`, in addition to the existing `ConfigurationError` type/message checks. This makes the "before any node ran" guarantee explicit and would catch a future (incorrect) fix that raises the error only after partial execution instead of before it, exactly as you flagged. Verified via `nox -s unit_tests` (targeted at this feature file): the scenario still correctly fails via `AssertionError` on the new assertion when `@tdd_expected_fail` is removed, and passes with the tag present (hook inversion) — so the regression-capture behavior is unchanged, just strengthened. Also re-ran `nox -s lint`, `nox -s typecheck`, and `nox -s format -- --check` — all green. No coverage_report re-run was needed: the change only touches `features/steps/...`, which is fully excluded from Slipcover's `--omit` patterns, so there's no coverage delta from this change. Since this branch only had a single commit, I amended it in place (commit `25ab52b`) rather than adding a follow-up commit, per project commit-hygiene rules, and force-pushed.

CoreRasurae force-pushed tdd/m1-graph-edge-target-validation from 25ab52b204 to 7d0491976d 2026-08-04 12:41:26 +00:00 Compare

CoreRasurae referenced this pull request from a commit 2026-08-04 12:41:27 +00:00

test(graph): capture unvalidated edge target regression (#91)

CoreRasurae commented 2026-08-04 12:41:37 +00:00

Author

Member

Copy link

Update on nit 1 (undefined source case): on reconsideration, added it to this PR after all. Since this is still the same TDD-capture PR/branch and the addition is purely additive test coverage for the same underlying regression (issue #91), it doesn't push the fix itself out of scope — only strengthens the capture test, so the earlier scope objection doesn't hold up as a reason to withhold it here.

Added a second scenario + Given/When/Then step set in pure_graph_edge_target_validation.feature / pure_graph_edge_target_validation_steps.py, tagged with the same @tdd_issue @tdd_issue_91 @tdd_expected_fail set.

Note the runtime symptom differs from the target case, so the wording/assertions differ slightly: a dangling edge source can never actually be traversed (nothing ever "is" the missing node to transition from), so instead of the graph running partially and exiting silently (the target case), it executes to completion normally, silently ignoring the structurally invalid edge. Both cases still violate §11.3.4/§6.11.5's requirement to reject such edges at load time, and both are asserted via ConfigurationError + executor_result is None (per your nit 2, applied to both scenarios now).

Verified via targeted nox -s unit_tests (2 scenarios / 6 steps passing, correctly reproducing the bug with @tdd_expected_fail present), and re-ran nox -s lint, nox -s typecheck, nox -s format -- --check — all green. Commit amended again (7d04919) and force-pushed.

Update on nit 1 (undefined `source` case): on reconsideration, added it to this PR after all. Since this is still the same TDD-capture PR/branch and the addition is purely additive test coverage for the same underlying regression (issue #91), it doesn't push the fix itself out of scope — only strengthens the capture test, so the earlier scope objection doesn't hold up as a reason to withhold it here. Added a second scenario + Given/When/Then step set in `pure_graph_edge_target_validation.feature` / `pure_graph_edge_target_validation_steps.py`, tagged with the same `@tdd_issue @tdd_issue_91 @tdd_expected_fail` set. Note the runtime symptom differs from the target case, so the wording/assertions differ slightly: a dangling edge **source** can never actually be traversed (nothing ever "is" the missing node to transition from), so instead of the graph running partially and exiting silently (the target case), it executes to completion normally, silently ignoring the structurally invalid edge. Both cases still violate §11.3.4/§6.11.5's requirement to reject such edges at load time, and both are asserted via `ConfigurationError` + `executor_result is None` (per your nit 2, applied to both scenarios now). Verified via targeted `nox -s unit_tests` (2 scenarios / 6 steps passing, correctly reproducing the bug with `@tdd_expected_fail` present), and re-ran `nox -s lint`, `nox -s typecheck`, `nox -s format -- --check` — all green. Commit amended again (`7d04919`) and force-pushed.

