# Verify Report: work.ts untested branch coverage

**Result:** PASS
**Created by:** AnaVerify
**Date:** 2026-05-14
**Spec:** .ana/plans/active/work-ts-branch-coverage/spec.md
**Branch:** feature/work-ts-branch-coverage

## Pre-Check Results

```
=== CONTRACT COMPLIANCE ===
  Contract: /Users/rsmith/Projects/anatomia_project/anatomia/.ana/worktrees/work-ts-branch-coverage/.ana/plans/active/work-ts-branch-coverage/contract.yaml
  Seal: INTACT (hash sha256:e165b52b403ede294f81723ec22032d458401313df22e6c2fa8eeb87b6cca5e3)
```

Seal status: **INTACT**

Tests: 2288 passed, 2 skipped, 0 failed (103 test files). Build: success. Lint: 0 errors, 1 pre-existing warning (unused eslint-disable directive).

Baseline was 2283 tests. Build added 5 tests (185 in work.test.ts, up from previous count). No regressions.

## Contract Compliance

| ID   | Says                                                        | Status        | Evidence |
|------|-------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|----------|
| A001 | Completing work with a malformed verify report triggers an UNKNOWN warning | ✅ SATISFIED | `packages/cli/tests/commands/work.test.ts:3299` — `expect(output).toContain('UNKNOWN')`. Production code at `work.ts:873` emits "UNKNOWN" in warning. |
| A002 | The UNKNOWN warning tells the user to check the verify report | ✅ SATISFIED | `packages/cli/tests/commands/work.test.ts:3301` — `expect(output).toContain('verify_report.md')`. Production code at `work.ts:873` includes "Check verify_report.md". |
| A003 | Work still completes successfully despite the UNKNOWN result | ✅ SATISFIED | `packages/cli/tests/commands/work.test.ts:3304-3308` — reads proof_chain.json, asserts entry exists with `toBeDefined()`. Contract matcher is "exists". |
| A004 | The proof chain entry records the result as UNKNOWN | ✅ SATISFIED | `packages/cli/tests/commands/work.test.ts:3311` — `expect(entry.result).toBe('UNKNOWN')`. Verified `generateProofSummary` uses `parseResult` which returns uppercase `'UNKNOWN'` for missing result lines. |
| A005 | A git conflict during pull causes the process to exit | ✅ SATISFIED | `packages/cli/tests/commands/work.test.ts:3365` — `expect(exitCalls[0]?.[0]).toBe(1)`. Real git rebase conflict triggers `process.exit(1)` at `work.ts:1341`. |
| A006 | The conflict error message tells the user about the conflict | ✅ SATISFIED | `packages/cli/tests/commands/work.test.ts:3367` — `expect(output.toLowerCase()).toContain('conflict')`. Production code at `work.ts:1339` outputs "conflicts". |
| A007 | The conflict error message instructs the user to resolve and retry | ✅ SATISFIED | `packages/cli/tests/commands/work.test.ts:3369` — `expect(output).toContain('Resolve conflicts and try again')`. Exact string match against `work.ts:1339`. |
| A008 | Both tests live in the existing work.test.ts file | ✅ SATISFIED | Git diff confirms both tests added to `packages/cli/tests/commands/work.test.ts` at lines 3270 and 3315. No new test files created. |

8/8 SATISFIED, 0 UNSATISFIED.

## Independent Findings

**Predictions made before reading code:**
1. "process.exit no-op in UNKNOWN test will hit multiple exit points" → **Confirmed.** The test hits the early guard at `work.ts:1513` (lowercase `'unknown'`) and the warning branch at `work.ts:870` (uppercase `'UNKNOWN'` from a different parser). The test comment at line 3284-3286 documents this intentionally. Both branches fire, both are captured. Acceptable — the alternative requires restructuring production code.
2. "Conflict test temp directories will leak" → **Confirmed.** `bareDir` and `cloneDir` created as siblings of `tempDir` are not cleaned by `afterEach` which only removes `tempDir`.
3. "A003 will use weak existence assertion" → **Confirmed.** Uses `toBeDefined()`, but contract matcher is literally `"exists"`.
4. "A005 will use weak count assertion" → **Confirmed.** Uses `toBeGreaterThan(0)` instead of `toBe(1)`.
5. "Conflict test could have timing issues" → **Not found.** Uses deterministic git operations, no races.

**Production risks I predicted:**
1. "Date.now() in directory names could collide in parallel" → **Not a real risk.** Vitest runs tests within a file sequentially.
2. "Sibling directories leak" → **Confirmed.** See finding below.

**Over-building check:** Grep of the diff shows no new exports, no new functions beyond the two test blocks, no parameters or abstractions added. Scope is clean — two tests, nothing else.

## AC Walkthrough

- **AC1:** A test exercises the UNKNOWN result warning at work.ts:868-875. ✅ PASS — Test at line 3272 creates a verify report without `**Result:**`, confirms warning fires with "UNKNOWN" and "verify_report.md", confirms proof chain entry exists with result `'UNKNOWN'`.
- **AC2:** A test exercises the pull conflict error at work.ts:1335-1342. ✅ PASS — Test at line 3317 sets up a real git rebase conflict via bare remote + divergent commits on same file. Confirms `process.exit(1)` called, error contains "conflict" and "Resolve conflicts and try again".
- **AC3:** Both tests live in `packages/cli/tests/commands/work.test.ts`. ✅ PASS — Confirmed via git diff.
- **AC4:** Tests pass with `pnpm vitest run tests/commands/work.test.ts`. ✅ PASS — 185 passed, 0 failed (29.44s).
- **AC5:** No build errors. ✅ PASS — `pnpm run build` succeeded.
- **AC6:** Existing tests unaffected (no regressions). ✅ PASS — Full suite: 2288 passed, 2 skipped (same 2 pre-existing skips), 0 failed across 103 test files.

## Blockers

No blockers. All 8 contract assertions satisfied. All 6 acceptance criteria pass. No regressions — full suite clean. Checked for: unused exports in new code (none — no exports added), sentinel test patterns (assertions check specific values: `toBe('UNKNOWN')`, `toBe(1)`, `toContain('Resolve conflicts and try again')`), `process.exit` spy cleanup (both tests restore spy in `finally`/post-assert, no leak to subsequent tests), unhandled error paths (both tests exercise error branches specifically).

## Findings

- **Test — Weak exit call count assertion:** `packages/cli/tests/commands/work.test.ts:3364` — `expect(exitCalls.length).toBeGreaterThan(0)` should be `toBe(1)` since exactly one exit call is expected. Testing standards prefer specific values. Passes even if process.exit is called multiple times for different reasons.

- **Test — Temp directory leak in conflict test:** `packages/cli/tests/commands/work.test.ts:3321` — `bareDir` and `cloneDir` are created via `path.join(tempDir, '..', ...)`, making them siblings of `tempDir`. The `afterEach` at line 50 only cleans `tempDir` with `fs.rm`. These directories accumulate in `os.tmpdir()` on every test run. Should either create them as children of `tempDir` or register them for cleanup.

- **Test — UNKNOWN test exercises two exit points:** `packages/cli/tests/commands/work.test.ts:3287` — The `process.exit` no-op mock lets execution continue past the early UNKNOWN guard at `work.ts:1513` to reach the target warning branch at `work.ts:870`. The test captures output from both code paths. This is documented in the test comment and is the pragmatic approach — isolating the warning branch alone would require refactoring production code or conditional mocking. Not a correctness issue.

- **Test — A003 existence check vs. specific assertion:** `packages/cli/tests/commands/work.test.ts:3308` — `expect(entry).toBeDefined()` matches the contract's `"exists"` matcher, but testing standards prefer specific value assertions. The next line (`entry.result === 'UNKNOWN'`) implicitly proves the entry exists with correct data, so the toBeDefined() is redundant but not harmful.

- **Code — Dual result parsers with different casing:** `packages/cli/src/commands/work.ts:187` (`getVerifyResult` → `'unknown'`) and `packages/cli/src/utils/proofSummary.ts:197` (`parseResult` → `'UNKNOWN'`). Both parse the same `**Result:**` pattern but return different casing. The code works because each consumer checks the correct casing, but this is fragile — a refactor unifying these would reduce the risk of a casing mismatch bug. Pre-existing, not introduced by this build.

## Deployer Handoff

Test-only change — no production code modified. Two new tests in `completeWork` describe block covering the UNKNOWN result warning and pull conflict exit branches. Full suite green. The temp directory leak finding is minor (OS tmpdir, cleaned on reboot) but worth a follow-up if test runs are frequent. The `process.exit` spy pattern is consistent with the existing pull-failure test at line 3249 in the same file.

## Verdict
**Shippable:** YES
All 8 contract assertions satisfied. All 6 acceptance criteria pass. No regressions. Tests are mechanically correct — they exercise the specified branches and assert on the right values. Findings are debt-level observations, not blockers.
