test(signals): extend repo-policy-compiler branch coverage

[bohdansolovie]

Fixes #2102

Summary

Extends test/unit/repo-policy-compiler.test.ts to cover remaining branches in compileRepoPolicyCompilerOutput:

• Preferred direct-PR and issue-discovery lane summaries/titles
• Issue-discovery lane inheriting direct-PR preferred paths
• Issue-discovery publicNotes filtering lines containing "direct"
• Default generatedAt when omitted + deterministic output for identical inputs
• Label policy field shape and public-safe filtering of preferred labels/readiness warnings

Test plan

• CI validate-code (vitest suite includes repo-policy-compiler.test.ts)

Made with Cursor

[superagent-security]

Superagent didn't find any vulnerabilities or security issues in this PR.

[loopover-orb]

Caution

🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥

🛑 Gittensory review result - fixes required

_{Review updated: 2026-07-05 06:50:58 UTC}

1 file · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 80/100 · CI failing · blocked

🛑 Suggested Action - Fix Blockers

Review summary
This is test-only branch coverage for compileRepoPolicyCompilerOutput, covering lane preference summaries, lane note filtering, timestamp defaulting, deterministic fixed-time output, and label-policy shape. The visible tests drive parseFocusManifest and compileRepoPolicyCompilerOutput directly, so the added cases are scoped to the real compiler entrypoint rather than hand-built output objects. I do not see a production correctness defect in the diff itself.

Nits — 4 non-blocking

• nit: test/unit/repo-policy-compiler.test.ts:121 uses non-null assertions after find(), which makes a missing lane fail with a less direct TypeError-style assertion path than an explicit existence check.
• nit: test/unit/repo-policy-compiler.test.ts:147 says it proves determinism, but the deterministic equality check only covers the explicit generatedAt path while the defaulted timestamp path is only shape-checked.
• test/unit/repo-policy-compiler.test.ts:121: split the lane lookup into an explicit expect(directLane).toBeDefined() before asserting title/summary so a lane-regression failure points at the missing lane.
• test/unit/repo-policy-compiler.test.ts:147: either rename the test to clarify that only explicit generatedAt inputs are compared deterministically, or add a clock stub if you want to prove the default timestamp path deterministically too.

CI checks failing

• validate
• validate-code

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	✅ No blockers	1 reviewer
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#2102
Related work	✅ No active overlap found	No same-issue or scoped active PR overlap found.
Change scope	✅ 20/20	Low review scope from cached public metadata (1 linked issue).
Validation posture	❌ 5/25	Preflight is holding this PR: the review lane is unavailable, so it is not ready for automated review.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 267 registered-repo PR(s), 167 merged, 9 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	bohdansolovie; Gittensor profile; 267 PR(s), 9 issue(s).
Gate result	✅ Passing	No configured blocker found.

Review context

• Author: bohdansolovie
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository registration is not available in the local Gittensory cache.
• Public profile languages: not available
• Official Gittensor activity: 267 PR(s), 9 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Await review-lane availability.
• Refresh registry data or choose a registered active repo.

Signal definitions

• Related work = same linked issue, overlapping active PRs, or title/path similarity.
• Change scope = cached public metadata such as size labels, draft state, and review-burden hints.
• Validation posture = whether the PR provides enough public validation/test evidence for maintainer review.
• Contributor workload = public contributor activity and cleanup pressure, not a repo-wide quality failure.
• Contributor context = public GitHub/Gittensor identity context; non-Gittensor status is not a blocker.

_{🟩 Safe / merged · 🟦 Advisory · 🟨 Held for review · 🟥 Blocked / closed}

---

💰 Earn for open-source contributions like this. Gittensor lets GitHub contributors earn for the work they already do — register to start earning →.

Checked by Gittensory, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run Gittensory review

[codecov]

❌ 1 Tests Failed:

Tests completed	Failed	Passed	Skipped
8917	1	8916	7

View the top 1 failed test(s) by shortest run time

test/unit/repo-policy-compiler.test.ts > compileRepoPolicyCompilerOutput > reuses direct-PR preferred paths on the issue-discovery lane and filters direct-tagged notes

Stack Traces | 0.0231s run time

AssertionError: expected [ …(3) ] to deeply equal [ 'Keep PRs narrow.' ]

- Expected
+ Received

  [
+   "Focus changes on maintainer-wanted areas: src/core/, lib/.",
+   "Link a tracked issue before opening a pull request.",
    "Keep PRs narrow.",
  ]

 ❯ test/unit/repo-policy-compiler.test.ts:135:35

To view more test analytics, go to the Test Analytics Dashboard
_{📋 Got 3 mins? Take this short survey to help us improve Test Analytics.}

[loopover-orb]

Gittensory is closing this pull request on the maintainer's behalf (CI is failing (validate, validate-code)). This is an automated maintenance action — to pursue this change, please open a new pull request with the issues resolved. Closed PRs may be analyzed later to improve review accuracy, but they are not automatically reopened or re-reviewed.