mirror of
https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow.git
synced 2026-02-15 02:42:45 +08:00
f1324a0bc8
Implement two major enhancements to test generation workflow: 1. Gemini Test Enhancement (Phase 1.5) - Add Gemini CLI analysis for comprehensive test suggestions - Generate enriched test specifications for L1-L3 test layers - Focus on API contracts, integration patterns, error scenarios - Create gemini-enriched-suggestions.md as artifact 2. Planning Notes Mechanism (test-planning-notes.md) - Similar to plan.md's planning-notes pattern - Record Test Intent (Phase 1) - Embed complete Gemini enrichment (Phase 1.5) - Track consolidated test requirements - Support N+1 context with decisions and deferred items Implementation Details: - Created Gemini prompt template: test-suggestions-enhancement.txt - Enhanced test-task-generate.md with Phase 1, 1.5, 2 logic - Gemini content embedded in planning-notes for single source of truth - test-action-planning-agent reads both TEST_ANALYSIS_RESULTS.md and test-planning-notes.md - Backward compatible: Phase 1.5 is optional enhancement Benefits: - Comprehensive test coverage (API, integration, error scenarios) - Full traceability of test planning process - Consolidated context in one file for easy review - Preserved Gemini output as independent artifact
39 lines
2.2 KiB
Plaintext
39 lines
2.2 KiB
Plaintext
PURPOSE: Generate comprehensive multi-layer test enhancement suggestions
|
|
- Success: Cover L0-L3 layers with focus on API, integration, and error scenarios
|
|
- Scope: Files with coverage gaps identified in TEST_ANALYSIS_RESULTS.md
|
|
- Goal: Provide specific, actionable test case suggestions that increase coverage completeness
|
|
|
|
TASK:
|
|
• L1 (Unit Tests): Suggest edge cases, boundary conditions, error paths, state transitions
|
|
• L2.1 (Integration): Suggest module interaction patterns, dependency injection scenarios
|
|
• L2.2 (API Contracts): Suggest request/response test cases, validation, status codes, error responses
|
|
• L2.4 (External APIs): Suggest mock strategies, failure scenarios, timeout handling, retry logic
|
|
• L2.5 (Failure Modes): Suggest exception hierarchies, error propagation, recovery strategies
|
|
• Cross-cutting: Suggest performance test cases, security considerations
|
|
|
|
MODE: analysis
|
|
|
|
CONTEXT: @.workflow/active/{test-session-id}/.process/TEST_ANALYSIS_RESULTS.md
|
|
Memory: Project type, test framework, existing test patterns, coverage gaps
|
|
|
|
EXPECTED: Markdown report with structured test enhancement suggestions organized by:
|
|
1. File-level test requirements (per file needing tests)
|
|
2. Layer-specific test cases (L1, L2.1, L2.2, L2.4, L2.5)
|
|
3. Each suggestion includes:
|
|
- Test type and layer (e.g., "L2.2 API Contract Test")
|
|
- Specific test case description (e.g., "POST /api/users - Invalid email format")
|
|
- Expected behavior (e.g., "Returns 400 with validation error message")
|
|
- Dependencies/mocks needed (e.g., "Mock email service")
|
|
- Success criteria (e.g., "Status 400, error.field === 'email'")
|
|
4. Test ordering/dependencies (which tests should run first)
|
|
5. Integration test strategies (how components interact)
|
|
6. Error scenario matrix (all failure modes covered)
|
|
|
|
CONSTRAINTS:
|
|
- Focus on identified coverage gaps from TEST_ANALYSIS_RESULTS.md
|
|
- Prioritize API tests, integration tests, and error scenarios
|
|
- No code generation - suggestions only with sufficient detail for implementation
|
|
- Consider project conventions and existing test patterns
|
|
- Each suggestion should be actionable and specific (not generic)
|
|
- Output format: Markdown with clear section headers
|