mirror of
https://github.com/arsvendg/Stirling-PDF.git
synced 2026-07-14 10:34:06 +02:00
5fca2f199ae5ba2ccae3ed93a09372d6948a9c59
1
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
ff96a80947 |
PAYG B-3 / S-3: cucumber suite for shadow-mode flows + CI workflow (#6522)
## What this PR is End-to-end cucumber coverage for the PAYG shadow charging engine (the filter + interceptor stack from #6519), wired into CI via a new `docker-compose-tests-saas.yml` workflow that runs only on PAYG-touching PRs. Stacked on #6519. ## Automated scenarios (run by `docker-compose-tests-saas.yml`) See [`testing/cucumber/features/payg/shadow_charges.feature`](../tree/payg-s3-cucumber/testing/cucumber/features/payg/shadow_charges.feature): | Scenario | Validates | |---|---| | First tool call writes a CHARGED row | Filter + interceptor fire end-to-end | | Lineage join — second call on output | `JobService.joinOrOpen` matching; no new shadow row | | 4xx leaves the row CHARGED | "Customer paid for the attempt" semantics | | ZIP-returning tool records per-PDF OUTPUT | `PaygOutputExtractor` unpacks + records signatures | | Multi-file input writes a single shadow row | Multi-input group sizing | | `X-Stirling-Automation` sets PIPELINE source | Header → `JobSource` detection | All 6 run locally via `./testing/test-payg.sh` and will run on CI for any PR that touches `app/saas/**`, the PAYG cucumber features, the saas compose stack, or the workflow itself. ## Manual-only scenarios — documented in design doc, not in this suite Two parts of the shadow engine are deliberately not automated; the engine paths are unit-tested in `PaygChargeInterceptorTest.afterCompletion_5xx_opened_*`, and the manual procedures (which require a temporary throw endpoint or a container restart with a flag flipped) live in [`notes/PAYG_DESIGN.md` §7.5.2 "PAYG cucumber: manual-only scenarios"](../tree/payg-s3-cucumber/notes/PAYG_DESIGN.md). - **5xx first-step failure → REFUNDED + CLOSED.** No reliably-5xx-ing endpoint exists; manual procedure adds a throw endpoint, runs, asserts, removes. - **Kill-switch (`PAYG_FILTER_ENABLED=false`).** Needs a container restart mid-suite; manual procedure tears down, flips env, brings up, asserts zero shadow rows. If either gets a hot-reload path (test-only throw endpoint shipped behind a profile gate, or admin endpoint for the kill switch), automate it in a follow-up and drop the manual procedure. ## CI workflow `.github/workflows/docker-compose-tests-saas.yml` (new) — self-contained, not wired into `build.yml`'s `files-changed` matrix so the saas-cucumber job fails and succeeds independently. Triggers only on PAYG-relevant paths. No JaCoCo coverage in v1 (saas compose doesn't have the coverage override; can add later). ## Test infrastructure (recap) - **`testing/compose/docker-compose-saas.yml`** — Stirling-PDF backend with `STIRLING_FLAVOR=saas` + Postgres holding the `stirling_pdf` schema. Supabase JWT auto-config disabled; API-key auth via `SECURITY_CUSTOMGLOBALAPIKEY` is the live path the cucumber tests exercise. - **`testing/compose/payg/saas-init.sql`** + **`saas-seed.sql`** — schema bootstrap + idempotent seed (team / user / wallet_policy). - **`testing/cucumber/features/payg/shadow_charges.feature`** — the 6 scenarios above. - **`testing/cucumber/features/steps/payg_step_definitions.py`** — step defs using `requests` (HTTP) + `psycopg` (direct DB inspection). Direct DB reads are deliberate — we want to see the filter's side effects, not relay them through another API layer. - **`testing/test-payg.sh`** — companion runner to `testing/test.sh`. Brings up the saas compose, waits for health, seeds, runs behave, tears down. - **`behave.ini`** excludes `features/payg` from the default behave run (the saas-cucumber CI job invokes it explicitly). ## Why a separate harness from `testing/test.sh` The existing `test.sh` covers the proprietary-flavour stack (no PAYG tables, no saas profile). Coupling two CI matrices that fail and succeed independently into one script is asking for trouble. Keep the saas-cucumber job focused on its own concerns; once the harness is mature, the wider team can decide whether to merge them. ## Tracked in `notes/PAYG_DESIGN.md` §7.5 (PR-S3) + §7.5.2 (manual scenarios). |