fix(e2e): correct multi-file scenario step count

[KooshaPari]

User description

Summary

Corrects the multi-file E2E scenario contract: it produces six non-mock steps, not seven.

Root cause

The scenario has one user step, four expected tool calls, and one final text expectation. The existing assertion expected seven despite the documented sequence totaling six.

Validation

• RED: cargo test --offline -p forge_e2e --test e2e_scenarios scenario_multi_file_refactoring -- --exact failed with actual 6 vs expected 7.
• GREEN: the same focused test passed after the correction.
• cargo +nightly fmt --all -- --check and git diff --check passed.

The canonical lockfile is independently stale for locked Cargo commands; the test-generated lock reconciliation was intentionally excluded from this PR.

---

CodeAnt-AI Description

Correct the multi-file refactoring scenario's expected step count

What Changed

• The scenario now expects six non-mock steps, matching its actual sequence of one user request, four tool expectations, and one final response
• The scenario documentation explicitly records the six-step contract

Impact

✅ Accurate multi-file scenario validation
✅ Fewer false test failures

💡 Usage Guide

Checking Your Pull Request

Every time you make a pull request, our system automatically looks through it. We check for security issues, mistakes in how you're setting up your infrastructure, and common code problems. We do this to make sure your changes are solid and won't cause any trouble later.

Talking to CodeAnt AI

Got a question or need a hand with something in your pull request? You can easily get in touch with CodeAnt AI right here. Just type the following in a comment on your pull request, and replace "Your question here" with whatever you want to ask:

@codeant-ai ask: Your question here

This lets you have a chat with CodeAnt AI about your pull request, making it easier to understand and improve your code.

Example

@codeant-ai ask: Can you suggest a safer alternative to storing this secret?

Preserve Org Learnings with CodeAnt

You can record team preferences so CodeAnt AI applies them in future reviews. Reply directly to the specific CodeAnt AI suggestion (in the same thread) and replace "Your feedback here" with your input:

@codeant-ai: Your feedback here

This helps CodeAnt AI learn and adapt to your team's coding style and standards.

Example

@codeant-ai: Do not flag unused imports.

Retrigger review

Ask CodeAnt AI to review the PR again, by typing:

@codeant-ai: review

Check Your Repository Health

To analyze the health of your code repository, visit our dashboard at https://app.codeant.ai. This tool helps you identify potential issues and areas for improvement in your codebase, ensuring your repository maintains high standards of code health.

[codeant-ai]

🤖 CodeAnt AI — Review Status

Status	Commit	Started (UTC)	Finished (UTC)
✅ Reviewed your PR	9e2e0ab	Aug 31, 2026 · 07:47	07:49

[codeant-ai]

---

Thanks for using CodeAnt! 🎉

We're free for open-source projects. if you're enjoying it, help us grow by sharing.

Share on X ·
Reddit ·
LinkedIn

[Copilot]

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has reached their quota limit.

[kilo-code-bot]

Code Review Summary

Status: No Issues Found | Recommendation: Merge

Overview

Severity	Count
CRITICAL	0
WARNING	0
SUGGESTION	0

Details

This PR corrects the expected non-mock step count for the scenario_multi_file_refactoring E2E scenario from 7 to 6, and adds a doc comment documenting the six non-mock step contract (one user request, four tool expectations, one final text expectation).

Verification:

• The scenario sequence contains exactly 6 non-mock steps: user_says, then 4 expect_tool_call (read main.rs, read lib.rs, patch main.rs, patch lib.rs), then 1 expect_text. The corrected assertion steps.len() == 6 is accurate.
• mock.remaining() == 4 remains correct (4 mock_responds calls).
• The added doc comment accurately describes the step breakdown and is consistent with the existing Steps: documentation.
• The pattern is consistent with sibling scenarios scenario_read_then_write_fix (5 steps) and scenario_auto_repair_loop (7 steps), whose assertion counts I traced and confirmed.

This is a test-only change with no production code impact. No issues found.

---

Fix link: Fix these issues in Kilo Cloud

Files Reviewed (1 file)

• crates/forge_e2e/tests/e2e_scenarios.rs - No issues

---

_{Reviewed by free · Input: 94.7K · Output: 6.9K · Cached: 27.8K}