pig/pig-farm-controller
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 11 Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
Files
548d3eae00face2144a3ae0e91e60317f57587fd
pig-farm-controller/bmad/bmm/workflows/testarch/test-review/checklist.md
huang 426ae41f54 bmad初始化
2025-11-01 19:22:39 +08:00

15 KiB
Raw Blame History

Test Quality Review - Validation Checklist

Use this checklist to validate that the test quality review workflow completed successfully and all quality criteria were properly evaluated.

Prerequisites

Test File Discovery

  • Test file(s) identified for review (single/directory/suite scope)
  • Test files exist and are readable
  • Test framework detected (Playwright, Jest, Cypress, Vitest, etc.)
  • Test framework configuration found (playwright.config.ts, jest.config.js, etc.)

Knowledge Base Loading

  • tea-index.csv loaded successfully
  • test-quality.md loaded (Definition of Done)
  • fixture-architecture.md loaded (Pure function → Fixture patterns)
  • network-first.md loaded (Route intercept before navigate)
  • data-factories.md loaded (Factory patterns)
  • test-levels-framework.md loaded (E2E vs API vs Component vs Unit)
  • All other enabled fragments loaded successfully

Context Gathering

  • Story file discovered or explicitly provided (if available)
  • Test design document discovered or explicitly provided (if available)
  • Acceptance criteria extracted from story (if available)
  • Priority context (P0/P1/P2/P3) extracted from test-design (if available)

Process Steps

Step 1: Context Loading

  • Review scope determined (single/directory/suite)
  • Test file paths collected
  • Related artifacts discovered (story, test-design)
  • Knowledge base fragments loaded successfully
  • Quality criteria flags read from workflow variables

Step 2: Test File Parsing

For Each Test File:

  • File read successfully
  • File size measured (lines, KB)
  • File structure parsed (describe blocks, it blocks)
  • Test IDs extracted (if present)
  • Priority markers extracted (if present)
  • Imports analyzed
  • Dependencies identified

Test Structure Analysis:

  • Describe block count calculated
  • It/test block count calculated
  • BDD structure identified (Given-When-Then)
  • Fixture usage detected
  • Data factory usage detected
  • Network interception patterns identified
  • Assertions counted
  • Waits and timeouts cataloged
  • Conditionals (if/else) detected
  • Try/catch blocks detected
  • Shared state or globals detected

Step 3: Quality Criteria Validation

For Each Enabled Criterion:

BDD Format (if check_given_when_then: true)

  • Given-When-Then structure evaluated
  • Status assigned (PASS/WARN/FAIL)
  • Violations recorded with line numbers
  • Examples of good/bad patterns noted

Test IDs (if check_test_ids: true)

  • Test ID presence validated
  • Test ID format checked (e.g., 1.3-E2E-001)
  • Status assigned (PASS/WARN/FAIL)
  • Missing IDs cataloged

Priority Markers (if check_priority_markers: true)

  • P0/P1/P2/P3 classification validated
  • Status assigned (PASS/WARN/FAIL)
  • Missing priorities cataloged

Hard Waits (if check_hard_waits: true)

  • sleep(), waitForTimeout(), hardcoded delays detected
  • Justification comments checked
  • Status assigned (PASS/WARN/FAIL)
  • Violations recorded with line numbers and recommended fixes

Determinism (if check_determinism: true)

  • Conditionals (if/else/switch) detected
  • Try/catch abuse detected
  • Random values (Math.random, Date.now) detected
  • Status assigned (PASS/WARN/FAIL)
  • Violations recorded with recommended fixes

Isolation (if check_isolation: true)

  • Cleanup hooks (afterEach/afterAll) validated
  • Shared state detected
  • Global variable mutations detected
  • Resource cleanup verified
  • Status assigned (PASS/WARN/FAIL)
  • Violations recorded with recommended fixes

Fixture Patterns (if check_fixture_patterns: true)

  • Fixtures detected (test.extend)
  • Pure functions validated
  • mergeTests usage checked
  • beforeEach complexity analyzed
  • Status assigned (PASS/WARN/FAIL)
  • Violations recorded with recommended fixes

Data Factories (if check_data_factories: true)

  • Factory functions detected
  • Hardcoded data (magic strings/numbers) detected
  • Faker.js or similar usage validated
  • API-first setup pattern checked
  • Status assigned (PASS/WARN/FAIL)
  • Violations recorded with recommended fixes

Network-First (if check_network_first: true)