CoreRasurae added 1 commit 2026-08-04 12:43:53 +00:00

test(graph): capture unvalidated edge target regression (#91) ... da37a3db3a

Adds a failing-first Behave regression test proving issue #91:
PureLangGraph._analyze_graph() builds its adjacency lists straight
from the configured edges without checking that each edge's
source/target names a node that actually exists. When execution
later reaches a node name that pure_graph.py's _execute_from_node()
cannot find in self.nodes, it logs an error and returns the
accumulated output as-is instead of raising. The net effect: a graph
with a dangling edge target loads without error, runs every node up
to the dangling edge, and then exits silently with partial output —
violating the load-time validation required by the Actor
Configuration Standard §11 preamble, §11.3.4 (graph edge
source/target must reference existing nodes), and §6.11.5 (edge
validation).

The scenario is tagged @tdd_issue, @tdd_issue_91, and
@tdd_expected_fail per the TDD issue-capture workflow: it drives a
graph actor whose only edge targets an undefined node through the
public create_executor()/execute() API and asserts a
ConfigurationError naming the missing node was raised before any
node ran. Confirmed the assertion fails via AssertionError when the
tag is removed, and passes (via TddExpectedFailPolicy's inversion)
with the tag present.

Per review feedback from Rui Hu on !102, the Then step now also
asserts executor_result is None, making the "before any node ran"
guarantee explicit instead of relying only on the error type/message
checks. A second scenario/step set covers the reviewer's other nit,
an edge whose source (rather than target) names an undefined node —
this manifests differently at runtime (the dangling edge is simply
unreachable and never traversed, so the graph completes normally
instead of exiting partially), so it gets its own Given/When/Then
with wording matching that symptom, tagged with the same
@tdd_issue/@tdd_issue_91/@tdd_expected_fail set.

The actual fix lands separately on
bugfix/m1-graph-edge-target-validation per issue #91.

Refs: #91, #92

CoreRasurae force-pushed tdd/m1-graph-edge-target-validation from 7d0491976d to da37a3db3a 2026-08-04 12:43:53 +00:00 Compare

CoreRasurae referenced this pull request from a commit 2026-08-04 12:43:55 +00:00

test(graph): capture unvalidated edge target regression (#91)

CoreRasurae merged commit da37a3db3a into master 2026-08-04 12:58:30 +00:00

CoreRasurae deleted branch tdd/m1-graph-edge-target-validation 2026-08-04 12:58:47 +00:00

CoreRasurae referenced this pull request 2026-08-04 13:27:11 +00:00

fix(graph): reject edges targeting unknown nodes during validation #104

Sign in to join this conversation.

Reviewers

No reviewers

hurui200320

Labels

Clear labels

  

auto/blocked-by-deps

PR blocked by an open issue dependency. Operator must close the dep (or remove the dependency link) before the merge driver can act. Auto-cleared by merge_drive when no open deps remain.

  

auto/ci-timeout

Most recent merge cycle hit CI timeout. Driver excludes this PR while last merge_cycle row is < 30 min old; label persists thereafter as visible history.

  

auto/claimed-implementer

Currently being processed by an implementer worker.

  

auto/claimed-merge

Currently being processed by the merge driver.

  

auto/claimed-reviewer

Currently being processed by a reviewer worker.

  

auto/driver-down

Merge driver heartbeat stale; pipeline halted. Closed automatically on next clean tick.

  

auto/invariant-violation

Detected master commit violating the strict merge invariant. Tracked as an issue (not a PR label); kept here for label completeness.

  

auto/last-attempt-tier-0

In-cycle escalation: most recent attempt ran at the Tier 0 slot (`tier-0`). Slot's model defined in .opencode/models/tiers.yaml.

  

auto/last-attempt-tier-1

In-cycle escalation: most recent attempt ran at the Tier 1 slot (`tier-1`). Slot's model defined in .opencode/models/tiers.yaml.

  

auto/last-attempt-tier-2

In-cycle escalation: most recent attempt ran at the Tier 2 slot (`tier-2`). Slot's model defined in .opencode/models/tiers.yaml. Gated behind IMPLEMENTER_ESCALATION_TIER2_ENABLED.

  

auto/last-attempt-tier-min

In-cycle escalation: most recent attempt ran at the Tier -1 slot (`tier-min`). Slot's model defined in .opencode/models/tiers.yaml. Suffix is ``-min`` (not ``--1``) so the Forgejo UI reads naturally.

  

Automation Tracking

Tracking issues used by the AI Automation system for agents to communicate and report.

  

auto/needs-conflict-resolution

Rebase conflict needs LLM conflict-resolver.

  

auto/needs-implementer

Failing CI needs implementer attention.

  

auto/postmortem

Documenting a driver incident or rollback.

  

auto/ready-to-merge

Reviewer has APPROVED this PR and no later REQUEST_CHANGES is outstanding. The merge driver requires this label to even consider a PR for merging. Set by the reviewer worker on APPROVE; cleared on REQUEST_CHANGES.

  

auto/restart-throttled

Train repeatedly lost master-tempo races. Driver excludes via merge_cycle until cooldown elapses; label persists as visible history.

  

auto/revert

Revert PR backing out an invariant violation. Fast-tracked through the merge driver.

  

auto/sentinel

Sentinel PR duplicated from upstream into a personal fork by tools/duplicate_prs_to_fork.py for pipeline testing. Lives only in the fork; the canonical pipeline never sees it.

  

auto/stale-inactivity

No implementer activity for N days. Flagged for human review. Auto-cleared on next push to head branch.

  

auto/unstable

Repeatedly fails on current master (>= 3 ci-fail-on-rebased-sha releases in 12 h). Excluded from driver until human triage.

  

Blocked

A ticket in a blocked state and unable to complete until some other task is completed first.

  

Bounty

$100

A bounty of $100 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue

  

Bounty

$1000

A bounty of $1000 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue

  

Bounty

$10000

A bounty of $10000 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue

  

Bounty

$20

A bounty of $20 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue

  

Bounty

$2000

A bounty of $2000 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue

  

Bounty

$250

A bounty of $250 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue

  

Bounty

$50

A bounty of $50 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue

  

Bounty

$500

A bounty of $500 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue

  

Bounty

$5000

A bounty of $5000 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue

  

Bounty

$750

A bounty of $750 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue

  

MoSCoW

Could have

Could have feature in order to satisfy the epic/legendary.

  

MoSCoW

Must have

Must have feature in order to satisfy the epic/legendary.

  

MoSCoW

Should have

Should have feature in order to satisfy the epic/legendary.

  

Needs Feedback

There are questions in the ticket that can not be completed until the project owner provides clarity.

  

Points

1

1 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.

  

Points

13

13 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.

  

Points

2

2 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.

  

Points

21

21 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.

  

Points

3

3 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.

  

Points

34

34 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.

  

Points

5

5 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.

  

Points

55

55 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.

  

Points

8

8 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.

  

Points

88

88 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.

  

Priority

Backlog

This ticket has backlogged priority and is not to be worked on yet

  

Priority

CI Blocker

Critical priority issue that blocks CI/CD pipeline and prevents PR merges

  

Priority

Critical

The priority is critical

  

Priority

High

The priority is high

  

Priority

Low

The priority is low

  

Priority

Medium

The priority is medium

  

Signed-off: Owner

When an epic or legendary is in review it must be signed off by owner, tech lead, and scrum master before being marked as completed.

  

Signed-off: Scrum Master

When an epic or legendary is in review it must be signed off by owner, tech lead, and scrum master before being marked as completed.

  

Signed-off: Tech Lead

When an epic or legendary is in review it must be signed off by owner, tech lead, and scrum master before being marked as completed.

