Skip to content

chore: Update summarize-test-suite skill to scope code-regression verdicts - #4720

Open
marcabreracast wants to merge 3 commits into
masterfrom
chore/update-summarize-test-suite-skill
Open

marcabreracast wants to merge 3 commits into
masterfrom
chore/update-summarize-test-suite-skill

Conversation

@marcabreracast

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Description

Refines the summarize-test-suite skill (.agents/skills/summarize-test-suite/SKILL.md) so nightly summaries stop mislabeling recurring backend failures as code regressions while still catching genuine provider and API regressions.

Changes:

  • Category 1 (code regression) no longer fires on symptom alone. Attribute-value mismatches, unexpected plan diffs, and INVALID_ATTRIBUTE are red only when they do not match a known-benign 3b signature or a category 4 propagation-lag mismatch.
  • Adds sub-bucket 3b, Backend job / verify failures, enumerating three known benign signatures: LDAP CA-cert verify reporting FAILED, the acceptance-test sample-dataset load job reaching FAILED, and stale cluster/monitoring messages (Cannot validate cluster compatibility due to stale monitoring data, OPERATION_INVALID_SHARDS_NO_PRIMARY).
  • Adds a symptom vs cause discipline rule: novel backend error patterns (a new error code, a wide break, or a previously passing suite now failing) stay category 1 (red) until proven benign, so API-side regressions remain visible to on-call.
  • 3b failures are reported under the existing API errors count line, which the monthly summary parser already recognizes, so the monthly script is unchanged.

Observed in the Sep 9 and Sep 10 nightly Test Suite runs, where LDAP verify, online archive / search index / collection restore sample-data seed, and advanced cluster stale-monitoring failures were misclassified as code regressions.

Link to any related issue(s):

Type of change:

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue). Please, add the "bug" label to the PR.
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality). Please, add the "enhancement" label to the PR. A migration guide must be created or updated if the new feature will go in a major version.
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected). Please, add the "breaking change" label to the PR. A migration guide must be created or updated.
  • This change requires a documentation update
  • Documentation fix/enhancement

Required Checklist:

  • I have signed the MongoDB CLA
  • I have read the contributing guides
  • I have checked that this change does not generate any credentials and that they are NOT accidentally logged anywhere.
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works per HashiCorp requirements
  • I have added any necessary documentation (if appropriate)
  • I have run make fix and verified my code
  • If changes include deprecations or removals I have added appropriate changelog entries.
  • If changes include removal or addition of 3rd party GitHub actions, I updated our internal document. Reach out to the APIx Integration slack channel to get access to the internal document.

Further comments

@marcabreracast
marcabreracast marked this pull request as ready for review September 10, 2026 17:07
@marcabreracast
marcabreracast requested a review from a team as a code owner September 10, 2026 17:07
Copilot AI lite review requested due to automatic review settings September 10, 2026 17:07
@augmentcode

augmentcode Bot commented Sep 10, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
🤖 Augment PR Summary

Summary: Refines the nightly test-suite skill so known recurring backend job and verification failures are separated from provider/API regressions.
Changes: Adds API-error sub-bucket 3b, symptom-versus-cause guidance, and API-error template output while preserving the monthly parser's recognized category label.

🤖 Was this summary useful? React with 👍 or 👎

@augmentcode augmentcode Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Review completed. 2 suggestions posted.

Fix All in Augment

Comment augment review to trigger a new review at any time.

Comment thread .agents/skills/summarize-test-suite/SKILL.md Outdated
Comment thread .agents/skills/summarize-test-suite/SKILL.md Outdated

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🟢 Approval recommended

The change is documentation-only and low risk, with only a minor punctuation fix suggested in the updated emoji legend.

Pull request overview

Refines the internal .agents/skills/summarize-test-suite guidance to reduce false “code regression” (red) verdicts for recurring Atlas backend/verification failures, while keeping genuinely novel provider/API regressions classified as red for on-call visibility.

Changes:

  • Tightens category 1 (code regression) classification so attribute/plan/INVALID_ATTRIBUTE symptoms are only red when they don’t match known-benign signatures or propagation-lag cases.
  • Adds category 3b (“Backend job / verify failures”) with explicit recurring signatures and guidance to report them under the existing API errors count line.
  • Updates discipline rules and Slack output templates to reflect the new 3b sub-bucket and symptom-vs-cause classification.
File summaries
File Description
.agents/skills/summarize-test-suite/SKILL.md Updates failure categorization rules and output templates to prevent recurring backend failures from being misclassified as code regressions.
Review details
  • Files reviewed: 1/1 changed files
  • Comments generated: 1
  • Review effort level: Lite

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

Comment thread .agents/skills/summarize-test-suite/SKILL.md Outdated

@EspenAlbert EspenAlbert left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you for improving this.
One thing. Would it be better to have all the different known test instabilities in a single place? This way it is easier to add remove and we don't need exceptions spread out?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants