@zeyue0329/xiaoma-cli 1.0.49 → 6.0.0-alpha.14

package/src/modules/xmc/workflows/testarch/test-review/checklist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,470 @@
+# 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.]