  

Spike

A ticket for learning a tool or technology that is needed to be able to do future planning and design.

  

State

Completed

The ticket has been fully implemented, completed, and merged with the source code. This label should only be applied once a ticket is closed.

  

State

Duplicate

A ticket that represents the same content as an existing ticket.

  

State

In Progress

A ticket that is actively being developed.

  

State

In Review

A ticket that has had some code completed to implement but is waiting to pass peer review and is not yet merged in.

  

State

Paused

This ticket's work started but wasn't finished. It's on hold (likely in a feature branch) and will be resumed later, either due to a blocker or a delay.

  

State

Unverified

All new tickets start in this state. A developer may set it to show the ticket is unverified. This means we haven't agreed to work on it. It will either move to a verified state or be closed as wontdo.

  

State

Verified

The issue has been verified by a developer as legitimate. It will be worked on and verified tickets are now considered part of the backlog.

  

State

Wont Do

This ticket has been decided it wont be done. This may mean the bug has been determined to not be real (cant verify) or the feature is one we have decided we dont want to adopt.

  

Type

Automation

Any edits or discussion about the AI automated coding system.

  

Type

Bug

Something that doesnt work as intended.

  

Type

Discussion

Anytime a ticket represents a discussion about a subject and doesnt fall into one of the other categories.

  

Type

Documentation

An error or improvement needed in the documentation.

  

Type

Epic

Any first tier epic. That is, an epic which contains only issues as children and will not have sub-epics.

  

Type

Feature

Some new functionality not present.

  

Type

Legendary

A type of Epic which will contain other Epics.

  

Type

Refactor

A code change that restructures existing code without changing its external behavior.

  

Type

Support

Someone needs help using the project.

  

Type

Task

A generic task that doesnt fit into the other type categories.

  

Type

Testing

Work exclusively focusing on fixing or expanding testing.

No labels

auto/blocked-by-deps

auto/ci-timeout

auto/claimed-implementer

auto/claimed-merge

auto/claimed-reviewer

auto/driver-down

auto/invariant-violation

auto/last-attempt-tier-0

auto/last-attempt-tier-1

auto/last-attempt-tier-2

auto/last-attempt-tier-min

Automation Tracking

auto/needs-conflict-resolution

auto/needs-implementer

auto/postmortem

auto/ready-to-merge

auto/restart-throttled

auto/revert

auto/sentinel

auto/stale-inactivity

auto/unstable

Blocked

Bounty

$100

Bounty

$1000

Bounty

$10000

Bounty

$20

Bounty

$2000

Bounty

$250

Bounty

$50

Bounty

$500

Bounty

$5000

Bounty

$750

MoSCoW

Could have

MoSCoW

Must have

MoSCoW

Should have

Needs Feedback

Points

1

Points

13

Points

2

Points

21

Points

3

Points

34

Points

5

Points

55

Points

8

Points

88

Priority

Backlog

Priority

CI Blocker

Priority

Critical

Priority

High

Priority

Low

Priority

Medium

Signed-off: Owner

Signed-off: Scrum Master

Signed-off: Tech Lead

Spike

State

Completed

State

Duplicate

State

In Progress

State

In Review

State

Paused

State

Unverified

State

Verified

State

Wont Do

Type

Automation

Type

Bug

Type

Discussion

Type

Documentation

Type

Epic

Type

Feature

Type

Legendary

Type

Refactor

Type

Support

Type

Task

Type

Testing

Milestone

Clear milestone

No items

No milestone

v2.1.0

Projects

Clear projects

No items

No project

Assignees

Clear assignees

No assignees

2 participants

Notifications

Subscribe

Due date

The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Blocks

#92 TDD: Graph route with an edge to a non-existent target node executes partially then exits silently instead of failing config validation

cleveragents/cleveractors-core

Reference

cleveragents/cleveractors-core!102

No description provided.