Skip to content

Test Strategy

The tests for bijux-canon-ingest 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.

Treat the quality pages for bijux-canon-ingest as the proof frame around the package. They should show how trust is earned and where skepticism still belongs.

Visual Summary

flowchart TB
    page["Test Strategy<br/>clarifies: see proof | see limitations | judge done-ness"]
    classDef page fill:#dbeafe,stroke:#1d4ed8,color:#1e3a8a,stroke-width:2px;
    classDef positive fill:#dcfce7,stroke:#16a34a,color:#14532d;
    classDef caution fill:#fee2e2,stroke:#dc2626,color:#7f1d1d;
    classDef anchor fill:#ede9fe,stroke:#7c3aed,color:#4c1d95;
    classDef action fill:#fef3c7,stroke:#d97706,color:#7c2d12;
    proof1["tests/unit for module-level behavior across processing, retrieval, and interfaces"]
    proof1 --> page
    proof2["tests/e2e for package boundary coverage"]
    proof2 --> page
    proof3["tests/invariants for long-lived repository promises"]
    proof3 --> page
    risk1["README.md"]
    risk1 -.keeps trust honest.-> page
    risk2["CHANGELOG.md"]
    risk2 -.keeps trust honest.-> page
    risk3["pyproject.toml"]
    risk3 -.keeps trust honest.-> page
    bar1["package trust after change"]
    page --> bar1
    bar2["proof before confidence"]
    page --> bar2
    bar3["done means defended behavior"]
    page --> bar3
    class page page;
    class proof1,proof2,proof3 positive;
    class risk1,risk2,risk3 caution;
    class bar1,bar2,bar3 action;

Test Areas

  • tests/unit for module-level behavior across processing, retrieval, and interfaces
  • tests/e2e for package boundary coverage
  • tests/invariants for long-lived repository promises
  • tests/eval for corpus-backed behavior checks

Concrete Anchors

  • tests/unit for module-level behavior across processing, retrieval, and interfaces
  • tests/e2e for package boundary coverage
  • README.md

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-canon-ingest 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-canon-ingest 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-canon-ingest 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.