Coverage-Beobachtung nachgezogen: 87,0 % / 6498 / 975 (Lauf 163), Artefakt-Abruf geklärt (#10)

Files changed:
- .gitea/workflows/ci.yml
- EVALS.md

EVALS.md

@@ -251,27 +251,43 @@ created but not yet written reports broken links. That is the scaffold saying it
 
 Coverage is measured in CI and reported, never enforced - `pytest --cov`, config in
 `tools/.coveragerc`, HTML and XML 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
 number has been watched long enough to freeze the state it actually reached.
 
-**First measurement, 2026-08-31, stack 1.8.1: 86.9% of 5105 statements across `chemenu/`,
-730 tests** - as reported by CI run 87, not by the local run that preceded the last commit of
-that release. Reproduce it with `cd tools && .venv/bin/python -m pytest -q --cov` (needs
-`pytest-cov`, which is CI-only and deliberately absent from `tools/requirements.txt` - an
-instance runs the wiki, it does not measure this suite).
+**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
+over 730 tests (CI run 87). Both are what CI reported, never a local run: the local number
+preceding a release measures a tree that is one commit short of the published one.
 
-The total is the least interesting number here. What the report is for is *which* modules sit
+The pair says more than either number does. Between them the measured code grew by a quarter
+and the suite by a third, and the quota moved by a tenth of a point - which is the observation a
+threshold was waiting for, rather than the total itself. Reproduce either with
+`cd tools && .venv/bin/python -m pytest -q --cov` (needs `pytest-cov`, which is CI-only and
+deliberately absent from `tools/requirements.txt` - an instance runs the wiki, it does not
+measure this suite).
+
+The total stays the least interesting number here. What the report is for is *which* modules sit
 low, and three kinds have to be told apart before any of it turns into work:
 
 - **Thin Typer wrappers**, where the logic lives beside them and is tested there:
-  `eval_cmd.py` (36%), `types_cmd.py` (52%), `cli.py` (52%). Low coverage on a wrapper is
-  evidence of a good cut, not of a missing test.
+  `eval_cmd.py` (36%), `types_cmd.py` (40%), `search.py` (49%), `cli.py` (54%),
+  `links_cmd.py` (61%). Low coverage on a wrapper is evidence of a good cut, not of a missing
+  test - `search.py`'s uncovered block is its command body alone, while the backends under
+  `chemenu/search/` that do the work sit between 91% and 98%.
 - **Code that reaches the network or the filesystem's outside**, where the interesting half is
   already injectable and tested through the seam: `version.py`'s `fetch_latest()` takes a
   `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` (71%), `type_resolver.py` (79%). This is the list worth reading, and
-  the reason step 2 of #10 is not a formality.
+  (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
+  everything around it did: `provenance_cmd.py` sits where it sat, and `migrate_cmd.py` fell
+  from 71% because it grew and its new lines arrived untested. A threshold freezes this; it does
+  not close it.
 
 ## Scoring a session