fix(rules): align isCodePath with isCodeFile for mts/cts/mjs/cjs/kts/scala/groovy

[philluiz2323]

Problem

Closes #9322.

isCodePath in src/rules/advisory.ts is meant to mirror isCodeFile for check-run annotation gating, but its extension regex still excluded .mts, .cts, .mjs, .cjs, .kts, .scala, and .groovy that isSourcePath already recognizes — so missing-test annotations were silently skipped for those source files.

Fix

Extend isCodePath's extension list to include the same JVM/JS module extensions isSourcePath uses.

Tests

• New parity regression test (mirroring the existing Vue/C++/Dart cases) asserting missing-test annotations fire for .mts/.cts/.mjs/.cjs/.kts/.scala/.groovy paths.

Reverting the regex extension fails the test. git diff --check clean.

Validation

• vitest run test/unit/rules.test.ts -t 9322
• Rules/advisory-only; unrelated UI/MCP checks not exercised.

Safety

• No secrets exposed; no UI changes (N/A evidence)

[superagent-security]

Superagent didn't find any vulnerabilities or security issues in this PR.

[loopover-orb]

Caution

🛑 LoopOver review result - fixes required

_{Review updated: 2026-07-27 13:22:53 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · CI failing · unstable

🛑 Suggested Action - Fix Blockers

Review summary
This is a narrow, well-targeted regex fix: isCodePath's extension list is extended to match isSourcePath's/isCodeFile's set of recognized JVM/JS module extensions (.mts/.cts/.mjs/.cjs/.kts/.scala/.groovy), closing the gap where missing-test annotations were silently skipped for those file types. The diff is minimal (regex change + a parity regression test mirroring the existing pattern in the same file), directly tied to the linked issue #9322, and the added test exercises the real buildCheckRunAnnotations path rather than a fabricated one.

Nits — 3 non-blocking

• src/rules/advisory.ts:554-556 — the inline comment references both fix(signals): flag missing_tests only when a PR touches real source #2722 and fix(rules): advisory.ts's isCodePath is missing .mts/.cts/.mjs/.cjs/.kts/.scala/.groovy that isCodeFile recognizes #9322 across two lines; consider trimming to one concise line per this repo's existing terse-comment style used elsewhere in the file.
• test/unit/rules.test.ts — the new test asserts each extension fires an annotation but doesn't also assert a non-code extension (e.g. `.png`) still does NOT fire, which would make the regex boundary more airtight.
• Consider a table-driven assertion (one `it.each` per extension) instead of a single loop over `sourcePaths.map` so a future regression in just one extension reports a clearer per-case failure.

CI checks failing

• validate
• validate-tests

Decision drivers

• ✅ Code review — No blockers (1 reviewer)
• ✅ Gate result — Passing (No configured blocker found.)

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#9322
Related work	✅ No active overlap found	No same-issue or scoped active PR overlap found.
Change scope	❌ 8/20	High review scope from cached public metadata (1 linked issue).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 989 registered-repo PR(s), 564 merged, 125 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	philluiz2323; Gittensor profile; 989 PR(s), 125 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor · LLM: moderate

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The diff adds exactly the seven missing extensions (.mts/.cts/.mjs/.cjs/.kts/.scala/.groovy) to isCodePath's regex without removing any existing ones, and adds a regression test covering all seven paths asserting a Missing test evidence annotation via buildCheckRunAnnotations, matching the requested style.

Review context

• Author: philluiz2323
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: Python, JavaScript, MDX, TypeScript, CSS, Cuda, HTML, Kotlin
• Official Gittensor activity: 989 PR(s), 125 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Add a concise scope and risk note.
• Then work through the remaining 2 steps in the Signals table above.

Signal definitions

• Related work = same linked issue, overlapping active PRs, or title/path similarity.
• Change scope = cached public metadata such as size labels, draft state, and review-burden hints.
• Validation posture = whether the PR provides enough public validation/test evidence for maintainer review.
• Contributor workload = public contributor activity and cleanup pressure, not a repo-wide quality failure.
• Contributor context = public GitHub/Gittensor identity context; non-Gittensor status is not a blocker.

🧪 Chat with LoopOver

Ask LoopOver a question about this PR directly in a comment — grounded only in the same cached, public-safe facts shown above, never a new claim.

• @loopover ask <question> answers contribution-quality Q&A with source citations and freshness.
• @loopover chat <question> answers in natural prose from cached decision-pack facts via local inference (maintainer/collaborator; read-only).
• A plain-language @loopover mention with a real question is routed to the closest matching read-only command automatically — no exact syntax required.

Full command reference: https://loopover.ai/docs/loopover-commands

🧪 Experimental — new and may change.

_{🟩 Safe / merged · 🟦 Advisory · 🟨 Held for review · 🟥 Blocked / closed}

---

💰 Earn for open-source contributions like this. Gittensor lets GitHub contributors earn for the work they already do — register to start earning →.

Checked by LoopOver, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run LoopOver review

[loopover-orb]

LoopOver is closing this pull request on the maintainer's behalf (CI is failing (validate, validate-tests)). This is an automated maintenance action — to pursue this change, please open a new pull request with the issues resolved. Closed PRs may be analyzed later to improve review accuracy, but they are not automatically reopened or re-reviewed.