test(miner): mirror shouldReenter under root vitest for Codecov (#8347)

packages/loopover-engine/README.md

@@ -37,7 +37,8 @@ Codecov (`codecov/patch`) only reads the root vitest suite, so modules that need
 have a root test under `test/unit/` (e.g. `test/unit/reviewer-consensus-calibration.test.ts` for
 `src/reviewer-consensus-calibration.ts` — #8349, or `test/unit/signal-tracking.test.ts` for
 `src/calibration/signal-tracking.ts` — #8343, or `test/unit/harness-submission-trigger.test.ts` for
-`src/miner/harness-submission-trigger.ts` — #8346). The package-local `node:test` suite remains the package's
+`src/miner/harness-submission-trigger.ts` — #8346, or `test/unit/loop-reentry-policy.test.ts` for
+`src/miner/loop-reentry-policy.ts` — #8347). The package-local `node:test` suite remains the package's
 own gate; the root mirror is what makes the same scenarios gradeable by Codecov.
 
 ## `opportunity-ranker`

test/unit/loop-reentry-policy.test.ts

@@ -0,0 +1,142 @@
+import { describe, expect, it } from "vitest";
+import {
+  DEFAULT_MAX_CONSECUTIVE_DISENGAGEMENTS,
+  DEFAULT_MAX_REENTRIES_PER_HOUR,
+  DEFAULT_MAX_REENTRIES_PER_SESSION,
+  shouldReenter,
+  type LoopReentryCandidate,
+} from "../../packages/loopover-engine/src/index";
+
+/** Mirrors packages/loopover-engine/test/loop-reentry-policy.test.ts — vitest root coverage for Codecov (#8347). */
+function baseCandidate(overrides: Partial<LoopReentryCandidate> = {}): LoopReentryCandidate {
+  return {
+    killSwitchScope: "none",
+    repoFullName: "acme/widgets",
+    outcome: "merged",
+    consecutiveDisengagements: 0,
+    reentriesThisHour: 0,
+    reentriesThisSession: 0,
+    ...overrides,
+  };
+}
+
+describe("shouldReenter (vitest mirror of engine node:test suite, #8347)", () => {
+  it("barrel: the public entrypoint re-exports the loop-reentry policy (#2338)", () => {
+    expect(typeof shouldReenter).toBe("function");
+    expect(typeof DEFAULT_MAX_CONSECUTIVE_DISENGAGEMENTS).toBe("number");
+  });
+
+  it("a merged outcome with every counter well within limits re-enters cleanly", () => {
+    expect(shouldReenter(baseCandidate({ outcome: "merged" }))).toEqual({ reenter: true, reasons: [] });
+  });
+
+  it("kill-switch (#2339): a global kill-switch blocks unconditionally, even with every counter otherwise clear", () => {
+    expect(shouldReenter(baseCandidate({ killSwitchScope: "global" }))).toEqual({
+      reenter: false,
+      reasons: ["global_kill_switch_active"],
+    });
+  });
+
+  it("kill-switch (#2339): a per-repo kill-switch blocks unconditionally, checked before the circuit breaker or rate caps", () => {
+    expect(
+      shouldReenter(baseCandidate({ killSwitchScope: "repo", outcome: "disengaged", consecutiveDisengagements: 99 })),
+    ).toEqual({ reenter: false, reasons: ["repo_kill_switch_active"] });
+  });
+
+  it("kill-switch (#2339): an inactive kill-switch (scope 'none') never itself blocks -- other checks are still evaluated normally", () => {
+    expect(shouldReenter(baseCandidate({ killSwitchScope: "none" })).reenter).toBe(true);
+  });
+
+  it("an 'other' outcome (neither merged nor disengaged) is never subject to the per-repo circuit breaker", () => {
+    expect(shouldReenter(baseCandidate({ outcome: "other" }))).toEqual({ reenter: true, reasons: [] });
+  });
+
+  it("circuit breaker: a disengaged outcome at or beyond the consecutive-disengagement ceiling pauses the repo", () => {
+    const decision = shouldReenter(
+      baseCandidate({ outcome: "disengaged", consecutiveDisengagements: 3, maxConsecutiveDisengagements: 3 }),
+    );
+    expect(decision.reenter).toBe(false);
+    expect(decision.reasons).toEqual(["repo_paused_after_consecutive_disengagements:3>=3"]);
+  });
+
+  it("circuit breaker: a disengaged outcome below the ceiling still re-enters", () => {
+    expect(
+      shouldReenter(baseCandidate({ outcome: "disengaged", consecutiveDisengagements: 2, maxConsecutiveDisengagements: 3 }))
+        .reenter,
+    ).toBe(true);
+  });
+
+  it("circuit breaker: a HIGH consecutiveDisengagements count never pauses a repo whose outcome ISN'T disengaged", () => {
+    // Exercises the && short-circuit's left-false side distinctly from the right-side threshold check -- a
+    // repo could have a high historical tally but just landed a merge, which must not be treated as a pause.
+    expect(
+      shouldReenter(baseCandidate({ outcome: "merged", consecutiveDisengagements: 99, maxConsecutiveDisengagements: 3 }))
+        .reenter,
+    ).toBe(true);
+  });
+
+  it("rate cap: an hourly re-entry ceiling at or beyond the limit blocks, independent of repo history", () => {
+    // baseCandidate defaults to outcome:"merged" — a healthy merge must still respect a spent hourly cap.
+    const decision = shouldReenter(baseCandidate({ reentriesThisHour: 4, maxReentriesPerHour: 4 }));
+    expect(decision.reenter).toBe(false);
+    expect(decision.reasons).toEqual(["hourly_reentry_cap_reached:4>=4"]);
+  });
+
+  it("rate cap: an hourly count below the limit does not block", () => {
+    expect(shouldReenter(baseCandidate({ reentriesThisHour: 3, maxReentriesPerHour: 4 })).reenter).toBe(true);
+  });
+
+  it("rate cap: a session re-entry ceiling at or beyond the limit blocks, independent of the hourly cap", () => {
+    const decision = shouldReenter(baseCandidate({ reentriesThisSession: 20, maxReentriesPerSession: 20 }));
+    expect(decision.reenter).toBe(false);
+    expect(decision.reasons).toEqual(["session_reentry_cap_reached:20>=20"]);
+  });
+
+  it("rate cap: a session count below the limit does not block", () => {
+    expect(shouldReenter(baseCandidate({ reentriesThisSession: 19, maxReentriesPerSession: 20 })).reenter).toBe(true);
+  });
+
+  it("every ceiling that is exceeded is reported, not just the first one checked", () => {
+    const decision = shouldReenter(
+      baseCandidate({
+        outcome: "disengaged",
+        consecutiveDisengagements: 5,
+        maxConsecutiveDisengagements: 3,
+        reentriesThisHour: 10,
+        maxReentriesPerHour: 4,
+        reentriesThisSession: 30,
+        maxReentriesPerSession: 20,
+      }),
+    );
+    expect(decision.reenter).toBe(false);
+    expect(decision.reasons).toHaveLength(3);
+  });
+
+  it("default thresholds apply when the candidate omits its own overrides", () => {
+    const justUnderDefault = shouldReenter(
+      baseCandidate({ outcome: "disengaged", consecutiveDisengagements: DEFAULT_MAX_CONSECUTIVE_DISENGAGEMENTS - 1 }),
+    );
+    expect(justUnderDefault.reenter).toBe(true);
+
+    const atDefault = shouldReenter(
+      baseCandidate({ outcome: "disengaged", consecutiveDisengagements: DEFAULT_MAX_CONSECUTIVE_DISENGAGEMENTS }),
+    );
+    expect(atDefault.reenter).toBe(false);
+
+    expect(shouldReenter(baseCandidate({ reentriesThisHour: DEFAULT_MAX_REENTRIES_PER_HOUR })).reenter).toBe(false);
+    expect(shouldReenter(baseCandidate({ reentriesThisSession: DEFAULT_MAX_REENTRIES_PER_SESSION })).reenter).toBe(false);
+  });
+
+  it("a caller-supplied threshold overrides the default rather than being ignored", () => {
+    // A count that would pass under the DEFAULT ceiling must still block under a stricter caller override.
+    expect(
+      shouldReenter(baseCandidate({ outcome: "disengaged", consecutiveDisengagements: 1, maxConsecutiveDisengagements: 1 }))
+        .reenter,
+    ).toBe(false);
+  });
+
+  it("caller-supplied hourly and session thresholds override the defaults", () => {
+    expect(shouldReenter(baseCandidate({ reentriesThisHour: 1, maxReentriesPerHour: 1 })).reenter).toBe(false);
+    expect(shouldReenter(baseCandidate({ reentriesThisSession: 1, maxReentriesPerSession: 1 })).reenter).toBe(false);
+  });
+});