Files
msd-core/tests/autonomous-interactive.test.cjs
Tom Boucher 69e7afd0c7 chore(#3212): bounded quantifiers over document content — prohibition with teeth — Phase 4 (#3441)
* feat(#3415): ship local/no-unbounded-quantifier, burn down ReDoS class

Phase 4 of epic #3212 (ADR-3212 §5/§7, the final phase). New rule flags
an unbounded */+/{n,} quantifier over a broad character class
([\s\S], dotAll ., or a 1-2-unit negated class like [^\n]/[^)\n] — the
exact #2128-fixed shape) applied to a regex whose match target is
data-flow-traced to readFileSync content.

eslint-rules/lib/readfilesync-trace.cjs extracts the data-flow tracer
shared with no-crlf-fragile-split (Phase 2) rather than a second copy
— no-crlf-fragile-split refactored onto it with zero behavior change,
parity-tested.

Real triage, not 798 mechanical edits: the ADR's census (2026-08-08)
screened every unbounded quantifier in the tree unscoped. Correctly
scoped to readFileSync-derived content (matching Phase 2's own G2/G3
scoping), the rule found 162 real hits across two detection waves — the
second wave (93) surfaced only after a genuine off-by-one bug in this
rule's own first draft was caught while writing its RuleTester tests
and fixed (the bug silently missed every directly-quantified [\s\S]*
with no gap before the quantifier — exactly the class this rule exists
to catch). 3 hits landed in production src/ (commands.cts, milestone.cts,
roadmap.cts) and were each empirically timed against adversarial input
(matching #2128's own measured-not-assumed precedent) — all confirmed
linear-time/benign, left unbounded with a measured-evidence comment
rather than mechanically bounded. The remaining 159 are test-file
fixture parsing (test-author-controlled, fixed-size content, not
adversarial input) — each suppressed with a specific, non-generic
reason. Zero functional behavior changed anywhere in this diff.

tests/no-pending-3212-markers.test.cjs locks the epic's own closing
invariant (ADR §7: "assert zero pending #3212 markers remain") — ground
truth confirmed trivially true today (no phase left any such marker
behind), now regression-locked going forward.

Design: .gsd/phase/chore-3415-prohibition-with-teeth/40-design.md
Test matrix: .gsd/phase/chore-3415-prohibition-with-teeth/50-test-matrix.md

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(#3415): correct rule category mislabel, add CI test-scope entry

An orthogonal Standards-axis review found eslint-rules/no-unbounded-quantifier.cjs
mistakenly carried meta.docs.category: 'Portability', copied from a sibling
rule without realizing what that implied: docs/contributing/cross-platform-
portability-rules.md governs an ADR-1703 rule family under a hard "zero
escape hatches" contract (tests/portability-rule-disable-ban.test.cjs's
PROTECTED_RULES bans eslint-disable for those rules entirely). This rule is
not part of that family — it's ADR-3212 (ReDoS/CWE-1333), a different epic —
and its eslint-disable-next-line suppressions (159 of them, added earlier
this same phase after empirical benign-verification) are an intentional,
correct design, not a bypass. Corrected to category: 'Best Practices',
matching the actual precedent (no-adhoc-regex-escape.cjs, Phase 1 of the
same epic, which is also correctly outside PROTECTED_RULES), and the rule's
own docstring now states this explicitly so a future reader doesn't have to
re-derive it.

Also registers a new scripts/ci-test-scope.cjs bucket so editing this rule
or the shared eslint-rules/lib/readfilesync-trace.cjs helper re-runs their
own test suites under targeted CI selection — was previously unregistered
and invisible to that fast-path (this PR's own gsd-test checkpoint runs the
full suite regardless, so this only affects future narrowly-scoped PRs).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(#3415): bound no-unbounded-quantifier's own scanner (CWE-1333, ironic)

Security review found the rule meant to catch algorithmic-complexity bugs
had one of its own: hasUnboundedBroadQuantifier's negated-class inner
scan walked from each `[^` occurrence to the next `]` (or EOF) with no
bound, while the outer loop only ever advanced by one character — O(n²)
total work on a pattern with many unclosed `[^` runs. Runs unconditionally
inside checkPattern on any `new RegExp('literal string')` argument in any
linted file, before the (cheap) readFileSync data-flow gate — so a single
crafted string literal, no valid regex syntax required, could make
`npm run lint` / CI hang.

Empirically confirmed both the bug and the fix: pre-fix, n=4000/8000/
16000/32000 chars took 30.8/115.6/463.8/1874.3ms (~4x work per 2x n,
quadratic); extrapolated, the 300000-char repro from the finding would
run ~165s. Post-fix (bail the inner scan once units exceeds the rule's
own 1-2-unit scope, rather than continuing to hunt for a closing `]`),
the same 300000-char input runs in 8.7ms via the real rule module,
independently reconfirmed at 18ms via a fresh Linter.verify() call.

New regression row in tests/no-unbounded-quantifier.rule.test.cjs
asserts the RuleTester run on a 50000-char adversarial pattern
completes and returns a defined result — no wall-clock assertion
(CLAUDE.md Clock Seams / local/no-elapsed-assertion).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(#3415): triage 3 new sites, re-raise ceiling after upstream batch

next merged 12 more PRs during this PR's review. Two consequences:

- tests/edit-phase.test.cjs (fix #3262, unrelated) added 3 new
  content.match(/<tag>([\s\S]*?)<\/tag>/) reads of this repo's own
  workflow .md content — the same Class A pattern as the ~159 sites
  already triaged elsewhere in this PR. Suppressed with the same
  established reason.
- lint-allow-test-rule-refs' ratchet ceiling needed re-raising again
  (301 -> 303) for the same reason as the two prior bumps: organic
  growth from unrelated, already-reviewed PRs landing concurrently,
  not a defect in this branch's own diff.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

---------

Co-authored-by: sim <sim@local>
Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-14 10:02:28 -04:00

121 lines
5.5 KiB
JavaScript

// allow-test-rule: source-text-is-the-product
// Workflow .md / agent .md / command .md / reference .md files — their text
// IS what the runtime loads. Testing text content tests the deployed contract.
// Per CONTRIBUTING.md exception matrix.
/**
* GSD Tools Tests - autonomous --interactive flag
*
* Validates that the autonomous workflow and command definition
* correctly document and support the --interactive flag.
*
* Closes: #1413
*/
const { test, describe } = require('node:test');
const assert = require('node:assert/strict');
const fs = require('fs');
const path = require('path');
describe('autonomous --interactive flag (#1413)', () => {
const workflowPath = path.join(__dirname, '..', 'gsd-core', 'workflows', 'autonomous.md');
const commandPath = path.join(__dirname, '..', 'commands', 'gsd', 'autonomous.md');
test('command definition includes --interactive in argument-hint', () => {
const content = fs.readFileSync(commandPath, 'utf8');
assert.ok(content.includes('--interactive'), 'command should document --interactive flag');
assert.ok(content.includes('argument-hint:') && content.includes('--interactive'),
'argument-hint should include --interactive');
});
test('command definition describes interactive mode behavior', () => {
const content = fs.readFileSync(commandPath, 'utf8');
assert.ok(content.includes('discuss') && content.includes('inline'),
'command should describe discuss running inline');
assert.ok(content.includes('background'),
'command should mention background agents for plan+execute');
});
test('workflow parses --interactive flag', () => {
const content = fs.readFileSync(workflowPath, 'utf8');
assert.ok(content.includes("--interactive") && content.includes('INTERACTIVE'),
'workflow should parse --interactive into INTERACTIVE variable');
});
test('workflow uses discuss-phase skill in interactive mode', () => {
// Per #2697 the user-facing form is the hyphen invariant gsd-discuss-phase;
// the colon form was retired and is enforced absent by bug-2543 tests.
//
// Don't `.includes()` against the full file — both tokens could appear in
// unrelated sections (e.g. INTERACTIVE="" initialization + a stray
// gsd-discuss-phase mention in prose) and falsely pass. Instead, isolate
// the structural region that gates on INTERACTIVE and assert the Skill
// invocation lives inside it.
const content = fs.readFileSync(workflowPath, 'utf8');
const interactiveMarker = '**If `INTERACTIVE` is set:**';
const branchStart = content.indexOf(interactiveMarker);
assert.notStrictEqual(
branchStart, -1,
`workflow must define an explicit '${interactiveMarker}' branch`,
);
// Bound the branch by the next "**If `..." prose marker (the non-interactive
// sibling) or, failing that, the next `<step ...>`/`</step>` boundary.
const afterStart = branchStart + interactiveMarker.length;
const candidates = [
content.indexOf('**If `INTERACTIVE` is NOT set', afterStart),
content.indexOf('**If `', afterStart),
content.indexOf('</step>', afterStart),
content.indexOf('<step ', afterStart),
].filter((i) => i !== -1);
assert.ok(candidates.length > 0, 'INTERACTIVE branch must have a closing boundary');
const branchEnd = Math.min(...candidates);
const branch = content.slice(branchStart, branchEnd);
// The branch must invoke the hyphen-form Skill. Tolerate whitespace
// around `(`, `skill`, and `=` so harmless reformatting doesn't break this.
const skillCall = /Skill\(\s*skill\s*=\s*['"]gsd-discuss-phase['"]/.test(branch);
assert.ok(
skillCall,
`INTERACTIVE branch must invoke Skill(skill="gsd-discuss-phase"). Got branch:\n${branch}`,
);
});
test('workflow dispatches plan as background agent in interactive mode', () => {
const content = fs.readFileSync(workflowPath, 'utf8');
// Should have Agent() with run_in_background for plan
assert.ok(
content.includes('run_in_background') && content.includes('plan-phase'),
'workflow should dispatch plan-phase as background agent in interactive mode'
);
});
test('workflow dispatches execute as background agent in interactive mode', () => {
const content = fs.readFileSync(workflowPath, 'utf8');
assert.ok(
content.includes('run_in_background') && content.includes('execute-phase'),
'workflow should dispatch execute-phase as background agent in interactive mode'
);
});
test('workflow describes pipeline parallelism in interactive mode', () => {
const content = fs.readFileSync(workflowPath, 'utf8');
assert.ok(
content.includes('pipeline parallelism') || content.includes('Phase N+1'),
'workflow should describe overlapping discuss/execute between phases'
);
});
test('success criteria include --interactive requirements', () => {
const content = fs.readFileSync(workflowPath, 'utf8');
// eslint-disable-next-line local/no-unbounded-quantifier -- parses this repo's own workflow .md content, fixed-size author-controlled content
const criteriaMatch = content.match(/<success_criteria>([\s\S]*?)<\/success_criteria>/);
const criteria = criteriaMatch ? criteriaMatch[1] : '';
assert.ok(criteria.includes('--interactive'),
'success criteria should include --interactive requirements');
assert.ok(criteria.includes('discuss inline'),
'success criteria should mention discuss inline');
assert.ok(criteria.includes('background agents'),
'success criteria should mention background agents');
});
});