chore: archive dps-test-reorganization-and-coverage change and sync s… by john182 · Pull Request #92 · john182/semana-ia

john182 · 2026-03-28T00:05:00Z

…pecs

Archive the completed change and sync delta specs to main specs:

NEW: openspec/specs/dps-provider-test-coverage/
NEW: openspec/specs/dps-test-structure-reorganization/
MODIFIED: openspec/specs/nfse-provider-test-coverage/

…pecs Archive the completed change and sync delta specs to main specs: - NEW: openspec/specs/dps-provider-test-coverage/ - NEW: openspec/specs/dps-test-structure-reorganization/ - MODIFIED: openspec/specs/nfse-provider-test-coverage/ Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

sonarqubecloud · 2026-03-28T00:05:54Z

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

Copilot

Pull request overview

Archives the completed “dps test reorganization and coverage” change and syncs its resulting spec deltas back into the main openspec/specs/ set.

Changes:

Adds new spec documents for provider test coverage and test-structure reorganization.
Updates the main NFSe provider test coverage spec to require coverage across all 7 providers.
Archives the change package (proposal/design/tasks + snapshot of the updated specs).

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 10 out of 10 changed files in this pull request and generated 14 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
openspec/specs/nfse-provider-test-coverage/spec.md	Main spec update describing required provider XML/XSD test coverage and isolation rules.
openspec/specs/dps-test-structure-reorganization/spec.md	New main spec defining unit/integration test folder separation and naming conventions.
openspec/specs/dps-provider-test-coverage/spec.md	New main spec defining per-provider DPS serialization test coverage expectations.
openspec/changes/archive/2026-03-27-dps-test-reorganization-and-coverage/tasks.md	Archived execution log/checklist for the change.
openspec/changes/archive/2026-03-27-dps-test-reorganization-and-coverage/specs/nfse-provider-test-coverage/spec.md	Archived snapshot of the NFSe provider test coverage spec.
openspec/changes/archive/2026-03-27-dps-test-reorganization-and-coverage/specs/dps-test-structure-reorganization/spec.md	Archived snapshot of the test-structure reorganization spec.
openspec/changes/archive/2026-03-27-dps-test-reorganization-and-coverage/specs/dps-provider-test-coverage/spec.md	Archived snapshot of the DPS provider test coverage spec.
openspec/changes/archive/2026-03-27-dps-test-reorganization-and-coverage/proposal.md	Archived change proposal (why/what/impact).
openspec/changes/archive/2026-03-27-dps-test-reorganization-and-coverage/design.md	Archived design decisions and trade-offs for the change.
openspec/changes/archive/2026-03-27-dps-test-reorganization-and-coverage/.openspec.yaml	Archive metadata for the change package.

Copilot · 2026-03-28T00:11:56Z

+
+#### Scenario: Unsupported variations are explicitly skipped
+- **WHEN** uma variação de `FillingVariations` não é suportada por um provider
+- **THEN** MUST ser documentada com `[Skip]` e motivo explícito


The spec requires using [Skip] to document unsupported filling variations, but xUnit doesn’t provide a [Skip] attribute. To keep this actionable/accurate, describe skipping via [Fact(Skip = "reason")] / [Theory(Skip = "reason")] (or whatever the project standard is) instead of [Skip].

Suggested change

- **THEN** MUST ser documentada com `[Skip]` e motivo explícito

- **THEN** MUST ser documentada com `[Fact(Skip = "motivo")]` ou `[Theory(Skip = "motivo")]` e motivo explícito

Copilot · 2026-03-28T00:11:56Z

+
+### Requirement: Provider XML generation test coverage with XSD validation
+
+Cada provider configurado MUST ter uma suite de testes que valide a geração XML end-to-end com validação contra XSD do provider. Os testes MUST usar `ShouldBeValidAgainstProviderSchema(xsdDir)` para providers ABRASF e `ShouldBeValidAgainstDpsSchema()` para nacional. A cobertura MUST se estender a todos os 7 providers (nacional, abrasf, gissonline, issnet, paulistana, simpliss, webiss), não apenas aos MVP providers.


Spelling: in Portuguese this should be "suíte" (with accent) instead of "suite" to match the terminology used elsewhere in the specs.

Copilot · 2026-03-28T00:11:57Z

+
+### Requirement: Provider test isolation
+
+Testes de cada provider MUST ser independentes e não compartilhar estado mutável. Cada suite de testes de provider MUST poder executar isoladamente.


Spelling: use "suíte" (with accent) instead of "suite" for consistency with the rest of the documentation.

Copilot · 2026-03-28T00:11:57Z

+Testes de provider não MUST ser limitados a validação de schema. MUST incluir validações de conteúdo XML para campos críticos.
+


The phrase "não MUST" is ambiguous/inconsistent with the RFC-style keywords used elsewhere in this repo (e.g., "MUST NOT" in openspec/specs/nfse-runtime-xml-serializer/spec.md:29). Consider rewriting to "MUST NOT" (or plain Portuguese like "não deve") to keep the requirement unambiguous.

Copilot · 2026-03-28T00:11:57Z

+- **WHEN** testes de múltiplos providers executam em paralelo
+- **THEN** não MUST haver race condition ou estado compartilhado mutável


Same as above: "não MUST haver" should be expressed as "MUST NOT haver" (or "não deve haver") for consistency with the normative language used in other specs.

Copilot · 2026-03-28T00:11:58Z

+
+#### Scenario: Provider tests have no shared mutable state
+- **WHEN** testes de múltiplos providers executam em paralelo
+- **THEN** não MUST haver race condition ou estado compartilhado mutável


Same as above: "não MUST haver" should be expressed as "MUST NOT haver" (or "não deve haver") for consistency with the normative language used in other specs.

Suggested change

- **THEN** não MUST haver race condition ou estado compartilhado mutável

- **THEN** MUST NOT haver race condition ou estado compartilhado mutável

Copilot · 2026-03-28T00:11:58Z

+- **THEN** o arquivo MUST residir sob `IntegrationsTests/Providers/<ProviderName>/`
+
+#### Scenario: Consistent naming between unit and integration
+- **WHEN** existe um teste unitário para o provider X em `UnitTests/Providers/X/`
+- **THEN** o teste de integração correspondente MUST estar em `IntegrationsTests/Providers/X/`


This requirement mandates per-provider integration test subfolders (IntegrationsTests/Providers/<ProviderName>/), but the archived tasks for this change explicitly keep ProviderEndToEndFlowTests.cs monolithic under IntegrationsTests/Providers/ (tasks.md:17). Either relax this requirement to allow a shared provider E2E test file, or update the archived tasks/design to match the intended per-provider split.

Suggested change

- **THEN** o arquivo MUST residir sob `IntegrationsTests/Providers/<ProviderName>/`

#### Scenario: Consistent naming between unit and integration

- **WHEN** existe um teste unitário para o provider X em `UnitTests/Providers/X/`

- **THEN** o teste de integração correspondente MUST estar em `IntegrationsTests/Providers/X/`

- **THEN** o arquivo MUST residir sob `IntegrationsTests/Providers/<ProviderName>/`, **EXCEPT** quando fizer parte de um fluxo E2E cross-provider compartilhado documentado (por exemplo, `IntegrationsTests/Providers/ProviderEndToEndFlowTests.cs`)

#### Scenario: Consistent naming between unit and integration

- **WHEN** existe um teste unitário para o provider X em `UnitTests/Providers/X/`

- **THEN** o teste de integração correspondente MUST estar em `IntegrationsTests/Providers/X/`, ou ser coberto por um arquivo de fluxo E2E cross-provider compartilhado (`IntegrationsTests/Providers/ProviderEndToEndFlowTests.cs`)

Copilot · 2026-03-28T00:11:58Z

+- **THEN** MUST ser documentada com `[Skip]` e motivo explícito
+- **AND** não deve falhar silenciosamente


The spec requires using [Skip] to document unsupported filling variations, but xUnit doesn’t provide a [Skip] attribute. To keep this actionable/accurate, describe skipping via [Fact(Skip = "reason")] / [Theory(Skip = "reason")] (or whatever the project standard is) instead of [Skip].

Suggested change

- **THEN** MUST ser documentada com `[Skip]` e motivo explícito

- **AND** não deve falhar silenciosamente

- **THEN** MUST ser documentada usando o atributo de skip do teste (por exemplo, `[Fact(Skip = "motivo")]` ou `[Theory(Skip = "motivo")]`) com motivo explícito

- **AND** a variação MUST ser marcada como ignorada explicitamente e não deve falhar silenciosamente

Copilot · 2026-03-28T00:11:59Z

+
+#### Scenario: Consistent naming between unit and integration
+- **WHEN** existe um teste unitário para o provider X em `UnitTests/Providers/X/`
+- **THEN** o teste de integração correspondente MUST estar em `IntegrationsTests/Providers/X/`


This requirement mandates per-provider integration test subfolders (IntegrationsTests/Providers/<ProviderName>/), but the archived tasks for this same change explicitly keep ProviderEndToEndFlowTests.cs monolithic under IntegrationsTests/Providers/ (tasks.md:17). Either relax the requirement to allow a shared provider E2E test file, or update the archived tasks/design to match the intended per-provider split.

Suggested change

#### Scenario: Consistent naming between unit and integration

- **WHEN** existe um teste unitário para o provider X em `UnitTests/Providers/X/`

- **THEN** o teste de integração correspondente MUST estar em `IntegrationsTests/Providers/X/`

- **OR** pode fazer parte do arquivo compartilhado `IntegrationsTests/Providers/ProviderEndToEndFlowTests.cs` que agrega fluxos E2E de múltiplos providers

#### Scenario: Consistent naming between unit and integration

- **WHEN** existe um teste unitário para o provider X em `UnitTests/Providers/X/`

- **THEN** o teste de integração correspondente MUST estar em `IntegrationsTests/Providers/X/` **OU** implementado como cenário específico de X dentro de `ProviderEndToEndFlowTests.cs`

Copilot · 2026-03-28T00:11:59Z

+
+### Requirement: Provider test isolation
+
+Testes de cada provider MUST ser independentes e não compartilhar estado mutável. Cada suite de testes de provider MUST poder executar isoladamente.


Spelling: use "suíte" (with accent) instead of "suite" for consistency with the rest of the documentation.

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings March 28, 2026 00:05

john182 merged commit 6701fe2 into master Mar 28, 2026
2 of 3 checks passed

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of john182 March 28, 2026 00:05 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Mar 28, 2026

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

chore: archive dps-test-reorganization-and-coverage change and sync s…#92

chore: archive dps-test-reorganization-and-coverage change and sync s…#92
john182 merged 1 commit into
masterfrom
chore/archive-dps-test-reorganization

john182 commented Mar 28, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

sonarqubecloud Bot commented Mar 28, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 28, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 28, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 28, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 28, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 28, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 28, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 28, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 28, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 28, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 28, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

	- THEN MUST ser documentada com `[Skip]` e motivo explícito
	- THEN MUST ser documentada com `[Fact(Skip = "motivo")]` ou `[Theory(Skip = "motivo")]` e motivo explícito


		### Requirement: Provider XML generation test coverage with XSD validation

		Cada provider configurado MUST ter uma suite de testes que valide a geração XML end-to-end com validação contra XSD do provider. Os testes MUST usar `ShouldBeValidAgainstProviderSchema(xsdDir)` para providers ABRASF e `ShouldBeValidAgainstDpsSchema()` para nacional. A cobertura MUST se estender a todos os 7 providers (nacional, abrasf, gissonline, issnet, paulistana, simpliss, webiss), não apenas aos MVP providers.


		### Requirement: Provider test isolation

		Testes de cada provider MUST ser independentes e não compartilhar estado mutável. Cada suite de testes de provider MUST poder executar isoladamente.

		Testes de provider não MUST ser limitados a validação de schema. MUST incluir validações de conteúdo XML para campos críticos.

		- WHEN testes de múltiplos providers executam em paralelo
		- THEN não MUST haver race condition ou estado compartilhado mutável

	- THEN não MUST haver race condition ou estado compartilhado mutável
	- THEN MUST NOT haver race condition ou estado compartilhado mutável

		- THEN MUST ser documentada com `[Skip]` e motivo explícito
		- AND não deve falhar silenciosamente

Conversation

john182 commented Mar 28, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

sonarqubecloud Bot commented Mar 28, 2026

Quality Gate passed

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 28, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 28, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 28, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 28, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 28, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 28, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 28, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 28, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 28, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 28, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants