Address round-2 CodeRabbit test-quality findings

[nitrobass24]

Second round of CodeRabbit findings on PR #467 (develop → master). All 7 findings verified against current code; all valid; all fixed. Test-only — production findings remain tracked in #469.

Acted on (7 of 7)

#	File	Change
1	integrations.spec.ts:349-353	GET on the "should not exist" assertion now fails fast on !res.ok instead of returning [] (which would always satisfy the "not found" check, masking real failures)
2	integrations.spec.ts (5 sites)	Capture each POST-fixture response and pass it to a small expectFixtureOk helper so 4xx/5xx surfaces as \"fixture creation failed: …\" instead of cascading into a confusing UI assertion failure
3	settings.spec.ts:472-498	Log Level select-change test waits for toBeEnabled({ timeout: 10_000 }) before calling selectOption — same SSE-delivery race the Hash Algorithm test had
4	test_context.py:71-77	Use ppc.pairs = [pair] (public property setter, acquires the internal lock) instead of touching ppc._pairs directly
5	test_active_scanner.py (6 sites)	Drop the redundant trailing scanner.close() calls now that addCleanup handles the close path. One cleanup mechanism instead of two.
6	test_web_app_job.py:105-118	Drop the unused captured_status dict from the WSGI middleware logging test; simplify start_response to a no-op
7	test_web_app_job.py:114-118	Replace log_ctx.output[0] indexing with any(...) over all captured lines so other loggers emitting first don't break the test

Validation

• All Python files parse via python3 -m py_compile
• TS diagnostics show only pre-existing issues (unused page param at unrelated line, WSGI start_response typing for unrelated middleware test paths)
• CI on this PR will run the full Vitest + pytest + Playwright suites against the rebuilt image

What this is not

The 4 production-code findings tracked in #469 (handler error handling and persistence ordering) are still deferred to their own PRs — same rationale as last round.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Rate limit exceeded

@nitrobass24 has exceeded the limit for the number of commits that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 36 minutes and 52 seconds before requesting another review.

To keep reviews running without waiting, you can enable usage-based add-on for your organization. This allows additional reviews beyond the hourly cap. Account admins can enable it under billing.

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit.

🚦 How do rate limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization.

Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout.

Please see our FAQ for further information.

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 22031f65-dc87-4244-9bda-a09b1f5799ce

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 04d6320 and 3267fb0.

📒 Files selected for processing (5)

• src/e2e-playwright/tests/integrations.spec.ts
• src/e2e-playwright/tests/settings.spec.ts
• src/python/tests/unittests/test_common/test_context.py
• src/python/tests/unittests/test_controller/test_scan/test_active_scanner.py
• src/python/tests/unittests/test_web/test_web_app_job.py

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch fix/coderabbit-findings

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}