Skip to content

Add mechanical safeguards for PR target repo#5

Merged
nicosuave merged 1 commit intomainfrom
nicosuave/fix-upstream-pr-guard
Feb 22, 2026
Merged

Add mechanical safeguards for PR target repo#5
nicosuave merged 1 commit intomainfrom
nicosuave/fix-upstream-pr-guard

Conversation

@nicosuave
Copy link
Member

Summary

  • Adds explicit gh CLI verification steps and --repo flag requirements to AGENTS.md
  • Prevents agents from accidentally opening PRs against upstream (ghostty-org/ghostty) instead of sidequery/ghostree
  • Complements the existing text-based instructions with mechanical safeguards that agents must follow before running gh pr create

Adds explicit gh CLI flags and verification steps to AGENTS.md
to prevent agents from accidentally opening PRs against upstream
(ghostty-org/ghostty) instead of sidequery/ghostree.
@nicosuave nicosuave merged commit db07658 into main Feb 22, 2026
25 checks passed
nicosuave pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 26, 2026
This PR introduces unit tests and a supporting Mock NSView for testing
the SplitTree implementation in Swift. It includes 51 tests which
achieve approximately 93.13% (949/1019) coverage of SplitTree.swift's
branches.

<details>
  <summary>Coverage</summary>
  <pre>
./ghostty/macos/Sources/Features/Splits/SplitTree.swift 93.13%
(949/1019)
SplitTree.Path.isEmpty.getter 100.00% (1/1)
SplitTree.isEmpty.getter 100.00% (3/3)
SplitTree.isSplit.getter 100.00% (3/3)
SplitTree.init() 100.00% (3/3)
SplitTree.init(view:) 100.00% (3/3)
SplitTree.contains(_:) 100.00% (4/4)
SplitTree.inserting(view:at:direction:) 100.00% (6/6)
SplitTree.find(id:) 100.00% (4/4)
SplitTree.removing(_:) 93.75% (15/16)
SplitTree.replacing(node:with:) 93.75% (15/16)
SplitTree.focusTarget(for:from:) 82.14% (46/56)
closure #1 in SplitTree.focusTarget(for:from:) 100.00% (1/1)
closure #2 in SplitTree.focusTarget(for:from:) 100.00% (1/1)
closure #3 in SplitTree.focusTarget(for:from:) 100.00% (3/3)
implicit closure #1 in SplitTree.focusTarget(for:from:) 0.00% (0/1)
SplitTree.equalized() 100.00% (5/5)
SplitTree.resizing(node:by:in:with:) 92.00% (69/75)
closure #1 in SplitTree.resizing(node:by:in:with:) 100.00% (1/1)
SplitTree.viewBounds() 100.00% (4/4)
SplitTree.init(from:) 76.00% (19/25)
SplitTree.encode(to:) 100.00% (15/15)
SplitTree.Node.find(id:) 100.00% (13/13)
SplitTree.Node.node(view:) 88.89% (16/18)
SplitTree.Node.path(to:) 100.00% (32/32)
search #1 <A>(_:) in SplitTree.Node.path(to:) 100.00% (27/27)
SplitTree.Node.node(at:) 89.47% (17/19)
SplitTree.Node.inserting(view:at:direction:) 86.84% (33/38)
SplitTree.Node.replacingNode(at:with:) 100.00% (43/43)
replaceInner #1 <A>(current:pathOffset:) in
SplitTree.Node.replacingNode(at:with:) 96.67% (29/30)
SplitTree.Node.remove(_:) 70.27% (26/37)
implicit closure #1 in SplitTree.Node.remove(_:) 100.00% (1/1)
SplitTree.Node.resizing(to:) 100.00% (16/16)
SplitTree.Node.leftmostLeaf() 87.50% (7/8)
SplitTree.Node.rightmostLeaf() 87.50% (7/8)
SplitTree.Node.equalize() 100.00% (4/4)
SplitTree.Node.equalizeWithWeight() 100.00% (30/30)
SplitTree.Node.weightForDirection(_:) 83.33% (10/12)
SplitTree.Node.calculateViewBounds(in:) 100.00% (50/50)
SplitTree.Node.viewBounds() 100.00% (26/26)
SplitTree.Node.spatial(within:) 100.00% (18/18)
SplitTree.Node.dimensions() 80.77% (21/26)
SplitTree.Node.spatialSlots(in:) 100.00% (53/53)
SplitTree.Spatial.slots(in:from:) 100.00% (47/47)
closure #1 in SplitTree.Spatial.slots(in:from:) 100.00% (1/1)
distance #1 <A>(from:to:) in SplitTree.Spatial.slots(in:from:) 100.00%
(6/6)
closure #2 in SplitTree.Spatial.slots(in:from:) 100.00% (3/3)
implicit closure #1 in closure #2 in SplitTree.Spatial.slots(in:from:)
100.00% (1/1)
closure #3 in SplitTree.Spatial.slots(in:from:) 100.00% (3/3)
closure #4 in SplitTree.Spatial.slots(in:from:) 100.00% (3/3)
implicit closure #1 in closure #4 in SplitTree.Spatial.slots(in:from:)
100.00% (1/1)
closure #5 in SplitTree.Spatial.slots(in:from:) 100.00% (3/3)
closure #6 in SplitTree.Spatial.slots(in:from:) 100.00% (3/3)
implicit closure #1 in closure #6 in SplitTree.Spatial.slots(in:from:)
100.00% (1/1)
closure #7 in SplitTree.Spatial.slots(in:from:) 100.00% (3/3)
closure #8 in SplitTree.Spatial.slots(in:from:) 100.00% (3/3)
implicit closure #1 in closure #8 in SplitTree.Spatial.slots(in:from:)
100.00% (1/1)
closure #9 in SplitTree.Spatial.slots(in:from:) 100.00% (3/3)
SplitTree.Spatial.doesBorder(side:from:) 100.00% (20/20)
closure #1 in SplitTree.Spatial.doesBorder(side:from:) 100.00% (1/1)
closure #2 in SplitTree.Spatial.doesBorder(side:from:) 100.00% (3/3)
static SplitTree.Node.== infix(_:_:) 100.00% (13/13)
SplitTree.Node.init(from:) 66.67% (12/18)
SplitTree.Node.encode(to:) 100.00% (11/11)
SplitTree.Node.leaves() 100.00% (9/9)
SplitTree.makeIterator() 100.00% (3/3)
implicit closure #1 in SplitTree.makeIterator() 100.00% (1/1)
SplitTree.Node.makeIterator() 0.00% (0/3)
SplitTree.startIndex.getter 100.00% (3/3)
SplitTree.endIndex.getter 100.00% (3/3)
implicit closure #1 in SplitTree.endIndex.getter 100.00% (1/1)
SplitTree.subscript.getter 100.00% (5/5)
implicit closure #1 in SplitTree.subscript.getter 100.00% (1/1)
implicit closure #2 in implicit closure #1 in SplitTree.subscript.getter
100.00% (1/1)
implicit closure #3 in SplitTree.subscript.getter 0.00% (0/1)
implicit closure #4 in SplitTree.subscript.getter 0.00% (0/1)
SplitTree.index(after:) 100.00% (4/4)
implicit closure #1 in SplitTree.index(after:) 100.00% (1/1)
implicit closure #2 in SplitTree.index(after:) 0.00% (0/1)
SplitTree.Node.structuralIdentity.getter 100.00% (3/3)
SplitTree.Node.StructuralIdentity.init(_:) 100.00% (3/3)
static SplitTree.Node.StructuralIdentity.== infix(_:_:) 100.00% (3/3)
SplitTree.Node.StructuralIdentity.hash(into:) 100.00% (3/3)
SplitTree.Node.isStructurallyEqual(to:) 100.00% (18/18)
implicit closure #1 in SplitTree.Node.isStructurallyEqual(to:) 100.00%
(1/1)
implicit closure #2 in SplitTree.Node.isStructurallyEqual(to:) 100.00%
(1/1)
SplitTree.Node.hashStructure(into:) 100.00% (14/14)
SplitTree.structuralIdentity.getter 100.00% (3/3)
SplitTree.StructuralIdentity.init(_:) 100.00% (4/4)
static SplitTree.StructuralIdentity.== infix(_:_:) 100.00% (4/4)
implicit closure #1 in static SplitTree.StructuralIdentity.==
infix(_:_:) 100.00% (1/1)
SplitTree.StructuralIdentity.hash(into:) 80.00% (8/10)
static SplitTree.StructuralIdentity.areNodesStructurallyEqual(_:_:)
90.00% (9/10)
  </pre>
</details>

I chose this as a good place to start contributing to Ghostty because I
was curious about the macOS implementation, and there was a specific
request for help with testing (ghostty-org#7879).

My process for writing the tests was basically reading
[SplitTree.swift](./macos/Sources/Features/Splits/SplitTree.swift) to
understand it, then writing tests for each high-level method and
checking against code coverage to capture all the code paths:

## Running
```bash
rm -rf /tmp/ghostty-test.xcresult
xcodebuild -project macos/Ghostty.xcodeproj \
    -scheme GhosttyTest \
    -configuration Debug \
    test \
    -destination 'platform=macOS' \
    -enableCodeCoverage YES \
    -resultBundlePath /tmp/ghostty-test.xcresult \
    -only-testing:GhosttyTests/SplitTreeTests \
    2>&1 | xcbeautify
```

## Coverage
```bash
xcrun xccov view --report /tmp/ghostty-test.xcresult | grep 'SplitTree\.'
```

This was originally implemented in [~38
commits](https://github.com/pouwerkerk/ghostty/pull/1/commits), but I
squashed them down to 1 commit for easier review.

## AI Disclosure
The tests were written by me, but I used Opus 4.6 to explain some parts
of the code, and then finally to provide feedback on the tests. It
suggested tests for `nodeStructuralIdentityInSet` and
`nodeStructuralIdentityDistinguishesLeaves` as well as [the
Parameterized
test](pouwerkerk@6a0bca4),
`resizingAdjustsRatio`, which seemed like a clever way to collapse 12
individual tests into 3 parameterized ones that still run 12 cases
total. I didn't know this feature existed, and it seems like a great way
to write tests that are more maintainable. I read this relatively new
feature in the [Swift
Docs](https://developer.apple.com/documentation/testing/parameterizedtesting).
I find this to be a particularly useful feature of Claude/related
agents, where it can suggest better ways of writing something in a more
idiomatic way, and it taught me something new, which is always fun.

I'm more than happy to continue work on tests for ghostty-org#7879 and always
welcome to any feedback you have.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant