Skip to content

test(docx-core): characterize collision/salt-loop in insertParagraphBookmarks (closes #282)#284

Open
stevenobiajulu wants to merge 2 commits into
mainfrom
282-collision-salt-test-20260529
Open

test(docx-core): characterize collision/salt-loop in insertParagraphBookmarks (closes #282)#284
stevenobiajulu wants to merge 2 commits into
mainfrom
282-collision-salt-test-20260529

Conversation

@stevenobiajulu
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Summary

buildParagraphSeed combines paragraph text with the immediate prev/next neighbor text and ancestor signature. When two paragraphs sit at positions where both the text and the prev/next neighbors are identical, the seed collides; deriveDeterministicJrParaName resolves this with a 10,000-step salt-loop (first hit unsalted, subsequent hits get |salt:N). This load-bearing behavior had no characterization test.

Implementation

Two new scenarios added to paragraph_id_stability.traceability.test.ts, alongside the existing stability scenario, both registered via test.openspec(...) on the document-paragraph-id-stability-and-fingerprint lane:

  1. insertParagraphBookmarks resolves seed collisions with a deterministic salt — Six-paragraph fixture with two Duplicate clause. paragraphs at indices 1 and 4, both sandwiched between identical Anchor context. / Tail context. neighbors so the seed text|prev|next|ancestors is identical. After insertParagraphBookmarks, both paragraphs have _bk_[0-9a-f]{12} IDs and the two IDs are distinct.

  2. Collision resolution is stable across independent reopens — Same XML body, opened twice independently, insertParagraphBookmarks applied to each. The two collision-resolved ID lists are byte-identical paragraph-by-paragraph across opens.

A literal two-paragraph fixture would NOT collide because the seed includes neighbor text. The six-paragraph layout is the minimum to force a collision while keeping neighbor context identical.

No source files changed; this characterizes existing behavior only.

Verification

  • Targeted vitest: test:run -w @usejunior/docx-core -- test-primitives/paragraph_id_stability.traceability.test.ts → 5 passed (3 existing + 2 new)
  • Build clean (npm run build)
  • Lint (npm run lint:workspaces) — pre-existing unused-eslint-disable warning in packages/docx-mcp/src/cli/commands/edit.test.ts:133; unrelated.
  • Full test suite (npm run test:run) — all workspaces green.
  • Conformance gates: check:spec-coverage, check:conformance-citations, check:conformance-doc all OK.
  • Peer review (Gemini + Codex) — pending; will append below.

Closes

…ookmarks

`buildParagraphSeed` combines paragraph text with the immediate prev/next
neighbor text and ancestor signature. When two paragraphs sit at positions
where both the text and the prev/next neighbors are identical, the seed
collides; `deriveDeterministicJrParaName` resolves this with a 10,000-step
salt-loop (first hit unsalted, subsequent hits get `|salt:N`).

This load-bearing behavior had no characterization test. The two added
scenarios:

1. Build a fixture with two paragraphs at positions 1 and 4 that share text
   and identical prev/next neighbors (`Anchor context.`/`Tail context.`),
   call `insertParagraphBookmarks`, assert both _bk_* IDs match the
   canonical regex and are distinct from each other.

2. Open the same XML body twice independently, apply
   `insertParagraphBookmarks` to each, assert the two collision-resolved
   ID lists are byte-identical across opens.

Both scenarios use `test.openspec(...)` to land on the existing
`document-paragraph-id-stability-and-fingerprint` traceability lane.
No source files changed; this characterizes existing behavior only.

Peer review (Gemini + Codex) pending.

Ref: #282
@vercel
Copy link
Copy Markdown

vercel Bot commented May 29, 2026

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project Deployment Actions Updated (UTC)
site Ready Ready Preview, Comment May 29, 2026 7:03am

Request Review

@github-actions github-actions Bot added the test label May 29, 2026
@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

LLM-Based Quality Gate

Overall: ✅ PASS (14 pass · 0 warn · 14 total)

Check Verdict
read_file response metadata parity The PR only modifies a test file in packages/docx-core/test-primitives/paragraph_id_stability.traceability.test.ts and does not touch packages/docx-mcp/src/tools/read_file.ts, budgeted pagination, or response metadata.
Live DOM namespace-safe OOXML writes The PR only modifies paragraph ID stability tests in packages/docx-core/test-primitives/paragraph_id_stability.traceability.test.ts and does not touch comments or write prefixed OOXML attributes or elements.
Deleted field markup keeps w:fldChar outside w:del The PR only modifies paragraph ID stability tests in packages/docx-core/test-primitives/paragraph_id_stability.traceability.test.ts and does not touch field atomization, validateFieldStructure, or any field-related logic.
Field validation per story, not global The PR only modifies tests in packages/docx-core/test-primitives/paragraph_id_stability.traceability.test.ts and does not touch field validation or ECMA story processing.
Revision IDs seeded from all revision-bearing side parts The PR only touches paragraph ID stability tests in packages/docx-core/test-primitives/paragraph_id_stability.traceability.test.ts and does not modify revision-ID allocation, the session manager, or related MCP tools.
Accept/reject sweep side parts and caches The PR only modifies characterization tests in packages/docx-core/test-primitives/paragraph_id_stability.traceability.test.ts and does not touch any accept or reject changes functionality, REVISION_STORY_PART_PATHS, or side-part revision markup.
DocumentViewNode.heading stays canonical The PR does not touch packages/docx-core/src/primitives/document_view.ts, HeadingValue, heading heuristics, ListMetadata.header_style, or Google Docs document-view heading normalization. It only adds test cases for paragraph ID stability and seed collision resolution in packages/docx-core/test-primitives/paragraph_id_stability.traceability.test.ts.
AI-author parity across entry points The PR only modifies paragraph ID stability tests in packages/docx-core/test-primitives/paragraph_id_stability.traceability.test.ts and does not touch docx-mcp files or SessionManager call sites.
Property-change wrapper discipline The PR only modifies paragraph ID stability tests in packages/docx-core/test-primitives/paragraph_id_stability.traceability.test.ts and does not touch the specified layout, text, clear formatting, or track-changes emitter files.
SUPPORT.md Table A drift vs. implementation The PR does not modify OOXML revision emission behavior in packages/docx-core/src/primitives/** or touch packages/docx-core/SUPPORT.md, as it only adds tests to packages/docx-core/test-primitives/paragraph_id_stability.traceability.test.ts.
Table A / Table B boundary on side-part revisions The PR only touches test-primitives/paragraph_id_stability.traceability.test.ts and does not touch comments.ts, footnotes.ts, or other side-part primitives.
Canonical-emission surface completeness The PR only modifies tests in packages/docx-core/test-primitives/paragraph_id_stability.traceability.test.ts and does not touch or add any tracked-edit surface under packages/docx-core/src/primitives/ or packages/docx-mcp/src/tools/.
Lean predicate drift against engine semantics (asymmetric) The PR only modifies paragraph stability tests in packages/docx-core/test-primitives/paragraph_id_stability.traceability.test.ts and does not touch field-wrapper semantics, the proof boundary, or atomizer behavior.
Unit-test quality (avoid tautological / change-detector tests) The added tests in packages/docx-core/test-primitives/paragraph_id_stability.traceability.test.ts:101-194 are independent of the system under test and mock nothing, using assertions based on first principles to verify collision uniqueness and stable deterministic resolution across reopens.
Full checklist questions
  1. read_file response metadata parity: If this PR touches packages/docx-mcp/src/tools/read_file.ts, budgeted pagination returns, or additive response metadata like warnings / comment_load_error, do every successful return path (default budgeted early return, non-budget fallthrough, explicit limit/node_ids) preserve the same additive diagnostic fields? read_file has multiple success exits; diagnostics have already disappeared on one path before. Reference: fix(docx-core): declare xmlns:w14/w15 on comments root before writing prefixed attributes (#154) #180 surfaced comment_load_error, fix(docx-mcp): warn when read_file budget is exceeded by a single node (closes #184) #186 added an early budget return + warnings, fix(docx-mcp): surface comment_load_error on the default budgeted read path (closes #189) #191 fixed the missing comment_load_error on the default budgeted path.

  2. Live DOM namespace-safe OOXML writes: If this PR touches packages/docx-core/src/primitives/comments.ts or writes prefixed OOXML attributes/elements (w14:*, w15:*, xmlns:*, comments.xml, commentsExtended.xml, people.xml), are prefixed OOXML names written with namespace-aware APIs — root aliases bound with setAttributeNS(XMLNS_NS, ...), prefixed attributes with setAttributeNS(W14_NS/W15_NS, ...), and is there a test that proves the live DOM works before serialization/reparse? String-prefixed attributes can serialize plausibly while the live DOM still throws namespace errors. Reference: fix(docx-core): declare xmlns:w14/w15 on comments root before writing prefixed attributes (#154) #180 (xmlns:w14/w15 declared on comments root before writing prefixed attrs).

  3. Deleted field markup keeps w:fldChar outside w:del: If this PR touches field atomization, validateFieldStructure, hasFldCharInsideDel, w:fldChar, w:instrText, w:delInstrText, or collapsed field comparison logic, does deleted field output stay ECMA-376-conformant — w:fldChar sibling-level (never inside w:del), deleted instructions use w:delInstrText only inside valid delete wrappers, accept/reject safety checks still reject malformed combined output? Word treats deleted field-state markup in the wrong container as document-corrupting. References: fix(docx-core): validate w:delInstrText placement and reject w:fldChar inside <w:del> #211, fix(docx-core): partition field-closure validation by ECMA-376 story (#212) #225, fix(docx-core): fragment w:fldChar outside w:del per ECMA-376 Part 4 #228.

  4. Field validation per story, not global: If this PR touches packages/docx-core/src/baselines/atomizer/pipeline.ts, splitStories, validateFieldStructure, side-part merge logic, or footnote/endnote field handling, is field validation run independently per ECMA story (document.xml, each footnote, each endnote), with sidecars from both original and revised archives considered, and global counter balance not treated as sufficient? A document can be globally balanced but have an invalid field sequence inside one story. References: fix(docx-core): partition field-closure validation by ECMA-376 story (#212) #225, fix(docx-core): fragment w:fldChar outside w:del per ECMA-376 Part 4 #228, feat(docx-core): sweep side-part revisions on accept/reject #218.

  5. Revision IDs seeded from all revision-bearing side parts: If this PR touches packages/docx-mcp/src/session/manager.ts (especially getRevisionContextForSession or FIXED_REVISION_ID_SEED_PARTS), createRevisionContext, revision-ID allocation, or MCP tools that create tracked changes/comments/footnotes, does revision-ID allocation scan all relevant package parts before issuing new IDs — comments, footnotes, endnotes, glossary, headers, footers — ignore non-revision w:id values (comment IDs, bookmarks), and handle malformed optional parts gracefully? Revision IDs are package-wide; document-only seeding collides with existing side-part revisions. Reference: fix(docx-mcp): seed revision ids from side parts #216 (seed revision ids from side parts).

  6. Accept/reject sweep side parts and caches: If this PR touches DocxDocument.acceptChanges, DocxDocument.rejectChanges, REVISION_STORY_PART_PATHS, accept_changes, reject_changes, or side-part revision markup, does accept/reject process every revision-bearing story — updating document.xml + footnotes.xml + endnotes.xml + comments.xml, writing back only changed side parts while refreshing cached XML, and pruning orphan footnotes without deleting reserved separator entries? Accepting only in the main document leaves stale revisions and dangling references in the package. References: feat(docx-core): sweep side-part revisions on accept/reject #218, fix(docx-mcp): seed revision ids from side parts #216, fix(docx-core): partition field-closure validation by ECMA-376 story (#212) #225.

  7. DocumentViewNode.heading stays canonical: If this PR touches packages/docx-core/src/primitives/document_view.ts, HeadingValue, heading heuristics, ListMetadata.header_style, or Google Docs document-view heading normalization, does node.heading remain a structural heading signal — exact Word styles Heading1Heading6 win, heuristic sources suppressed inside table cells while real Word heading styles still pass, ordinary body paragraphs omit the heading key? Consumers use node.heading != null as a structural test; heuristic false positives break downstream navigation. References: fix(docx-core): harden heading detection (#157 Phase 1) #178, fix(docx-core): suppress non-sectional false-positive headings (closes #187) #188, feat(docx-core): add derived heading object to DocumentViewNode (closes #179) #190.

  8. AI-author parity across entry points: If this PR touches packages/docx-mcp/src/server.ts, packages/docx-mcp/src/cli/tool_runner.ts, packages/docx-mcp/src/cli/commands/**, or adds any new new SessionManager(...) call site in docx-mcp, does every entry point that constructs a SessionManager resolve SAFE_DOCX_AI_AUTHOR with the same three-way semantics (set → use it; empty string → opt out to untracked; unset → defaultAiAuthor), or has a new entry path silently bypassed tracked emission? Each entry path looks locally correct while diverging from another; tracked emission has gone dark in one path before anyone noticed. References: feat(docx-mcp): wire configurable AI author through MCP layer (#142) #172 (production MCP wiring would have kept tracked emission dark), fix(docx-mcp): honor SAFE_DOCX_AI_AUTHOR in CLI entry points (#181) #182 (CLI runners constructing bare SessionManager() silently produced untracked edits).

  9. Property-change wrapper discipline: If this PR touches packages/docx-core/src/primitives/layout.ts, packages/docx-core/src/primitives/text.ts, packages/docx-mcp/src/tools/clear_formatting.ts, or packages/docx-core/src/primitives/track-changes-emitter.ts, do tracked formatting/property edits emit exactly one correct *PrChange wrapper (pPrChange / rPrChange / trPrChange / tcPrChange) carrying a snapshot of the prior live properties — not stacking stale wrappers, not stripping valid historical children (cellIns/cellDel/cellMerge), and not omitting the snapshot when the operation is formatting-aware? Emitted OOXML is visually plausible but subtle snapshot mistakes only surface during later accept/reject or in Word's tracked-changes UI. References: feat(docx-core): emit pPrChange/trPrChange/tcPrChange from layout setters (#140) #167 (duplicate pPrChange/trPrChange/tcPrChange stacking + over-broad tcPr exclusion), feat(docx-mcp): emit rPrChange from clear_formatting MCP tool (#141) #170 (clear_formatting failing to strip stale rPrChange), feat(docx-core): emit rPrChange for formatted paragraph replacements #215 (rPrChange for formatted paragraph replacements + filtering nested stale records).

  10. SUPPORT.md Table A drift vs. implementation: If this PR modifies OOXML revision emission behavior (w:ins, w:del, w:rPrChange, etc.) in packages/docx-core/src/primitives/**, or touches packages/docx-core/SUPPORT.md, does the PR symmetrically update Table A in SUPPORT.md when the supported revision-emission surface in primitives changed — added, removed, or weakened — or is the documented contract now lying about what's supported? Reviewers focus on TS AST correctness and golden tests; Markdown contract tables get treated as an afterthought, so the documented surface drifts from the actual surface. Reference: [120.8] Regression suite for canonical revision emission across the surface #143 review caught replaceParagraphTextRange should emit w:rPrChange when run formatting changes #173 (formatting mismatch in Table A) and addCommentReply should emit body revision markup OR SUPPORT.md should be softened #174 (comment body revision omission forcing a Table A softening) late in peer review.

  11. Table A / Table B boundary on side-part revisions: If this PR touches packages/docx-core/src/primitives/comments.ts, packages/docx-core/src/primitives/footnotes.ts, or other side-part primitives, and adds/changes revision markup (w:ins, w:del), does tracked-change revision logic stay scoped to Table A (document-body content inside the side part) without leaking revision markup into Table B (the side-part package bootstrap — comments.xml/footnotes.xml element registration itself)? Body runs and side-part package elements share nearly identical XML namespace schemas; revisions emitted in the wrong table corrupt the package contract while looking plausible. References: [120.3] Emit w:ins/w:del for comment body anchors #138 (comment-body straddle constraints), [120.4] Emit w:ins/w:del for footnote reference and text #139 (footnote-reference straddle constraints).

