Blocks the OpenSSF Best Practices silver criterion test_statement_coverage80 ("at least 80% statement coverage if there is at least one FLOSS tool that can measure this in the selected language"). Answered Unmet in .bestpractices.json.
Measured 2026-07-28 (commit f563f72)
Python:
python -m pytest --cov=cortex_viz --cov-report=term -q
431 passed, 1 skipped
TOTAL 11625 statements 7706 missed 34%
The gap is concentrated in the HTTP server layer, which is the largest and most exposed surface:
| Module |
Coverage |
server/http_server.py |
0% |
server/visualize_bootstrap.py |
0% |
server/layout_authority_lod.py |
0% |
server/trace_impact.py |
4% |
server/http_standalone_sse.py |
11% |
server/http_standalone_routes.py |
13% |
server/http_standalone_activity.py |
16% |
server/http_standalone.py / http_standalone_static.py |
18% |
JavaScript: not measurable by the current harness.
npx vitest run --coverage
All files | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0
This 0% is an artifact, not a result. tests/js/helpers/load-globals.mjs loads UI files with new Function(code) so a browser IIFE runs at jsdom global scope, and v8 cannot attribute the executed lines back to the source file. 175 tests genuinely pass against that code; the coverage provider simply cannot see it.
Also found
npx vitest run --coverage fails, independently of the coverage number: the trigram scale benchmark asserts a 500ms wall-clock bound and measures 939ms under v8 instrumentation.
FAIL tests/js/trigram.test.mjs > scans a 300k-label corpus within the regression bound
AssertionError: expected 939.8624159999999 to be less than 500
So npm run test:coverage cannot currently be run at all. A wall-clock assertion should be measured against a control rather than an absolute bound, or excluded from instrumented runs.
Acceptance criteria
Blocks the OpenSSF Best Practices silver criterion
test_statement_coverage80("at least 80% statement coverage if there is at least one FLOSS tool that can measure this in the selected language"). AnsweredUnmetin.bestpractices.json.Measured 2026-07-28 (commit
f563f72)Python:
The gap is concentrated in the HTTP server layer, which is the largest and most exposed surface:
server/http_server.pyserver/visualize_bootstrap.pyserver/layout_authority_lod.pyserver/trace_impact.pyserver/http_standalone_sse.pyserver/http_standalone_routes.pyserver/http_standalone_activity.pyserver/http_standalone.py/http_standalone_static.pyJavaScript: not measurable by the current harness.
This 0% is an artifact, not a result.
tests/js/helpers/load-globals.mjsloads UI files withnew Function(code)so a browser IIFE runs at jsdom global scope, and v8 cannot attribute the executed lines back to the source file. 175 tests genuinely pass against that code; the coverage provider simply cannot see it.Also found
npx vitest run --coveragefails, independently of the coverage number: the trigram scale benchmark asserts a 500ms wall-clock bound and measures 939ms under v8 instrumentation.So
npm run test:coveragecannot currently be run at all. A wall-clock assertion should be measured against a control rather than an absolute bound, or excluded from instrumented runs.Acceptance criteria
import, or configure a provider that can attributenew Functionexecutionnpm run test:coverageexits 0.bestpractices.jsontest_statement_coverage80_statusflips toMetwith the measurement quoted