  • page.route() before page.goto() validated
  • Race conditions detected (route after navigate)
  • waitForResponse patterns checked
  • Status assigned (PASS/WARN/FAIL)
  • Violations recorded with recommended fixes

Assertions (if check_assertions: true)

  • Explicit assertions counted
  • Implicit waits without assertions detected
  • Assertion specificity validated
  • Status assigned (PASS/WARN/FAIL)
  • Violations recorded with recommended fixes

Test Length (if check_test_length: true)

  • File line count calculated
  • Threshold comparison (≤300 lines ideal)
  • Status assigned (PASS/WARN/FAIL)
  • Splitting recommendations generated (if >300 lines)

Test Duration (if check_test_duration: true)

  • Test complexity analyzed (as proxy for duration if no execution data)
  • Threshold comparison (≤1.5 min target)
  • Status assigned (PASS/WARN/FAIL)
  • Optimization recommendations generated

Flakiness Patterns (if check_flakiness_patterns: true)

  • Tight timeouts detected (e.g., { timeout: 1000 })
  • Race conditions detected
  • Timing-dependent assertions detected
  • Retry logic detected
  • Environment-dependent assumptions detected
  • Status assigned (PASS/WARN/FAIL)
  • Violations recorded with recommended fixes

Step 4: Quality Score Calculation

Violation Counting:

  • Critical (P0) violations counted
  • High (P1) violations counted
  • Medium (P2) violations counted
  • Low (P3) violations counted
  • Violation breakdown by criterion recorded

Score Calculation:

  • Starting score: 100
  • Critical violations deducted (-10 each)
  • High violations deducted (-5 each)
  • Medium violations deducted (-2 each)
  • Low violations deducted (-1 each)
  • Bonus points added (max +30):
    • Excellent BDD structure (+5 if applicable)
    • Comprehensive fixtures (+5 if applicable)
    • Comprehensive data factories (+5 if applicable)
    • Network-first pattern (+5 if applicable)
    • Perfect isolation (+5 if applicable)
    • All test IDs present (+5 if applicable)
  • Final score calculated: max(0, min(100, Starting - Violations + Bonus))

Quality Grade:

  • Grade assigned based on score:
    • 90-100: A+ (Excellent)
    • 80-89: A (Good)
    • 70-79: B (Acceptable)
    • 60-69: C (Needs Improvement)
    • <60: F (Critical Issues)

Step 5: Review Report Generation

Report Sections Created:

  • Header Section:

    • Test file(s) reviewed listed
    • Review date recorded
    • Review scope noted (single/directory/suite)
    • Quality score and grade displayed

  • Executive Summary:

    • Overall assessment (Excellent/Good/Needs Improvement/Critical)
    • Key strengths listed (3-5 bullet points)
    • Key weaknesses listed (3-5 bullet points)
    • Recommendation stated (Approve/Approve with comments/Request changes/Block)

  • Quality Criteria Assessment:

    • Table with all criteria evaluated
    • Status for each criterion (PASS/WARN/FAIL)
    • Violation count per criterion

  • Critical Issues (Must Fix):

    • P0/P1 violations listed
    • Code location provided for each (file:line)
    • Issue explanation clear
    • Recommended fix provided with code example
    • Knowledge base reference provided

  • Recommendations (Should Fix):

    • P2/P3 violations listed
    • Code location provided for each (file:line)
    • Issue explanation clear
    • Recommended improvement provided with code example
    • Knowledge base reference provided

  • Best Practices Examples (if good patterns found):

    • Good patterns highlighted from tests
    • Knowledge base fragments referenced
    • Examples provided for others to follow

  • Knowledge Base References:

    • All fragments consulted listed
    • Links to detailed guidance provided

Step 6: Optional Outputs Generation

Inline Comments (if generate_inline_comments: true):

  • Inline comments generated at violation locations
  • Comment format: // TODO (TEA Review): [Issue] - See test-review-{filename}.md
  • Comments added to test files (no logic changes)
  • Test files remain valid and executable

Quality Badge (if generate_quality_badge: true):

  • Badge created with quality score (e.g., "Test Quality: 87/100 (A)")
  • Badge format suitable for README or documentation
  • Badge saved to output folder

Story Update (if append_to_story: true and story file exists):

  • "Test Quality Review" section created
  • Quality score included
  • Critical issues summarized
  • Link to full review report provided
  • Story file updated successfully

Step 7: Save and Notify

Outputs Saved:

  • Review report saved to {output_file}
  • Inline comments written to test files (if enabled)
  • Quality badge saved (if enabled)
  • Story file updated (if enabled)
  • All outputs are valid and readable

Summary Message Generated:

  • Quality score and grade included
  • Critical issue count stated
  • Recommendation provided (Approve/Request changes/Block)
  • Next steps clarified
  • Message displayed to user

Output Validation

Review Report Completeness

  • All required sections present
  • No placeholder text or TODOs in report
  • All code locations are accurate (file:line)
  • All code examples are valid and demonstrate fix
  • All knowledge base references are correct

Review Report Accuracy

  • Quality score matches violation breakdown
  • Grade matches score range
  • Violations correctly categorized by severity (P0/P1/P2/P3)
  • Violations correctly attributed to quality criteria
  • No false positives (violations are legitimate issues)
  • No false negatives (critical issues not missed)

Review Report Clarity

  • Executive summary is clear and actionable
  • Issue explanations are understandable
  • Recommended fixes are implementable
  • Code examples are correct and runnable
  • Recommendation (Approve/Request changes) is clear

Quality Checks

Knowledge-Based Validation

  • All feedback grounded in knowledge base fragments
  • Recommendations follow proven patterns
  • No arbitrary or opinion-based feedback
  • Knowledge fragment references accurate and relevant

Actionable Feedback

  • Every issue includes recommended fix
  • Every fix includes code example
  • Code examples demonstrate correct pattern
  • Fixes reference knowledge base for more detail

Severity Classification

  • Critical (P0) issues are genuinely critical (hard waits, race conditions, no assertions)
  • High (P1) issues impact maintainability/reliability (missing IDs, hardcoded data)
  • Medium (P2) issues are nice-to-have improvements (long files, missing priorities)
  • Low (P3) issues are minor style/preference (verbose tests)

Context Awareness

  • Review considers project context (some patterns may be justified)
  • Violations with justification comments noted as acceptable
  • Edge cases acknowledged
  • Recommendations are pragmatic, not dogmatic

Integration Points

Story File Integration

  • Story file discovered correctly (if available)
  • Acceptance criteria extracted and used for context
  • Test quality section appended to story (if enabled)
  • Link to review report added to story

Test Design Integration

  • Test design document discovered correctly (if available)
  • Priority context (P0/P1/P2/P3) extracted and used
  • Review validates tests align with prioritization
  • Misalignment flagged (e.g., P0 scenario missing tests)

Knowledge Base Integration

  • tea-index.csv loaded successfully
  • All required fragments loaded
  • Fragments applied correctly to validation
  • Fragment references in report are accurate

Edge Cases and Special Situations

Empty or Minimal Tests

  • If test file is empty, report notes "No tests found"
  • If test file has only boilerplate, report notes "No meaningful tests"
  • Score reflects lack of content appropriately

Legacy Tests

  • Legacy tests acknowledged in context
  • Review provides practical recommendations for improvement
  • Recognizes that complete refactor may not be feasible
  • Prioritizes critical issues (flakiness) over style

Test Framework Variations

  • Review adapts to test framework (Playwright vs Jest vs Cypress)
  • Framework-specific patterns recognized (e.g., Playwright fixtures)
  • Framework-specific violations detected (e.g., Cypress anti-patterns)
  • Knowledge fragments applied appropriately for framework

Justified Violations

  • Violations with justification comments in code noted as acceptable
  • Justifications evaluated for legitimacy
  • Report acknowledges justified patterns
  • Score not penalized for justified violations

Final Validation

Review Completeness

  • All enabled quality criteria evaluated
  • All test files in scope reviewed
  • All violations cataloged
  • All recommendations provided
  • Review report is comprehensive

Review Accuracy

  • Quality score is accurate
  • Violations are correct (no false positives)
  • Critical issues not missed (no false negatives)
  • Code locations are correct
  • Knowledge base references are accurate

Review Usefulness

  • Feedback is actionable
  • Recommendations are implementable
  • Code examples are correct
  • Review helps developer improve tests
  • Review educates on best practices

Workflow Complete

  • All checklist items completed
  • All outputs validated and saved
  • User notified with summary
  • Review ready for developer consumption
  • Follow-up actions identified (if any)

Notes

Record any issues, observations, or important context during workflow execution:

  • Test Framework: [Playwright, Jest, Cypress, etc.]
  • Review Scope: [single file, directory, full suite]
  • Quality Score: [0-100 score, letter grade]
  • Critical Issues: [Count of P0/P1 violations]
  • Recommendation: [Approve / Approve with comments / Request changes / Block]
  • Special Considerations: [Legacy code, justified patterns, edge cases]
  • Follow-up Actions: [Re-review after fixes, pair programming, etc.]