Coverage-Untergrenze 85 % in tools/.coveragerc, gegen beobachtete 87,0 % (4.7.2, schließt #10, eröffnet #51)

Files changed:
- .gitea/workflows/ci.yml
- CHANGES.md
- EVALS.md
- VERSION
- tools/.coveragerc

.gitea/workflows/ci.yml

@@ -120,12 +120,12 @@ jobs:
         # container is no longer a special environment worth a second run.
         # See instructions/dev/testing-conventions.md.
         #
-        # Coverage is reported, not enforced: there is deliberately no
+        # Coverage is measured and enforced at a floor of 85% against a measured
-        # `--cov-fail-under` yet (Gitea #10). The threshold gets set in its own
+        # 87.0% - `fail_under` in tools/.coveragerc, not a flag here, so the
-        # later commit, with the measured number as its justification - one
+        # number sits next to the reasoning that produced it. It was set only
-        # picked before the number is either too low to bite or too high to
+        # after the number had been watched across 38 runs (Gitea #10, closed).
-        # survive the next honest commit, and the second kind gets lowered
+        # A red suite from this floor means coverage actually fell; the two
-        # instead of earned. Config: tools/.coveragerc.
+        # points of headroom already absorb a new thin Typer wrapper.
         run: |
           set -eu
           cd tools

CHANGES.md

@@ -35,6 +35,53 @@ dev-checkout concern - readable here, never shipped as something to parse.
 
 ---
 
+## 4.7.2 - 2026-09-04 - Coverage-Untergrenze bei 85 %, gegen beobachtete 87,0 %
+
+**Author:** Torben Nehmer
+
+<!-- wikitool:bumps -->
+- Coverage-Untergrenze 85 % in tools/.coveragerc
+<!-- /wikitool:bumps -->
+
+Die Suite hat jetzt einen Boden: `fail_under = 85` in `tools/.coveragerc`, gemessen gegen 87,0 %
+(CI-Lauf 163, 6498 Statements, 975 Tests). Damit ist Gitea #10 geschlossen — das Issue, das die
+Messung eingerichtet und die Schwelle danach **absichtlich** zurückgehalten hat, bis die Zahl
+beobachtet war.
+
+Die Beobachtung ist der eigentliche Inhalt dieses Bumps. Zwischen der ersten Messung (86,9 % von
+5105 Statements, 730 Tests, Lauf 87, Stack 1.8.1) und heute ist der gemessene Code um ein Viertel
+gewachsen und die Suite um ein Drittel, über 38 grüne Läufe — und die Quote hat sich um einen
+Zehntelpunkt bewegt. Eine Untergrenze, die auf dieser Beobachtung steht, ist etwas anderes als
+eine gegriffene Zahl.
+
+**85 und nicht 87, und das ist keine Bequemlichkeit.** Der Coverage-Bericht unterscheidet drei
+Sorten ungedeckter Zeilen, und nur eine davon bedeutet Arbeit (`EVALS.md` § „How much of the
+stack the suite reaches"). Ein neuer dünner Typer-Wrapper senkt den Gesamtwert, ohne dass
+irgendetwas schlechter geworden wäre — seine Logik liegt daneben und ist dort getestet. Eine
+Schwelle auf dem gemessenen Wert würde genau an diesem Commit rot, und eine Schwelle, die aus
+einem Nicht-Grund rot wird, wird gesenkt statt verdient. Das ist die Fehlerweise, die #10
+verhindern wollte, nur von der anderen Seite. Die zwei Punkte sind der Platz, den die Taxonomie
+verlangt.
+
+`fail_under` steht in der Konfiguration und nicht als `--cov-fail-under` im CI-Schritt: so sitzt
+die Zahl neben der Begründung, die sie erzeugt hat, und gilt für jeden `--cov`-Lauf statt nur für
+den einen, den CI schreibt.
+
+Was der Boden **nicht** tut: die drei echten Lücken schließen (`provenance_cmd.py` 44 %,
+`migrate_cmd.py` 65 %, `type_resolver.py` 79 %). Er friert den erreichten Stand ein. Diese Liste
+ist die einzige, die sich nicht bewegt hat, während alles um sie herum wuchs — `migrate_cmd.py`
+ist sogar von 71 % gefallen, weil das Modul gewachsen ist und die neuen Zeilen ungetestet ankamen.
+Das ist Gitea #51.
+
+Mitgenommen, weil es dieselbe Frage beantwortet: der Coverage-Bericht **ist** als Artefakt
+abrufbar, über die Run-Seite. Die Actions-Artefakt-Endpunkte melden dafür `total_count: 0`, weil
+`upload-artifact@v3` über die ältere Artifact-API ablegt, die diese Endpunkte nicht lesen. Eine
+leere Liste ist kein fehlgeschlagener Upload — steht jetzt in `EVALS.md` und im Kommentar an der
+`Coverage report`-Stufe, damit die naheliegende „Korrektur" auf v4 (hier eingeschränkt) niemandem
+mehr einfällt.
+
+---
+
 ## 4.7.1 - 2026-09-04 - redundant_see_also in tools/CONTRACT.md und wiki-lint dokumentiert; xref-remove-Falle benannt
 
