test(scoring): pin the unpinned-fallback and languages-fetch-failed warnings

[RealDiligent]

Summary

refreshScoringModelSnapshot (src/scoring/model.ts) pushes two operator-facing warnings that nothing asserted:

1. The unpinned-fallback warning (~line 59). The existing "is fail-open when the upstream SHA fetch fails" test already drives this branch (its SHA endpoint throws) and checks payload.upstreamSourceSha is undefined — but never looked at warnings. That string is the only signal that scoring is currently running unpinned against a mutable ref, where an upstream force-push silently changes what every repo scores against. Added the assertion to the existing test.

2. The languages-fetch-failed branch (~line 116-117) had never executed. Every test reaching constantsUsable === true also stubbed programming_languages.json to succeed, and every test where languages failed had constants.py fail first — short-circuiting into the earlier !constantsUsable path before this line. Added a test combining constants succeed + languages 404, asserting sourceKind === "raw-github", programmingLanguages degrades to {}, and the warning text is present.

Verified both tests actually pin their branches rather than passing alongside them — deleting each warnings.push(...) makes the corresponding test fail, restoring it makes all 89 pass:

Removed	Result
Programming language weights fetch failed push	new test fails ✅
unpinned-ref push	extended SHA-failure test fails ✅

One correction to the issue's text: it suggests asserting programmingLanguages on the payload. It is a top-level field of the snapshot record (ScoringModelSnapshotRecord.programmingLanguages), not payload.programmingLanguages, so the assertion targets the real field.

Closes #8327

Scope

• The PR title follows type(scope): short summary Conventional Commit format, for example fix(api): restore profile access checks.
• This PR is focused and does not mix unrelated backend, UI, MCP, docs, dependency, and deploy changes.
• This follows CONTRIBUTING.md and does not reintroduce GitHub Pages, VitePress, site/, or CNAME.
• I linked a currently open issue this PR resolves (e.g. Closes #123) — a linked open issue is required for every contributor PR.

Validation

• git diff --check
• npm run actionlint
• npm run typecheck
• npm run test:coverage locally; codecov/patch requires ≥99% coverage of the lines AND branches you changed (aim for 100% on your diff so CI variance does not fail near the threshold). Global coverage is a non-blocking trend with a loose 90% backstop, not the gate.
• npm run test:workers
• npm run build:mcp
• npm run test:mcp-pack
• npm run ui:openapi:check
• npm run ui:lint
• npm run ui:typecheck
• npm run ui:build
• npm audit --audit-level=moderate
• New or changed behavior has unit/integration tests for new branches, fallback paths, and sanitizer boundaries

If any required check was skipped, explain why:

• Test-only diff (one file, +25 lines): no workflow, MCP, UI, worker, or dependency surface is touched, so those checks are not exercised. Root tsc --noEmit is clean and git diff --check passes.
• codecov/patch has no changed production lines to score. The scoped coverage run emits a non-empty coverage/lcov.info containing src/scoring/model.ts (the suite imports it directly), satisfying the "Verify coverage report exists" step. test/unit/scoring.test.ts passes in full — 89 tests.

Safety

• No secrets, wallet details, hotkeys, coldkeys, user PATs, private keys, raw trust scores, private rankings, or private maintainer evidence are exposed.
• Public GitHub text stays sanitized, low-noise, and does not imply compensation guarantees or optimization tactics.
• Auth, cookie, CORS, GitHub App, Cloudflare, or session changes include negative-path tests.
• API/OpenAPI/MCP behavior is updated and tested where needed.
• UI changes use live API data or real empty/error/loading states, not production mock/demo fallbacks.
• Visible UI changes include a UI Evidence section below with JPG/JPEG or PNG screenshots arranged as organized, captioned, clickable thumbnails. SVG screenshots are not used as review evidence. Review-only screenshots or recordings are not committed to the repository.
• Public docs/changelogs are updated where needed; changelogs are only edited for release-prep PRs.

UI Evidence

Not applicable — unit-test additions; no visible UI, frontend, docs, or extension change.

[superagent-security]

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

[loopover-orb]

Tip

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-24 18:31:00 UTC}

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

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
This PR adds two focused test assertions to test/unit/scoring.test.ts that pin previously-unasserted operator-facing warnings in refreshScoringModelSnapshot: the unpinned-ref fallback warning (extending an existing test) and a new test for the languages-fetch-failed branch. Tracing the source in src/scoring/model.ts confirms both warnings.push(...) calls exist exactly as described and were previously reachable but unasserted — the new test's fetch stub (constants.py succeeds, programming_languages.json 404s) correctly isolates the languages-failure branch without tripping the earlier !constantsUsable path. This is a well-targeted, test-only PR that closes issue #8327 with real branch coverage, matching its stated intent precisely.

Nits — 2 non-blocking

• The new test at test/unit/scoring.test.ts:509-517 doesn't assert `refreshed.constants.MERGED_PR_BASE_SCORE` the way the sibling SHA-fail test does, though this is minor since sourceKind/programmingLanguages/warnings already pin the relevant path.
• Consider tightening the regex `/Programming language weights fetch failed/` to also assert the interpolated error detail (e.g. `404 Not Found`) for a stronger pin, mirroring how the unpinned-ref assertion uses `/unpinned/i`.

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	#8327
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 (1 linked issue).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 366 registered-repo PR(s), 146 merged, 37 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	RealDiligent; Gittensor profile; 366 PR(s), 37 issue(s).
Improvement	ℹ️ Insufficient signal	risk: clean · value: insufficient-signal · LLM: minor

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The diff adds the exact assertion for the unpinned-fallback warning to the existing SHA-failure test and adds a new test combining constants-succeed/languages-fail that checks sourceKind, programmingLanguages:{} fallback, and the warning text, matching both requirements.

Review context

• Author: RealDiligent
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: not available
• Official Gittensor activity: 366 PR(s), 37 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Keep the PR focused and include validation evidence before maintainer review.

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 approves — the gate is satisfied and CI is green.