# Test Quality Review: Story 2.2 (Update & Delete Shared Steps)

**Quality Score**: 79/100 (B - Acceptable)
**Review Date**: 2026-01-18
**Review Scope**: Story 2.2 (`tests/e2e/test_shared_steps.py`, `tests/unit/test_shared_step_service.py`)
**Reviewer**: TEA Agent

---

## Executive Summary

**Overall Assessment**: Acceptable. The tests provide good functional coverage of the happy paths and error cases for Update and Delete operations. They use appropriate isolation strategies (mocks for unit, cleanup tracker for E2E). However, traceability is missing (no Test IDs or Priorities), and there are opportunities to improve maintainability via BDD structure and data factories.

**Recommendation**: **Approve with Comments**. The Critical issue (missing Test IDs) should be addressed ensuring traceability. Other recommendations can be tackled in a follow-up refactoring pass.

### Key Strengths

✅ **Good Isolation**: Unit tests use mocks effectively; E2E tests use `cleanup_tracker` to prevent state pollution.
✅ **Explicit Idempotency Testing**: Story 1.5 patterns (idempotency, soft delete) are correctly applied and tested.
✅ **Clean Assertions**: Verification logic is clear (checking tool output strings in E2E, mock calls in Unit).

### Key Weaknesses

❌ **Missing Traceability**: No Test IDs or Priority markers, making it hard to map tests to requirements or execute selectively.
❌ **Manual Data Construction**: Test data (steps, dicts) is hardcoded inline rather than using factories.
❌ **Fixture Usage**: Test setup logic (creation of shared steps) is repeated inline instead of using a dedicated fixture.

---

## Quality Criteria Assessment

| Criterion                            | Status                          | Violations | Notes        |
| ------------------------------------ | ------------------------------- | ---------- | ------------ |
| BDD Format (Given-When-Then)         | ⚠️ WARN                         | 2          | Structure exists but lacks explicit GWT comments/steps. |
| Test IDs                             | ❌ FAIL                         | 2          | No tests have IDs (e.g., `2.2-E2E-001`). |
| Priority Markers (P0/P1/P2/P3)       | ❌ FAIL                         | 2          | No priority markers found. |
| Hard Waits (sleep, waitForTimeout)   | ✅ PASS                          | 0          | No hard waits detected. |
| Determinism (no conditionals)        | ✅ PASS                          | 0          | Tests are deterministic. |
| Isolation (cleanup, no shared state) | ⚠️ WARN                         | 1          | One E2E test bypasses cleanup tracker (risky). |
| Fixture Patterns                     | ⚠️ WARN                         | 1          | Shared step creation repeated inline in E2E tests. |
| Data Factories                       | ⚠️ WARN                         | 2          | Hardcoded dictionaries for steps/attachments. |
| Network-First Pattern                | ✅ PASS                          | 0          | N/A (Tool/Service tests). |
| Explicit Assertions                  | ✅ PASS                          | 0          | Good assertion coverage. |
| Test Length (≤300 lines)             | ✅ PASS                          | 0          | Files are concise (<200 lines). |
| Test Duration (≤1.5 min)             | ✅ PASS                          | 0          | Tests likely fast. |
| Flakiness Patterns                   | ✅ PASS                          | 0          | No race conditions detected. |

**Total Violations**: 1 Critical (grouped), 1 High (grouped), 4 Medium

---

## Quality Score Breakdown

```
Starting Score:          100
Critical Violations:     -1 × 10 = -10 (Missing Test IDs)
High Violations:         -1 × 5 = -5 (Missing Priorities)
Medium Violations:       -3 × 2 = -6 (BDD, Factories, Isolation risk)
Low Violations:          -0 × 1 = -0

Bonus Points:
  Explicit Assertions:   +0 (Standard expectation)
                         --------
Total Bonus:             +0

Final Score:             79/100
Grade:                   B (Acceptable)
```

---

## Critical Issues (Must Fix)

### 1. Missing Test IDs

**Severity**: P0 (Critical)
**Location**: All tests in `tests/e2e/test_shared_steps.py` and `tests/unit/test_shared_step_service.py`
**Criterion**: Test IDs
**Knowledge Base**: [traceability.md](../../../testarch/knowledge/traceability.md)

**Issue Description**:
Tests lack unique identifiers mapping them to the Test Design and Story requirements. This breaks traceability and makes targeted execution difficult.

**Current Code**:

```python
# ❌ Bad
@pytest.mark.asyncio
async def test_update_shared_step_success_e2e(project_id, cleanup_tracker):
    # ...
```

**Recommended Fix**:

```python
# ✅ Good
@pytest.mark.asyncio
async def test_update_shared_step_success_e2e(project_id, cleanup_tracker):
    """
    Test updating a shared step name.
    ID: 2.2-E2E-001
    """
    # ...
```
*Note: Or rely on file naming convention if strict, but explicit IDs in docstrings or markers are preferred for reporting.*

---

## Recommendations (Should Fix)

### 1. Missing Priority Markers

**Severity**: P1 (High)
**Location**: All tests
**Criterion**: Priority Markers
**Knowledge Base**: [test-priorities.md](../../../testarch/knowledge/test-priorities.md)

**Issue Description**:
Tests are not classified by priority (P0 smoke, P1 regression, etc.), making it impossible to run a "smoke suite" efficiently.

