Namespace tests as test/schemas

[jviotti]

Signed-off-by: Juan Cruz Viotti jv@jviotti.com

[cubic-dev-ai]

6 issues found across 2402 files

Prompt for AI agents (unresolved issues)

Check if these issues are valid — if so, understand the root cause of each and fix them. If appropriate, use sub-agents to investigate and fix each issue separately.


<file name="test/schemas/bipm/si/2019/compound/joule-second/v1.test.json">

<violation number="1" location="test/schemas/bipm/si/2019/compound/joule-second/v1.test.json:15">
P3: The suite never tests zero or negative values, so the schema's only numeric constraint (exclusiveMinimum: 0) is entirely uncovered. Add cases asserting 0 and a negative number are invalid so the boundary of the constraint is actually verified.</violation>
</file>

<file name="test/schemas/bipm/si/2019/base/quantity/length/v1.test.json">

<violation number="1" location="test/schemas/bipm/si/2019/base/quantity/length/v1.test.json:11">
P3: The length schema constrains `type: number` with `minimum: 0`, but this test never exercises that boundary: there is no zero case and no negative value asserting `valid: false`. The sibling attometre test for the same schema shape covers both; adding a 0 (valid) and a negative (invalid) case would guard against regressions of the minimum constraint.</violation>
</file>

<file name="test/schemas/bipm/si/2019/base/quantity/amount-of-substance/v1.test.json">

<violation number="1" location="test/schemas/bipm/si/2019/base/quantity/amount-of-substance/v1.test.json:5">
P3: The tests only cover JSON value types and never exercise the schema's distinguishing keyword "exclusiveMinimum": 0. Adding cases where data is 0 and -1 (expecting valid: false) would catch a future regression that silently drops the positive-only constraint, which the otherwise-identical electric-current tests (no numeric bound) would not detect.</violation>
</file>

<file name="test/schemas/bipm/si/2019/base/quantity/mass/v1.test.json">

<violation number="1" location="test/schemas/bipm/si/2019/base/quantity/mass/v1.test.json:11">
P3: The schema enforces `minimum: 0`, but the test cases never exercise that constraint: there is no valid `0` case and no invalid negative-number case. The sibling `prefixed/gram/v1.test.json` explicitly covers both (`data: 0` valid, `data: -50` invalid), so adding equivalent boundary cases here would close the coverage gap for the `minimum` keyword.</violation>
</file>

<file name="test/schemas/bipm/si/2019/compound/lumen-per-watt/v1.test.json">

<violation number="1" location="test/schemas/bipm/si/2019/compound/lumen-per-watt/v1.test.json:16">
P3: Test data omits boundary coverage for the schema's `exclusiveMinimum: 0` constraint: 0 and negative numbers are invalid but never tested. Add cases for `0` and a negative value, matching the pattern used in sibling files such as `test/schemas/bipm/si/2019/base/prefixed/attogram/v1.test.json` which includes an "Invalid - negative" case.</violation>
</file>

<file name="test/schemas/bipm/si/2019/base/quantity/time/v1.test.json">

<violation number="1" location="test/schemas/bipm/si/2019/base/quantity/time/v1.test.json:6">
P3: The time schema enforces `minimum: 0`, but this test suite never exercises that constraint — all `valid: true` cases are positive, so removing `minimum: 0` would not fail these tests. Consider adding a 'Valid - zero' case (data: 0) and an 'Invalid - negative' case (e.g. data: -1, valid: false), matching the sibling attosecond test convention.</violation>
</file>

<sub>Note: This PR contains a large number of files. cubic only reviews up to 200 files per PR, so some files may not have been reviewed. cubic prioritizes the most important files to review.

Re-trigger cubic</sub>

[cubic-dev-ai]

P3: The suite never tests zero or negative values, so the schema's only numeric constraint (exclusiveMinimum: 0) is entirely uncovered. Add cases asserting 0 and a negative number are invalid so the boundary of the constraint is actually verified.

Prompt for AI agents

Check if this issue is valid — if so, understand the root cause and fix it. At test/schemas/bipm/si/2019/compound/joule-second/v1.test.json, line 15:

<comment>The suite never tests zero or negative values, so the schema's only numeric constraint (exclusiveMinimum: 0) is entirely uncovered. Add cases asserting 0 and a negative number are invalid so the boundary of the constraint is actually verified.</comment>

<file context>
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+      "valid": true
+    },
+    {
+      "description": "Valid - small positive",
+      "data": 0.001,
+      "valid": true
</file context>

[cubic-dev-ai]

P3: The length schema constrains type: number with minimum: 0, but this test never exercises that boundary: there is no zero case and no negative value asserting valid: false. The sibling attometre test for the same schema shape covers both; adding a 0 (valid) and a negative (invalid) case would guard against regressions of the minimum constraint.

