test(config): harden gate.slop.minScore round-trip coverage

[bohdansolovie]

Related to #2053

Summary

Applies the same round-trip/boundary test hardening from #3436 (gate.readiness.minScore) to gate.slop.minScore — both fields share normalizeOptionalScore in focus-manifest.ts:

• gate.present flips true when only slop.minScore is set
• Boundary round-trip (0, 1, 42, 99, 100) through gateConfigToJson → parseFocusManifest
• Invalid values (string, NaN, ±Infinity) warn and null out the score
• Omitted minScore stays absent from serialized slop block

Test-only hardening; no production behavior change.

Test plan

• CI validate-code (vitest suite includes focus-manifest.test.ts)

Made with Cursor

[superagent-security]

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

[gittensory-orb]

Caution

🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥

🛑 Gittensory review result - reject/close recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-05 07:57:15 UTC}

1 file · 1 AI reviewer · 2 blockers · readiness 80/100 · CI pending · blocked

🛑 Suggested Action - Reject/Close

• No linked issue detected — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.
• Maintainer requires a linked issue — Link the relevant issue (for example Closes #123) before opening the PR.

Review summary
This is a focused test-only change that extends the existing gate config coverage to gate.slop.minScore: clamping/rounding, present-bit behavior, serialization round-trip boundaries, invalid numeric inputs, and omitted serialization. The added cases directly exercise the public parseFocusManifest/gateConfigToJson path described in the PR, and I do not see a reachable correctness defect in the diff itself.

Nits — 4 non-blocking

• nit: test/unit/focus-manifest.test.ts:930 the test name says "clamps and rounds" but only covers one rounding direction; adding 59.4 or 59.5 would make the rounding contract more explicit.
• nit: test/unit/focus-manifest.test.ts:954 the invalid-value loop checks strings and non-finite numbers, but not null/object/array shape drift; if gate.slop.minScore accepts unknown manifest JSON, one malformed-object case would document that boundary.
• test/unit/focus-manifest.test.ts:930 add one lower-fraction rounding case, e.g. `expect(parseFocusManifest({ gate: { slop: { minScore: 59.4 } } }).gate.slopMinScore).toBe(59);`, so both sides of the rounding behavior are pinned.
• test/unit/focus-manifest.test.ts:954 consider including one structurally invalid JSON value such as `{}` in the invalid loop if parseFocusManifest is expected to reject all non-number manifest shapes with the same warning.

Why this is blocked

• No linked issue detected — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.
• Maintainer requires a linked issue — Link the relevant issue (for example Closes #123) before opening the PR.

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	❌ 2 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: 267 registered-repo PR(s), 167 merged, 9 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	bohdansolovie; Gittensor profile; 267 PR(s), 9 issue(s).
Gate result	❌ Blocking	Repo-configured hard blocker found.

Review context

• Author: bohdansolovie
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository registration is not available in the local Gittensory cache.
• Public profile languages: Python, C++, JavaScript
• Official Gittensor activity: 267 PR(s), 9 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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 93.01%. Comparing base (65de78e) to head (6e9b1a2).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #3452   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.01%   93.01%           
=======================================
  Files         297      297           
  Lines       31038    31038           
  Branches    11319    11319           
=======================================
+ Hits        28870    28871    +1     
  Misses       1513     1513           
+ Partials      655      654    -1     

see 1 file with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[gittensory-orb]

Gittensory is closing this pull request on the maintainer's behalf (No linked issue detected; Maintainer requires a linked issue). 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.