Skip to content

Test Strategy

The tests for bijux-proteomics-knowledge are the executable proof of its package contract.

This page should help readers see the broad proof shape of the package rather than treating the test tree like a bag of unrelated checks. A good strategy page explains why these tests exist, not just where they live.

Visual Summary

flowchart LR
    claims["test_claims.py"]
    evidence["test_evidence_bundle.py"]
    graph["test_evidence_graph.py"]
    resolution["test_resolution.py"]
    review["test_review.py"]
    schema["test_schema.py + test_serialization.py"]
    claims --> review
    evidence --> claims
    claims --> resolution
    evidence --> graph
    schema --> evidence

Test Areas

  • test_evidence_bundle.py: evidence record behavior, trust/freshness semantics
  • test_claims.py: claim lifecycle, lineage, and consistency logic
  • test_resolution.py: conflict resolution policies and updates
  • test_evidence_graph.py: graph structure and validation rules
  • test_review.py: review packet and readiness summaries
  • test_schema.py / test_serialization.py: schema and canonical payload stability

Concrete Anchors

  • packages/bijux-proteomics-knowledge/tests/test_evidence_bundle.py
  • packages/bijux-proteomics-knowledge/tests/test_claims.py
  • packages/bijux-proteomics-knowledge/tests/test_resolution.py
  • packages/bijux-proteomics-knowledge/tests/test_review.py

Use This Page When

  • you are reviewing tests, invariants, limitations, or ongoing risks
  • you need evidence that the documented contract is actually defended
  • you are deciding whether a change is truly done rather than merely implemented

Decision Rule

Use Test Strategy to decide whether bijux-proteomics-knowledge has actually earned trust after a change. If one narrow green check hides a wider contract, risk, or validation gap, the work is not done yet.

What This Page Answers

  • what currently proves the bijux-proteomics-knowledge contract instead of merely describing it
  • which risks, limits, and assumptions still need explicit skepticism
  • what a reviewer should be able to say before accepting a change as done

Reviewer Lens

  • compare the documented proof story with the actual test layout and release posture
  • look for limitations or risks that should have moved with recent behavior changes
  • verify that the claimed done-ness standard still reflects real validation practice

Honesty Boundary

This page explains how bijux-proteomics-knowledge is supposed to earn trust, but it does not claim that prose alone is enough. If the listed tests, checks, and review practice stop backing the story, the story has to change.

Next Checks

  • move to foundation when the risk appears to be boundary confusion rather than missing tests
  • move to architecture when the proof gap points to structural drift
  • move to interfaces or operations when the proof question is really about a contract or workflow

Purpose

This page explains the broad testing shape of the package.

Stability

Keep it aligned with the real test directories and the behaviors they protect.