Skip to content

plan(v0.34): REQ-292 — dev verification needs steps/test-name/test-location (#748) - #785

Open
avrabe wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
plan/req-292-dev-verification-fields
Open

plan(v0.34): REQ-292 — dev verification needs steps/test-name/test-location (#748)#785
avrabe wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
plan/req-292-dev-verification-fields

Conversation

@avrabe

@avrabe avrabe commented Aug 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Files REQ-292 for v0.34 from the #748 residual.

What already shipped

#748 asked for a dev-schema verification type that doesn't drag in ASPICE's SWE.3 chain. REQ-270 delivered that in v0.29.0 (dev@0.2.0 → 0.3.0) — the reporter was on 0.28.0/dev@0.2.0, one release short. Confirmed against the binary, not the changelog.

What remains (and why spar is still blocked)

field spar usage declared on verification?
method 208
steps 142
test-name 64
test-location 64

Migrating spar's 227 workaround artifacts would fix V-side placement but reproduce the undeclared-field warnings — pulseengine/spar#371 stays blocked.

steps compounds: fields.steps[].run is exactly what rivet check verification-evidence reads (main.rs:8205) — the gate hardened by REQ-236/REQ-280. A dev-only project can't feed it at all today, which is likely why it reports 0 named-test step(s) on rivet's own repo.

Also open for judgement: the issue asked for verifies -> [any]; it shipped -> [requirement], so verifying a design-decision/feature is inexpressible. Widening is a deliberate call, not automatic — flagged in the REQ rather than assumed.

Backlog-only; rivet validate PASS, docs check 0 violations.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

…cation (#748)

#748 (from spar) asked for a dev-schema verification type that does not drag in
ASPICE's SWE.3 chain. REQ-270 shipped that in v0.29.0 (dev@0.2.0 -> 0.3.0); the
reporter was on 0.28.0/dev@0.2.0, one release short. Confirmed against the
binary: `verification` exists with `verifies -> [requirement]` required and a
`method` enum, so the V closes without ASPICE.

The residual is field-level and is what still blocks pulseengine/spar#371: of
the four fields spar's workaround uses, only `method` is declared. `steps` (142
artifacts), `test-name` (64) and `test-location` (64) are not, so migrating the
227 workaround artifacts onto `verification` would fix their V-side placement
and reproduce the undeclared-field warnings.

`steps` is the one that compounds: `fields.steps[].run` is the shape
`rivet check verification-evidence` reads, so a dev-only project currently
cannot feed that gate at all — likely why it reports 0 named-test steps here.

Not closing #748; commented with the shipped-vs-remaining split instead.

Trace: skip
@temper-pulseengine

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Automated review for PR #785

pulseengine/rivet:plan/req-292-dev-verification-fields → pulseengine/rivet:main

Verdict: 💬 Comment

Summary: Add fields steps, test-name, and test-location to the dev verification type.

Findings: 0 mechanical (rivet) · 1 from local AI model.

Findings (1):

  1. artifacts/requirements.yaml:8106
    +
    
    • id: REQ-292
  • type: requirement
  • title: "dev verification type: declare steps/test-name/test-location so a dev-only project can feed the evidence gate (dev schema has no verification-measure type — the only ones shipped drag in ASPICE's SWE.3 chain #748)"
  • status: proposed
  • description: "Downstream residual on dev schema has no verification-measure type — the only ones shipped drag in ASPICE's SWE.3 chain #748 (reported from spar, 883 artifacts, dev schema). REQ-270 shipped the dev-native verification type in v0.29.0 (dev@0.2.0 -> 0.3.0), which resolved the headline complaint — a dev-only project can now put tests on the right side of the V and reach verified WITHOUT importing ASPICE's SWE.3 chain. What remains is field-level: of the four fields spar's hand-rolled workaround leans on, only method is declared. steps (142 spar artifacts), test-name (64) and test-location (64) are not, so migrating the 227 workaround artifacts onto verification fixes their V-side placement but reproduces the undeclared-field warnings — which is why Verification verdicts are recorded as feature.status — the root cause of all 276 rivet validate errors spar#371 is still blocked. steps matters most: fields.steps[].run is exactly the shape rivet check verification-evidence reads (rivet-cli/src/main.rs:8205), the named-test-exists gate hardened by REQ-236 and REQ-280. Because dev's verification does not declare it, a dev-only project cannot feed that gate at all — very likely why the check reports 0 named-test step(s) on rivet's own repo. Scope: declare steps, test-name, test-location on the dev verification type (bump dev schema version), and decide whether verifies should widen beyond [requirement] (the issue asked for [any]; verifying a design-decision or feature is currently inexpressible) — widening is a separate judgement call, not automatic."
The `verification` type in the dev schema does not declare the fields `steps`, `test-name`, and `test-location`. These fields are necessary for a dev-only project to feed the evidence gate.

---
*Generated by a local AI model and post-validated against a strict JSON contract. Each finding includes the verbatim line being criticised — verify by reading the file at the cited location.*

*Reviewed at `ef62532`*

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Aug 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

📐 Rivet artifact delta

Change Count
Added 1
Removed 0
Modified 0
Downstream impacted (depth ≤ 5) 0

Graph

graph LR
  REQ_292["REQ-292"]:::added
  classDef added fill:#d4edda,stroke:#28a745,color:#155724
  classDef removed fill:#f8d7da,stroke:#dc3545,color:#721c24
  classDef modified fill:#fff3cd,stroke:#ffc107,color:#856404
  classDef overflow fill:#e2e3e5,stroke:#6c757d,color:#495057,stroke-dasharray: 3 3
Loading
Added
  • REQ-292

📎 Full HTML dashboard attached as workflow artifact rivet-delta-pr-785download from the workflow run.

Posted by rivet-delta workflow. The graph shows only changed artifacts; open the HTML dashboard (above) for full context.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant