19 lines
1.1 KiB
Markdown
19 lines
1.1 KiB
Markdown
|
# Adversarial Bug Report: fix-verdict-pass-inference
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Summary
|
||
|
|
Adversarial review of the verdict parsing fix. One minor edge case noted (already in bug report).
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Bugs Found
|
||
|
|
No additional bugs beyond Bug 1 in BUG_REPORT.md (substring match within status value — Low severity, consistent with dashboard).
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Analysis
|
||
|
|
- **Consistency with dashboard**: The new `_parse_verdict_status_line()` mirrors `task.py:parse_verdict_status()` — both use the same `label in after_colon.upper()` pattern. This is deliberate alignment, not a bug.
|
||
|
|
- **Fallback behavior**: Unparseable verdicts now return `"human_intervention"` instead of the old implicit behavior. This is safer — a verdict that can't be parsed should never be assumed PASS.
|
||
|
|
- **Edge case — multiple status lines**: If a verdict has both `## Status: FAIL` and later `## Status: PASS`, the first match wins (FAIL). This is correct — the first status declaration is the authoritative one.
|
||
|
|
- **Edge case — case variations**: `## status: pass` (lowercase) is handled by `low.startswith("## status")` and `after_colon.upper() == "PASS"` — correct.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Score
|
||
|
|
0
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
ADVERSARIAL_BUG_FIND_COMPLETE
|