chore(gas): add test for history with holes

[MasterPtato]

No description provided.

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
rivetkit-serverless	Ready	Preview	Comment	Nov 27, 2025 0:59am

3 Skipped Deployments

Project	Deployment	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
rivet-cloud	Ignored			Nov 27, 2025 0:59am
rivet-inspector	Ignored	Preview		Nov 27, 2025 0:59am
rivet-site	Ignored	Preview		Nov 27, 2025 0:59am

[MasterPtato]

Warning

This pull request is not mergeable via GitHub because a downstack PR is open. Once all requirements are satisfied, merge this PR as a stack on Graphite.
Learn more

• fix(runtime): evict runners on SIGTERM, add periodic shutdown progress messages #3550
• fix(pb): implement events and commands for actor wfs #3543
• fix: make all uses of protocol handle v4 <-> v3 #3528
• fix(pb): simplify runner wf #3483
• fix(gas): fix loop forgotten bug due to concurrency #3482
• fix(pb): rewrite runner wf to handle batch signals #3480
• fix(gas): fix batch listen, fix history for graceful signal send in workflows #3479
• feat(gas): add batch listen #3478
• chore(gas): add test for history with holes #3477 👈 (View in Graphite)
• chore: change streamingmode to exact for ranges with limits #3476
• fix(gas): optimize loops #3475
• fix: parallelize publish signal awaits #3523
• chore: fix diff between ee, fix plural api query params #3524
• main

---

How to use the Graphite Merge Queue

Add the label merge-queue to this PR to add it to the merge queue.

You must have a Graphite account in order to use the merge queue. Sign up using this link.

An organization admin has enabled the Graphite Merge Queue in this repository.

Please do not merge from GitHub as this will restart CI on PRs being processed by the merge queue.

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[claude]

PR Review: Add test for history with holes

Summary

This PR adds two test cases (holes_in_coordinates and holes_in_coordinates2) to verify that the cursor correctly handles sparse coordinate sequences in workflow history. The tests validate important edge cases for the gasoline workflow engine's history traversal mechanism.

Code Quality ✅

Positives:

• Tests follow existing patterns and conventions in the file
• Clear test names that describe the scenario being tested
• Good use of the existing test macros (loc![], coord![])
• Tests are focused and verify specific behavior

Suggestions:

1. Test documentation: Consider adding doc comments to explain what "holes in coordinates" means and why this edge case matters:

   /// Tests that cursor correctly handles non-sequential coordinates in history.
   /// When coordinates have gaps (e.g., 1, 3, 6), the cursor should:
   /// - Navigate through existing events correctly
   /// - Continue from the last coordinate when reaching the end
   #[test]
   fn holes_in_coordinates() {

2. Test naming: The second test is named holes_in_coordinates2 which doesn't clearly communicate how it differs from the first. Consider a more descriptive name like holes_in_coordinates_insertion or insert_between_sparse_coordinates since it specifically tests insertion behavior.

3. Code duplication: Both tests create the exact same event structure. Consider extracting this into a helper function to reduce duplication:

   fn create_sparse_history() -> Arc<HashMap<Location, Vec<Event>>> {
       [(
           loc![],
           vec![
               Event {
                   coordinate: coord![1],
                   version: 1,
                   data: EventData::VersionCheck,
               },
               Event {
                   coordinate: coord![3],
                   version: 1,
                   data: EventData::VersionCheck,
               },
               Event {
                   coordinate: coord![6],
                   version: 1,
                   data: EventData::VersionCheck,
               },
           ],
       )]
       .into_iter()
       .collect::<HashMap<_, _>>()
       .into()
   }

Test Coverage ✅

The tests cover important scenarios:

• Test 1: Validates that the cursor navigates through sparse coordinates and continues correctly after the last event
• Test 2: Validates that insertions between sparse coordinates follow the correct cardinality rules (inserting 1.1 between coordinates 1 and 3)

Additional test cases to consider:

• Inserting between coordinates 3 and 6 (should be 3.1 based on the logic in current_location_for)
• Multiple insertions in the same gap
• Sparse coordinates at deeper nesting levels (e.g., coord![1, 1], coord![1, 5])

Potential Issues 🔍

No bugs detected. The tests correctly verify the expected behavior based on the Cursor implementation:

• Lines 43-66 in cursor.rs show coord_at() handles sparse coordinates by continuing from the last coordinate's head
• Lines 81-118 show current_location_for() uses cardinality comparison to determine insertion points
• The assertions align with this logic

Performance Considerations ✅

No performance concerns. These are unit tests with minimal overhead.

Security Concerns ✅

No security issues. Standard test code.

Adherence to CLAUDE.md Guidelines ✅

• ✅ Uses appropriate test structure
• ✅ Follows existing code patterns
• ✅ Uses structured event data correctly
• ⚠️ Could benefit from the testing guideline about piping output to /tmp/ and grepping, though for unit tests this may not be necessary

Recommendation

Approve with minor suggestions. The tests are solid and cover important edge cases. The suggested improvements (documentation, naming, deduplication) would enhance maintainability but aren't blocking issues.

---

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[claude]

PR Review

Summary

This PR adds test coverage for an important edge case in the history cursor implementation: handling "holes" in coordinate sequences (e.g., coordinates 1, 3, 6 instead of 1, 2, 3). The tests verify correct behavior when events have non-sequential coordinates.

Code Quality ✅

Strengths:

1. Good test naming: holes_in_coordinates and holes_in_coordinates2 clearly describe what's being tested
2. Clear assertions: Each assertion includes a descriptive comment explaining what should happen
3. Consistent style: Follows existing test patterns in the file (uses coord! and loc! macros)
4. Good coverage: Tests both cursor advancement through holes AND insertion behavior with holes

Test Coverage ✅

The tests cover two important scenarios:

1. holes_in_coordinates: Verifies that the cursor correctly traverses events with gaps in coordinates (1→3→6) and that subsequent coordinates after the last event continue from the last coordinate (7 after 6)

2. holes_in_coordinates2: Verifies insertion logic when holes exist - specifically that inserting after coordinate 1 (before coordinate 3) produces coord![1, 1] rather than coord![2]

Both tests are valuable for preventing regressions in coordinate handling logic.

Suggestions for Improvement

1. Better Test Names

Consider more descriptive names that explain the behavior being tested:

#[test]
fn cursor_traverses_sparse_coordinates_correctly()  // instead of holes_in_coordinates

#[test]
fn insertion_between_sparse_coordinates_uses_nested_coordinate()  // instead of holes_in_coordinates2

2. Consolidate or Differentiate Tests

holes_in_coordinates and holes_in_coordinates2 use identical event setup but test different behaviors. Consider:

Option A: Combine them into a single comprehensive test

#[test]
fn sparse_coordinate_handling() {
    // Setup (same events)
    
    // Test 1: Cursor traversal
    // ... existing holes_in_coordinates logic ...
    
    // Test 2: Insertion behavior  
    let mut cursor2 = Cursor::new(Arc::clone(&events), Location::empty());
    cursor2.update(&cursor2.current_location_for(&HistoryResult::<()>::Event(())));
    let new = cursor2.current_location_for(&HistoryResult::<()>::Insertion);
    assert_eq!(loc![coord![1, 1]], new);
}

Option B: Make the second test name more distinct to clarify it tests a different aspect

3. Test Edge Cases

Consider adding tests for:

• Very large gaps (e.g., coordinates 1, 100, 1000)
• Multiple insertions between the same sparse coordinates
• Sparse coordinates with nested levels (e.g., coord![1], coord![5, 1], coord![10])

4. Add Comments Explaining Why Holes Matter

A brief comment explaining when/why coordinate holes can occur in practice would help future maintainers understand the importance of these tests:

/// Tests cursor behavior when history has gaps in coordinate sequences.
/// This can occur when events are forgotten/removed from history, or when
/// specific coordinates are deliberately chosen for ordering purposes.
#[test]
fn holes_in_coordinates() {

Potential Issues ⚠️

Minor: Code Duplication

The event setup is duplicated between the two tests. While not a major issue for tests, extracting a helper function could improve maintainability:

fn create_sparse_coordinate_events() -> HashMap<Location, Vec<Event>> {
    [(
        loc![],
        vec![
            Event {
                coordinate: coord![1],
                version: 1,
                data: EventData::VersionCheck,
            },
            Event {
                coordinate: coord![3],
                version: 1,
                data: EventData::VersionCheck,
            },
            Event {
                coordinate: coord![6],
                version: 1,
                data: EventData::VersionCheck,
            },
        ],
    )]
    .into_iter()
    .collect()
}

Performance Considerations ✅

No performance concerns - these are lightweight unit tests.

Security Concerns ✅

No security issues identified.

Overall Assessment

Verdict: Approve with minor suggestions ✅

This PR adds valuable test coverage for an important edge case. The tests are well-written and follow existing patterns. The suggestions above are minor improvements that could enhance clarity and maintainability, but they're not blockers for merging.

Great work adding this test coverage! Testing sparse coordinate handling is important for ensuring the workflow history system remains robust.

[claude]

Code Review

Thanks for adding test coverage for history cursor behavior with coordinate holes! This is valuable for ensuring the cursor handles non-sequential coordinates correctly.

✅ Positive Observations

1. Good test coverage: The tests validate an important edge case where coordinates have gaps (e.g., 1, 3, 6 instead of 1, 2, 3)
2. Consistent with existing patterns: The tests follow the same structure and style as other tests in the file (using the coord! and loc! macros, creating events with HashMap, etc.)
3. Clear test intent: The test names clearly describe what's being tested

🔍 Issues & Suggestions

1. Test naming: holes_in_coordinates2 is not descriptive

#[test]
fn holes_in_coordinates2() {

Following the pattern of other tests in this file (e.g., cardinality, cardinality2, insert_before_first), this test should have a more descriptive name that explains what specific scenario it's testing. Based on the comment on line 850, this appears to be testing insertion behavior when there are holes, not just coordinate traversal.

Suggestion: Consider renaming to something like:

• holes_in_coordinates_insertion
• insert_between_holes
• insert_after_first_with_holes

2. Missing test assertion context

In holes_in_coordinates (line 781), the test verifies that after processing all events, cursor.current_coord() returns coord![7]. While this is correct based on the implementation in coord_at() (lines 43-67), a comment explaining why the next coordinate is 7 (i.e., last event was at 6, so next is 6 + 1 = 7) would improve test readability.

3. Test could validate more edge cases

The holes_in_coordinates2 test only checks insertion after coordinate 1. Consider also testing:

• Insertion after coordinate 3 (would it be coord![3, 1]?)
• Insertion after coordinate 6 (would it be coord![6, 1]?)

This would provide more comprehensive coverage of the insertion logic when holes exist.

4. Potential for duplicate test logic

Looking at line 654 (coord_with_sparse_events), there's already a test for sparse/non-sequential coordinates. While your tests add value by testing the full cursor update flow (not just coord_at()), it might be worth considering if these tests could be consolidated or if the distinction should be made clearer in comments.

📝 Minor Observations

• Both tests use the same event setup (coordinates 1, 3, 6). This is fine for consistency, but using different hole patterns in one test could catch more edge cases
• The tests properly use Arc::new(events) to match the History type requirement
• Good use of Location::empty() for the root location in the first test

Summary

The tests are well-structured and provide valuable coverage. The main improvement would be renaming holes_in_coordinates2 to be more descriptive and potentially adding a few more assertions to test insertion at different positions when holes exist.

Recommendation: Approve with minor suggested improvements.

[claude]

PR Review: Add test for history with holes

Overview

This PR adds two test cases to verify the behavior of the history cursor when dealing with sparse/non-contiguous event coordinates. The tests validate that the cursor correctly handles "holes" in coordinate sequences.

Code Quality ✅

Strengths:

• Tests are well-structured and follow existing patterns in the test module
• Clear test names that describe what they're testing: holes_in_coordinates and holes_in_coordinates2
• Good use of descriptive comments explaining what each assertion validates
• Follows the existing macro patterns (loc!, coord!) for test data construction
• Tests are focused and test specific edge cases

Areas for improvement:

1. Test Naming - Consider more descriptive names that differentiate the two tests:

   • holes_in_coordinates → holes_in_coordinates_sequential_traversal
   • holes_in_coordinates2 → holes_in_coordinates_insertion_between_holes

   This makes it clearer that the first test validates sequential cursor movement through holes, while the second validates insertion behavior between holes.

2. Code Duplication - Both tests use identical event setup. Consider extracting this into a helper function:

   fn create_sparse_history() -> Arc<HashMap<Location, Vec<Event>>> {
       Arc::new([(
           loc![],
           vec![
               Event {
                   coordinate: coord![1],
                   version: 1,
                   data: EventData::VersionCheck,
               },
               Event {
                   coordinate: coord![3],
                   version: 1,
                   data: EventData::VersionCheck,
               },
               Event {
                   coordinate: coord![6],
                   version: 1,
                   data: EventData::VersionCheck,
               },
           ],
       )]
       .into_iter()
       .collect())
   }

Test Coverage ✅

The tests provide good coverage for this edge case:

• ✅ Sequential cursor movement through sparse coordinates
• ✅ Coordinate generation after exhausting sparse events
• ✅ Insertion coordinate calculation between holes

Additional test cases to consider:

• Holes with nested coordinates (e.g., coord![1], coord![2, 1], coord![5])
• Multiple consecutive holes at the end of the event list
• Insertion behavior at different positions (before first hole, after last hole)

Correctness ✅

The test logic appears correct:

1. First test validates that current_coord() returns the actual sparse coordinates (1, 3, 6) and then continues sequentially (7)
2. Second test validates that inserting after coordinate 1 (before hole at 2) produces coord![1, 1] - this follows the cardinality rules from current_location_for

The assertions align with the cursor logic in coord_at() (lines 43-67) and current_location_for() (lines 81-118).

Performance Considerations ✅

No performance concerns - these are unit tests with minimal overhead.

Security Concerns ✅

No security implications.

Best Practices

Minor suggestions:

• Consider adding a doc comment above each test explaining the specific scenario being tested
• The tests could benefit from more assertions on intermediate states (e.g., checking prev_coord after updates)

Summary

This is a solid addition to the test suite. The tests are correct, well-written, and test important edge cases in the cursor's coordinate handling logic. The suggested improvements are minor and mostly focused on maintainability.

Recommendation: ✅ Approve with minor suggestions

The code is ready to merge as-is, but the suggested refactoring (extract helper, improve naming) would enhance long-term maintainability.

[claude]

Code Review

Summary

This PR adds two test cases (holes_in_coordinates and holes_in_coordinates2) to verify cursor behavior when history events have non-contiguous coordinate sequences. The tests validate that the cursor correctly handles "holes" in coordinate numbering.

Positive Observations

✅ Good test coverage: The tests address an important edge case - sparse coordinate sequences in history events

✅ Clear test structure: Both tests follow the existing test patterns with well-organized setup and assertions

✅ Comprehensive scenarios:

• Test 1 validates sequential advancement through sparse coordinates
• Test 2 validates insertion behavior between sparse coordinates

Issues & Recommendations

1. Code Duplication (Medium Priority)

The two test functions share almost identical setup code (lines 782-803 vs 824-845). Consider extracting the event setup into a helper function:

fn create_sparse_events() -> HashMap<Location, Vec<Event>> {
    [(
        loc![],
        vec![
            Event {
                coordinate: coord![1],
                version: 1,
                data: EventData::VersionCheck,
            },
            Event {
                coordinate: coord![3],
                version: 1,
                data: EventData::VersionCheck,
            },
            Event {
                coordinate: coord![6],
                version: 1,
                data: EventData::VersionCheck,
            },
        ],
    )]
    .into_iter()
    .collect()
}

Location: engine/packages/gasoline/src/history/cursor.rs:782-845

2. Test Naming (Low Priority)

holes_in_coordinates2 is not very descriptive. Consider renaming to holes_in_coordinates_insertion or insert_between_sparse_coordinates to better describe what aspect of holes it is testing.

Location: engine/packages/gasoline/src/history/cursor.rs:823

3. Missing Documentation (Low Priority)

While the existing tests have doc comments explaining their purpose (see lines 678-679, 691-692), these new tests lack them. Consider adding:

/// Verify cursor advances correctly through events with non-contiguous coordinates (1, 3, 6)
#[test]
fn holes_in_coordinates() {
    // ...
}

/// Verify insertions work correctly between events with sparse coordinates
#[test]
fn holes_in_coordinates_insertion() {
    // ...
}

Location: engine/packages/gasoline/src/history/cursor.rs:780-853

Code Quality Assessment

• Correctness: ✅ The test logic appears sound and validates the expected behavior
• Style: ✅ Follows existing conventions (hard tabs, pattern macros, etc.)
• Performance: ✅ No concerns - these are unit tests
• Security: N/A

Test Coverage Analysis

The tests effectively cover:

• Sequential cursor advancement through sparse coordinates
• Correct coordinate calculation after consuming all events (coord![7] after coord![6])
• Insertion location between sparse coordinates (coord![1, 1] between coord![1] and coord![3])

However, consider adding tests for:

• Insertions at other positions (e.g., between 3 and 6)
• Larger gaps in coordinates
• Edge case: coordinate 0 handling with holes
• Multi-level coordinate hierarchies with holes (e.g., coord![1, 3] to coord![1, 7])

Recommendation

Approve with minor suggestions. The core functionality is solid, but addressing the code duplication would improve maintainability. The other suggestions are nice-to-haves that can be addressed in a follow-up if preferred.

---

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[claude]

PR Review: chore(gas): add test for history with holes

Summary

This PR adds two new test cases (holes_in_coordinates and holes_in_coordinates2) to verify cursor behavior when there are gaps in coordinate sequences in the workflow history.

✅ What looks good

1. Test coverage: The tests cover an important edge case - sparse coordinates in history (e.g., coordinates 1, 3, 6 with gaps at 2, 4, 5). This is valuable for ensuring the cursor correctly handles real-world scenarios where events may have been removed or coordinates are non-contiguous.

2. Test structure: The tests follow the existing patterns in the file and use the established coord! and loc! macros consistently.

3. Clear assertions: The comments explain what each assertion is verifying.

🔍 Suggestions for improvement

1. Consider a more descriptive name for holes_in_coordinates2: The second test specifically tests insertion behavior between sparse coordinates. A name like insertion_between_sparse_coordinates would better communicate intent.

2. Minor code style: Lines 808, 812, 816, and 848 create a temporary value for current_location_for that is immediately consumed by update. While this works, it reads a bit awkwardly. Consider either:

   • Splitting into two lines for clarity:

     let loc = cursor.current_location_for(&HistoryResult::<()>::Event(()));
     cursor.update(&loc);

   • Or adding a helper method if this pattern is common in tests

3. Test documentation: Consider adding a doc comment similar to the other tests (e.g., the /// Before 1 is 0.1 style comments above other test functions) to briefly describe the scenario being tested.

✅ Verification

• The tests are well-structured and should compile/run correctly
• No security concerns
• No performance issues (these are unit tests)
• The test logic correctly validates the expected behavior based on the coord_at and current_location_for implementations

Verdict

Approve - This is a good addition to the test suite. The suggestions above are minor and optional improvements.

---

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[claude]

PR Review: chore(gas): add test for history with holes

Summary

This PR adds two unit tests (holes_in_coordinates and holes_in_coordinates2) for the Cursor implementation in the gasoline workflow engine. These tests verify that the cursor correctly handles sparse event coordinates with gaps ("holes") between them.

Code Quality & Best Practices ✅

Positive aspects:

• Tests follow existing patterns in the file (same structure as coord_with_sparse_events, cardinality, etc.)
• Good use of the existing test macros (loc![], coord![])
• Clear, descriptive comments explaining the test scenarios
• Tests cover both event traversal and insertion scenarios with holes

Suggestions:

1. Test naming: Consider renaming holes_in_coordinates2 to something more descriptive like insertion_between_holes or insert_after_first_event_with_holes to clarify what scenario it's testing.

2. Minor DRY opportunity: Both tests use identical event setup. While test duplication is often acceptable for clarity, you could consider extracting the event setup into a helper function if more hole-related tests are added in the future:

fn create_events_with_holes() -> HashMap<Location, Vec<Event>> {
    [(
        loc![],
        vec![
            Event { coordinate: coord![1], version: 1, data: EventData::VersionCheck },
            Event { coordinate: coord![3], version: 1, data: EventData::VersionCheck },
            Event { coordinate: coord![6], version: 1, data: EventData::VersionCheck },
        ],
    )]
    .into_iter()
    .collect::<HashMap<_, _>>()
}

Potential Issues ⚠️

1. Type annotation redundancy: In holes_in_coordinates, line 803, you use .collect::<HashMap<_, _>>() which is good, but the same pattern isn't used consistently in all existing tests (some use just .collect() with type inference from Cursor::new). This is fine but worth noting the inconsistency exists in the broader test file.

Test Coverage 📊

The tests effectively cover:

• ✅ Forward traversal through events with coordinate gaps
• ✅ Coordinate calculation after exhausting events with holes
• ✅ Insertion location calculation between events with holes

Additional test cases to consider (optional):

• Test with holes at the beginning (e.g., first event at coord [3] instead of [1])
• Test insertion when cursor is past the last event with holes
• Test with multi-component coordinates that have holes (e.g., [1, 1], [1, 3], [1, 6])

Performance Considerations ✅

No performance concerns - these are unit tests that create small in-memory data structures.

Security Concerns ✅

No security concerns - these are isolated unit tests with no I/O or external dependencies.

Overall Assessment

Approved ✅

This is a solid addition to the test suite that improves coverage for an important edge case in the cursor's coordinate handling. The tests are well-written and follow existing conventions. The minor suggestions above are optional improvements.

---

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[claude]

Code Review

I've reviewed this PR and the tests look good overall! Here's my detailed feedback:

✅ Strengths

1. Good Test Coverage: The tests validate important edge cases for sparse coordinate handling with "holes" in the sequence (1, 3, 6 instead of 1, 2, 3).

2. Follows Existing Patterns: The new tests use the same structure and macros (loc!, coord!) as other tests in the file, maintaining consistency.

3. Clear Test Intent: The test names and inline comments clearly communicate what's being tested.

🔍 Observations & Suggestions

1. Test Naming

The test holes_in_coordinates2 could use a more descriptive name. Consider something like:

• holes_in_coordinates_insertion
• insert_between_sparse_coordinates
• insertion_after_first_coordinate_with_holes

This would better convey that it's specifically testing insertion behavior when coordinates have gaps.

2. Test Documentation

While the inline comments are helpful, consider adding a doc comment explaining the scenario being tested:

/// Tests that the cursor correctly handles insertions when coordinates have gaps.
/// When coordinates are [1, 3, 6], inserting after coordinate 1 should produce
/// coordinate 1.1 (not 2 or 3).
#[test]
fn holes_in_coordinates_insertion() {
    // ...
}

3. Code Duplication

Both tests use identical event setup with coordinates [1, 3, 6]. Consider extracting this into a helper function:

fn create_sparse_events() -> Arc<HashMap<Location, Vec<Event>>> {
    Arc::new([(
        loc![],
        vec![
            Event {
                coordinate: coord![1],
                version: 1,
                data: EventData::VersionCheck,
            },
            Event {
                coordinate: coord![3],
                version: 1,
                data: EventData::VersionCheck,
            },
            Event {
                coordinate: coord![6],
                version: 1,
                data: EventData::VersionCheck,
            },
        ],
    )]
    .into_iter()
    .collect())
}

This would:

• Reduce duplication
• Make tests more maintainable
• Make it easier to add more sparse coordinate tests in the future

4. Test Assertions - Minor Enhancement

In holes_in_coordinates, the final assertion checks coord![7]. Consider adding a comment explaining why it's 7 (last coordinate + 1), as this validates the coord_at logic for indices beyond the event list.

5. Edge Cases to Consider

The tests are solid, but you might want to add tests for:

• What happens with a larger gap (e.g., coordinates [1, 100])?
• Multiple insertions in sequence between sparse coordinates
• Sparse coordinates at deeper nesting levels (e.g., [1.1, 1.5, 1.10])

These aren't required for this PR but could be valuable for future test coverage.

🎯 Code Quality Assessment

• Correctness: ✅ Tests appear to correctly validate the intended behavior
• Style: ✅ Follows project conventions from CLAUDE.md
• Maintainability: ⚠️ Minor duplication (see suggestion [SVC-2504] Fix 5 GB upload limit for local development from Cloudflare #3)
• Documentation: ⚠️ Could benefit from doc comments (see suggestion [SVC-2479] Send cluster events to PostHog #2)

🔒 Security & Performance

No security concerns or performance issues identified. These are pure unit tests with no external dependencies.

📝 Summary

This is a solid PR that adds important test coverage for sparse coordinate handling. The suggestions above are minor improvements that would enhance maintainability and clarity, but they're not blockers. The tests accomplish their goal of validating the cursor behavior with coordinate gaps.

Recommendation: ✅ Approve with optional improvements

[claude]

Code Review

Summary

This PR adds two new test cases for the Cursor history system, specifically testing behavior when there are "holes" (gaps) in coordinate sequences. The tests validate that the cursor correctly handles non-sequential coordinates like [1, 3, 6] instead of [1, 2, 3].

Positive Observations

✅ Good test coverage addition: These tests fill an important gap by validating edge cases with sparse coordinate sequences, which is critical for a history/event tracking system.

✅ Follows existing patterns: The tests use the same structure and macros (loc!, coord!) as existing tests, maintaining consistency with the test suite.

✅ Clear assertions: Each test has clear expectations and validates specific cursor behavior at each step.

Issues & Suggestions

1. Test Naming - holes_in_coordinates2 ❌

Issue: The second test has a generic name with a "2" suffix, which doesn't describe what it's testing.

Suggestion: Rename to something more descriptive like insertion_between_holes_in_coordinates or insert_after_first_coordinate_with_holes. This makes it clear that it's testing insertion behavior specifically, not just general hole handling.

Location: engine/packages/gasoline/src/history/cursor.rs:847

2. Missing Documentation 📝

Issue: Neither test has doc comments explaining the scenario being tested or the expected behavior.

Suggestion: Add doc comments similar to existing tests (e.g., see line 724: /// Between 2.1 and 2.2 should be 2.1.1). For example:

/// Cursor should skip over holes in coordinates and continue from the last event's coordinate
#[test]
fn holes_in_coordinates() { ... }

/// Inserting after coordinate 1 (when next is 3) should create coordinate 1.1
#[test]
fn insertion_between_holes_in_coordinates() { ... }

3. Test Coverage Gap 🔍

Observation: The first test validates reading through holes and what happens after all events, but doesn't test insertion behavior like the second test does. Consider if the first test should also verify insertion behavior at multiple points (e.g., after coordinate 3, between 3 and 6).

Suggestion: Either:

• Add insertion assertions to holes_in_coordinates, or
• Add a comment explaining why insertion is only tested in the second test

4. Potential Edge Cases Not Covered 🤔

Consider adding tests for:

• Very large gaps: What if coordinates are [1, 100, 1000]? Does the cursor handle this correctly?
• Holes at different depths: e.g., [coord![1, 1], coord![1, 5], coord![1, 10]] - are nested coordinate holes handled?
• Mixed hole patterns: Coordinates like [1, 2, 5, 6] (some sequential, some with gaps)

Code Quality Assessment

Overall: ✅ Good

• No bugs detected
• Logic appears sound based on the cursor implementation
• Test assertions match expected behavior from coord_at() logic (lines 43-67)

Performance Considerations

✅ No performance concerns - these are unit tests with minimal overhead.

Security Concerns

✅ No security issues - these are pure test cases with no I/O or external dependencies.

Recommendation

Approve with minor improvements suggested. The tests are functionally correct and valuable, but would benefit from:

1. Better naming for the second test
2. Doc comments for clarity
3. Consideration of additional edge cases

Great work adding test coverage for this important edge case! 🎯

[claude]

PR Review: chore(gas): add test for history with holes

Overview

This PR adds two new test cases to validate cursor behavior when coordinates have gaps/holes in the event history. The tests ensure that the cursor correctly handles non-sequential coordinate values.

Code Quality ✅

Strengths:

• Clear, focused test cases that validate a specific edge case
• Good test naming that describes what's being tested
• Follows existing test patterns in the file (using coord![], loc![] macros, HashMap for events)
• Tests validate both cursor advancement and insertion behavior with holes

Test Coverage ✅

The new tests cover two important scenarios:

1. holes_in_coordinates: Validates cursor advancement through sparse coordinates (1→3→6)

   • Verifies each event is at the correct coordinate
   • Confirms that after exhausting events, the cursor continues from the last coordinate + 1 (coordinate 7)

2. holes_in_coordinates2: Validates insertion behavior between sparse coordinates

   • After advancing to coordinate 1, inserting should produce coordinate 1.1 (not 2)
   • This is correct behavior - insertions should be relative to the previous coordinate, not fill holes

Potential Issues

1. Duplicate Test Logic ⚠️

The two tests have significant overlap - both create the same event structure with coordinates [1, 3, 6]. Consider:

• Could holes_in_coordinates2 be integrated into holes_in_coordinates?
• Or could the setup be extracted to reduce duplication?

Example refactor:

#[test]
fn holes_in_coordinates() {
    let events = make_events_with_holes(); // shared helper
    let mut cursor = Cursor::new(Arc::new(events), Location::empty());

    // Test advancement through holes
    assert_eq!(coord![1], cursor.current_coord());
    cursor.update(&cursor.current_location_for(&HistoryResult::<()>::Event(())));
    
    assert_eq!(coord![3], cursor.current_coord());
    
    // Test insertion before the next hole
    let insertion_loc = cursor.current_location_for(&HistoryResult::<()>::Insertion);
    assert_eq!(loc![coord![1, 1]], insertion_loc);
    
    // Continue with advancement tests...
}

2. Missing Edge Cases ⚠️

Consider adding test coverage for:

• What happens when inserting at coordinate 6 (after the last event)?
• What if the first coordinate is not 1 (e.g., starts at 5)?
• Complex coordinates with holes (e.g., coord![1, 2], coord![1, 5], coord![3])

3. Test Documentation 📝

While test names are descriptive, consider adding doc comments explaining:

• Why holes might occur in real usage
• The expected behavior and why it's correct
• Reference to related issue or behavior being validated

Example:

/// Tests that cursor correctly handles non-sequential coordinates in history.
/// Holes can occur when events are inserted between existing coordinates during
/// workflow replay. The cursor should advance through existing coordinates and
/// continue from the last coordinate + 1 when generating new coordinates.
#[test]
fn holes_in_coordinates() {
    // ...
}

Performance ✅

No performance concerns - these are unit tests with minimal data.

Security ✅

No security concerns.

Recommendations

1. Reduce duplication: Merge the two tests or extract shared setup into a helper function
2. Add edge case coverage: Test boundary conditions (first coordinate != 1, insertion after last event)
3. Add documentation: Brief doc comments explaining why this behavior matters
4. Consider naming: holes_in_coordinates2 could have a more descriptive name like insertion_between_holes or holes_insertion_behavior

Overall Assessment

✅ Approved with minor suggestions

The tests are well-written and validate important cursor behavior. The suggestions above are for improving maintainability and coverage, but don't block merging. Good work on adding test coverage for this edge case!

[claude]

Code Review

Summary

This PR adds two new test cases for the Cursor's handling of sparse event histories ("holes" in coordinates). The tests verify that the cursor correctly navigates through event sequences with non-contiguous coordinates.

Positive Aspects ✅

1. Good Test Coverage: These tests address an important edge case - handling sparse coordinate sequences in workflow history
2. Clear Test Names: holes_in_coordinates and holes_in_coordinates2 clearly indicate what's being tested
3. Consistent Style: Follows the existing test patterns in the module using the loc! and coord! macros
4. Specific Assertions: Tests verify exact coordinate values at each step

Issues & Recommendations

1. Test Naming (Minor)

The second test name holes_in_coordinates2 is not descriptive. Consider renaming to indicate what specifically differentiates it from the first test:

#[test]
fn holes_in_coordinates_insertion_between() {
    // Insert after coordinate 1, before coordinate 3
    // ...
}

2. Code Duplication (Medium)

Both tests share identical event setup (events with coordinates 1, 3, 6). Consider extracting this to a helper function:

fn create_sparse_events() -> Arc<HashMap<Location, Vec<Event>>> {
    [(
        loc![],
        vec![
            Event {
                coordinate: coord![1],
                version: 1,
                data: EventData::VersionCheck,
            },
            Event {
                coordinate: coord![3],
                version: 1,
                data: EventData::VersionCheck,
            },
            Event {
                coordinate: coord![6],
                version: 1,
                data: EventData::VersionCheck,
            },
        ],
    )]
    .into_iter()
    .collect::<HashMap<_, _>>()
}

3. Missing Test Documentation (Minor)

Add docstrings explaining the test scenarios:

/// Tests that the cursor correctly navigates through sparse event history
/// where coordinates have gaps (1, 3, 6 instead of 1, 2, 3).
/// Verifies that after the last event, new coordinates continue from the
/// last coordinate + 1.
#[test]
fn holes_in_coordinates() {
    // ...
}

4. Incomplete Edge Case Coverage (Medium)

Consider adding tests for:

• What happens when inserting between coordinates with larger gaps (e.g., 1 and 100)?
• Behavior with nested coordinates that have holes (e.g., coord![1, 5] to coord![1, 10])
• Multiple sequential insertions in the same gap

5. Assertion Messages (Minor)

The assertions lack custom messages. Consider adding them for better test failure diagnostics:

assert_eq!(
    coord![1], 
    cursor.current_coord(),
    "First event should be at coordinate 1"
);

Potential Bugs 🐛

No bugs detected in the test code itself. The tests appear to correctly verify the cursor's behavior with sparse coordinates.

Performance Considerations ⚡

No performance concerns - these are unit tests with minimal data.

Security Concerns 🔒

No security issues identified.

Test Coverage 📊

Current: The PR adds tests for sparse coordinate handling
Missing:

• Edge cases mentioned above
• Error conditions (if applicable)
• Interaction between holes and different HistoryResult types

Recommendations Summary

Must Fix:

• None (code is functional)

Should Fix:

• Rename holes_in_coordinates2 to be more descriptive
• Extract duplicate event setup into a helper function

Nice to Have:

• Add test documentation/comments
• Add assertion messages for better diagnostics
• Expand edge case coverage

Overall Assessment

Rating: ✅ Approve with Minor Suggestions

The tests are well-structured and address a valid edge case in the cursor logic. The code follows existing patterns and conventions. The suggestions above would improve maintainability and coverage but are not blockers.

---

Review generated by Claude Code

[claude]

Code Review - PR #3477

Summary

This PR adds two test cases for handling holes (gaps) in coordinate sequences within the Gasoline history cursor implementation. The tests verify that the cursor correctly handles non-contiguous coordinate values.

Code Quality: ✅ Good

Strengths:

• Tests follow existing patterns in the test module
• Clear test names that describe what's being tested
• Good use of assertions to verify expected behavior
• Proper setup with realistic event structures

Minor observations:

1. Test naming: The two tests are named holes_in_coordinates and holes_in_coordinates2. Consider more descriptive names that indicate the difference:

   • holes_in_coordinates → holes_in_coordinates_sequential_traversal
   • holes_in_coordinates2 → holes_in_coordinates_insertion_between_holes

2. Code duplication: Both tests use identical event setup. Consider extracting a helper function to reduce duplication.

Potential Bugs: ✅ None Identified

The tests appear correct based on the cursor implementation in coord_at():

• When past the end of events, coordinates continue from the last event's coordinate + offset (line 56 in cursor.rs)
• The insertion logic correctly places new coordinates between existing ones (lines 84-117 in cursor.rs)

Test Coverage: ✅ Good Addition

What's tested:

• Sparse coordinate sequences with holes (1, 3, 6)
• Sequential traversal through sparse coordinates
• Insertion placement between non-contiguous coordinates
• Continuation after the last event

Suggestions for additional coverage:

1. Test with holes at different cardinality levels (e.g., coord![1, 1], coord![1, 5], coord![1, 10])
2. Test edge cases like very large gaps (e.g., coord![1], coord![1000])
3. Test insertion at different positions (beginning, middle, end) with holes

Performance: ✅ No Concerns

Tests are simple unit tests with minimal overhead. No performance issues.

Security: ✅ No Concerns

These are test-only changes with no security implications.

Recommendation: ✅ Approve with minor suggestions

The tests are well-written and add valuable coverage for an edge case (coordinate holes). The suggestions above are optional improvements that could enhance maintainability and coverage but are not blockers.

Optional improvements:

• Rename tests for clarity
• Extract common setup to reduce duplication
• Consider additional edge case coverage

---

Review generated by Claude Code

[claude]

PR Review: Add test for history with holes

Summary

This PR adds two test cases (holes_in_coordinates and holes_in_coordinates2) to validate the behavior of the history cursor when encountering gaps ("holes") in coordinate sequences.

Code Quality ✅

The code follows the existing test patterns well and is clear in intent:

• Good test structure: Both tests follow the established testing pattern using the loc! and coord! macros
• Clear assertions: Each assertion includes helpful comments explaining what's being tested
• Appropriate naming: Test names clearly describe what scenario they're testing

Test Coverage ✅

These tests add valuable coverage for an edge case:

• holes_in_coordinates: Tests cursor progression through non-sequential coordinates (1, 3, 6) and verifies the cursor continues from the last coordinate after exhausting history
• holes_in_coordinates2: Tests insertion behavior between holes, ensuring insertions are placed correctly relative to sparse coordinates

Both tests validate important cursor behavior that could easily break without proper test coverage.

Potential Issues ⚠️

1. Test Duplication

The two test cases have significant overlap in their setup (identical event structures). Consider whether these could be consolidated or if the second test's unique behavior warrants a separate test.

Current setup (duplicated):

let events = [(
    loc![],
    vec![
        Event { coordinate: coord![1], version: 1, data: EventData::VersionCheck },
        Event { coordinate: coord![3], version: 1, data: EventData::VersionCheck },
        Event { coordinate: coord![6], version: 1, data: EventData::VersionCheck },
    ],
)]
.into_iter()
.collect::<HashMap<_, _>>();

Recommendation: This is acceptable given that the tests verify different behaviors, but consider adding a comment explaining why they're separate tests.

2. Magic Numbers

The coordinate values (1, 3, 6) appear arbitrary. While this is fine for testing, a comment explaining why these specific values were chosen would improve maintainability.

Recommendation: Add a brief comment like:

// Test with non-sequential coordinates to verify cursor handles gaps correctly

3. Limited Edge Case Coverage

While these tests cover basic hole scenarios, consider additional edge cases:

• Holes at the beginning (starting with coord 5 instead of 1)
• Multiple consecutive insertions between holes
• Very large gaps in coordinates

Recommendation: These can be added in future PRs if needed, but worth considering.

Performance Considerations ✅

No performance concerns - these are unit tests with minimal overhead.

Security Concerns ✅

No security concerns identified.

Best Practices Alignment ✅

The code aligns well with the codebase's patterns and the CLAUDE.md guidelines:

• ✅ Follows existing test structure in cursor.rs
• ✅ Uses workspace testing conventions
• ✅ Clear, descriptive test names
• ✅ Appropriate use of assertion messages

Recommendations

Minor Improvements:

1. Consider adding a doc comment to holes_in_coordinates2 explaining its distinction from holes_in_coordinates:

   /// Tests insertion behavior when history contains coordinate holes.
   /// Verifies that insertions between sparse coordinates use proper
   /// cardinality rules (1.1 comes after 1, before 3).
   #[test]
   fn holes_in_coordinates2() {

2. Add a brief comment explaining the choice of sparse coordinates:

   // Use coordinates [1, 3, 6] to create gaps and verify cursor handles non-sequential history

Conclusion

Overall Assessment: ✅ APPROVED

This is a solid addition to the test suite. The tests are well-written, follow existing patterns, and add valuable coverage for an important edge case in history cursor traversal. The minor suggestions above are optional improvements rather than blockers.

The PR is ready to merge as-is, though the small documentation enhancements would improve long-term maintainability.

---

🤖 Generated with Claude Code