 **Author:** Torben Nehmer

EVALS.md

@@ -249,15 +249,19 @@ created but not yet written reports broken links. That is the scaffold saying it
 
 ### How much of the stack the suite reaches
 
-Coverage is measured in CI and reported, never enforced - `pytest --cov`, config in
+Coverage is measured in CI - `pytest --cov`, config in `tools/.coveragerc`, HTML and XML
-`tools/.coveragerc`, HTML and XML uploaded as the `coverage-<run id>` artifact of every run.
+uploaded as the `coverage-<run id>` artifact of every run.
 **Fetch that artifact from the run's own page, not from the API**: `upload-artifact@v3` writes
 through the older artifact API, and the Actions artifact REST endpoints answer `total_count: 0`
 for a run whose artifact the run page offers for download. The upload works; only the listing
 does not see it. Do not re-derive this, and do not read the empty list as a failed upload.
 
-There is no `--cov-fail-under`: a threshold is owed (Gitea #10), in its own commit, once the
+It is enforced at a floor of **85%** (`fail_under` in `tools/.coveragerc`), which is what a red
-number has been watched long enough to freeze the state it actually reached.
+suite from this axis means: coverage actually fell, not that a wrapper was added. The floor was
+set only after the number had been watched - Gitea #10 held it back for exactly that, and the
+two points between 85 and the measured 87.0% are the room the taxonomy below asks for. A
+threshold at the measured number goes red on the next thin Typer wrapper, and a threshold that
+goes red for a non-reason gets lowered rather than earned.
 
 **Measured 2026-09-04, stack 4.7.1: 87.0% of 6498 statements across `chemenu/`, 975 tests** -
 CI run 163. The first measurement, at stack 1.8.1 on 2026-08-31, was 86.9% of 5105 statements
@@ -284,10 +288,10 @@ low, and three kinds have to be told apart before any of it turns into work:
   `fetcher` parameter for exactly that, and the real network line stays uncovered on purpose.
 - **Genuine gaps**, where uncovered lines are logic nobody exercises: `provenance_cmd.py`
   (44%), `migrate_cmd.py` (65%), `type_resolver.py` (79%). This is the list worth reading, and
-  the reason step 2 of #10 is not a formality. It is also the list that has not moved while
+  the only one of the three that has not moved while everything around it did:
-  everything around it did: `provenance_cmd.py` sits where it sat, and `migrate_cmd.py` fell
+  `provenance_cmd.py` sits where it sat, and `migrate_cmd.py` fell from 71% because it grew and
-  from 71% because it grew and its new lines arrived untested. A threshold freezes this; it does
+  its new lines arrived untested. The floor freezes this; it does not close it. Closing it is
-  not close it.
+  Gitea #51.
 
 ## Scoring a session
 

VERSION

@@ -1 +1 @@
-4.7.1
+4.7.2

tools/.coveragerc

@@ -11,10 +11,27 @@
 # measure the stack's tests - so an addopts entry would break the plain
 # `pytest -q` that every local run and the CI "Tests" step use.
 #
-# No `fail_under` yet, on purpose: Gitea #10 sets the threshold in a separate,
+# `fail_under` lives here rather than as a `--cov-fail-under` flag in the CI
-# later commit, once the measured number exists to justify it. A threshold
+# step, so the number sits next to the reasoning that produced it and applies to
-# picked before the number is either too low to bite or too high to survive the
+# any `--cov` run, not just the one CI happens to write.
-# next honest commit - and the second kind gets lowered rather than earned.
+#
+# 85, against a measured 87.0% (CI run 163, 6498 statements, 975 tests). Gitea
+# #10 held this back until the number had been watched: the first measurement
+# was 86.9% of 5105 statements over 730 tests (CI run 87), and between the two
+# the measured code grew by a quarter and the suite by a third while the quota
+# moved a tenth of a point. That stability is what the threshold rests on.
+#
+# The two points of headroom are not slack. They are the room the report's own
+# taxonomy asks for: a new thin Typer wrapper lowers the total without anything
+# having got worse, because its logic is tested beside it (see EVALS.md § "How
+# much of the stack the suite reaches"). A threshold at the measured number
+# would go red on exactly that commit, and a threshold that goes red for a
+# non-reason gets lowered rather than earned - which is the failure mode #10
+# existed to avoid, arriving from the other side.
+#
+# What this number does *not* do is close the genuine gaps - provenance_cmd.py,
+# migrate_cmd.py, type_resolver.py. It freezes the state that was reached; the
+# gaps are their own work, tracked separately.
 [run]
 source = chemenu
 omit =
@@ -23,3 +40,4 @@ omit =
 [report]
 show_missing = True
 precision = 1
+fail_under = 85