fix(test): stop createTestEnv() default leaking the bundled self-repo manifest

[JSONbored]

Summary

• createTestEnv()'s LOOPOVER_DRIFT_ISSUE_REPO default was "JSONbored/gittensory" — the same literal string ~100+ generic test fixtures use as their arbitrary placeholder repo name. Since that value also matches isLoopOverSelfRepo()'s comparison, any bare createTestEnv() call whose fixture repo happened to be named "JSONbored/gittensory" silently picked up the bundled self-repo focus manifest (including its live autonomy grant), regardless of whether that specific test had any intent to exercise self-repo behavior.
• Flips the default to a sentinel that can never collide with a real fixture, and gives the handful of tests that intentionally exercise self-repo/manifest-override resolution (ops/draftFlow/publicStats/maintainerRecap/upstreamDriftIssues, the self-dogfood route) an explicit override instead of relying on the shared default.
• Also fixes 3 tests (2× backfill.test.ts, 1× api.test.ts) that were silently depending on a REAL, unmocked network fetch to GitHub's raw-content CDN for "JSONbored/gittensory"'s .loopover.yml — GitHub's repo-rename redirect resolves that straight through to the live, current .loopover.yml, so those assertions only passed by coincidence before this repo's autonomy config was added there. Stubs fetch deterministically instead.
• routes-self-dogfood-registration-pack.test.ts is modernized to test against the real current self-repo identity (JSONbored/loopover) rather than pinning to the old name.

Part of a broader gittensory→loopover residue cleanup (see sibling PRs).

Validation

• npm run test:ci (full local gate, green)
• npm run test:coverage (unsharded, 17536 passed)
• npm run typecheck

[superagent-security]

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 95.56%. Comparing base (b7ec2d2) to head (c746d18).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #6493       +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage   75.82%   95.56%   +19.74%     
===========================================
  Files         589      589               
  Lines       47121    47121               
  Branches    14989    14989               
===========================================
+ Hits        35728    45032     +9304     
+ Misses       9366     1297     -8069     
+ Partials     2027      792     -1235     

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	43.96% <ø> (-0.35%)	⬇️
shard-2	36.92% <ø> (?)
shard-3	32.48% <ø> (+0.14%)	⬆️
shard-4	34.60% <ø> (-0.76%)	⬇️
shard-5	30.98% <ø> (ø)
shard-6	45.38% <ø> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
see 208 files with indirect coverage changes

[loopover-orb]

Warning

⏸️ LoopOver review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-16 11:32:56 UTC}

14 files · 1 AI reviewer · 1 blocker · CI green · unknown

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

Review summary
This is a test-infrastructure-only fix: the shared `createTestEnv()` default for `LOOPOVER_DRIFT_ISSUE_REPO` collided with the generic placeholder repo name (`JSONbored/gittensory`) used by ~100+ unrelated fixtures, so any of those fixtures could accidentally trip `isLoopOverSelfRepo()` and pick up the bundled autonomy manifest. The fix flips the shared default to a non-colliding sentinel (`test-harness/no-self-repo-match`) and threads an explicit `LOOPOVER_DRIFT_ISSUE_REPO` override into every test that intentionally exercises self-repo/manifest-override resolution, plus stubs out three tests that were silently depending on a real unmocked GitHub CDN fetch. The diff is internally consistent — every self-repo-dependent test call site visible in the diff now supplies its own override matching the repo its fixtures/mocks assert against.

Nits — 6 non-blocking

• The external secret-scan brief flags `test/unit/draft.test.ts:150` (`DRAFT_SECRET`) as a potential leaked secret — from the visible diff this reads as an existing local test fixture constant, not new in this diff, but worth a quick confirm it isn't a real credential.
• No open-issue link is included in the PR description despite the fix being framed as part of a broader cleanup effort — worth confirming this closes a tracked issue per repo convention.
• Several touched files (`api.test.ts`, `ops-wire.test.ts`, `queue-5.test.ts`, etc.) are large and only partially shown/omitted in this context, so I can't fully confirm every self-repo-dependent `createTestEnv()` call site in the suite got an explicit override — worth a final grep for `isLoopOverSelfRepo`-adjacent tests missing the new override before merge.
• Consider a lightweight lint/test-helper assertion (e.g. a `vitest` setup check) that fails loudly if any test's fixture `repoFullName` happens to equal the new sentinel `test-harness/no-self-repo-match`, to prevent this exact class of bug from recurring under a new default.
• In `test/unit/upstream-ruleset.test.ts`, the local `driftEnv()` helper duplicates the same override across ~30 call sites — this is fine as a mechanical mass-fix, but a follow-up could consolidate remaining bespoke `createTestEnv({ LOOPOVER_DRIFT_ISSUE_REPO: SELF_REPO })` calls in the other touched files into similar local wrappers for consistency.
• Possible secret-shaped assignment in the diff (generic_secret_assignment) — Verify the value is not a real credential.

Concerns raised — review before merging

• No linked issue detected — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.

📋 Copy for AI agents — paste into your coding agent

Fix the following blocker(s) from this PR review:

1. No linked issue detected — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.

Decision drivers

• ❌ Code review — 1 blocker (1 reviewer)
• ❌ Gate result — Blocking (Repo-configured hard blocker found.)

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ No-issue rationale	PR body explains why no issue is linked.
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 (no linked issue context).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 33 registered-repo PR(s), 26 merged, 326 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	JSONbored; Gittensor profile; 33 PR(s), 326 issue(s).
Improvement	ℹ️ Insufficient signal	risk: clean · value: insufficient-signal

Review context

• Author: JSONbored
• Role context: owner (maintainer lane)
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: not available
• Official Gittensor activity: 33 PR(s), 326 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Treat this as maintainer-lane context rather than normal contributor-lane activity.

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.

🧪 Chat with LoopOver

Ask LoopOver a question about this PR directly in a comment — grounded only in the same cached, public-safe facts shown above, never a new claim.

• @loopover ask <question> answers contribution-quality Q&A with source citations and freshness.
• @loopover chat <question> answers in natural prose from cached decision-pack facts via local inference (maintainer/collaborator; read-only).
• A plain-language @loopover mention with a real question is routed to the closest matching read-only command automatically — no exact syntax required.

Full command reference: https://loopover.ai/docs/loopover-commands

🧪 Experimental — new and may change.

_{🟩 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 LoopOver, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run LoopOver review