[PR #3000] [CLOSED] test(jeb): cover invalid route rejection through MCP #5554

New issue

Closed

opened 2026-10-31 01:07:32 +00:00 by bsakaguchi · 0 comments

bsakaguchi commented

2026-10-31 01:07:32 +00:00

Owner

📋 Pull Request Information

Original PR: https://github.com/morluto/rea/pull/3000
Author: @maxazure
Created: 10/13/2026
Status: ❌ Closed

Base: main ← Head: fix/jeb-endpoint-route-2552

📝 Commits (3)

4f11954 fix(jeb): reject unsupported MCP endpoint routes
b2bf22a test(jeb): cover invalid route rejection through MCP
13cb0b3 Merge upstream main to refresh CI baseline

📊 Changes

1 file changed (+45 additions, -1 deletions)

View changed files

📝 tests/boundary/mcp/jebMcp.test.ts (+45 -1)

📄 Description

Summary

Preserve MCP boundary coverage after route validation was incorporated on main in d4bd65c53, which references this PR. Related: #2552.

Problem and expected behavior

For /mcp/extra and /not-mcp, inspect_jeb_client must return configuration_invalid before constructing a connection, while the MCP server remains usable.

Change and scope

Merged main d9cd239c5e without rewriting history. The effective diff is only tests/boundary/mcp/jebMcp.test.ts: two actual in-memory MCP harness cases asserting the configuration diagnostic, zero connection-factory calls and a successful subsequent ping. Production, endpoint unit tests and documentation match that main revision.

Evidence and regression coverage

Main tests route parsing and invalid-host MCP handling, but does not assert the composition-to-MCP contract and zero factory calls for invalid routes. These tests retain that distinct coverage using an injected factory; no real JEB service ran.

Validation performed

Verified the exact tree published at head 13cb0b34da in an assistant-cloud Linux checkout with Node 24.18.0 / npm 11.16.0:

npm ci and required runtime build passed.
Focused regression tests: 5 files, 33 tests passed, no skips.
npm run check and npm run check:fast passed.
npm run verify:test-discovery passed (1,291 files); git diff --check passed.
The effective test-only diff is byte-for-byte unchanged after merging main.

The previous CI failures were matched by full test name against failing push CI 38505561204 on the exact old base 5830088520. This refresh incorporates upstream fixes; Current-head CI completed successfully on 2026-10-14. Source tests, all five boundary shards, portable inventory and CI required passed. The separate PR readiness status has not yet appeared on this head.

Normal local commit hooks ran but auto-fixed two unrelated upstream tests. Those unrelated edits were excluded from publication. The GitHub-published merge tree exactly matches the tree tested above; original branch history is preserved.

Contract and boundary impact

Semantic owner: existing production owners are unchanged; only regression tests change.
Contribution scope: focused coverage within existing capture/JEB boundaries; a new capability scope decision is not applicable.
CLI/MCP, Evidence, provider compatibility and generated metadata: unchanged by the effective diff.
Test effects: disposable fixture files and existing fixture Node subprocesses; no caller target, real engine or external service is acquired.

Compatibility, safety, and release

No production, package, installation or breaking change. The tests use injected provider seams; they do not establish real-engine or native-platform behavior. Independent review inspected the final code and validation logs; it did not independently execute tests.

Before merge

Focused regression coverage with resolved scope and authority.
Related issue linked; effective diff checked for unrelated changes and secrets.
Relevant checks passed locally; real-provider verification limits stated.
Required CI passes for the current head.

Author readiness

Human owner: @maxazure

I reviewed the final diff and relevant existing code, understand the change and its edge cases, and take responsibility for the complete PR, including AI-assisted work.
I checked the evidence above, confirmed it supports the current change, and recorded meaningful validation gaps.
I declare this PR ready for initial maintainer review.

The human owner confirmed personal review and responsibility on 2026-10-14. The effective test-only diff is unchanged.

