ccqa 1.58.1 → 1.58.3

package/dist/bin/ccqa.mjs

@@ -7868,7 +7868,7 @@ function reuseFirstContract(hasDraft, draftInvariant) {
 		"3. **Match the examples.** Write in the same style as the conventions examples: naming, structure, assertion phrasing, import layout. Where you follow an existing file rather than the plain reading of a guideline — a waiting pattern, a locator shape, a teardown structure — say which file, by path, in the comment. \"Following the existing implementation\" without naming it cannot be checked by the next reader, and it is how a pattern that was right once outlives the reason for it."
 	];
 	if (hasDraft) {
-		rules.push("4. **The draft is ground truth.** The mechanical draft below encodes the recorded route. Do not change the meaning of its operation sequence or its assertions — no reordering, dropping, or weakening. You may rewrite locators when the conventions or the sources you read justify a better one.");
+		rules.push("4. **The draft is ground truth for the route, not for the form of its checks.** Keep its operation sequence: no reordering or dropping of the actions the case needs. Its `expect` lines are what the recorder observed on the way, written in one fixed form (`await expect(...)`, one per observation). Which of them the test keeps, and in which form — hard or soft, where the check lives, how the locator is scoped — is decided by the case's expected results and the project's conventions, never by the draft. Where the conventions and the draft disagree, follow the conventions. What an expected result claims must still be checked: never loosen the value it states.");
 		if (draftInvariant) rules.push(`5. ${draftInvariant}`);
 	}
 	return `## Reuse contract\n\n${rules.join("\n")}`;
@@ -7916,6 +7916,8 @@ function buildLlmGenPrompt(input) {
 	sections.push(input.taskInstructions);
 	const steps = input.steps.map(formatStep).join("\n");
 	sections.push(`## Test spec\n\nTitle: ${input.specTitle}\n\nSteps:\n${steps}`);
+	const facts = caseFacts(input);
+	if (facts) sections.push(facts);
 	if (input.draft) sections.push(`## Mechanical draft (recorded ground truth)\n\nPath: ${input.draft.path}\n\n\`\`\`
 ` + input.draft.contents + "\n```");
 	if (input.resources.length > 0) {
@@ -7936,6 +7938,19 @@ These are the project's rules for the code you write, not background reading. Co
 	return sections.join("\n\n") + languageDirective(input.language);
 }
 /**
+* What the case states beyond its steps. Project conventions key rules on
+* these (which checks are the case's, where it may run), and the review that
+* follows already reads them — a rewrite without them can only guess.
+*/
+function caseFacts(input) {
+	const parts = [];
+	if (input.expectations && input.expectations.length > 0) parts.push(`### Expected results\n\nThe case states these for the flow as a whole. They are the checks the test exists for:\n\n${input.expectations.map((e) => `- ${body(e)}`).join("\n")}`);
+	if (input.cleanup && input.cleanup.length > 0) parts.push(`### Cleanup steps\n\n${input.cleanup.map(formatStep).join("\n")}`);
+	if (input.cleanupExpectations && input.cleanupExpectations.length > 0) parts.push(`### Expected results of the cleanup\n\n${input.cleanupExpectations.map((e) => `- ${body(e)}`).join("\n")}`);
+	for (const c of input.context ?? []) parts.push(`### ${c.heading}\n\n${c.body.trim()}`);
+	return parts.length === 0 ? "" : `## About this case\n\n${parts.join("\n\n")}`;
+}
+/**
 * Prompt for one iteration of the verification loop: the generated files
 * failed their run command; ask for corrected files under the same contract.
 */
@@ -8304,7 +8319,7 @@ function weakerTwin(file, source) {
 function decidesNothing(input) {
 	const source = input.files.get(input.testPath);
 	if (source === void 0 || input.caseText.join("").trim().length === 0) return [];
-	if (/\bexpect\(|\bjudgeByLlm\b/.test(source)) return [];
+	if (/\bexpect(?:\.soft)?\(|\bjudgeByLlm\b/.test(source)) return [];
 	return [{
 		file: input.testPath,
 		line: 1,
@@ -8373,7 +8388,7 @@ function containerOfPageText(file, source) {
 */
 function explained(all, i) {
 	let above = i - 1;
-	while (above >= 0 && /\bexpect\(|^\s*$|^\s*\)/.test(all[above] ?? "")) above -= 1;
+	while (above >= 0 && /\bexpect(?:\.soft)?\(|^\s*$|^\s*\)/.test(all[above] ?? "")) above -= 1;
 	return /^\s*\/\//.test(all[above] ?? "");
 }
 /**
@@ -8388,7 +8403,7 @@ function explained(all, i) {
 function unjustifiedFirst(file, source) {
 	const all = lines(source);
 	return all.flatMap((text, i) => {
-		if (!/\bexpect\(/.test(text) || !/\.first\(\)/.test(text)) return [];
+		if (!/\bexpect(?:\.soft)?\(/.test(text) || !/\.first\(\)/.test(text)) return [];
 		if (explained(all, i)) return [];
 		return [{
 			file,
@@ -8463,7 +8478,7 @@ function assertedStrings(text, locators) {
 function unaskedAssertions(file, source, locators, said) {
 	const all = lines(source);
 	return all.flatMap((text, i) => {
-		if (!/\bexpect\(/.test(text)) return [];
+		if (!/\bexpect(?:\.soft)?\(/.test(text)) return [];
 		const strings = assertedStrings(text, locators);
 		if (strings.length === 0 || strings.some((s) => said.includes(s))) return [];
 		if (explained(all, i)) return [];
@@ -8710,16 +8725,14 @@ function rulesReview(guides) {
 				""
 			])
 		],
-		answerShape: "{ \"findings\": [ { \"stepId\": \"step-05\", \"problem\": \"…\" } ], \"ruleViolations\": [ { \"file\": \"…\", \"guide\": \"…\", \"rule\": \"…\", \"code\": \"…\", \"severity\": \"blocking\" } ] }",
+		answerShape: "{ \"findings\": [ { \"stepId\": \"step-05\", \"problem\": \"…\" } ], \"ruleViolations\": [ { \"file\": \"…\", \"guide\": \"…\", \"rule\": \"…\", \"code\": \"…\" } ] }",
 		answerNote: [
 			"",
 			"In `ruleViolations`: `file` is the file's path in this repository, and `code`",
 			"the lines that break the rule. `guide` and `rule` are where the rule comes",
 			"from and what it says — the document's path and its own words when you can",
 			"quote one; otherwise the path of a file you read that shows the convention,",
-			"and what you counted (\"N of M files under <dir> do X\"). `severity` is",
-			"\"blocking\" when you would hold the change until it is fixed, and \"advisory\"",
-			"when it is worth saying but you would approve anyway. An empty",
+			"and what you counted (\"N of M files under <dir> do X\"). An empty",
 			"`ruleViolations` means every file follows every rule you could quote or",
 			"count — write the key either way."
 		]
@@ -9150,8 +9163,7 @@ const ViolationSchema = z.object({
 	file: z.string(),
 	guide: z.string(),
 	rule: z.string(),
-	code: z.string(),
-	severity: z.enum(["blocking", "advisory"]).catch("blocking")
+	code: z.string()
 });
 const ViolationsSchema = z.object({ ruleViolations: z.array(z.unknown()) });
 /**
@@ -9239,14 +9251,11 @@ function formatFinding(finding, labels = evidenceLabels()) {
 }
 /**
 * The warning a rule violation becomes: the file, the rule in the words it was
-* judged by, and where that came from. An advisory one says so — a reader must
-* be able to tell a line that was worth a fix round from one that was not. The
-* offending code is left out: it is what the fix pass needs, not what a reader
-* scanning a log does.
+* judged by, and where that came from. The offending code is left out: it is
+* what the fix pass needs, not what a reader scanning a log does.
 */
 function formatViolation(violation) {
-	const advisory = violation.severity === "advisory" ? ", advisory" : "";
-	return `${violation.file}: ${violation.rule} (${violation.guide}${advisory})`;
+	return `${violation.file}: ${violation.rule} (${violation.guide})`;
 }
 /**
 * Hand the written files to a reviewer who knows nothing about where they came
@@ -14789,6 +14798,10 @@ async function generateWithLlmEngine(req) {
 		specTitle: ctx.spec.title,
 		steps: req.steps,
 		draft: req.draft,
+		expectations: ctx.expectations,
+		cleanup: ctx.cleanup,
+		cleanupExpectations: ctx.cleanupExpectations,
+		context: ctx.context ?? [],
 		...req.draftInvariant ? { draftInvariant: req.draftInvariant } : {},
 		resources: resources.map(toPromptResource),
 		conventionSections: conventions.sections,
@@ -15179,13 +15192,12 @@ function uncheckedSteps(review, alreadyAsked = /* @__PURE__ */ new Set()) {
 * arrived. Absent violations are absent either way — there is nothing here to
 * act on when that half never came.
 *
-* Only what the reviewer would hold the change for. It is asked to sort its
-* own violations, because the alternative is a round spent on a line it would
-* have approved anyway. Every violation is still reported: `warnings` carries
-* the advisory ones too, marked as such.
+* Every violation the reviewer reports: a rule the project wrote down, or a
+* convention its files share, is the project's decision, not the reviewer's to
+* waive.
 */
 function guideViolations(review, alreadyAsked = /* @__PURE__ */ new Set()) {
-	const violations = (review?.ruleViolations ?? []).filter((v) => v.severity === "blocking" && !alreadyAsked.has(violationKey(v)));
+	const violations = (review?.ruleViolations ?? []).filter((v) => !alreadyAsked.has(violationKey(v)));
 	if (violations.length === 0) return null;
 	return {
 		exitCode: 1,
@@ -15474,7 +15486,7 @@ function headerPreserveRule(header, titleSuffix) {
 * rejection, which costs a whole round.
 */
 function stepCommentPreserveRule() {
-	return "**Keep every `test.step(...)` block, with its title exactly as the draft wrote it.** Those titles are how the evidence table, the run's per-step screenshots and the review of this test say which assertions belong to which step. A reshaped one parses as no step at all, and every step then reads as deciding nothing. Keep the wording, the numbering and the punctuation, and keep each step's actions inside its own block — a step's call to a page-object method belongs in the block, not outside it. Do not merge, split or reorder the blocks. A test already at this path may have been written by an older ccqa in a different shape: the draft is what this file must look like, not that one.";
+	return "**Keep every `test.step(...)` block, with its title exactly as the draft wrote it.** Those titles are how the evidence table, the run's per-step screenshots and the review of this test say which assertions belong to which step. A reshaped one parses as no step at all, and every step then reads as deciding nothing. Keep the wording, the numbering and the punctuation, and keep each step's actions inside its own block — a step's call to a page-object method belongs in the block, not outside it. Do not merge, split or reorder the blocks. A test already at this path may have been written by an older ccqa in a different shape: the draft's step blocks are what this file must keep, not that one's.";
 }
 /**
 * Told to the rewrite, because the alternative failure is silent: a claim
@@ -26488,6 +26500,7 @@ async function runGenerateLocked(resolved, opts, cwd) {
 		cleanup: testCase.cleanup,
 		expectations: testCase.expectations,
 		cleanupExpectations: testCase.cleanupExpectations,
+		...testCase.context.length > 0 ? { context: testCase.context } : {},
 		fields: testCase.fields,
 		cwd,
 		testPath,

package/dist/hub-client/index.d.cts

@@ -35,9 +35,9 @@ declare const RunSchema: z.ZodObject<{
     running: "running";
   }>;
   kind: z.ZodDefault<z.ZodEnum<{
-    record: "record";
     run: "run";
     drift: "drift";
+    record: "record";
   }>>;
   drift: z.ZodDefault<z.ZodNullable<z.ZodObject<{
     specs: z.ZodNumber;
@@ -831,9 +831,9 @@ type ReportSpecResult = z.infer<typeof ReportSpecResultSchema>;
 declare const RunReportDataSchema: z.ZodObject<{
   schemaVersion: z.ZodLiteral<1>;
   kind: z.ZodDefault<z.ZodEnum<{
-    record: "record";
     run: "run";
     drift: "drift";
+    record: "record";
   }>>;
   createdAt: z.ZodString;
   runId: z.ZodNullable<z.ZodString>;

package/dist/hub-client/index.d.mts

@@ -35,9 +35,9 @@ declare const RunSchema: z.ZodObject<{
     running: "running";
   }>;
   kind: z.ZodDefault<z.ZodEnum<{
-    record: "record";
     run: "run";
     drift: "drift";
+    record: "record";
   }>>;
   drift: z.ZodDefault<z.ZodNullable<z.ZodObject<{
     specs: z.ZodNumber;
@@ -831,9 +831,9 @@ type ReportSpecResult = z.infer<typeof ReportSpecResultSchema>;
 declare const RunReportDataSchema: z.ZodObject<{
   schemaVersion: z.ZodLiteral<1>;
   kind: z.ZodDefault<z.ZodEnum<{
-    record: "record";
     run: "run";
     drift: "drift";
+    record: "record";
   }>>;
   createdAt: z.ZodString;
   runId: z.ZodNullable<z.ZodString>;

package/dist/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "ccqa",
-  "version": "1.58.1",
+  "version": "1.58.3",
   "type": "module",
   "description": "Browser test recorder powered by Claude Code and agent-browser",
   "repository": {

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "ccqa",
-  "version": "1.58.1",
+  "version": "1.58.3",
   "type": "module",
   "description": "Browser test recorder powered by Claude Code and agent-browser",
   "repository": {