  12. Canonical-emission surface completeness: If this PR adds or changes a tracked-edit surface in packages/docx-core/src/primitives/** or packages/docx-mcp/src/tools/**, are the paired artifacts updated together — packages/docx-core/src/integration/canonical-emission-regression.test.ts, packages/docx-mcp/src/integration/canonical-emission-mcp.test.ts, and the documented emitter surface (Table A) — or is the rollout only partially wired? The primitive change looks done before the MCP path, regression matrix, and documented contract are wired through; partial rollouts ship undocumented surface that drifts. References: feat(docx-mcp): wire configurable AI author through MCP layer (#142) #172 (RevisionContext threaded through every Table A MCP tool), test(docx-core,docx-mcp): final regression suite for canonical emission (#143) #175 (24-test regression suite + verified write-time emitter rows), feat(docx-core): emit rPrChange for formatted paragraph replacements #215 (re-enabled rPrChange regression + updated support surface for replaceParagraphTextRange).

  13. Lean predicate drift against engine semantics (asymmetric): If this PR changes field-wrapper semantics, the proof boundary, or atomizer behavior — packages/docx-core/src/baselines/atomizer/**, verification/lean/LeanSpike/Spec.lean, verification/lean/Tier2/**, or packages/docx-core/src/integration/lean-spec-bridge.test.ts — and if the TS engine semantics shifted, did the PR also update the Lean residual predicate and bridge tests, or is the proof now pinned to a stale stronger/weaker assumption? Asymmetric: a TS change without a corresponding Lean update is WARN; a Lean-only change without a TS update should not fire. The Lean side can still compile while the abstraction boundary is subtly wrong for the next engine refactor. References: feat(verification): close inv_field_001 with Tier 2 OoxmlDoc subset #208 (closed inv_field_001 using stronger recursivelyWellformed), refactor(verification): weaken inv_field_001 axiom to document-level preservationFriendly (rebased follow-up to #208) #220 (weakened the axiom to document-level preservationFriendly to avoid breakage when field fragmentation lands).

  14. Unit-test quality (avoid tautological / change-detector tests): If this PR adds or modifies any **/*.test.ts (or other test files), are the test assertions independent of the system under test — expected values constructed from first principles rather than re-derived from the function under test, mocks limited to external boundaries (filesystem, network, clocks) rather than mocking the SUT itself, assertions making concrete semantic claims rather than just snapshotting current behavior or asserting non-null, and any test added alongside a bug fix actually exercising the bug? Tests that re-implement the production code as the "expected" value, or mock out the system under test, pass green while providing no regression protection.

Estimated cost (this run): $0.0152 — 43,919 input + 793 output tokens (≈4 chars/token) on gemini-3.5-flash. Char-count estimate, not provider telemetry.

@codecov
Copy link
Copy Markdown

codecov Bot commented May 29, 2026

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

Peer review (Codex dynamic) noted the prior "two distinct IDs" assertion
would still pass if `buildParagraphSeed` later added sibling position or
wider context — the salt-loop would never run and the test would lose
its characterization value. Pin the exact unsalted hash (_bk_04c5b72c79f7)
and the |salt:1 hash (_bk_a2abd088979b) so the test fails loudly if the
derivation changes shape. Comment notes the rationale.

Ref: #282
@stevenobiajulu
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Peer review (Gemini + Codex) — 2026-05-29

Codex findings: Verified the fixture truly collides (instrumented runtime seed dump confirmed both target paragraphs produce fallback:text=duplicate clause.|prev=anchor context.|next=tail context.|ancestors=body). Verified xmldom's getElementsByTagNameNS walks DFS-enter so paragraph order is stable across reopens. Non-blocker request: pin the specific known IDs (_bk_04c5b72c79f7 unsalted, _bk_a2abd088979b |salt:1) so the test characterizes the salt-loop specifically; without that, if buildParagraphSeed later included sibling position, the IDs would still be distinct without the salt loop ever running.

Gemini findings: Approve via static analysis + Allure-result inspection. Confirmed fixture coordinates, identified seed equivalence, validated spec-coverage expectation (+2 bonus tests beyond spec).

Resolution: Applied Codex's recommendation in 4dfb74b — both scenarios now pin the exact ID values with an inline comment explaining the salt-loop characterization intent. Targeted vitest still 5/5 passing.

@stevenobiajulu stevenobiajulu enabled auto-merge (squash) May 29, 2026 07:03
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant