From c736f1d1857ef0db2ee27d47f9888dbdf1056a80 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: cliffhall <cliff@futurescale.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2026 01:43:01 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] test(cli): pin the CLI's own minimum-budget floor
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Copilot round 1 on #2256: the `budgetMs: 0` case passes under the old
`remainingMs <= 0` bound too, so nothing in the CLI suite detected the
floor added to `sendPlans`.

The new case gives it a budget that is positive and below the floor, and
asserts on *this loop's* exhaustion message — the one naming the server
URL. That distinction is the test: with the floor removed the plan is
handed a 4ms budget and core's identical floor declines it one level
down, so a bare "budget was exhausted" match passes either way. Verified
as a detector — 1 failed / 14 passed with the CLI floor reverted, 15
passed with it.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_017wEXtbs8UEHUMxDEAxbs99
Signed-off-by: cliffhall <cliff@futurescale.com>
---
 .../clear-stored-auth-for-relogin.test.ts     | 30 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)

diff --git a/clients/cli/__tests__/clear-stored-auth-for-relogin.test.ts b/clients/cli/__tests__/clear-stored-auth-for-relogin.test.ts
index 9b5e587d..be763289 100644
--- a/clients/cli/__tests__/clear-stored-auth-for-relogin.test.ts
+++ b/clients/cli/__tests__/clear-stored-auth-for-relogin.test.ts
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ import {
   getStateFilePath,
   resetNodeOAuthStorageCache,
 } from "@inspector/core/auth/node/storage-node.js";
+import { MIN_REVOCATION_REQUEST_BUDGET_MS } from "@inspector/core/auth/revocation.js";
 import { clearStoredAuthForRelogin } from "../src/clear-stored-auth-for-relogin.js";
 
 const AS_ISSUER = "https://as.example.com";
@@ -379,6 +380,35 @@ describe("clearStoredAuthForRelogin", () => {
       }
     });
 
+    // The zero-budget case above passes under the old `remainingMs <= 0` bound
+    // too, so it says nothing about the floor. This one is the floor's own
+    // detector: a budget that is genuinely positive, and genuinely too small to
+    // complete a request, must be spent on no request at all (#2252). The
+    // budget only shrinks as the loop runs, so a slow machine cannot flip it.
+    it("issues no request for a positive budget below the minimum", async () => {
+      seedBothSpellings("live-r", "stale-r");
+      const fetchSpy = vi
+        .spyOn(globalThis, "fetch")
+        .mockResolvedValue(new Response(null, { status: 200 }));
+      try {
+        const outcome = await clearStoredAuthForRelogin("https://example.com", {
+          budgetMs: MIN_REVOCATION_REQUEST_BUDGET_MS - 1,
+        });
+        expect(fetchSpy).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
+        expect(outcome).toMatchObject({ status: "failed" });
+        // The *plan* was never attempted, so the report has to be this loop's
+        // own — naming the server URL — and not the per-grant one from inside
+        // `executeOAuthRevocation`. Without that distinction the assertion
+        // passes on the old `<= 0` bound too: the plan would be handed a 4ms
+        // budget, and core's identical floor would decline it one level down.
+        expect(outcome?.status === "failed" ? outcome.detail : "").toContain(
+          'budget was exhausted before "',
+        );
+      } finally {
+        fetchSpy.mockRestore();
+      }
+    });
+
     it("reports a later failure over an earlier success", async () => {
       seedBothSpellings("live-r", "stale-r");
       const fetchSpy = vi