**Recommended Improvement**:

```python
# ✅ Better
@pytest.mark.priority("P0")
@pytest.mark.asyncio
async def test_update_shared_step_success_e2e(...):
```

### 2. Manual Cleanup Bypass

**Severity**: P2 (Medium)
**Location**: `tests/e2e/test_shared_steps.py:132` (`test_delete_shared_step_success_e2e`)
**Criterion**: Isolation
**Knowledge Base**: [test-quality.md](../../../testarch/knowledge/test-quality.md)

**Issue Description**:
The test manually deletes the resource and explicitly skips the cleanup tracker ("No cleanup tracker - we'll delete it ourselves"). If the test fails *before* the delete step, the resource is orphaned.

**Recommended Improvement**:
Always register with the cleanup tracker. The tracker should be robust enough to handle "already deleted" (404) errors gracefully during cleanup (which `delete_shared_step` service logic already seems to handle via idempotency, but the tracker needs to support it).

```python
# ✅ Better
async def test_delete_shared_step_success_e2e(project_id, cleanup_tracker):
    # Create
    output = await create_shared_step(...)
    # ... extract ID ...
    cleanup_tracker.track_shared_step(shared_step_id) # Track just in case

    # Delete
    await delete_shared_step(...)
    # Cleanup tracker will try to delete again, which should be fine (idempotent)
```

### 3. Use Data Factories / Fixtures

**Severity**: P2 (Medium)
**Location**: `tests/e2e/test_shared_steps.py`
**Criterion**: Data Factories / Fixtures
**Knowledge Base**: [data-factories.md](../../../testarch/knowledge/data-factories.md)

**Issue Description**:
Shared Step creation logic is repeated in every test.

**Recommended Improvement**:
Create a `shared_step` fixture that handles creation and cleanup.

```python
# ✅ Better (Fixture)
@pytest.fixture
async def shared_step(project_id, cleanup_tracker):
    name = get_unique_name("Fixture Step")
    output = await create_shared_step(name=name, project_id=project_id)
    step_id = extract_id(output)
    cleanup_tracker.track_shared_step(step_id)
    return SharedStep(id=step_id, name=name)

async def test_update(shared_step):
    await update_shared_step(shared_step.id, ...)
```

---

## Best Practices Found

### 1. Explicit Idempotency Testing

**Location**: `tests/unit/test_shared_step_service.py:147`
**Pattern**: Idempotency Verification
**Knowledge Base**: [test-quality.md](../../../testarch/knowledge/test-quality.md) (Determinism)

**Why This Is Good**:
Explicitly testing that "no-op" updates return `changed=False` ensures the system behaves predictably and efficiently, avoiding unnecessary API calls.

```python
# ✅ Excellent pattern
result, changed = await service.update_shared_step(step_id=100, name="Same Name")
assert changed is False
mock_client.update_shared_step.assert_not_called()
```

---

## Test Coverage Scope

- **Story**: 2.2 Update & Delete Shared Steps
- **Tests Reviewed**: 
  - `tests/e2e/test_shared_steps.py`
  - `tests/unit/test_shared_step_service.py`

| Acceptance Criterion | Test ID | Status | Notes |
| -------------------- | ------- | ------ | ----- |
| Update Shared Step (Service) | N/A | ✅ Covered | `test_update_shared_step_success` (Unit) |
| Delete Shared Step (Service) | N/A | ✅ Covered | `test_delete_shared_step_success` (Unit) |
| Update Shared Step (E2E) | N/A | ✅ Covered | `test_update_shared_step_success_e2e` |
| Delete Shared Step (E2E) | N/A | ✅ Covered | `test_delete_shared_step_success_e2e` |
| Idempotency (Update) | N/A | ✅ Covered | Unit & E2E covered |
| Delete Confirm Safety | N/A | ✅ Covered | E2E test verifies `confirm=False` blocks |

---

## Next Steps

### Immediate Actions

1. **Add Test IDs**: Add unique IDs (e.g., `2.2-E2E-001`) to all test docstrings.
2. **Add Priorities**: Mark tests with `@pytest.mark.priority("P0")` etc.

### Follow-up Actions

1. **Refactor Verification**: Extract `shared_step` creation into a scoped fixture to DRY up E2E tests.
2. **Enhance BDD**: Add "Given/When/Then" comments to complex E2E flows for clarity.

---

## Decision

**Result**: **Approve with Comments**

The tests are functionally sound and safe (good isolation). The missing traceability (IDs/Priorities) is a process gap but does not affect code correctness. Recommendations should be adopted to maintain high quality as the suite grows.
