test(enrichment): cover extractDependencyChanges edge cases in dependency-scan

[dhgoal]

Summary

Hardens unit coverage for the dependency-scan analyzer's pure extractDependencyChanges parser, which previously had a single test case (a version bump). Adds five focused cases for its real branches:

• a newly added dependency → from: null, to: <version>
• a removed-only dependency → no change (nothing present after the change)
• an unchanged version (added === removed) → no change
• a non-manifest file (e.g. src/index.ts) → skipped
• multiple version bumps in one manifest → extracted in order

Test-only, all against the compiled dist/, following the existing file's style. fixedOf/severityOf are deliberately left alone — they're already covered by osv-fixed-version.test.ts / osv-severity.test.ts, so this adds no duplicate coverage.

No linked issue — this is straightforward test-coverage hardening of an under-tested pure function (the parser had 1 case for its several branches); it changes no runtime behavior.

Scope

• Conventional Commit; focused; touches only review-enrichment/test/dependency-scan.test.ts. No site//CNAME/**/lovable/**; no CHANGELOG.md; no source or shared-registry change.

Validation

• npm --prefix review-enrichment test — 722 pass / 0 fail (build + sourcemap validate + metadata --check + node tests; exactly CI). The 5 new cases assert extractDependencyChanges's documented behavior on inputs its single prior test didn't exercise.
• npm run typecheck clean; git diff --check clean.

Safety

• Test-only, no runtime change. No secrets/wallets/hotkeys/trust/reward terms.

[superagent-security]

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

[gittensory-orb]

Warning

🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨

⏸️ Gittensory review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-05 05:42:47 UTC}

1 file · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 80/100 · CI green · clean

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

Review summary
This is a focused test-only change that adds coverage for additional `extractDependencyChanges` parser outcomes without touching runtime code. The added cases cover added, removed-only, unchanged, non-manifest, and multi-change package diff shapes, and the assertions are consistent with the documented behavior in the PR description and the existing test style of importing from `dist/`. I do not see a correctness blocker in the visible diff.

Nits — 2 non-blocking

• nit: review-enrichment/test/dependency-scan.test.ts:32 and review-enrichment/test/dependency-scan.test.ts:43 use dense one-line patch arrays where the surrounding tests mostly keep multi-line patches readable; expand them if you want the edge-case fixtures to stay easy to scan.
• review-enrichment/test/dependency-scan.test.ts:32 could use the same multi-line `patch: [...]` formatting as the header and multi-bump tests so future parser regressions are easier to diagnose from the fixture.

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	✅ No blockers	1 reviewer
Linked issue	✅ No-issue rationale	PR body explains why no issue is linked.
Related work	✅ No active overlap found	No same-issue or scoped active PR overlap found.
Change scope	✅ 20/20	Low review scope from cached public metadata (no linked issue context).
Validation posture	❌ 5/25	Preflight is holding this PR: the review lane is unavailable, so it is not ready for automated review.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 69 registered-repo PR(s), 42 merged, 0 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	dhgoal; Gittensor profile; 69 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
Gate result	✅ Passing	No configured blocker found.

Review context

• Author: dhgoal
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository registration is not available in the local Gittensory cache.
• Public profile languages: not available
• Official Gittensor activity: 69 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Await review-lane availability.
• Refresh registry data or choose a registered active repo.
• Link the issue being solved, or explicitly explain why this is a no-issue PR.

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.

_{🟩 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 Gittensory, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run Gittensory review

[gittensory-orb]

Gittensory approves — the gate is satisfied and CI is green.