_{🔄 This issue represents a GitHub Pull Request. It cannot be merged through Gitea due to API limitations.}

## 📋 Pull Request Information **Original PR:** https://github.com/morluto/rea/pull/3000 **Author:** [@maxazure](https://github.com/maxazure) **Created:** 10/13/2026 **Status:** ❌ Closed **Base:** `main` ← **Head:** `fix/jeb-endpoint-route-2552` --- ### 📝 Commits (3) - [`4f11954`](https://github.com/morluto/rea/commit/4f119540683c3af1d7c8b358827dd2ae24e4f4c7) fix(jeb): reject unsupported MCP endpoint routes - [`b2bf22a`](https://github.com/morluto/rea/commit/b2bf22ad2c1c9727babfae9851fe7dc8a7189d7c) test(jeb): cover invalid route rejection through MCP - [`13cb0b3`](https://github.com/morluto/rea/commit/13cb0b34daf6c2adc8724f8a7e46ca45f82ed8db) Merge upstream main to refresh CI baseline ### 📊 Changes **1 file changed** (+45 additions, -1 deletions) <details> <summary>View changed files</summary> 📝 `tests/boundary/mcp/jebMcp.test.ts` (+45 -1) </details> ### 📄 Description ## Summary Preserve MCP boundary coverage after route validation was incorporated on main in [d4bd65c53](https://github.com/morluto/rea/commit/d4bd65c53c0254d0195cc7ab8da163dcadfd3b9b), which references this PR. Related: #2552. ## Problem and expected behavior For /mcp/extra and /not-mcp, inspect_jeb_client must return configuration_invalid before constructing a connection, while the MCP server remains usable. ## Change and scope Merged main d9cd239c5ed7b078ac07e1bad633723fb49d8f80 without rewriting history. The effective diff is only tests/boundary/mcp/jebMcp.test.ts: two actual in-memory MCP harness cases asserting the configuration diagnostic, zero connection-factory calls and a successful subsequent ping. Production, endpoint unit tests and documentation match that main revision. ## Evidence and regression coverage Main tests route parsing and invalid-host MCP handling, but does not assert the composition-to-MCP contract and zero factory calls for invalid routes. These tests retain that distinct coverage using an injected factory; no real JEB service ran. ## Validation performed Verified the exact tree published at head 13cb0b34daf6c2adc8724f8a7e46ca45f82ed8db in an assistant-cloud Linux checkout with Node 24.18.0 / npm 11.16.0: - npm ci and required runtime build passed. - Focused regression tests: 5 files, 33 tests passed, no skips. - npm run check and npm run check:fast passed. - npm run verify:test-discovery passed (1,291 files); git diff --check passed. - The effective test-only diff is byte-for-byte unchanged after merging main. The previous CI failures were matched by full test name against failing push CI 38505561204 on the exact old base 58300885207133422af235e0f2b10658cf958b03. This refresh incorporates upstream fixes; [Current-head CI](https://github.com/morluto/rea/actions/runs/38629122763) completed successfully on 2026-10-14. Source tests, all five boundary shards, portable inventory and CI required passed. The separate PR readiness status has not yet appeared on this head. Normal local commit hooks ran but auto-fixed two unrelated upstream tests. Those unrelated edits were excluded from publication. The GitHub-published merge tree exactly matches the tree tested above; original branch history is preserved. ## Contract and boundary impact - Semantic owner: existing production owners are unchanged; only regression tests change. - Contribution scope: focused coverage within existing capture/JEB boundaries; a new capability scope decision is not applicable. - CLI/MCP, Evidence, provider compatibility and generated metadata: unchanged by the effective diff. - Test effects: disposable fixture files and existing fixture Node subprocesses; no caller target, real engine or external service is acquired. ## Compatibility, safety, and release No production, package, installation or breaking change. The tests use injected provider seams; they do not establish real-engine or native-platform behavior. Independent review inspected the final code and validation logs; it did not independently execute tests. ## Before merge - [x] Focused regression coverage with resolved scope and authority. - [x] Related issue linked; effective diff checked for unrelated changes and secrets. - [x] Relevant checks passed locally; real-provider verification limits stated. - [x] Required CI passes for the current head. ## Author readiness Human owner: @maxazure - [x] I reviewed the final diff and relevant existing code, understand the change and its edge cases, and take responsibility for the complete PR, including AI-assisted work. - [x] I checked the evidence above, confirmed it supports the current change, and recorded meaningful validation gaps. - [x] I declare this PR ready for initial maintainer review. The human owner confirmed personal review and responsibility on 2026-10-14. The effective test-only diff is unchanged. --- <sub>🔄 This issue represents a GitHub Pull Request. It cannot be merged through Gitea due to API limitations.</sub>

bsakaguchi

2026-10-31 01:07:32 +00:00