test: pin RunResult's fields so a new one forces a redaction audit - #92
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This was referenced Oct 4, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes #61.
JsonOutput.emitwrites theRunResultenvelope to stdout without passing it throughredact, unlike everyRichOutputpath. Triage traced each field and found no way to leak a token today:schema_version,statusandreasonare fixed strings (module constants or a strategy'sno_bump_reasonClassVar).strategyis a registered strategy name.bumpis aBumpvalue.commitis a commit sha.tagis a version semvertag computed or an existing repository tag name.So the gap is structural, and this PR takes outcome 1 from the issue: write the invariant down as a named test instead of adding redaction.
test_no_run_result_field_carries_user_supplied_textassertsRunResult's field set equals the audited set. When it breaks, its message explains why emit is unredacted, says to audit the changed field, and warns that any redaction has to be per field becauseredact()would also mask the 40-hexcommit.test_emit_envelope_order_matches_dataclass_declarationwould already catch a new field, but as a wire-shape failure that says nothing about redaction. The new test exists to carry that reason.No production code changes.
Verified with
just lint-ci,just test-ci(481 passed, 100% coverage) andjust adr-check. I also temporarily added amessagefield toRunResultand confirmed the test fails withAdded: ['message'], then reverted it.