[Reply To Review Comments] Implementation Phase 3: Testing

[lossyrob]

Phase 3: Testing

This PR adds comprehensive test coverage for the ReplyToReviewComment tool.

Changes Included

Unit Tests (pkg/github/pullrequests_test.go)

• Toolsnap schema validation: Verifies tool schema matches snapshot and ReadOnlyHint is false
• Table-driven behavioral tests with 10 test cases:
  • ✅ Successful reply creation (HTTP 201)
  • ✅ Comment not found (HTTP 404)
  • ✅ Permission denied (HTTP 403)
  • ✅ Validation failure (HTTP 422)
  • ✅ Missing required parameters: owner, repo, pull_number, comment_id, body
  • ✅ Invalid comment_id type validation

Toolsnap File

• Generated pkg/github/__toolsnaps__/reply_to_review_comment.snap
• Contains complete JSON schema with tool definition, parameters, and annotations
• ReadOnlyHint: false annotation for write operation

E2E Test (e2e/e2e_test.go)

• End-to-end workflow test: TestReplyToReviewComment
  • Creates test repository, branch, commit, and pull request
  • Adds review comment via pending review workflow
  • Calls reply_to_review_comment tool with valid parameters
  • Verifies reply appears in review comments list
  • Validates MinimalResponse structure (id and url fields)
  • Confirms reply body text matches expected value

Testing Performed

• ✅ All unit tests pass (10/10 test cases)
• ✅ Toolsnap validation passes
• ✅ Full test suite passes: script/test
• ✅ Linting clean: script/lint (0 issues)
• ✅ Test coverage includes all critical paths: success, error handling, parameter validation

Notes

• E2E test follows established patterns from existing PR tool tests
• Mock endpoint pattern discovered: go-github's CreateCommentInReplyTo uses /repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pull_number}/comments
• All test assertions verify both success responses and error messages
• Test structure matches patterns from other PR tool tests in the codebase

Artifact Links

• Implementation Plan: .paw/work/reply-to-review-comments/ImplementationPlan.md
• Issue: Add ability to reply to individual pull request review comments github/github-mcp-server#1323

---

🐾 Generated with PAW

[lossyrob]

🐾 Implementation Reviewer 🤖:

I've reviewed the Phase 3 implementation work and verified the test coverage. The Implementation Agent has done thorough work adding comprehensive tests for the ReplyToReviewComment tool.

Review Summary

Code Quality: ✅ Excellent

• Tests follow established patterns from existing PR tool tests
• Well-structured table-driven tests with clear test case names
• Proper use of mock HTTP clients for API simulation
• Comprehensive coverage of success and error scenarios

Test Coverage: ✅ Comprehensive

• Toolsnap schema validation included
• 10 unit test cases covering all critical paths
• E2E test validates end-to-end workflow
• All parameter validation cases tested
• HTTP error scenarios (404, 403, 422) covered

Code Correctness: ✅ Verified

• All tests pass: script/test ✅
• Linting clean: script/lint (0 issues) ✅
• Toolsnap validation passes ✅
• Mock endpoint pattern correctly uses /repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pull_number}/comments

Documentation: ✅ Adequate

• Test code is self-documenting with clear test names
• Comments explain the test flow where needed
• No additional docstrings needed for test functions

Commits Included

• 8d6c3a9 - Add comprehensive tests for ReplyToReviewComment tool
• 558d07d - Update ImplementationPlan.md - Phase 3 complete

No Additional Changes Made

The implementation is clean and well-structured. No refactoring or documentation improvements needed. The code is ready for human review.

Next Steps

This PR is ready for human review. Once approved:

• Merge Phase 3 PR
• Proceed to Phase 4: Documentation & Validation

[lossyrob]

E2E Test Removed

Based on maintainer feedback and the e2e README guidelines, I've removed the E2E test for the following reasons:

Why Remove?

1. High Maintenance Cost: The e2e README explicitly warns to "expand this suite circumspectly" due to maintenance costs
2. Security Concern: Requires PAT token with write access and creates real GitHub resources
3. Sufficient Unit Coverage: The 10 comprehensive unit tests with mocked HTTP responses already validate:
   • Tool schema and parameters ✅
   • Success scenarios (HTTP 201) ✅
   • Error scenarios (404, 403, 422) ✅
   • Parameter validation ✅
   • Response formatting ✅
4. Complex Setup: The E2E test required creating repo → branch → commit → PR → review → comment just to test one API call
5. Limited Additional Value: E2E doesn't validate anything beyond what mocked unit tests already cover

What Changed

• Removed: 252 lines of E2E test code from e2e/e2e_test.go
• Updated: ImplementationPlan.md to document the decision

All tests still pass ✅ and linting is clean ✅

The unit tests provide comprehensive coverage without the maintenance burden or security concerns of E2E tests.