Skip to content

test: Phase J J10 end-to-end pipeline dry-run -- smoke test from FASTA export through JSON-LD, adapter stub, schema manifest, release manifest, changelog - #917

Merged
cschanhniem merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
feat/j10-pipeline-e2e-dry-run
Jul 10, 2026
Merged

cschanhniem merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
feat/j10-pipeline-e2e-dry-run

Conversation

@cschanhniem

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Implements J10 from NEXT_100_PR_MAP: end-to-end pipeline smoke test.

What

  • tests/test_pipeline_dry_run_e2e.py: 63 tests across 3 classes
  • TestDryRunPipelineSteps: 9 tests, one per pipeline module (FASTA export, JSON-LD context, adapter stub, schema manifest, release manifest, NCL link, changelog entry, docs coverage, stale doc detector)
  • TestDryRunSafetyGates: 4 tests, verifies dry-lab gates cannot be bypassed
  • TestDryRunConsistencyChecks: 7 tests, cross-schema consistency (prefix uniqueness, shared format vocab, toy sequence validity)
  • All candidates use TOY- prefix; no external calls; no disk I/O
  • BASELINE 8221→8284

Why

Without an E2E smoke test, each schema module is tested in isolation but nobody checks that they chain together. This test verifies the key modules introduced in today's Phase I/J work (FAE-, JLC-, ADS-, SEM-, RMF-, NCL-, changelog, checks) can be assembled into a coherent pipeline run with consistent inputs and outputs.

Disconfirming pass

  • real candidate ID (non-TOY prefix) rejected under dry_lab_only
  • public_release context rejected under dry_lab_only
  • wet-lab constraint=False rejected in JSON-LD
  • dry_lab_only=False rejected in adapter stub
  • Toy sequences validated against VALID_AMINO_ACIDS and length bounds

…A export through JSON-LD, adapter stub, schema manifest, release manifest, changelog; 63 tests (#916)
@cschanhniem
cschanhniem merged commit 4c20630 into main Jul 10, 2026
1 check failed
cschanhniem added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 10, 2026
…ectory across batches, trend/quality/calibration, dry-lab enforcement, 63 tests (#917) (#918)

Co-authored-by: OpenCode <opencode@example.com>
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