docs: surface real-provider E2E testing - #123
Draft
ClaudiaFang wants to merge 9 commits into
Draft
Conversation
|
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.



Summary
CONTRIBUTING.mdwith project testing expectations for contributorsdocs/test-coverage.mdwith the current layered test modeldocs/testing/test-scenarios.mdas a behavior- and risk-oriented overviewdocs/testing/test-matrix.mdwith P0/P1/P2 classification and current coverage by test layerWhy
The repository already has meaningful unit/integration and real-provider E2E coverage, but that quality was difficult to understand from the main documentation. These docs separate four different questions:
The current real-provider
SyncManagersuite is documented accurately as gray-box system/E2E coverage because it imports production internals and replaces the Obsidian boundary. A future packaged-plugin black-box suite is explicitly markedPlanned, with GitHub as the canonical P0 user journey target. Nothing in this PR claims that black-box coverage already exists.The wording also intentionally says the real-provider harness supports GitHub, GitLab, and Gitea rather than claiming all three provider legs are currently stable in CI. Current runner-specific limitations remain documented in
docs/testing/real-provider-e2e.md.Validation
test/real-provider-e2ebranchSyncManager, GitHub, GitLab, and Gitea E2E suites