Prompt for AI agents

Check if this issue is valid — if so, understand the root cause and fix it. At test/schemas/bipm/si/2019/base/quantity/length/v1.test.json, line 11:

<comment>The length schema constrains `type: number` with `minimum: 0`, but this test never exercises that boundary: there is no zero case and no negative value asserting `valid: false`. The sibling attometre test for the same schema shape covers both; adding a 0 (valid) and a negative (invalid) case would guard against regressions of the minimum constraint.</comment>

<file context>
@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+    },
+    {
+      "description": "Valid - decimal",
+      "data": 5.5,
+      "valid": true
+    },
</file context>

[cubic-dev-ai]

P3: The tests only cover JSON value types and never exercise the schema's distinguishing keyword "exclusiveMinimum": 0. Adding cases where data is 0 and -1 (expecting valid: false) would catch a future regression that silently drops the positive-only constraint, which the otherwise-identical electric-current tests (no numeric bound) would not detect.

Prompt for AI agents

Check if this issue is valid — if so, understand the root cause and fix it. At test/schemas/bipm/si/2019/base/quantity/amount-of-substance/v1.test.json, line 5:

<comment>The tests only cover JSON value types and never exercise the schema's distinguishing keyword "exclusiveMinimum": 0. Adding cases where data is 0 and -1 (expecting valid: false) would catch a future regression that silently drops the positive-only constraint, which the otherwise-identical electric-current tests (no numeric bound) would not detect.</comment>

<file context>
@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+  "target": "../../../../../../../../schemas/bipm/si/2019/base/quantity/amount-of-substance/v1.json",
+  "tests": [
+    {
+      "description": "Valid - positive number",
+      "data": 10,
+      "valid": true
</file context>

[cubic-dev-ai]

P3: The schema enforces minimum: 0, but the test cases never exercise that constraint: there is no valid 0 case and no invalid negative-number case. The sibling prefixed/gram/v1.test.json explicitly covers both (data: 0 valid, data: -50 invalid), so adding equivalent boundary cases here would close the coverage gap for the minimum keyword.

Prompt for AI agents

Check if this issue is valid — if so, understand the root cause and fix it. At test/schemas/bipm/si/2019/base/quantity/mass/v1.test.json, line 11:

<comment>The schema enforces `minimum: 0`, but the test cases never exercise that constraint: there is no valid `0` case and no invalid negative-number case. The sibling `prefixed/gram/v1.test.json` explicitly covers both (`data: 0` valid, `data: -50` invalid), so adding equivalent boundary cases here would close the coverage gap for the `minimum` keyword.</comment>

<file context>
@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+    },
+    {
+      "description": "Valid - decimal",
+      "data": 5.5,
+      "valid": true
+    },
</file context>

[cubic-dev-ai]

P3: Test data omits boundary coverage for the schema's exclusiveMinimum: 0 constraint: 0 and negative numbers are invalid but never tested. Add cases for 0 and a negative value, matching the pattern used in sibling files such as test/schemas/bipm/si/2019/base/prefixed/attogram/v1.test.json which includes an "Invalid - negative" case.

Prompt for AI agents

Check if this issue is valid — if so, understand the root cause and fix it. At test/schemas/bipm/si/2019/compound/lumen-per-watt/v1.test.json, line 16:

<comment>Test data omits boundary coverage for the schema's `exclusiveMinimum: 0` constraint: 0 and negative numbers are invalid but never tested. Add cases for `0` and a negative value, matching the pattern used in sibling files such as `test/schemas/bipm/si/2019/base/prefixed/attogram/v1.test.json` which includes an "Invalid - negative" case.</comment>

<file context>
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+    },
+    {
+      "description": "Valid - small positive",
+      "data": 0.001,
+      "valid": true
+    },
</file context>

[cubic-dev-ai]

P3: The time schema enforces minimum: 0, but this test suite never exercises that constraint — all valid: true cases are positive, so removing minimum: 0 would not fail these tests. Consider adding a 'Valid - zero' case (data: 0) and an 'Invalid - negative' case (e.g. data: -1, valid: false), matching the sibling attosecond test convention.

Prompt for AI agents

Check if this issue is valid — if so, understand the root cause and fix it. At test/schemas/bipm/si/2019/base/quantity/time/v1.test.json, line 6:

<comment>The time schema enforces `minimum: 0`, but this test suite never exercises that constraint — all `valid: true` cases are positive, so removing `minimum: 0` would not fail these tests. Consider adding a 'Valid - zero' case (data: 0) and an 'Invalid - negative' case (e.g. data: -1, valid: false), matching the sibling attosecond test convention.</comment>

<file context>
@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+  "tests": [
+    {
+      "description": "Valid - positive number",
+      "data": 10,
+      "valid": true
+    },
</file context>